Level B proposals for 2011

[andypat]

I would hpope that the Scottish sprint champs is one of those.

Any idea when/where that is next year Eddie?

[graeme]

Perth.

Not the city centre: a fantastic technical area I wanted to use for PWT.

[Clive Coles]

Well Eddie....

Otherwise frankly there could be a Level B event in NE Scotland almost every week and never in East Anglia. That is surely not what we want.

It's surely up to the clubs to respond to what their members want.

If the Scots want to fill their programme with level B events, providing they can deliver to the required guideline, let them.

I don't see a great clammering mob in East Anglia campaigning for level B events. I will be surprised if there are more than 3 level B events per year in our region. We are not blessed with technical quality terrain ~ no BOF quality standard can change the landscape. But we can stage a good varied programme of level C and D events which utilises the areas at our disposal.

The new 4-tier system appears to provides us with the flexibility to stage that which satisfies our membership. If other clubs want to stage more level B's than us let them.

I disagree with some earlier comments. I think there should be very few "givens". A number of branded fixtures are consistently good ~ others are sometimes good and sometimes disappointing. So, let the rules determine what needs to be done to allow an event to be staged at Level B. No event should be fast tracked into level B just because it is a brand.

[andypat]

Perth.

Not the city centre: a fantastic technical area I wanted to use for PWT.

Interesting - but the "when" would be useful too for booking the weekend.....

[graeme]

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/e ... rch=Search

[andypat]

Thanks Graeme - you know the more I use the BOF fixtures website the more aggravated I get with it! (see other thread) I tried searching for that event by "sprint" and by "regional" events and had come to the conclusion that it wasnt being held this year. Next time I want to know something about a future event I think I'll just come on here and ask.....

The sooner someone can get rid of the option to register an event type as TBC the better!

[70plus]

Logically, most orienteers would expect B events to offer better terrain than C or D, and it seems reasonable to include that idea in the new guidelines. However O takes place in the real world, where pragmatism and geography will decide. Having fronted NWOA fixtures for 20 years I can only remind everyone that as long as major events and regional champs. rotate round the regions, Buggins' turn means that ordinary terrain has to come round too.

In England it is unavoidably true that (with some notable exceptions) many thriving clubs wishing to stage A or B events cannot offer 'good' terrain to match. Must they simply stick to level C? I suspect not. We've bent the 'rules' for decades, and I guess that will have to continue. I guess that the 'new' levels A to D will approximate to C1 to C5 - with A representing the old C1 and C2 combined ?

[Adrian]

I guess that the 'new' levels A to D will approximate to C1 to C5 - with A representing the old C1 and C2 combined ?

No - I think that's what lots of people were hoping for, but that's not what's been proposed. D is the old C4 and C5 combined.

Well, not exactly, but near enough. By the way, I hate it when people type tiny like this. Don't they realise how much it irritates people? Like they've got a wonderfully clever secret or something.

[mappingmum]

Me too. I agree.

[pete.owens]

That's not how I see it.

Level C corresponds almost exactly to the current level 2 (or at least how level 2 was intended by the original proposers). The vast majority of old C4 events met the organisational standards appropriate for this level - and in practice were little different from most C3 events.

While some of those voting for the new system saw it as a way of resurrecting old style badge events that was not what was proposed in the AGM motion. The spirit of this was in terms of a limited number of high quality events aimed at a national audience and the best of the traditional age class competition. The background also expressed concern at how different regions were interpreting the structure differently - so there really is an need to get a good definition of the standards expected - it seems a bit odd that regions are putting forward lists of proposals for level B events before the new guideline is published.

Now I can understand that those who worked on the current structure - and proposed 3 levels because it was simply too difficult to come up with a definition for a higher level that everybody could agree on, not being unduly worried. At least it means that level C can now be used in the way level 2 was intended. I am surprised by how unconcerned the most vocal supporters of the 4 tier structure seem to be about the lack of definition of the new level that they campaigned for.

It is pretty clear that everyone has a radically different idea of what the new level B should entail. However I think there is a way forward. Level C has been drawn as broadly as possible to give the basic minimum standards for a serious competition - Level B should be defined tightly to include as many as possible of the features that different people consider important for a top notch event - that way you whatever your individual expectations they should be satisfied.

[pete.owens]

In England it is unavoidably true that (with some notable exceptions) many thriving clubs wishing to stage A or B events cannot offer 'good' terrain to match. Must they simply stick to level C?

Yes - if level B is to mean anything at all.

Though many clubs that might not have suitable terrain to support a good quality black course - they may have an excellent small area that could support a level B middle distance event, or a university campus suitable for a sprint, or a medieval town centre.

[awk]

many thriving clubs wishing to stage A or B events cannot offer 'good' terrain to match.

Interesting one - what is 'good' terrain?! Another one of those concepts that people bandy around, but can rarely define sufficiently precisely, because, beyond the very obvious, it's all very personal and related to what sort of orienteering is intended.

Logically, most orienteers would expect B events to offer better terrain than C or D, and it seems reasonable to include that idea in the new guidelines.

They might, but they'd be wrong to. There are plenty of instance where lower level events completely outdo higher level events in terms of terrain quality. Terrain needs to be fit for purpose, in this case the competition being hosted, not 'better' than other areas/events.

[Red Adder]

We continue to go round in circles. In order for 4 levels to have any meaning there has to be an extra benefit of Cat B over Cat C - otherwise we should have correctly assigned all events that offer full electronic support and over-printed maps to L2 and saved ourselves a lot of time and money.

Commentaries / embargoed land, pre-entry (as major disincentive as far as I'm concerned), grade 2 controllers or even a "brand" add nothing of real value to me. It has to be quality of terrain and planning, even if that means that some areas of the country (my own region included) have very few areas that can support Cat B events.

Otherwise I can see more events like the one I rejected recently. A branded one clearly targetted to be CAT B under the new system. The price was 50 % up on current CC events - plus a £ 2 parking charge with major surcharges if you don't pre-enter - all with a 160 mile round-trip. A bit of research also revealed that the area is a muddy bramble patch without outstanding features to lift the area. Routegadget of the use of the area for the same event a couple of seasons ago showed an uninspiring set of courses. I can not believe this was the sort of event envisaged by the 4 level compaigners - but what I always feared - the new Cat B status being used to justify higher fees at what is really a standard CC event.

[graeme]

it seems a bit odd that regions are putting forward lists of proposals for level B events before the new guideline is published.

Drafts of the new guidelines have been sent to the regional fixtures secretaries, so they aren't just making it up with their proposals.

It also helps to refine the proposals, e.g. the Scottish O-league is aimed at Scottish runners, not those in other regions (who are welcome to run, but excluded from the league scoring system unless they opt-in). So the B guideline was changed to "travel significant distance" rather than the Anglocentric "attract people from other regions".

What is good terrain.

As I've been arguing over a series of articles in CompassSport, good terrain can be almost anything with an accurate map, careful planning, and appropriate choice of event format.

[Red Adder]

Graeme has a good point as to what makes a suitable area. I would add runnability and/or variability to his list. In my view that is difficult to offer a very enjoyable [b]orienteering[/b] challenge on an area that is dominated by extensive areas or brambles / brashings / deep heather / very dense vegetation. Similarly an area that is flat and covered with almost identical blocks of featureless FC plantation.

With skilled planning both can be used for reasonable Cat C events but I would not use either for a premium event.