Hmm. It's difficult, because urban terrain, although not varied in running speed, *does* significantly vary in terms of size and how long a course you can plan without going over the same ground multiple times and having people run similarish legs.
I, personally, think 6km (straight line)/EWT of ~30-35min for the longest course is generally far too short.
When I'm running well, even as a unfit mv40, I like doing longer urban courses up to 8-9km with EWT of 50-60ish mins.
But only if the area allows.
The planning guidelines are essential for a technical sport like orienteering, *but* at times I've noticed we fall into the trap of planning to the guidelines, rather than planning to make the best use of an area, or to pose specific challenges.
In my not very important opinion, that's one reason we get lots of similarishly planned courses (but with the common errors because people aren't aware of the rules).
Also re the course distances thing raised above, I agree with Graeme. Nobody cares. Might as well use straight line distance and spend the time saved getting other things right/better.
Optimal distance for urban course lengths
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
33 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
PG wrote: Course 1 at Edinburgh was 9.75km, right at the top of the recommended range and won in 32 minutes.
That looks incredibly fast, I think the oddity was because some legs got taken out for a stolen control.
Edinburgh 2022 was quite a good example of the challenge facing planners. There were two interesting areas quite far apart. I had the good fortune to run course 2, which visited both. Course 3 only visited one and spent time making up the distance in less interesting sections.
I think its a good reason why the guidelines allow a larger variation in lengths than sprint/middle/long.
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: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
rf_fozzy wrote:I, personally, think 6km (straight line)/EWT of ~30-35min for the longest course is generally far too short.
and then curiously ...
rf_fozzy wrote:Also re the course distances thing raised above, I agree with Graeme. Nobody cares.
Since the guidelines are very flexible about how long urban courses might be it is more important that the course lengths are published so people can choose which one the want to enter.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
pete.owens wrote:rf_fozzy wrote:I, personally, think 6km (straight line)/EWT of ~30-35min for the longest course is generally far too short.
and then curiously ...rf_fozzy wrote:Also re the course distances thing raised above, I agree with Graeme. Nobody cares.
Since the guidelines are very flexible about how long urban courses might be it is more important that the course lengths are published so people can choose which one the want to enter.
??
I'm not sure of your point.
A longest course with a winning time of 30-35 mins is too short for the longest course at an urban event. For most sensible urban areas, it should be at least 45mins, hopefully closer to 50-55mins.
This is not in contradiction to opposing the stupidity of having to report an "optimum" distance for sprints and urbans. It's nonsense and a burden on planners for at least 2 good reasons:
1. It takes quite a long time to work out the optimum route for a course and you might have to measure 2/3 variations (minimum) to do it and still might miss the "optimum" route. (plus please define "optimum" route...)
2. This all takes time. Far better to spend time making sure the map is clear and circles/lines are cut and layouts/CDs etc etc are clear.
All you need to do is state that for urbans optimum running distance will be 30-50% longer than the straight line distance. And then put the straight line distances.
The flexibility for urban planning distances in the guidelines is irrelevant to this point (most people seem to ignore the guidelines half the time anyway).
It's a stupid rule. Can't believe anyone thought it was a good idea personally. It's an example of orienteering overcomplicating things for the sake of overcomplicating things.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
rf_fozzy wrote:I'm not sure of your point.
The contraction in your post between caring very much about how long courses should be and then claim that nobody cares about the actual length of courses.
A longest course with a winning time of 30-35 mins is too short for the longest course at an urban event. For most sensible urban areas, it should be at least 45mins, hopefully closer to 50-55mins.
OK so you clearly DO care about the length of course - though there are good reasons for the flexibility as others have suggested as the good quality parts of an area may be limited. However, since the guidelines ARE flexible about how long courses should be in the first place it is particularly useful useful to you for the actual lengths to be published so you can decide whether to enter a longer or shorter course.
This is not in contradiction to opposing the stupidity of having to report an "optimum" distance for sprints and urbans.
You say it is important for the course you run to be of a particular length - yet stupid for that length to be publicised.
It's nonsense and a burden on planners for at least 2 good reasons:
1. It takes quite a long time to work out the optimum route for a course and you might have to measure 2/3 variations (minimum) to do it and still might miss the "optimum" route.
I can assure you it is trivial. You need to be assessing those options for every leg and setting the route choice in the planning tool. When you come to assembling the legs into a course the calculations are done automatically.
(plus please define "optimum" route...)
"Shortest legal route." Simples (unless there is some very unusual topography). Calculating climb is a bit more tricky.
The flexibility for urban planning distances in the guidelines is irrelevant to this point
Well if the guidelines don't specify how long courses are then it is important that course lengths are published so folk can decide which one to enter.
And if the guidelines were changed to specify a particular winning time (which you would seem to prefer) then the planner would have to calculate the course lengths in order to aim for that target.
Either way the planner needs to know how long the courses are.
It does seem odd that the while the guidelines are flexible about how long the longest course should be they go on to precisely specify all the other courses as ratios of that course rather than retain the flexibility.
Course 1: length: "a piece of string"
Course 2: length: "83% of that piece of string"...
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
The contraction in your post between caring very much about how long courses should be and then claim that nobody cares about the actual length of courses.
You missed the point spectacularly. Of course reporting a distance of courses is needed.
Just not a pointless, often incorrect, "optimum" distance.
Just give the straight line distance. Like with non-urban events. And be consistent.
OK so you clearly DO care about the length of course - though there are good reasons for the flexibility as others have suggested as the good quality parts of an area may be limited. However, since the guidelines ARE flexible about how long courses should be in the first place it is particularly useful useful to you for the actual lengths to be published so you can decide whether to enter a longer or shorter course.
Never said I didn't care about the length of the course. Think you've not read what was written.
But as above "actual" (actually never "actual" in reality anyway) is not important. Just give straight line distances.
You say it is important for the course you run to be of a particular length - yet stupid for that length to be publicised.
Once again, you've not read what I wrote carefully enough. Nope. Just stick to putting the straight line distances.
I can assure you it is trivial. You need to be assessing those options for every leg and setting the route choice in the planning tool. When you come to assembling the legs into a course the calculations are done automatically.
Seriously? No, it's not trivial. It's a pain in the arse to draw a route, measure it, then draw another route, measure that, for all the variations possible. Trust me, I've just been doing it. What a complete and total waste of time that was. I gave up after one course because I'd rather spend my time improving the courses. - if the scaling in the guidelines is right, then the other courses should be fine.
Plus of course, due to planning/access/other issues, the courses have now changed. But I ain't going back and wasting my time measuring again.
Far quicker just to run one of the longest courses along what I think is the best route and check the distance is about right, which is was. No need to go finding the shortest possible route.
And seriously you measure and balance every single leg? You've too much time on your hands. Just plan a good leg and don't worry if it's perfect or not.
"Shortest legal route." Simples (unless there is some very unusual topography). Calculating climb is a bit more tricky.
Ah, but is the shortest really the shortest? Distance or time? What happens if one route is longer but has fewer steps, and so is therefore faster to run.
See it's nonsense anyway.
Well if the guidelines don't specify how long courses are then it is important that course lengths are published so folk can decide which one to enter.
Well given the current need for orienteering to pidgeon hole every class into a precise course, people don't have much choice on which course to enter anyway. But if you put straight line distances, people still have that option. It's pretty simple.
And if the guidelines were changed to specify a particular winning time (which you would seem to prefer) then the planner would have to calculate the course lengths in order to aim for that target.
Either way the planner needs to know how long the courses are.
Err no. The guidelines for urbans are (mostly) ok. Like all orienteering guidelines, they could be simplified a bit, but they're ok. But having the longest course won in 35mins **is** too short. In my opinion.
Yes the planner needsto know how long the courses are. Purple pen gives you that - the straight line distance. Then If the planner has run at least one of the courses (preferably the longest one to get the scaling correct), then all the courses will then be ok - the planner doesn't need to have to run the absolute shortest course possible to get the winning times right.
But to be correct if you have to publish optimum distances, then you need to measure ***every*** course precisely. Which is a waste of time.
We aren't doing that for the British sprints - we're running a very small subsection of courses from the qualifiers and the finals and coming up with a straight line -> "optimum" scaling factor.
I expect someone will run less distance than the reported "optimum" and moan. Well, they can spend hours working out all the variants and measuring it in OCAD. I have better things to do, like making sure the maps are as good as I can make them.
It does seem odd that the while the guidelines are flexible about how long the longest course should be they go on to precisely specify all the other courses as ratios of that course rather than retain the flexibility.
Course 1: length: "a piece of string"
Course 2: length: "83% of that piece of string"...
Because that's how all the planning rules and guidelines are written. As I understand it, they are based on the running speed of the recommended age classes that would be running the course.
I'd simplify it and for most urbans simply have 4 senior courses:
1. A long course - flexible length, but with an expected winning time of at least 45mins
2. A course 80% of course 1
3. 60%
4. 40%
Plus 2 junior courses (where possible).
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
[quote="graeme"]
Nobody cares.
Nobody cares.
-
DaveK - green
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:28 pm
- Location: The garden of England (too many gardens though and not enough forest).
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
DaveK wrote:graeme wrote:Nobody cares.
Fair point.
I *do* care.
I do care that as a planner, someone decided to implement a very silly rule forcing me a ***lot*** of extra work.
To report a distance that is pointless and that no-one who is going to run the courses actually cares about.
I also think it takes some of the challenge away from urban orienteering.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
rf_fozzy wrote:Seriously? No, it's not trivial. It's a pain in the arse to draw a route, measure it, then draw another route, measure that, for all the variations possible.
I think it depends what software you're using. In PurplePen, you need to do it all manually. In Condes, it's quite a bit easier - you need to click through the viable routes on each leg once, and then it figures out the shortest options and combines them to get the total course distance. OCAD just calculates the shortest route avoiding impassable features automatically.
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: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
rf_fozzy wrote:Just give the straight line distance. Like with non-urban events.
Actually, no. Rule 21.12 says:
For all types of event format, including Sprint and Urban, the course length must be given as that of the straight-line route from the start via the controls to the finish deviating for, and only for, physically impassable obstructions (high fences, lakes, impassable cliffs etc.), 'out of bounds' areas and marked routes. This is the shortest route which a competitor could reasonably possibly take, irrespective of whether or not the competitor would be sensible to do so.
Now, in general urban events have lots of impassable features (buildings in the main) which mean that deviating around them has a lot more impact on the course length than for forest events, but the principle is consistent. Whether it should be is a different question...
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
I am in the camp of "make the courses as interesting / challenging as possible, with much route choice".
I agree with fiexibility in actual course length to make the best of the available area.
I agree with publishing approx. lengths pre-entry. I don't care whether these are expected actual running distance or straight line with an approx. uplift %, so long as the pre-entry details say which method has been used. If 2 route choices look about the same to the planner I am happy if only one is measued and used in calculations. The other probably won't be much different, and if the planner cannot decide which is shortest by looking at leisure in his/her armchair how is a competitor goint to get it right on every leg when actually running ?
My perception (with no quantitative evidence to back it up) is that urban (as opposed to sprint) cources have generally been getting shorter, and I disapprove of this. I prefer a "classic" run time, not a "middle" which is what many seem to have become.
I applaud MDOC re. Sunday event at Manchester Urban Weekend for (quote) :
"Please note that course lengths have been planned to the original guidelines, so are longer than has become usual for urban events, they are now available on the website (Event Details). You are welcome to change to a shorter course if you prefer."
I agree with fiexibility in actual course length to make the best of the available area.
I agree with publishing approx. lengths pre-entry. I don't care whether these are expected actual running distance or straight line with an approx. uplift %, so long as the pre-entry details say which method has been used. If 2 route choices look about the same to the planner I am happy if only one is measued and used in calculations. The other probably won't be much different, and if the planner cannot decide which is shortest by looking at leisure in his/her armchair how is a competitor goint to get it right on every leg when actually running ?
My perception (with no quantitative evidence to back it up) is that urban (as opposed to sprint) cources have generally been getting shorter, and I disapprove of this. I prefer a "classic" run time, not a "middle" which is what many seem to have become.
I applaud MDOC re. Sunday event at Manchester Urban Weekend for (quote) :
"Please note that course lengths have been planned to the original guidelines, so are longer than has become usual for urban events, they are now available on the website (Event Details). You are welcome to change to a shorter course if you prefer."
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
This is not in contradiction to opposing the stupidity of having to report an "optimum" distance for sprints and urbans. It's nonsense and a burden on planners for at least 2 good reasons:
1. It takes quite a long time to work out the optimum route for a course and you might have to measure 2/3 variations (minimum) to do it and still might miss the "optimum" route. (plus please define "optimum" route...)
2. This all takes time. Far better to spend time making sure the map is clear and circles/lines are cut and layouts/CDs etc etc are clear.
Are those mutually exclusive tasks though? Part of how I make sure a map is clear and number / circle / leg are not obscuring features etc is to methodically go through each leg and consider the options a runner might take. "All" the planner is being asked to do is measure and add them up. Compared to counting contours on classic events its pain free. I've always assumed optimum for Urban = Shortest. I doubt anyone will be recalculating the optimum distance afterwards or complaining you used the shortest distance when actually the more optimal route was 50m further on a better surface.
I don't know how well that 30-50% rules of thumb holds up in different urban geographies? Even then for many people the difference between 30% and 50% would influence the choice of course they would opt to enter.All you need to do is state that for urbans optimum running distance will be 30-50% longer than the straight line distance. And then put the straight line distances.
Personally, I enjoy comparing what my Garmin says to the planner's optimal distance too. I'm not that fast so I can see how close I got to the best route as a different metric of performance.
If its really a chore, then perhaps we should be encouraging the software providers to make it easier by either automating finding the shortest route or simplifying the user experience for adding/bending lines. Even better if it could count contours too!
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
Atomic wrote:If its really a chore, then perhaps we should be encouraging the software providers to make it easier by either automating finding the shortest route or simplifying the user experience for adding/bending lines. Even better if it could count contours too!
OCAD does both of those things, if you have used a standard symbol set and loaded a DEM.
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: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
OCAD is clunky and hard to use for planning.
And it is rare to use a pure standard symbol set. And not all maps have a DEM if they are older.
Condes is an extra cost and also awful to use.
Just simply report straight line distances and keep it simple.
Why does orienteering feel the need to overcomplicate everything?
And it is rare to use a pure standard symbol set. And not all maps have a DEM if they are older.
Condes is an extra cost and also awful to use.
Just simply report straight line distances and keep it simple.
Why does orienteering feel the need to overcomplicate everything?
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Optimal distance for urban course lengths
Atomic wrote:If its really a chore, then perhaps we should be encouraging the software providers to make it easier by either automating finding the shortest route or simplifying the user experience for adding/bending lines. Even better if it could count contours too!
Certainly in Condes it is trivial - just a few clicks to drag the route choice line round impassable objects.
Even better if it could count contours too!
Counting contours automatically is probably not a good idea as it is a bit subjective what to count. For example a steep hill on the purple that nobody is going to climb, or an essentially level contouring leg that crosses the same contour several times. Condes does keep a track of your manually entered climb for each leg and adds it up automatically for the courses.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
33 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: oo_wrong_way and 192 guests