Planning standards
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Sounds like another orienteering volunteer (ie the controller) has been put off giving up any more of their time to helping events happen. This would be a real shame, as I am sure that everyone agrees there are never enough controllers/planners/organisers in the sport. I am not surprised that Ian doesn't give a **** if he never controls anything ever again, but as an orienteer, I care. If we want to keep going orienteering at all in the future, we need people like ian. We have had the 'constructive criticism', so how about some people who went to the event and enjoyed it give their views?
- Guest
I agree with Ian's point entirely...... you should only really comment on the map / courses if you were there & know all the circumstances. If this debate is about general issues then ok...... you don't need to have been there, if it's about specifics then it should be confined to those who competed.
- gross2004
Ian
Apologies if my earlier comments seemed unappreciative. I enjoyed running on Sunday despite my antipathy to Wharncliffe - as I have said the M35L course was fine and thanks are due to you and Karl for your efforts.
The problem with Wharncliffe is that it ought to be good (a large area with some technical quarry detail), but the undergrowth and physical nature of the area make it difficult to plan satisfactory courses for all age groups. As a result compromises have to be made - and your post makes it clear that this was the case. The result is that some people then feel that they have not got what they paid for. Perhaps it was not possible to provide them with what they paid for, but that doesn't really help. Maybe the best solution would be to state what the problems were and give people the choice between a technical/physical course and a non-technical/non-physical course - at least then they know what they are getting. Or perhaps SYO should just accept that Wharncliffe is not suitable for a Regional event.
Apologies if my earlier comments seemed unappreciative. I enjoyed running on Sunday despite my antipathy to Wharncliffe - as I have said the M35L course was fine and thanks are due to you and Karl for your efforts.
The problem with Wharncliffe is that it ought to be good (a large area with some technical quarry detail), but the undergrowth and physical nature of the area make it difficult to plan satisfactory courses for all age groups. As a result compromises have to be made - and your post makes it clear that this was the case. The result is that some people then feel that they have not got what they paid for. Perhaps it was not possible to provide them with what they paid for, but that doesn't really help. Maybe the best solution would be to state what the problems were and give people the choice between a technical/physical course and a non-technical/non-physical course - at least then they know what they are getting. Or perhaps SYO should just accept that Wharncliffe is not suitable for a Regional event.
- Neil M35
- red
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:44 am
- Location: Leeds
I ran M35L at Wharncliffe, and enjoyed Course 2. It was well planned, with a mix of fast and slow terrian, long and short legs, and was about the right length. It was both physically very challenging (but Wharncliffe always is) and technically challenging (and I wasn't concentrating hard enough), so I got well beaten by Neil(M35)!
Anyway, I appreciated the work Karl and Ian had put into the courses - thanks.
I was also the SI computing team leader at the event, so can answer a few of the other (off topic) issues that have been mentioned in this thread.
EODs: We got far more EODs than we were expecting (over 200, on top of the 550 pre-entries). Hence some people couldn't run their first choice class, and some people got to download before their entry had been put into the computer. Although this meant they were initially "disqualified", we re-instated them as soon as possible.
SI problems: One control box failed, number 68. We realised this as soon as the planner got back, and it was replaced before many people passed through it. The cause was probably battery failure. There were no other problems, other than the network locking up once (but I blame Microsoft for that!).
JW5M: I have no idea how we ended up with this class! I guess that because 2 people pre-entered the class, the entries team created it.
Anyway, I appreciated the work Karl and Ian had put into the courses - thanks.
I was also the SI computing team leader at the event, so can answer a few of the other (off topic) issues that have been mentioned in this thread.
EODs: We got far more EODs than we were expecting (over 200, on top of the 550 pre-entries). Hence some people couldn't run their first choice class, and some people got to download before their entry had been put into the computer. Although this meant they were initially "disqualified", we re-instated them as soon as possible.
SI problems: One control box failed, number 68. We realised this as soon as the planner got back, and it was replaced before many people passed through it. The cause was probably battery failure. There were no other problems, other than the network locking up once (but I blame Microsoft for that!).
JW5M: I have no idea how we ended up with this class! I guess that because 2 people pre-entered the class, the entries team created it.
-
Spookster - god
- Posts: 2267
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 1:49 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Sorry if we've contibuted to making you feel like this. Nopesport can sometimes be the equivalent of virtual road rage at BMW drivers that cut you up. Thank you (and Karl) for adding your thoughts and reasons to the thread.Ian Watson wrote:To be honest I don't give a **** whether I control or plan another event again.
My own discussions with controllers are usually about making junior courses to hard, rather than adult ones too easy (but then its very difficult to get TD5 in East Anglia). We do however have a W70 who gets very upset about having easier courses (same as juniors) so that the lengths are appropriate and the courses are the merged. Maybe something we should be raising with BOF or one of its many committees?
I didn't get to run on Sunday because of family commitments, so I can't comment on M35S, but at least you didn't make a fundamental error, like agreeing the planner's course lengths, when he'd used the 1:15k scale for a 1:10K map
-
PorkyFatBoy - diehard
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:13 am
- Location: A contour-free zone
Final Word (hopefully) on Wharnecliffe
Writing as Chairman of SYO I would like to say that we shall certainly pick up on the lessons of this set of correspondence; not least to be wary of self congratulation. I guess in light of his apology to Colin Best so will Andy. We do find it difficult to find event officials this little farrago will not make it easier in future. Ian makes a key point - he could have cancelled the event in August; if he had there would have been no complaints. Despite the very real problems we, and Karl,Ian and Phil Haywood, in particular went ahead and over 700 people were able to orienteer last Sunday. Ian's reaction is entirely understandable, I hope for one that he reconsiders and does control again in the futures. On behalf of SYO I would like to offer Andy the opportunity to control an event for us next year; we would enjoy working with him and would benefit from his experience. The offer is made publicly I will of course follow it up privately. A final point - constructive critism has to be welcome; but please let us make it constructive. Alan Goddard
- Alan Goddard
It would have been a shame if the event had been cancelled as most people enjoyed their courses, and in any case a lot of people like to go out for a run even if it's only TD4.
On the other hand, people travel a long way to regional/national events, and so may be unhappy if the courses did not meet their expectations.
So what is the answer? - probably to clearly state on the event website as early as known that certain courses will only be all or mostly TD4 (at a TD5-advertised event), due to problematic conditions. As long as people have the right expectations, they won't be disappointed, or won't turn up, or will change to another course.
People are so busy nowadays, so have high expectations for their spare time, and are getting used in general to complaining more when those expectations aren't met (but don't take it personally!!!!). My view is that people are also happy to pay a higher entry fee for better customer service as well, and that an appropriate sum would then be paid to those who dedicate a lot of spare time to organising/controlling a big event.
On the other hand, people travel a long way to regional/national events, and so may be unhappy if the courses did not meet their expectations.
So what is the answer? - probably to clearly state on the event website as early as known that certain courses will only be all or mostly TD4 (at a TD5-advertised event), due to problematic conditions. As long as people have the right expectations, they won't be disappointed, or won't turn up, or will change to another course.
People are so busy nowadays, so have high expectations for their spare time, and are getting used in general to complaining more when those expectations aren't met (but don't take it personally!!!!). My view is that people are also happy to pay a higher entry fee for better customer service as well, and that an appropriate sum would then be paid to those who dedicate a lot of spare time to organising/controlling a big event.
- Guest88
Anonymous wrote:Sounds like another orienteering volunteer (ie the controller) has been put off giving up any more of their time to helping events happen. This would be a real shame, as I am sure that everyone agrees there are never enough controllers/planners/organisers in the sport. I am not surprised that Ian doesn't give a **** if he never controls anything ever again, but as an orienteer, I care. If we want to keep going orienteering at all in the future, we need people like ian. We have had the 'constructive criticism', so how about some people who went to the event and enjoyed it give their views?
Sorry, I wasn't threatenning to throw my toys out of the pram just because of the criticism of this event, although I don't think it was very well handled.
All I meant was that both planning and controlling are bloody hard work and if BOF were to relieve me of the obligation I feel to put something back into the sport, it would stop me being stupid enough to keep agreeing to do it!
Ian.
- Guest
Thanks to Karl and Ian for their very positive and open comments. I have to say I beg to differ with their rationale (if a course isn't suitable for W45s it certainly isn't suitable for 12 year old boys and girls), but I appreciate their reasoning.
I suspect the answer really lies in courses being offered at appropriate standards. If people had been told beforehand tht this course was going to be Orange for the reasons given now, but they could run another equal length but more physical course at TD5, then I don't think there would have been a problem. It's not that the planning was bad (if an Orange course was being planned because of perceived problems with vegetation) - it was that it didn't meet the standard implied by the advertising.
On some of the technical analysis of the JM/JW4/Light Green course:
I would have to disagree here. Controls 7 and 8 had no obvious catching features, and required the ability to fine navigate fairly complex contours in terrain that was harder than shown by the map, leaving them both firmly at TD5.
Knowing the majority of the JM and JW4 runners, I don't think I underestimate their ability! I would suggest the reasons fast times were achieved were (a) because many of those running at the front end are capable of running and winning at TD5 (and do!), and (b) because they were able to run the early and late parts, where the standard was Yellow/Orange, very fast. Splits indicate that a high proportion of even the experienced runners came unstuck on the controls on the slope. Just because some very competent youngsters were effectively running down compared to their ability levels (because it was a selection race?) does not affect my argument that these controls moved this course beyond TD4 level.
On Alan's offer to control next year: I am already fully committed controlling, coaching, teaching and mapping (possibly planning as well) for the next 15 months or so, but maybe the year after? As to finding it harder to find volunteers - that's the argument put forward time after time ,and I accept that it may well be true. On the other hand, my experience is that privately raising the matter with planner/controller hasn't worked either (how long have we been trying that one?!), as can be seen by the fact that major events are still getting significant planning errors made on a fairly regular basis. Which is why I resorted to here - we need this debate in the open.
Once again, thank you to both Ian and Karl for being prepared to engage on this forum, and being so positive to my bouncing them into it. I can only say that come my planning etc, in the future, I'd better be prepared to have my contribution discussed here!
I suspect the answer really lies in courses being offered at appropriate standards. If people had been told beforehand tht this course was going to be Orange for the reasons given now, but they could run another equal length but more physical course at TD5, then I don't think there would have been a problem. It's not that the planning was bad (if an Orange course was being planned because of perceived problems with vegetation) - it was that it didn't meet the standard implied by the advertising.
On some of the technical analysis of the JM/JW4/Light Green course:
With regard to the JM4 / JW4 course I can only say look at the finishing times and note the comments on the Junior Forum on this site. The feedback seems very positive and the times are exactly what I was expecting, so the competitors are either better navigators than you've given them credit for or the legs you've queried were of TD4 not TD5. Either way I tried to make sure that we had obvious catching points on these legs in case the competitors over-ran the control, so I'm content that we got this one about right.
I would have to disagree here. Controls 7 and 8 had no obvious catching features, and required the ability to fine navigate fairly complex contours in terrain that was harder than shown by the map, leaving them both firmly at TD5.
Knowing the majority of the JM and JW4 runners, I don't think I underestimate their ability! I would suggest the reasons fast times were achieved were (a) because many of those running at the front end are capable of running and winning at TD5 (and do!), and (b) because they were able to run the early and late parts, where the standard was Yellow/Orange, very fast. Splits indicate that a high proportion of even the experienced runners came unstuck on the controls on the slope. Just because some very competent youngsters were effectively running down compared to their ability levels (because it was a selection race?) does not affect my argument that these controls moved this course beyond TD4 level.
On Alan's offer to control next year: I am already fully committed controlling, coaching, teaching and mapping (possibly planning as well) for the next 15 months or so, but maybe the year after? As to finding it harder to find volunteers - that's the argument put forward time after time ,and I accept that it may well be true. On the other hand, my experience is that privately raising the matter with planner/controller hasn't worked either (how long have we been trying that one?!), as can be seen by the fact that major events are still getting significant planning errors made on a fairly regular basis. Which is why I resorted to here - we need this debate in the open.
Once again, thank you to both Ian and Karl for being prepared to engage on this forum, and being so positive to my bouncing them into it. I can only say that come my planning etc, in the future, I'd better be prepared to have my contribution discussed here!
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Now you're all on good terms, perhaps someone could post the courses you're talking about? There are controllers out here who are pretty vague about what JMW4 means
Graeme
Graeme
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
So the dust has settled has it? As an orienteer of 35 years standing like AWK, and having also done the full range of planning, controlling, organising and mapping, I feel there are some points from his initial vitriolic outburst that have still not been addressed and am now doing so to defend the good name of SYO.
Returning to the original complaint about W45S on Course 7, consider the following. Excluding seconds, the average mins/km on W45L was 12.75 and on W45S was 15.06, or 18.1% slower. To compare with the men of the same age, the average on M45L was 10.80 and on M45S 12.79 which is 18.4% slower and almost identical to the women. What's wrong with this? We should be congratulating the planner and controller for achieving such consistency.
I did not see Course 7 but I do know that if you want to guarantee a course of the appropriate TD at a Regional event, you enter Long. How do I know? Because my normal Badge course is M45S and I have experienced various course lengths (3.7 to 6.3km) depending on the area, as well as varying course standards. Whether you like it or not, Wharncliffe is tough, and the moorland is obviously exposed, so for safety sake, course lengths must be kept on the low side. Things would have been very different if there had been bad weather.
SYO has always offered economical entry fees. As recently as 1999 we were still charging 50p for juniors for a C-C event with a brand new map. Because Wharncliffe was the only Regional event in the UK on 17/10, it was obvious we would have a big turnout, so it was in everyone's interest to pre-enter at a nowadays reasonable £7 for seniors, and we had 550 pre-entries. We normally print 30% more maps for EOD but it's lucky we printed a few more this time as there were 229 EOD's (41%).
Having worked on registration for 2.5 hours, I did not hear one complaint from anybody about the queue or the £9 EOD senior fee which, apart from encouraging you to pre-enter, is also related to the fact that if you come to the SYO/SHUOC events at Treeton on 13/14th November (unfortunately still not on the BOF fixtures web-page), it will be the 10th successive SYO event with a brand new or updated map. On the day, I was aware of only a handful of people who could not enter their chosen course because the maps had run out and although the queues had gone by the 12:00 closing time, we did allow the latest EOD to register at 12:15. We also made arrangements to pick up an orienteering American visitor to the UK at Sheffield station early Sunday morning, who wanted a run at Wharncliffe, and who only made contact with us last Thursday by email.
Although I am regularly entertained and informed by Nopesport, I don't think SYO or any club should be obliged to 'appear' immediately before the Nopesport 'court' to face unsubstantiated 'charges', as was suggested in a post submitted on Monday. Why should we, we're all recovering from organising the event.
To clear up two other incorrect posts. Firstly, the results were on the SYO web-site on Sunday evening at around 21:30. Secondly, regarding the accusations of self-promotion on the SYO web-site, the comments were completely accurate and no different to the comments we have seen for many years at the top of all clubs' printed results.
After I had trudged round the whole southern end of Wharncliffe (including the steep slope) in the rain for 2.5 hours collecting controls, covering around 8km, and carrying bundles of SI units and stakes, I arrived back at assembly at 17:30 and said to the officials still there, 'Never again'. By Monday, I was looking forward to my next event. I hope Ian will feel the same way.
Just about the only person in the early posts of this thread who has talked any sense is Jene! She obviously had a bad run, but instead of whingeing about it, she admits it was her fault and yet still enjoyed the event. Even though she may not be eligible, she deserves to go to the Interland event for such positive o-thinking.
Ray Waight (SYO)
Returning to the original complaint about W45S on Course 7, consider the following. Excluding seconds, the average mins/km on W45L was 12.75 and on W45S was 15.06, or 18.1% slower. To compare with the men of the same age, the average on M45L was 10.80 and on M45S 12.79 which is 18.4% slower and almost identical to the women. What's wrong with this? We should be congratulating the planner and controller for achieving such consistency.
I did not see Course 7 but I do know that if you want to guarantee a course of the appropriate TD at a Regional event, you enter Long. How do I know? Because my normal Badge course is M45S and I have experienced various course lengths (3.7 to 6.3km) depending on the area, as well as varying course standards. Whether you like it or not, Wharncliffe is tough, and the moorland is obviously exposed, so for safety sake, course lengths must be kept on the low side. Things would have been very different if there had been bad weather.
SYO has always offered economical entry fees. As recently as 1999 we were still charging 50p for juniors for a C-C event with a brand new map. Because Wharncliffe was the only Regional event in the UK on 17/10, it was obvious we would have a big turnout, so it was in everyone's interest to pre-enter at a nowadays reasonable £7 for seniors, and we had 550 pre-entries. We normally print 30% more maps for EOD but it's lucky we printed a few more this time as there were 229 EOD's (41%).
Having worked on registration for 2.5 hours, I did not hear one complaint from anybody about the queue or the £9 EOD senior fee which, apart from encouraging you to pre-enter, is also related to the fact that if you come to the SYO/SHUOC events at Treeton on 13/14th November (unfortunately still not on the BOF fixtures web-page), it will be the 10th successive SYO event with a brand new or updated map. On the day, I was aware of only a handful of people who could not enter their chosen course because the maps had run out and although the queues had gone by the 12:00 closing time, we did allow the latest EOD to register at 12:15. We also made arrangements to pick up an orienteering American visitor to the UK at Sheffield station early Sunday morning, who wanted a run at Wharncliffe, and who only made contact with us last Thursday by email.
Although I am regularly entertained and informed by Nopesport, I don't think SYO or any club should be obliged to 'appear' immediately before the Nopesport 'court' to face unsubstantiated 'charges', as was suggested in a post submitted on Monday. Why should we, we're all recovering from organising the event.
To clear up two other incorrect posts. Firstly, the results were on the SYO web-site on Sunday evening at around 21:30. Secondly, regarding the accusations of self-promotion on the SYO web-site, the comments were completely accurate and no different to the comments we have seen for many years at the top of all clubs' printed results.
After I had trudged round the whole southern end of Wharncliffe (including the steep slope) in the rain for 2.5 hours collecting controls, covering around 8km, and carrying bundles of SI units and stakes, I arrived back at assembly at 17:30 and said to the officials still there, 'Never again'. By Monday, I was looking forward to my next event. I hope Ian will feel the same way.
Just about the only person in the early posts of this thread who has talked any sense is Jene! She obviously had a bad run, but instead of whingeing about it, she admits it was her fault and yet still enjoyed the event. Even though she may not be eligible, she deserves to go to the Interland event for such positive o-thinking.
Ray Waight (SYO)
- SYO Member
SYO Member wrote:I do know that if you want to guarantee a course of the appropriate TD at a Regional event, you enter Long. How do I know? Because my normal Badge course is M45S and I have experienced various course lengths (3.7 to 6.3km) depending on the area, as well as varying course standards. Whether you like it or not, Wharncliffe is tough, and the moorland is obviously exposed, so for safety sake, course lengths must be kept on the low side. Things would have been very different if there had been bad weather.
Ray Waight (SYO)
This comment confuses me because the M45S course is the same as the W45L - so what are the women guarenteed of? Also I understood the W45L course on this occasion was ratherlonger than usual meaning short course runners less inclines to run long - I wasn't there so cannot comment on the quality of the course.
-
Mrs H. - nope godmother
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Middle England
SYO Member wrote:Excluding seconds, the average mins/km on W45L was 12.75 and on W45S was 15.06, or 18.1% slower. To compare with the men of the same age, the average on M45L was 10.80 and on M45S 12.79 which is 18.4% slower and almost identical to the women. What's wrong with this? We should be congratulating the planner and controller for achieving such consistency.
Not having a go but doesn't the % speed differences just mean that the split of Long to Short runners are the same in Women as Men, and not alot to do with the courses?
I think the specific problem at Wharnecliffe is that many people turned out expecting it to be top class courses having been used for the British Champs 18 months ago, where it was in a good state of vegitation. I think also it wasn't the intention to single it out as a bad race, merely the straw that broke the camel's back for AWK?
I wasn't there myself but my brother was there and from what he's said by enlarge he thought it was good. Heavy undergrowth doesn't affect you too much at 6'4"!
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 201 guests