Better Planning

[Snail]

But if you are on the "perfect area", how many controls would you have?

eg if you are planning a 12km course probably either 3 x 4km legs or 30 x 400m legs is a bit extreme, so somewhere in between is something that people are happy with.

Is say 2x2km, 4x1km, 6x500m, 4x250m = 16 controls +S&F too many/few? And what about the mix?

[Adventure Racer]

No bingo controls. If you can't accurately navigate precisely to the control using your map and compass it's not an appropriate control location. Similarly if the map surrounding the control isn't totally accurate, such that whatever your direction of approach the ground matches the map, it's not an appropriate control location.

[Adventure Racer]

I'd think 2x2km and 4x1km legs on a 12km course is rather too many long legs. I'd rather see 1x2.5km, 1x1.5km, 1x1km and everything else <1km.

[rocky]

Is say 2x2km, 4x1km, 6x500m, 4x250m = 16 controls +S&F too many/few? And what about the mix?

i can think of some great scandinavian classics which can be broken down something similar to this, perhaps more controls due to some 100m legs.

can't think of many british areas which would support that many longer legs though.

-m

[tendon]

Planning a 12k course on a perfect area - but for what? The criteria for planning a long course for a world cup (say) is slightly different to that for a UK regional event. There are many orienteers who would be unhappy at not getting their monies worth if they only had 16 controls! I've certainly had occasions where two runners have had completely opposing views on whether a course was good or not based largely on the control frequency (and only one was right). So, you may plan the perfect course and still not please everyone.

My criteria is that no competitor should be penalised for being right. So:
controls should not be obscured (except by the feature they are supposed to be on)
route choice should not have any hidden bias
a control on a feature in a reentrant (say) is still in a reentrant so should not be close to another control in the same reentrant, even if its on a different secondary feature
the planner is there to challenge, not to trick

If an impartial look at each course suggests that it will be enjoyable, it normally will be. If the same overview says it will be boring, or tracky, it is. Take time, and plan not just for difficulty but for entertainment.

[Babybel]

Controls on the top of hills which you can see from the bottom + know full well that you're just gonna run straight back down again.grr....

[kingpin]

What I like: running navigation.

Which means that if I can't run (too thick, too overgrown, too steep -- up or down or across) then I'm not happy. And if I can't navigate on the run (over-detailed map, inaccurate map, only sensible route being on twisty forking unmapped un-navigable paths in the green) then I'm also unhappy.

A long straight path run is more tolerable early in the course, when I can be examining routes for the rest of the course, than it would be at the end. Worst of all is stumbling through a bog of thigh-high tussocks to get to an obvious feature that's visible on the far side: not running and not navigation.

Pet hates:

unfairness. E.g. flags hidden (accidentally or deliberately) immediately behind trees, an attractive route-choice that turns out to be head-high in unmapped bracken, confusable feature just-too-small-to-be-mapped on the approach from one direction but not another.

unnecessary pain. I'd rather revisit the nice bit of an area, or even have a short course, than have to slog through the grot just to get the winning time up to the range recommended in the guidelines. Hills are OK though, if runnable in at least one direction and if the leg to the top / bottom has some orienteering merit.

[AndyO]

1. I agree no bingo controls, it should always be possible to navigate to a control site using map and compass.
2. Path running should be kept to a minimum, and ideally should not offer the quickest route (safest maybe, not quickest)if there is route choice.
3. Mixing long and short legs - no formula, just make the most of the map.
4. Changes of direction also good, keep runners thinking
5. Avoid Grand Old Duke of York legs straight up hills - they are just noping boring
6. Plan for enjoyment - the simplest test is the faces of runners as they finish.

[guest]

My criteria are as follows:

Everycontrol should start or finish a good leg.

Every resultant 'bad' leg should be as short as possible without reducing the quality of the following 'good' leg

Every'good'leg should be as long as possible.

The quality of a 'good' leg is judged by the density of 'decision points' along its length and the 'scope for error'.

[guest]

My criteria are as follows:

Everycontrol should start or finish a good leg.

Every resultant 'bad' leg should be as short as possible without reducing the quality of the following 'good' leg

Every'good'leg should be as long as possible.

The quality of a 'good' leg is judged by the density of 'decision points' along its length and the 'scope for error'.

I'd like to improve my above criteria as follows:

Every control should start or finish a good leg or both.

Every resultant 'bad' leg should be as short as possible without reducing the quality of the following 'good' leg.

Every 'good' leg should be as long as possible without compromising the quality of subsequent legs.

The quality of a 'good' leg is judged by the density of 'decision points' on the best route along its length, and the 'scope for error'.

Re this last criterion, I anticipate many arguing for a less-than-obvious, circuitous, fastest-route 'track option' not detracting from the quality of a long leg.

[guest]

[quote="guest"][quote="guest"]:

Every control should start or finish a good leg or both.

To elaborate: there are obvious exceptions to this criterion, for instance, a last control simply 'gathers' competitors into the finish, and could, and probably should, end a 'bad' leg; but this 'bad' leg should be as short possible consistent with following the preceding 'good' leg.
The same would apply to controls on crossing points and starts and ends of taped routes.

[graeme]

Re this last criterion, I anticipate many arguing for a less-than-obvious, circuitous, fastest-route 'track option' not detracting from the quality of a long leg.

Of course. Otherwise you can make all the route choice decisions in the car park "through the terrain will be fastest". A good course forces you to makes decisions in the woods!

Graeme

[ryeland of doom]

Planning a 12k course on a perfect area - but for what?
route choice should not have any hidden bias
a control on a feature in a reentrant (say) is still in a reentrant so should not be close to another control in the same reentrant, even if its on a different secondary feature

Been had by this one.. Veg boundary running down the centre of a reentrant, flag on both, and I mispinched. Still visited the control, just stupidly visited the wrong flag.
Also BE04 Culbin, I ran M40S which was the same as the mens short course. Had a reentrant, where both reentrants on either side of a knoll were controls, only one was called a col.


Moral - check your code!

[guest]

Re this last criterion, I anticipate many arguing for a less-than-obvious, circuitous, fastest-route 'track option' not detracting from the quality of a long leg.

Of course. Otherwise you can make all the route choice decisions in the car park "through the terrain will be fastest". A good course forces you to makes decisions in the woods!

Graeme

There can be many different ways 'through the terrain'. A 'good'leg presents these.

[rosco]

I think a good course should bring out the best of the area.

And while variety is good I hate courses that you can't get a rhythm in.