Mandatory crossing points

[tim sleepless]

Never underestimate the potential stupidity of the orienteer --- particularly in a relay.

Or their ability to retain simple instructions?

From the relay programme:
"Safety & First Aid
The main and minor roads on the northern and eastern margins of the map are out of bounds for competitor’s safety."

Sure...

Number one... I'm focusing on the corridor between two points... I personally have little awareness of whether I'm on the North, East, South, or Western edge of the map.

Number two... you don't tend to recall stuff from the program in any great accuracy when you're in the forest... in a relay you're more worried about parts that relate to the start time, the changeover routine etc. I'll be honest and say that I hadn't registered that point.

Number three, even if I had remembered it, given that I didn't think (however erroneously) that the road I was running next to was OOB, I could have thought the note in the program it was refering to some other road on the map that was OOB.

FWIW, I made a reverse error early on the previous day running round a field that was in-bounds because of some badly remembered point about a field now being out of bounds but still having a crossing point shown.

It's clearly disappointing that a load of people went out of bounds, when you thought that you'd done enough to communicate what was in and out....unfortunately there are a lot of idiots like
me out there who didn't register what you were trying to say...

[Homer]

As a planner I would try very hard to make sure that the fastest route on any leg did not involve going through any OOB. At least that way, the 'cheats' would not prosper. I know that can be hard on many British areas.

Secondly, if a crossing point is mandatory and there is only one option then the crossing point is effectively a control and you may as well mark it as such and put a control there.

[Gnitworp]

[
Planners comments will make reference. I felt that the south side of the road/verge was a sufficiently solid feature to make the OOB clear - but wanted it to be understood that the OOB included the verge, not just the road surface, hence the addition of the solid line just inside the forest "marked continuously on the ground" (by the road edge itself - "etc") ... ignoring the bulge to the east

Anyone on the road was quite obviously in the OOB, regardless of the line or otherwise - no defence.

This spoilt the day for me - I stood on the corner for an hour or more directing people into the forest and some still tried to run round me onto the road. Why?

Perhaps someone who did use the road route would like to explain their decision to take this "option".[/quote]

I went straight, but think what happened in the heat of a relay competition was inevitable.

The general points I made in my previous posts (and the purpose of starting this thread) about forcing rather than [/b]trusting[/b] people to use compulsory crossing points, which apply equally to preventing them running out of bounds, seem to have been lost in discussion of specifics.

Planners should not set legs which [/b]'invite'[b] people to go out of bounds or cross forbidden barriers. If they do, rest assured, they will. No point keeping on doing it, and then earnestly rebuking transgressors. You'll never stop them this way. Plan your courses to prevent it; for me, end of story

Incidentally, I thought the BRC planning was excellent, and the straight route, through the medium green, on the controversial leg gave me my best leg placing by far (3rd). I was blissfully unaware of the dilema confronting those who chickened out!

[tendon]

Have a look at your map when you get it back and see whether it makes it clear that the road is hatched out (not sure whether images can be shown here - I have a jpg file of the offending section). I thought, as did the controllers, the map said enough and, coupled with the note in the programme, should have been unambiguous. Clearly wrong.

[graeme]

One thing I've learnt in 20 years is that you can't rely on people remembering programme notes. This isn't because they are wicked, or cheats, its just because after running flat out for an hour your powers of recall are challenged (this being the nature of the sport). It doesn't mean they can't be disqualified, any more than someone who inadvertantly punches at the wrong control. But if it really matters to keep people out of an area (e.g. for future access) then notes in the programme wont do it.

Regarding Gnitworp's crossing point: on my course it was on one possible route choice - a control there would have ruined the leg. I went through it (and had to swerve quite sharply right to do so). Being superpedantic my map is mismarked there again - the red line is broken indicating multiple crossing points rather than just one in the previous field, and its not diverted to the marked crossing point (because its slap bang on the straight line...). And the reason its mismarked is the last minute loss of access to the field which had horses in it.
Anyone who has been involved in an event knows that these things happen.

As for the road route in the relay - it wasn't OOB during the individual!

[tim sleepless]

As a planner I would try very hard to make sure that the fastest route on any leg did not involve going through any OOB. At least that way, the 'cheats' would not prosper. I know that can be hard on many British areas.

The inverted commas are important here. Did I make a conscious decision to cheat..? No. And I suspect that's true of most who went that way. I clearly didn't read the map closely enough (as is often the case). It's not so much a question of trust, as eliminating fuck-up potential.

[tendon]

i usually dont notice many paths..... let alone out of bounds

Thats reassuring then!!

[tim sleepless]

Have a look at your map when you get it back and see whether it makes it clear that the road is hatched out (not sure whether images can be shown here - I have a jpg file of the offending section). I thought, as did the controllers, the map said enough and, coupled with the note in the programme, should have been unambiguous. Clearly wrong.

Will do... feel free to chuck it though... I'll get your email from Dumper.

One other thing to note from a communications perspective is that more attention will be paid to program notes about OOB if they are in a clear section about OOBs, rather than mixed in points about cagoules. Where it is I'll register as helpful reassurance that you're not going to send people across a dual carriage-way, rather than as a note requiring attention and action.

[mat-d]

hopefully the last few weeks of o will be a lesson for elite/big events to put the appropraite red lines on maps to signify where people aren't supposed to go.

and yes as godders said, the map is the only thing you have in the forest and so all the info needed should be on the map, not strune on bits of paper you dont have with you.
Only if people break these rules with all info on the map, then they should be dsq'd.

[Kitch]

I am not great at reading programmes so I know that notes there can't be relied on.
So at BUSA I put the symbol on the map - fence not to be crossed - solid purple line along it - line between controls broken indicating competitor had the choice to go left or right.

Was still totally ignored by numerous runners.

Some of them complaining that it should have been in the details clearly had no concept that what was on the map had specific meaning and should not need explaining any more than the circles and lines that represent the course.

you can't win
people are bloody stupid.
or ignorant.
or downright cheats.

The only solution is to start disqualifying people - particularly if they are jeopardising access.
If people don't know the rules they will soon learn.

Hey Ravinous
opportunity for an article in Compass Sport I think
"What does all this red stuff mean?"

[Gross]

"What does all this red stuff mean?"

purple please

And the map I was running / crawling / walking on today was all white on the ground.... what's the IOF symbol for 'the snow is 30cm deep'

[Gnitworp]

The only solution is to start disqualifying people - particularly if they are jeopardising access.
If people don't know the rules they will soon learn.

No, plan your courses so that they cannot gain advantage by going out of bounds. I always do it. I planned JK 2003 Day 1 and did it. If no one goes out of bounds (apart from 'certifiable lost souls') you've got it right. If not, you haven't. It's as simple as that.

[Safety]

No, plan your courses so that they cannot gain advantage by going out of bounds. I always do it. I planned JK 2003 Day 1 and did it. If no one goes out of bounds (apart from 'certifiable lost souls') you've got it right. If not, you haven't. It's as simple as that.

Disagreed.

Some times to make best use of an area a planner will have to make courses circumnavigate areas of OOB and in unfortunate cases as appeared to have happened this weekend (watching things from home) areas are closed off after the courses have been finalised. Sadley these things happen and we have to put up with them. I agree with Matt, so long as the map is marked up correctly, any orienteer should know what the symbols mean. There is no excuse for anyone to run through, run along, or crossover areas or features that are marked with the correct symbols on the map and the only way to deal with people who do is to label them a cheat and disqualify them. Even if it does means our best runners don't qualify for world cups etc. If they cheat they don't deserve to respresent the country.

[tendon]

If no one goes out of bounds (apart from 'certifiable lost souls') you've got it right. If not, you haven't. It's as simple as that.

With a bit more time, I might have refined the leg to avoid the problem. Earlier, Gnitworp wrote that he went straight and it was his fastest split. For the faster, technically competent runners, I think straight was quickest. However, the course caters for a range of ages and physical abilities and I felt that an option to go round was necessary to provide a balance and to give a bail out route from the medium green.

The hospital closed a couple of weeks back. Prior to that, the road, at weekends, was very busy with a lot of high speed traffic. The relay team concluded that a group of runners appearing on a blind bend into oncoming traffic was not acceptable and therefore marked this section of road OOB. The adjacent verge is very narrow in places and non-existant elsewhere ...


Actually, I struggle to understand why I need to defend myself on this. The road was oob, and a lot of runners ignored, or missed, this. As the first post on the subject noted , the road was clearly marked. Somehow, this has become a planning defect rather than an issue for those who took the decision to run down the road, who seem to have been largely silent (Tim Sleepless excepted).

The last few weeks have been fairly testing. The relays were, for a while, in question, and I tried to do a reasonable job in a very short space of time. Clearly, as Gnitworp indicates, I failed on these courses.

So be it - just don't expect me to come forward next time. I've done my bit, over to someone else, so I can throw brickbats

[awk]

So be it - just don't expect me to come forward next time. I've done my bit, over to someone else, so I can throw brickbats

I hope it's just a rest you need Tim - planning two major races in two years must be pretty draining. Certainly, I thought my relay course was one of the most enjoyable I've run for quite a while, no mean achievement with what, on examination of the map, wasn't a brilliant (not bad, but not brilliant) area, and massive time constraints.