SOL3 Dallaschyle

[Sunlit Forres]

I fell foul of 178 - completely my own fault. I just headed in to the general area from a good attack point close by, expecting to see the flag without really looking at the control description or how close the boulder was to the hillside. A lesson to be learned - thanks INVOC!.

[mappingmum]

Ah yes, I remember the 171-178-111 cluster very well, despite an excellent approach (to 111).

[campervan]

Again, I appreciate your comments.
The guidance I was given and still use when placing controls on TD5 is to let competitors find the feature rather than the control, but not to hide the control.
194 looked like a good site on the map, with the leg into it committing to either climbing the contours and risking going too high or staying safe on the flat. I thought the thicket in the reentrant was interesting, but unfair (and unproductive in terms of adding enjoyment) to place the control within the thicket itself. Perhaps it would have been better to alter the control description to Thicket, north side.
178 was that lovely boulder set into the hillside. My original description of this was 1/2 for dimensions indicating it was set into a slope but we altered that to a height. Perhaps it would have been better to stick with the original plan. The control description as boulder, south side, was a pretty good clue though. I dont think there are too many other boulders round there.
115 to 165 was about tempting folk into the high risk strategy of going straight through the low visibility and featureless forest between the controls, or round the outside, longer and safer. Those brave enough to go direct had to commit to a reentrant bound by cliffs at both sides, but there was a degree of reorientation involved on coming out of the forest. The control was on the saddle, rather than the reentrant and I remember looking back up after the control was sited and thinking 'how much do I want that to be seen?' I was thinking its fair to have the saddle, rather than reentrant, located before the control.
179 seems to have caused a lot of bother according to Routegadget. I'm a bit more uneasy about this one as I think a significant number of folk seem to have had wanders around on the approach. The stream should have been a good catching feature but quite a lot of folk seem to have gone wandering before going far enough. Perhaps we should look at the map and for this bit and see if its the fairest representation.

[EddieH]

I don't agree that there's any problem with 179 (control 17 on Black). The ground clearly flattens out some 100m south of the control, before dropping again into the valley bottom. I thought this a brilliant site as the first flattening appeared to be the bottom if not reading the basic contours. I stopped very briefly to check the map here before realising the situation.

Regarding not putting split heights for the boulder 178 (control 15 on black) this would be a negative criticism by me that you didn't. I WISH planners and controllers would correctly use this ALWAYS. I've run above more than 1 boulder ignoring it as it's described as over 1 metre yet it's insignificant from above. In this case I just knew I was in the right place, but split heights would have made it absolutely clear it would be on a steep slope.

[graeme]

WARNING: old bloke reminiscing. If you don't like self-indulgent cr*p look away now.

Ah, 179! I'd forgotten all about it...

When I got home jane reminded me that we planned that leg in '99. It's classically set up for a parallel error: you encounter a line of similar features with strip of light green behind which looks like it will have the stream in it (but doesn't). If you continue it becomes clear what it is, but if you stop short there's lots of vague details and it'll take a while to sweepsearch. That was our idea, and the new-fangled SI splits told us it worked then.
Plus ca change...

[housewife]

the problem is that there was a stream in it (believe me, I looked), maybe caused by the recent heavy rain, but a blue dotted line at least is needed on the map, as currently the map is wrong .

[Sunlit Forres]

Just back from taking a junior training group out in Dallaschyle. Control 6 on orange (no 138 I think) was still there - would have been nice if the rest could have been left out too!

[AlanB]

Any idea when the results will be uploaded to BOF (and ranking points awarded) - given the 14 day limit?

[campervan]

Ranking points seem to have fallen between the gaps. Its been pointed out and we are on to it now. Should happen for Thursday.

Thanks for letting me know about 138.

[AlanB]

Ranking points seem to have fallen between the gaps. Its been pointed out and we are on to it now. Should happen for Thursday.

Thanks for letting me know about 138.

Cheers!