ISSOM double decker problem

[DJM]

I've been asked to post the following problem ... how do you map what's shown in the picture in ISSOM?

[Gnitworp]

Exaggerate the width of the overhang just sufficiently to be able to show 'underpass' dots on the left hand edge of the lower path

[graeme]

I don't much like the idea of a single line of dots - there's no way to tell which side of them you can get through. From the runners point of view, the critical information is that there are three possible paths you can run on parallel to the sea.

So I'd tend to do it the other way from Jim, exaggerate the width of the stairs, move the lower fence towards the sea and pull the overhanging bit back, so the map shows three paths, from the left. water - low fence -path - low fence - path - high wall - path - [pavement edge] - road

Moving back the sea wall makes it easy to give yourself a bit more room to fit everything in. Exact positions are not essential because nobody is going to be using accurate bearings to navigate through here

[andypat]

I more or less agree with Graeme - dont be afraid to be creative with edges so long as the key issues are shown.
Whatever you do it must be very clear from the map that you can take the middle road.

[Roger]

Should Graeme's middle path be mapped as 'building pass-through'? It's hard to see how far the canopy continues, but excluding it could be confusing for someone running on the lower level with something above their head.

Someone on the top level won't care whether or not there's a running level below; for them, normal path bounded by an uncrossable wall is fine. They don't need to know that in fact they're running on top of a canopy.

Distorting the positions allows both running levels to be shown, without resorting to the ghastly underpass dots.