Ripon

[Gnitworp]

semanticians..

or people that simply want to know where they are supposed to go?

[Becks]

Steady on... I don't think of the people we axed as "cheats": but I have no more hesitation in DQ'ing than, e.g., a long jumper who overstepped the mark.
With hindsight, we could have done things better (as could you) and avoided this outcome. Live, learn, let live...

Yup! As one of the Edinburgh "cheats," I was gutted to realise what I had done, as despite reading the instructions, living in Edinburgh and hence being totally aware of which road we weren't allowed to cross, by the time I had run 40 mins in massive oxygen debt I just completely failed to see everything on the map that told me I couldn't cross the road. I was more than happy to be DQed, and would have done so myself had Graeme not told me with a glint in his eye that he would be doing it for me.

I guess I'm just saying this because mistakes do happen. This is the only time in my life that I've been DQed, and the phrase "cheat" is really a bit strong in most cases. "Stupid" and "knackered" perhaps, but not cheat.

I also admit that there are times when this phrase will be appropriate. But probably not most times.

[graeme]

There's an (instructive) addendum to Becks story. She was pre-running to check the controls were in place. She had the map that competitors were actually using, and hadn't seen the course before so didn't know where she was supposed to go.
If only we'd had someone* do that the day before, we would have spotted the potential problem in time for a workaround.

* not the planner or controller, by then they're oblivious to their own faults

or people that simply want to know where they are supposed to go?

Construct a space filling curve, a one-dimensional line which visits every point within a two dimensional space. Your control lies somewhere on this curve D.W.McIntyre,1986

[Mrs H]

I'm away now so this is brief. The person I saw cross the wall took longer than me on the run in! I intend to make cheating the subject of my next OOC perhaps catching a different audience and spreadi g the word.

[andypat]

Unfortunately that won't have any effect, and may lead to people accusing you of wrongly accusing them! It is not a fair system of justice.

Either we solve the problem in a practical fashion, with controls, mapping changes, education, providing information, GPS, or having numerous marshalls then we have to live with it. The 'risk assessment' for each breach of a 'forbidden route' should be decided by the mapper, the planner and the organiser. If there is a safety issue (as apparently with this wall) then the course should avoid it. After all you don't take a course over the edge of a cliff! If it is future permissions, as with the debate we had some time ago about walls on Angle Tarn, then we have to live with the consequences of losing the use of the area.

The debate here nicely demonstates the desire of the event organisers to achieve an aim (perhaps safety) by designating a feature as 'not to be crossed' when it patently was crossable in reality. It is important that the competitor is informed so that they understand the reasoning behind the designation, but more important, the competitor mustn't be made to make such decisions in full flight. Not everyone is capable of absorbing all the map information for a particular leg while running at full tilt! Mistaking map and terrain synchronization is the nature of the sport!

RJ - you are the voice of reason on this debate! I dont think it does anyone any favours to talk about cheats in this context. Disqualification is the correct option for someone who has even inadvertently broken the rules, but surely theres an issue here with the decision to "designate" or remap a wall to uncrossable from crossable? I'd say to comply with ISSOM there should have been some marking of the wall on the ground for this to be the correct decision. Alternatively is it maybe more appropriate to use the purple line overprint in cases like this? Fair play to the controller to come on here and explain the reasoning, but it sounds like there may be lessons to be learned all round?

[DM]

If it is future permissions, as with the debate we had some time ago about walls on Angle Tarn, then we have to live with the consequences of losing the use of the area.

Just to confirm, Angle Tarn Pikes has not been lost as an area for orienteering. You are correct RJ to say there was a lot of debate about crossing that wall but please don't go implying that Angle Tarn Pikes has been lost for future events. It has not, as was stated a year ago.

If permissions for future use really do depend on sticking to the rules and making some sacrificial disqualifications then let's get on with it -at least it demonstrates to landowners/permission granters that we as a sport are taking action.

[PKJ]

First of all, many thanks to CLARO for a very enjoyable event.

My basic approach at urban events is to 'trust the map & overprint', and not think about why it's been done that way, even if it seems counter-intuitive.
For example -
- I can cross this fence, but not the football pitch, though I can cross the rugby pitch
(apparently footballers can get very concerned about the quality of surface they play on)
- I can run up the entrance to the police station and cross this gate with a sign saying 'Private Property'
(though I didn't as I thought there may be nettles on the other side)
- I can run up the entrance to the ante-natal clinic and through to the park
- I can't run across that bit of the park or across that wall to the finish
(from the map I had no idea whether I could physically cross it or not)

Also, there were 160 at this event - as a comparison, there were 280 at CLARO's 8-course Regional event in March. Is 160 good, average, or disappointing?

[madmike]

I'd say to comply with ISSOM there should have been some marking of the wall on the ground for this to be the correct decision.

How did you make this conclusion? If it was ISOM then I would agree with you and indeed your purple overprint solution

[Snail]

For M/W45+ we would now generally think it unreasonable if an event offered only 1:15000 ISOM maps. Yet many ISSOM events only offer 1:5000 maps - which essentially leads to the same problem: some people have difficulty reading them. Someone (Ian D?) posted some months back about the technical issues involved - often it comes down to difficulty in distinguishing line thickness and separation.

I can just about manage with a 1:5000 map - but in detailed areas may either have to use a magnifier or slow down a lot. But in what may appear "simple" terrain there is a temptation sometimes to not check the detail - which can lead to accidental trangressions. In contrast I can read a blown-up version at say 1:4000 more clearly and am much less likely to accidentally make a mistake.

(Not suggesting that this was the issue here - but it is a possible factor in some transgressions.)

[Spookster]

Yet many ISSOM events only offer 1:5000 maps - which essentially leads to the same problem: some people have difficulty reading them. Someone (Ian D?) posted some months back about the technical issues involved - often it comes down to difficulty in distinguishing line thickness and separation.

I can just about manage with a 1:5000 map - but in detailed areas may either have to use a magnifier or slow down a lot. But in what may appear "simple" terrain there is a temptation sometimes to not check the detail - which can lead to accidental trangressions. In contrast I can read a blown-up version at say 1:4000 more clearly and am much less likely to accidentally make a mistake.

If maps are drawn correctly to ISSOM then the line thicknesses are the same on a 1:5000 and a 1:4000 map (unlike ISOM maps where 1:10000 maps have thicker lines and larger symbols than 1:15000 maps).

The difference between the thickness of a crossable wall (or fence) (0.21mm) and an uncrossable wall (or fence) (0.4mm) is significant, as long as the print quality is reasonable.

If there are difficulties in distinguishing features because of the small separation between lines, then the result is that a feature appears uncrossable when in fact it was intended to be crossable (for example the narrow archway above a road in Nottingham, where two lines 0.21mm wide looked more like one line 0.4mm wide).

[greywolf]

I'd say to comply with ISSOM there should have been some marking of the wall on the ground for this to be the correct decision.

How did you make this conclusion? If it was ISOM then I would agree with you and indeed your purple overprint solution

Nope, he's not suggesting that..read the posts and the spec:

"The course planner should not encourage unfair actions from the competitors, such as crossing barriers or areas with forbidden access. If it is unavoidable to set legs that cross or skirt areas with forbidden access or impassable walls and fences, then they have to be marked in the terrain, and observers should be present at the critical points.

[awk]

but surely theres an issue here with the decision to "designate" or remap a wall to uncrossable from crossable? I'd say to comply with ISSOM there should have been some marking of the wall on the ground for this to be the correct decision. Alternatively is it maybe more appropriate to use the purple line overprint in cases like this? Fair play to the controller to come on here and explain the reasoning, but it sounds like there may be lessons to be learned all round?

To comply with that particular section, yes tape (but not purple overprint - completely unnecessary). However, that rule is actually remarkably impracticable and surely cannot have been written with anything other than an international style competition in mind.
There is a very clear distinction in ISSOM between a wall that cannot be crossed and one that can (and the symbols are unambiguous on all but the most poorly printed maps). ISSOM gives two reasons for it, not just the 'legal' reason, but also because it is impossible to declare an exact height when a feature becomes uncrossable which is dependent on body height and strength. "If features represented as barriers on the map are declared as forbidden to cross, the conditions are the same for all."
Thus, any urban area will be littered with uncrossable walls that are almost certainly crossable by someone, and to mark them all would be simply impossible.

We live in a culture where all too often people are encouraged to abrogate responsibility to others. Orienteering has always prided itself on encouraging self-sufficiency. The responsibility should be on the competitor to observe the rules, not asking the controller/planner to try and second-guess every possible decision. Yes, in this instance maybe some tape and an observer could have been put there to double check but at the end of the day it WAS clearly marked as uncrossable, and the red line WAS kinked round it (even if it shouldn't have been!) - more than enough IMO, and certainly not encouraging anybody to transgress.

Trying to be constructive, looks to me as if a number of things could be done to help this situation without adding too much on to the organiser/planner plates:
1. Final details reinforce forbidden access rules/symbols
2. Notices at starts as reminders
3. Random observer(s) at keypoints (competitors told that there will be observers out there, but don't know where)
4. Numbers?

[EddieH]

Having just come to this thread, I agree 100% with AWK's comments, and with virtually all of Graeme's.

Urban racing is much about route choice. Deciding to place controls to avoid any danger of crossing illegal areas will simply dumb down the sport.

It is essential that people are all made aware of the rules, and that they are then enforced with disqualification.

It always amazes me in sport ho some rules are obeyed by professional protagonists whilst others are flouted if at all possible. E.g. a golfer always seems to declare and add a shot because the wind moves his ball after he has addressed it, yet a footballer thinks it fine to fall over to try to get an opponent sent off.

In our great sport it seems to me that the elite are very good at disqualifying themselves when they realise afterwards that they have crossed an ISSOM not to be crossed symbol, yet the same people totally ignore rules regarding colluding in the forest.

[graeme]

[The difference between the thickness of a crossable wall (or fence) (0.21mm) and an uncrossable wall (or fence) (0.4mm) is significant, as long as the print quality is reasonable.

Or to put it another way, 1m vs 2m wide at 1:5000.

This is why 1:4000 can be so much clearer: given a typical alley with two uncrossible walls 2.5m apart, the gap between (i.e. where you are trying to see if you can go) is 0.1mm at 1:5000 and more than twice as wide: 0.225mm at 1:4000. Of course, a good mapper will distort everything to make it legible, but especially if you use automatic vector conversion from a basemap this can take a lot of time.

n.b. 0.1 mm is one pixel at 256dpi, so don't figure on seeing it on your computer!

[geomorph]

Graeme - apologies for not quite understanding what you were getting at in your 0915 post. If I'm spouting dribble, sorry.

As I see it:

A 2.5m alley flanked/bounded by 0.3m uncrossable walls (total on the ground width of 3.1m) requires a total map width of 1.425mm at 1:4000 and 1.3mm at 1:5000 (true alley measures plus correct symbol width). Of which the wall symbols take up 0.8mm, so the visible gap (the usable alley) on the map is 0.625mm and 0.5mm respectively.

This then represents an actual ground width of 5.7 and 6.5m respectively.

If you try to contain the mapping within the true ground width of 3.1m then the actual map consumed will be 0.775mm and 0.6mm repectively ie less than the width of the wall symbols, so no gap would be visible.

At what separation does a gap become clear? Personally it seems to be about 0.6mm, but then that's ageing sight. However, at that width the canopy blue/grey is poorly discernible. I need canopy blue-grey to be at least 0.8mm wide to see it without hesitation.

As for visibility of uncrossible walls. 0.6mm seems fine when on its own, but in a complex of thin black lines it is hard to pick out unless it is at least 2mm long. In very narrow alleys with incomplete/no access due to an uncrossible wall I won't see it on the map.

For course planners and controllers. Please ensure that course symbols do not obscure these very short uncrossible walls. I've missed them due to the overlay, and from rooutgadget I suspect other have too.