maptalk.co.nz Forum   |   Links    

  Forum

Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2  

Clarity of our Rules

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 4 August 2016, 6:25 AM  
Do I need to keep out of a "dangerous area" (purple cross-hatch)?

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 4 August 2016, 7:30 AM  
I believe you are able to go into a dangerous area but as a competitor are you are being warned by the organisers that there is a high degree of risk.

Chances are you will not be able to read the detail on the map as it will be obliterated by the purple hatching. A dangerous area may be a collection of bee hives, or multiple tomos/sink holes.

Courses should be planned to avoid those areas.

If there is extreme risk to life and limb (e.g. a hot thermal pool, or hot unstable ground) then these could be marked as "out of bounds" and courses planned to avoid going through them as a route choice. I suspect a purple vertical stripe would show up better than the black "permanently out of bounds" symbol.

Not everything can be covered with the "dangerous area" symbol - like the tops of cliffs - better to show they exist and let the competitor and planner use the map appropriately.

Having written the above, I could very well argue the case that you shouldn't go into a "dangerous area".

I would be interested to hear what others think.

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 4 August 2016, 7:39 AM  
I would have said you are not allowed based on the IOF rules:

COMPETITION RULES FOR INTERNATIONAL ORIENTEERING FEDERATION (IOF) FOOT ORIENTEERING EVENTS

17.2 Out-of-bounds or dangerous areas, forbidden routes, line features that shall not be crossed, etc. shall be marked on the map. If necessary, they shall also be marked on the ground. Competitors shall not enter, follow or cross such areas, routes or features.


Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 4 August 2016, 7:55 AM  
Thanks Fraser. I have dusted off my copy of the IOF Rules and you are correct. Therefore, end of subject.

Sometimes the dangerous areas may be small, but significant on the ground, and can't be adequately shown on the map as the cross hatching symbol is too big. A work around is to tape off the feature. Such a feature may be a tomo in a Night O event.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 7 August 2016, 1:56 PM  
Oh yes. There's similar wording in the ONZ rules which would apply to us most of the time. What about those features that shall not be crossed? I did a search on "fence" for example, and couldn't find any guidance on when and where I can cross. But it could be staring me in the face:-)

Show Profile  Taupoite Posted: 8 August 2016, 12:26 AM  
Though it isn't explicit in the rules, my understanding is that if maps show an uncrossable fence or wall, and it is crossed at a point that is not marked either by a gap or as a crossing point (implied in Rule 17.3), then Rule 17.2 holds

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 9 August 2016, 5:30 AM  
Thanks Taupoite, my understanding is that in standard orienteering the "high fence" is not crossable to the average orienteer, but is Chris Forne allowed to go where I'm not? I'm looking for simple statements that I can point a newcomer to.

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 9 August 2016, 3:35 PM  
At the moment it is within the rules to cross a "high fence" if you are able, but in future ISOM 201x changes the symbol to Impassable fence and no one is allowed to cross it. So it will be inline with the Sprint Specification.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 10 August 2016, 5:23 AM  
So differing views on the high fence. And Fraser hints at a difference between standard and sprint. (Let's deal with things as they are, a number of countries have submitted against that change in the ISOM.) What's the story with olive green? (At the moment.)

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 10 August 2016, 10:20 AM  
I mentioned the proposed change to emphasise there is currently a difference between 'traditional' and sprint specification in what can be crossed.

Taupoite calls the symbol "uncrossable fence or wall" but in ISOM 2000 there is only 524 High fence and 521 High stone wall, both of which are allowed to be crossed.

I do wonder if pre-2000 the 524 symbol was called Uncrossable fence. That's what I remember it being called and here is an old map showing as much http://maps.orienteering.co.nz/show_map.php?user=Fraser&map=55

Nick Hann had a spreadsheet at a camp a few years back of all the symbols showing which are not allowed to be crossed. Can't find a copy but would be useful right about now if anyone has it.

Show Profile  Taupoite Posted: 10 August 2016, 1:50 PM  
Fraser is right. I was confusing the descriptions for high/ uncrossable fences between Sprint and Standard maps. In the Sprint, the fences are specifically listed as DSQ for crossing.
Having different names and rules for the same symbol is confusing, especially as the boundary between the two types of events seems to be getting very fuzzy. I note that in ISOM, the wording for Uncrossable Pipelines, just says it cannot be crossed without defining whether it is allowable to attempt to cross, while in ISSOM it is specifically DSQ.
Is this ambiguity something that needs a definitive ruling by the Technical Committee, at least until the new ISOM comes out?

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 11 August 2016, 10:42 AM  
High Fence and Uncrossable Fence could be two different things and a little ambiguous. We generally accept an uncrossable fence as a Deer fence... which is a high fence. Sometimes theses are easily crossed by the agile. Other fences can at times be much more difficult to cross, particularly if they have an out-rigger electric wire etc.

I see a need for three different Fence symbols to cater for above.
Normal Crossable - One Tag
High Crossable - Double Tag
Uncrossable - Thick line Double Tag
One could argue there would be a use for a Thick line single tag.

What I would consider helpful for planners (and it aligns to Issom) Is that you could use the thicker Uncrossable Fence to show Fences that are not allowed to be crossed... no matter for what reason. This could be because it is very difficult to cross for various reasons such as above, or that the landowner doesn't wish it to be crossed.
If the reasoning is because of difficulty then this takes away a fairness issue where someone may just be lucky to find a place to cross, or in the case of some people may be less wary of electric fences or barbed wire.
It would be imperative to show all gateways obviously.

Show Profile  Taupoite Posted: 11 August 2016, 12:34 PM  
Paul
You are right about different fences. On some farms here, we have multistrand electric fences with an outrigger on each side - it takes a lot to stop bulls! As they are only 1m high, do we map them as high fences, or just change the high fence legend definition to uncrossable?
And yes, those fences have all the crossing points and gates mapped.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 12 August 2016, 4:47 AM  
What the F*&k? Yes we need more symbols to make it even harder to decipher the map why running.... NOT

If a fence is crossable what does its height have to do with anything.

Should be 2 symbols - fence and Uncrossable fence (high, electric, landowner instruction etc) which should then be forbidden to cross so it is fair.

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 12 August 2016, 8:04 AM  
At least we agree on part of your last paragraph Greg.

Show Profile  pcbrent Posted: 12 August 2016, 10:10 AM  
It should be even more simple. Just don't have fences on the map.


1   2  


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz