Is multi-level navigation inherently unfair?

[Scott]

Of the four multi-level problems I've seen in the past 8-10 days, to my mind only one was sufficiently clear at running speed to work out what was happening

Thinking generally, rather than of the Bath examples in particular: should it be a requirement that you should be able to work out a multi-level map at running speed?

I've certainly been reduced to a walk on plenty of occasions while trying to figure out complex but perfect fair areas of contour mapping in forest events. Is it necessarily a bad thing if a tricky urban area also requires you to slow down - or even stop for a couple of seconds - to get your head around it, as long as actually it is possible to figure out for certain from the map what is going on (and without it becoming an eyesight test)? Adjusting your speed to the complexity of the terrain is a pretty key orienteering skill.

[graeme]

bath.png (166.46 KiB) Viewed 6813 times

Here's what they're on about.

I haven't been there, so its a fair test whether the map makes sense.

As far as I can tell (adding arnold extra wall) it says that the highest level comes in from the west and is under a canopy. The middle level is the one coming in from the NE and includes the two Nw tunnels. The lowest level comes in from the two SE canopies.

I don't understand what the red stripes show, and I dont see how you can tell what level they are on.

In ISSOM, you aren't allowed on top of canopies, so anyone who punched at "canopy, on top" should be DQed.

Tunnels and bridges can be used to show unconnected levels, but there doesn't seem to be a way to map balconies in ISSOM.

[Arnold]

Untitled.png (242.73 KiB) Viewed 6794 times

Indeed. So the only thing missing was the wall (in red).

Again I would have personally removed the tunnels which add clutter and were shopping arcades. You probably would have realised you were going the wrong way going into them (incidentally I misread one tunnel and ended up halfway through a pizza restaurant but that's another story)

[graeme]

Indeed. So the only thing missing was the wall (in red).

So what does the red stripey stuff at the bottom mean? Since it's a temporary feature, the map must make sense when its removed. There's no barrier between it and the middle level(to left) on between it and the lower level (to right). Does it slope? Missing staircase?

[RS]

Cafe seating, a la Venice

[Arnold]

there might be another wall missing somewhere, but I didn't go to that bit
or perhaps it's a slope, as it anyway is surprising that you need stairs to get to the bottom left bit if you come from the east, but no stairs if you come from the tunnel in the north

[BenM]

The control description was "Building pass through, top" (thats straight from recreating it in Condes) which does seem slightly illogical - I must admit it did throw me. The stairs up to it did not look like somewhere you should be running through!

[graeme]

CONDES is way ahead of ISSOM here:

A canopy is a building construction (with a roof), normally supported by pillars, poles or walls, such as passages, gangways, courts, bus stops, gas stations or garages. Small passable parts of buildings which can not easily be crossed by
competitors, shall not be represented on the map and shall be closed during the
competition

There seems to be no control description for such an object. The Pi-symbol is "Building pass-through" which is a quite different thing.

[awk]

So what does the red stripey stuff at the bottom mean? Since it's a temporary feature, the map must make sense when its removed. There's no barrier between it and the middle level(to left) on between it and the lower level (to right). Does it slope? Missing staircase?

As RS says, it was cafe seating. Your first instinct is correct - there is an uncrossable barrier missing. The balcony (yes, this was another balcony!) here wrapped around three sides of the square, with the uncrossable barrier passing east between the two sections of OOB, and then north along the edge of the northern section to join with the building. We had a control on the south western point of the mapped uncrossable wall.

[Roger]

This is a rather unusual example where contours running through the buildings, which are usually recondite (mapping the original ground surface??), actually help the interpretation.

Sadly I wasn't there either, but perhaps rather than 'on top', the planner's intended description was 'upper canopy' (of the two that are stacked on top of one another so that only one is marked)? I think that I'd have sought a different site, but 'on top' could be a brave attempt to indicate that there's something funny going on, cf. "2 Clubs" "knock".

[JK]

...
But here, ISSOM is not fit for purpose. A symbol indicating the presence of two runnable levels is needed, and an appropriate control description for "on the lower level".

I can't help with ISSOM, but for control descriptions:
"Column C: which of any similar feature"
0.3 "Lower": Where the control feature is directly below a similar feature

So in theory there is a CD for it BUT I'd suspect such use of it would need to be intimated in the Final Details and even then it is likely to be confusing.

[graeme]

No, if we want the CDs to be non-recondite, what we need is an "on the lower level" CD as well as "lower of two similar features".

[johnrobinson]

At two recent events ( scarborough and bath uni sprint) I have had problems with visualising a control location , mainly due I felt to a vague or unhelpful description. I actually like multilevel areas (in moderation) as it introduces an element of uncertainty that I haven't felt since I first started orienteering and I find that refreshing.

However, as Awk and Graeme seem to be saying, the current mapping symbology and Control descriptions may be stretched in their ability to represent clearly what is on the ground. We need to be aware of this but not a reason for not using such areas Imo.

On another point, I rarely find contours of much use in urban events ,( route choice usually is determined by other constraints) but often find them producing visual clutter at key points (across narrow gaps index contours in particular can look at a glance like dead ends)
Is there a case to be made for not always having them on the map?

[nooomember]

Maybe this video may help clarify the problem area -
See from 24:30 to 25:56
I enter from the lower level South east and exit West via control 137 and passing a few confused looking orienteers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rxksqpbfZI

[graeme]

...and you go into the OOB.