Nottingham City Race

[johnhrobinson]

Gnitworth said

On the C Course, I went west of the castle hilltop mansion in both directions mainly because I was uncertain at the time about passage under the small bridge over a footpath by the statue in the olive green.

I also went West but hadn/t seen the alternative below the Bridge, took me a while to find it even sitting at the table.The light green edge just seemed to blend in to the black fence line to me... So well spotted even if you didn't use it.

Also went down the tunnel, didn't see the steps, nor apparently was I aware of the red crosses ( link to thread about overprinting colours??) and emerged off the map but apparently convinced I was still on it . An interesting exercise in tunnel vision. Odd that I wasn't aware that i was by the tennis courts but I seem to have thought that an apparently private club would be mapped as green???

i self DQ,d but certainly didn't gain by it as splits showed at least -5 mins

Excellent course but with additions a bit on the long side for me at approx 9K

[IanD]

I was uncertain at the time about passage under the small bridge over a footpath by the statue in the olive green. Dots are helpful here and are used elsewhere where the bridge over is wider (e.g., on the river south bank), but this is a problem with footbridges that are narrow and there's only room for one dot. Maybe the bridge symbol, with its thinner-than-uncrossable-barrier line width, should be sufficient evidence of passage under?

I've previously wondered why we needed the bridge symbol at all, but this is perhaps an example of it making the map clearer? Certainly I think it would be correct to assume that where a bridge has in-bounds routes approaching it's underside from both sides, it must be possible to pass underneath.

[johnhrobinson]

I often wonder If those of us who are terminally short sighted would be better of on complex urban maps with no glasses at all. Not sure how safe I would be though running with the map an inch from my nose.

[andypat]

I've previously wondered why we needed the bridge symbol at all, but this is perhaps an example of it making the map clearer? Certainly I think it would be correct to assume that where a bridge has in-bounds routes approaching it's underside from both sides, it must be possible to pass underneath.

This is what we eventually decided for Erskine Urban race after some trawling for ideas on here. Erskine had several very long very thin pedestrian bridges - dots wasnt an option as each set of dots (actually a single dot) would have been several cm apart on the map and indecipherable. Bridge symbol means a bridge and assumes a continuous passage underneath unless otherwise obviously not.

[IanD]

And following on from this, I had been wondering whether to use the 'bridge' symbol for a footpath crossing a stream (with no passage underneath for a person, only water).

I now think that I should absolutely not use the bridge symbol here, reserving for occasions where people can go both above (along the bridge) and below (under it).

Anyone disagree?

[Gnitworp]

Do we need to use the bridge symbol where passage under a wider (road) bridge is possible and can be clearly shown with dots, and what thickness of line should be used for the bridge parapets? Why use a thinner line for an uncrossable barrier?

I think I agree with Ian, with the further restriction that the bridge symbol should be reserved exclusively for situations where passage under is possible, but there is insufficient width for dots.

[andypat]

Do we need to use the bridge symbol where passage under a wider (road) bridge is possible and can be clearly shown with dots, and what thickness of line should be used for the bridge parapets? Why use a thinner line for an uncrossable barrier?

I think I agree with Ian, with the further restriction that the bridge symbol should be reserved exclusively for situations where passage under is possible, but there is insufficient width for dots.

I think our previous investigations suggested that the bridge symbol is not in fact designated uncrossable. If you think about it that would be confusing as then you shoudlnt be able to go under it. I think its a case of common sense prevailing - ie if you use a bridge symbol you have reason to expect people dont try to jump off it. Bear in mind that bridges over water can also be passable underneath provided the water is crossable. In that case I think use of dots is reasonable since without prior knowledge the runner would otherwise have no indication whether if was safe to pass under.