Inspired by the crazy thread about mapping multi-level sprint venues...a few thoughts about sprint orienteering.
Sprint orienteering is fun when it makes sense and the mapper and course setter aren't trying to trick you. Putting controls in locations where you need to read the description or puzzle about the mapping = no fun.
Even remarkably simple courses will largely produce reasonable results. Even the sprint relay in Birmingham produced mistakes and separated teams.
Mapping standards don't work for multi-levels. If you are at the feature, you can usually make sense of what the map is showing. But, if you just look at the map itself, it is really hard to make sense of it. If standards worked well for multi-levels, then events like the Stockholm Indoor Cup would use them. They don't.
https://www.stockholmindoorcup.se/kartor/I think organizers feel like they need some extra complexity to make sprint orienteering interesting. So they seek our terrain with hard to map and understand complexity. I wish they wouldn't do that.
Americans like to gripe about how we don't have cool old-style European towns for sprint orienteering. That's completely true. But we have plenty of interesting sprint terrain. If you start out with the mindset focused on what you don't have, you don't see the possibilities in what you do have.
It is also worth pointing out that if you look at a lot of European sprint maps, they have plenty of areas that don't look especially interesting.
Most mappers do a pretty good job of getting lots of stuff on sprint maps. But lots of stuff doesn't make a good map. Mary showed me her map from LA and it looked way overdrawn. Her map was 1:3000 and it was dense with details.
Also, the sprint map in New Orleans looks cool.