Excellent courses today on a great new area, where particular attention was needed for the correct side / level on a feature.
My only gripe was control 8 (211) on course 2. It was positioned below a bridge on a footpath (formerly a railway line). I knew this from the control description and came at the control on the path to west having seen there was gap in the line for the crag where it met the bridge, and assumed there was a slope down to the lower level. There wasn't. I would upload a photo, but it's not allowing me yet!
I spoke to the controller who agreed this was a mapping error, but by the time I left had had no others raise issues regarding this. I believe I lost perhaps 2 minutes on this control and that it wasn't fair as mapped, but if others are not affected it seems nothing may be done.
Is it me, am I looking too closely at the map. I suggested the control should be voided as happened at Chichester where it was deemed unfair a few weeks back. What do others think?
Wetherby Urban
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Wetherby Urban
I agree, a great event, on a great new map, with some quite interesting course planning challenges.
One of the problems with new areas/maps is that they often have issues that only get discovered by runners in the first event! I think that's the case here. There is a tiny gap between the uncrossable crag and the bridge, as you say. It's far narrower than the minimum allowable gap according to ISSOM, so I wouldn't have expected to be able to get through it.
After the "fun" I had getting to control 1 (also under a railway bridge), it was clear to me that any other railway bridge controls would have to be approached from along the railway (which is what I did for this number 8, and number 10).
I lost some time on number 24 (code 182). The description was fence east end, but on the map it's a fence junction (or at least I think it is, but the thin line fence is missing any tags). The fact it was a fence junction meant it could be approached from the NW or the S, but as it turned out, it was almost impossible to get to from the NW. I had to climb a bank and punch above my head level.
DavidHH wrote:My only gripe was control 8 (211) on course 2. It was positioned below a bridge on a footpath (formerly a railway line). I knew this from the control description and came at the control on the path to west having seen there was gap in the line for the crag where it met the bridge, and assumed there was a slope down to the lower level. There wasn't. I would upload a photo, but it's not allowing me yet!
I spoke to the controller who agreed this was a mapping error, but by the time I left had had no others raise issues regarding this. I believe I lost perhaps 2 minutes on this control and that it wasn't fair as mapped, but if others are not affected it seems nothing may be done.
Is it me, am I looking too closely at the map. I suggested the control should be voided as happened at Chichester where it was deemed unfair a few weeks back. What do others think?
One of the problems with new areas/maps is that they often have issues that only get discovered by runners in the first event! I think that's the case here. There is a tiny gap between the uncrossable crag and the bridge, as you say. It's far narrower than the minimum allowable gap according to ISSOM, so I wouldn't have expected to be able to get through it.
After the "fun" I had getting to control 1 (also under a railway bridge), it was clear to me that any other railway bridge controls would have to be approached from along the railway (which is what I did for this number 8, and number 10).
I lost some time on number 24 (code 182). The description was fence east end, but on the map it's a fence junction (or at least I think it is, but the thin line fence is missing any tags). The fact it was a fence junction meant it could be approached from the NW or the S, but as it turned out, it was almost impossible to get to from the NW. I had to climb a bank and punch above my head level.
Martin Ward, SYO (Chair) & SPOOK.
I'm a 1%er. Are you?
I'm a 1%er. Are you?
-
Spookster - god
- Posts: 2267
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 1:49 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Wetherby Urban
Thanks for posting the image Spookster. It's fortunate you are tall, I wouldn't have reached 24 from the north side.
- DavidHH
- off string
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:58 pm
Re: Wetherby Urban
One of the problems with new areas/maps is that they often have issues that only get discovered by runners in the first event! I think that's the case here. It's far narrower than the minimum allowable gap according to ISSOM, so I wouldn't have expected to be able to get through it.
Good point about first use of an area, especially in urban terrain. Seems there was a tiny (but crucial) mistake at 211. However, had I spotted that gap, I think I'd have assumed the mapper had failed to adhere to the specifications rather than failed to draw the cliff flush with the bridge. I think the former happens more often - though Spookster will have far more experience of ISSOm maps than I.
At 182, the map didn't properly represent the ground. As I approached, from the south, I realised the fences were at the top of a line of garages so I climbed the steps to access the control. The map gave no indication of the height difference here, despite the nearby park being located in an obvious dip. Also, a fence east of the control was omitted. I suspect legibility may have been effected had both these been represented.
My big mistake was getting distracted by recognizing where we'd parked the car and then navigating to the wrong control.
- Parkino
- red
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:37 am
Re: Wetherby Urban
We've all been there with new maps, probably being drawn and redrawn up to the last minute. Nightmare for the controller to check all sites. With adequate time as a controller you would probably go back to the planner and get the control moved or the map edited.
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: Wetherby Urban
View the video of course 2 (men veteran) at Wetherby here:
https://youtu.be/0C865ET9GNg
https://youtu.be/0C865ET9GNg
- nooomember
- light green
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:31 am
Re: Wetherby Urban
A really good course at Wetherby (Super Vets) with the bridges over the disused railway lines giving the planner a chance to insert some challenging legs. But there were other good legs as well. Yes, there is a tiny gap on the map but so small that I never noticed it at the time. Frankly I think that the course should stand as is.
The next days event in York had some really excellent legs as well, especially in the school complex. Use of another school is promised for next year!
The next days event in York had some really excellent legs as well, especially in the school complex. Use of another school is promised for next year!
- Slowtochide
- orange
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:47 pm
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 167 guests