Mapping Urban bridges
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
30 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
I'm fairly new to urban, but I thought the bridges in ediburgh (last years map) were pretty obvious that you could go over and under. They use the canopy grey for this. I know it might not be "specification", but it conveyed the message perfectly clear to me.
The World Is Flat
-
McCloy - string
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:09 pm
- Location: Moneymore
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
I wrote a short piece about this in CompassSport: I made up six versions of the maps and we chose what the majority of the team (read, not-me) thought clearest.
ISSOM says you should map the main running level. This means (as at Scarboro) the mapper and planner need to work together to ensure the competitor get the information they need.
You also need to respect the idea that thick black lines must not be crossed.
So, a bridge over an OOB road would have uncrossible walls to left and right, "apparently" blocking the road.
A tunnel under an uncrossible road would be a canopy, again with uncrossable walls to left and right, "apparently" blocking the road.
More difficult, what if you can go over *or* under, but not transfer from one level to the other. Now I like the idea of using the "bridge" symbol on left and right of the upper level.
This symbol is not forbidden to cross, but does not promise that it is physically possible to cross. then the tunnel edge lines cross the upper level. I also like shading the bridge, to highlight that something odd is going on underneath.
Finally, the most difficult one we have in Edinburgh: you can run on the pavement but not cross the upper road, you can run underneath, and you can't get from lower to upper level. Nothing is very satisfactory here, the best bet is to choose something and display it in final details and start lines. It's usually obvious when you're there.
To some extent, you have to be guided by how strongly out of bounds the feature is. If the worst that can happen is someone has to be careful crossing a road, and might get DQed, then some ambiguity is more acceptable than if access to the area is at stake. In the latter case you should probbaly distort the mapping to overemphasise what is not allowed.
ISSOM says you should map the main running level. This means (as at Scarboro) the mapper and planner need to work together to ensure the competitor get the information they need.
You also need to respect the idea that thick black lines must not be crossed.
So, a bridge over an OOB road would have uncrossible walls to left and right, "apparently" blocking the road.
A tunnel under an uncrossible road would be a canopy, again with uncrossable walls to left and right, "apparently" blocking the road.
More difficult, what if you can go over *or* under, but not transfer from one level to the other. Now I like the idea of using the "bridge" symbol on left and right of the upper level.
This symbol is not forbidden to cross, but does not promise that it is physically possible to cross. then the tunnel edge lines cross the upper level. I also like shading the bridge, to highlight that something odd is going on underneath.
Finally, the most difficult one we have in Edinburgh: you can run on the pavement but not cross the upper road, you can run underneath, and you can't get from lower to upper level. Nothing is very satisfactory here, the best bet is to choose something and display it in final details and start lines. It's usually obvious when you're there.
To some extent, you have to be guided by how strongly out of bounds the feature is. If the worst that can happen is someone has to be careful crossing a road, and might get DQed, then some ambiguity is more acceptable than if access to the area is at stake. In the latter case you should probbaly distort the mapping to overemphasise what is not allowed.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
Having considered the distilled wisdom on offer here we have come up with 4 options.
The situation is a narrow footbridge over a large road. It is possible to go over the footbridge (obviously!) and it is also possible to pass under the bridge. It is not permitted to go directly from the road to the bridge.
The 4 options should be viewable here:
My preference would be 3, then 2, then 1. I think 4 is the only one that is actually ISSOM compliant but it is the one I would not choose. What do others think?
Blatant plug
Erskine Urban Race, Nope Sport Urban League Race 2
2 April (with a SOL near Stirling on the 3rd)
Entries are now open on Oentries, full details there:
http://oentries.com/event/details/184-erskine-urban-race
There WILL be a technical course for U16s, and a separate beginners course.
The small part of the Erskine map that was used for the British Squad Sprint Selection Race can be seen on Clyde's routegadget site:
http://www.clyde.routegadget.co.uk/clyde/reitti.cgi?act=map&id=3&kieli=
The situation is a narrow footbridge over a large road. It is possible to go over the footbridge (obviously!) and it is also possible to pass under the bridge. It is not permitted to go directly from the road to the bridge.
The 4 options should be viewable here:
My preference would be 3, then 2, then 1. I think 4 is the only one that is actually ISSOM compliant but it is the one I would not choose. What do others think?
Blatant plug
Erskine Urban Race, Nope Sport Urban League Race 2
2 April (with a SOL near Stirling on the 3rd)
Entries are now open on Oentries, full details there:
http://oentries.com/event/details/184-erskine-urban-race
There WILL be a technical course for U16s, and a separate beginners course.
The small part of the Erskine map that was used for the British Squad Sprint Selection Race can be seen on Clyde's routegadget site:
http://www.clyde.routegadget.co.uk/clyde/reitti.cgi?act=map&id=3&kieli=
- DaveR
- red
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
I'd go for Option 4.
ISSOM compliant. The least visually cluttered. Its commonly understood you can run under a bridge shown this way. This formula has been used in many urban races.
ISSOM compliant. The least visually cluttered. Its commonly understood you can run under a bridge shown this way. This formula has been used in many urban races.
- seabird
- diehard
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:20 am
- Location: Bradford
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
I think they all imply that you can run on the main road (can you?) If you can only run underneath on the verge maybe the dots should be there?
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
I like the dots. It makes it utterly unambiguous, and Graeme makes an excellent point.
- EddieH
- god
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 pm
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
I don't like the dots - often very difficult to see/interpret on the run. My vote is for option 2 without the dots. 2 is better than 4 because the bridge symbols are clearer. As Seabird says one would normally expect to be able to run both over and under a bridge but not get from the top of the bridge to the lower level.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
Putting the dots in the wrong place (beside the road) makes it worse. If you must use dots, put them where the bridge joins the ground, which is in the green strip (ignoring the bridge support legs).
Last edited by Spookster on Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Martin Ward, SYO (Chair) & SPOOK.
I'm a 1%er. Are you?
I'm a 1%er. Are you?
-
Spookster - god
- Posts: 2267
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 1:49 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
NeilC wrote:I don't like the dots - often very difficult to see/interpret on the run. My vote is for option 2 without the dots. 2 is better than 4 because the bridge symbols are clearer. As Seabird says one would normally expect to be able to run both over and under a bridge but not get from the top of the bridge to the lower level.
I tend to agree with this. If the bridge was over a stream/river you would not be asking the question. However you would not (normally) object to people running along the stream/river and under a bridge. So I would make the bridge symbols as clear as possible and leave it to competitors to interpret.
- DavidJ
- light green
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:37 pm
- Location: Berkshire, UK
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
NeilC wrote: 2 is better than 4 because the bridge symbols are clearer.
Good point. I hadn't looked at that aspect of the varying images. Still don't like the dots, particularly as they seem to indicate you can only run under the bridge on the road. If the photo is correct, anyone running towards the underside of the bridge would soon realise that was not the case. I'd prefer to run on the verge if there was traffic coming.
- seabird
- diehard
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:20 am
- Location: Bradford
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
I have had to map a lot of bridges over roads, where both levels are equally valid routes, for the City of London race map. I have felt it important to always show the dots, and not have the dots going beyond the extent of the bridge. It is also important to have enough dots so that they are visible to the runner.
For the City of London map, I significantly exaggerate the width of the bridge, so that there are at least two dots at either end of the crossing - or ideally three.
Also, I don't use the bridge symbol at all, as it's difficult to see the end-point parapets on the map, and there are already enough black lines of different thicknesses meaning different things, on the map. I just use the impassable wall thick black line. This means I have to exaggerate the width of the bridge even more. Originally I was going to use non-ISSOM thick brown lines, but decided use black instead to aid clarity.
I do often position the dots on the road/pavement edge, rather than the bridge edge, so that they are more visible. I'm tending to not do this any more, but am moving the dots slightly in from the true edge of the bridge so they are more visible.
For the City of London map, I significantly exaggerate the width of the bridge, so that there are at least two dots at either end of the crossing - or ideally three.
Also, I don't use the bridge symbol at all, as it's difficult to see the end-point parapets on the map, and there are already enough black lines of different thicknesses meaning different things, on the map. I just use the impassable wall thick black line. This means I have to exaggerate the width of the bridge even more. Originally I was going to use non-ISSOM thick brown lines, but decided use black instead to aid clarity.
I do often position the dots on the road/pavement edge, rather than the bridge edge, so that they are more visible. I'm tending to not do this any more, but am moving the dots slightly in from the true edge of the bridge so they are more visible.
Stop talking, start running.
-
Angry Haggis - blue
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:24 pm
- Location: London
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
Think i would mark the road OOB (assuming you did not want anyone crossing or running on road) and show dots under bridge on the verge, if likely to be route choice option.
If you are just trying to get people accross bridge wouldn't bother with dots
If you are just trying to get people accross bridge wouldn't bother with dots
- redkite
- green
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:40 pm
- Location: Wales
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
Thanks again for all the comments- quite a lot of these we have considered already, but by no means all. All useful. There doesnt appear to be a consensus - in fact there fairly clearly isnt a one size fits all solution. I will make a point of clarifying whichever route our mapper goes down in the final details for our event. I'm sure we'll find out on here whether or not it works
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
I wouldn't use the dots as they are meant to represent an underground route such as an underpass - extending the dots beyond the edge of the bridge is confusing . The fact that the bridge symbol is used implies that it is passable underneath. (though I would move the end so the tags are clear)
From ISSOM:
So if the underneath route was marked with dots you would need to show pink brackets as well to emphasise it. I'm not sure that a steep grassy bank next to a distributor road is really a good place to encourage people to run in the first place (though the photo may exaggerate the steepness)
From ISSOM:
518.1Underpass or tunnel
An underpass or a tunnel is a passage running underneath the ground,
especially a passage for pedestrians or vehicles, crossing under for instance a
railroad or a road.
Colour: black
If underpasses or tunnels etc. are to be used in a competition, they shall be
emphasizedwith the symbol (708) or (708.1)!
So if the underneath route was marked with dots you would need to show pink brackets as well to emphasise it. I'm not sure that a steep grassy bank next to a distributor road is really a good place to encourage people to run in the first place (though the photo may exaggerate the steepness)
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Mapping Urban bridges
From ISSOM:
Doesn't this imply that they must be used, i.e., the only route(s) available? If the higher level options are available, they (the underpasses) should not be emphasised, and here I think dots can help reduce ambiguity.
If underpasses or tunnels etc. are to be used in a competition, they shall be
emphasizedwith the symbol (708) or (708.1)!
Doesn't this imply that they must be used, i.e., the only route(s) available? If the higher level options are available, they (the underpasses) should not be emphasised, and here I think dots can help reduce ambiguity.
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
30 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 174 guests