Warwick today

[seabird]

Totally agree with Neil's IM illustration.

re the Warwick control I feel the description was perfectly unambiguous because, there was only one inside wallcorner facing east in the circle. There appeared no need to have a directional arrow indicating which wall.

I concede that due to the paved area on the battlements being shown you could just about consider there to be 2 walls within the circle, but it seemed pretty apparent on the ground that it was one big building. If mapped as a building any ambiguity would have disappeared.

[EddieH]

Desciptions are absolutely essential, but I do think that in Britain we get hung up on the "which feature" in column B. In the past with hand overprinting it was different but with perfectly placed circles what does it matter if there is another such feature lurking in the very edge of a circle.

For example if there are 2 adjacent boulders, and a third right on the edge of the circle and you want to put it on the eastern of the 2 which happens to be the middle of the 3 which description leads people easily to the ralise the site -eastern or middle? I believe that in the majority of such cases the planning team end up with the more useful eastern.

I noted decades ago when I started visiting Scandinavia that the directional symbol was used where it helped, not religiously with what is in the circle.

Befure you decry what I am saying, pick up any map you have run on with lots of wiggly contours and look at every "reentrant" or "spur" control. I would suggest that it is extremely rare to get a coursin such an area where every one is correctly described according to strict in the circle criteria - or even describable. I admit that I have a habit of simply putting middle on the basis that there are many on all sides, and because the sites I have chosen have been sensible and clear to the runner my controller has always agreed.

[graeme]

Desciptions are absolutely essential

We need to think really hard about this. Given that we can spend pages debating whether the pictorial symbol is right or not, what hope would a novice have? It would be a real turn-off to lose minutes because you don't understand the heiroglyphics.

This is much more an issue in ISSOM than regular events, because "in the circle" can be very, very far from the flag. I think controllers need to be very careful about allowing controls where "Desciptions are absolutely essential", not least because the frustration of arriving on the wrong side of an uncrossible feature presents a powerful incentive to cheat, with possible consequences for permissions.

Testing the ability to decipher control descriptions should not be a part of orienteering.

In the Warwick case, the description may be fine, but what would have be wrong with moving the control to the nearby spur? The route choice is the same, and its hard to imagine that "finding the castle wall" is a crucial part of the challenge. Another option might be to do something clever with the circle, like breaking it on the "non-approach side", or tracking the uncrossible boundary as you should with ISOM.

[seabird]

It's wonderful that this control - of all of them - is causing so much debate.

It was sat up for us all to see as we first entered the castle grounds, and many of us passed in sight of it at least one further time before we had to visit it.

It really shouldn't have required more than looking at the circle (and a little route pre-planning).

Caused me much glee to see Mrs H and others (but not all) who were in my pack at the preceding control disappearing towards the tower on the inside of the castle. I never dreamt that some of them would end up on the top of the battlements.

[Gnitworp]

My travelling companion to the event (not a Nopesport reader or poster) correctly identified the control location, but thought there was only one route to it from 112, i.e., via the northwestern bridge over the moat. He supposed incorrectly (but justifiably?) that the other northeastern bridge was obstructed by 2 transverse uncrossable walls, which are presumably supposed to be dots, not lines, indicating that it is possible to pass under the bridge, in the moat, as correctly shown on the other moat bridge. A larger scale here, would have helped, I think.

[johnloguk]

I suspect that most of our mistakes were due to the speed of decision making rather than any ambiquities in the map or control descriptions. I know that I wouldn't have made some of my mistakes if I had had separate control descriptions, although I totally accept the explanation as to why there weren't any. If I'd had them on my wrist I would have looked at them a lot more frequently than I did when having to unfold my map to see them. Then I would have noticed that 154, the dreaded control 16 on course A, was on the building corner, so couldn't possibly be in the alley between the high fences where many of us ended up. I would also have seen that 120 was at an inside eastern corner of the wall, so had to be outside the castle. The lesson for me is to look at the descriptions closely on every leg, not risk just running into the circle because unfolding my map was such a pain. Other route choice errors were simply down to not wanting to stand still for ages to make sure I had exhausted all possibilities before setting off, which happens to the best in this format of race. It is a skill, but also a judgement call balancing up the time taken with potential time saved.

If we walked round every course we would probaby never go wrong, because we would have time to look at the map closely, study the detail and check every nuance of the control description several times during the leg. But there isn't much fun in that and you certainly wouldn't improve your skills. In theory most City Races are only TD3, but the map detail and pace at which everything happens pushes that up considerably. I made more mistakes at Warwick, and yet was still fairly pleased with my run, than I would make in all but the most technical forests.

I watched the Nick Barrable video too, and still missed the control outside the wall when I ran into the castle the first time, another lesson learned, keep my eyes open! Yes I'm sure the map could be made a bit clearer in certain areas, I had to look twice at that gate with the black lines across it for instance, but I still think that most mistakes are down to competitor error in the heat of battle, which is how it should be.

Anyway, changing the subject, what happened to the guy who forgot to turn his map over and ran straight to the finish half-way through his butterfly, has he surfaced again yet?

[IanD]

The oddity of the outcome of the scoring system really highlights that although the individual races have been much appreciated, very few competitors seem prepared to travel long distances to these events.

This may change next year, if the suggestion of associating a city race with another major event takes place.

Association with another event can be overdone, I shall be missing Oxford this year precisely because it has been associated with the Southern Nights - my legs won't take two races on the same day (unless they're both pretty short).

On the subject of suitable towns/cities, could I suggest that Saxons take a look at the possibilities of Whitstable? - not a town I know well, but I recollect quite a few alleyways just in from the beach.

[King Penguin]

Anyway, changing the subject, what happened to the guy who forgot to turn his map over and ran straight to the finish half-way through his butterfly, has he surfaced again yet?

There were at least 2 such people, but I'll spare them the embarrassment by not naming them. If either of them thought they were the only one maybe they can take some little comfort from knowing they were not alone.

[ER]

I am entering this discussion a bit late in the day, but have only just found out how to log on this new message board (duh!)

The planning was outstanding. I climbed the tower. I had seen the control as I came in but just remembered reading something about vertiginous cliffs in the details. The steps to the tower seemed to fit the comments. The prospect of going up the tower rather than finding the control quickly, was more appealing on some subconscious level. I ended up going up behind a group of little children who told me there were 506 steps up to the top and 506 step down again. The view was fantastic.

In terms of the ongoing Cities race series, two of the races York and Lincoln wisely prohibited W/M16-'s from competing in the open classes because of the danger of road crossings. I do worry about safety for all competitiors be it young or old when busy roads have to be crossed. I have found myself running down "quiet" roads into the paths of oncoming cars when engrossed in the map and at Oxford was reckless when crossing the road when in a race with two other competitors. It is easy to lose natural road sense. I know organisers always remind us to be safe and the responsibility is ours and no one elses. I do though think that Sunday mornings are the best time to hold such races because there is less traffic. I am a big fan of sprint races and wish to see their continued growth. They are an accessible form of the sport and I thank all those who have been busy planning and organising them.

[awk]

In terms of the ongoing Cities race series, two of the races York and Lincoln wisely prohibited W/M16-'s from competing in the open classes because of the danger of road crossings.

I know that this might sound irresponsible, but I disagree with this. Whilst I accept that any race has a right to cover its own back, we as a family were delighted that Warwick did not follow the route of York and Lincoln, but left the risk assessment to us, enabling our M16 son to run the open race.

I understand the race organisers' concerns, but we would have quite happily signed disclaimers or whatever. We all understand the risks, and are prepared to take responsibility for them, although I know that race organisers would still suffer if something went on (which is why I understand and accept that they have a right to do what they do).

Personally, if you are going to institute an age limit, I think Oxford's rule of M/W14- not being allowed to run the open is far more appropriate than the M/W16- rule used at York et al. But then, the latter may have been required to use that age limit.

[DJM]

The issue of safety is a very real one at all orienteering events, but especially at Sprint races for all the reasons already expressed. It bothers me that few if any precautions are taken at some city races whilst elaborate road crossing procedures are set up at the humblest of standard forest races. Where the numbers are large, the problem is of course proportionately more serious, so much so that the first draft of the JK Sprint Guidelines includes:

Safety and fairness must be prime considerations thus traffic free conditions should be guaranteed, either by closing roads to traffic or by selecting enclosed areas such as parks or university campuses where there is no traffic or where traffic can be safely controlled.

I realise that a condition such as this one effectively rules out many of the Sprint terrains mentioned in this thread, but there are many equally good terrains which are not ruled out.

I'd be interested to hear the views of others on the inclusion of such a paragraph. NB the Guidelines also allow the full range of age classes from M/W10+

[Adventure Racer]

I do worry about safety for all competitiors be it young or old when busy roads have to be crossed. I have found myself running down "quiet" roads into the paths of oncoming cars when engrossed in the map and at Oxford was reckless when crossing the road when in a race with two other competitors. It is easy to lose natural road sense.

Is a very good point. However like all things it is something you learn - we have a local series of night street events, and I've also competed in 7/10 Rat Races (well 8 I suppose if you count my 5 minutes at Bristol this year!), and you get used to paying attention on road crossings and even figuring them into your route planning by aiming to run along big roads you want to cross in order to be able to select a good crossing point.

Of course mentioning the Rat Race, we really were taking chances on crossings in London, since it was the only way to make good progress. Actually realised there that provided the traffic was slow enough you could step into the road and get cars to stop for you! (not something I'd recommend since it shouldn't be necessary in the quieter locations of the Inov-8 UK Cities Cup).

[Simon E]

Safety and fairness must be prime considerations thus traffic free conditions should be guaranteed, either by closing roads to traffic or by selecting enclosed areas such as parks or university campuses where there is no traffic or where traffic can be safely controlled.

I'd be interested to hear the views of others on the inclusion of such a paragraph. NB the Guidelines also allow the full range of age classes from M/W10+

Yes, traffic is an issue, but "guaranteed traffic free" is much too restrictive. A low level of traffic with some carefully chosen crossing points and control sites is perfectly acceptable.

M/W10 are quite capable of getting round, but you have to plan very carefully. TD2 is quite difficult to interpret on ISSOM maps because there is much more confusing detail, and what would be a simple path junction at 1:10 becomes a mass of confusing pavement lines and brown screen at 1:5.

[jab]

In terms of the ongoing Cities race series, two of the races York and Lincoln wisely prohibited W/M16-'s from competing in the open classes because of the danger of road crossings.

I confess that we allowed our M12 to run in the open. We too did our own assessment and did our best to drum into him the importance of being careful. It was an assessment of both the risk and of our son as an individual. If the rules had required him to compete in his official class I'm not sure we'd have gone. 2.5k round a park wouldn't really have been an experience worth the travel. It was a very nice park but we have plenty of very nice parks much closer to home! The race was widely publicised as offering a chance to run through the castle and that's exactly what he wanted to do.

At the British Sprint Champs in Scarborough in May there were a significant number of M/W14/16 running in the open rather than the junior race presumably because the prospect of a qualification and final was more alluring than the M/W16- race which was just one run in the afternoon. One of the good things about orienteering for us is the chance to treat our children as individuals (and they have very different attitudes to orienteering). If the organisers are required to put in age limits yes we respect that necessity but we were grateful it wasn't necessary in this case.

[seabird]

the first draft of the JK Sprint Guidelines includes:

Safety and fairness must be prime considerations thus traffic free conditions should be guaranteed, either by closing roads to traffic or by selecting enclosed areas such as parks or university campuses where there is no traffic or where traffic can be safely controlled.

Is there a distinction to be made here between sprint races and town races?

I certainly agree with the above proposed guideline for sprint races. I was hampered by traffic in the heat at the BSC at Scarborough last year and heard instances of some truly competitive runners taking significant risks crossing the traffic in the high street (if that is what it is called).

Aire are hoping to stage a race in Skipton next year and initially this was spoken of as being a sprint race. We came to the conclusion that seconds are too precious on a sprint race, and hence it would be incompatable with a race containing some unavoidable busy street crossings.

We concluded that the risks that runners are prepared to take are likely to be less on races of a longer distance like Lincoln, York and Warwick. I think even that position would have to be reconsidered if a town/city race became part of a major championship.