Uncrossable features

[graeme]

You seem to get so many more of these stupid situations in Sprint.

That's because seconds are more important and the map is assumed to be precise rather than impressionistic. The same situations happen in the forest, when you try to get through some green and fail, or get stuck in some unmapped sh*t. But you just backtrack and get on with it - and you assume the seconds lost will average out over a long race. plus its only rural foot-O, so nobody cares anyway!

Also, ISSOM is a relatively new standard and people are still discussing what its limitations are, in the hope it can be improved.

[JK]

A gate was opened in a major IOF event that affected one of the scandinavian women, I think it was ETOC 2012 in Falun. There was also a gap in a fence, but she went through the gate that had been opened and then self-DQd when it was clear what had been done if I remember correctly.

Closer to home there was the Twin Peaks the first year MDOC used Salford keys when in the final week before the event, probably the day before a fence that reached the water's edge was cut down/back. I reached the previous control and glanced round the water's edge and could see it was viable so went for it; as I ran there I checked the map and realised that there was uncrossable fence between me and the control but looked up and there wasn't one. I stopped just a few metres short and then reversed my tracks along with another couple of runners who also realised the same thing. There were oodles of runners who went along that route though so in my opinion that leg should have been taken off the courses since those who were reading their map far enough ahead (Spookster and Homer as I recall) didn't go anywhere near it; those like me who used a head-up approach went down that alley and then doubled back (losing time because the ground didn't match the map) and others gained time on both of these groups by not reading the map at all (or ignoring the uncrossable feature).
[for "uncrossable" above read "forbidden to cross" which is how they should really be named]
So these things do happen and can affect results.

[mharky]

The same situations happen in the forest, when you try to get through some green and fail, or get stuck in some unmapped sh*t. But you just backtrack and get on with it - and you assume the seconds lost will average out over a long race.

It's not exactly the same, you don't get disqualified for doing that in forest orienteering.

[graeme]

Fair point.

In fact, it seems that people are not actually getting DQed in sprints, just gaining time from where the map is "effectively wrong". Maybe the analogy should be with finding some unmapped aid to forest navigation like an elephant track or a Hubmann

[JK]

...
In fact, it seems that people are not actually getting DQed in sprints, just gaining time from where the map is "effectively wrong". Maybe the analogy should be with finding some unmapped aid to forest navigation like an elephant track or a Hubmann

Some do get caught out and DQd.
At the Eastham event we had info in the final details, in the start lanes and on the map that we were using ISSOM and Sprint Rules so forbidden to cross were not to be crossed.
A 2m "uncrossable" crag was on the map. I put tape along the length of it and we had marshalls out just in case anyone tried to cheart as it was probably safe enough for most to jump down (although not IMO for, for instance, some of the UltraVets - hence we had marked it as forbidden to cross). There were only 2 cases of ignoring the tape and jumping down. The first covered his number with his arm as soon as he saw the marshalls (but they'd already got his number). The second went unpunished, but we have an accurate description - about 3 foot tall at the shoulder, black, very hairy and was chasing a stick.

[mharky]

Fair point.

In fact, it seems that people are not actually getting DQed in sprints, just gaining time from where the map is "effectively wrong". Maybe the analogy should be with finding some unmapped aid to forest navigation like an elephant track or a Hubmann

Following and tracking are undoubtedly huge affectors on results, and massively unfair. It's still not the same though. The equivalent would be running through and OOB area that was marked on the map with a soled boundary, but in the terrain wasn't taped. That is equivalent.

[Kitch]

I think these situations arise more because sprint courses tend to be more contrived.

In the original example the cometitors gain a 200m advantage - 30% of them. This suggests to me that the route required an enforced detour around an obstacle (the fence).
In the forest the planner would try to avoid such routes - it would be deemed good planning to do so.
In sprint / urban it seems that the planner is searching out such routes, or even creating them with the addition of barriers on race day to create convolutions.

[JK]

I think these situations arise more because sprint courses tend to be more contrived.

Obstacles in the forest give varying degrees of slowing you down - hills give over or round, marshes/green veg give through or round and complicated terrain vs simple offers you a trade-off between straight and risky (depending no skill) or round and safe.

Terrain in Urban is a lot more black and white in terms of whether things are go-able or not. This *shouldn't* be contrived but I have seen some courses where they certainly are.

If it takes a lot of effort to see a single route that "goes" then this is maybe a bit contrived whereas if many routes can be seen, but it is tricky to see the best one then that sounds a bit better.

In the original example the cometitors gain a 200m advantage - 30% of them. This suggests to me that the route required an enforced detour around an obstacle (the fence).
In the forest the planner would try to avoid such routes - it would be deemed good planning to do so.
In sprint / urban it seems that the planner is searching out such routes, or even creating them with the addition of barriers on race day to create convolutions.

Over-simple areas can be made a bit harder (and a bit less familiar to those how know / have studied) the area by a few extra fences, but IMO shouldn't be over-done.

[pete.owens]

I think these situations arise more because sprint courses tend to be more contrived.

All good orienteering courses are "contrived" in that the planner is trying to set difficult navigational problems and get the competitors to follow lines that they wouldn't dream of if they were setting off for a stroll in the countryside.

In the original example the cometitors gain a 200m advantage - 30% of them. This suggests to me that the route required an enforced detour around an obstacle (the fence).

In the forest the planner would try to avoid such routes - it would be deemed good planning to do so.

On a yellow course maybe.

Route choice is a key element of course planning in the forest as well as sprint.
Now it might be less black and white in the forest - and corespondingly less fair as that short cut through the green might turn out to be reasonably fast and the longer path run involves knee deep mud.

In sprint / urban it seems that the planner is searching out such routes,

Just as a planner in the forest will be seeking out legs which offer a variety of routes - rather than sequence of set-your-compass-and-run-in-a-straight-line jobs.

or even creating them with the addition of barriers on race day to create convolutions.

Only really nescessary at top level events where the competitors will have spent months in preparation working out all the optimum routes through the terrain. A couple of barriers at key points - or opening up a route through a back alley means they have to plan on the run.

[Adrian]

In the "A Sprint-O Puzzle" article in CompassSport, David May quoted an IOF document about a hypothetical situation with a gate:

In the WOC sprint final, a large old gate to a park that is usually permanently locked is just shown as (part of) an uncrossable fence. On the day of the race, unknown to the organisers, it is suddenly opened before any runner has reached that point. It is passed on one of the two obvious routes and 30% of the runners go through it since the control is just near it and this saves 200m of extra running.

The map was effectively incorrect so the runners who went through the gate cannot
reasonably be disqualified.

This is interesting, because gates that might be open or closed during an event (and therefore can't be allowed as a route) occur quite often in urban events, most recently at Cambridge. The IOF document suggests that mapping them as uncrossable fences is "effectively incorrect", which raises the question, how should they be mapped?

Just to go back to this, I think that if this is the correct interpretation of the rules, then the rules need to be changed. For one thing, the map looks better if an uncrossable gate is simply mapped as part of the uncrossable fence it is part of. For another thing, it's perfectly clear from the map that there's no way through allowed.

[roadrunner]

In the "A Sprint-O Puzzle" article in CompassSport, David May quoted an IOF document about a hypothetical situation with a gate:

In the WOC sprint final, a large old gate to a park that is usually permanently locked is just shown as (part of) an uncrossable fence. On the day of the race, unknown to the organisers, it is suddenly opened before any runner has reached that point. It is passed on one of the two obvious routes and 30% of the runners go through it since the control is just near it and this saves 200m of extra running.

The map was effectively incorrect so the runners who went through the gate cannot
reasonably be disqualified.

This is interesting, because gates that might be open or closed during an event (and therefore can't be allowed as a route) occur quite often in urban events, most recently at Cambridge. The IOF document suggests that mapping them as uncrossable fences is "effectively incorrect", which raises the question, how should they be mapped?

Just to go back to this, I think that if this is the correct interpretation of the rules, then the rules need to be changed. For one thing, the map looks better if an uncrossable gate is simply mapped as part of the uncrossable fence it is part of. For another thing, it's perfectly clear from the map that there's no way through allowed.

I'm not sure about that. Suppose that, rather than a gate in a fence, the gate forms the barrier across a narrow alleyway - then when it is open there might be nothing at all visible to suggest a barrier of any sort, whether crossable or not? If you take that to its logical conclusion, a planner could place an "uncrossable feature" line across any route they didn't want to be taken, without there being anything on the ground at all - after all, it would be perfectly clear on the map that it wasn't an allowed route

Personally, I think this is the one case where removing a leg from the results is the fairest solution; whether people took a legal route or inadvertently took the forbidden one, they would still run the rest of the course believing they were competitive - unlike the situation where a control is missing or in the wrong place etc.

[graeme]

it's perfectly clear from the map that there's no way through allowed.

Not sure which you're talking about here.

In the compasssport item the black line between buildings is clearly NOT the 0.4mm uncrossable wall symbol, and the Cambridge race jury says: "while the red line should have been cut, there was sufficient information on the map to allow the uncrossable designation to be seen".

So there's ambiguity in each case, which is why we have juries to determine the fairest outcome. Personally, I think organisers should take responsibility (not blame) and never DQ people for something which, in retrospect, they could have avoided. This applies to "effectively wrong" maps and equally well to following in the forest due to 90 sec start intervals.