Discussion: Oh say, the collective mind...

... what's the latest fashion:

(1) Between ISSOM Canopy and ISSOM Building, do I put an (a) 0.7 mm line or a (b) 1.4 mm line?

(2) Between ISSOM passable (white, pavement) and ISSOM Canopy, do I put (a) nothing or (b) a 0.7 mm line?

I'm fairly sure the answer is (b) for both, but wanted to check.

B for both

Last question:

The main running level is the lower level, the upper-level walkway is shown with a Bridge symbol. Should the bridge be filled with Canopy (something overhangs the main level) or not?

(There is a purple Crossing symbol across the bridge to show it's not a wall across the main level.)

For the first question: B for both.

What are he chances of the upper level being used?

If there's any chance of it being used I would suggest mapping it with pavement symbol rather than canopy.

The upper level is a possible route choice. Two levels only exist at the bridge itself, this isn't one of the extensive multilevel situations that are not particularly compatible with fairness. In other words, the lower level is a trench but it's not particularly appropriate to show the underpass with the tunnel symbol, it'd be more confusing and the passage is too narrow to fit in the tunnel dots.

My sole question is whether to fill the bridge with the Canopy symbol or leave it filled with Pavement.

Hmm...I guess if it's a possible route, then I agree with Canadian: pavement.

The main concern is how to make it clear that it's an overpass/bridge and not a wall, as this has proven to be a confusing situation for runners. I would say by reminding runners that such situations exist and maybe drawing the bridge in such a way that the flanges at the ends are clearly visible/legible.

There is a purple 708 Crossing Point symbol crossing the bridge. Hopefully it'll print as transparent. It's hard to show the flanges, they merge into impassable walls on both ends since the main level is a trench.

The reality is with such situations on ISSOM maps whatever you do will be confusing to some people. Whichever way you decide to go - why not take a photo of the bridge and write a brief text explaining that it is possible to run both over and under this bridge. Put the photo, the text and a small map excerpt of the bridge in the event info (display at the assembly area and at the start) so people know what to expect beforehand. The idea is not to trick anyone it is for everyone to understand the map and make informed route choices.

A photo and map excerpt will be far more instructive than just a written explanation. If you are worried about revealing too much about the terrain (not usually a problem in my opinion) then take a photo of a similar bridge (not in the actual terrain) and a include a 'made up' map excerpt.

I recommend doing this sort thing for other stuff as well. I sometimes make a document with photos of unusual mapped objects and their corresponding symbols (eg playground equipment = black cross, large sign = black circle) and photos of unmapped objects (eg rubbish bin, small sign, park bench, etc)

Agree with robplow. Curious as to why the bridge is a route choice, yet not on the main running level. Is it because the trench is difficult to cross? If so, then why is the trench to be shown as the main running level?

Answers to original questions: 1. (b) The building is the more important feature because it is forbidden to pass through, therefore it's boundary symbol takes precedence.
2. (b) Canopy is made up of two symbols - the boundary and the fill colour, so it has to have a boundary. A boundary is also required for the edge of a paved area; it is also 0.07mm so in this case serves as the boundary for both.

With apologies for pronoun obsession ...
do I put ...
Can't speak for you.
According to ISSOM it's both (b). And you can't run over the top of a canopy - so don't fill the bridge.

*I* however prefer

2(a) when the important thing about the canopy is that its a gap between buildings used for route choice.

and canopies you can run over are much clearer than dots, especially on narrow bridges.

A related thing here..

http://graemeackland.wordpress.com/sprint-race-org...
(see p17 19)

The upper part of the two-level bridge is not a plausible route in this race - I prefer the "uncrossible wall across the road + canopy", both for clarity and because it "maps the running level" as ISSOM requires. Everyone else in the prganising teams voted me down. :(

Also, noting this is from the BOF organising conference - try the quiz on p10

apologies that most of the PPT slides dont make sense without the speaker

Thanks for the presentation, Graeme, it was quite entertaining!

Simmo, yes, the trench is uncrossable other than on the bridge. Say the trench is west to east, and large areas of both west and east are clearly the main (and only) running level. North and south of the trench is higher ground, which is also the only running level, and the bridge goes south to north. The higher ground eventually connects to the main level elsewhere without discontinuities because of slope variations.

Technically, this indeed probably means that the part of the trench under the bridge should not be considered the main running level, and the bridge itself should be. If so, it's clear there should be no canopy shown. There is not enough room to fit in the tunnel dots because the bridge is less than 1 m wide.

So what is the remaining difference between Trail O and SprintO ?

In SprintO there is only one correct control flag.

I have some small confidence that I could set a sprint o course no one would complain about and in which the fastest orienteer would win. I have zero confidence I could set a trail o course where protests would determine anything other than the null set as correct for every location.

Average age and physical ability of participants.

In Trail O, the slower pace of the competitors means they have more time to think about why the map and the course are defective.

In Trail O, no-one can hear you scream. Well not the deaf participants anyway.

T/D: why not rotate the purple crossing symbol 90 degrees to show that it is possible to cross under the bridge?

Even though the bridge is less than 1m, you would surely have had to draw it larger. The bridge symbol is 0.25, so just the two bridge lines take up 2m (at 1:4000) and you would have to leave at least another 0.25 (preferably 0.3 - 0.4) space, or else it would barely be visible.

The bridge at control 19 on this course (Long) is 1.2m wide, but I've mapped it as 2.4m wide (gap of 0.6mm). Enough room to put two tunnel dots - but in retrospect I would have used just one dot. The control description was 'North side of Tunnel'. (There was a map change at No. 8).

Actually one way you could solve your dilemma is to put a control there, with an accurate description of the placement, ie either 'Bridge' if on top or 'Tunnel' if in the trench.

Simmo also used to map seats with a non-ISOM symbol so it's hard to take anything he says seriously.

Not me tRicky - I've been campaigning for years to purge all our maps of those. By the way, you gave me an undeserved credit on last week's map. I did update the park immediately S. of Kent St, but most of the stuff I added was further East. The probable culprits for the original are no longer in Perth.

Yes indeed the crossing symbol is perpendicular to the bridge. Taking the direction of travel as the direction of each of the two symbols.

Simmo, all I know is the base map of Canning River RP had your name on it (dated 2007), hence the credit since that was the NE part of the weekend's map, and that it had seat symbols all over it :-)

OK I'll bite. Yes, I mapped the original Canning River map with Cath (called Bannister Creek for the 2002 event). Yes we used the seat symbol, and other symbols from the "OAWA Parkland Mapping Manual" co-written by Noel, Penny, Tim G-T and Chip - none of whom have vacated Perth recently as far as I know.

That publication included a Black and White Symbol Set for OCAD which included the seat, sign and other suitable symbols for features on Park maps. And its still avilable on Orienteering Australia's website at http://www.orienteering.asn.au/technical/mapping/p...

Orienteering Australia and OAWA recognised the need for an appropriate mapping style, different to ISOM, for urban-park areas. This pre-dated ISSOM, but since ISSOM is restricted to 1:5000 or 4000 it too is inappropriate for most park/street events.

Thanks for the background, O. I'd never seen this publication before. Perhaps I should put all the seats back on unless Simmo objects (Noel and Juffy would be pleased to receive "Ferndale final map version 4" from me).

It was nice on those maps in the 90s to run into a small suburban park and know in advance that there were signs (triangles), play equipment (box with x), benches ( H ) and so forth. More descriptive than the 'correct' MMO symbol for 1 or 2 of the dozen things in the park. They did become too cluttered I must admit when less experienced mappers tried to map too much. Nowadays it's just as nice to run into a small park and know that signs and benches are pointless clutter that simply aren't mapped.