British sprints and middle

[JEP]

If she had not been dsq would that have increased the World Ranking points for the Brits?

[mikey]

I think I saw some results that said "OOB". But don't know any more details, e.g. whether it was a flower bed or uncrossable wall, and whether she admitted and DQ-ed herself, or someone spotted her.

I wonder how many runners went (jumped) over the out of bounds flower beds above #37 in the heats (rather than navigating down the legal and slower route via the steps)?

Many from what I saw!

[Roger]

I wonder how many runners went (jumped) over the out of bounds flower beds above #37 in the heats (rather than navigating down the legal and slower route via the steps)?

There's also a quick legal route down, close to the wall to the west, although on my course it's slightly obscured by the purple line. Full marks to the person who re-passed me by spotting this while I stuttered down the steps.

[King Penguin]

I wonder how many runners went (jumped) over the out of bounds flower beds above #37 in the heats (rather than navigating down the legal and slower route via the steps)?

Many from what I saw!

Graeme dq'd himself for doing so.
I got lucky and went round the end, though looking at the map afterwards I think there was a good case for deliberately exaggerating the width of this oob on the map to make it more visible. The positioning just over the crest of the slope made it even harder to spot and far easier to accidentally cross.

[Reiver]

I made the same error but didn't realise until I got my map back, I didn't see the flowerbed on the map or ground.
I disqualified myself yesterday (but still appear on the results!).

It would certainly help if the width of these features was exagerated.

[Arnold]

We need a new map symbol for "jumpable OOB". Something you're not allowed to touch but it's OK to jump over it.

[RJ]

....with an official to judge whether you made the jump or not..... a red flag if your trailing heel touches the flowerbed edge. Might even need an official on the take off point as well just in case your toe crosses the line. If we are allowed to wave flags then I'm sure we will get loads of people to volunteer for the job. Might need a white line surrounding the feature. It could turn into a long + high jump exercise. What happens if you brush the top of the vegetation..... yep, might need a third official!!

[IanD]

We need a new map symbol for "jumpable OOB". Something you're not allowed to touch but it's OK to jump over it.

ISSOM is very clear that races should be decided on speed and navigation ability but not climbing or jumping ability. Hence the prohibition on climbing a not-to-be-crossed wall even if you can.

I think long jumping would come into the same category: everybody must go round the flower bed even though some could jump over it.

[IanD]

I think there was a good case for deliberately exaggerating the width of this oob on the map to make it more visible.

Absolutely! There ought to be a minimum mapped width for an out-of-bounds feature, it's poor cartography to make important things too thin to read at speed in the rain.

[Scott]

There ought to be a minimum mapped width for an out-of-bounds feature

This is a sensible point. ISSOM currently specifies a minimum area for individual blocks of colour, but there is no restriction on how narrow they can be.

[Wayward-O]

There ought to be a minimum mapped width for an out-of-bounds feature

This is a sensible point. ISSOM currently specifies a minimum area for individual blocks of colour, but there is no restriction on how narrow they can be.

It would be sensible for this to be 0.4mm, the same width as uncrossable walls, etc.

[LMT33]

I think there was a good case for deliberately exaggerating the width of this oob on the map to make it more visible.

Absolutely! There ought to be a minimum mapped width for an out-of-bounds feature, it's poor cartography to make important things too thin to read at speed in the rain.

Surely it is good cartography to have the feature mapped correctly?! There's no use blaming the mapper for the size of an object on the map.
May i suggest glasses for those who cant read the map properly?

[Paul Frost]

I have now sorted out the files and uploaded them to the EBOR RouteGadget

There was an extra field in the course file that was screwing up the control locations.

[awk]

Surely it is good cartography to have the feature mapped correctly?! There's no use blaming the mapper for the size of an object on the map.
?

If you mean, as you appear to suggest, that features should be mapped to exact size, then I would have to disagree with you - maps are not plans, and do not necessarily show features exactly to scale. Indeed, a lot of any map will show features larger than they actually are - virtually every symbol for starters, road/path widths etc etc.

Good cartography is as much about legibility as accuracy which is what the discussion is about. Personally, I didn't have a problem with the particular feature, spotted it when planning the leg, and ran round it, but as someone who regularly has issues over map legibility (but accept that it's usually about my eyesight rather than mapping standards), I have sympathy with anybody who finds a feature difficult to read. However, on this occasion, I think the legibility was possibly due more to the printing than the cartography?

[LostAgain]

I think I saw some results that said "OOB". But don't know any more details, e.g. whether it was a flower bed or uncrossable wall, and whether she admitted and DQ-ed herself, or someone spotted her.

I wonder how many runners went (jumped) over the out of bounds flower beds above #37 in the heats (rather than navigating down the legal and slower route via the steps)?

Many from what I saw!

When I went down the steps "alone", at least 6 people went straight through the OOB flower bed. If this ratio is true for the rest of the event then!!! I thought at the time that I must have miss inturpreted it.