Lakes Day 5

[Freefall]

Though we had runners navigating to the last control (and some dropped too low) the planner suggested adding a line at the bottom of the description sheet describing (in English not IOF speak) what the last control actually was. Did anyone spot this or not?


I am all for navigating to finish if there are multiple last controls - maybe a tape funnel right by the box of course.

Day 1 Controller

[Gnitworp]

I chopped off your note when I prepared a description sheet for my wrist band.
Were you aware of Guideline 2.4.2?
You could have had a common last control in the shallow reentrant where your finish was, and then a short taped route, say 50 metres, to the finish.

[Snail]

The important issue is to ensure that the finish is fair to all competitors - and unless you are careful with the layout using "navigate to finish" from last controls some distance away may not be. Particularly if there is any possibility of approaching the finish from multiple directions (even through error ).

Competitors (naturally) tend to congregate around the finish. On Day 5, at the time I finished, some competitors and other spectators were obscuring the finish punches from runners approaching from certain directions - because they were looking for runners approaching from somewhere else. For this reason alone it would have been fairer to add an additional final control shortly before the actual finish.

On Day 1 with relatively short distances across the open fell it was less of a problem, as all runners were likely to approach from the same direction, and those who had finished could congregate in an area that wouldn't be a problem.

[Freefall]

As a controller I must confess I didn't take in the business about not navigating to last control. I'll raise it at my Grade 1 Controller's Course. Of course it says "should" rather than "must". Someone correctly points out that OCAD and IOF symbols allow for navigate - maybe that's OK for traditional punching and timing then? Let's go back to that (in fact the bus conductor clippies were great)

Hopefully nobody was disadvantaged (on Day 1 in any case). No complaints were heard or received but it is a good point.

[Roger]

Though we had runners navigating to the last control (and some dropped too low) the planner suggested adding a line at the bottom of the description sheet describing (in English not IOF speak) what the last control actually was. Did anyone spot this or not?

Yes, and I thought 'well done, good idea'. But I didn't see this extra line until I looked at the descriptions on the map, after I'd finished! It wasn't on the set of descriptions that I downloaded.

[Snail]

It wasn't on the set of descriptions that I downloaded.

There were a number of discrepancies between the descriptions issued in advance and those on the maps - and full marks to Day 5 for publicising some amendments.

But to Day 3. The downloaded descriptions for Course 21 (M12A etc) said "Follow flagged route" between controls 4 and 5 (codes 164 and 136). There was a flagged route leading away from 164, but it led to control 159!!! Since runners following flagged routes tend not to concentrate overmuch on the map, the result was people arriving at 159 and not having the faintest idea where they were. Some had to follow the flagged route back to 164 and start again.

In hindsight control 164 was also on course 22, and the flagged route was for that course only. The error was obviously spotted prior to the event, since the descriptions on the map for course 21 were correct, but no-one thought to inform competitors in advance - pretty appalling for a junior course.

[tendon]

"Follow flagged route" between controls 4 and 5 (codes 164 and 136). There was a flagged route leading away from 164, but it led to control 159!!! Since runners following flagged routes tend not to concentrate overmuch on the map, the result was people arriving at 159 and not having the faintest idea where they were.

I think the descriptions available on the day were the same. Explains a lot, since our M12A mispunched/retired on this control, having found 159 and then having no idea what was going on We couldn't understand how he missed on a taped route.

[Tatty]

This was also on the veteran women's short course. I was stopped by 2 youngsters who were obviously very confused by the tapes not being as stated in the details. There were tapes leading into my control, where the descriptions said they would lead away from the control. I know some people followed these religiously down to a track, whereas the direct route went at right angle to them. All very confusing. Depended on whether you used downloaded descriptions, ones available on the day, or those on the map as to whether you were in the "know".

[tendon]

I would argue that controls at either end of a taped route should only be used if the taped route applies. Not acceptable, particularly at junior level, to mix and match. Day 2 also had a common control on M12A and W10A with tapes leading out for the younger class only.

[IanW]

In hindsight control 164 was also on course 22, and the flagged route was for that course only. The error was obviously spotted prior to the event, since the descriptions on the map for course 21 were correct, but no-one thought to inform competitors in advance - pretty appalling for a junior course.

Actually. it was the other way round. The error occured because condes requires a text box to be attached to a control. When printing the maps, it was remembered to produce separate versions of the course layouts with and without the atttached message and of course these were checked carefully. The web descriptions (which were also used for the on the day descriptions) were produced later and the need to use different versions of the course layouts was overlooked. I confess that I didn't check these, because they had been produced from data that had already been checked. But this was the first time we had used condes and obviously with hindsight...

The problem therefore didn't come to light until early finishing competitors queried it. As soon as we realised what had happened we asked the start officials to make an announcement to all competitors as they started.

It was a serious error for those affected and we can only apologise. Funny though how people here automatically assume the worst of planners/controllers/organisers. Of course if we'd known beforehand we would have made every effort to inform competitors.

Ian