Filey Urban Event

[Kerry W]

Does anyone know what the start times are likely to be for this event? Any information would be very welcome.

Many thanks
Kerry.

[IanD]

Start times will not be pre-allocated – there will be a punching start and you can go to the start as soon as you are ready. Starts will be from 12.30 to 14.00 and courses close at 15.00. Slower runners may want to plan for an earlier start.

[IanD]

Good event, a mix of gardens and streets with some good route choice legs, and even the option (which I didn't take) of a run along the beach.
Thanks for putting it on.

[awk]

Good event, a mix of gardens and streets with some good route choice legs, and even the option (which I didn't take) of a run along the beach.

I did! Great event - well worth the journey. Having gone back out to run the alternative, I reckon the big route choice leg on the A and B courses was about 50-50 - 10 seconds difference for me. If you were strong on hills, the beach route was probably slightly quicker; if not, the route back through the start would probably favour you. I reckon I'm somewhere in the middle at the moment! Tough one today at Barns Cliff; some great planning (including a 15-20 minute route choice leg), but can't say I got on with the map very well.

[Homer]

The results file had Martin Ward disqualified although the published results don't.

I disqualified myself after looking carefully at the map on Saturday evening. Published results haven't been updated yet.

If your self-imposed disqualification is down to your route from 4 to 5 (and I can't see where else it might be) then I feel this is unnessary. I very nearly did exactly the same as you; only the presence of Ed Nicholas sat on a bench made me double-check my map. Even then, I was still unsure which of the 4 parallel boundaries were meant to be uncrossable. The middle two still look to me to be a thinner black line than the outer two but, to be safe, I went round the end of the second fence. I'd already ducked under the one on the other side of the road as it was only a single rail at about waist height, so strictly speaking I should also be disqualified (although, in going round the second one, I negated any advantage gained).
I wonder how many others crossed these fences as the map was ambiguous and there was no obvious reason why they needed to be uncrossable?

[awk]

I know LostAgain also self-disqualified for the same reason.

I would agree with Homer, Spookster, that whilst I respect what you've done, I would regard it as unnecessary: the lines are ambiguous, and for me only visibly thicker under magnification - they are certainly not the thickness I would expect for an uncrossable barrier. I certainly regard you as having beaten me fair and square.

The only reason I didn't cross them was that I took one look at the fences and thought I couldn't be bothered/wasn't sufficiently agile to gain time by going through them. The official crossability of them didn't come into my thinking - they weren't readable as such at the time.

[eddie]

Just a short note to say I wasn't there to check up on people!

No dobbing in has happened or will happen!

The results file had Martin Ward disqualified although the published results don't.

I disqualified myself after looking carefully at the map on Saturday evening. Published results haven't been updated yet.

If your self-imposed disqualification is down to your route from 4 to 5 (and I can't see where else it might be) then I feel this is unnessary. I very nearly did exactly the same as you; only the presence of Ed Nicholas sat on a bench made me double-check my map. Even then, I was still unsure which of the 4 parallel boundaries were meant to be uncrossable. The middle two still look to me to be a thinner black line than the outer two but, to be safe, I went round the end of the second fence. I'd already ducked under the one on the other side of the road as it was only a single rail at about waist height, so strictly speaking I should also be disqualified (although, in going round the second one, I negated any advantage gained).
I wonder how many others crossed these fences as the map was ambiguous and there was no obvious reason why they needed to be uncrossable?

[Scott]

Spookster's route from 8 to 9 also looks a little suspect on RouteGadget. (I should add that the courses look like fun.)

[graeme]

Just took a peek at this - the lines are certainly thicker on the routegadget version (though its what's on the map that counts). I would guess the railing is there specifically to stop people crossing the road directly.

We really need to get smarter about this - here all that's needed is to make the road OOB between the thick lines to make it unambiguous. I'd use olive green for the OOB road, so it's on the base map: on small areas you often dont get enough red lines for the stripey OOB. I'm continually astonished how reluctant people are to do this.

[awk]

Just took a peek at this - the lines are certainly thicker on the routegadget version (though its what's on the map that counts). I would guess the railing is there specifically to stop people crossing the road directly.

Possibly, but further up the road the road is in a cutting below the paths and fence, and it is physically uncrossable; the footpaths gradually drop down to the road level. My guess (and yted will be able to say for sure) is that the thick line is simply the extension from that to the end of the fence that was running alongside the road - it being somewhat indeterminable precisely where the barrier moves from uncrossable to crossable. I wouldn't mind betting that the leg was not planned with that issue in mind at all.

The thick lines are very clear from Routegadget, but the Routegadget map is substantially enlarged: my one comment about the course etc (aside from it being a great event) was that I had a fair bit of difficulty reading the map at detailed points, e.g. around 3 and 4, and on the approach to 2 (I forgot to put it on my routegadget route, but I stopped dead for 10 seconds or so on my way to 2 to read the approach under a very high magnification, just because I couldn't see any of the detail otherwise).

[LostAgain]

[quote="Spookster]
I disqualified myself after looking carefully at the map on Saturday evening. Published results haven't been updated yet.[/quote]

Ditto..

In my own defence I have to say that it took a magnifying glass and the brightlight in my kitchen to conclude that I had probably gone through an uncrossable barrier. Bought to my attention by a fellow competitor who did not see it as reasonable to tell me whilst crossing but saved it for when we had finished

[EddieH]

When I go on EBOR's routegadget page and click on Filey it says there is "no map found"

[Mrs H]

Me too

[Homer]

: my one comment about the course etc (aside from it being a great event) was that I had a fair bit of difficulty reading the map at detailed points, e.g. around 3 and 4, and on the approach to 2 (I forgot to put it on my routegadget route, but I stopped dead for 10 seconds or so on my way to 2 to read the approach under a very high magnification, just because I couldn't see any of the detail otherwise).

I think this may be a result of the map being printed at 1:5,000 rather than 1:4,000. My (slightly) younger eyes also stuggled to read the finer detail.
Anyone know why they went for 1:5 rather than 1:4,000? To fit the map onto A4?

[Spookster]

Spookster's route from 8 to 9 also looks a little suspect on RouteGadget.

Yes. On my map I couldn't (and still can't) see that there is a very short section of thick black line between the two park buildings, between which I ran. On my wife's map (course B) it has been "inked in" with pen to provide emphasis, and on Routegadget it appears clearer. On the ground there was no gate or wall, so I had no idea I had crossed an illegal feature there at the time.

At the road and railings crossing, there are two different thicknesses of thick black line used. I guess one is "thick" according to the ISSOM spec, and the other is "fairly thick" but slightly thinner, perhaps due to the need by for the mapper to squeeze it in without making the road seem very narrow. The map being 1:5000 rather than 1:4000 probably doesn't help either.

So my conclusion was that I'd probably transgressed twice, without doing either of them knowingly until afterwards.