in: Shep; Shep > 2008-03-29;
| # Posted 2008-04-01 03:22:15 | |
| Craney: | Ooh I haven't heard any complaints yet... What's the beef? Would be interested to have a look at the final map and the courses. I dunno if my attempt to just map the top level of stuff and indicate underpasses by dots really worked, but I kind of hoped the courses would avoid any ambiguous sections. It wasn't ideal not drawing the map myself, but I thought Bob did a good job of decyphering my notes (once I'd rubbed all of the willies off). |
| # Posted 2008-04-01 05:03:34 | |
| Miss Jones: | It was a fantastic map and a great area for a sprint. you and bob did a top job! |
| # Posted 2008-04-01 05:07:58 | |
| Bruce: | Good map Craney. Thanks.
I understand that a few people didn't see the underpasses on the map. The one with only 2 dots was especially hard to see at running speed. But that wasn't the mappers fault. The course setter should have taken note of this ISSOM 518.1: "If underpasses or tunnels etc. are to be used in a competition, they shall be emphasized with the crossing point symbol (708) or (708.1)!" This would have solved any issues. |
| # Posted 2008-04-01 12:12:37 | |
| Shep: |  |
| # Posted 2008-04-01 16:19:46 | |
| blairtrewin: | The biggest problem was the elevated walkway between 17 and 18 - many people saw the heavy black line and thought it was uncrossable. Probably would have been better with a lower grade of black - in the context of this race would also have benefited from being mapped as grey, but that wouldn't work on courses where running along it is an option.
Some of the yellow was olive on the ground and vice versa - not sure if that was a problem with the map or a change in the terrain since mapping. It was disconcerting but didn't really have any effect on route choice (at least on mine). |
| # Posted 2008-04-01 17:41:28 | |
| Craney: | I don't reckon grey for that walkway cos you want some way of indicating you can go under and over (although for this particular course it turns out you wouldn't need to go over, but at the time of mapping it was just for 'an event sometime in the future'). They probably should have used the crossing point symbol (and on 18-19, and 11-12).
Some of that olive green (around 16 and on the way to 17) is a mistake between surveying and drawing, which I didn't spot in my check of the map. Surprising the planner didn't spot it...! Looks like a good course using some of the best bits of the area. There is a lot more to it though, hopefully there'll be some more races there soon. |
| # Posted 2008-04-01 18:31:17 | |
| Nails: | Best of all nobody spotted craneys contours! The course is pretty complicated though...
The map seems to make sense to me and it's definitely just due to a lack of overprint. With the passable passage symbol it would have been clear. There is the possibility of removing features if they are not used. At the british sprints last year the qualifier ran beneath a bridge and the final over it so we had different maps. For both it still needed purple overprint to highlight the passable passages: 
|
| # Posted 2008-04-02 05:00:13 | |
| candyman: | mm, only one major error that I can spot on the map, or perhaps there has been some new building on the campus which means you can no longer walk up the stairs and ramp west from control 13 and walk straight through what is marked as an impassable building but was in my day just covered walkways from the building to the south to the building to the north. I think it really goes to show that spending a little extra time to interpret the map properly pays off in a sprint race, make a hasty judgement about what is passable or not and you deservedly pay for the mistake. On 17-18 a quick glance towards the next control would have quickly cleared up what the map was interpreting you can clearly see the overpass and the unobstructed route below it when you are standing at the control site at 17. After all part of orienteering is also looking around you not just staring at the map in isolation. |
| # Posted 2008-04-02 06:04:16 | |
| Uncle JiM: | Fair point Candyman, thats what I did, but it wasn't that easy for the Girls, they had to run from our 12 to 18, the walkway could not be sighted from 12 |
| # Posted 2008-04-02 15:04:16 | |
| Craney: | That's a new building up there Gareth, I'd stopped updating the old map by that point and was drawing mine from scratch! |
| # Posted 2008-04-02 19:34:53 | |
| robplow: | Depends which bit of "THIS" you read Shep. It says: "Barriers, such as high walls, high fences and high rock faces, affect route choices and shall be represented unambiguously. Therefore, these features shall be represented with a prominent thick black line." which means it is very easy to understand why some people interpreted the bridge as an impassable wall. If you look closely at 'this" the sides of bridge should be bit thinner than an impassable wall (0.25mm vs 0.40) I cant tell if this is the case on the map - the resolution is not high enough - but even so I reckon most runners would still interpret a 0.25 line as quite thick and therefore impassable.
Anyway it seems to me the people who are saying it was obvious if you just looked up, are the ones who live (or lived) in Canberra and might have known about the bridge. And Candyman, what about the skilled orienteer who plans ahead? They might already have a route planned for 17-18 which avoids what looks like an impassable wall and never need to look up and see the bridge. I am not saying Craney mapped the bridge badly - not at all. As he says he was just making a general map . As "this" points out it is generally impossible to show two levels and Craneys solution is as good as any."this' also points out the need for collaboration between mapper and course setter and I think the British example shown above is excellent - here the course planner has got the mapper to modify the map depending on how it looks from where the runner is on each course. For the actual course at Canberra uni it probably would have made more sense to show the bridge as a canopy, since that is how it appears to the runner running 17-18 and that representation would not cause any confusion about passability. And since no legs required you to run over the bridge it would not have been a problem. If you want to set a course that requires running both over and under the bridge then you have a bit more of a problem. I don't know what info was given before the race but some note about the existence of a bridge that is passable underneath might have helped - and even a map excerpt (this could be a fictitious example) to show the runners how such a bridge has been shown on the map. you shouldn't have to work out such an ambiguous representation in the heat of a race with no warning. |
| # Posted 2008-04-02 22:10:16 | |
| Nails: | I assume this is the offending article...
Sorry rob I don't agree. The bridge symbol (512.1 - A bridge is a structure spanning and permitting passage over a river, chasm, road or the like.) does not suggest that you can run beneath it. Never seen it before -never will because its wrong. I still think hes drawn it correctly with the impassable wall symbol (521.1). You certainly can't draw it with a narrower line as then you would be able to go from the upper level to the lower -which you can't. Its thick impassable wall (521.1) or the alternative is remove the upper level and show as an underpass. Still should have lots of 708.1 crossing section symbol though. |
| # Posted 2008-04-03 05:21:21 | |
| Shep: | yeh real tough one... every clown is making some pretty valid points! i think we can all agree some purple on the map could have been a good thing.
i'm not sure about your conclusion that the people who thought it was obvious were the ones who live or have lived in canberra rob. i live in canberra but since i went to uni (and not TAFE) had no idea about that bridge, and had planned a route to the right, but changed once i realised it was a bridge... still got bloody confused after the next control for the same thing! running underneath stuff i thought i'd be on top of! also rob, the reason why i told people to read "this" was because i heard a lot of grumbling when people just didnt know the sprint standard. you can't complain about a map if you dont know the symbols used on it... but again, good effort craney! so are you coming out to do some work for us nails? |
| # Posted 2008-04-03 09:46:12 | |
| Bomb: | while the mens course may have been better off without the overpass shown on the map, using the overpass was actually the optmimum route on one of the legs on the womens course. we had a leg going from the control 17 above to one about 50m ne of control 7 on the map above (between the buildings). the fastest way was up onto the overpass south of 18. I figured out what the map mean when I was on the bottom level trying to work out why there wasn't a passage way between the buildings, and ended up going round the building to the south rather than wasting time working out the rest of what was going on.
I think that the way the map is drawn is correct, but it was a bit confusing trying to figure it out at full speed. And while it is the sprint mapping standard, most of the things on the map we encounter in most sprint races, where as that was a bit unusual. Maybe some explanation of the mapping in the event instructions would have cleared things up for everyone. |
| # Posted 2008-04-03 10:39:55 | |
| glenn: | maybe if there are multiple levels to an area all competitors should get a little foam model of the area to run around with, to supplement the map.
Now that would be cool. |
| # Posted 2008-04-03 11:28:54 | |
| robplow: | Ok Shep I will retract the Canberra accusation. I guess my real point is - an individual's response to the mapping of the bridge may vary depending on many factors: previous knowledge of the area, what sort of mapping they are used to seeing, whether they preplanned the leg etc etc.
And I am certainly not criticising you for getting people to read 'this".Good on ya. All I am saying is "this' doesn't necessarily provide definitive answers and is open to various interpretations. Neil, It doesn't say you can't go under bridges, That's the whole point of a bridge - some things go over, some under. You should join the IOF mapping committee - your "I'm right - you're wrong" attitude would fit right in. |
| # Posted 2008-04-04 14:52:25 | |
| Shep: | haha comments like that certainly arent going to end a discussion robplow!
for sure, the mapping standard is always open to interpretation... |
| # Posted 2008-04-04 15:59:42 | |
| Nails: | Sorry the right/wrong thing was tongue in cheek there Rob. I still stand firm that you can't use the bridge symbol if you can't move from one level to the other -it has to be a thick impassable wall. In all my mapping/racing experience i've never used or seen it in that context.
Of course I agree that if you haven't run on a ISSOM map before its difficult to understand and interpret underpasses through impassable walls (especially this area). However I maintain that this map has been drawn correctly -its certainly an acceptable interpretation and would have been fine for this race if the 'passable passage' symbol had been used. As far as the IOF mapping committee is concerned, the thought of a load of men sitting around and geeking about symbol widths ain't my idea of fun.... hmm what was I just saying? At lesat the IOF committee might actually know what they are talking about -the British committee is full of retired old chaps who have never run a sprint race, can't navigate for toffee and have no idea what they are talking about. Sorry Shep but no Australian travel for me this year -who knows next year? |
| # Posted 2008-04-04 17:02:19 | |
| Shep: | yeh next summer man, got plenty of ideas for sprint and middle distance type areas... we've got a couple of active mappers in canberra but not enough! come out and run the 5 days and the races on the south island of NZ in january, then spend some time out in the forest with the snakes in canberra ;) |
| # Posted 2008-04-04 18:35:14 | |
| Nails: | hmm not sure I like snakes... |
| # Posted 2008-04-04 18:53:51 | |
| Shep: | craney i just read the bit about willies again. cracks me up!
for anyone that dont know, craney thought i was gonna ocad his fieldwork so he drew little dicks all over the map. then he found out bob allison was doing the drawing... hahaha. |
You must be logged in to add a message