Inadvertant cheating on ISSOM

[DaveR]

This doesn't seem a difficult matter to resolve at all. 1. Forbidden routes should be marked with the forbidden route symbol: either red crosses or red lines. 2. If a forbidden route might be taken in error (or on purpose) it must be marshalled. If these things aren't done, the controller isn't doing their job.

1. forbidden routes are already marked as such on the map

2. Count the number of forbidden routes on even a small urban map

...or perhaps your comments were tongue in cheek?

[graeme]

(some really sensible stuff)...The true finishing order just may be a little dubious in some races. But as it's only for fun, who cares?

Spot on.
Let's not forget all the imprecise mapping, the following, asking the way, running down elephant tracks that weren't available to early starters, looking for people punching, getting stuck in unmapped grot etc. that goes on in forest-O.

The true finishing order is more than a little dubious in many forest races, but its almost as much fun as urban, so really, who cares?

It's only because there are so few sources of unfairness in urban that we can agree on what they are, and discuss them openly.

[mharky]

With the exception of elephant tracks, all those things happen in urban races as well.

The problem will not go away. Urban ISSOM maps are (generally) primarily OOB or forbidden. With the exception of park areas, a simple point count for the Edinburgh map would be maybe 70% OOB (buildings or olive green). However, many of these olive green areas look the same as in-bounds areas. Sometimes they are private grounds all the time, sometimes it is just for the event. It is very easy to run into them because they don't stand out.

Mappers and planners always blame the competitor for "not reading their map", however when people don't read their map in the forest area they don't suddenly end up in the loading bay of Tesco. A small error on an urban area can mean you have accidentally "cheated".

An even bigger annoyance for me is the mapping of "impassable" features, specifically walls and fences. ISSOM arose from the sprint races developed through the PWT and eventually into WOC. These races were ran by fit people who can climb over obstacles. The average British orienteer perhaps can't negotiate the same obstacles with such athleticism, sometimes they physically can't, sometimes they just don't try. However, this has lead to a lowering in the height/crossability of impassable features, in my opinion. Average British urban maps are being made for the average British urban orienteer. Fences and walls that are clearly crossable by the majority of people are now being mapped as impassable because someone's granny can't get over it.

A great example, the play parks on the Meadows in Edinburgh. The original mapper decided that these 3ft high, sturdy and safely crossable fences that are crossed by people every day should be mapped as crossable. The mapper was mapping the area as he saw it. The latest version of this map has these features as impassable. Why?

Well, perhaps some elderly or less agile orienteers couldn't get over them. But perhaps someone tinkering with the map is also a fan of making things more complicated than they actually are. An area surrounded by an impassible fence with only 2 gates is more complex than one surrounded by a low fence.

St. Andrews has the same problem, although I'm not sure if it is still on the map. By the overhead walkway in the university there are some impassable walls. These are actually 1m high drop offs. After I pre-ran the JEC sprint, and went straight over them without realising, they were taped off for the race.

People make mistakes when reading their maps, they get lost. If they come across a low, passable obstacle and they aren't sure where they are, in a race situation they are likely to not realise the mapper/planner has decided to make this impassable to make their course harder.

Having said all that, some people just blatantly cheat. Easy to spot at the top, harder to spot mid-field. Very difficult to prove off splits a long.

Mappers, planners and controllers should minimise the possibility by not trying to trick or trap people. Is that what orienteering is all about? Making a low wall impassable, and then hiding someone behind it to DSQ people who crossed it?

Manpower is low, if people are going to be coming to an impassible feature from one direction put a sign up to remind them. If they still want to cheat, then that's up to them.

Lets remember that this is mainly a problem in urban orienteering, which isn't important for anything. Real sprint races are generally better planned on better maps with better patrolling.

[70plus]

Let's remember that this is mainly a problem in urban orienteering, which isn't important for anything. Real sprint races are generally better planned on better maps with better patrolling.

Thanks, mharky, for supplying the experience of urban-O which I lack. Your comments illustrate that all mapping can be subjective, as well as the uncertainty of whether crossing an indicated boundary is forbidden or impossible. It also shows how all the manpower released by computerisation is to be employed ...

[andy]

A great example, the play parks on the Meadows in Edinburgh. The original mapper decided that these 3ft high, sturdy and safely crossable fences that are crossed by people every day should be mapped as crossable. The mapper was mapping the area as he saw it. The latest version of this map has these features as impassable. Why?

because a member of the GBR squad crocked themselves failing to jump over them a few months ago?

[graeme]

Real sprint races are generally better planned on better maps.

Like the invisible wall at WOC 2011? The olive green in the WOC park that DQ'ed Scott? The missing gap that trapped GG in the 2010 WOC qualifier? It's exactly the same set of issues

3 ft high wall.

Think that's small: you should see the one they won't let me let you cross at the JK, um, sprint. Which is a real sprint race by the way.

Thanks, mharky, for supplying the experience of urban-O

Er...

[Darwin]

A great example, the play parks on the Meadows in Edinburgh. The original mapper decided that these 3ft high, sturdy and safely crossable fences that are crossed by people every day should be mapped as crossable. The mapper was mapping the area as he saw it. The latest version of this map has these features as impassable. Why?

because a member of the GBR squad crocked themselves failing to jump over them a few months ago?

Well that's just ridiculous then. I'm sorry for the person that crocked themselves - but imagine applying that principle across the board.

Orienteering RIP.

[mharky]

Graeme, I was referring purely to urban/sprint races in the UK. As such I think my point holds true. Although this is probably more a reflection of the fact that we have very few IOF specification sprint races, and the ones we do have tend to be championships races. Therefore they will naturally have better mapping, planning and controlling compared to a level C event put on by a student club. You have more experience than most when it comes to that (i.e. JK sprint vs Big Weekend).

Andy, it is always unfortunate when anyone gets injured, but that doesn't mean that any time someone gets injured we have to make the feature impassable for heath and safety reasons. I've seen some nasty twisted ankles from tripping over a kerb... I think you can see where I'm going with that one.

It's a shame it's coming this if the powers that be aren't letting Graeme cross a fence lower than that of the Meadows.

[DaveR]

An even bigger annoyance for me is the mapping of "impassable" features, specifically walls and fences. ISSOM arose from the sprint races developed through the PWT and eventually into WOC. These races were ran by fit people who can climb over obstacles. The average British orienteer perhaps can't negotiate the same obstacles with such athleticism, sometimes they physically can't, sometimes they just don't try. However, this has lead to a lowering in the height/crossability of impassable features, in my opinion. Average British urban maps are being made for the average British urban orienteer. Fences and walls that are clearly crossable by the majority of people are now being mapped as impassable because someone's granny can't get over it.

A great example, the play parks on the Meadows in Edinburgh. The original mapper decided that these 3ft high, sturdy and safely crossable fences that are crossed by people every day should be mapped as crossable. The mapper was mapping the area as he saw it. The latest version of this map has these features as impassable. Why?

Well, perhaps some elderly or less agile orienteers couldn't get over them. But perhaps someone tinkering with the map is also a fan of making things more complicated than they actually are. An area surrounded by an impassible fence with only 2 gates is more complex than one surrounded by a low fence.

For the specific case of a fenced in play park, I might well map the fence as "not to be crossed" to avoid any danger of fast competitors charging through places where toddlers were at play. Indeed I would probably mark the whole thing as OOB.

[mharky]

Purple OOB would be right for an event during busy park times, but the fence should be mapped as passable.

My point was about the crossability of the fence, not whether people should be in there. The mapper has left the gates on as gaps (presumably for clarity), so access wasn't a concern when the fence was made impassable.

[Adrian]

This doesn't seem a difficult matter to resolve at all. 1. Forbidden routes should be marked with the forbidden route symbol: either red crosses or red lines. 2. If a forbidden route might be taken in error (or on purpose) it must be marshalled. If these things aren't done, the controller isn't doing their job.

1. forbidden routes are already marked as such on the map

2. Count the number of forbidden routes on even a small urban map

...or perhaps your comments were tongue in cheek?

Is it so difficult to read what I actually wrote?? I wrote "If a forbidden route might be taken in error..." so I'm not suggesting that every forbidden route should be marshalled. If the event has been well planned and well controlled (It does happen from time to time) there will only be a limited number of places that need marshalling. This number will be higher in prissy places like Cambridge, and lower in normal towns.

[andypat]

Did someone mention mapping out of bounds again? The topic that just keeps on giving!

Agre with Dave you might want to keep competitiors out of the area for safety.

Mharky making some sense this time though. I do dislike it when things dont look like they ought to from the map. I'd prefer to have it mapped with a crossable fence and temp out of bounds for the race if necessary. But ideally I'd prefer the planner to avoid the potentially controversial obstacle in the first place.

Incidentally the symbol 524 for Fence not to be crossed on ISSOM seems to be defined:

An impassable fence or railing, which shall not be crossed, due to forbidden access or because it may constitute a danger to the competitor because of its height.

I dont think either really applies here because it isnt forbidden access unless its mapped olive green OOB (in which case the fence symbol is redundant) unless we are applying the second part - but it sounds more like it was a danger to a competitor because of something other than its height...

The olive green in the WOC park that DQ'ed Scott?

I thought you were arguing for that last time round Graeme?

If the event has been well planned and well controlled (It does happen from time to time) there will only be a limited number of places that need marshalling. This number will be higher in prissy places like Cambridge, and lower in normal towns.

I think in places like Edinburgh, St Andrews, Perth you may find your "limited" number of places going well into double figures once you take account of route choices etc. Not suggesting its not a reasonable suggestion - but very unlikely to be realistic for most city events.

[pete.owens]

I would err on the other side with fences in urban areas and assume that they were all not to be crossed when mapping. I suspect it doesn't occur to most landowners when giving permission for orienteering that we would even consider climbing walls and fences. So any fence should be presumed to be forbidden unless explicit permission is sought - or it is obvious that people routinely cross it.

It is also a matter of fair competition. We are setting a test of navigation at speed - not the ability to scale an obstacle course. If a legitimate route on the map encounters a significant barrier on the ground it is unfair is some competitors can climb it while others would have to retrace their steps.

[andypat]

If a legitimate route on the map encounters a significant barrier on the ground it is unfair is some competitors can climb it while others would have to retrace their steps.

Is it? I thought this was some kind of sport we are doing?

[quote="graeme"]Think that's small: you should see the one they won't let me let you cross at the JK, um, sprint. [quote]

They?

[graeme]

Mharky making some sense this time though. I do dislike it when things dont look like they ought to from the map. I'd prefer to have it mapped with a crossable fence and temp out of bounds for the race if necessary.

Do you even know which fence it is? I can only think of one that mharky mapped and is still there: and with due respect andypat, I'd be astonished to see you clearing it...
I've never run a leg which wasn't better for me to run round, and I've never crossed anything that high in a sprint. Mharky maps as he sees is, and no doubt he can clear it. Kalvis, Jegor and I map for the average competitor, and we all went for uncrossable.The information most competitors need from the map is "go to the gate".

So, on mharkys substantive point: it's uncrossable because, in my opinion, most people using the map won't want to cross it, nothing to do with making things more complicated than they actually are, something I also object to.