Penrith Urban
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Penrith Urban
Firstly let me say that I thought that the event was thoroughly enjoyable and like all O events must have taken some considerable effort to plan/organise/control etc. etc. So a huge thankyou to everyone involved as without you we wouldn't have a sport. I entered the event knowing that I was in no position to challenge the leaders in my chosen course and having not run in many of the league events I was not worried about that either. As usual I made some stupid choices on the way around the course and some that I was more than happy with. I did, unfortunately, choose the wrong route between the two controls we are all discussing but this was spur of the moment rather than deliberate and I didn't realise until afterwards that I had crossed the uncrossable! So I'll put my hand up now and state that I was in the wrong. What I could take umbrage at are comments like ' you can run but you cannot hide', but life is too short. This is not/should not be a witch hunt and I do not consider myself to be a cheat either. It will, presumably, be made obvious who has transgressed when the results come out. But before that happens I'll say that in course A the oldest (by a long chalk) pre-entered runner (that should make it really obvious!) made a mistake...
- Urbanite
- string
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:43 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
My eyesight is quite poor at times (and it was raining at that point I think) and I was very confident that the black lines and buildings left no route available - I even looked to see if there was any route possible to the open gate mapped NE of the problem area.
Can anyone tell me what the two concentric (ish) black semicircles just SE of the canopy represent? I wasn't quite intrigued enough to have a look.
Reckon I'm safe from accusation with a 4:23 transit time between the two controls?
Can anyone tell me what the two concentric (ish) black semicircles just SE of the canopy represent? I wasn't quite intrigued enough to have a look.
Reckon I'm safe from accusation with a 4:23 transit time between the two controls?
Possibly the slowest Orienteer in the NE but maybe above average at 114kg
-
AndyC - addict
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:10 am
- Location: Half my Time here the rest there
Re: Penrith Urban
Can you explain the difference between
and
and why you might take umbrage at the first statement but not the second?
Urbanite wrote: ' you can run but you cannot hide',
and
It will, presumably, be made obvious who has transgressed when the results come out
and why you might take umbrage at the first statement but not the second?
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
Very little other than that I made the second knowing full well that I had transgressed and you made the first in a different position...
Shouldn't we be trying to engender a feeling of trust rather than accusation and blame or do we think that there really are cheats out there who are spoiling it for others on a regular basis. As I said I made a mistake, have now owned up and expect to be disqualified but I do not want to be labelled/thought of as a cheat when the results come out
Shouldn't we be trying to engender a feeling of trust rather than accusation and blame or do we think that there really are cheats out there who are spoiling it for others on a regular basis. As I said I made a mistake, have now owned up and expect to be disqualified but I do not want to be labelled/thought of as a cheat when the results come out
- Urbanite
- string
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:43 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
Part of the problem with this issue - and possibly why it attracts such a debate is that it happens so often and its quite a difficult issue to deal with as an organiser, which means the easiest default position can be to leave the results as they are.
I think thats why you may sometimes see raised voices among urban enthusiasts who try to follow the rules. I applaud the organiser/controller here for making an effort to find a fair solution.
Hopefully the fact this thread has deviated to a point of specific principle doesnt detract from the positive comments here about the race.
I think thats why you may sometimes see raised voices among urban enthusiasts who try to follow the rules. I applaud the organiser/controller here for making an effort to find a fair solution.
Hopefully the fact this thread has deviated to a point of specific principle doesnt detract from the positive comments here about the race.
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Penrith Urban
AndyC wrote:Can anyone tell me what the two concentric (ish) black semicircles just SE of the canopy represent?
But who is going to admit to knowing what they are?
I don't btw
- usuallylast
- red
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:17 pm
- Location: North Cumbria
Re: Penrith Urban
shush -you've spoilt my cunning plan!
Possibly the slowest Orienteer in the NE but maybe above average at 114kg
-
AndyC - addict
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:10 am
- Location: Half my Time here the rest there
Re: Penrith Urban
I would like to echo other people's comments about how enjoyable Saturday's race was, and thank BorderLiners for their hard work.
As it happens, almost precisely this situation is an example in the IOF document "Cancelling a Competition". After a discussion of when, and when not, to void a course, there is a list of hypothetical examples, one of which is:
In the WOC sprint final, a large old gate to a park that is usually permanently locked is just shown as (part of) an uncrossable fence. On the day of the race, unknown to the organisers, it is suddenly opened before any runner has reached that point. It is passed on one of the two obvious routes and 30% of the runners go through it since the control is just near it and this saves 200m of extra running.
The map was effectively incorrect so the runners who went through the gate cannot reasonably be disqualified. At the same time, they should not be ranked ahead of competitors who obeyed the map symbol. In a sprint race, 200m is almost a minute and so makes the results completely unfair. The competition must be voided.
Of course Saturday's event was not the World Championships so the requirement for complete fairness may not be so high and it could be that a different conclusion is appropriate.
The thick black line symbol does mean an uncrossable wall (ISSOM 521.1). A completely open gate is not a barrier and so the map was effectively incorrect. (Of course I am sure the mapper never thought that the gate would be open.) Note that the planner/mapper can't just draw black lines on the map and expect competitors to treat them as uncrossable, even though there is nothing on the ground. If there is a clear physical gap, it needs barring with tape.
In my armchair, it is clear that there is no direct way between the controls. I have excellent near vision, but while running I did struggle to determine whether I could get through. After stopping and peering at the map, I decided there was no way through and went round.
But I think it is interesting to consider why so many people thought there might be a way through. I'm sure they weren't trying to cheat. Nobody would run 100 metres in the wrong direction (with the prospect of having to run 100 metres back again) if they were certain that the map showed no way through. One older competitor who went through said that she peered at the map and was still unable to decide so she went to have a look and was pleased to find that there was indeed a passage.
Is such a leg fair (at that scale) when such a large proportion of competitors have less than perfect vision? In my armchair, it looks fine. But the reality seems to be different. The number of people who failed to understand the map in this case suggest to me that there is a definite problem.
Actually, I was disqualified anyway for missing out a control. I just didn't see the (broken) circle. Cutting the circles does have its downsides in that while revealing the underlying map, the amount of visible circle is correspondingly reduced.
As it happens, almost precisely this situation is an example in the IOF document "Cancelling a Competition". After a discussion of when, and when not, to void a course, there is a list of hypothetical examples, one of which is:
In the WOC sprint final, a large old gate to a park that is usually permanently locked is just shown as (part of) an uncrossable fence. On the day of the race, unknown to the organisers, it is suddenly opened before any runner has reached that point. It is passed on one of the two obvious routes and 30% of the runners go through it since the control is just near it and this saves 200m of extra running.
The map was effectively incorrect so the runners who went through the gate cannot reasonably be disqualified. At the same time, they should not be ranked ahead of competitors who obeyed the map symbol. In a sprint race, 200m is almost a minute and so makes the results completely unfair. The competition must be voided.
Of course Saturday's event was not the World Championships so the requirement for complete fairness may not be so high and it could be that a different conclusion is appropriate.
The thick black line symbol does mean an uncrossable wall (ISSOM 521.1). A completely open gate is not a barrier and so the map was effectively incorrect. (Of course I am sure the mapper never thought that the gate would be open.) Note that the planner/mapper can't just draw black lines on the map and expect competitors to treat them as uncrossable, even though there is nothing on the ground. If there is a clear physical gap, it needs barring with tape.
In my armchair, it is clear that there is no direct way between the controls. I have excellent near vision, but while running I did struggle to determine whether I could get through. After stopping and peering at the map, I decided there was no way through and went round.
But I think it is interesting to consider why so many people thought there might be a way through. I'm sure they weren't trying to cheat. Nobody would run 100 metres in the wrong direction (with the prospect of having to run 100 metres back again) if they were certain that the map showed no way through. One older competitor who went through said that she peered at the map and was still unable to decide so she went to have a look and was pleased to find that there was indeed a passage.
Is such a leg fair (at that scale) when such a large proportion of competitors have less than perfect vision? In my armchair, it looks fine. But the reality seems to be different. The number of people who failed to understand the map in this case suggest to me that there is a definite problem.
Actually, I was disqualified anyway for missing out a control. I just didn't see the (broken) circle. Cutting the circles does have its downsides in that while revealing the underlying map, the amount of visible circle is correspondingly reduced.
Chair
IOF Rules Commission
IOF Rules Commission
- david_rosen
- white
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:09 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
I went through the open gate between 128 and 127.
I guess the reason I went through is my lack of experience of urban events. It is only the 4th urban race I have done. Approaching 128 I thought that I could not see a way through but I also thought that surely the planners did not think we should go all the way back round (this is where my inexperience shows), so I went towards 127 expecting to find a way through and there was an open gate. It was only when I finished and looked at the map in detail that I realised that I had gone through a thick black line. I fully expected to be disqualified.
Then I heard that a marshall went and was stopping people going through. Unlike others I think this changes everything. It means that if I had had a late start I would not have gone through it, i would just have made a 60 second mistake. Suddenly whether I am disqualified or not depends on when I start.
Again probably showing my inexperience, control 129 was in the moat under a bridge. To get to the control you had to cross a thick black line on the map. The line signified the edge of the bridge and underneath the bridge in the moat there was nothing in the way. Did the planner expect us to crawl between the gaps in the steps climbing up to the bridge (the only way to get to the control without crossing the thick black line) or are some thick black lines OK to cross?
Like others I think the controller had a very difficult decision and it now appears that I will be disqualified. I am happy to accept that decision. I really enjoyed a good run round the streets of Penrith and the results are not that important to me. I am also happy to give my winning Buff to the appropriate person - I hope they like pink.
The semi-circles are a ramp, which I went down before I went through the open gate.
I guess the reason I went through is my lack of experience of urban events. It is only the 4th urban race I have done. Approaching 128 I thought that I could not see a way through but I also thought that surely the planners did not think we should go all the way back round (this is where my inexperience shows), so I went towards 127 expecting to find a way through and there was an open gate. It was only when I finished and looked at the map in detail that I realised that I had gone through a thick black line. I fully expected to be disqualified.
Then I heard that a marshall went and was stopping people going through. Unlike others I think this changes everything. It means that if I had had a late start I would not have gone through it, i would just have made a 60 second mistake. Suddenly whether I am disqualified or not depends on when I start.
Again probably showing my inexperience, control 129 was in the moat under a bridge. To get to the control you had to cross a thick black line on the map. The line signified the edge of the bridge and underneath the bridge in the moat there was nothing in the way. Did the planner expect us to crawl between the gaps in the steps climbing up to the bridge (the only way to get to the control without crossing the thick black line) or are some thick black lines OK to cross?
Like others I think the controller had a very difficult decision and it now appears that I will be disqualified. I am happy to accept that decision. I really enjoyed a good run round the streets of Penrith and the results are not that important to me. I am also happy to give my winning Buff to the appropriate person - I hope they like pink.
The semi-circles are a ramp, which I went down before I went through the open gate.
- sjb
- string
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:28 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
Perhaps an interesting question would be 'who, if anyone, opened the gate?' if it was a competitor then perhaps we should blindfold them and shoot them at dawn, although I'm not sure I would find that as an option in the rules... It might make people take more note of the final details tho' - Those found to have crossed an uncrossable feature will be SHOT!
- Urbanite
- string
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:43 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
sjb wrote:Again probably showing my inexperience, control 129 was in the moat under a bridge. To get to the control you had to cross a thick black line on the map [...] are some thick black lines OK to cross?
I wasn't there, so don't have the map to comment on this particular case, but according to the specification the edge of a bridge should be a black line 0.25mm thick, whereas an impassable wall/fence should be a black line 0.4mm thick. Also, a passable fence is a black line 0.21mm thick, and the edge of a paved area is a black line 0.07mm thick (except in non-urban areas, where it's a black line 0.14mm thick). So I hope that's helped to clear things up
...but in all seriousness, I do struggle myself to tell the difference between "bridge edge" and "uncrossable wall" myself quite a lot of the time.
British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering.
"If only you were younger and better..."
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: Penrith Urban
Scott wrote:sjb wrote:Again probably showing my inexperience, control 129 was in the moat under a bridge. To get to the control you had to cross a thick black line on the map [...] are some thick black lines OK to cross?
I wasn't there, so don't have the map to comment on this particular case, but according to the specification the edge of a bridge should be a black line 0.25mm thick, whereas an impassable wall/fence should be a black line 0.4mm thick. Also, a passable fence is a black line 0.21mm thick, and the edge of a paved area is a black line 0.07mm thick (except in non-urban areas, where it's a black line 0.14mm thick). So I hope that's helped to clear things up
...but in all seriousness, I do struggle myself to tell the difference between "bridge edge" and "uncrossable wall" myself quite a lot of the time.
Looking at the map the lines for the bridge are significantly thinner -and it is clearly a bridge symbol which we're used to passing under. (Actually I didn't fit easily under the bridge so I reached through from alongside - Oh we're close to being back to punching through a fence again)
Possibly the slowest Orienteer in the NE but maybe above average at 114kg
-
AndyC - addict
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:10 am
- Location: Half my Time here the rest there
Re: Penrith Urban
Looking at the map the lines for the bridge are significantly thinner -and it is clearly a bridge symbol which we're used to passing under.
Thanks, I still have a lot to learn about this Urban orienteering.
- sjb
- string
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:28 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
Reading the above - it appears to be the standard issue that has arisen again and again - that organisers/planners assume that people will obey the features on the map (most do) and so don't worry about 'gaps' that can be got through thats houldn't be.
The solution is always raised that these 'gaps' should be taped off and yet still never done - why is that?
These gaps can be anything that can be used to cross and 'uncrossable' feature - hole in the fence/open gate etc - you are never going to stop this - but by taping will mean you can disqualify because it can't then be construed as a 'mistake'.
The solution is always raised that these 'gaps' should be taped off and yet still never done - why is that?
These gaps can be anything that can be used to cross and 'uncrossable' feature - hole in the fence/open gate etc - you are never going to stop this - but by taping will mean you can disqualify because it can't then be construed as a 'mistake'.
Punter Elite
- FRBlackSheep
- off string
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:44 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
I went the wrong way, but didn't go through the gate. It was raining, I wear glasses, and could hardly see the map by that point. It didn't occur to me that the best (indeed, the only) route could be back the way I had come, so I went on, and was trying to work out if there was a way through, gradually coming to the conclusion that there wasn't. Then I saw the gate, and the marshall, and went back.
If the marshall hadn't been there, I think I would still have gone back round the long way, as I'd rather lose time than run any risk of breaking the rules.
If the marshall hadn't been there, I think I would still have gone back round the long way, as I'd rather lose time than run any risk of breaking the rules.
- SAL
- white
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:52 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 161 guests