View source for Common PLC Programming Challenges in Industrial Automation Projects

<html><p> Programmable logic controllers sit at the center of modern automation, but the hard part is rarely writing a few rungs of ladder or mapping a handful of I/O points. The difficult work starts when the PLC has to coordinate real equipment, real operators, real maintenance constraints, and production goals that rarely leave much room for trial and error. In industrial automation projects, the programming itself is only one layer. The deeper challenge is building logic that survives start-up pressure, device quirks, shifting scope, and the thousand little realities of the plant floor.</p> <p> That is why so many PLC programming problems look simple on paper and become expensive in the field. A sequence that works perfectly in simulation can stall when a prox sensor chatters. A machine that runs fine in manual can fail in auto because a timer masks a race condition. A line can look electrically sound and still suffer from interlocks that no longer match how operations actually runs the process.</p> <p> Over the years, the same categories of trouble show up again and again, whether the application involves conveyors, packaging lines, material handling, batch processing, or industrial robotics. The details change, but the pattern is familiar. The project slips because the control strategy was underspecified. The HMI programming did not reflect the operator’s workflow. Device integration was treated as a late task instead of a core design activity. Safety, diagnostics, and maintainability were squeezed into the final week.</p> <h2> The gap between a working program and a reliable machine</h2> <p> A PLC program can compile cleanly, download successfully, and still be weak. Reliability in industrial control systems depends on behavior over time, not just initial execution. The code has to recover from faults, reject noise, coordinate motion, support troubleshooting, and remain understandable to the next engineer who touches it six months later.</p> <p> That distinction matters most during commissioning. In the office, a programmer often works with ideal assumptions. Inputs transition cleanly. Valves respond on time. Drives report status exactly as documented. Networked devices behave predictably. On the plant floor, the assumptions break down quickly. A cylinder takes 1.8 seconds on one machine and 2.7 on another because of air pressure and load. A motor starter auxiliary contact arrives late. A photoeye sees reflected glare off a product surface that was never mentioned in the design review. Those are not edge cases, they are the normal conditions of industrial controls work.</p> <p> The strongest PLC programmers account for these realities early. They write with startup in mind. They assume that a signal may stick, bounce, lag, or disappear. They think about how an operator will recover after an e-stop, a jam, or a power cycle. They do not only ask, “Will this sequence run?” They ask, “How will this fail, and how quickly can someone understand the failure?”</p> <h2> Unclear process definition creates control problems later</h2> <p> One of the most common causes of bad PLC code is not bad coding. It is vague process definition. If the machine sequence, operating modes, fault behavior, and handoff conditions are not nailed down, the program becomes a moving target.</p> <p> This happens often in custom equipment builds and retrofit jobs. A customer may say, “The machine should stop if there is a fault, but keep the upstream section running if possible.” That sounds reasonable until you ask what counts as “upstream,” how long buffering is allowed, whether reject tracking must be preserved, and what happens if the fault clears itself while product is still in transfer. Those details determine architecture. Without them, programmers end up patching behavior late in commissioning, often with timer-based fixes that make the machine more fragile.</p> <p> Industrial robotics projects make this even more pronounced. A robot cell usually includes the robot controller, safety devices, guarding, conveyors or tooling, and an HMI layer that operators depend on. If the handshaking between the PLC and robot is not specified with precision, delays and deadlocks appear quickly. The robot may wait for a permissive the PLC never drops. The PLC may expect a cycle complete bit that the robot only pulses for 50 milliseconds. Then everyone argues whether the issue is in the robot or the PLC, when the real problem is that the interface contract was never fully defined.</p> <p> Clear sequence narratives are underrated. A simple, well-written state description often saves more project time than a day of clever coding. Good specifications describe not only what should happen during normal operation, but what the machine should do when the process is interrupted at awkward moments.</p> <h2> State management is harder than most teams expect</h2> <p> A surprising amount of poor machine behavior comes from weak state management. Many PLC programs grow around bits and timers rather than around explicit machine states. That works for small equipment, but on anything moderately complex, it becomes difficult to predict interactions.</p> <p> A filling machine, for example, may have automatic, manual, jog, faulted, starved, blocked, paused, and sanitation modes. If each section of logic checks its own set of permissives independently, contradictions creep in. One part of the code thinks the machine is paused, another still allows a conveyor to advance, and a third resets a timer because it only looks at run command status. The result is intermittent and frustrating because no single rung looks obviously wrong.</p> <p> State-based programming is not glamorous, but it prevents many startup headaches. Whether you implement it with integers, enumerated tags, function blocks, or a structured text state engine depends on the platform and the team, but the principle is the same. The machine should always be in a known state, and transitions should be deliberate. That is especially important when multiple stations interact or when recipes alter timing and behavior.</p> <p> The trouble is that state logic requires discipline. It forces decisions early. Teams under schedule pressure often skip that structure and tell themselves they will “clean it up later.” Later rarely comes. Instead, the code accretes special cases, and every new feature increases the chance of side effects.</p> <h2> I/O mapping and naming are often treated as clerical work</h2> <p> Nothing slows commissioning like sloppy tag naming and inconsistent I/O handling. It seems minor until three electricians, two controls engineers, and a maintenance supervisor are all trying to troubleshoot a machine at 2:00 a.m. And nobody can tell whether PE_07, InfeedPE, and PartPresentA refer to the same physical sensor or three different ones.</p> <p> Good naming conventions are not about aesthetics. They reduce cognitive load. A program becomes easier to navigate when the tags reflect equipment, location, and function clearly. That matters even more when HMI programming is happening in parallel. If alarm messages, faceplates, and PLC tags use different naming logic, the system becomes harder to support than it needs to be.</p> <p> The same is true for input conditioning. Physical inputs are messy. Some devices need debounce logic. Some should be latched. Analog points may need scaling, filtering, and sanity checking. Inputs from networked devices may need communication quality checks before the logic trusts them. When these concerns are scattered randomly throughout the code, maintenance becomes guesswork.</p> <p> I have seen projects lose hours because a sensor fault was hidden by a bad alias tag, and because the HMI displayed a generic “station not ready” message instead of exposing the real failed permissive. The machine was behaving correctly. The software architecture made it look broken.</p> <h2> Timing problems masquerade as logic problems</h2> <p> If there is one category of issue that repeatedly fools teams during startup, it is timing. A lot of “PLC bugs” are really sequencing and timing mismatches between devices.</p> <p> Mechanical systems have inertia. Pneumatic devices vary with pressure, wear, and load. VFDs ramp. Servos wait on enable chains. Vision systems and barcode readers introduce processing delay. Industrial robotics adds another layer because robot motion completion, zone clear signals, and program number handshakes rarely align perfectly the first time.</p> <p> Many programs lean too heavily on timers to solve these mismatches. Timers are useful, but they are not a substitute for good status-based logic. A timer can hide a race condition for a while, then fail when production speed changes or ambient conditions shift. For example, a programmer might add a 300 millisecond delay after a clamp command before checking part present. It works on day one. Two months later, winter air pressure dips during the night shift and the same station starts faulting intermittently.</p> <p> The better approach is usually to anchor sequences to confirmed conditions whenever practical. If a valve command should lead to a prox switch, monitor the prox switch with a reasonable timeout. If a drive should reach speed, use its actual at-speed feedback. If a robot should be clear of a zone, use the agreed status bit or safety-rated signal, not a guessed delay.</p> <p> That does not mean timing is irrelevant. It means timing should support logic, not replace it. When timers are necessary, they should be traceable, named clearly, and chosen with process variation in mind.</p> <h2> Device integration is where schedules often unravel</h2> <p> Projects involving only local I/O are increasingly rare. A typical machine may include variable frequency drives, servo controllers, remote I/O blocks, smart sensors, safety controllers, vision systems, barcode readers, weigh scales, and one or more robot controllers. Every device brings its own assumptions, data structures, diagnostics, and communication behavior.</p> <p> This is where PLC programming becomes systems engineering. You are not just writing logic, you are aligning multiple vendors’ interpretations of how a machine should behave.</p> <p> A classic pain point is communication mapping. One vendor’s documentation may label a bit “ready,” but in practice it means “powered and no major fault,” not “safe to start motion.” Another device may retain a fault bit until a very specific reset sequence occurs. Some fieldbus devices recover gracefully after a network interruption. Others come back half-initialized and require explicit revalidation in the PLC. If these details are discovered late, the startup team ends up improvising around them.</p> <p> HMI programming often suffers here too. Engineers sometimes wait until the PLC logic is nearly done before building screens and alarms. That leads to shallow diagnostics because the HMI can only display what the PLC exposes. If the PLC never organized device health into useful statuses, the HMI becomes a collection of vague alarm banners and maintenance loses the visibility it needs.</p> <p> The most effective teams design integration points early. They decide how each device will report ready, running, warning, faulted, comms lost, and maintenance-needed states. They decide what the operator should see and what the technician should be able to force or reset. That front-end thinking pays back during every future service call.</p> <h2> Alarms are easy to add and hard to design well</h2> <p> Most control systems have too many alarms, too little context, or both. Alarm design is one of the most underestimated parts of industrial controls work.</p> <p> A bad alarm system shouts constantly and says almost nothing useful. The machine faults with “station 4 failure,” “sequence timeout,” or “device not ready,” leaving the technician to dig through logic online while production waits. A good alarm system shortens diagnosis. It tells the user what happened, where it happened, and what conditions are blocking recovery.</p> <p> The challenge is balancing detail with usability. Operators do not need a message that references raw bits or implementation details. Maintenance does need enough information to isolate the problem quickly. That means alarm architecture should separate operator-facing text from engineering-level diagnostics. The HMI should explain the issue in plant language, while the PLC should retain granular fault codes and permissive details.</p> <p> A practical alarm message often includes the device or station, the failed condition, and the <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Industrial equipment supplier">Industrial equipment supplier</a> expected action. “Infeed gate failed to extend within 2.0 seconds” is better than “gate fault.” “Robot cell not ready, safety gate open or robot in fault” is better than “cell interlock error,” though even that can often be refined further.</p><p> <iframe  src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m18!1m12!1m3!1d2255.5343535010616!2d-119.4106237234753!3d49.89684277149177!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!3m3!1m2!1s0x537d8cb211949a0d%3A0xcf60588be69dc557!2sSync%20Robotics%20Inc!5e1!3m2!1sen!2sca!4v1783708714458!5m2!1sen!2sca" width="560" height="315" style="border: none;" allowfullscreen="" ></iframe></p> <p> The most common alarm design mistakes show up in familiar forms:</p> <ul>  <li> too many nuisance alarms during startup or transitions</li> <li> generic messages that hide the real failed permissive</li> <li> missing first-out logic, so secondary faults bury the root cause</li> <li> no distinction between process warnings and machine-stopping faults</li> <li> alarms that clear so quickly nobody can identify what happened</li> </ul> <p> A disciplined alarm philosophy reduces all of this. It also improves trust. When operators believe alarms are accurate and meaningful, they respond faster and override less.</p> <h2> Manual mode exposes weak engineering decisions</h2> <p> Automatic mode gets most of the design attention, but manual mode reveals whether a control system was built for real maintenance and recovery. A machine that cannot be jogged, homed, cleared, or restarted safely and intuitively will consume far more support time than anyone expects.</p> <p> This is especially true in systems with motion and industrial robotics. After a jam or tool change, technicians often need partial control. They may need to extend one actuator, inch a conveyor, re-home an axis, or run a robot recovery routine. If the PLC logic was written with only auto cycle in mind, manual operation becomes inconsistent or risky. Commands work in one state but not another. Interlocks are too loose in some places and too strict in others. The HMI provides buttons, but not the feedback needed to know why a command is rejected.</p> <p> Good manual mode design takes judgment. You cannot simply bypass interlocks, and you cannot lock every action behind so many conditions that maintenance gives up. The right answer depends on the hazard, the process, and the personnel. Safety and usability have to be designed together, not negotiated after startup.</p> <p> One useful test is simple: after an e-stop, a fault, or a power cycle mid-sequence, can the machine be returned to a known good state without laptop-only knowledge? If not, the control strategy is incomplete.</p><p> <img  src="https://b3842641.smushcdn.com/3842641/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Machining-How-Automation-Help.png?lossy=2&strip=1&webp=1" style="max-width:500px;height:auto;" ></img></p> <h2> Change management breaks more systems than coding mistakes</h2> <p> Late project changes are inevitable. New sensor positions, revised customer requests, updated safety requirements, a robot EOAT redesign, a changed upstream handoff, an added reject lane, a revised recipe format. The technical challenge is not that change occurs. The challenge is that many teams do not manage change inside the PLC program with enough rigor.</p> <p> A quick patch in the field can be reasonable. A pile of quick patches becomes technical debt almost immediately. Old bits stay referenced. Temporary bypasses never come out. Comments drift away from actual behavior. The HMI reflects one version of truth, the PLC another, and the electrical drawings a third. When that machine receives a future upgrade, the next engineer inherits uncertainty instead of a system.</p> <p> Version control is still weaker in industrial controls than it should be. Some teams rely on date-stamped backup folders and tribal memory. That is risky, especially when several people touch the project. Formal source control, revision notes, and tested release procedures are not overhead, they are protection against downtime and confusion.</p><p> <img  src="https://b3842641.smushcdn.com/3842641/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-1.png?lossy=2&strip=1&webp=1" style="max-width:500px;height:auto;" ></img></p> <p> This matters even more on standardized machine platforms. A company may have ten nearly identical lines, but after a year of ad hoc edits, each one behaves slightly differently. Then support becomes expensive because “the standard program” no longer exists in a meaningful way.</p> <h2> Startup pressure encourages shortcuts that become permanent</h2> <p> Commissioning compresses time. That is when many otherwise solid engineering habits get abandoned. A bypass goes in “just for startup.” A timeout gets doubled because it stops nuisance faults. A sensor check is disabled until mechanical can finish alignment. An HMI alarm is left generic because there is no time to rewrite the message.</p> <p> Anyone who has commissioned equipment knows why this happens. Production pressure is intense. The machine needs to run. People make pragmatic calls. The problem is not the temporary shortcut itself, it is the failure to revisit it.</p> <p> Some of the most stubborn long-term PLC programming issues come from this stage. The code works, but its internal logic no longer reflects the intended design. Future troubleshooting gets harder because the system contains old compromises nobody documented properly.</p><p> <img  src="https://b3842641.smushcdn.com/3842641/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Innovative.png?lossy=2&strip=1&webp=1" style="max-width:500px;height:auto;" ></img></p> <p> The healthiest startup teams keep a live deficiency list and treat software cleanup as real project work, not optional polish. That list does not have to be elaborate, but it should capture every bypass, timer tweak, forced condition, and message placeholder that needs resolution before handoff. Otherwise the machine leaves commissionable and arrives at steady-state supportable only by the people who were there on day one.</p><p> <iframe  src="https://www.syncrobotics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Sync-Home-Page-1.mp4" width="560" height="315" style="border: none;" allowfullscreen="" ></iframe></p> <h2> Testing is often too narrow for real operating conditions</h2> <p> Factory acceptance testing and site acceptance testing can both miss critical control behavior if the scenarios are too gentle. Machines often get tested for nominal operation, then handed over before anyone deliberately stresses the awkward cases.</p> <p> The awkward cases are where control quality shows. What happens when a part enters a zone and the machine pauses? What happens when a robot completes its cycle but the downstream conveyor is blocked? What happens when a remote I/O node drops off the network for three seconds and returns? What happens if an operator changes recipes with material still in process? These cases are not rare. They happen every week in production.</p> <p> The best test plans include failure recovery, power cycling, communication interruptions, and mode switching. Not because engineers enjoy breaking things, but because the plant will certainly break them later under less controlled conditions.</p> <p> A short list of scenarios catches a disproportionate number of problems:</p> <ul>  <li> loss and restoration of communications to a key field device</li> <li> transition between manual, auto, and paused states with product present</li> <li> startup after an interrupted cycle or mid-sequence power loss</li> <li> sensor failure, chatter, or stuck-on behavior at critical stations</li> <li> downstream blockage and upstream starvation interactions</li> </ul> <p> These tests are especially valuable in larger industrial control systems where local logic, HMI behavior, and external equipment all have to remain aligned. A machine that “runs” is not necessarily a machine that recovers well.</p> <h2> Maintainability is a programming requirement, not a luxury</h2> <p> The final challenge is one that does not always show up during commissioning, but it shapes the entire life of the system. Maintainability. A PLC program should be understandable to someone other than the original author. That sounds obvious, but many projects do not meet that bar.</p> <p> Readable structure, consistent naming, modular code, useful comments, and coherent alarm handling all support maintainability. So does restraint. Not every problem needs a clever abstraction. In many plants, maintenance staff and local controls personnel support the line between major upgrades. If the code requires deep knowledge of one engineer’s personal style, serviceability drops fast.</p> <p> This does not mean writing simplistic code. It means writing code that reveals intent. If a sequence step exists, its purpose should be obvious. If a permissive blocks motion, the reason should be traceable. If an HMI command can be ignored, the conditions should be visible somewhere other than a hidden rung ten routines away.</p> <p> There is also a staffing reality behind this. A machine may outlive the original integrator, the original OEM, and most of the launch team. Plants merge, roles change, vendors rotate, and documentation gets separated from the equipment. At that point, the software itself becomes the most important documentation artifact. Good industrial controls engineers understand that they are not <a href="http://www.video-bookmark.com/user/gonachsjtu"><strong>industrial control systems</strong></a> just programming for startup, they are programming for years of maintenance, troubleshooting, and incremental improvement.</p> <h2> Where strong PLC projects separate themselves</h2> <p> The most successful automation projects are not the ones with the flashiest codebase. They are the ones where control decisions were made early, interfaces were defined clearly, startup assumptions were challenged, and diagnostics were treated as part of the machine rather than an afterthought.</p> <p> PLC programming sits in the middle of mechanics, electrics, operations, and safety. That is why the common challenges are rarely isolated software issues. They are coordination issues expressed through software. When the sequence is unclear, the code feels unstable. When the HMI programming is shallow, the machine feels opaque. When device integration is rushed, the schedule slips at the worst possible time. When maintainability is ignored, every future modification gets slower and riskier.</p> <p> That is also why experienced controls engineers ask so many questions before they start writing logic. They know the difficult part is not making the PLC do something once. It is making industrial control systems behave clearly, safely, and predictably across thousands of cycles, under imperfect conditions, with different people operating and maintaining them. That is where the real craft of PLC programming shows up.</p><p><h2>Sync Robotics Inc. — Business Info (NAP)</h2>

<strong>Name:</strong> Sync Robotics Inc.<br><br>

<strong>Address:</strong> 2-683 Dease Rd, Kelowna, BC V1X 4A4<br>
<strong>Phone:</strong> +1-250-753-7161<br>
<strong>Website:</strong> https://www.syncrobotics.ca/<br>
<strong>Email:</strong> info@syncrobotics.ca<br>
<strong>Sales Email:</strong> sales@syncrobotics.ca<br><br>

<strong>Hours:</strong><br>
Monday: 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM<br>
Tuesday: 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM<br>
Wednesday: 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM<br>
Thursday: 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM<br>
Friday: 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM<br>
Saturday: Closed<br>
Sunday: Closed<br><br>

<strong>Service Area:</strong> Kelowna, British Columbia and across Canada<br><br>

<strong>Open-location code (Plus Code):</strong> VHWR+PQ Kelowna, British Columbia<br>
<strong>Map/listing URL:</strong> https://maps.app.goo.gl/xwtV2wEu8ZuKH3se8<br><br>

<strong>Embed iframe:</strong><br>
<iframe
  width="100%"
  height="450"
  style="border:0;"
  loading="lazy"
  allowfullscreen
  referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade"
  src="https://www.google.com/maps?q=2-683%20Dease%20Rd%2C%20Kelowna%2C%20BC%20V1X%204A4&z=16&output=embed"></iframe><br><br>

<strong>Socials (canonical https URLs):</strong><br>
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/syncrobotics/<br>
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/syncrobotics/<br>
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/syncrobotics/<br><br>

<script type="application/ld+json">

  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "ProfessionalService",
  "name": "Sync Robotics Inc.",
  "url": "https://www.syncrobotics.ca/",
  "telephone": "+1-250-753-7161",
  "email": "info@syncrobotics.ca",
  "address": 
    "@type": "PostalAddress",
    "streetAddress": "2-683 Dease Rd",
    "addressLocality": "Kelowna",
    "addressRegion": "BC",
    "postalCode": "V1X 4A4",
    "addressCountry": "CA"
  ,
  "areaServed": &#91;
    "Kelowna, British Columbia",
    "Canada"
  &#93;,
  "openingHoursSpecification": &#91;
     "@type": "OpeningHoursSpecification", "dayOfWeek": "Monday", "opens": "08:00", "closes": "16:30" ,
     "@type": "OpeningHoursSpecification", "dayOfWeek": "Tuesday", "opens": "08:00", "closes": "16:30" ,
     "@type": "OpeningHoursSpecification", "dayOfWeek": "Wednesday", "opens": "08:00", "closes": "16:30" ,
     "@type": "OpeningHoursSpecification", "dayOfWeek": "Thursday", "opens": "08:00", "closes": "16:30" ,
     "@type": "OpeningHoursSpecification", "dayOfWeek": "Friday", "opens": "08:00", "closes": "16:30" 
  &#93;,
  "sameAs": &#91;
    "https://www.linkedin.com/company/syncrobotics/",
    "https://www.instagram.com/syncrobotics/",
    "https://www.facebook.com/syncrobotics/"
  &#93;,
  "hasMap": "https://maps.app.goo.gl/xwtV2wEu8ZuKH3se8",
  "identifier": "VHWR+PQ Kelowna, British Columbia"

</script></p><p>https://www.syncrobotics.ca/<br><br>

Sync Robotics Inc. is an industrial robot and controls integration company based in Kelowna, British Columbia.<br><br>
The company designs and deploys automation solutions for manufacturing operations across Canada.<br><br>
Services include industrial robotics integration, controls integration, automation system design, deployment support, and related manufacturing automation solutions.<br><br>
Sync Robotics Inc. is located at 2-683 Dease Rd, Kelowna, BC V1X 4A4.<br><br>
To contact Sync Robotics Inc., call +1-250-753-7161 or email info@syncrobotics.ca.<br><br>
For sales inquiries, email sales@syncrobotics.ca.<br><br>
Hours listed are Monday to Friday 8:00 AM–4:30 PM, with Saturday and Sunday closed.<br><br>
For directions and listing details, use the map listing: https://maps.app.goo.gl/xwtV2wEu8ZuKH3se8<br><br>


<h2>Popular Questions About Sync Robotics Inc.</h2>

<strong>What does Sync Robotics Inc. do?</strong><br>
Sync Robotics Inc. designs and deploys industrial robot and controls integration solutions for manufacturing operations.<br><br>

<strong>Where is Sync Robotics Inc. located?</strong><br>
Sync Robotics Inc. is located at 2-683 Dease Rd, Kelowna, BC V1X 4A4.<br><br>

<strong>Does Sync Robotics Inc. serve clients outside Kelowna?</strong><br>
Yes—Sync Robotics Inc. is based in Kelowna, British Columbia and serves clients across Canada.<br><br>

<strong>What are Sync Robotics Inc.’s hours?</strong><br>
Monday–Friday: 8:00 AM–4:30 PM; Saturday and Sunday closed.<br><br>

<strong>How can I contact Sync Robotics Inc.?</strong><br>
Phone: <a href="tel:+12507537161">+1-250-753-7161</a><br>
General Email: <a href="mailto:info@syncrobotics.ca">info@syncrobotics.ca</a><br>
Sales Email: <a href="mailto:sales@syncrobotics.ca">sales@syncrobotics.ca</a><br>
Website: https://www.syncrobotics.ca/<br>
Map: https://maps.app.goo.gl/xwtV2wEu8ZuKH3se8<br>
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/syncrobotics/<br>
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/syncrobotics/<br>
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/syncrobotics/<br><br>


<h2>Landmarks Near Kelowna, BC</h2>

1) <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=Kelowna%20International%20Airport%20Kelowna%20BC">Kelowna International Airport</a><br><br>
2) <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=UBC%20Okanagan%20Kelowna%20BC">UBC Okanagan</a><br><br>
3) <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=Rutland%20Kelowna%20BC">Rutland</a><br><br>
4) <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=Orchard%20Park%20Shopping%20Centre%20Kelowna%20BC">Orchard Park Shopping Centre</a><br><br>
5) <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=Mission%20Creek%20Regional%20Park%20Kelowna%20BC">Mission Creek Regional Park</a><br><br>
6) <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=Downtown%20Kelowna%20BC">Downtown Kelowna</a><br><br>
7) <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=Waterfront%20Park%20Kelowna%20BC">Waterfront Park</a><br><br></p></html>