Have a circle to quickly guide the eye and a dot for the precise location of the control relevant to features. While we're at it, put the control code on the map too and ditch the descriptions.
Pretty poor to miss something so fundamental to sprint as which side of the uncrossable feature the control is on.
Isn't it the Controllers job to stop sh*t like that happening? That #15 needed a pic in descriptions column G showing control location, in my opinion. Regardless of the seemingly unpassable/no-entry wall on the other side of it.
Looking forward to seeing you & Jo & loads more Aussies on the podium after the Long final (no pressure). It's been pretty neat seeing you all do so well over in NZ.
A dot would save all problems. And codes on map would be good too.
I think a dot in the middle of the circle would fix a lot of problems.
But I also think that an attitude change in general needs to happen as well. For a while course setters/ controllers have kind of had an attitude where they see their job is to trick people. Where as that needs to change to an attitude of the challenge is in the actual route choice and by the time you get to the control circle it is over. So it is ok for the circle to be off centre a bit or not exactly where the control is just to make it un ambiguous as to where/ which side a control is of a object like an impassable fence.
At the very least I'd have put the description as 'Wall, west side' rather than that BS description you've been given. As you say neither the circle nor the description is an indicator of where the control actually is. Having said that, upon second glance I note that you can't actually get into the dead end because it's blocked by a small building (I initially mistook it for a canopy, totally missing the fact you're already under a canopy) but at the smaller map size it might be easy to miss anyway.
I'd agree with sequence and CP number on the map (as is done for MTBO) and a centre dot, provided it is possible to do without obscuring detail elsewhere. For sprints I rarely check the description unless it is not clear from the map or if it's a forest sprint and I want to know the height of features.
I had that control too. It was a fence, but maybe there's no room on the map to show the tags. I suspect the setter saw the location and thought 'I must put a control there.' Controller (and IOF Advisor) are at fault for allowing it. Because the map shows a wall and it is actually a fence, people are bound to get confused. Also the description building/wall junction is not one that would normally get used I would think.
It was on a lot of other courses too, and RG shows quite a few people coming from the East - wish I'd picked that route.
I like your suggested addition to the descriptions, especially as it might encourage people to read them more often!
I don't think there's enough room on sprint maps with close controls and lots of turns and crossovers to show the code number for all the controls.
If you use a dot to show the location, purple would have to be set for overprinting. Even then some map detail might be obscured by the dot, particularly brown (contours) and green (small green dot). Also, it might be unfair for colour-blind people, depending on the shade of purple used.
Given how often the control description seems to say corner of paved area, or vegetation boundary, because it's too hard to easily identify to runners which side of a fence/wall the flag will be on, I'm surprised that control wasn't described as: western undercover area, northeastern inside corner....
With SI-Air it wouldn't have mattered?