Midland Champs 2013

[Parkino]

Yeah, I really enjoyed the area and the courses and thanks too for getting rid of all the mud. (Where did you put it all? Lincolnshire?)

On the way to the start I thought I could spot the dead trees, but I was wrong and it led me astray a couple of times, but not as badly as that little pit on the edge of the heath, the one with a control kite hidden in it ...

[King Penguin]

In addition, I thought that for a clearing or vegetation boundary to be used, the vegetation change needed to be significant enough to warrant a dotted line.

Correct - but it wasn't used if you check your descriptions!

Thanks for all the positive comments

True - it was that funny "semi-open area" diamond symbol (not clearing) - but it was hardly more open than the surrounding scrub (control 4 on course 9). On the map it was a thin tongue of rough open with undergrowth screen rather than the surrounding light green.

[awk]

In addition, I thought that for a clearing or vegetation boundary to be used, the vegetation change needed to be significant enough to warrant a dotted line.

Correct - but it wasn't used if you check your descriptions!

it was the semi-open equivalent to a clearing, inside corner, which implies a recognisable edge to the semi-open. But, without a veg boundary line, the map is stating that there is no recognisable edge (and to this extent the map was correct). On arriving, I couldn't discern any recognisable edge or difference between the 'semi-open' and the 'light green', and had in the previous 100m or so run through ground that was more open than the semi-open, but marked as light green.

It's a pretty minor point amongst all the really good things, but if I'd been controlling, there is no way that I would have allowed it as things stood!

[graeme]

Is there such a rule? I guess there may be, but I can't find it, and it doesn't really make sense. If there's a veg. boundary on the map, surely you use the veg. boundary symbol? In which case what's the use of the clearing symbol?

Can't speak to this situation, but as a controller I'd ask "will the use of this non-feature cost competitors time?". If not, e.g. the flag is visible from a fair distance in all directions, and the planner is happy with that, I wouldn't veto the site. Maybe there are no real features? Maybe its the end of a good leg?

[King Penguin]

Actually the start of a long leg with route-choice. AWK went one way, I went the other.
Needed to be quite close before the flag was visible. Leg was across a flat, featureless scrubby area.

[awk]

Is there such a rule? I guess there may be, but I can't find it, and it doesn't really make sense.

Maybe not, I haven't recently checked, but I was always taught as a controller/planner that you should never use a veg boundary that's marked as indistinct (i.e. no veg boundary symbol). I'd accept that sometimes a boundary is distinct but not marked as such (e.g. thicket edges), but:

If there's a veg. boundary on the map, surely you use the veg. boundary symbol? In which case what's the use of the clearing symbol?

If you are going to use the edge of a clearing, then the edge has to be distinct (IMO). The centre of a clearing, or the 'northern part' may be distinct when the edge is not (although on this occasion, I don't think they were).

Can't speak to this situation, but as a controller I'd ask "will the use of this non-feature cost competitors time?". If not, e.g. the flag is visible from a fair distance in all directions, and the planner is happy with that, I wouldn't veto the site. Maybe there are no real features? Maybe its the end of a good leg?

Yes, I'd say it was at the start of a good leg, but in terms of the rest I'd say that it's a good example of a site that IMO shouldn't have been used.

But I don't want things to get bogged down in negative: so much was good (thank you Richard!), and I really enjoyed my run. And my biggest time losses (including a completely crasss brainstorm at number 3) were 100% my fault!

[pete.owens]

Was that control 75? It foxed me a bit as there were no scattered trees on the map in the circle and no corner for it to be inside of. The description doesn't refer to a distinct boundary though. "Clearing, E part" would have been a better description.

The next leg on my course was just 1.5km of dead path running with the kite visible from 300m.

[Red Adder]

Whilst agreeing with awk about a vb needing the dots to be used as a feature (and I've been known to doctor the OCAD file to achieve this) I'd say that from the map the feature looks OK but would insist that the flag was hung high to ensure its not a bingo site. My first rule of kite hanging is that the flag must be as obvious whether or not there is another competitor at the site. I would comment that for courses 9 the rounded veg tip of the slow run 25 m to west may have been a better site, as the temptation to go to the ride to the left to start the long leg may be greater.

Actually I'm not a great fan of long legs in areas with a blocky path network and slightly challenging runnability along the straight line. Analysis I've done of the routes taken in EA's conifer forests suggests that it does take much reduction in runnability for the majority of competitors to blast round the paths (and then quite a few moan about it afterwards. A quick look at some of the courses here suggest the same may be true.

I wonder if a style of planning closer to middle distance (ie plenty of short legs with few reasonable path options) might be more appropriate. Unfortunately can mean more work for the planner/controller in terms of control sites. I never have been convinced of the almost fetishistic attachment to the need to have one or two very long legs on areas that really don't support them (ie most of England).

[Red Adder]

I must say I'm impressed with the amount of detail the mapper achieved. All the individual trees in the north seems ed to be mapped - rather than the semi-open cop-out. Admittedly with a decent aerial photo that is not difficult and gives lots of very accurate reference points for other features.

All the dead trees must have been individually mapped as the aerial photos just don't show. An earlier post suggest GPS was used - is it possible to buy a device than works better under the trees than my 8 year old Garmin does ?

I actually support this level of mapping though I'm sure some will take the view that the map is cluttered. In areas which haven't got lots of contour detail you sometimes have to work at the map to provide plenty of features for the planner to use. I find using distinctive trees and holly thickets very useful on my maps - far better than having dodgy tripods.

[NeilC]

My first rule of kite hanging is that the flag must be as obvious whether or not there is another competitor at the site.

Which presumably would be the case if the flag were hidden in the bottom of a pit.

Planners have regularly been told to choose sites such that it's just as easy to find the control whether or not someone is punching there. Unless the flag is very visible (thus reducing the need to navigate to it) then this is actually very difficult to achieve in most terrain types. Much better to worry about setting good legs and avoiding bingo controls.

[King Penguin]

My first rule of kite hanging is that the flag must be as obvious whether or not there is another competitor at the site.

That would have required all the controls at Sherwood on dead trees to be on the approach side of the tree rather than round the back. I would rather have the element of luck / chance and test navigation accuracy than all visible well in advance.

[andypat]

This is turning into pedants corner again but the IOF control description is "vegetation boundary" not "distinct vegetation boundary". If the vegetation boundary is distinct enough to be a useable feature then I dont feel it needs a dotted line on the map to use as a control site, whether or not it should is another matter. Sounds like in this case it may not have been a distinct feature though.

[Ali Wood]

wonder if a style of planning closer to middle distance (ie plenty of short legs with few reasonable path options) might be more appropriate. Unfortunately can mean more work for the planner/controller in terms of control sites. I never have been convinced of the almost fetishistic attachment to the need to have one or two very long legs on areas that really don't support them (ie most of England).

Red Adder, I couldn't disagree more.
Being a long leg fetishist - your choice of phraseology - I thought that course 9 on Sunday offered...
(1-2) a medium leg with confusing veg changes (no paths!)
(4-5) a long leg which on Route Gadget shows I made the wrong choice and awk made the right choice, (although there wasn't much in it)
(8-9) an exceptionally good very long leg, which had people going many different ways, the straight line route I THINK turning out to be the best (no paths!)
(11-12) a middle/long leg which successfully got me not concentrating because it was more difficult in practice than in theory (no paths!)
(16-17) longish leg which sent people who hadn't planned ahead scurrying down a track with a poor get-out.
In fact the longer legs were more interesting than the shorter ones, where, if you rigidly stuck to your bearing, there was a good chance of bumping into the control.

[Clive Coles]

Tend to agree with you Andypat.

As an occasional competitor and controller, i would be quite happy to see a control used on a vegetation boundary ( with or without the dotted symbol ) providing the change of vegetation was obvious. If it's a good clear site and a good leg why not use the feature ?

Some mappers regard the distinction between green and white to be sufficient enough ~ why clutter the map ? The last thing we want to encourage however is for planner to adapt the cartography to add dots as this will probably lead to inconsistancy across the map.

For some of us, with failing eye sight who should, but don't like to, run wearing glasses, a dotted boundary on a map is invisable under competition conditions anyway. This is especially the case at the smaller events level C & D which don't nececessarily provide laser printed maps. I can however pick up a change of colour so not generally a problem. But.... I admit, I do tend to regard rules as being guidelines.

[Red Adder]

I'm afraid Ali will differ on this - and the legs put up in evidence can actually support my view point.
1-2 is to my mind a middle length leg - and a very good one (if you took the paths it was 30% longer)
4-5 most of the better runners who have put up a route on RG largely stayed on paths for perhaps 80% -85 % of the leg
8-9 similar story - the fastest competitors stayed on paths for 95% of the leg - sensible choice but really just dead running. [I actually found awk and ali's routes more interesting but it was only 15 % shorter and had far more decision points and therefore higher risk].
11-12 again a very good middle length leg - though several choose to stay on paths quite a lot of the way.

16-17 virtually everyone stayed on path for 500m - i.e. most of the leg.

The shorter legs generally demanded greater accuracy over the whole of the leg rather than the option of turning off mentally and just running for significant portions of the leg. Surely the ability to be able to run accurately on a bearing (and judge distances) is a key O skill.

What I would say about this course is it did offer plenty of choice so the skill of being rapidly assess the best best route for you and then execute it were fully tested.