Urban Course Lengths

[roadrunner]

As mentioned in the details for today's event in Bracknell, the new rules for 2024 seem to have the consequence of making urban courses considerably shorter, in that the suggested lengths haven't changed but these now represent optimum route rather than straight line distance. I'm curious whether this was intentional or an oversight; I don't recall ever seeing any complaint that the previous courses lengths were excessive.

[pete.owens]

That is not a change; it is a clarification.

It has always been the case that orienteering course lengths (of whatever discipline) should be specified along the shortest legal and passable route, rather than the straight line between controls. It is just that some planners are unaware of this or don't bother to measure it.

The rules do not specify distances for courses and make it clear that these are entirely at the discretion of the planner:
11.5.3 The course lengths given in this table are for guidance only. There is no obligation to stick to the recommendations

[roadrunner]

Thanks for the clarification. I take your point, but in the absence of any other guidance planners are likely to follow the suggestions in the rules. I wonder whether suggested winning times (as for the other categories) might be helpful.

[Marco Polo]

BOF rules changed in 2019 (to align with IOF) but the guideline course distances didn't change.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15580&hilit=course+length#p179809

[King Penguin]

Most urban courses are shorter than I would like; that is why I "ran up" at Edinburgh this weekend.

[miklcct]

They should all be sprint courses. If a course longer than a sprint is desired, 35-40 minutes winning time should be the maximum such that the course is more of an orienteering challenge rather than a running test.

[rf_fozzy]

They should all be sprint courses. If a course longer than a sprint is desired, 35-40 minutes winning time should be the maximum such that the course is more of an orienteering challenge rather than a running test.

Perhaps we should just ban running and force everyone to walk?

The running is a crucial component. And very much part of the ethos.

It's up to a planner (and controller) how much running vs "technical" orienteering there is.

By the same token that (and many MO/Black urban courses often suffer this) having a loop that is simple legs running around some simple streets with no route choice and no thinking required is boring, having travelled for an hour or more for a 35min run around is also pretty rubbish.

We have Long courses at the JK/British up to 80mins and of course many take far longer, but as soon as it comes to urbans, we have this idea that 35-40mins is a suitable winning time.
The standard EWT should be as close to that for terrain events, as long as the area allows - it's not always possible and we do want *some* variety.

But we certainly need more longer urbans. To make it worthwhile going to them (when I manage to get fit and more importantly uninjured).

[miklcct]

But we certainly need more longer urbans. To make it worthwhile going to them (when I manage to get fit and more importantly uninjured).

There have been too many instances where the long urban courses are absolutely boring with meaningless legs just to inflate the distance that I am condemning the planner during the run - I would rather go to proper sprints instead.

[rf_fozzy]

Well just do sprints then and don't bother with the urbans.

[Snail]

...
But we certainly need more longer urbans. To make it worthwhile going to them (when I manage to get fit and more importantly uninjured).

One of the challenges is that urbans are typically on a 1:5000 or 1:4000 map. (And need to be for some of the more intricate modern housing estates). And even current courses for MO may be on a double-sided A3 sheet.

Longer courses might either need an A2 sheet or more convoluted courses, which can remove the longer route choice options.

[Scott]

The standard EWT should be as close to that for terrain events, as long as the area allows - it's not always possible and we do want *some* variety.

The 21E winning time for terrain events is 90 minutes for a top elite. If you want the same thing in an urban, you'll be looking at a men's course of around 25km. Even if you could find a large enough area and a way to squeeze it all onto a map, I'm not sure you'd get many takers, but it'd be an interesting experiment.

[King Penguin]

OK, I accept it may be impractical for M/W elite (and probablky 40s too), but it could work for older classes / shorter courses, though that would break the target course length ratios.

[Len]

The 21E winning time for terrain events is 90 minutes for a top elite.

At a national event, yes.
Can’t remember the last terrain regional I did that adhered to that, mostly 50-60 min winning time for brown/black which should be possible for most urbans if sufficient area is mapped.

Personally a well planned event closer to an hour is much more of a challenge, the extra distance and tiredness makes mistakes more likely. (as in terrain events)

However recent feedback suggests we may have embedded the expectation of an 8-10k longest course with others scaled from that as a standard people get upset when it’s deviated from. Noting there are those who welcome the extra distance.

[rf_fozzy]

I thought that BOF EWTs for elite had reduced to match IOF?

But those only apply to JK long and BOC long.

I was referring to the EWT for a top elite on a black course at regional events of 67mins. Which I think is still the case.

It should be possible to plan a 67min course.

I aimed for about 60ish min at whinmoor last year, which was 14km/100ish m. Jonny Crickmore won it in 54, so I was 10% too short, suggesting i needed about 15.5km.

That should have been easily doable on this particular area as there is more mapped terrain to the SE than shown on RG (https://www.aire.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#256&course=1) and also to the W, but this would have involved negotiating the ring road.

There would also have been a challenge to fit it on the map, but for 1.5km, I'd have been able to do it - I used a back to back A3, so just going to SA3 would have done it.

For 20km, I'd have needed a map exchange - which very few events consider too.

[miklcct]

I thought that BOF EWTs for elite had reduced to match IOF?

But those only apply to JK long and BOC long.

I was referring to the EWT for a top elite on a black course at regional events of 67mins. Which I think is still the case.

It should be possible to plan a 67min course.

I aimed for about 60ish min at whinmoor last year, which was 14km/100ish m. Jonny Crickmore won it in 54, so I was 10% too short, suggesting i needed about 15.5km.

That should have been easily doable on this particular area as there is more mapped terrain to the SE than shown on RG (https://www.aire.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#256&course=1) and also to the W, but this would have involved negotiating the ring road.

There would also have been a challenge to fit it on the map, but for 1.5km, I'd have been able to do it - I used a back to back A3, so just going to SA3 would have done it.

For 20km, I'd have needed a map exchange - which very few events consider too.

The only IOF standard on urban is 12-15 minutes winning time. Middle and long are forest races.

Well just do sprints then and don't bother with the urbans.

Sprint is the only standard in urban.