Uncrossable boundaries

[EddieH]

The perennial problem of trying to decide whether one is allowed to cross a fence, or is required to visit a crossing point constantly emerges, so I thought I'd definitively read the rules.

In true style BOF rules actually give a get out to any method as they contain a clear ambiguity.

"Uncrossable boundaries (ones which it is forbidden to cross) can be indicated by
overprinting the mapped feature with a solid line."

I note that sadly the word "can" means that this simple unambiguous system is hardly ever used.

However BOF rules also say "course markings on the map are to be as laid down in the
'International Specification for Orienteering Maps 2000', section 4.7 (booklet available
from BOF Office or to download from the IOF website at http://www.orienteering.org
(go to “Publications : Rules and Guidelines”)."

These IOF rules state that features that MUST not be crossed MUST be marked according to their mapping rules, and having found them they state unequivocally that such boundaries that MUST not be crossed must be marked with a purple overprint.

So that says to me that it is a requirement.

Whatever, why don't we use it? It saves races being lost because a runner's not sure and decides to do the safest thing.

[mharky]

Because most planners don't know what the rules are...

Just like how most planners don't know what the course length guidelines are for M21L

[EddieH]

Yes but as I've pointed out the rules are pretty opaque. The easiest to read rule says "can" - the rule that says must requires going on a trail that says another set of rules applies, which in turn refer to a further set of rules. Therefore it is hard to blame anyone.

However I wish planners would use it consistently every time - with modern printing methods it really is simple to do and removes all ambiguity.

[mharky]

well the BOF rules are a heap of crap if you read them, pretty much every rule is should or shall not etc, never must or must not...

still, it's pretty obvious having a thick purple line on the forbidded fence/wall will make it obvious. any planner that doesn't use it is just being stupid. just because it isn't set out in concrete, doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.

[Wayward-O]

However I wish planners would use it consistently every time - with modern printing methods it really is simple to do and removes all ambiguity.

Althugh I agree that this would be the ideal situation, it can in itself lead to problems. ISOM assumes that maps are offset printed and that means that the overprinted uncrossable feature can be clearly seen and identified on the map. Most laser printed maps, though, do not simulate this and the uncrossable feature can be all but obscured. Last year at an event I met another competitor looking very puzzled who enquired where the wall that we were standing next to was on the map, not realising that it was under the uncrossable feature overprint!

A possible solution for laser printers would be to put the uncrossable feature overprint on a layer below the black layer (assuming the uncrossable feature is a wall or fence and not, say, a hedge (linear thicket)). Another (non-ISOM) solution could to modify the overprint to take the form of the uncrossable feature, (i.e. tags, etc).

[NeilC]

One could interpret the IOF rule though as saying that every feature that is not to be crossed should have the overprint. Even if the map is full of such features but none of them are anywhere near any of the courses.

The common sense approach would be just to overprint those features that the competitor is likely to encounter. A good controller should be able to apply common sense.

It would seem sensible now to change ISOM to provide the same sort of thou shalt not cross features found in ISSOM. With maps mostly printed on an event by event basis it wouldn't matter if the "crossability" of the features changed between events. The map could just be updated.

[awk]

well the BOF rules are a heap of crap if you read them, pretty much every rule is should or shall not etc, never must or must not...

Shall means the same as must for rules purposes: should is optional, shall is compulsory.

[EddieH]

Well Wayward-O if you had a problem with not seeing the wall on the map, you must be so unfamiliar with the symbol (because people won't use it) that it never occured to you that there must be a barrier under the line. Familiarity with the convention would mean that you expect a barrier of some sort and there would be no surprise.

[RJ]

.......A possible solution for laser printers would be to put the uncrossable feature overprint on a layer below the black layer (assuming the uncrossable feature is a wall or fence and not, say, a hedge (linear thicket)). Another (non-ISOM) solution could to modify the overprint to take the form of the uncrossable feature, (i.e. tags, etc).

Very seldom does a 'not to be crossed' feature change from one event to another. The simple solution is to have the boundary marked on the master copy of the OCAD file in an appropriate colour. Show the wall/fence/hedge as a purple heavy line, broken at the appropriate crossing points.

We show quite a few OOB areas on our maps as purple overprints, but as part of the OCAD master file. Our access arrangements often depend on these conditions.

Simple therefore..... show the feature as a purple/red line on the OCAD map. The map surveyor knows which are 'not to be crossed'..... put it onto the OCAD file.

[King Penguin]

Roads which cannot be run on are marked with red X.
I know it's a distortion of the rules, but if an overprint line would obscure the feature could not red X's be used instead ?

I had a different contradiction yesterday - the control descriptions said "use marked crossing point" (explicitly in words) but there was no relevant "marked crossing point" printed on the map. It didn't spoil my run and I used the mapped gate in the fence.

[Ed]

Roads which cannot be run on are marked with red X.
I know it's a distortion of the rules, but if an overprint line would obscure the feature could not red X's be used instead ?

No. That would imply that you shouldn't run on or along the fence/wall, not that you shouldn't cross it (quite apart from the Xs potentially being misinterpreted as crossing points by beginners).

It's pretty simple to set up the purple uncrossable boundary to be an underprint (beneath the black wall/fence) in OCAD. No excuses for not doing it.

From my experience, the use of the uncrossable boundary overprint is gradually becoming a little more common - when I used it for an event in 2003(?) then the impression I had was that hardly anyone had seen it before, much less knew what it meant.

[graeme]

I know it's a distortion of the rules, but if an overprint line would obscure the feature could not red X's be used instead ?

Harrumph.

I once got DQ'ed from (winning) the SHI relay for NOT crossing a fence where red X's were marked

Red lines can royally clutter up a map - I'd only bother in cases where the organising team stood to lose if people crossed an "uncrossible fence" (like Lake district walls). I dont know what the story was on Saturday, but in all case the XP seemed a better bet than the deer fences.

[EddieH]

Well Routegadget proves my point totally.

Here we had some instructions which were not a single sentence but in reality some fences (possibly only one) were allowed to be crossed anywhere. My mind was trying to remember what I had read, and I only realised that I didn't have to visit one crossing point as I was approaching it.

A number of competitors on RouteGadget admit to crossing fences at other points than were allowed if you revisit the instructions - I feel sure that none were deliberately cheating otherwise they would be unlikely to go on RouteGadget. More to the point the majority, like I did, climber unnecessarily to a voluntary crossing point.

Interestingly there was a leg on M21E which will have had the descriptions telling them to use the crossing point, yet the leg had 2 crossing points on it - 1 voluntary and 1 compulsory. RouteGadget PROVES beyond doubt that pre-info instructions are not adequate. Purple overprints would have been clear, unambiguous and totally fair.

In contrast in the relays there was information, (which if anyone had read this before running the individual would have caused even more confusion,) that the high fence coming off the moorland had numberous holes which should be easy to find. This was a piece of information designed to help anyone that wanted - anyone who didn't read it, or forgot was not an issue regarding legality. In fact one person clearly hadn't read it as they complained that it was a high fence to climb - I cannot believe that they would have needed to look more than a few yards either side for a gap.

[Electrocuted]

In contrast in the relays there was information, (which if anyone had read this before running the individual would have caused even more confusion,) that the high fence coming off the moorland had numberous holes which should be easy to find. This was a piece of information designed to help anyone that wanted - anyone who didn't read it, or forgot was not an issue regarding legality. In fact one person clearly hadn't read it as they complained that it was a high fence to climb - I cannot believe that they would have needed to look more than a few yards either side for a gap.

I struggled to climb this fence and now have a nice set of scratches and bruises to show for it. I looked around and couldn't see any obvious gaps. Where was the information about the high fence as I don't recall reading it?

[Wayward-O]

Well Wayward-O if you had a problem with not seeing the wall on the map, you must be so unfamiliar with the symbol (because people won't use it) that it never occured to you that there must be a barrier under the line. Familiarity with the convention would mean that you expect a barrier of some sort and there would be no surprise.

T'was not I that was having the problem identifying it as at the time I was navigating along it. It was the stationary orienteer that I encountered looking puzzled who had the problem.