British Sprints
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: British Sprints
The normal recommendation in these circumstances would be to provide two different map scales for the same course. This is not a rule but if the decision was made that the older age groups should have a larger scale it would seem to be asking for trouble to discriminate.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: British Sprints
NeilC wrote: to provide two different map scales for the same course.
It proved too difficult and an extra complication to do this in this case. We made the decision by *course*
This is not a rule
Precisely.
If you don't like rules as they are written, we need to change which age classes run which courses.
Personally I still don't understand why Men and Women of the same age categories need to be segregated. If they'd run the same course, it would alleviate the problem.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
rf_fozzy wrote:Precisely.
If you don't like rules as they are written, we need to change which age classes run which courses.
I have no objections to the rules, which clearly state that the course/class combinations are a recommendation, not a requirement. So, whatever the reason the different combinations, and, far more important, for W55+ being at 1:3000, but M55+ 1:4000, it's not 'the rules'.
.Personally I still don't understand why Men and Women of the same age categories need to be segregated. If they'd run the same course, it would alleviate the problem.
Classes are split/combined in the rules to give guidance as to what combinations are likely to lead to the aimed for winning times (it doesn't always work!) - I underline the fact that these are recommendations, not rules. If you think that putting men and women of the same age on the same course will still give those times, then there's absolutely no reason not to combine them. The rules certainly don't prevent you from doing that. In those circumstances, I don't think any M or W would object to running the same course; far from it, nobody gives a hoot which other class runs their course. The only objection would be if you provided a too short course for one class or a too-long course for another. I for one would MUCH rather be 'segregated' based on the scale best suited than based on the age of other (irrelevant to me) classes running the same course.
It proved too difficult and an extra complication to do this in this case. We made the decision by *course*
But then why combine classes that need the enlarged scale with those that don't? Why not split into different courses then, fairly standard practice? It's equally common to break one course into two separate 'sub-courses' differentiated simply on mapscale. This is the national championships after all. I do hope there's a technical reason; it would be very disappointing to find out that the reason for this anomaly (I hesitate to use the word 'discrimination') was simply administrative convenience.
Last edited by awk on Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:47 pm, edited 8 times in total.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: British Sprints
It proved too difficult and an extra complication to do this in this case. We made the decision by *course*
Courses 3A and 3B using the same course but at two different scales. No extra planning required. As the races are run at different times there isn't even a problem with allocating start times between the two.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: British Sprints
You are both free to make decisions as you see fit within the rules as written when you organise the British Sprints.
Next year perhaps?
I'll accept constructive criticism. There will be a form to give feedback available after the event.
(This isn't constructive criticism so far - just to be clear).
And just to clarify. No, they are not guidelines. They are rules. It clearly says "Competition rules" at the top of this document: https://bof2.sharepoint.com/Competition ... =true&ga=1
Next year perhaps?
I'll accept constructive criticism. There will be a form to give feedback available after the event.
(This isn't constructive criticism so far - just to be clear).
And just to clarify. No, they are not guidelines. They are rules. It clearly says "Competition rules" at the top of this document: https://bof2.sharepoint.com/Competition ... =true&ga=1
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
SJC wrote:It proved too difficult and an extra complication to do this in this case. We made the decision by *course*
Courses 3A and 3B using the same course but at two different scales. No extra planning required. As the races are run at different times there isn't even a problem with allocating start times between the two.
Nope this is incorrect.
It's course Q3-1A, Q3-1B, Q3-2A, Q3-2B, Q3-3A, Q3-3B, F3-Aa, F3-Ab, F3-Ba, F3-Bb, F3-Ca, F3-Cb.
So 12 courses. Instead of 6. Plus all the map prep - probably an extra 2hrs on top of the 8hrs it took to get to the final product.
So not as straightforward as you think. Plus it's another map box change which is another potential source of error etc etc.
We decided against it for all these reasons (amongst others).
Feel free to make a different decision when you organise the British Sprints.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
rf_fozzy wrote:Nope this is incorrect.
It's course Q3-1A, Q3-1B, Q3-2A, Q3-2B, Q3-3A, Q3-3B, F3-Aa, F3-Ab, F3-Ba, F3-Bb, F3-Ca, F3-Cb.
So 12 courses. Instead of 6. Plus all the map prep - probably an extra 2hrs on top of the 8hrs it took to get to the final product.
Strictly speaking, SJC is correct - there is no extra actual planning, but I appreciate, having planned numerous major events, the hours of work that goes into other elements of preparation. It's a matter of personal priority I suppose - I see the need to provide enlarged mapscales appropriately and fairly as sufficiently important that either time or a different combination needs to be found to ensure that happens - you and the rest of the planning team obviously don't. That's your prerogative, but please be prepared for people to question it. Incidentally, I'm impressed by the fact that you got the prep time down to as little as 8 hours - it took me an extended week working full-time to get the map prep done at my last championship.
Thank you for the explanation. It's certainly something I will now raise with British Orienteering - the course combinations are obviously an issue, and fairness and equality are perhaps being compromised because of that.
And just to clarify. No, they are not guidelines. They are rules. It clearly says "Competition rules" at the top of this document: https://bof2.sharepoint.com/Competition ... =true&ga=1
Rule 1.2.4 (a) in that document, states "A list of SUGGESTED championship age classes/course combinations is set out in these Rules" (my emphasis), and previous events have tweaked them to fit as they have seen appropriate. British Orineteering rules contain not just rules but recommendations and guidelines.
The British Sprints is one of the few major domestic events I've yet to have the opportunity to plan. Would have bitten off the opportunity to do so at Leeds! Hopefully get a chance another time. And, yes, if that opportunity arises, I will.Feel free to make a different decision when you organise the British Sprints.
Unlikely, as it's in Northern Ireland and, given the usual cycle of these things, the planner will already be hard at work, as you will be fully aware.Next year?
(This isn't constructive criticism so far - just to be clear).
My original question was meant to be just that, a question. Perhaps it was badly worded - wouldn't surprise me! Subsequent to that I've tried to restrict myself to engaging with issues your posts have raised, and solutions to how to solve the anomaly we now have. If that comes across as negative, then my apologies. I recognise that planners will all have different priorities. Perhaps when you reach 60+, then map scales may sit differently in the pecking order. Or may not!
Last edited by awk on Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:42 pm, edited 8 times in total.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: British Sprints
awk wrote:I have no objections to the rules.
One new thing which may have been overlooked - the rules still recommend A4 sized maps, along with enlarged scales (previously 1:4000, now 1:3000). M55 is typically 3km, i.e. the course is a metre long on the map - that's a long line to fit onto A4.
So quite often, you'll have to pick between the "A4" guideline and the "1:3000" guideline, or compromise the planning for the other Course 3 competitors. I didn't see if they told us about map sizes this w/e (and no reason why they should), but I bet myself a coconut...
@rf_fozzy : you have my sympathy, I think I said often enough before that the whole event is unnecessarily complicated.
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: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:@rf_fozzy : you have my sympathy, I think I said often enough before that the whole event is unnecessarily complicated.
My sympathy too on that front.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:the rules still recommend A4 sized maps
Not sure this is in the rules any more? It's in the IOF ones, but not the BOF ones.
graeme wrote: I didn't see if they told us about map sizes this w/e (and no reason why they should), but I bet myself a coconut...
I'll save you a bet, the 1:4000 maps are all A4, the 1:3000 ones are slightly smaller than A3 - don't have a measurement device to hand at the moment - my guesstimate is 380x280mm
graeme wrote:@rf_fozzy : you have my sympathy, I think I said often enough before that the whole event is unnecessarily complicated.
Some bits certainly are. I wanted to keep it a little simpler and have tried to do so where possible. Having 2 Q starts hasn't helped, but unavoidable.
Still nearly there now!
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
rf_fozzy wrote:graeme wrote:the rules still recommend A4 sized maps
Not sure this is in the rules any more? It's in the IOF ones, but not the BOF ones.
It's in Appendix D to the British Orienteering 'Rules of Orienteering', rather than the British Sprint Champs Competition Rules. Para 2.5 of Appedix D specifies the mapping requirements for Level A events and recommends that at Level A Sprint events, 'paper size should not exceed A4'. But it's a 'should', not a 'must', as is the recommendation that 'enlargements [to 1:3000] should be provided where possible for older/younger competitors, especially where there are narrow passageways'. As graeme says, those two recommendations may not be compatible.
I'm just happy that the younger age classes are still getting 1:4000. If the what's happened with forest events it anything to go by, it won't be long until UK sprint events only offer 1:3000 for all classes, regardless of the rules or the international standards, and a campaign begins to provide enlargements to 1:2000 for the older age classes...
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: British Sprints
Scott wrote:I'm just happy that the younger age classes are still getting 1:4000. If the what's happened with forest events it anything to go by, it won't be long until UK sprint events only offer 1:3000 for all classes, regardless of the rules or the international standards, and a campaign begins to provide enlargements to 1:2000 for the older age classes...
As an M21-40, I much preferred 1:15k for classic (before the days of 'long'!). I totally agree about the creeping dangers of ever enlarging maps for younger competitors. OTOH, as an M60, I now find enlarged maps invaluable in sustaining orienteering as a running sport, It used to be fairly standard that M45+ was the boundary line for enlargements (which echoed my experience with eyesight) - so to find myself almost 20 years older and having to run on an unenlarged map at the national championships (the one event where one would hope/expect that bit extra) is TBH really disappointing, especially when women almost 10 years younger are being given that opportunity. It was good to get 1:3000 at the JK, and it was interesting to see the massive difference in readability between the 1:4k and 1:3k maps at Stockton last weekend, as well as the near impossibility of reading some detail at events using smaller scales recently,
Of course, I may well be jumping the gun (not unknown!) - I'm sure it'll be a great event, and am really looking forward to it.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: British Sprints
rf_fozzy wrote:You are both free to make decisions as you see fit within the rules as written when you organise the British Sprints.
Next year perhaps?
I'll accept constructive criticism. There will be a form to give feedback available after the event.
(This isn't constructive criticism so far - just to be clear).
OK Here’s a stab at some constructive criticism…
You clearly put a lot of work into the events you organise and like others find the challenges difficult. This forum is a great way to share ideas about how to improve events, like for example providing enlarged maps for older age groups and treating men and women equally, but many are put off expressing opinions for fear of offending event organisers. Perhaps rather than taking feedback as personal criticism, quoting rules and suggesting that others organise the events themselves, you could consider a more positive response. For example you could thank the contributor, recognise that they might have a valid point and offer to include the comment in your event report, even if you don’t agree with it.
rf_fozzy wrote:And just to clarify. No, they are not guidelines. They are rules. It clearly says "Competition rules" at the top of this document: https://bof2.sharepoint.com/Competition ... =true&ga=1
I think the confusion here is that 'rules' include a mix of firm requirements and guidelines. The requirements are usually in the main body of the text or prefixed with 'must', and guidelines sometimes included as appendices or prefixed 'may' or 'should'.
To oblivion and beyond....
-
buzz - addict
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 10:45 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Re: British Sprints
I don't think you understand what constructive criticism means.
To have constructive criticism, you might want to try having been to the event first.
You and awk want to moan, criticise and pre-judge. It's not the first time. And to be honest, I've had enough of it.
We made the decision that 65+ needed 1:3000 and so that meant Course 4. To keep things simple, instead of faffing about with different maps for different classes on course 4 (already hard enough), we made the decision that we would give everyone on the course a 1:3000 map.
So yes, W55, W60 and W14 are getting a bigger scale map than perhaps they should do. You know what - IT DOESN'T MATTER. You aren't competing against them. You will both have the same scale map as everyone else in your class. It will be a fair competition.
I honestly don't care any more, so if you want to whinge about your map scale or start time or the colour of the grass, go ahead. I won't be back in this thread.
To have constructive criticism, you might want to try having been to the event first.
You and awk want to moan, criticise and pre-judge. It's not the first time. And to be honest, I've had enough of it.
We made the decision that 65+ needed 1:3000 and so that meant Course 4. To keep things simple, instead of faffing about with different maps for different classes on course 4 (already hard enough), we made the decision that we would give everyone on the course a 1:3000 map.
So yes, W55, W60 and W14 are getting a bigger scale map than perhaps they should do. You know what - IT DOESN'T MATTER. You aren't competing against them. You will both have the same scale map as everyone else in your class. It will be a fair competition.
I honestly don't care any more, so if you want to whinge about your map scale or start time or the colour of the grass, go ahead. I won't be back in this thread.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
You and awk want to moan, criticise and pre-judge. It's not the first time. And to be honest, I've had enough of it.
I am sorry you feel this way; perhaps it wasn't the best time to ask the question! However, as I see it, I did ask a question about map scales, and tried to clarify precisely what the reasoning was for not providing all older classes with an enlarged scale - your initial reply wasn't overly detailed, understandable in the circumstances, and I appreciate you engaging at all at this time! Yes, I was disappointed at the explanation once clear, not least as it seemed to me to include a slight mixup of rules and guidance, but I had hoped it was also clear that I recognised that you may well have different priorities, and that was your prerogative. I finished by saying that I was sure it would be a great event and that I was looking forward to it - I think that was my only element of prejudgement.
So yes, W55, W60 and W14 are getting a bigger scale map than perhaps they should do. You know what - IT DOESN'T MATTER. You aren't competing against them. You will both have the same scale map as everyone else in your class. It will be a fair competition.
And there's the crux of the issue. It may not matter....to you. But it does matter to those of us who enjoy orienteering as a running sport, and find it hard to read smaller scale maps on the run because our eyes find it hard to resolve the same scales used by M/W21s. As someone who relies rather more heavily on my mapreading skills than on physical ability (rather mediocre however hard I train!) it's actually very high on my list of priorities. One day, as you get older, you may appreciate that.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests