Having no map is weird. Wikipedia has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stad_Ship_Tunnel

> Having no map is weird.

Yes, a failure of both the journalist and the editor.

Sadly, this kind of failure is all too common. I encounter articles that often omit a photo of the "thing" the article is describing. This (no photo) might have made some sense fifty years ago in the heyday of paper print where including a photo was much more work. But today, for HTML publishing, it is just an indication of failure on the part of the publisher.

Am I going mad or does the artist's concept look like the water is going downhill

Also, having read the article + the Wikipedia page, the article seems to contain more or less the same content, except slightly rewritten.