Navigate to Finish

[pete.owens]

Another thing in the 2025 rules is that "navigate to finish" is to be prohibited. Currently this is nearly universal other than at major events.

[Dewi]

hmm to me this is trying to address "lazy planning" rather than to improve anything. So obvious solution is to have the "last control" 5m from the finish unit!

[pete.owens]

You still need to keep to the 60m rule. Having them that close would be seriously problematic with contactless punching. It would also make the printed map very confusing.

[King Penguin]

My understanding is that Finish must now be either taped route, taped funnel or "obvious" from the last control. I interpret the latter as meaning along a good clear track is OK. No constraint on distance to Finish. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Dewi]

The 60m rule is applicable when you have 2 controls on the same feature, so you can't have 2 controls on 2 spurs within 60m (19.3).

But appreciate the observation of a last control 5m from Finish is impractical for map printing as the Finish circle would be 3 consecutive circles not 2. But nothing to stop you if you want to adhere to the rules and the last control does not turn into a TD1 run in.

Notably at major events the last control is common (gate, track jct etc) and then the run in to the finish (TD1). So the last control in that case, presumably just caters for the commentary team to know who is approaching the finish rather than any navigational challenge from it to the finish control. Nav challenge is the last control -1 to the last control.

Nothing to say how long the last control tape to Finish min/max could be.

[DJM]

For map scales smaller than 1:5000 (before any enlargement for e.g. older competitors), controls (including the start control flag) must not be sited within 30m of each other. When the control features are similar (not distinctly different in the terrain and/or not distinctly different on the map), the minimum straight-line distance between controls is 60m.

Note my emboldening of "controls (including the start control flag)" as this makes it clear that the Finish is not included in the separation criteria. That it is not considered in the same category as a "normal" control is confirmed by the fact that it doesn't have a control description, nor does it need to be anywhere near a mapped feature.

Hence 19.3 is irrelevant to the "navigate to Finish is dead" discussion!

[DJM]

My understanding is that Finish must now be either taped route, taped funnel or "obvious" from the last control. I interpret the latter as meaning along a good clear track is OK.

It's a bit more precise than this as 27.2 states

The precise location of the finishing line or point must be clear to all competitors approaching it. The route to the Finish from the last control must be taped for the whole route unless the Finish or the Finish funnel is clearly visible to the competitor from their last control.

So, "a good clear track" is only OK if the visibility criterion above is met. "Clearly visible" and "obvious" are subtly different terms ...

[pete.owens]

For map scales smaller than 1:5000 (before any enlargement for e.g. older competitors), controls (including the start control flag) must not be sited within 30m of each other. When the control features are similar (not distinctly different in the terrain and/or not distinctly different on the map), the minimum straight-line distance between controls is 60m.

Note my emboldening of "controls (including the start control flag)" as this makes it clear that the Finish is not included in the separation criteria. That it is not considered in the same category as a "normal" control is confirmed by the fact that it doesn't have a control description, nor does it need to be anywhere near a mapped feature.

Hence 19.3 is irrelevant to the "navigate to Finish is dead" discussion!

Which sounds rather like the argument of a loophole lawyer trying to get someone off a speeding charge on the grounds that the repeater signs were too far apart. You have to look at the purpose and spirit of the rule, rather than try to find exemptions based on the precise wording.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent competitors visiting the wrong control without realising.

In this case the finish may not technically be a "control", but it is a stake, with a flag and a box on the top. So an object that a competitor could legitimately confuse with the control they are heading for. And it is actually more serious at the finish, because if the competitor punches there then they have finished and cannot go back if they subsequently realise their mistake.

[frostbite]

Notably at major events the last control is common (gate, track jct etc) and then the run in to the finish (TD1). So the last control in that case, presumably just caters for the commentary team to know who is approaching the finish rather than any navigational challenge from it to the finish control.

This run-in was a necessity back in pre-electronic punching days. Somebody had to stand at the finish line writing times down on a piece of paper so you had to have everybody arriving in the same direction in an orderly fashion. The run-in was never part of the navigational challenge. With electronic punching this is no longer necessary but there has always been this hangover from the original rules that the finish does not have a description and may not be as strictly controlled as an actual control site.

I'm not sure why the rules are being changed to take us backwards. I think for most small events planners will want to persist with 'Navigate to finish'. It would be better to come up with a way of defining the finish as a control site. I still prefer a proper last control and run-in for big events though, with the commentary and the cheering crowds. But not if it's up a hill.

[pete.owens]

But appreciate the observation of a last control 5m from Finish is impractical for map printing as the Finish circle would be 3 consecutive circles not 2. But nothing to stop you if you want to adhere to the rules and the last control does not turn into a TD1 run in.

Given that the footprint of the finish circle is 95m then any control closer 45m will be within it. Even at 60m there is considerable overlap, though probably just sufficient to be distinguishable as distinct objects.

The other issue is contactless punching. Some versions of SIAC beep for 7 seconds - during which time it is possible to sprint a reasonable distance.

[pete.owens]

This run-in was a necessity back in pre-electronic punching days. Somebody had to stand at the finish line writing times down on a piece of paper so you had to have everybody arriving in the same direction in an orderly fashion. The run-in was never part of the navigational challenge.

But that is not the only reason. Having an orderly run in from one direction is needed even at small informal events. People tend to gather just beyond the finish to rest, compare notes, wait for friends etc. There will then be a marked route to get back to download.

Now it is possible for well designed courses to arrange for this to happen, with the routes from multiple final controls naturally approaching the finish from the same direction. But this requires care from the planner to know what they are doing and to understand why. Too often people interpret "navigate to finish" as just another control, or don't understand what the symbols on the last line of the control description mean.

I have seen cases where the finish is on an open hill on a moor with runners approaching from all directions, and having to locate the finish somewhere in a crowd of spectators. Or a finish in the middle of a field, where the grass was higher than the banner. Or finishes for which the CD says marked route, but there are no markings on the ground.

[DJM]

I'm not sure why the rules are being changed to take us backwards. I think for most small events planners will want to persist with 'Navigate to finish'.

Firstly, the rules aren't being changed but they are being upgraded from strong advice instead. Appendix B has for many years had the following

5.1.2 It is important to ensure that the finish is easily located. A common last control with taped route to the finish will ensure this. This will also ensure that competitors all approach the finish from the same direction and improve the flow of competitors through the finish system.

and

5.1.3 ...There should be no possibility of a competitor being unable to find the finish ...

The wording of the new Rules is very similar to that in the extracts above - planners should have been having a single last control without navigate to Finish all along ...

Some reasons why navigate to Finish is no longer allowed follow

Since the Finish isn't on a mapped feature, it's sometimes misplaced on the ground - which might make it difficult to find. In addition, navigating to something which isn't mapped is an interesting concept in its own right!

Where there is more than one last control, runners approach the Finish from different directions, often at high speed, and there is a safety issue to consider as a result.

Runners who have finished have a tendency to gather near the flag, blocking the view of the Finish for runners coming in from other directions.

All in all, there is not much in favour of the current free for all seen at many events!

[Gnitworp]

This run-in was a necessity back in pre-electronic punching days. Somebody had to stand at the finish line writing times down on a piece of paper so you had to have everybody arriving in the same direction in an orderly fashion. The run-in was never part of the navigational challenge. With electronic punching this is no longer necessary but there has always been this hangover from the original rules that the finish does not have a description and may not be as strictly controlled as an actual control site.

I'm not sure why the rules are being changed to take us backwards. I think for most small events planners will want to persist with 'Navigate to finish'. It would be better to come up with a way of defining the finish as a control site. I still prefer a proper last control and run-in for big events though, with the commentary and the cheering crowds. But not if it's up a hill.

I agree with all this, and was in process of composing something very similar.
The navigational test of an orienteering course should begin at a recorded moment (timed or punching) on the Start line, and end at the last 'control' with a description. It must be impossible for anyone to go astray on the 'Run-in' however stupid they are (which has happened several times to me because of lack of impossibility rather than, I trust, stupidity!)
I therefore endorse Frostbite's totally commonsensical suggestion that gives cognition to the new, totally different scenario resulting from the advent of epunching, of allowing an option of giving a description (on the description sheet) of the location of the marker flag(s) at the Finish

[Scott]

Since the Finish isn't on a mapped feature, it's sometimes misplaced on the ground - which might make it difficult to find. In addition, navigating to something which isn't mapped is an interesting concept in its own right!

Where there is more than one last control, runners approach the Finish from different directions, often at high speed, and there is a safety issue to consider as a result.

Runners who have finished have a tendency to gather near the flag, blocking the view of the Finish for runners coming in from other directions.

Those seem like good arguments for requiring the finish to be on a mapped feature and for encouraging planners to think about placing their last controls so that everyone approaches the finish from the same general direction (as we're supposed to do for every other control), rather than arguments for reducing the element of navigation in favour of more dead running.

[pete.owens]

Given that planners often get the CD wrong with navigate/marked finishes - just as they often fail to provide a CD for the start, then this would just lead to confusion.