Is multi-level navigation inherently unfair?

[DJM]

Areas so complex that it is doubtful whether a competitor can interpret the map at high speed should be avoided (e.g. when there are complex three-dimensional structures).

IOF Competition Rules Appendix 6 #1 and BOF Appendix B #10.1.6

So why do Sprint/Urban planners all too often deliberately place controls in multi-level parts of their terrain, especially when

Finding the controls should not be the challenge; rather the ability to choose and complete the best route to them.

IOF Competition Rules Appendix 6 #1 and BOF Appendix B #10.3.2

Let's please stop this practice, follow our Rules and Guidelines and increase the fairness of our Sprint/Urban course planning!

[NeilC]

I've always found the mapping of the Barbican perfectly logical for my course. Some bits have been mapped differently at different events but correct with respect to the most obvious running level.

Thus it can be done but requires some skill from the mapper and good co-ordination with the planner as to which of the levels will be used.

[graeme]

No, multi-level navigation is not inherently unfair. As NeilC says, some good mappers have come up with good workarounds, changing the map to fit the course. I'm not sure I understand the Barbican map - hopefully it will make some sense when I'm there!

But here, ISSOM is not fit for purpose. A symbol indicating the presence of two runnable levels is needed, and an appropriate control description for "on the lower level".

Let's fit the rules to the facts, not try to change the facts of the terrain to fit the rules.

[awk]

But here, ISSOM is not fit for purpose. A symbol indicating the presence of two runnable levels is needed, and an appropriate control description for "on the lower level".

Fine when you've got, say, two corridors exactly above/below each other. Less so, when you've got areas of different sizes and shapes above/below each other. I think I need to see some examples of how that would work.

[DJM]

The Turks solved this nicely at the Grand Bazaar race where, at least in the race I competed in, they had control circles and control numbers in green if the site was on the upper level. Worked very well.

[DJM]

deleted - wrong thread! How do you delete a posting - can't see a way of doing so ...?

[RS]

In Facebook speak, LIKE

Would make decision making a tad easier methinks.

[andypat]

I think it can be. A good example is at the Barbican where a curved tunnel at the N side appears to end in an uncrossable wall. There seems to be no clear way to show that the tunnel opens here.

IOF Competition Rules Appendix 6 #1 and BOF Appendix B #10.1.6

So why do Sprint/Urban planners all too often deliberately place controls in multi-level parts of their terrain, especially when

Finding the controls should not be the challenge; rather the ability to choose and complete the best route to them.

IOF Competition Rules Appendix 6 #1 and BOF Appendix B #10.3.2

Let's please stop this practice, follow our Rules and Guidelines and increase the fairness of our Sprint/Urban course planning![/quote]

But I'm sticking with my principle that "Urban" isnt just long sprint. I agree that in Sprint, its probably unfair to use complex control descriptions to confuse competitors where there is insufficient time between controls to work these out. But Urban has longer legs where there is plenty time to do so and I enjoy being "tricked" by urban planners, especially when I work it out before I get there!

[awk]

But Urban has longer legs where there is plenty time to do so and I enjoy being "tricked" by urban planners, especially when I work it out before I get there!

Hmmmm. For me, a good map is a clear map, one that enables one to navigate to a precise point, not one where an athlete is being tricked. Of the four multi-level problems I've seen in the past 8-10 days, to my mind only one was sufficiently clear at running speed to work out what was happening - and I was in a minority on that one! The other three were really not on.

[Arnold]

I agree we should keep the multi level bits for Urban - they're fun!

But I also think we need a new ISSOM symbol for "crossable from underneath but not from above", ie where a tunnel goes between two thick black lines, the thick black lines should be modified somehow (make them zigzags? overprint in a colour?) Otherwise it's often really hard to see where tunnels come out because the little black tunnel dots are hard to spot, especially if the tunnel is short.

David, I presume you were talking about the Bath map amongst others - it was otherwise excellent but in that one multi level area it was just not well mapped. The canopy bit (control 15 on Mens Open) needed a thick black line on the east side (that was just a mistake) and personally I would have removed the tunnels as they confused things. With those two changes, it would have been perfectly fair.

[iainwp]

At the Manchester race crossable underneath was marked on the map using the purple crossing symbol, nicely detailed in the notes:

http://www.mdoc.org.uk/twinpeak2014/TP2014-Final.pdf

However, I'm not sure the best way to map contours when a bridge is involved. I missed the Western bridge at the White Rose Classic race in Scarborough, mostly because I'm not really that good at this sport, but partly because the contours appeared to show the bridge at ground level.

[awk]

David, I presume you were talking about the Bath map amongst others - it was otherwise excellent but in that one multi level area it was just not well mapped. The canopy bit (control 15 on Mens Open) needed a thick black line on the east side (that was just a mistake) and personally I would have removed the tunnels as they confused things. With those two changes, it would have been perfectly fair.

I went back to look at this area, as I had one just to the south, and OH had the very same as Arnold (plus mine). I would agree with Arnold that the mapping was not great in this area, but disagree with him on the solution.

On her course, the control was approached from the alleyway to the north east. She came in that alley, carried on passing the out of bounds to the south, turned left and saw the control above her head on an upper walkway. She retraced her steps a few metres, then went south up the stairs, turned west and approached the control on the correct level from the east.

There were two errors in the map as far as I could see, plus an additional mistake by the planner.

The first map error was that the E-W line along the edge of the canopy just to the north of the control should have been marked uncrossable (there was no access from the ground level to the north unless one could jump fifteen feet or so in the air).

The second error was the mapping of the canopy. I think the planner (who gave the control the description "canopy, on top") mistakenly interpreted the canopy as covering the lower level, but the mapped canopy is, in fact, the one covering the upper level corridor which runs west from the staircase described above, then south then west again. Unfortunately, there was a canopy only above the east-west legs of the corridor: there was no canopy above the north-south stretch, and this section should have been filled in pale brown, with the tunnel still underneath.

Indeed, there was a possible third mapping error, in that the upper level was actually a balcony, not a full width corridor, so strictly speaking should not have been mapped as such - but then the map really would have been definitely impossible to read.

This may seem a bit complicated (!), but I hope becomes a bit clearer when you look at the attached photo (taken from panoramio), showing the upper level with the control site represented by the potted tree. You can clearly see the upper level here (the north-south section) is a balcony, that the glass wall behind the potted tree is uncrossable, and that the canopy stops at the end of the west-east section of the upper level corridor, leaving the balcony open.

I can't see how adding a thick black line to the east of the control would have helped - don't you mean north? I'm uncertain whether removing the tunnels would have been clearer - strikes me that it would have been even more confusing, particularly when one also considers the southern part of the development.

[andypat]

But Urban has longer legs where there is plenty time to do so and I enjoy being "tricked" by urban planners, especially when I work it out before I get there!

Hmmmm. For me, a good map is a clear map, one that enables one to navigate to a precise point, not one where an athlete is being tricked. Of the four multi-level problems I've seen in the past 8-10 days, to my mind only one was sufficiently clear at running speed to work out what was happening - and I was in a minority on that one! The other three were really not on.

Yeah probably didnt explain that as well as I could. By "tricked" I mean (and I still dont know how to post images damn!) a leg where the obvious route, if you dont read the control description will bring you out at the wrong level, ideally where you can see the control dangling 20ft above. But the key here is that if you bother to read the control description it should be 100% clear where the control actually is. But I wouldnt necessarily do this if planning a sprint, mainly urban.

[Arnold]

I can't see how adding a thick black line to the east of the control would have helped - don't you mean north?

Indeed I did mean north - was doing it from memory...

Just to be clear the Bath map was great overall and I'm sure took forever to do - the good thing with urban maps is you can improve them each time until you get close to perfection! Slightly surprised neither planner nor controller picked it up, but having planned an urban race myself there's a LOT of stuff to think about so that one must have just slipped through.

[graeme]

Race_the_Castles_logo.jpg (14.15 KiB) Viewed 6892 times

(and I still dont know how to post images damn!)

Click "Upload Attachment" tab below the input screen.

Use button marked Browse beside " If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below. Filename:" to get the picture uploaded.

Then "place inline"