Lincoln

[Strider]

I mean from 10 to 11.

Screen shot 2010-09-06 at 16.53.21.jpg

And this is my route to see the bit after 29.
http://www.log.routegadget.co.uk/log/reitti.cgi?act=map&id=17&cID=1&kieli=&pID=9

Yes, the map is not quite right between 10 and 11 and there should be a small gap between the building and the uncrossable walls surrounding the olive green. I noticed that too when I went to the control on the B course.

Can't comment on 29, as haven't been round that bit in a while.....

S.

[epocian]

He's right on 29 too - Go to Google street view and you can cleary see the gap

[Mark T]

For me this was the best of the Lincoln street races. Well done LOG for another great event. I had to laugh when my son charged past me on the way to the maze, spent ages zig-zagging back and forth, while I watched his route in and we both arrived at the control, in the middle, together. Priceless

[Adrian]

The D course seems to have been a tad on the skimpy side - the other courses were about 40 minutes long whilst it was only 20 minutes - so any error (by planner or competitor) has a proportionately bigger impact on the race, making it more irritating. (Especially if you've travelled halfway across the country.) Of course you do need a short course for youngsters and oldsters, but the powers that be should reconsider whether W55 and W60 should run the short course.

[awk]

What does anyone alse think about the control no 66? This was no. 18 on course B and was effectively underground. Approaching from no 17 the map made perfect sense, but if, like me (doh!) you approached from no 16, the control was in a grassy (yellow) area and it wasn't at all obvious how to find the light grey area somewhere below you.
I don't think it was possible to map this area on a 2-D piece of paper and therefore I'm not sure it should have been used. Maybe I'm wrong though and, assuming everyone approached 66 from the same direction, perhaps it was OK?

ISSOM states: "Multilevel structures such as bridges, canopies, underpasses or underground buildings are common in urban areas. The cartographic representation of more than one level is in general impossible. Hence only the main 'running' level should be represented on the map. "
To my mind, the map does show that, if you had followed the control order correctly, and thus I think it was a perfectly fair control. Urban maps can't help you when you get yourself on the wrong level, as those who have experienced the Barbican will readily testify!!

[Gnitworp]

Hence only the main 'running' level should be represented on the map. "

Top 'legally' accessible level, with 'hidden' detail (access) below shown black dotted, as on an architectural plan?

[awk]

Hence only the main 'running' level should be represented on the map. "

Top 'legally' accessible level, with 'hidden' detail (access) below shown dashed, as on an architectural plan?

My own view is that this would have been unnecessary and more confusing. The fact that the rooms/building was shown with grey canopy shows that something was above. The important bits were the rooms, and they were at the natural runners' level as you exited 17.

[bac0990]

Further to an earlier comment ‘it was interesting that some people were disqualified for mispunching in the maze, thinking theirs was the only control and not checking the code’

I was one of those but I did initially go to a wrong control, checked the code and realised my error. Got a bit flustered as other runners came piling into the maze but found what I thought was my control, checked, punched and moved on.

Gutted to discover at download that I had actually punched 65 not 68 as required.
I would guess they had the same description but my haste and fading eyes let me down.

[Gnitworp]

Hence only the main 'running' level should be represented on the map. "

The top 'legally' accessible level should be represented on the map, with 'hidden' relevant (usable) access detail below shown black dotted, and any inaccessible structure (canopy or higher floor) above shown in grey.

I'm trying to generate a general principle here.

[King Penguin]

I repeat, why not use the appropriate "on top of" / "underneath" qualifier (or even "middle" if there are 3 levels) ?

[Gnitworp]

Yes, use this to clarify marker location on a (hopefully) unequivocal map (dream on, Gnitworp!)

[awk]

Gnitworp - by doing that, you make the upper level the main running level, especially as it would be very difficult to show the inside of the building underneath adequately, given that you would be showing the 'canopy' in yellow, and there would be hardly any black dashed lines as most would fall under the line of the boundaries to the yellow on the roof. To my mind, what the mapper did was absolutely correct in the context of what the course did. You talk of establishing a principle - the principle is to show the main running level. The underpass symbol should only come into play if both levels are relevant; if the underpass is used it is required to be shown in purple as well.

King Penguin - if Gnitworp's method of mapping was adopted, I'd agree that 'underneath' would be needed, but I don't think it is required here - you would only need it if more than one level is shown, and there is only one shown here.

[Gnitworp]

'The top 'legally' accessible level' is a 'running' level, with access to any higher level not shown because it's not 'legal' (relevant). I accept that the grey of inaccessible structure above may reduce readablity in some circumstances (e.g., orienteering inside a building), and competitors should be warned of its omission, contrary to the universally understood 'principle', if it is.

Black dotted 'hidden' access below the top 'running' level absolutely does not necessarily or unsually need to be highlighted in purple where both 'above' and 'below' are available. This is often one of the most fiendish conundrums of urban orienteering; you don't give away the answer by highlighting things in purple, but to understand what is going on, you need a rigidly applied principle of representation.

[Blanka]

BOF Guidelines for urban events say that Courses 3 and 4 can be combined, thus putting M55+, W60+, W16/18, M70+ and W55+ on the same course. I’m sure if we had done this we would had M55s complaining it was too short or W55+ saying it was too tough, not least because of the climb we needed to make best use of the map.

What I suggested was not to combine 3 and 4 instead of 4 and 5 but to have an extra course, which shouldn't be all too much effort since you were only planning 4 at the moment. Can you have courses as follows:

1 M Open
2 W Open, M40+
3 W40+, M55+
4 W55+
5 M/W16

[Strider]

What I suggested was not to combine 3 and 4 instead of 4 and 5 but to have an extra course, which shouldn't be all too much effort since you were only planning 4 at the moment. Can you have courses as follows:

1 M Open
2 W Open, M40+
3 W40+, M55+
4 W55+
5 M/W16

And, in hindsight, we would probably have done this had we accurately anticipated, in the early stages of planning, the numbers coming along. However, previous city races had elicited only around 100 entries, instead of the 240 we got this year, and we based the course design around this historical data. The boost of being aligned to the Sheffield race on the Saturday, as well as being back in the Nopesport league, was obviously a major factor in the increased numbers, but we weren't to know this when the planning process was unfolding, unfortunately, and many of those 240 entries came in in the final three weeks of online entry and via EOD...

The imponderables for next year's course design are: will we be in the league again next year; will we be tied in with another 'urban double header'; will urban races maintain their rise in popularity; will as many people want to come back again having 'done' Lincoln....

It's also part of the continuing debate for future urban planners, as well, as the scene continues to grow. Are 4 or even 5 courses sufficient? Should the class transition points be M/W40+/55+? Should there be sub-divisions of junior classes, eg. W/M12-; W/M16-?

S.