Gross wrote:Most of England doesn't get anywhere above real TD3 no matter how you describe it... so why not just have long, med, and short
I'll claim every time I have got lost, that I was lost in TD5 terrain, regardless of what the map says
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Gross wrote:Most of England doesn't get anywhere above real TD3 no matter how you describe it... so why not just have long, med, and short
Orienteering offers a physical and a technical challenge. What's so complicated about having a scheme which describes both? Just because there are a more possible combinations doesn't make it more 'complicated'.
DaveK wrote:Surely the terrain complexity is, to a large extent at least, determined by the courses that can be planned using it. Simple really -
https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/ ... 5_v2.2.pdf
I think studying maps before you go is the sort of thing experienced people do - but perhaps not what the average Orange to Light Green person does unprompted.SeanC wrote:Anyone who's seen the map or even looked at an online OS map will know what they are getting...
Ah, yes I think that our local events use the colours because there is a prize for each colour at the end of the season - and they've always been Y/O/G ...and the colours are how the local leagues are described.
Most of England doesn't get anywhere above real TD3 no matter how you describe it...
I think that is very sensible - in fact BOF should probably make it in the rules to say that this is a requirement (at the time entries open - not the final instructions).So, what about overtly stating the technical difficulty of the planned course?
I'm not sure its relevant what the "area" is. The question is what are the courses the planner has created - my point was that the competitor doesn't know, it could be some fine contour hell but the planner hasn't used it, or it could be a largely flat boring forest but the planner found a boulder far from a catching feature and some indistinct vegetation boundaries, which mean its really not a TD4. BOF colour labels seem designed to help the competitor but in my experience at Light Green/Green don't help and calling it Green puts people off progressing from Orange (when there's no Light Green too).And who decides if a whole area is "TD4" or "TD5" or "TD765?"
Atomic wrote:I think that is very sensible - in fact BOF should probably make it in the rules to say that this is a requirement (at the time entries open - not the final instructions).So, what about overtly stating the technical difficulty of the planned course?
Atomic wrote:I'm not sure its relevant what the "area" is. The question is what are the courses the planner has created - my point was that the competitor doesn't know, it could be some fine contour hell but the planner hasn't used it, or it could be a largely flat boring forest but the planner found a boulder far from a catching feature and some indistinct vegetation boundaries, which mean its really not a TD4. BOF colour labels seem designed to help the competitor but in my experience at Light Green/Green don't help and calling it Green puts people off progressing from Orange (when there's no Light Green too).And who decides if a whole area is "TD4" or "TD5" or "TD765?"
rf_fozzy wrote:So my question stands, who judges whether an area is TD4 or TD5 or TD65?
rf_fozzy wrote:It's another whole wealth of pointless regulations waiting to be written and then ignored by almost all planners anyway.
buzz wrote:rf_fozzy wrote:So my question stands, who judges whether an area is TD4 or TD5 or TD65?
Why don't you decide - you seem to know it all!
buzz wrote:rf_fozzy wrote:It's another whole wealth of pointless regulations waiting to be written and then ignored by almost all planners anyway.
Given your contempt for 'pointless regulations' it will be interesting to see what you come up with for the British Sprints.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 170 guests