Midland Champs 2013

[DJM]

andypat wrote

This is turning into pedants corner again but the IOF control description is "vegetation boundary" not "distinct vegetation boundary".

To add to the pedantry, the International Specification for Control Descriptions actually states with respect to the symbol in question (4.7):

Name: Vegetation boundary
Description: A distinct boundary between different types of trees or vegetation
ISOM: 416

And ISOM 416 is, guess what, the familiar dotted line distinct vegetation boundary symbol ...

I agree with awk - because the control description symbol must always correspond with the symbol used on the map, the veg boundary CD can only be used if the dotted line symbol is used on the map, as shown above.

[awk]

I think I've said my piece on control 4 - and nothing that's been said has changed my mind in relation to this particular site!!

On the discussion on the course as a whole, I thought it excellent. Focusing on the longer legs:

4-5. Yes, the choice was largely between two path routes, with the slightly shorter route to the right being somewhat more risky in the approach. Pete Haines took the left hand route, but cut across the semi-open from much earlier, round the top of the large block fo white with undergrowth, and recorded a goodly time too, so I don't think it was just a path alternatives route.
8-9. Excellent leg. I wondered about the paths and tracks to the east, but went pretty straight. Given that I recorded the fifth fastest time, less than one minute down on the fastest leg time (which was to the east), and my strength is definitely NOT on legs where the premium is running speed, I am confident that I took as close as one could get to the fastest route.
16-17. I think this is more subtle than given credit for. Yes, the bulk is on a track, but after some analysis, I think the fastest route was south to the track, along for a couple of hundred metres, then north through the terrain to join that track. Most will have gone straight across the very grotty open, or north like me (a mistake in hindsight).

[andypat]

I agree with awk - because the control description symbol must always correspond with the symbol used on the map, the veg boundary CD can only be used if the dotted line symbol is used on the map, as shown above.

Interesting - you say "must". Surely you mean "shall" or do you mean "should"? Does that mean control 7 on M45s (re-entrant shallow) was actually illegal, as distinct from simply controversial?

(I'd look it up but I have a pedant for that!)

http://www.maroc.routegadget.co.uk/cgi-bin/reitti.cgi?act=map&id=110&kieli=

And how does that account for descriptions such as "4.3 Forest corner" which doesnt have any map symbol, rather the arrangement of the symbol of the map.

[Ali Wood]

4-5 most of the better runners who have put up a route on RG largely stayed on paths for perhaps 80% -85 % of the leg

4-5 Just saying that it was an interesting decision to have to make. I don't mind the occasional leg when you have some dead running, if the route choice is interesting, especially if you're running flat out and wondering whether you made the right decision or not! But I accept you don't want too much of this.

8-9 similar story - the fastest competitors stayed on paths for 95% of the leg - sensible choice but really just dead running. [I actually found awk and ali's routes more interesting but it was only 15 % shorter and had far more decision points and therefore higher risk].

8-9 I'm sorry Red Adder I don't know if you really looked closely at the times. As well as awk's evidence, my 10:05 on this leg was only 10 seconds slower than Paul Addison, a much faster runner than I as borne out by legs where he did the same route as myself. All the other guys were nearly a minute down. Not much time lost due to "decision points", and not much due to the terrain!

11-12 again a very good middle length leg - though several choose to stay on paths quite a lot of the way.

11-12 NONE of the leading runners stayed on paths!!

16-17 virtually everyone stayed on path for 500m - i.e. most of the leg.

16-17 Agree with awk - I went South to the track almost accidentally so don't claim credit for 'a good decision' - had to switch North very soon.. That was an interesting thing to talk about afterwards and legs like that make for good variety.

The shorter legs generally demanded greater accuracy over the whole of the leg rather than the option of turning off mentally and just running for significant portions of the leg. Surely the ability to be able to run accurately on a bearing (and judge distances) is a key O skill.

Sure it is. But so is making micro and macro route choices.

[pete.owens]

I tend to agree with Ali Wood that there were a lot of good interesting long legs at the event (though not 4-5 which was on my course) - and also with Red Adder's point that often long legs tend to end up as dead track runs in block forests. So congratulations to the planner for creating an interesting and varied mix of legs given an area with next to no contour detail and divided up into fenced enclosures. I don't think it quite worked for course 13 with a long excursion up to the open to pick up 2 easy controls and back accounting for nearly half the course.

With regard to the control description:
The control should be on a mapped feature and the description (column D) should correspond to ISOM symbol used on the map. So if the description had said vegetation boundary (which it didn't) then the vegetation boundary should have been mapped by ISOM symbol 416 (black dots). Column D of the control description actually said "semi-open" which corresponds to ISOM symbols 402 or 404 (yellow dots on white or white dots on yellow), neither of which were present on the map. I didn't see anything wrong with the choice of site, which was clearly mapped - just that the description did not match the map.

It is fine to use descriptions that indirectly imply a vegetation boundary that is not mapped by black dots (eg "Thicket, south tip", "Clearing, west edge", "Copse, north side") as the features they refer to are mapped by the corresponding ISOM symbols.

[graeme]

Running round woodland paths is a nice thing to do. It makes no sense that people who happily choose to do this in training regard it as "boring" in races. Running straight through rough terrain is, well, an acquired taste. With reference to another thread, there's little doubt which newcomers will enjoy more.

On the leg in question, the British Champion has admitted to getting it wrong. Which makes the idea that it was "too simple" untenable.

So we have a leg that's pleasant to run and technical enough to draw errors from the best competitors. What's not to like?

But in fact it gets better. For an upcoming planning assignment I've looked across a wide range of courses and events, and the single most challenging thing (i.e. which splits the winners from the rest) comes when changing navigation style. For a long leg with good running, it's not unusual for running the "fastest time" to be a mistake - paid for by misses later on when tired.

Just wish I could have been there...

[Ali Wood]

For a long leg with good running, it's not unusual for running the "fastest time" to be a mistake - paid for by misses later on when tired.

Exactly!
PS really sorry to have diverted this thread away from the riveting discussion on veg boundaries. Under those auspices I was going to ask: How do you depict a line of small boulders that happens to coincide with a non-distinct veg boundary....? But I won't...