Inadvertant cheating on ISSOM

[housewife]

Actually it was a section of the 1ft high meadows fence that I crocked myself on, which is quite rightly marked as crossable (just not by me - oh, the shame!)... Two crocked months down, hopefully not to many more to go.

[Gross]

it was a section of the 1ft high

In Portugal many moons ago saw one Slovian man take a tumble across a 1 foot high fence & landed head first of concreate hard grass.... 1 second pause & he was up and away again covered in blood & leaving a tooth behind

[Big Jon]

Gross - where on earth is a "Slovian man" from?

[Gross]

well.... wasn't certain if he was Slovakian or Slovinian.... or how to spell Davi,,,,, without checking

[mharky]

Graeme, that's precisely my point. You're mapping it as uncrossable because the majority of elderly punters in the sprint race "can't" get over it. ISSOM wasn't created for them. So across Britain impassable walls and fences are getting lower and lower and lower. And soon they will be 1ft high

People have a go when they see a newcomer crossing an "impassable" fence. But with their inexperience, it's very easy for them to see a crossable fence and get over it.

And there are two fences, the one one the western side of the play park, which had now been extended around it's whole perimeter at the same height. The second is around the former play park at the western end of the tennis courts. Basically same fence, same situation.

Perhaps the punter sport of urban orienteering should use these low standards and real sprint orienteering can stick to ISSOM for athletes.

[mharky]

Oh, and if we were to take this mapping attitude for ISOM maps then there would be very little white left in the UK, as the "average British orienteer" can't run through much to be honest. But to be honest, most British maps are visibility maps anyway.

[EddieH]

[quote]But to be honest, most British maps are visibility maps anyway.[/quote]

How right you are Mharky. There are several areas where I will aim for the light green anticipating no undergrowth and faster running than the white.

But that's another topic ....

[roadrunner]

It is also a matter of fair competition. We are setting a test of navigation at speed - not the ability to scale an obstacle course. If a legitimate route on the map encounters a significant barrier on the ground it is unfair is some competitors can climb it while others would have to retrace their steps.

I think you have to remember that urban events usually have courses for all age groups - and unless you're proposing a different map for each, then crossability of features has to take account of this. If you're planning an event solely for the elites, then it's fair to assume a greater level of athletic ability.

But you do get other situations - like a feature which is genuinely uncrossable but you can reach through it to punch a control on the other side (though I'd agree that this was bad planning), or a feature which may or may not be passable (e.g. a gate that might be locked or open at different times during the event), where fairness dictates that it has to be mapped uncrossable at all times.

[Simon E]

Recent posts in this thread have confirmed that even people who might be expected to understand what they are talking about with ISSOM keep falling into the same trap.

1) Features such as fences and walls in ISSOM come in two flavours: passable and impassable.

2) The distinction has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the feature or how it might appear in the terrain. It is simply stating whether you are legally allowed to cross this particular feature in this particular race.

3) Discussions about concepts such as "crossable" and how easily people could physically cross such a feature if they tried have no relevance for ISSOM.

Much of my presentation about sprint orienteering to the Major Events Conference last year looked at the impact this has on mappers, planners and controllers (it makes their life very difficult) and what they need to do about it.

[andypat]

Simon - the ISSOM description for passable and impassable fence both cite height as a factor. They also cite "forbidden access". I think this term is confusing as I wouldnt apply that to a small fence that say the council, says we cant jump over.Thats not what forbidden access means to me. I'd map that as a passable fence and either plan to avoid it or use a thick red line to highlight (I know there is also some debate about this symbol).

Arbitrary use of symbols which dont accurately represent what you see on the ground is just asking for competitors to make errors (as Graeme pointed out in the WOC sprint last year)

ISSOM descriptions for crossable and uncrossable fences for info

524 Impassable fence or railing Forbidden to cross
An impassable fence or railing, which shall not be crossed, due to forbidden access or because it may constitute a danger to the competitor because of its height.

522 Passable fence or railing
...if a fence or railing is higher than 2m or very difficult to cross, it shall be represented with the symbol impassable fence or railing (524).

[Big Jon]

Much of my presentation about sprint orienteering to the Major Events Conference last year looked at the impact this has on mappers, planners and controllers (it makes their life very difficult) and what they need to do about it.

The ISOM specification states high or normal fence, why cannot ISSOM not use the same system? An orienteer can tell if a fence is low or high just by looking at it, they cannot tell whether it is "politically" allowed to be crossed. The simplest move would be to change the ISSOM spec to match the ISOM spec and then let planner overprint OOB purple on fences that are not allowed to be crossed.

[graeme]

2) The distinction has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the feature or how it might appear in the terrain. It is simply stating whether you are legally allowed to cross this particular feature in this particular race.
3) Discussions about concepts such as "crossable" and how easily people could physically cross such a feature if they tried have no relevance for ISSOM.

You've missed the subtleties of the thread. We're talking about how to make the map, not how to interpret the map.

When you make a map and encounter a substantial fence you simply dont know whether it will be crossable in a particular race. ISSOM doesn't tell you how to proceed, but proceed you must, and you have three options.

You can leave the fence off altogether and expect the organisers to map it appropriately(they won't thank you for that).
You can guess that users will want to cross it: so when mharky first mapped the meadows for his elite pals, he mapped his beloved fence as crossable.
You can guess that users will not want to cross it: so when I remapped it for general usage, I mapped it as uncrossable.

Either of the latter two are fine in practice - it's only two clicks in OCAD to change it for whatever race you have in mind.

[Simon E]

When you make a map and encounter a substantial fence you simply dont know whether it will be crossable in a particular race. ISSOM doesn't tell you how to proceed, but proceed you must, and you have three options...

ISSOM tells you that the course planner and mapmaker need to consult to consider such issues (section 2.6). The good news is that this is exactly what both you and I are advocating.

But it is still irrelevant whether mharky or Geoff Boycott's grandmother could or could not get over it. The symbol used on the particular map for the particular race tells a competitor what they are allowed to do: not what they could try to do if they wanted.

[graeme]

I hadn't realised that ISSOM placed an permanent obligation on the mapper to liaise with future planners.
It's also worth noting that ISSOM regards orienteering as a running sport, not a climbing and jumping sport...
It is impossible to declare an exact height when an obstacle becomes impassable. Effective passability depends very much on the physical characteristics of the competitors such as body height and strength. If features represented as barriers on the map are declared as forbidden to cross, the conditions are the same for all.
Running and navigational skills should be the success factors for competitors in a race, rather than luck when it comes to climbing or jumping barriers

[mharky]

Simon, ISSOM does very specifically refer to the appearance of features in the terrain, their height, the difficulty in crossing them and the danger that doing so poses to the competitor. You may wish to re-read your presentation that you gave to the Major Events Conference, as it is rather obvious in that.

Everyone here knows there are two types of walls/fences, passable and impassable. And we all know what the feature means with regards to the legality in crossing them in an event.

As others have pointed out, that isn't what we are talking about. And I think from your last post you haven't gathered that. We know that the Meadows fence in 2011 means impassable and that is what competitors must obey. What we were discussing was why Graeme and myself have different opinions of what constitutes a (im)passable feature.

Seeing how the fence in question or the land either side of it are not forbidden by the landowner, then the mapping of the fence is purely down to the discretion of the mapper/planner, and as such it is precisely down to whether me or "Geoff Boycott's mother" can get over it.

It is not over 2m. It is not dangerous to cross. But for some people it is difficult, hence Graeme's decision to draw it as many competitors would "see" it.

The point I was making was that in situations where the passibility is simply down to mappers/planners discression (no restriction from land owners, not dangerous, less than 2m, but possibly difficult for some people), then the threshold for what is passable is getting lower due to people mapping for the increasingly aged and un-athletic British Orienteer.

Do you see what we are talking about?