Lincoln

[Tatty]

I think Blank's suggested courses are spot on. As a W55+ I would have been disappointed in the technical standard of the D course. These suggested courses have been used successfully elsewhere. GG even asked for opinions ane put on the W55+ course at guildford. It's probably only a extra controls anyway.

[DM]

I went to Sheffield, followed by Peter Palmers in Nottingham and was "persuaded" to take 2 juniors to Lincoln.

We all a enjoyed the courses.

We, as a family of 5 will be back but not if M/W 16 get lumped in together with a single course of around 3 k which is more suitable for M/W 12s. Driving 100 miles each way for 3 k of simplicity is not realistic.

[Garnon]

Great course and city, thanks to those involved in organising it.

I thought the maze was a good feature and the cellar/orchard area caused me to really slow down so I didn't mess up, but it was a great area.

[awk]

'The top 'legally' accessible level' is a 'running' level, with access to any higher level not shown because it's not 'legal' (relevant).

But it was not the main running level and that is what ISSOM says should be shown - that is the principle that the mapper correctly followed in the case of Course B.

[awk]

It's also part of the continuing debate for future urban planners, as well, as the scene continues to grow. Are 4 or even 5 courses sufficient? Should the class transition points be M/W40+/55+?

I hope the answers to both questions remain a firm yes. One of the major attractions of the urban race scene are the limited number of courses and classes, creating some great competition - vastly superior to most terrain based races. Makes life far more interesting both on the course, and afterwards as well. The only caveat is that as numbers grow, we may well need a supersupervet class beyond 55+.

[Spookster]

The only caveat is that as numbers grow, we may well need a supersupervet class beyond 55+.

Yes, I know an M75 that didn't go to Lincoln because there wasn't an M70+ course, and the 5.7km course for M55+ was too long.

[EddieH]

[quote]Yes, I know an M75 that didn't go to Lincoln because there wasn't an M70+ course, and the 5.7km course for M55+ was too long.[/quote]

With a very late aged beginner in my mother at over 80 I am acutely aware that all AWK and co's insistence on numbers is NOT approprate at higher ages.

I have reached an age where there is very noticable slowing down, (although no loss in stamina - so why shorter winning times??) over a 5 year age span. This clearly speeds up as people get older. 3+km for my mother (who is deteriorating noticably each year now) in Lake District terrain is quite an ordeal.

Maybe some don't think urban O is for oldies, but I'd say that with smooth surfaces urban O is absolutely perfect for them. 5.7km is definitely not going to attract them to keep going. And doing so not only can give them loads of pleasure, but also keeps them active.

[awk]

With a very late aged beginner in my mother at over 80 I am acutely aware that all AWK and co's insistence on numbers is NOT approprate at higher ages.

Which is why I put that caveat in!

I also agree with the rest of what you say - I don't think that sticking to a 15 year band would work at the older end, for the reasons you give. I don't know what the ideal would be, but there's definitely a need for some sort of sliding scale! My point was though that M/W40 and M/W55 make good transitions for these ages and don't need moving.

[pete.owens]

I checked with a couple of other, more experienced, controllers as to what to do and taking out the offending leg seemed most appropriate. We live and learn ..

Interesting that you check with controllers rather than the rules The e-punching rules themselves have changed this year much more towards voiding legs, and now allow you plenty of flexibility (basically, take out the leg if its fairer to do so). Maybe your "more experienced, controller" friends have had a quiet word with BOF

Interesting - and seems the right way to go.

At Holmfirth there was a control placed on the wrong feature late on in the course.
The first runner back lost two or three minutes and reported this at download. The control was moved to the correct location for later competitors, but the controller said that the only option would be to void the course entirely (and most of the courses visited the site) and this would have spoilt everyone's day.

[graeme]

At Holmfirth ... the controller said that the only option would be to void the course entirely (and most of the courses visited the site) and this would have spoilt everyone's day.

Your controller needs to keep up to date. (but I must admit, I only found this out last week).

This was the case in the previous rules, but the 2010 version allows the controller to void a leg, and recommends doing so if (in his opinion) that's the fairest option.

[King Penguin]

This was the case in the previous rules, but the 2010 version allows the controller to void a leg, and recommends doing so if (in his opinion) that's the fairest option.

Delighted to hear it - perhaps justification and a delayed result from my protest at the JK on N. Yorks Moors several years ago when one control had been completely stolen - not even any tape left to confirm you were in the right place (and no doubt other similar ones since as well).
If this becomes the common practice, and everyone knows a serious control problem will result in voided legs, then the argument that affected people will not bother running properly after the problem will no longer hold, as they can reasonably expect the "problem" to be removed from the results (following a protest if necessary) so there is still everything to run for.

[DJM]

King Penguin wrote:

If this becomes the common practice, and everyone knows a serious control problem will result in voided legs, then the argument that affected people will not bother running properly after the problem will no longer hold, as they can reasonably expect the "problem" to be removed from the results (following a protest if necessary) so there is still everything to run for.

Except that this does not apply to Level 1 events (see extract from Appendix I below)

3.2.5 If a serious problem has been identified then a decision must be made as to what action to take. For level 1 events the following is recommended:
1) If a problem is found to have affected the outcome of a race according to the
above criterion then the recommended solution is to void the course. In line with
IOF policy, splits removal shall not be considered as an option.
2) If a serious problem is identified, but by using the criterion defined above, is not
considered to have significantly affected the outcome of the race, then the results
should be published without adjustment, other than to re-instate any competitor
who failed to punch at a control that was missing or misplaced when they reached
it.
For events at a lower level then the option to remove splits either side of a problem
control, or to start or finish the race at an alternative point, can be considered as a possible solution to an affected race. The decision whether or not to adjust the
results however is still not one that should be taken lightly. Removing splits can
have dramatic effects on the outcome of the race and may not be justified if only a
few competitors are affected.

[King Penguin]

OK - I should read the full guidelines before I comment.
I still think the principle of "sport for all, not just the winners" means that removing the offending leg(s) is the best approach. Voiding the course if the top places are affected (but not if it only affects "also rans") still seems somewhat like dual standards to me.