Ripon

[johnhrobinson]

Here is another possible case open to multiple interpretation. Looking at the map fragment , I approached C8 from the north ( badly ) and exited it S along the obvious though twisty paved path. At the time I did not notice the small (unpaved ? ) path to the sw through the olive green to the open area(yellow). Is this an acceptable route?. My wife says not as it goes through the olive green ( the colour is between the dashes.) I suspect I would have used it had I seen it but wonder what it looked like on the ground. ( maybe an worn track across a lawn?)

route out of 8.JPG (27.82 KiB) Viewed 3516 times

Any comments?

I did runaround a field later because it had a private sign on the gate. Think it was ok in fact but just shows how you can be influenced by conventional responses in an urban setting ( In a x-country event I would assume all such permissions had been sorted).

[awk]

An interesting one John - we had the same control but a different direction out, but I did spot this on my wife's map. First off, I don't think this symbol should have been used in this situation - ISSOM specifically states it should not be used in an urban situation. The mapper should have used 506.1. This would have helped prevent ambiguity.
My attitude to this as a mapper (inexperienced though - I'm currently drawing my first one) is that I generally wouldn't include any path details in an area of forbidden access unless the path can be used to pass through the area.
So, to that end, I would expect the path to be go-able, but would have a look at it on arrival and have an alternative planned, just as happened when we approached the field you mention being marked as private property (I went around because as an early runner, I didn't fancy getting nettled again).

[graeme]

I generally wouldn't include any path details in an area of forbidden access unless the path can be used to pass through the area.

This is clear, and we discussed it after the UMOC race...

"528.1 Area with forbidden access: No feature shall be represented in this area, except very prominent features such as railways, large buildings, or very large trees."

The clear implication is that an ISSOM small path (507 or 508) is NOT part of the OOB - therefore an allowed route. ISSOM talks of "parks and urban" as different terrains: if this is a park, then the symbol is allowed.

[awk]

Thanks Graeme, that must be where I remember it from.

[yted]

As controller again, a note to confirm johnrobinson's little path through olive green leaving number 8 was in bounds as suggested. And as for the gap in the uncrossable wall that has appeared on one map: any one finding that gap would of course have been entitled to go through it! Having looked at other maps, I feel it must have been due to wear and tear or an individual misprint - there was no late changes to the map in this area except the re-designation of the wall as uncrossable.

[AndyC]

any one finding that gap would of course have been entitled to go through it! .

Do I take it that the gap doesn't actually exist on the ground?

[johnhrobinson]

correct. apparent gap on map no actual gap in the wall.

Thought it might be an artifact but seemed suspiciously regular on close inspection.
Another friend has informed me of a similar gap but elsewhere on the same wall, this time obviously due to wear.

Was the map laser printed?? and is this a possibilty