Mapping Upper Levels in ISSOM

[haloite]

We have some upper level area's (mainly walkways) that require mapping on an ISSOM map for use in the summer. Any (ISSOM) mappers out there have any suggestions as to the clearest way to depict these?
Thanks.

[madmike]

Have a look at Routegadget for London City Race and see what Angry Haggis did for the Barbican - that was very clear!

[graeme]

Technically, in ISSOM you can mark an overpass using the bridge symbol, or an underpass with the dots (and emphasized with the crossing point symbol). Neither really work well, as both require people to cross thick black lines. The best advice is to "map the main running level" which in turn means "collaboration between mapmaker and course planner".

Assuming you mean a sort of elevated bridge overpass across a road thing...

If the course never goes under the walkways, then I'd map them as bridges. If it never goes over them, map as canopies. If it goes over and under, I'd tend to map them as bridges and use the "underpass" dots.

All of which means you can't finalise the map until the course is planned: this is one of the central premises of ISSOM.

[NeilC]

Have a look at Routegadget for London City Race and see what Angry Haggis did for the Barbican - that was very clear!

If you knew what the situation was since this involved running on top of a canopy - not something that would be recommended on most ISSOM maps.

Both Oxford and Brighton this year used a darker shade of Brown to represent an elongated, elevated walkway. The controls were on the walkway but elsewhere on the course you could run under it. Since these were quite long walkways it would be difficult to show the route under using the underpass dots and a bridge symbol would be very messy indeed. I'd personally prefer to see different shades of Brown used in this way in an urban area, rather than to indicate different types of roads as some mappers do - but which I personally find rather ugly.

[graeme]

There are lots of options, some work better in some terrains than others. I like the idea of using a different colour (be it grey or brown) to highlight that "something odd is happening here". What's really needed is a standard. Even if only one which says "if more than one shade of brown is used in urban areas, it must be explained in the details".

At the major events/mapping conference I heard there was to be an IOF-ISSOM review.
(I forget now who told me) Have any of you experienced urban-mappers out there been asked for input to this ?

[pete.owens]

There is a standard for use of dark brown: ISSOM specifies the darker brown for non urban areas - presumably to give better contrast with the typically paler background.

Looking at Routegadget for Oxford I don’t think using dark brown works; it is unclear as it isn’t a straight under or over issue, but 2 levels with multiple connections between them – and with the dotted outline it is ambiguous where these connections are. For example see the mens open course leg 38-39 - do you have to go via 8 or 7?

A paper map is a two dimensional representation so it will never be possible to map a complex multi-level structure properly. For simple underpasses and bridges, you can usually interpret from their context that you can pass on either level, but not jump from one to the other. I would go with Graeme's recommendation - though with a narrow foot bridge there isn't the space or need for the dots.

[haloite]

Thanks for the feedback!
I can see how both Neil and Graeme's solutions would work in our situation, I shall consult with Mr.Mapper and see what we can come up with!
Thanks again.

[Roger]

Looking at Routegadget for Oxford I don’t think using dark brown works; it is unclear as it isn’t a straight under or over issue, but 2 levels with multiple connections between them – and with the dotted outline it is ambiguous where these connections are. For example see the mens open course leg 38-39 - do you have to go via 8 or 7?

I think it's unambiguous (Oxford routegadget). The connections are the mapped steps: halfway between 8 and 9, just north of 7, and just N of 38. The point is that you can go straight from 8 to 39, for example, under the raised area. It's bounded by dots because mapping the parapet of the raised area as uncrossable would imply a non-existent ground-level barrier between 8 and 39. Where the boundary is mapped as uncrossable there are buildings underneath so no way through.
For the 2006 race I vetoed a control roughly where 7 is, on the upper level, because it was ambiguous. This is an improvement.

[pete.owens]

Yes you can see straight off that you can go from 8 to 39 thus that is probably the optimal route from 38-39. What is more difficult to tell from the map is whether you can take the more direct route via 7 and simply turn right (assuming 7 is on the upper level).

[graeme]

I agree it is unambiguous, but its quite far from ISSOM. Since you decided the walkway is the main running level, then the dots should show the edges of the "underpass", not the entry (i.e. they're at 90 degrees to the way they should be). If you map the overpass as a bridge then in ISSOM you are allowed to go under/through a bridge symbol. (not that I could tell the difference between bridge and uncrossable wall with my eyesight). Using a different colour to highlight places where there are two levels seems sensible to me: I did it in Edinburgh using grey, but it's not currently in the spec. (and I see they took the grey crossovers out this year, which is especially odd since the courses only ever went underneath).

[JK]

Another alternative if the courses are using a bridge/underpass in both directions and bridge wouldn't be clear and/or no room for dots is (again in collaboration with planner) is to map it both ways and have a 2-sided map so each map has a slightly different "race level".

BTW I had a quick look at the walkway mentioned for the Oxford race and while the use of solid lines makes it clear to me which is a legal direction to run in, I'd have been confused about what I was running on/under from looking at the map.

Graeme: do you have a link to the RG of the older Edinburgh map which had a different shade of grey for an underpass you could run over?

[andypat]

Have a look at Routegadget for London City Race and see what Angry Haggis did for the Barbican - that was very clear!

Technically, in ISSOM you can mark an overpass using the bridge symbol, or an underpass with the dots (and emphasized with the crossing point symbol). Neither really work well, as both require people to cross thick black lines.

There's a specific example in the Barbican which makes Graeme's point quite clearly and gives a lie to madmikes assertion that its very clear. If you look at the long sickle shaped tunnnel(underpass) at the north side of the Barbican which curves round the circular open plaza, it finishes at an uncrossable wall. Unless you know in advance that there is an opening under the uncrossable barrier which is actually a level above, its not possible to tell from the other end that it is a legal route. So - not very clear. But having said that, as others have mentioned, I'm not sure there's an answer that works in 2d for that.

[graeme]

Graeme: do you have a link to the RG of the older Edinburgh map which had a different shade of grey for an underpass you could run over?

http://www.euoc.routegadget.co.uk/euoc/ ... d=2&kieli=

The lower road is the "main running level", as no reasonable route runs along the NS road.

Here we used dark brown for "road that's busy but allowed to cross", grey for the section where you can go NS or EW, but not turn, dots to show that EW is below and "bridge" for the uncrossable barrier at the upper level. Claire, Cat and Hazel show the three plausible routes. Strict ISSOM would, I believe, omit grey, dots and darker brown, treating it as a bridge over the main running level.

I think what we did is clearer, even if I'm not claiming that this is the best way to do it.

[andypat]

Yup. Prefer this years interpretation for 2 reasons.
1. The previous version I think attempts to go too far to stop people making the up/down error by artificially accentuating the bridge as a canopy (even if it didnt necessarily work )

2. In doing so it potentially confuses the runner on the top level who expects some sort of canopy.

[alanbrett]

For the Westfield Stratford maps, the map was laid out in such away that the printed map showed all the different levels, with stairs/escalators noted as level up/down.

That worked ok.

I guess it would depend on whether a significant proportion of the map was multilevel to justify this approach?