4-tier event structure defined

[GML]

I think there is a lot to recommend what has been put forward here, but as others have noted, some of the details need a bit of refinement.

Part of the problem I feel is that this proposal appears to be trying to do two things at the same time:

• firstly it is trying to specify what distinguishes different levels of event - don't have a problem with that, it was the purpose of the exercise after all!
• but secondly it seems to be trying to mandate improvements to the 'quality' of all but the lowest key events (Level D) - mandatory toilets being one example; mandatory publication of results on a website by next day being another.

As others have noted, one effect of this is that the difference between Level C and Level B events doesn't appear to be very great - the proposals are trying to turn all Level C events into Level Bs!

I don't have a problem with trying to raise the standard of lower-key events (e.g. level Cs) but I personally don't think that mandatory rules about what these events must and must not do, so far as things like toilets, deadline for publication of results, advertising on association websites, and production of advertising flyers(!) is concerned, is the right way of going about it. For Level C events I feel any mandatory requirements should relate almost exclusively to the orienteering aspects of the event - risk assessment, the standard of the map, the standard of the courses. If you want to mandate anything more than that, simply make it mandatory that clubs make clear in their publicity material what they intend to provide by way of other facilities/services.

On the subject of pre-entry: I personally support it being mandatory that Level B events offer pre-entry - I'm not happy driving a long way to an event only to discover when I get there that the course I would like to run is full or I am going to have to wait a very long time to get a start slot (as has happened to us on a couple of occasions in the past year). But I equally support the wishes of those who would like to have the opportunity to enter such events on the day. Again, this is to my mind an example of the proposal being overly prescriptive about what an event can and cannot do if it is of a particular level.

Thanks for listening

[EddieH]

I confess I have not read the document, but I get the gist.

Quite simply if the rules are over prescriptive (and regarding organisational matters that seems to be the case) they will simply be ignored by many in exactly the same way as has always happened.

It cannot be good when rules are made which are going to be ignored.

I guess though that MArOC can advertise in their publicity for a Bogendriep event that toilets are provided in the car park in Banchory

[pete.owens]

We seldom have traders in Scotland, so either that criterion will vanish or we'll put everything at C.

The guidelines only say they should be invited - it is not compulsory for them to turn up.
Even so, the AGM motion only evisaged a limited number of events at level B so these are likely to be the few that traders will consider it worthwhile to attend.

I'm sure any attempt to ban EOD at Level B will quietly disappear.

I don't read it that way.

I think the intent is that EOD MUST be available for the beginners courses, rather than being prohibited for other courses. I presume this is to enable organisers to produce seeded or fixed start lists if they are needed for the competition.

[pete.owens]

Toilets at level C will be a bit of a sticky point for us in Deeside (Scotland) - might mean our "local" events are all level D - but don't worry they will all have a range of courses and be in some of the best terrain in Britain. We've not had complaints about toilets (or lack of) at our events so I'm not sure we'll be rushing to provide them - it would wipe out the profit from most of our local events to provide 1 or 2 portaloos at each of our 5 or 6 local events each year.

If an event is so small that the hire of a portaloo would wipe out the profit then that is the sort of thing that level D is intended to accomodate. Local events will be at the bottom layer of any events structure and both the old level 3 and the new level D give you a great degree of flexibility on what to provide or not, subject to basic safety requirements.

It is not as if toilets are a brand new requirement - they are currently required at level 2 events so it is logical for that requirement to continue to the equivalent level (C) in the new structure.

[pete.owens]

Part of the problem I feel is that this proposal appears to be trying to do two things at the same time:

• firstly it is trying to specify what distinguishes different levels of event - don't have a problem with that, it was the purpose of the exercise after all!
• but secondly it seems to be trying to mandate improvements to the 'quality' of all but the lowest key events (Level D) - mandatory toilets being one example; mandatory publication of results on a website by next day being another.

Both those requirements were there in the previous guidelines for Level 2 events. These are not exactly onerous imposititions, but basic things that you would expect at any but the most low key event.

As others have noted, one effect of this is that the difference between Level C and Level B events doesn't appear to be very great - the proposals are trying to turn all Level C events into Level Bs!

Which is a rather important issue since the entire purpose of the excercise was to define that particular difference as required by the membership at the AGM.
Levels A, C, and D correspond pretty much exactly to levels 1,2 & 3 of the current structure.

[seabird]

Only just read the proposals - and I agree, even as a committted 3-tier advocate, that BOF have made a good job of them.

Our club league compiler will be a relieved man, as now he will finally be able to take the scoring from the ranking list, saving him a great deal of calculation. Those of our neighbouring clubs who did so, will be able to stop calling their medium sized events. that contribute to the league, "local" and can now submit the results.

Re the debate on toilets - only the term "toilets" is used - not "portaloos". I'm sure that that covers the possibility of using a toilet tent (or dare I say even a MM type trench) for good quality, but low entry level, events in remote terrain.

If portaloos are necessary I have found for events with a little over 200 competitors queues don't build up even if only one portaloo is used - although most organisers seem to go for two for this number of entrants.

[Red Adder]

Sometimes the Portaloo suppliers suggest a number of loos dependent on the predicted entry - but I wonder if they are basing their advice on events wher people stay within a small radius for 3/4 hours (eg Car Boot sale - Village Fair) rather than ours wher people can often be in the assembly area for a relatively short while and often stop en-route knowing that facilities may actually be non-existent or potentially rather unsavoury.

[Spookster]

Sometimes the Portaloo suppliers suggest a number of loos dependent on the predicted entry...

One portaloo per 100 people is about right (unless it's a relay, in which case you need more because everyone arrives at once).

[seabird]

I think it's quite funny that no where is mentioned the ordering of result or number of courses on offer - how long do you think it will be before someone breaks cover

As no-one seems to have "broken cover", I'll try - but I'm not sure what the point is re "ordering of result"?

In terms of the number of courses on offer - the proposal is correctly not prescriptive - otherwise how could it encompass the variety of formats that it does.
There are Guidelines for the differnt types of event, which deal with this, and which are unlikely to altered - but just by being guidelines they are not prescriptive either.

ps Entertained by the Somme-like description of the O-Ringen. Did it really get that bad at the campsite by the end. We must have effected a very timely early escape!

[Mrs H]

I meant ordering of results by age class - or otherwise!

Yes it did get that bad at the O-ringen - all the access roads were blocked by caravans being pulled out of the mire and the only way we got out to catch our bus was when Bongoman drove rough shod cross country across the camp site - trenches and all -I was petrified and had to hang on to Alice with my eyes shut all the way

[GML]

I think the intent is that EOD MUST be available for the beginners courses, rather than being prohibited for other courses. I presume this is to enable organisers to produce seeded or fixed start lists if they are needed for the competition.

Pete, if this was the intent then I agree with you, but I don't think the proposal is clear.

Part of the problem I feel is that this proposal appears to be trying to do two things at the same time:

• firstly it is trying to specify what distinguishes different levels of event - don't have a problem with that, it was the purpose of the exercise after all!
• but secondly it seems to be trying to mandate improvements to the 'quality' of all but the lowest key events (Level D) - mandatory toilets being one example; mandatory publication of results on a website by next day being another.

Both those requirements were there in the previous guidelines for Level 2 events. These are not exactly onerous imposititions, but basic things that you would expect at any but the most low key event.

As you say, these requirements are in the guidelines for Level 2 events, and for the avoidance of doubt I have no problem with them being applied to new Level B events. But why are they being required of new Level C events? The whole purpose of having a 4-tier event structure is that different rules (minimum standards) apply to each of the tiers, not the same standards to all events!

You say that toilets and results publication within 24 hours are "basic things" that you would expect at any by the most low key event. I say that whilst desirable, they are by no means essential for an event targeted at competitors "not wishing to travel great distances" (i.e. Level C events).

You might well counter that if a club doesn't want to provide toilets it can always downgrade the event to Level D. But then how is a club supposed to distinguish between those events that are targetted at its own members (true Level D events) and those that are targetted at a slightly wider audience (Level C events)? Why is it essential for a club to provide toilets just because it is advertising an event to the members of neighbouring clubs? Why isn't it enough that they say in the advertising for such an event whether or not toilets will be available? Prospective competitors can then decide for themselves whether or not they want to attend an event at which toilets won't be available. If as a result of not providing toilets a club gets fewer competitors at its events then perhaps in time they will decide that the expense of providing toilets will be money well spent (or go out of business). This is just the market in action! (If toilets are that important to competitors perhaps we will even start to see competition amongst events to provide the most luxurious toilets!)

And for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I am using the provision of toilets as an example of the concern I have with the proposals, my real concern is that the proposals are overly prescriptive about too many aspects of the organisation of Level C events. What should matter at these events is that the orienteering is provided to acceptable and consistent standards, not whether or not there are toilets provided or results are published within 24 hours.

Thanks

[pete.owens]

Both those requirements were there in the previous guidelines for Level 2 events. These are not exactly onerous imposititions, but basic things that you would expect at any but the most low key event.

As you say, these requirements are in the guidelines for Level 2 events, and for the avoidance of doubt I have no problem with them being applied to new Level B events. But why are they being required of new Level C events?

Because that was what members voted for at the last AGM - following a high profile campaign and a great deal of debate. The extra level that is being introduced into the structure is level B, which is intended to cover a limited number of high quality events equivalent to the best of the historical C3 events.

Now, I think there is room for debate on the detail of the specification for level B, but we should really treat the rest of the structure as a settled matter - we certainly don't want a motion calling for 5 levels at the next AGM.

It does seem curious that the debate here has focussed on part of the event structure that has remained essentially unchanged (with some pleased with the 'relaxation' in standards that enables them to register events for ranking, while others complain that it is over prescriptive). Yet no one seems to be interested in the definition of the new level that people spent so much effort campaigning for.

[pete.owens]

In terms of the number of courses on offer - the proposal is correctly not prescriptive - otherwise how could it encompass the variety of formats that it does.

But if we are aiming for the highest quality events I think there is a need for some degree of prescription at level B. This is not in terms of the number of courses (some of the proponents of the new structure were initially advocating 13) but in the range of courses on offer.

So for example a level B long distance event should at minimum offer a full range of technical difficulties + enough full TD5 courses to satisfy all age ranges.
I would suggest the minimum requirement would be:
White, Yellow, Orange, Light Green, Very Short Green, Green, Blue, Brown, Black.
For a sprint race a single course would be fine.
For urban the normal urban league courses should be supplemented by a suitably technical offering for 14-16s that meets the insurance requirements on roads.

Yes, this will vary depending of the format, which is why I think there should probably be a separate level B specification for each discipline.

There are Guidelines for the differnt types of event, which deal with this, and which are unlikely to altered - but just by being guidelines they are not prescriptive either.

But the guidelines apply equally to all levels of events - they will tell you how long a blue course should be and how difficult an orange course should be. Not whether either of those courses should be provided at any particular event.

[GML]

Because that was what members voted for at the last AGM - following a high profile campaign and a great deal of debate. The extra level that is being introduced into the structure is level B, which is intended to cover a limited number of high quality events equivalent to the best of the historical C3 events.

Pete, I know that this was how the proposals were portrayed by some people, but unless you can point me to an AGM document to the contrary, this was not the proposal that was put to the AGM and adopted. There is nothing in the AGM documentation that I can find that says that the proposal was for a new level of event between Level 1 and Level 2, nor that the existing Level 2 rules should apply to what we are now calling Level C events.

Indeed, as I read it the "Background to changes to 4-tier event structure" document makes it quite clear that the intent was for existing Level 2 rules to be relaxed in the case of what we are now calling Level C events, and maintained or even strengthened in the case of what we are now calling Level B events. For example in the table on page 2 under "Quality of surrounding infrastructure" the proposal for Level C is "As appropriate to the event - the best that can be offered with limited volunteer effort" whereas the proposal for Level B is "Good: to the prescribed standards appropriate for the event". I.e. mandatory standards for Level B events, but not for Level C. I would also note that the formal proposal itself makes clear that the standard of what we are now calling Level C events should be comparable to that of former District Events, not Regional Events.

It does seem curious that the debate here has focussed on part of the event structure that has remained essentially unchanged (with some pleased with the 'relaxation' in standards that enables them to register events for ranking, while others complain that it is over prescriptive). Yet no one seems to be interested in the definition of the new level that people spent so much effort campaigning for.

For the avoidance of doubt I am also interested in the definition of Level B. But in this case I think the proposal on the BOF website is probably about right, leaving aside questions of interpretation re matters like EOD. The only aspect of the proposal which concerns me somewhat is the suggestion that Level B events should only be allowed to use "accredited printers". This smacks to me of over-regulation. What matters surely is the quality of the final product, not who prints it? In a similar vein I am somewhat nervous of the proposal that the suitability of the terrain be assessed by a "national body". As others have already suggested, does this mean that in future all Level B events will have to be in Scotland and a few other remote parts of the county? That said, I would welcome a bit more quality control over terrain, albeit my preference would be for something rather more light touch - how about a "national body" that gives a score out of 10 to each area in the country? Or better still, why not have a website that allows those that have competed on an area to rate it after each event? Could be extended to other aspects of the event too, such as quality of the courses, standard of the organisation, quality of the toilets.

[seabird]

I'm sure what Pete suggests for Level B Cross Country Events is likely to prove the norm, without the need for prescription - indeed it will be the norm minus the VS Green for most of my club's level C events . Personally I don't foresee my club wanting any of our Urban events that comply with the National Guidelines being anything other than Level B. All the smaller urban events would be; Level D - Local

Which brings me to the question that has not really arisen as to what we actually call events under the new scheme. Level A-D does not have any obvious meaning for the uninitiated.

I hope we can ditch once and for all terms like District. Regional , Badge and ColourCoded, which if continued to be used are likely to sow confusion.

We call urban races "Urban"; Sprint Races "Sprint". So why not call cross country races "Cross Country"? and use the prefix B or C as necessary.

All the level A events have a clear identity that does not need any further definition and the term "Local" seems to be a good description for all Level D events.

The debate as to what services should be provided at level B & C is likely to be ongoing. For instance, my club has been considering having pre-entry for all our level C events as well as level B. For the moment this move has been put on hold, partially as we are observing an ever greater proportion of entry on the day for our level B type events. I.e. innovation in provision of services has to move with demand from the punters.

We are were we are because so many clubs had long since improved service provision at what are Level C events.