BOC & BRC 2010.

[SeanC]

M/W 10 is an interesting area.

Back in the 80's there were lots more older juniors M/W 14+. 10 year olds and younger were few and far between. Our experience locally is that the reverse is true today. Children aged 6-10 are the easiest age to recruit - older children perhaps have estabilished their preferred sport/decided they are not sporty/looking for something "cooler" etc. Dave Nevell's analysis of membership/participation in the last but one CompassSport seems to support this.

The British is still mainly older juniors, but are we missing a trick in not getting these large numbers of local M/W10's to the British, and to our bigger events in general? Perhaps many would expect the younger junior courses at the British to be hard, when the reality is that it's just the same standard they get at local events.

One way we could encourage more in this age group might be to have M/W8 classes, creating more winners. (Why was 10 chosen as the minimum age class BTW?). Another way might be to let schools enter the mini relay, and/or wave the requirement for national membership (or even local membership) for these young junior classes.

I guess the argument is that children under 10 shouldn't be put under pressure to win. The level 1 coaching course talked about "FUNdamentals" at this age. I see the point, but when times are listed on websites it's hard to avoid them being competitive. One of our juniors won his first regional event a couple of years ago. He didn't get a prize and we didn't make a fuss, but his school did find out, and made a point of announcing it to the whole school in assembly!

[Stodgetta]

I'd love to see an M/W8 class on the same course as M/W10B, so no more planning needed, & so would Holly .

We had "Berkswich Chasers" out in the mini relay on Sunday - the 3 most enthusiastic & competent juniors from years 5 & 6 who have been orienteering in school, & who volunteered to help on the water station on Saturday (as well as running the yellow course on Saturday). We could easily have filled another team! It's been a great motivator for the school club, & fab for the children & their parents to enjoy the atmosphere of the event. They all loved it - Finns just gutted he sprained his ankle early on on his course and had to hobble around the rest of it slowly.

How often do you get the chance to compete in the British Championships? It's a great selling point.

[Scott]

Has there been some official change of policy on this or is it just the recession?

The (2011) rules for the British Champs say:

3.3.1 British Championship Trophies shall be presented to the winners of the highest category (Elite, Long or A) in each age class. British Championship medals shall be awarded to the first, second and third placed competitors in these classes. Competitors are only eligible for medals and trophies in the age class they have entered and if they satisfy the Eligibility Rule above.
3.3.2 Leading competitors in the Short and B classes, and in the M/W 18, 20 and 21 Long classes regardless of whether the Elite classes are run at the same event or not, should only be awarded mementoes. If the leading competitor in a class which decides a British Champion does not satisfy the Eligibility Rule, they shall only be awarded a memento.

The JK rules (and both sets of 2010 rules) are worded slightly differently but basically say the same thing. I have a suspicion that the bit about only awarding mementoes to the winners of Short/B classes may be a change of policy, but I'm not certain.

[Mrs H]

but it's still open to interpretation isn't it? What does

leading competitors

mean? The winners (if so why not say so) or the first 3?

I agree there should be no medals or trophies. The question of 10B needs a careful think through - can anyone think of a good reason why a separate M/W 8 class could not be run over the same course (no 8B obviously) but the 10B must be retained as a distinct option for the slightly later starters/developers etc.

BTW - when it was decided to withdraw the S course trophies from the BOC and JK some years back - what became of the actual trophies. most of these were presented by individuals or clubs for those specific events - have they been re-allocated? and if so by whom and for what and were the donors notified?

[Scott]

The remaining JK Short (and 21L) trophies were withdrawn at this year's JK and went to BOF. I don't know what will happen to them, but I would hope that they could (with the consent of the donors) be usefully reallocated - there are plenty of age-classes without a British Middle or Sprint trophy.

[Mrs H]

that would certainly be a very appropriate use for them.

[IanD]

I'd like to thank every volunteer involved in the event for all their time and effort. I thoroughly enjoyed the weekend, despite, or perhaps because, my present lack of fitness prevents me from having any chance of winning a race.

However, it does nobody any favours to pretend that there were no problems; if we don't acknowledge mistakes, we can't learn from them.

Control 213 on day one was not a knoll, despite being mapped and described as such. It was a hide. Fortunately, I checked the code when I eventually found it (having first missed it for reasons of my own incompetence) so I punched it and carried on. I know of some however who didn't check the code - why should they since they were looking for a knoll and this was a hide - and lost lots of time.

I think it was more of a problem for those who found it on the way to other controls, and checked their map to see where the hide was. There was a hide on the map in the area, and some people assumed that they were at the only mapped hide - a reasonable assumption since it had a kite on it - and thus were thrown way off course.

I think it is a tribute to the tolerance and good nature of most British orienteers that no official protest was put in. Had a protest been made, it is hard to see how the jury could have avoided voiding all the courses which passed through the area.

On the relay day, the problem was the changeover arrangements. The waiting pen had no view of the spectator control, and only a very late view of incoming runners. It was a cold day, and there was very little time to strip off outer clothing and battle through the crowds to the actual changeover pen. I ended up running in gloves because I had no time to take them off - probably a good idea, but it should have been my choice, not the organisers. Every major relay I can remember running before has given me a much earlier view of my incoming runner.

Most of the organisation was excellent, and the courses were pretty good. I know from my own experience how difficult it is to get absolutely everything right, so once again my thanks to all those involved.

[Oldman]

I'd like to congratulate IanD for raising some valid issues but doing so in a very fair and constructive manner - a model that might usefully be followed (but sadly isn't always) by other Nopesport users.

[Roger]

Can anyone explain how team-mates James Logue and Jon Emberton appear to have had the same relay gaffle? (Were some of the options that claim to be different actually the same?)

[SJC]

It looks as though Jon emberton (4011) and Jon Cross (4012) had each others maps on the first leg.

[tokoloshe]

I think by definition a hide is sufficiently hollow to be able to get inside. The knoll being talked about looked solid to me, albeit with rather more wood than earth. Probably more importantly - was it in the right place?

[tokoloshe]

Perhaps the fact that the map is copyright "Silverhill Maps" rather than "Copyright Walton Chasers" might have had an influence on the mapping? I don't know, but it seems very strange to me that a company or individual holds the copyright of such an important map. Any further information - such as who is "Silverhill Maps" and what was the revision and updating that was done for BOC 2010 would be useful in establishing what actually happened.
As a further note it would be interesting to know what the "BOF map adviser" said about the map and how up to date it was.

In general terms the copyright of a map is held by the cartographer - ie the person that creates it, unless as part of the contract for doing so they are required to handover the copyright as well.

Many of our maps these days are professional productions - in the case of BOC/BRC the map used was produced, as has been the case for 30 years, by WCH without profesional input. That is not an excuse for anything being wrong - it should be fit for purpose for the event. The quarry area exercised the minds of more than one mapper and had a specific visit from the map advisor. To be acceptable at 15,000 it could not show all the detail on the ground. The result shows all of the main features and was functional.

[cbg]

The mapping around Control 213 should be re-visited. The knoll is probably accurate enough, but some of the surrounding detail is not. In particular the 'depression' (I can't remember the code) to the south is 25m from the veg boundary to its south - not the c 10m+ as on the map. This 'depression' was 1m x 1m if I'm generous, and required the control circle and exit line to be broken to show it. But, more importantly, the vegetation around 213 made it an unexpected Bingo control - from one attack point, veg bdry bend to NE, it was visible from 30m; in all other directions the low vegetation hid it until within 10m.
Splits show that many orienteers either found it straight away or had significant problems.
But why protest, when the rest of the course, and most of the area, was good fun and a challenge? I doubt that very few races were won and lost at this one control.

[mykind]

Very, very enjoyable weekend - thanks to all involved. The planning on Saturday was particularly good, and I thought that the atmosphere in the assembly area was brilliant - one of the best I have been to.

I agree that the map was a bit odd in places

, but it didn't affect my enjoyment of my run. The mapping of paths and vegetation in the flat southern bit (19-20-21 on M21E) seemed to be particularly interpretive (and/or in need of an update), although there was enough there for even me to find the controls without any real problems. I was also thrown by the unexpected trees in the quarry, although here I suspect that attempting to put all of the vegetation detail on there might have made the map illegible at 1:15.

The map was " a bit odd in places" so probably not quite suitable for a british championship event?

likewise control 213 which was quite simply a disgrace. A knoll is aknoll is a knoll - it is not now a wigwam of sticks nor has it ever been a wigwam of sticks nor will it ever be a wigwam of sticks so let's stop pretending that all was OK really! It wasn't and the major events comittee needs to look at it to see why so many decent orienteers were out for so long and act accordingly

[Big Jon]

Perhaps the fact that the map is copyright "Silverhill Maps" rather than "Copyright Walton Chasers" might have had an influence on the mapping? I don't know, but it seems very strange to me that a company or individual holds the copyright of such an important map. Any further information - such as who is "Silverhill Maps" and what was the revision and updating that was done for BOC 2010 would be useful in establishing what actually happened.
As a further note it would be interesting to know what the "BOF map adviser" said about the map and how up to date it was.

In general terms the copyright of a map is held by the cartographer - ie the person that creates it, unless as part of the contract for doing so they are required to handover the copyright as well.

Many of our maps these days are professional productions - in the case of BOC/BRC the map used was produced, as has been the case for 30 years, by WCH without profesional input. That is not an excuse for anything being wrong - it should be fit for purpose for the event. The quarry area exercised the minds of more than one mapper and had a specific visit from the map advisor. To be acceptable at 15,000 it could not show all the detail on the ground. The result shows all of the main features and was functional.

Complete tosh - the map was not correct (or "functional" as you put it) in the quarry area - there was a band of 12-15 foot high birch trees marked the same as virtually open ground behind, areas of gorse and rhodedendron were much more extensive than mapped and at least one areas of trees was shown as rough open. In addition later in the course the large blocks of varying shades of green or green stripes had very little consistency between them.

Re copyright you are completely wrong - the copyright lies with the person or body the pays for the work - ie BOC or WCH not the cartographer. You may be mixing up the "standing materials" with copyright.