Scottish Sprint Champs

[graeme]

Yes, I know I've posted here before on this issue, the nopolice will be watching, and so I am being very careful.

[andypat]

Especially seeing juniors DQed for punching at the wrong side of the hedge with controls on both sides.

See I think thats a slightly different issue.

A - its sprint not urban and I think that makes a difference
B - I think that tricking a competitor to go the wrong side of a feature is one thing, putting a control on the wrong side to convince them they are right is harsh. Also I think it dsiadvantaged people whose control was on the inside of the hedge more as the other control was visible on the way to the start.

PS Did anyone take on the crossable river on 1-2 course B? Didn't seem to save quite enough distance to risk it in flat shoes.

No but I noticed it was mapped as crossable

[Big Jon]

I have to say, I disagree Jon; the siting was pretty unambiguous to me, given the description.

If what is going to distinguish "urban" orienteering from sprint orienteering in an urban setting is that you need a degree in complicated control descriptions then I'm not for it.
My view of urban orienteering is that the route choices should be the distinguishing feature, not the exact placing of a control such that it is impossible to tell where it is without recourse to overly complex control descriptions.
Re Control 17 course 2, why not have "fence end" - the control placing would have been 1 m away but the description would have been completely unambiguous.

[andy]

I have to say, I disagree Jon; the siting was pretty unambiguous to me, given the description.

If what is going to distinguish "urban" orienteering from sprint orienteering in an urban setting is that you need a degree in complicated control descriptions then I'm not for it.

Is this is any documentation anywhere? I don't think the planner or controller read nopesport but I do know they very meticulously went through the planning guidelines (which, incidentally, is why the courses were 'short', they were planned almost exactly to the guidelines set out)

I don't really care about the issue itself because I make a point of getting the control description / side of feature in my head. As a result of doing this I don't read codes, I generally rely on being in the right place(!). It's tripped me up a few times but rarely.

[Scott]

The BOF urban guidelines (Guideline E) say:

Control descriptions are often more important than at forest based events. Many control sites have a number of possible descriptions. The planner should try to use the most obvious description; the challenge of urban orienteering is to navigate (and chose routes) between controls rather than decipher complicated control descriptions.

But, of course, different people will have different interpretations of "the most obvious description"; and quite often the exact placing of the control ends up being determined by where you can easily secure the SI box anyway.

[andypat]

It does also say this:

Controls on impassable features (walls, fences, etc) may tempt competitors to cross, lean over or reach through the impassable feature. Such control sites are best avoided but, if this is not possible, great care is needed with control (and punch) placement to avoid the possibility of competitors gaining an unfair advantage.

In this case the uncrossable fence was impenetrable so not an issue.

I persionally think that moving it to fence end (Big Jon's suggestion) renders the leg pretty meaningless as it would be too easy. Not sure you need a degree in control descriptions to do urban, but it certainly helps to at least understand them - one or two experienced orienteers I overheard chatting about this and other control descriptions on Sunday could do with a bit of extra homework at least...

[NeilC]

Re Control 17 course 2, why not have "fence end" - the control placing would have been 1 m away but the description would have been completely unambiguous.

Personally I would have gone for Fence south side (even if the control was hung at the junction). Worth noting that

1) Control descriptions were devised when the control circle wasn't always centred on the feature being used and so help was needed to identify where the flag would be
2) Control descriptions were devised before sprint/urban orienteering became popular and unlike mapping standards haven't really changed since

In urban orienteering there should be some test of knowing whether or not you can reach the control from a certain direction or not, and having the flag one side or other of an uncrossable feature is OK. Competitors do need to look at the control description to see on which side of the feature the flag will be sited but IMHO the description should do this in the simplest way possible. I'd actually be perfectly happy to use small dots within the circle to make it absolutely clear where the flag will be, thus avoiding the need for descriptions altogether.

[andy]

I'd actually be perfectly happy to use small dots within the circle to make it absolutely clear where the flag will be

I'd love to see more of this! Is it easy to do in condes?

[Ant W]

You just have to set the course up as Ski-O or Mountain Bike-O and it happens automatically. Not sure if this has any other implications...

[andypat]

I think this has been covered before - that technique works quite well for ultrasprint (see London regents park race from September) but doesnt cope with the under/over dilemma that is often an integral part of Urban racing.

[graeme]

use small dots within the circle to make it absolutely clear where the flag will be,

JonX and I did this years ago in Stirling. Amidst an indescribable maze of walls, add one small green dot and one potted plant. Instant disambiguation .

Of course, if you don't believe you should put the circle where the flag is, preferring the "centre of the feature", then little dots won't help. For their benefit, I've got a special JK map with the circle on the centre of the B7015, half way to Fauldhouse. Not sure if the map has to be huge: I know the course length is measured between controls, and the control site must be on the map, but I can't find the rule saying what you do if the "centre of the feature" is several miles off the map.

[haloite]

I have to say I'm all for "small dots" when there may be some doubt about exact control location. It's not a great feeling when you are caught out by ambiguous control descriptions, which thankfully seem to becoming less frequent now there are more Urban and Sprint races about. I guess it's still a learning curve for the majority of Urban & Sprint converts?

[DaveR]

On deliberately ambiguous control placement and control circle misplacement. I'm with BigJon: I now carry a compass exclusively for orienting my control descriptions . I got them all OK but it detracted rather than enhanced my enjoyment of the event. Especially seeing juniors DQed for punching at the wrong side of the hedge with controls on both sides.

Completely agree with both Graeme and Jon.

I only made it to Saturday's races, excellent venue and well organised races. I was particularly pleased to see the W14s were given two serious, technical races.
Thanks to all involved.

[Big Jon]

It does also say this:

Controls on impassable features (walls, fences, etc) may tempt competitors to cross, lean over or reach through the impassable feature. Such control sites are best avoided but, if this is not possible, great care is needed with control (and punch) placement to avoid the possibility of competitors gaining an unfair advantage.

In this case the uncrossable fence was impenetrable so not an issue.

I persionally think that moving it to fence end (Big Jon's suggestion) renders the leg pretty meaningless as it would be too easy. Not sure you need a degree in control descriptions to do urban, but it certainly helps to at least understand them - one or two experienced orienteers I overheard chatting about this and other control descriptions on Sunday could do with a bit of extra homework at least...

I don't understand how the leg is made meaningless -the fence end was about 1metre from the control location.......... On the other hand placing the control here would have made the location of the control completely clear and unambiguous - something the BOF rules state should be done.

[andypat]

[I don't understand how the leg is made meaningless -the fence end was about 1metre from the control location.......... On the other hand placing the control here would have made the location of the control completely clear and unambiguous - something the BOF rules state should be done.

Am enjoying this debate - Big Jon by meaningless I mean there's only 1 obvious route to the control. The whole point of this control (in my opinion) is to tempt runners into saving some seconds by NOT CHECKING their control description and assuming the control is on the far side of the fence! This involves an early commitment to a route all the way round to the east - and a huge time loss.

Remember that the BOF guidelines say that the planner should use the most obvious desription for the control site. ie that the control description should be unambiguous which is different to saying the control location should be unambiguous from the map alone.

In this case the description fence junction inside NW corner accurately and unambiguously describes the control site - if you take the time to check the descriptions...