Consecutive codes and DSQ

[Harley]

Ooops! I don't seem to have got that right. It's here - at the bottom of the page.

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/roger.brough ... dia/pc.htm

[IanD]

Yep, I remember using all those - and being paid for it!

[Knee Deep Mud!]

I was caught out a few years ago by a course with mostly consecutive numbers - something like 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, ... but with control 46 less than 100m from control 47 on a similar looking feature. Unsurprisingly I punched 46, then ran the long leg to the next control to find it was No.48 not the expected 47. I lost the will to live at the thought of the extra 2km run to the previous control and back through knee deep heather, so had only my second retiral ever (the other being when my torch packed in on a night event).

The above incident reinforced my opinion on what I have always done when planning: Plan using letters as this lets you change / add / remove controls at will. When the courses have been finalised allocate the numbers to the controls that are left as randomly as possible based on the controls available, making sure that similar / consecutive / easily confused numbers are nowhere near each other. In the good old days of pin punching I also tried to ensure that similar punch patterns were nowhere near each other so that miss punches stood out. If possible I also try to ensure that similar / easily confused codes do not appear on consecutive controls on the same course.

Whilst I do believe it is the competitor's responsibility to check codes, and that it's tough luck if you are DQ'd, I believe that it is the planner's responsibility for ensuring that avoidable problems are removed / minimised wherever possible.