Navigate to finish?

[RobL]

In fact the amount of tape used today could arguably be described as excessive...

[Axel]

I see all the daffs didn't survive, nice try though!!!

[Barny of Blandford]

No -the taping used from the final control to the finish was correct and how it should be at all events.

[IanD]

Having started this thread, I'll indulge myself by commenting again.

There seems to be unanimity that the finish should be easy to find, which was the point I was really getting at.

Some argue that it should be taped, others seem happy with "navigate" provided the finish is very obvious - somewhere like a major track junction. I'm on the "navigate to obvious location" side, while being perfectly happy with tapes provided the run-in is not excessively long. That's another hobby-horse of mine, long tape routes do not require navigation, and so are not orienteering, favouring runners at the expense of navigators.

Whatever we do at major events, I certainly don't think we should require taping at C5's put on by one person, the less work the better.

[Barny of Blandford]

I would have thought it was very important at a C5 event - you do not want beginners getting lost. They need to know that the system is always that you follow the taped route from the last control to the finish no matter what standard the event is.
We have a common system for describing control sites, numbering sites and marking sites with recognised orienteering kites, so we have a common system for finishes.
I would not claim that every inch needs to be marked with tapes but it should be very obvious and be as the control description describes it so that you are not hunting round wondering what has happened to the tape route from the last control.

[Snail]

As well as ensuring the finish is easy to find, an associated problem introduced by using "navigate to finish" over long distances, particularly when combined with remote finishes away from assembly, is the possibility of 'conflict' between those still on the course and those who have finished. With a last leg of say 500m it is quite possible for competitors to approach the finish from an unexpected direction, either by mistake or through deliberate route choice, and then potentially have the problem of getting through spectators, people heading back to assembly on a narrow path etc etc, just to get to the finish control. This is exacerbated by the spectators not knowing from which direction(s) competitor may approach the finish - they may be looking one way for juniors, only to be bowled over by an M21 approaching from the oppostite direction.

It would be helpful if there were a guideline / rule that says something like "the location and layout of the finish should (shall?) be such that there is no likelihood of competitors who have finished the course, and spectators, obstructing those who have not yet finished". This could be most easily satisfied by using a taped route from the last control, but could equally be achieved by having clear catching features shortly before the finish (although I accept IanD's point on a related issue that this can reduce the navigational challenge).

[NeilC]

Would a taped control 20m from the finish really make much difference to the route taken from this 500m distant control? You are not going to tape 500m from that control either.

[Gnitworp]

The last 'taped' control would have a clear description and be far enough from the Finish to allow both to be clearly marked on the map, e.g., 60-100m, although you can get away with a shorter finish run-in by 'mismarking' the Finish location, exaggerating its distance from the last control, if it is very clearly taped (or there is a finish banner immediately visible from the last control to a blind man in a dense fog! and the e-punch units' locations relative to the banner are similarly immediately obvious to this unfortunate individual).

[SAL]

It's important that the control descriptions are clear about the nature of the route to the finish. I was at an event last year where the finish was over 300m from my last control, and the control descriptions had the "Follow taped route" symbols. But there was no tape - we were supposed to navigate to the finish. I set off hopefully in the direction of the finish, expecting to see some bits of tape in trees or something, and thrashed about on a ridiculous straight-line route, taking ages. If the control descriptions had had the "Navigate to finish" symbol, I'm sure I would have taken a better route.

[graeme]

A cautionary (and true) story.

At the national event, the white course had a taped route to the last control. The finish was off the map, across a road. So I followed what turned out to be the white course tapes, hit the road, turned right into the assembly field, followed some more tapes which ended at an emit unit, which I punched.

Clear station.

Ooops

[EddieH]

Since the introduction of e-punching why do MOST events not place a flag at the unit - particularly as finish banners are rarely placed over the unit?

I also suggest planners and controllers learn the IOF descriptions differentiating between taped, untaped and hybrid routes. It is easy enough to change these in Condes, although should junior courses be taped and others not it becomes necessary to define a finish1 and a finish2, both in the identical spot.

[King Penguin]

If the route from the last control to the finish is always going to be taped, it's not an orienteering leg, it's a running leg. Therefore the orienteering does/should finish at the last control, so why not move the finish to here ? Trouble is, apply the same logic again and you eventually remove the whole course !
IMO taping to the finish should only be used where a specific route has to be followed to avoid OOB or danger etc. which is not otherwise clear on the ground (e.g. last leg of 2006 Harvester), or where planning rules for white / yellow would otherwise be broken. Competitors have just orienteered / navigated all the other legs, so why not the final one ? Maybe it means the finish should be given a control description, like the start is, and should be a mapped feature, even if middle of large clearing ?
The event could still be planned so that all courses funnel in from their final controls in a similar direction, which seems to be the case at many events anyway.

[Mrs H]

I absolutely agree KP - as long as the finish is on a feature on the map then why can't we orienteer to it and save the poor organiser/planner sticking out loads of tape on the day (and collecting it up afterwards) seems a bit limp wristed to me to need to have it taped

[Marco Polo]

I think the control descriptions are key here. The finish is the only point without a control description that you are asked to navigate to. Unfortunately it isn't required by regulations and I think difficult to do with course setting software.

Perhaps planners should have the option. If the finish is taped or say at the end of a finish chute in the middle of a field , then no descriptions needed. But for other events provide descriptions and stick to TD requirements.

The discussion has focussed on cross country events so far. For score events of course, taping isn't possible unless you hve a mandatory last control. I'd have to say that the finish at night score events has occassionally caught me out. On this weeks night event, I checked where the finish was before finding the first control.

[IanD]

Had a new variation down in the New Forest today! Control description said navigate from last control to the finish, but when I got to my last control, there was a nice bright white tape, which I sent off along. Only snag, as I quickly realised, was that it wasn't heading straight for the finish, so I abandoned it and went back to navigating. Finish was nice and obvious once I got close, out on a track. It seems my last control was also on something of Yellow standard, the tape leading towards the next control on that course.

(This is an observation, not a complaint by the way, it didn't cause me any problem.)