Ripon

[johnhrobinson]

I am trying to upload my ripon map but the site don't seem to like it.
It might be of interest as my map appears to show a small gap in the wall just S of the finish and E of the building with a dashed line ( path) up the side.
My wife's version shows a solid wall and the dashed line is the edge of the olive green patch.

i actually went throughthe gate on the final leg as having been across the wall to the toilets I knew there was no gap and didn't fancy junping onto the road. But in other circunstances i might have headed for it assuming a valid route.

The gap does not appeat to be an artifact, due to wear ( my first assumption) so it seems at least possible that other competitors might have had a similar experience and chose to go direct.

any advice on how to upload the map ???

[johnhrobinson]

this small bit shows the relevant detail i think .

ripon section.JPG (53.65 KiB) Viewed 5063 times

[andypat]

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.

Just to clarify AWK - I was not suggesting purple overprint and an uncrossable wall. My suggestion was to map the wall as crossable (as it clearly was) and use the purple line overprint to make it clear to competitors that that route was forbidden (for the obvious safety reasons. It may have been reasonable to have it manned in that circumstance. I know there are other views but I'm of the opinion that the map should do its best to reperesent what is seen on the ground.

[johnhrobinson]

here is the other map view of the sa

ripon compare2.JPG (19.06 KiB) Viewed 5008 times

me area. The line here is clearly continuous. (In spite of poor quality scan ). Something odd is going on here unless i am the only one to have got this . i suppose it is possible i have somehow created this , but no obvious map crease or other damage. have to say i am baffled.

[EddieH]

Andy pat the point about the thick wall symbol is that it means that the feature MUST NOT BE CROSSED. It does NOT mean it is high, wide, barbed, apparently dangerous or anything else. It is not for competitors to make dercisions whether they think the mapper/planner/organiser have made a sensible decsion - simply obey the rules.

John Robinson's maps are very intriguing. Presumably this is where the controller talks to the competitor before disqualifying them as going through the gap shown on one of the maps is clearly not illegal.

[King Penguin]

I note the comments about line / gap widths and legibility on the run with interest.
With sweat pouring down my face I failed to see :
the 2 narrow alleys approaching #6 on the A course from the south - so I went all the way round. The olive green OOB either side of them blurred across the alleys in my vision on the run.
the short uncrossable fence across the west end of the narrow bright orange open strip north of the tennis courts between #9 and #10 on the A course - so got dead-ended. Had the gap been wider and the uncrossable fence longer I am sure I would have seen it. I had no problem seeing the wall at the end as uncrossable, and even managed to read / assume the wall between the road and the finish was also "uncrossable".

[geomorph]

JohnHRobinson

Fascinated by your map differences, so as I did not go to Ripon looked on google streetview and saw the small path alongside toilet block that stops at the road-side limit of the toilet block about 2m from the roadside wall. On your 'gap' map there does appear to be such a path mapped all the way through to the road, but it does not appear present on the 'continuous' map.

Now it could be that an original version of the map did have the wall mapped as two separate wall objects separated by a gap, and this gap was later closed for safety reasons (and the path removed). If the manner of closure was to add a third wall object, placing it over the gap, rather than extend either one of the original walls then I could understand the possibility of it being lost during your print run (and not everybody's). Such an interpretation is not a good sign for the print software/firmware/hardware interface, but it is not unrealistic, given the nature of the beast.

[awk]

Just to clarify AWK - I was not suggesting purple overprint and an uncrossable wall. My suggestion was to map the wall as crossable (as it clearly was) and use the purple line overprint to make it clear to competitors that that route was forbidden (for the obvious safety reasons. It may have been reasonable to have it manned in that circumstance. I know there are other views but I'm of the opinion that the map should do its best to reperesent what is seen on the ground.

See what you mean. ISSOM allows it, but doesn't like it except in extremis, and I'm of the same mind - purple overprints can confuse. Personally, I think the thick line showed what was on the ground quite happily - a wall that we were forbidden to cross!

[Mrs H]

Johns map is very strange. But the person crossed the walll the other side of the toilet block. Still oob I'm afraid !

[Scott]

Perhaps one of those cases (cf. Eden) where it may have helped to make the block of white(?) adjacent to the uncrossable wall (and between the two buildings) olive green?

[graeme]

going through the gap shown on one of the maps is clearly not illegal.

So you don't think bending the line means you have to go that way round? I think it does, and would go round myself, but I can't find a rule to use to DQ someone who didn't.
(just goes to show why local rules are a bad idea).

Mind you, if that road was dangerous I don't understand why they didn't have the finish before crossing it...

[DJM]

awk wrote

See what you mean. ISSOM allows it, but doesn't like it except in extremis, and I'm of the same mind - purple overprints can confuse. Personally, I think the thick line showed what was on the ground quite happily - a wall that we were forbidden to cross!

ISSOM doesn't actually allow it except "for last minute updates to the competition area" as is also the case with the use of the vertical purple stripes for OOB.

[andypat]

Andy pat the point about the thick wall symbol is that it means that the feature MUST NOT BE CROSSED. It does NOT mean it is high, wide, barbed, apparently dangerous or anything else. It is not for competitors to make dercisions whether they think the mapper/planner/organiser have made a sensible decision - simply obey the rules.

Eddie I dont agree with your interpretation of the ISSOM guidance on this one. But from a mapping perspective rather than a running one.

ISSOM 2007
An impassable wall or retaining wall is a wall, which fulfil the function of an enclosure or solid barrier. It shall not be crossed, due to forbidden access or because it may constitute a danger to the competitor due to its height. Very wide impassable walls shall be drawn in plan shape and represented with the symbol

I dont think the wall in question is either a danger "due to its height" or forbidden access. How can it be when you can stand either side of the wall. I repeat that I agree that transgressors should be DQ'd - they clearly crossed a feature that was marked as FORBIDDEN TO CROSS, I'm just not sure there wasnt a better option here than mapping the wall as impassable - I dont think thats in the spirit of the ISSOM rules. Its hardly a solid barrier after all (compare with the description for a passable wall for clarity)


A passable wall or retaining wall is a construction made of stone, brick, concrete etc., which can be passed. This symbol is suitable for urban areas. If such a wall is higher than 2 m, it shall be represented with the symbol (521.1).

[roadrunner]

ISSOM 2007
An impassable wall or retaining wall is a wall, which fulfil the function of an enclosure or solid barrier. It shall not be crossed, due to forbidden access or because it may constitute a danger to the competitor due to its height.

ISSOM 2007 seems to be missing something here. A wall could be uncrossable because it consitutes a danger from something other than it's height (for example, it might be at risk of collapsing if you stood on it), or it could be that the owner simply doesn't want people climbing over it even though neither side is out-of-bounds, like the cases of dry stone walls in some other (admittedly non-urban) events. There has to be a way to show these on the map, and the "uncrossable wall" symbol seems the most obvious to me.

[awk]

Mind you, if that road was dangerous I don't understand why they didn't have the finish before crossing it...

The road itself wasn't dangerous per se - at least as far as any road isn't dangerous. It was the fact that any runner would be emerging out of vegetation down onto the road with no warning - whereas exiting via the gate was safer.