Northern Championships - not grim up North

[andy]

Yes, this had me spitting teeth at the end. The planner and controller were somewhat bemused - I gather that some other body decided that the critical gap (i.e the one that gave the simplest and quickest attack to the control) needed to be taped. Others, I know, jumped it.

Yup, I was also quite annoyed at the end. It's a shame because there's nothing anyone can really do about it. If you jumped it you were perfectly in the right (map says so!) and if you didn't and went round you lost out (as I did) and lost your concentration

[roadrunner]

I'd just like to point out, for future events, an issue with the loose control descriptions. The attached image shows the issue. The printing didn't seem to be brilliant and hence some control numbers were unclear, with 5's looking like 6's for example. For control 20 the actual code was 125, but here it looks like 126.

I didn't run this particular event but I've had that problem before. It seems to me that the font you get in OCAD by default (which looks the same as on those control descriptions) isn't the best for distinguishing numbers, maybe if it could be changed from Arial bold (which is what it looks like at the moment) to one of the others in this picture, or something similar, we wouldn't have this problem in the future? (However, I couldn't find a setting in OCAD to do this.)

Fonts.gif (3.62 KiB) Viewed 9776 times

[Freefall]

Unfortunately I didn't see the loose descriptions beforehand (geographical separation etc) so I was a bit disappointed that there was an issue (though I still saw the 5 as a 5). Something to note for the future.
One other thing, and I am sure he is too shy to mention it, was that one competitor picked up the wrong map because they were in line and not opposite sides. He mistook the very large 8 for the very large 9 or vice versa. The "sampling" of 15 percent strength red wine the night before had nothing to do with it apparently.

[MIE]

I didn't run this particular event but I've had that problem before. It seems to me that the font you get in OCAD by default (which looks the same as on those control descriptions) isn't the best for distinguishing numbers, maybe if it could be changed from Arial bold (which is what it looks like at the moment) to one of the others in this picture, or something similar, we wouldn't have this problem in the future? (However, I couldn't find a setting in OCAD to do this.)

In OCAD course planning, scroll down through the symbols (normally top-right) to the last-but-one line. The first text element(if you have all the defaults-T11) black entry is the control code on the descriptions and the last is the control code(purple T10) on the map.

You can change these individually by right clicking and editing to change the font.

Tahoma is even better as the bottom part of the 5 has a larger bit of the bottom
missing and is less likely to fuzz into a full circle.

[awk]

though I still saw the 5 as a 5

Didn't affect me (my event didn't last that long!), but it certainly affected others, including a pretty eagle eyed offspring. I have to say, looking at it, that I would find it nigh on impossible under race conditions to read it as a 5 - definitely looks like a 6, and I wouldn't be double checking on the map as it would read automatically as a 6.

BTW, it was interesting that on Saturday, red-and-white tape denoted uncrossable hedge. On Sunday, it denoted a gap to be used. Trivial, I know.

[dustytoo]

As the controller for Saturday's sprint, I hope the unexpectedly taped off bit of maze did not affect too many people. I decided to tape some inviting semi-gaps in various parts of the maze hedgesto remove ambiguity, taking care that the gaps left untaped matched those on the map, and this was checked by the planner. As noted previously, we were both a bit surprised to learn that one intended gap had been later taped across by somebody. Not something we had thought of for the risk analysis!

[Freefall]

(my event didn't last that long!)

What happened Andy? Injured or lost? You missed all the best bits.

[andy]

As noted previously, we were both a bit surprised to learn that one intended gap had been later taped across by somebody. Not something we had thought of for the risk analysis!

can't think who'd do it, apart from perhaps some of the people wandering about (watching controls?) in army fatigues...

[awk]

(my event didn't last that long!)

What happened Andy? Injured or lost?

Made a mistake (used ridge top for direction so could look ahead, and was pulled to one side at critical moment, making mistake I've made too often lately since picking up speed - not using compass sufficiently), and then turned ankle. Decided, given feedback on terrain, that discretion better part of valour at this stage of season and that this was just one of those weekends, so retired.

You missed all the best bits.

Hmmm.

[Freefall]

Product recommendation here - Active Ankle. I used to suffer badly on one ankle (very bad injury at St Gwynno about 30 years ago) but I have never suffered an ankle sprain since wearing this contraption. Have gone over a few times when not wearing it.

[awk]

Product recommendation here - Active Ankle. I used to suffer badly on one ankle (very bad injury at St Gwynno about 30 years ago) but I have never suffered an ankle sprain since wearing this contraption. Have gone over a few times when not wearing it.

I've thought about that - OH swears by them. However, the ankle is usually OK in spite of being wrecked a few years ago, and I, maybe mistakenly, prefer to rely on building up strength/proprioception. I keep bearing it in mind though, and might rethink.

[IanD]

I found the issue of which fences and walls could and could not be crossed on Sunday extremely confusing.

Sitting here calmly with a cup of coffee and now knowing the area, it is all perfectly obvious. However, planners and controllers need to realise that things are not so clear under the strain of running, with no prior knowledge of the area, and trying to pick out the important information from the map while running over rough ground and trying not to trip up.

The final details identified three or four areas where crossing points had to be used, in and out of three particular forest enclosures, a railway line and some fields, and another north/south fence in the east. However some walls could be crossed anywhere. Got all that? The gist seemed to be that fences were not to be crossed, and that at least seemed clear. Not sure about walls.

Then in the start lanes, there is some more information, can't remember what it was now, but it didn't seem consistent. Aaargh! Never mind, have read on Nopesport that the planner promises all will be clear on the ground.

On my very first leg, I nearly trip up over a fence. Am I allowed to cross it? Surely I must be, it's in the forest where we have been told walls can be crossed, it's ruined, the purple line goes straight for it. But it destroys my confidence that all fences are not to be crossed. Never mind, I remember clearly (I think) that it's fences around the forest which are the problem.

A couple of legs later, I'm running between two controls in forest. I'm aware that I'm passing through a clearing, but at the time it doesn't occur to me that I'm leaving one enclosure and entering another. Obvious enough now, sitting at my PC, but not while struggling to run through heather and focussing on my route rather than looking off to the side. Following the purple line, I see a fence ahead, no crossing point. Mapped as a low fence, surely it must be crossable? Ah, around two corners there's a crossing point marked, perhaps I'm supposed to use that?

Well yes, “obviously” I am. But I very much doubt whether the planner's assertion that everybody who incorrectly crossed a fence did so with the intent to cheat is correct.

Rant over! I do agree that on the two courses I have seen, a purple overprint added to the existing map would have made things even more confusing.

However, on both these courses (9 & 13), back-to-back maps could have been used with half the course on each. Then the map would have been sufficiently uncluttered that the uncrossables could have been overprinted without confusion. In fact, irrespective of overprinting fences, course 13 needed back-to-back maps anyway; I'm told it took 20 seconds while standing at control 2 to spot the circle for control 3, and I can quite see why.

Alternatively, why not borrow from the ISSOM (sprint map) standards, and use a thicker black line for not-to-be-crossed fences and walls. I know this is not provided for in the normal forest map rules, but you are already ignoring the guidelines by not overprinting the not-to-be-crossed. One short statement in the final details, thick black fences and walls are not to be crossed, would be clear and memorable. And it could be repeated on the map legend so that anyone in doubt on the course had something to check with.

The bottom line is that orienteering is a sport about navigating with maps. If the map doesn't give all the required information, then something has gone badly wrong.

[Freefall]

You can see where you lost your time now that results are on Winsplits. Back-to-back printing - not viable. We followed instructions to produce litho maps (obviously at extra expense) and the costs for setting up back to back would have been even higher. This is where we were initially struggling to make numbers and had real concerns about making a substantial loss on the event. As it was the sun shone, there was a late surge in numbers, damage to fences was minimal, there was almost universal praise for my courses and nobody died.

[graeme]

However, on both these courses (9 & 13), back-to-back maps could have been used with half the course on each.

If you can't afford two sided prints, you can use an inset...

http://www.interlopers.routegadget.co.u ... 0&kieli=en

...use a thicker black line for not-to-be-crossed fences and walls. I know this is not provided for in the normal forest map rules.

It could be. BOF already use nonstandard symbols like "platform" and "stile", and we're allowed to use whatever yellow we like in open areas. Uncrossable walls are a perennial problem, so why not? Just ask map group. (I'm not sure using the "Forest Road" symbol, as per ISSOM, is the best choice.)

As I clambered over a rickety gate beside a stout-looking barbed wire fence, it occured to me that in many years of climbing hundreds of such fences I've never managed to damage one, and in any case the time needed to repair is tiny compared with the effort that goes into planning and controlling. Are we being too precious about this?

[Freefall]

Good idea Graeme - funnily enough one of the crossing points did get damaged but it was in a poor state of repair in any case. At least we knew where the damage was likely to be focussed and the land agent is happy (and hence future use is secured). I personally liked all the criss crossing on one map - some competitors were thrown in the heat of the race by this and ran to wrong controls in that last forest block. Was it fair - probably, and the winners certainly don't complain. Back to the day job now....