4 Levels

[RJ]

- They don't seem to think issues will be different for other people in the rest of the country, and so want to impose their issue nationally when it should be sorted closer to home.

Call the levels.... kettle and pot perhaps!!!!

[RJ]

IMO we don't want to call them regional, L2 events..... the regional event is a different animal, as you well know when you come to a NWOA regional event in the Lake District.

So the problem is simply terminology? - 'Regional Events' form a subset of 'Regional Level Events' - and you want to easily see the difference?

No it isn't simply terminology. IMO we wish to work with this new 'branding' idea. But we wish to use the level 1-4 structure to hang our branding on. I can see a clear difference between a L2 event and a L3 event, even on the same area, historically and in the current debate. A Cumbrian Galoppen one year and a Regional some years later with the Northern Champs attached. The competition is different because the audience will be different and the quality of the 'field' will be different.

[Red Adder]

If we put L1 one events on one side and largely deal with mainstream X-country events (ie about 90 % of fixtures) we have two very different levels of event - one with multiple courses - premarked map- electronic punching and a strict degree of independent control external to the organising / planning teams. And we have far more informal events with less (if any) of these features. These must be differentiated to all potential competitors.

The BOF 2009 implementation failed as it did not do this.

The 2010 event guidelines now do this and offer a reasonable 3 level structure, with the informal events at L3 and most other events at L2.

However a significant part of the O community want to be able to identify "higher status" events within the new L2.

This can be done by either taking the 2010 L2 and splitting it (ie 4 levels) , or by using existing "Brands" to achieve the separation (3 levels).

I don't have any particular problem with this. What would concern me greatly is if this forced the majority of 2010 L2 events back down to L3 (ie the 2009 solution) without then introducing the differential to L3.

Therefore I am actually happy with either a 3 tier or 4 tier model as long as a differential is made between events with a rich organisation structure and those which are essentially informal.

[awk]

Believe it or not, I do think there is a middle ground that comes out of this.
Basically, the prime raison d'etre of the three tier system is to reflect the organisational structure of the sport (NGB-association-club), and to leave the associations, and clubs, to take greater ownership of the quality control of those events, so that they can be better tailored to local needs.
As I've said all the way through, this differentiation can be developed by branding, but I do (in spite of what some people might think!) understand where the 4-tier proponents are coming from, even if I disagree at the necessity for central formalisation of differentiation within the new regional level. The big stumbling block for me is that this would immediately push the differentiation within the associations and club spheres back to BOF.

However, thinking about it, I believe it is possible to have both worlds. BO defines the differentiation between NGB/region and region/club organisation-ownership. However, BO could also allow for a split of the regional level into two (so creating 4-tiers effectively), but leave the differentation between those levels to each region. Thus the 4-tier proponents effectively get what they want (not least, the branding of the level, as pinpointed by RJ and EddieH in their last couple of posts), but those propounding 3-tiers do as well. Yes, that might mean that standards etc. vary slightly across the country at the interface between the upper and lower regional events, but that is something that happened under the old system anyway.

This would allow, for example, YH, to denote all Superleague events as L2, and SOA to denote SOL events as L2, but using their own criteria. Equally, RJ could have his Cumbria Gallopen events at L3, and Clive to have EA Gallopen at L3. Or even mixtures - that would be up to the associations.

And I'd get rid of the name labels - they cause far too much confusion, especially if related to those that went previously. Just use L1, 2, 3 and 4, or category A, B, C, D events.

My biggest worry is that clubs would use this as an excuse to charge more for L2 events, without sufficient extra value, the opposite to what the 'Gang of Four' ( ) propound.

Thoughts anybody?

BTW Mr Chips - I didn't say regions to stop events, but they decide what grade an event is. Equally, of course power is in the hands of controllers, and I've known controllers to call events off or downgrade them as not being sufficiently sorted. That's the danger of internal controllers of course, and why there are criteria about that in the rubric.

[EddieH]

Contrary to your belief AWK I am perfectly happy with your original concept of 3 levels. However I do not see it working as it seems as if both SOA and NWOA will be placing events (such as Darnaway and Crathes last Sunday) (which clearly would have been seen by you as level 2 potential) into the lvel 3 bracket.

With the new ranking system being on all level 2 events this throws yet another spanner in the works of the new system as it is running.

The reality is that BOF HAVE imposed 3 levels and, by acting radically differently associations are ensuring that these have no meaning across the UK - i.e. we'd be better off with no labelling whatsoever.

[roadrunner]

Just think London City Race, JOK Sprint, Harvester. All Level 2.

Except they aren't

London City Race is shown as "Local" (i.e Level 3). With such glaring anomalies, no wonder everyone's confused over event levels.

[awk]

Eddie, if that's the case, there's not a lot anybody can do, whether 3- or 4-tiers. It does need the regions to work with the scheme, not against it, if it's to work. I'm not sure why any region would want to downgrade events out of their natural slot.

It would be interesting to know why London is registered as level 3. Doesn't make much difference - the 'brand' is well known, and the level is only about organisation - but does seem anomalous.

[Mr Chips]

BTW Mr Chips - I didn't say regions to stop events, but they decide what grade an event is. Equally, of course power is in the hands of controllers, and I've known controllers to call events off or downgrade them as not being sufficiently sorted.

Are you suggesting that a club could turn up to a regional fixtures meeting offering to stage (say) a L2 event and be told that they have to drop it to L3, or that at a later stage anyone other than the Controller might downgrade an event? This would be (as far as I know) a major departure from current practice. Or are you saying that this is how it ought to be in the future?

[Mr Chips]

... It does need the regions to work with the scheme, not against it, if it's to work. I'm not sure why any region would want to downgrade events out of their natural slot.

Perhaps there isn't sufficiently wide agreement on what the levels actually mean, or on what "natural slot" means in context. Perhaps the ideas behind the reorganisation have not been sufficiently communicated to regions, or to clubs, or to individual orienteers? It is pretty clear to anyone who reads Nopesport regularly that not even those involved in the build-up to the reorganisation are reading from the same hymn sheet. Also, as I said earlier, I don't think there is a mechanism for regions to override clubs on these issues.

It would be interesting to know why London is registered as level 3.

I agree, that is strange. Last year's City Race was L2 and its results have been uploaded to the new ranking scheme. (Not the old one - too difficult!) I notice that nearly all of SLOW's events (from Street-O to SE Sprint and Middle Championships (April 10 & 11)) are listed as "Local"
To quote a great Yorkshireman - "I don't know what's going off out there."

[Angry Haggis]

Last year's City Race was L2 and its results have been uploaded to the new ranking scheme. (Not the old one - too difficult!)

I noticed this too... but there's no points against anyone's name!

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/e ... 9&course=1

[Clive Coles]

I agree AUK ~ our views are not so far apart as earlier posts might suggest.

There is no dispute concerning most of the reforms that have emerged as to the way courses are defined. I think for example the adoption of colour code definitions at level 2 (backed up by the age class matrix) has added clarity and has made it easier for planners to consistantly combine age classes at events which may attract fewer entrants. I would not want these improvement lost

We are not arguing about level 1 nationals nor are we in dispute regarding the lowest level should it be slimmed down to contain the true low key club events.

We share the same objective which is I believe that Associations and clubs should be left free to run and administer the main regular orienteering programme. BOF should be prime in defining standards and with the oversight the Level 1 events.

Our dialogue has therefore really been all about the 90% bulge in the middle..... would it add clarity if it be split into two. Currently most old District events are still contained in level 3 ~ some are now being re~registered in level 2. Branding is being put forward as a solution.

Branding is nothing new ~ we have had brands for years. Apart from the obvious multiday events they have existed at local level too; SMILE's, Keyne-O for example.

Brands mean something to those who seek ta particular style of fixture. For those "in the know" they are a great indicator. If however you are new to orinteering, or if you are visiting another part of the country and wonder what O is on offer will a brand tell such folk much about your event ?

The danger is, if more and more brands emerge as each Association/club look at ways of packaging their fixtures, we could add confusion rather than clarity. I don't suppose it will be long before the same brand name is selected by two or more regions where the attributes of the respective brands are quite different.

Brands IMO are helpful but do not by themselves provide a complete solution.

The current split into 3 levels at least follows the governance structure of British orienteering. I can see therefore why it appeals to some. I think the name chosen for level 2 has been unhelpful; regional suggests something else to those who still think of regional being a badge event.

But Local is equallly unhelpful as it suggests you don't need to travel far. The old district events are, in my association at least, coordinated within the region so as to avoid event clashes. We could however brand them. Finding a name that suits might be interesting but that would be for the Association to decide. I hope nobody reverts to calling this brand a district series ~ another rotten name. A district of what ?

So do we split the events in the 90% bulge into two ? I think it would add some clarity as to what visitors might expect if the higher quality ranking events are in one tier and the non-ranking events were grouped in another category. Ranking implys there is a need for consistant standards at such events across the country ~ the new category would allow a more relaxed style of event to suit the associations needs.

There has been a call for a vote at the AGM. I don't think my view has been changed as to how I might record my proxy vote. If the motion is passed it will cause work for BOF and a number of committees. That is an inevitable consequence. I think though there is enough common ground between the two camps for a compromise along the lines suggested by AWK to be reached.

[awk]

Are you suggesting that a club could turn up to a regional fixtures meeting offering to stage (say) a L2 event and be told that they have to drop it to L3, or that at a later stage anyone other than the Controller might downgrade an event? This would be (as far as I know) a major departure from current practice. Or are you saying that this is how it ought to be in the future?

More in future. I agree that in the past regions have been more co-ordinators than anything else, although I suspect some regions have been stronger-minded on this sort of thing in the past than others. Most regions have tended to work on quality control through controllers - and after all that is what their role is about.

Clive - the intention was always to allow ranking across all level 2 events, and really enable the scheme to go much more local than in the past, including old district style events; this was part of the thinking behind the idea of a single list scheme. I don't see why both regional grades wouldn't retain ranking status. But not something to get bogged down here!

[pete.owens]

Contrary to your belief AWK I am perfectly happy with your original concept of 3 levels. However I do not see it working as it seems as if both SOA and NWOA will be placing events (such as Darnaway and Crathes last Sunday) (which clearly would have been seen by you as level 2 potential) into the lvel 3 bracket.

I think is probably deliberate in the NWOA (home of the famous four). There was hostility about the new structure from the start and there seems to be sysmatic determination not to make it work.

[pete.owens]

I can see a clear difference between a L2 event and a L3 event, even on the same area, historically and in the current debate. A Cumbrian Galoppen one year and a Regional some years later with the Northern Champs attached.

The new event guidelines provide a clear distinction between such events.
Northern Champs = Level 1
Cumbrian Galoppen = Level 2

[pete.owens]

BOF produces the event search engine. A search on level 2 produces a sensibly sized list of upcoming events, but a search on level 3 is cluttered with scores of all sorts.

Basically if I am going to be in Birmingham on Saturday say I would do a search on level 2 and would like to do one on what I'd call level 3 events (The regional search is quite useless in this instance as my return journey might go through a number of regions).

Search within 50 miles of postcode B1 for all events between 30 and 31 January reveals a grand total of 1 event - which has been cancelled!

Extend the radius to 100 miles and you get the Northern Champs weekend at Sheffield, the SCOA champs near Reading and a couple of night events. (which you could filter out by level) If you are travelling a long way then you could center your search on a point midway.

Currently the BOF service is useless - Ollie's map gives a nice view of where the events are, but I need to highlight each event and then follow up links to see what's on offer.

I simply cannot understand why you are so adamantly against the large bulk of very limited events being placed in a lower category. After all the SOA actually removed all of these events from their main fixtures list a few years ago because they cluttered up the list.

But that is what Level 3 is for.

Think of a rough specification for the sort of event you are looking for.
Now, take a look at the event guidelines:
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... line_a.pdf
And scroll down to the overview table near the bottom. I would imagine that your specification more or less corresponds to the guidelines for Level 2.