EMIT Question

[awk]

So what is the red thing that flashes on the EMIT box then ?

Don't know, because on quite a number of occasions (a dozen or more?) I saw the light flash, but the card didn't register.

my technique yesterday was to "tap" the larger end of the EMIT control with the business end of my EMIT card, and then to glance at the display to check I could see scrolling lines.

Tried that too - gave up as it wasn't working. Had to resort to lying flat for a couple of seconds.

[distracted]

I'm sorry, but I have to say it straight - EMIT's lack of obvious feedback (e.g. a beep or bright light) is the root cause of the problem here.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement - and think this is one of the major things electronic punching has got wrong. The basis of the argument here comes from Jarkko Ryyppö - creater of RouteGadget.

Going back in time a bit, before there was electronic punching - what was the feedback? A visual record of the pins in the card. If you were lazy or tried to punch too fast you may not have all the pin marks, or might have got the wrong box/spilled over boxes. This might lead to disqualification. With EMIT and SI, punch too fast and it doesn't register and you get DQ'd. So whatever the system, punch too fast/get lazy, and get DQ'd. How come this was all fine in the days of pin-punching but isn't any more?

Going on from this, my opinion is that the best EMIT system is the original - no light on the unit and no screen on the card. Why, you may ask? Simple - because you then have only one way of punching to guarantee that the system has registered - to place the card in flat and guarantee to get the back up punch. And that is why the system was designed with no feedback. Yes, it has its flaws - primarily that the backup card system is flimsy to say the least. But in theory, whether the electronics have registered or not - you have a record of being at that control and the punching system is the same for everybody, whatever happens. Just like when you use a pin-punch - to register your visit, everyone has to punch in the same way. If you carry out the process correctly, the punch will register. Introduction of the screen on the EMIT cards has led to people getting complacent and punching lazily, but as you only have two outcomes - punch registers or punch doesn't, you can get away with it more frequently. And then be surprised on the odd occasion when it doesn't register.

And of course with SI, the procedure can be even more convoluted. Most people here will have experienced what happens when a unit fails. You punch and get no feedback. You try and punch again and still get no feedback. You then have to fumble with your map and a pin-punch to record your visit to that control. What would happen if a unit failed mid-way through a sprint race? - those 10 seconds you've just wasted at a control because it has failed could have cost you the race.

So ideally an electronic punching system should require the same punching process irrespective of whether a unit is working or not, and the only way this can happen is if there is no feedback. If you have carried out the process correctly, you are guaranteed to have registered at that control. If you don't, you haven't. The challenge is to develop such a system that has a simple integrated back-up system, most likely mechanical, which will always register irrespective of whether the electronics are working. The standard EMIT system is the closest we have to this at the moment...

A fuller discussion of this is at http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionth ... sage_75826 - I think this shows that we have come so far with e-punching, but really need to rethink this. Neither SI or EMIT is in any way a perfect system - in fact I would argue that future development should if anything step back from what we have at the moment and start afresh as there are fundamental flaws with both.

[distracted]

Had to resort to lying flat for a couple of seconds.

A couple of seconds? I would suggest that you were unlucky awk, and had a dying card - punching should take 1/8 second. I have no idea if there is a way of testing the battery life of EMIT cards but I would have thought/hoped there was...

[andy]

Neither SI or EMIT is in any way a perfect system - in fact I would argue that future development should if anything step back from what we have at the moment and start afresh as there are fundamental flaws with both.

Not a bad shout in the general scheme of things, but in order to make that viable it would probably turn out to be very expensive.


On a side note - has a mispunch ever happened at a major (WOC) event due to 'system failure'?

Also - I still stand by my original arguement: if you are worried about DSQing then take some extra time over it, if you're more worried about saving a few seconds then you play the risk and have to accept if you make a mistake. It's just like missing a box with Pin Punching I guess - I'm sure that used to happen

[distracted]

but in order to make that viable it would probably turn out to be very expensive.

True perhaps, but then how did the current systems come about? I'm aware EMIT, formerly Regnly, was developed in conjunction with various Orienteering Federations. Not sure about SI, but both were (a) developed using the technology available at the time (15 or so year ago) and (b) are now established commercial companies. If that development cycle happened 15 years ago, why can't it happen again now?

[awk]

That may well be true distracted, and I see your logic, but the fact of the matter is that the old Emit card was the only system that didn't give you immediate feedback that you had punched - you couldn't see the pin punch (maybe you didn't need to), but given the fragility of the card (I lost several at different times), it's not a system I would have trusted at all, and didn't. V2 was horrible.

It's about perception. I know there are stories of punches not registering with SI, but my own experience is that it's always registered (so far), and it does so quickly and reliably. I wouldn't go back to pin punching, but it was at least visual and thus reliable. My experience with emit has not been that. This weekend was pretty horrible - I lost a lot of time and it came close to spoiling the race for me because of the inadequacy of the system (yes, it probably was a dying card), but the only time I've ever seen it work flawlessly for me was the non-contact system at Oxford. Literally every other experience has had problems. Quite simply, I don't trust it, and I know many others who feel the same. I would like to feel otherwise, but I don't, and my heart sinks everytime I see it advertised in event details. Whatever you say, if it is going to achieve any form of acceptance amongst the wider orienteering public, rather than just the cognoscenti, it is going to need a better feedback system than is currently available, and speed punching is going to have to remain available, because the slot system is annoyingly clumsy. SI may be flawed (although I have yet to experience the flaws), but it's use and feedback system is brilliantly simple.

[RJ]

......... If that development cycle happened 15 years ago, why can't it happen again now?

Oh it has..... it is just a mater of time now before live GPS is used to trace your route around the course. At elite level we are very close to it, but for the rest of us we are going to be using SI/EMIT for a few years yet.

[distracted]

the fact of the matter is that the old Emit card was the only system that didn't give you immediate feedback that you had punched...
... I wouldn't go back to pin punching, but it was at least visual and thus reliable.

What would you have said to v2 Emit if there had been a simple mechanical counter on the card, which incremented each time you punched a control? Feedback that would only work if you punched correctly, none of this fancy LCD screen stuff which might or might not confirm a visit. That way you've also got a simple visual record of how many controls you've visited, like pin-punching and unlike SI...

Literally every other experience has had problems. Quite simply, I don't trust it, and I know many others who feel the same.

Problems affecting you directly, or something happening to someone you know? And how much of that is because of unfamiliarity with the system? Agreed it takes a little more effort to learn how to use EMIT effectively, while SI is obvious, and it isn't helped that SI is the dominant system in use in the UK.

if it is going to achieve any form of acceptance amongst the wider orienteering public...

...In this country. One of the most interesting things I discovered recently along these lines was that the 2004 World Champs in Sweden used EMIT rather than SI; as you'll know SI is by far the dominant system in Sweden. Does this indicate something about the trust the Swedish officials had in the relevant systems for this event at the top end of the sport?

...and speed punching is going to have to remain available, because the slot system is annoyingly clumsy

Again, as has been said many times before, this is because people in this country are not used to using EMIT. Ask any Norwegian or Finn about SI, and they'll probably have similar gripes. I know that if I place my card in the control correctly using EMIT, it will have registered and my control flow does not feel broken; using SI (the old cards) I'm increasingly finding myself having to wait/stop before I get the confirmation and I can continue. A system won't gain "acceptance" if people are using it once every other month, and another system the rest of the time.

RJ > maybe when GPS has the required level of accuracy. Especially for sprint-type races - those at Warwick will no doubt testify as to how you can be within a metre of a control but not be able to punch it. GPS might say you'd been there based on co-ordinates, only looking through everybody's trace would confirm that was actually the case - more manpower needed for that. I don't think GPS will be used to confirm a person's presence at a control for a while yet, even for the elites...

[Godders]

Emit's great, although I much prefer my old v2 card. Punch properly and it works everytime, no distraction of looking at the screen on v3 and unlike SI no annoying wait for a beep. Having a foolproof method that requires less concentration gives you more time to concentrate on navigating - looking at the map will get you round the course quicker than looking at the screen - especially if you're worrying that it might not have worked.

[Patrick]

Oh it has..... it is just a mater of time now before live GPS is used to trace your route around the course...

On any non GPS-mapped area - in other words the vast majority of mapped areas in the UK - there's a fair chance that half your control sites won't even be in the circle compared with their actual GPS-based location. There are some good examples of this on Routegadget where people have taken GPS trackers round and ended up with comedy routes as a result.

Tractrac and similar concepts are useful for big relays at least, but for ordinary orienteering it's a gimmick. It would be ludicrous to use it as an alternative to punching, given how many problems are thrown up even by the dedicated e-punching systems.

Cheers,

Patrick

[Paul T]

using SI (the old cards) I'm increasingly finding myself having to wait/stop before I get the confirmation and I can continue.

I've noticed that and have an (unproven) theory that this may be a feature of the newer always-on boxes. Our club's new boxes were delivered with the 'go-to-sleep' time set to 5 minutes after the previous punch. Form many controls at most events, that is long enough for it to need waking up again by the next runner. This only takes a couple of seconds but is even more irksome if you have just bought an SI-6 card.
It's very easy to change the 5 minutes to something more useful.

[graeme]

Going back in time a bit, before there was electronic punching - what was the feedback? ... How come this was all fine in the days of pin-punching but isn't any more?

With control cards you, as the competitor, could see the same information that the organisers could. With e-punching you can't. This is a big difference. Worse, when epunching came in the rules changed such that *you* were entirely responsible for the electronic record which you can't see. Previously the controller had discretion, and except in really big events it was normal to reinstate people when you believed they'd been to the control. Now the controller isn't even allowed to interrogate the units to see if you were there.

The problem is not so much with the technology - it is the refusal of the rulemakers to accept that no system is infallible. I reckon about 1 punch in 100,000 (one every 10 events or so) suffers from a non-reproducible system error, usually due to low battery.

[Angry Haggis]

The problem is not so much with the technology - it is the refusal of the rulemakers to accept that no system is infallible. I reckon about 1 punch in 100,000 (one every 10 events or so) suffers from a non-reproducible system error, usually due to low battery.

Reminds me of my missing bit error I saw last year with SI - got the feedback, but the wrong number was written to the card.

[RJ]

.......I reckon about 1 punch in 100,000 (one every 10 events or so) suffers from a non-reproducible system error, usually due to low battery.

We have used BSF7 SI units exclusively for the last two years.... the always on units. The time is set to two hours and is more than adequate. They have been used for 150+ events.... without a single problem (except for the occasion when they were programmed incorrectly!! ..... well they were being used at the event on Great Cockup, but there you go!!) Since they go out onto an area every week I have complete faith in them doing the job.

[Vidalos]

This was a fantastic event , one of the best orienteering events I've been to and a great advert for the sport. It's true that electronic punching is here to stay and that it's a lot better than pin punching in many respects but as has been said previously, for what ever reason, for me EMIT creates doubts when punching that I never have with SI. May be this is because in our region it's always SI that's used and you become familiar with how to use it to best effect. The template format of the EMIT brick always seems cumbersome and whether you have the brick the right way round when approaching the control always seems a lottery as it depends on which side you approach the control from. Control boxes on the ground, as happened in a few places on Sunday, just added to the doubt as you had to get down on your hands and knees to makes sure it had registered.
History shows that usually one system wins out over another , whether its the most popular or the best will influence that as will the amount of money able to support and promote the systems. Did Sweden use EMIT for the world champs because it was the best system or because it was the best financial deal?
I'd prefer one system, or greater similarity between the systems, so I dont feel disadvantaged when attending events in different regions (Iknow this works works both ways)
Is there anything to say that there are more DQ's using one system over the other for miss punching?