Why wouldn't I assume a map error? There was a feature on the map that was not there in real life. Is that not an error?
I would not cross Olive Green (e.g. someone's front garden) because it would be on the map and also there on the ground, so there is a feature that is deemed uncrossable. That would be perfectly fair to DQ those who crossed it.
Advantage/disadvantage could be avoided by excluding legs from final results. As I say, I'm already out as I missed a control on my second run, so I'm not arguing to justify my time.
Liverpool Big Weekend
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Lucan wrote:I don't see what the difference is in this case,...was promptly accused of cheating.
All maps have errors. The issue whether the map error translates to a significant time difference. It's kind of weird that this always comes up for urban maps, but when a forest map has, e.g., abnormally runnable/unrunnable green we just suck it up.
I have a lot of sympathy for the organisers. There's no way that in a big area you can guarantee that everything will be just as mapped. The best you can do is write something like...
In common with all urban events, it is entirely possible that you may find a gate, open on the day, which we expected to be closed. There is no ambiguity in the rules on this: if the map says impassable, you must not go through
...which they did. I don't think its helpful to call it cheating, I think of it like overstepping the mark in a long jump. But it's clearly unfair to allow someone to gain a significant advantage by taking a route mapped as uncrossable.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4724
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Lucan wrote: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.
If that is the wording from ISSOM it is unfortunate, as it actually means "features which must not be crossed" (irrespective of how they look on the ground) rather than (physically) "uncrossable features".
But your "missing buildings" argument is a good one. Not sure of the correct approach to that!
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
One of the attractions of sprint orienteering to me is the need to make instant decisions often while I am on the plod, like proper orienteering really. The locked gate affected me but when I looked at my course 1S at home later I spotted I should have approached from the south to my control. Great planning for the whole race but especially the first couple of controls for which I should have planned my route better.
On both 1S and 1N there were gaps between hedges and wall joins more than half a metre wide in one case and even wider on 1N. It can be difficult to spot if there is a mapped gap but if there isn't then it is uncrossable simple as that.
I previously pushed for numbers on back and front after all you often see someone going across an uncrossable feature in front of you as you divert around it. I previously reported numbers of transgressors but without evidence or corroboration there is nothing the organiser can do even if it affects future permission to use the area.
On both 1S and 1N there were gaps between hedges and wall joins more than half a metre wide in one case and even wider on 1N. It can be difficult to spot if there is a mapped gap but if there isn't then it is uncrossable simple as that.
I previously pushed for numbers on back and front after all you often see someone going across an uncrossable feature in front of you as you divert around it. I previously reported numbers of transgressors but without evidence or corroboration there is nothing the organiser can do even if it affects future permission to use the area.
- canol
- orange
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:33 pm
- Location: In the middle
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
There is no ambiguity in the rules on this: if the map says impassable, you must not go through.
That is great for planners! They can make an area much more interesting by adding in purple hashing or thick black lines on the map to stop people taking the straight line route. No need to put anything on the ground.
.....I think most would agree that isn't actually acceptable.
However, from the competitor's point of view, there is no difference between a "virtual" uncrossable feature which the planner has just added to the map, and a gate or fence that was there when mapped but has subsequently disappeared.
It really puts the runner in an impossible dilemma when they can see the control just a few metres away with no sign of the uncrossable fence, but in theory should run 100 metres extra to get there.
A more common example than the missing building is the missing purple hashed area indicating outdoor seating which hasn't been put out on that day. Does one have to run round something which isn't there?
It is the mapper's, planner's and controller's job (sometimes as with the locked gate, a nearly impossible one) to check that the map represents the ground. If you set a leg where the legal route is three times longer than the straight line, then you have to be really careful to check that no short cuts might be possible.
When things go wrong as they did on Sunday, there is no totally satisfactory solution. For a Level A event, the course has to be voided. For Level B and below, removing legs is an acceptable compromise.
Another rarely mentioned option, when you can identify the runners who took a short cut before the problem was fixed, is to add a penalty time rather than disqualifying them.
Chair
IOF Rules Commission
IOF Rules Commission
- david_rosen
- white
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:09 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
david_rosen wrote:That is great for planners! They can make an area much more interesting by adding in purple hashing or thick black lines on the map to stop people taking the straight line route. No need to put anything on the ground.
.....I think most would agree that isn't actually acceptable.
Sounds as if that's exactly what happened at JEC
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: 2383
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Theoretical or historic examples are all very well but in this particular case it was quite clearly on the ground an open gate where an uncrossable fence was mapped. I can accept that a really incompetent orienteer might have thought they were at the end of the building/fence but otherwise it was obviously just an open gate. As I ran past, the guy following me shouted why are we running round when that gate's open but we all ran round anyway because we were mapreading. There really was little excuse for going through (perhaps incompetence or overhastiness? But if the latter, you would have realised when on the return trip). Basically you shouldn't go through on purpose and if you go through accidentally then you should disqualify yourself as soon as you realise. Any other answer makes urban orienteering impossible to plan.
And these things are much more clear-cut on urban maps of course. I did cross fight at Formby and it was pretty easy (except for one short crawl!). But crucially fight is not legally uncrossable so no controversy just a debate on whether it should have been fight or walk.
And these things are much more clear-cut on urban maps of course. I did cross fight at Formby and it was pretty easy (except for one short crawl!). But crucially fight is not legally uncrossable so no controversy just a debate on whether it should have been fight or walk.
- yted
- light green
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:53 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
The issue of out of bound areas seems to crop up at almost every urban event. If the competitors can't be trusted then what other options exist?
- marshall every dubious area
- plan the courses to reduce the risk of crossing an out of bounds
- runners to wear tracking devices
- ??
Ultimately the event officials do there very best but when issues like this arise then it must put at risk their willingness to offer to run urban races again in the future, then we all lose out. For me Liverpool was a really enjoyable day out, I made mistakes but I had a nice run round and had the challenge of route choice. This is all I wanted so thanks to DEE and SELOC for their efforts.
- marshall every dubious area
- plan the courses to reduce the risk of crossing an out of bounds
- runners to wear tracking devices
- ??
Ultimately the event officials do there very best but when issues like this arise then it must put at risk their willingness to offer to run urban races again in the future, then we all lose out. For me Liverpool was a really enjoyable day out, I made mistakes but I had a nice run round and had the challenge of route choice. This is all I wanted so thanks to DEE and SELOC for their efforts.
- canol
- orange
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:33 pm
- Location: In the middle
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
First, thanks to the organisers for planning good courses on a very well mapped sprint area! I do not know where runners did cross OOB areas/passing-not-allowed lines, it was however clearly indicated on the map what is allowed and what not. Runners violating the rules should be disqualified. It would be very interesting to at least get a provisional result with split times for analysis in the meantime (as we did not get printouts or a result at the event center). The runners abiding the rules should not be affected by those that didn’t. Thank you!
- Erik
- string
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 7:37 am
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Someone said to me they looked closely and there were no gates (N end of N map), not even open ones, just a big gap. I did not look closely enough to be able to comment. Gates may be unexpectedly left open, but if there are none at all then it becomes harder to suggest a non-existent uncrossable fence should not be crossed. Perhaps from the road to the canopy should have been shown as purple OOB if that was the intention ?
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: notloB
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
There appear to be gates (closed) on street view.
(Pembroke Place)
(Pembroke Place)
- yted
- light green
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:53 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
There are (closed) gates on Streetview.
I have seen at least one GPS track elsewhere on 1N which seems to indicate use of an illegal route.
Also, on 1S, I believe the closed gate was opened at some point during the first race. I had to use the small gap in the northern gate on 3 legs, where I would otherwise have used the southern gate. Having planned a number of urban events, these are things you have to live with.
Still thoroughly enjoyed the events over the weekend, so thanks to SELOC and DEE.
I have seen at least one GPS track elsewhere on 1N which seems to indicate use of an illegal route.
Also, on 1S, I believe the closed gate was opened at some point during the first race. I had to use the small gap in the northern gate on 3 legs, where I would otherwise have used the southern gate. Having planned a number of urban events, these are things you have to live with.
Still thoroughly enjoyed the events over the weekend, so thanks to SELOC and DEE.
- Fernworthy
- string
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:33 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Comments from the officials:
https://www.seloc.org.uk/wp/201810-liverpool-urban-results/
https://www.seloc.org.uk/wp/201810-liverpool-urban-results/
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
I enjoyed the events over the weekend, but could someone from Seloc please put something on the website about results other than a four-day old message saying "Results will be available soon".
It was disappointing to have no result display at the venue and was surprised to read in the rules that only Major (level A) events need results on the day. But the rules for National (and Regional) Events do say "Results must be on the event website within 24 hours".
Given the problems I think all participants are prepared to be patient, but it would be good if there were some message to explain what is happening. Personally I think in the situation where a long delay is necessary and there was nothing at the event, it is best to put up unedited results with the warning that they were going to be superseded.
It was disappointing to have no result display at the venue and was surprised to read in the rules that only Major (level A) events need results on the day. But the rules for National (and Regional) Events do say "Results must be on the event website within 24 hours".
Given the problems I think all participants are prepared to be patient, but it would be good if there were some message to explain what is happening. Personally I think in the situation where a long delay is necessary and there was nothing at the event, it is best to put up unedited results with the warning that they were going to be superseded.
- PG
- light green
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: In the Peak
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Looks like the reults will be as pointless as the JEC Long results. All this refusal to take action against people unless they are honest makes our sport a bit of a farce sometimes. We now have legs removed because some people made an honest mistake and others benefited from an illegal advantage by failing to self-dq and, because it appears the relevant splits will not be published but just removed, we won't even get to know who they are. At least at the Brown Clee BOC it was pretty obvious to the punters who had climbed the fence even if no official did anything about it.
- yted
- light green
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:53 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests