Planning for juniors

[PorkyFatBoy]

If PFB Jnr screws up his run on a White course, I run round it myself without a map. The position of the kite at the junctions should assist me in which way to go. If I can't do that, then the controller gets a earbashing - if I can then PFB Jnr. gets it instead (within the Child Protection Guidelines, of course )

[jab]

I have been known to pick up a kite on a white course and move it from one side of a junction to another to make sure that it is correctly placed accoring to the guidelines. It only moves it 2 metres but that can be all it takes to make a white course fully compliant with the rules.

[Gross]

I have been known to pick up a kite on a white course and move it from one side of a junction to another to make sure that it is correctly placed accoring to the guidelines. It only moves it 2 metres but that can be all it takes to make a white course fully compliant with the rules.

Well if above is true then 2 points.....

1. under no circumstances should a competitor move a marker in the forest, it should be reported to the planner / controller & it is thier responsibility to move it if required. We cannot accept a situation where random punters move controls willy-nilly - so JAB.... much as you feel as though you are helping you are wrong!

2. If JAB has done this quite often again in comes down to poor controlling. We need to establish some kind of quality control for controllers in GB

[DM]

Interesting to see the reactions people get when raising comments with planners and controllers, I think it depends largely on whether you raise the issue in a constructive way or a critical way, the latter is unlikely to get any sort of constructive response. Unfortunately, even a constructive comment can be taken the wrong way and leaves the you thinking why did I bother. I have had only one case like this.

On the positive side, I have raised issues about attention to details,(differences between the control descriptions on the web and on the map) which have been dealt with in a straightforward way by the organiser/planner/controller, accepting there was a mistake and giving assurance that action will be taken to prevent a repeat.

I was interested to see that at the SYO Hathersage event the course 20 maps (for M10A and Yellow) had a set of control descriptions pasted over the ones printed on the map. Clearly the details had been checked carefully and a correction made, even though in this case the difference was only in the length of the run in.

[DM]

Interesting to see the reactions people get when raising comments with planners and controllers, I think it depends largely on whether you raise the issue in a constructive way or a critical way, the latter is unlikely to get any sort of constructive response. Unfortunately, even a constructive comment can be taken the wrong way and leaves the you thinking why did I bother. I have had only one case like this.

On the positive side, I have raised issues about attention to details,(differences between the control descriptions on the web and on the map) which have been dealt with in a straightforward way by the organiser/planner/controller, accepting there was a mistake and giving assurance that action will be taken to prevent a repeat.

I was interested to see that at the SYO Hathersage event the course 20 maps (for M10A and Yellow) had a set of control descriptions pasted over the ones printed on the map. Clearly the details had been checked carefully and a correction made, even though in this case the difference was only in the length of the run in.

[graeme]

round it myself without a map. The position of the kite at the junctions should assist me in which way to go.

Including, e.g. the kite at the start junction...

This is also my definition of a white course, we can't guarantee a forest will offer 1.5km loop of paths. It means that the yellow course will either have a misleadingly placed control (where it splits from white) or have to go past a flag without punching it. Both of these are
often held up as unacceptable - so beware if you're doing one of my yellow courses..

[Snail]

Graeme wrote:

It means that the yellow course will either have a misleadingly placed control (where it splits from white) or have to go past a flag without punching it.

Not sure whether I misundertood this, but why?

The yellow course can make a turn off from a path going straight ahead. Not a decision point for White, so doesn't need a control.

[Duxxer]

Appendix B of the BOF rules is very clear:
3.4.1 The position of the centre of the start triangle shown on the map shall be on a mapped
feature and identified on the ground by a control banner. For TD1 and 2 courses this
feature will need to be a path or similar feature; also it should not be at a junction, as
this would require the beginners to decide which way to go without knowing where they
have just come from.

[EddieH]

Just as path junction controls on a white course MUST be placed to lead the runners the right way, so it can be done at the start - what matters is that no white course punter should be in doubt, not if the description is a junction.

And Graeme's point is valid and is a point I always feel is a yellow compromise when I plan both courses.

Firstly there may not be such a junction as Snail suggests.

But more importantly, if it is an insufficiently obvoius junction so as not to be a decision point for the whites, it is unlikely to be clear enough to be one for the yellows.

[graeme]

Check your shalls and shoulds...

The only time James was flattened by the start was when prestart was in the wood just south of the start on a large, straight EW track. Not a junction in sight, but deciding whether to turn left or right is completely impossible without taking a bearing. In fact, the route from most starts cannot be figured out with TD1 skills: competitors rely on the position of the prestart. To my mind, that's no different from relying on the position of the kite.

Graeme

[Snail]

But more importantly, if it is an insufficiently obvoius junction so as not to be a decision point for the whites, it is unlikely to be clear enough to be one for the yellows.

Diasgree.

The implication of the above is that any obvious junction on the White course is a decision point. I was always taught as a planner / controller that a decision point is one where you can no longer continue in the same direction. White course competitors will happily ignore major side turnings, provided their course goes straight ahead, so they don't need a control. Yellow course competitotrs can be expected to turn off if their course goes that way.

[Godders]

White and yellow were the hardest courses to plan on Drummond Hill due to the lack of paths. The initial drafts had to be binned as the paths we wanted to used for the white had become too indistinct and in the end we had to tape a route for the yellow down an old, very indistinct path.

The time involved in planning courses to meet the guidelines was disproportionate to the number of competitors we got on these 2 courses, so I am not surprised that some planners don't achieve it.

[awk]

Godders, if it's that hard, then there are plenty of precedents for not including a TD1, and even a TD2, course in an event, although because TD2 can follow pretty much any reasonably prominent line feature, it's absence is much less frequent. Just remember to advertise the fact prominently beforehand!! Having said that, I do agree, these courses are often the most time consuming to plan (and need to be done very early in the planning process), but I've found the rewards do compensate!

[tendon]

TD 1 and 2 must not have a navigation decision point at the start. The start process should focus on map orientation and preparation.

I guess a junction could be used provided there is no possibity of it being interpreted as a route. A path joining from behind the start rather than forking away from the start would be more acceptable. However, for best practice, it is better to identify a start location that has no possibility of ambiguity.

Justification for using a junction as a start feature is NOT to benefit TD1 and 2, it's to make a route choice for the more technical courses at the same start. Is that sufficient grounds for not interpreting "should" as "shall"?

[seabird]

Justification for using a junction as a start feature is NOT to benefit TD1 and 2, it's to make a route choice for the more technical courses at the same start. Is that sufficient grounds for not interpreting "should" as "shall"?

The start kite needs only to be a few metres along the path you want TD1 and TD2 to follow from the start to avoid any ambiguity for the competitors on those courses. This should have no impact on the choices available to competitors on the more technical courses.