Sprint distance measurement

[DJM]

So we are quite happy to spend time adding our Sprint/Urban routes to RouteGadget as competitors (essentially the same process), but begrudge this time when we wear a planner's hat?

Sprint/Urban course lengths are pretty meaningless as they now are as they bear little relation to the distances actually run. I want to argue that publishing optimal route lengths does have real meaning ...

Given the uniformity of terrain underfoot at most Sprint/Urban races, there won't be much variation in winners' min/km where optimal lengths are considered (unlike in forest terrain).

Thus there should be a pretty consistent range of (optimal route) course lengths which we could identify to fit the 12 - 15 min Sprint winning time for each age class. If, in a particular age class, winning speeds are consistently around 5.0 min/km, then the range of "real" courses lengths will be 2.4 to 3.0 km for this class: the planner's task is then to produce a course of "real" length within this range - a rather easier one than going by guesswork.

Isn't this going to be a time saver?

[Simon E]

For the whole history of sprint races we have been happy to publish straight line distances, in contrast to the convolutions of forest race distance measuring. Indeed I (and DJM!) have frequently stood up at training courses and conferences and made this very point.

As a competitor I really don't care what course length you publish, as long as you get roughly the right winning time. I'll be mildly surprised to see a course of over 3.5km or under 2km, but will happily leave it to the planner and controller to decide.

As a planner/controller I consider it a complete and utter waste of effort to do anything else then stick with current practice and use straight line distances. This is what the available software does. This is what competitors understand.

This is NOT the same as saying I wouldn't calculate the actual distance as a planner, in the ways previously described. I just don't want to bother having to update the control descriptions manually every time that things get changed.

DJM seems to suggest that this change is needed so that planners get the right winning times. If that really is a problem then something else is needed (better training material and controlling) rather than making life even more complicated.

IOF rules include great detail about how to measure and publish climb for a course. The Swedes quietly ignore this and put on courses where you will seldom if ever see a height climb quoted. Nobody seems to mind.

I'd suggest that something similar might be appropriate for this new approach to sprint distance measurement.

[Jon X]

Given the uniformity of terrain underfoot at most Sprint/Urban races, there won't be much variation in winners' min/km where optimal lengths are considered (unlike in forest terrain).

Exactly. We already know the range for the target winning time. So for sprint/urban we already know also the range for the likely actual distance. No need to publish one person's opinion of the optimal route.

There are plenty of things in this sport that need time and effort to fix them and/or make them better. I am afraid that with this one I am not seeing any problem that needs fixing nor hearing that other competitors are experiencing it as a problem.

I do agree that planner/controller may choose to look at actual distances under different routes to help them be sure they will hit the target winning time - that is totally different from publishing distances in different ways for different disciplines (which, semantics aside, is effectively what this is). The sport is confusing enough for newcomers without adding that!

[graeme]

So we are quite happy to spend time adding our Sprint/Urban routes to RouteGadget as competitors (essentially the same process), but begrudge this time when we wear a planner's hat?

Yes, volunteers are happy to do what they want to do, and not necessarily what they're told to do. That's what the word means.

[Wayward-O]

2-3 hours would also be sufficient time to test run all the courses.

Test run all the courses with a GPS watch and do both at the same time?

[229]

.

[Spookster]

Am I misunderstanding? Those two descriptions sound the same to me.

They're not the same. The BOF straight line would go through buildings, but the IOF straight line would go round buildings (and hence in urban terrain it would be much longer).

Like others, I'd just like the winning times to be right, and don't take too much notice of published course distances.

[andypat]

Theres a lot of fairly terchnical argument going on here.

I think DJM's point about the actual running distance is a lot more important to newcomers than it is to most of us on here, particularly if we are talking about longer distance urban events. Locally we've had a couple of urban events where the additional distance run versus straight line distance is almost 100%, but on the same area you can plan an event at around +30%.

However you measure it, it must be important to get across to newcomers - for whom a 5k park run might be their limit, that 5k straight line distance isnt what they are in for if they enter a 5k course on urban. For that reason I think the planner should give some idea of the optimal running distance for each course - making it clear its an estimate. EWTs are fairly meaningless for a newcomer - many experienced orienteers will take twice as long as the winner on sprint/urban.

[The Loofa]

I'm guessing that DJM's concerns arise from this year's WMOC. In the qualifier the optimum was signifcantly longer than the straight line and a lot of winning times were over the range. In the final optimum was a much smaller % over straight, and several winning times were quicker then the 12-15 range.

[Gnitworp]

....which was actually rather ridiculous when you're trying to find the best sprint orienteer in the world. There were also rather few controls on many courses, so some of the essential elements like many sudden abrupt changes of direction at controls and round blind corners during legs, were missing. Fast runners with questionable orienteering skills had a field day.

Actually, I think we're not sure what we're supposed to be testing in sprint O: is it intricate route-choice-loaded urban O, park O, O in intricate contours (forest and/or open), or a combination of any 2 or all 3? The skills needed, especially urban versus contours, are very different.

sorry Kitch if I'm straying from the thread subject

[andypat]

I think you do what you can with the terrain at your disposal. The imperative is that the potential entrants know what they are in for. Theres a world of difference between a sprint O in urban vs parkland.

[Gnitworp]

Theres a world of difference between a sprint O in urban vs parkland.

Exactly my point - therefore different disciplines?

[Arnold]

I think we are pretty clear on what we're trying to test with the Sprint Distance.

There's a much more complete version of this on BOF / IOF websites but broadly it's "making lots of micro decisions at very high speed" with the actual control sites being fairly easy and certainly very clearly defined (building corner, etc).

Now there is different terrain you can do this in, and it doesn't really matter as long as the objective above is met. In practice a town centre or university are likely to be good candidates, but why not some parkland areas if they're intricate enough but you probably do need some buildings of sorts. Or ideally a mixture of all of the above.

A purely forested area, however intricate, is not likely to be a particularly good area - that's what Middle is for...

[King Penguin]

A purely forested area, however intricate, is not likely to be a particularly good area - that's what Middle is for...

What about the JOK Chasing Sprint ?

[SJC]

What about the JOK Chasing Sprint ?

Sounds better than "JOK Chasing, bit on the short side, Middle"