JK control descriptions

[guest]

I'm probably being a bit stupid, but I've been looking at control descriptions for M21L at JK and there's a couple in there which I'm not sure what they are...

one control (day 2 no.2) the feature 3 black triangles, in a trianglular formation. I'm pretty sure it's something rocky, but I've been looking at Simon E's site & the official IOF control desciptions and it doesn't appear on there.... 5 triangles seems to be a boulder field, and 2 is a boulder cluster, but 3?...

Also on day 1 there are two controls on large depressions, where the next column has on one occasion 3 black triangles - which from IOF descriptions indicates "rocky, stony" - but another control is almost identical but has 5 black triangles, which doesn't seem to appear in the official list. Is this very very very rocky or something?

I'm surprised if JK control descriptions don't follow IOF specifications. Or do we use some alternative BOF version for some symbols in this country? Or am I just being a bit dumb?

[RJ]

The boulder field, as a control feature (column D), is shown as five triangles. Three triangles in a group is a cairn or pile of stones. Two triangles together is a cluster of boulders.

The appearance of a control site (column E) is stony and shown as a group of three triangles, as an inverted triangle (!)

A bit of overkill really!

[guest]

According to the IOF specs, a cairn or pile of stones is a circle with a dot in it, not 3 triangles. Have they used the wrong symbol then?

[RJ]

Quite right. I really must throw out the old version!!!

On the Day 1 descriptions for M21L it would appear that No.9 is 102 Depression, stony and No.19 is Depression, rocky.

However, I believe the symbol for stony should be a grid pattern of dots 5 by 5.

Anyway, you can tell us what the difference is when you visit them.

[graeme]

Wearing my pedantic controller hat...

Three triangles is "rocky or stony", as the appearance of the feature. No promise of any black on the map.

Five triangles isn't allowed as an appearance - it is a feature - boulderfield, a black triangle on the map. You can have it in column E if there are two features, both mapped (eg "between the depression and the rocky ground") but that doesn't make sense here with sizes and parts. I expect they just meant to use three triangles.

Unless of course the event details tell you otherwise - maybe the three triangles mean a nuclear waste pit ?

Graeme

[Simon E]

Despite the fact that the new IOF Specification has been in force since 2004, and was incorporated in Appendix A of the BOF Rules 2003, there are still several events that continue to use the 1990 version. I have been meaning for ages to get Barry Elkington to put something in Focus about this, but I guess he can pick it up from here now.

It's not just British events though. Many of the Park World Tour races in 2005 used the wrong set of symbols. For example see these maps, where those three triangles turn up again, along with several single trees shown as triangles with circles rather than the new tree symbol.

Planners need to ensure they have updated the relevant OCAD, Condes or whatever files before they start. It's not a big thing, but it's easy to get right.

And before another fight breaks out, it's the planners job to get them right in the first place (Rule 4.3.2) and the Controller's job to confirm the planner got it right (Rule 4.4.1).

[seabird]

It's very easy to see how these errors arise.
Column E has a dual purpose; naming the feature (e.g. "boulderfield" as when it is "between boulderfields") and the descriptive "rocky, marshy" etc.

Both types appear in the same palette for Column E, certainly in Ocad - can't speak for Condes. So without painstaking reading of the appropriate Appendix (and really life is sometimes too short) such errors will re-occur.

I never quite understood why column E lost it's function as being merely descriptive; i.e "junction, crossing marshy, rocky" etc all being in the same column, with column F used for the second feature if that was required. At a glance that prevented the confusion that has been identified.

[Simon E]

It's very easy to see how these errors arise.

There are two different errors being made.

The first, and easier to correct, is simply that people are using the wrong set of symbols. If you update your symbol set correctly then this is an impossible mistake to make during the planning.

The second error is misuse of the correct symbols. I'm not sure this really requires "painstaking reading of the the appropriate Appendix" but it certainly requires familiarity with the IOF specification.