Liverpool Big Weekend
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Looks like I'm not going to make it this year sorry. Family commitments. Looks really good as well. Havent pre-entered but just in case you were saving me a space....
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: Liverpool Big Weekend
I’ll always find a slot for you AndyPat! Hope that we’ll see you for the EuroCity race next year.
Meanwhile, we hit the 500 limit today so I’m now compiling a waiting list.
Meanwhile, we hit the 500 limit today so I’m now compiling a waiting list.
- O lady
- yellow
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:13 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
O lady wrote:Hope that we’ll see you for the EuroCity race next year.
Now theres a thought - I need a goal for next year - Some Euro travel sounds like a good idea!
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: Liverpool Big Weekend
O lady wrote:I’ll always find a slot for you AndyPat! Hope that we’ll see you for the EuroCity race next year.
Meanwhile, we hit the 500 limit today so I’m now compiling a waiting list.
But next year we (probably) won't be in Europe!
- DM
- brown
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:47 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Start times for the weekend now up on Fabian4
https://bit.ly/2xD1dF4
Go to https://liverpoolbigweekend.wordpress.com for Final details for Formby. Liverpool Uni final details will be posted this evening (Weds)
https://bit.ly/2xD1dF4
Go to https://liverpoolbigweekend.wordpress.com for Final details for Formby. Liverpool Uni final details will be posted this evening (Weds)
- O lady
- yellow
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:13 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
That was a great weekend of orienteering in Liverpool! Formby was as challenging as expected, and Liverpool Uni was fast and furious. The two-round sprint was probably more fun than a longer urban on that area. Thanks to DEE and SELOC.
However, I see we have some controversy brewing with respect to the Liverpool University Sprints. No results yet, though they were briefly posted last night along with some text they basically said "some people crossed uncrossable features, so we've decided to remove those legs from the courses" .
The Organiser and Controller are now having a re-think.
https://www.seloc.org.uk/wp/201810-live ... n-results/
However, I see we have some controversy brewing with respect to the Liverpool University Sprints. No results yet, though they were briefly posted last night along with some text they basically said "some people crossed uncrossable features, so we've decided to remove those legs from the courses" .
The Organiser and Controller are now having a re-think.
Event comments wrote:Results will be available soon. They have been delayed following a number of reports of competitors crossing clearly marked ‘uncrossable’ lines on the map. The organiser and controller are currently considering the best course of action to be as fair as possible to all competitors.
https://www.seloc.org.uk/wp/201810-live ... n-results/
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: Liverpool Big Weekend
I read that too, but certainly don't agree with innocent runners being penalised because a minority transgressed... The legs deleted may be those competitors best legs. Surely the perpitrators should be disqualified, (of course only if they are known).
There is also the matter of a locked gate, but won't cover that topic yet again. Although had competitors been told at the start then an alternative, shorter route could have been taken.
There is also the matter of a locked gate, but won't cover that topic yet again. Although had competitors been told at the start then an alternative, shorter route could have been taken.
- nooomember
- light green
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:31 am
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
The decisions will be explained more fully in the event comments which should hopefully be available with the amended results. However, to save lots of discussion about the locked gates, it may be useful to explain a bit here.
In early visits to the area, the gates in question were always open. Hence they were not shown on the map, in common with the way open gates are often not marked on urban maps. In the weeks leading up to the event it was noticed that they were sometimes closed. We contacted the landowners who assured us that they could and would be opened for the event.
On the morning of the event, we were told several times that the gates were going to be opened. Indeed the northern gate was opened only for us to discover 15 mins before the first start that it had been shut again. After another dash round to the site reception I was assured 10 mins before the starts that they were both about to be opened but they needed to find a key. However, as 1000 approached, the planner and I decided there was no option other than to marshal the gates and try to direct people through the gap in the northern gate which we had just discovered. This was not a huge diversion from the expected route but was obviously by no means ideal. There was not another shorter route which could have been taken by competitors even if they had been told at the start.
There was no chance to modify the start lane maps and all we could do in the time was to tell the start people that there might be a problem with a locked gate. We were unable to leave the marshalling duty to try further to get the gates sorted or to communicate more information to the start. There are several other threads to the story particularly as to why the southern gate was opened later, but I need to get on with writing the comments. Sorry for the disruption, but we were faced with an almost impossible last minute problem which we handled as best we could at the time. I'm sure with hindsight there will be suggestions that we could have handled it better. And yes we did have mobile 'phones and yes we were desperately trying to contact people while we were marshalling but things took time. The OOB story will have to wait for the comments.
In early visits to the area, the gates in question were always open. Hence they were not shown on the map, in common with the way open gates are often not marked on urban maps. In the weeks leading up to the event it was noticed that they were sometimes closed. We contacted the landowners who assured us that they could and would be opened for the event.
On the morning of the event, we were told several times that the gates were going to be opened. Indeed the northern gate was opened only for us to discover 15 mins before the first start that it had been shut again. After another dash round to the site reception I was assured 10 mins before the starts that they were both about to be opened but they needed to find a key. However, as 1000 approached, the planner and I decided there was no option other than to marshal the gates and try to direct people through the gap in the northern gate which we had just discovered. This was not a huge diversion from the expected route but was obviously by no means ideal. There was not another shorter route which could have been taken by competitors even if they had been told at the start.
There was no chance to modify the start lane maps and all we could do in the time was to tell the start people that there might be a problem with a locked gate. We were unable to leave the marshalling duty to try further to get the gates sorted or to communicate more information to the start. There are several other threads to the story particularly as to why the southern gate was opened later, but I need to get on with writing the comments. Sorry for the disruption, but we were faced with an almost impossible last minute problem which we handled as best we could at the time. I'm sure with hindsight there will be suggestions that we could have handled it better. And yes we did have mobile 'phones and yes we were desperately trying to contact people while we were marshalling but things took time. The OOB story will have to wait for the comments.
- IanW
- white
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:11 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
I'd like to add my thanks to all involved in putting on the Formby event, really enjoyable and challenging.
No disrespect to the Liverpool event - I only didn't do it because
- one in a weekend is enough as I'm just trying to come back a frustrating two years of injury, and
- wanting some balance for my non-orienteering other half (wife from next weekend ).
No disrespect to the Liverpool event - I only didn't do it because
- one in a weekend is enough as I'm just trying to come back a frustrating two years of injury, and
- wanting some balance for my non-orienteering other half (wife from next weekend ).
- ricardito
- white
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:04 am
- Location: Between the river and the wood
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
The planner and organiser have my sympathy. In my experience it's pretty impossible to make clear to landowners the importance of the world being as it is on the map. No matter how many times you explain, they can't really understand unless they have orienteered themselves. What we need is for more young orienteers to study and work in land and property management.
As for people crossing uncrossable boundaries which are clearly mapped even if removed on the ground, I'm in the the no tolerance lobby. Some may do it by mistake (seeing a gap at the time and just going to the control) - if so they should disqualify themselves as soon as they find out which they surely will do when reviewing their route and splits after the event.
It's not possible to identify all those who don't own up as only the ones who gain enough time to make their split "impossible" (bearing in mind their age) will be caught, but the message will get through only if organisers have the courage to do it.
Super weekend anyway - and the giants were pretty good as well!
As for people crossing uncrossable boundaries which are clearly mapped even if removed on the ground, I'm in the the no tolerance lobby. Some may do it by mistake (seeing a gap at the time and just going to the control) - if so they should disqualify themselves as soon as they find out which they surely will do when reviewing their route and splits after the event.
It's not possible to identify all those who don't own up as only the ones who gain enough time to make their split "impossible" (bearing in mind their age) will be caught, but the message will get through only if organisers have the courage to do it.
Super weekend anyway - and the giants were pretty good as well!
- yted
- light green
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:53 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Really good sprint courses; quite rare to have a technical race without any multi-level controversy!
I agree that split-time analysis is the way to go - some analysis of the affected legs and then an email to relevant people "Your average split position was 43rd across the whole course, but you were 2nd on this particular leg; please review your route and ensure you don't think you crossed an uncrossable feature accidentally or on purpose. You will be disqualified unless you can justify why this leg is so anomalous"
This isn't going to catch everyone but it would probably get most of the culprits.
I agree that split-time analysis is the way to go - some analysis of the affected legs and then an email to relevant people "Your average split position was 43rd across the whole course, but you were 2nd on this particular leg; please review your route and ensure you don't think you crossed an uncrossable feature accidentally or on purpose. You will be disqualified unless you can justify why this leg is so anomalous"
This isn't going to catch everyone but it would probably get most of the culprits.
"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything"
-
m4rk - yellow
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:13 pm
- Location: Manchester
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
My legitimate route from 1-2 on course 5N measures 360m. If I had cheated by using the open gate marked as uncrossable it would only be 250m. Hopefully it would be possible to identify those who took unfair advantage of the open gate by their split on that leg versus their average speed. Leg 2-3 is a very similar distance and the same 110m advantage would be gained. Only those competitors who started before the gap was marshalled would need to be considered. I don't know by how much other courses could have gained so it may not be so obvious on them. But should we be putting our volunteer officials to so much effort?
- MJG
- white
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:25 am
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
At the recent Lancaster Urban, it was pointed out after the event that there were two buildings on the map that didn't exist on the ground. It turned out these were portacabins which were there when the event was mapped, but weren't there on the day. This was a clear map error, so competitors just had to deal with what they found and find their way to the control.
I don't see what the difference is in this case, upon reaching the place where a fence was marked I found no fence, as it had ended six feet away (due to open gate). I thus diagnosed a map error, and dealt with the conditions on the ground as best as possible, i.e. by not going round an imaginary fence but going to the control. I certainly did not feel I was cheating, just dealing with what was in front of me.
I went up to a member of event staff between runs and pointed out the map error, and was promptly accused of cheating. It threw me off my next run and I ended up missing a control later.
I am not a cheat, and I don't see how someone can be accused of crossing an uncrossable feature if that feature does not actually exist on the ground. The complaint seems to be people crossed an uncrossable line, but it is the feature itself that is uncrossable. If that feature is not there then how can I possibly be accused of crossing it! I didn't climb over or through a fence, it simply was not there.
At the Lancaster Urban above, if people's lines had gone through the non-existent building, should they have done Marcel Marceau impressions around an imaginary building, or risk disqualification? Of course not, that would be ridiculous! The map is sometimes wrong (that's life), and the organisers should not accuse large numbers of honest people of cheating as a result. We just deal with what's in front of us during a pressurised split-second.
I don't see what the difference is in this case, upon reaching the place where a fence was marked I found no fence, as it had ended six feet away (due to open gate). I thus diagnosed a map error, and dealt with the conditions on the ground as best as possible, i.e. by not going round an imaginary fence but going to the control. I certainly did not feel I was cheating, just dealing with what was in front of me.
I went up to a member of event staff between runs and pointed out the map error, and was promptly accused of cheating. It threw me off my next run and I ended up missing a control later.
I am not a cheat, and I don't see how someone can be accused of crossing an uncrossable feature if that feature does not actually exist on the ground. The complaint seems to be people crossed an uncrossable line, but it is the feature itself that is uncrossable. If that feature is not there then how can I possibly be accused of crossing it! I didn't climb over or through a fence, it simply was not there.
At the Lancaster Urban above, if people's lines had gone through the non-existent building, should they have done Marcel Marceau impressions around an imaginary building, or risk disqualification? Of course not, that would be ridiculous! The map is sometimes wrong (that's life), and the organisers should not accuse large numbers of honest people of cheating as a result. We just deal with what's in front of us during a pressurised split-second.
- Lucan
- string
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:41 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
To support the above from ISSOM:
"The most important difference between ISOM2000 and ISSOM is that thick black lines are now only used for uncrossable features. To ensure fairness it has been decided that features which are mapped uncrossable (e.g. walls, fences, cliffs, water and hedges) are also forbidden to cross"
So it is the feature itself that is uncrossable. If the feature doesn't exist, there is nothing that is uncrossable.
"The most important difference between ISOM2000 and ISSOM is that thick black lines are now only used for uncrossable features. To ensure fairness it has been decided that features which are mapped uncrossable (e.g. walls, fences, cliffs, water and hedges) are also forbidden to cross"
So it is the feature itself that is uncrossable. If the feature doesn't exist, there is nothing that is uncrossable.
- Lucan
- string
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:41 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
I had an early start on 2N and arrived at the gate/fence before the Marshall was in place. My immediate thought was "that right turn has popped up a bit soon". I checked the map and saw that there was an uncrossable symbol on the map and anyway the road I needed had no pass through a building. I went the long way round.
Lucan, why should you disadvantage me by "assuming a map error" or using the excuse that because you could get through you would? Did you also assume all those olive green areas are fair game because you could cross them? Unfortunately you are not alone in your way of thinking.
Identify the suspicious splits and dq these people. No need to label them cheats. And don't rely on how traces as evidence, traces are poor in urban areas and they can be edited.
I remember an event at the Eden project. One junior crossed olive green because he could. I saw GG head towards the olive and alter route to avoid it.
Lucan, why should you disadvantage me by "assuming a map error" or using the excuse that because you could get through you would? Did you also assume all those olive green areas are fair game because you could cross them? Unfortunately you are not alone in your way of thinking.
Identify the suspicious splits and dq these people. No need to label them cheats. And don't rely on how traces as evidence, traces are poor in urban areas and they can be edited.
I remember an event at the Eden project. One junior crossed olive green because he could. I saw GG head towards the olive and alter route to avoid it.
- DM
- brown
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:47 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 171 guests