Hello,
There is another point which I'd like to make regarding the overall planning, for information rather than to provoke further debate!
I was mindful that we'd run BOC2003 at Wharncliffe just 17 months prior to the event, and I was very keen to avoid repetition of control locations and course structures. To this end I decided very early in the planning that I would run the courses in an anti-clockwise direction and would try to find alternative locations for the Start and Finish from last year.
I also obtained the 'all controls' map from BOC2003 and imposed a strict restriction on myself to avoid duplication of control sites. In the end I had to use a few sites again simply so we could channel competitors through runnable terrain, but in the main these were all fresh sites for this event.
One other restriction which might be worth mentioning is for anyone who has a map. Where the out-of-bounds is marked over the buildings on the west edge of the Chase next to the slope, we did not have permission to cross any part of this area, which prevented us from having more crossing points back onto the Chase. It also pretty much stopped us from having 2 Starts / Finishes as there was no practial route back to Assembly via the track.
Karl Marshall
Planning standards
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
But technical difficulty is different from physical difficulty.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.
The argument that long courses are "correct", and short one's easier is poor, to say the least. As someone who runs M35S, which is usually shared with W20L and W35L (and sometimes M55L) do I get a correct course because it's planned as a long women's course, or do the women get an easier course, becuase it's been planned as a short men's course?
-
PorkyFatBoy - diehard
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:13 am
- Location: A contour-free zone
I wasn't going to post again - I would be merely reiterating previous arguments to which Karl and Ian had responded, and the subject has had a full airing for the present. However, Ray's post seems to so miss the points that I was trying to make, that the record may need straightening.
BTW, I do accept that my post might have read as vitriolic, and I apologise for that. But the word I would have used was "exasperated". Time after time after time, straightforward planning standards are missed, nobody seems to be taking any notice in spite of all the 'private' feedback, and its going to blight the sport more and more with fees rising.
No - and there was none from my family either, who quite accepted that by entering on the day they were going to be charged a large fee. But at the time they expected to get appropriate courses. The complaint is that what they bought wasn't what they were told it was going to be.
Not once has this been a whinge about a bad run. One of the key things I tell anybody I coach/teach is that you take responsibility for your own actions, both mistakes and otherwise. Indeed, the comments about W45S were that it was too easy, not a complaint from someone trying to excuse a bad run!
BTW, I do accept that my post might have read as vitriolic, and I apologise for that. But the word I would have used was "exasperated". Time after time after time, straightforward planning standards are missed, nobody seems to be taking any notice in spite of all the 'private' feedback, and its going to blight the sport more and more with fees rising.
If the planner/controller had used that argument (which sensibly they didn't), all this would have demonstrated was a focus on completely the wrong sort of statistics, and is one of the reasons why planning at such events so often goes awry. Mins/km, relative or absolute, give no indication of the quality of a course.consider the following. Excluding seconds, the average mins/km on W45L was 12.75 and on W45S was 15.06, or 18.1% slower. T....We should be congratulating the planner and controller for achieving such consistency.
Aside from the fact that almost all Short classes are partnered with Long classes, which means that a poor Short indicates a poor Long for someone, this underlines my argument. Short classes are defined as the same standard - they should not be easier, and to make them easier is a planning/controlling error. Actually, Linda did consider doing W45L, but it was almost double the length rather than the 50% longer it should have been (one of my earlier points).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.
None of my comments were about the length of the course. In fact, Course 7 had a higher proportion on the moor than at least some of the other courses, part of my concern as that was a contributor to the course being so easy technically.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.
Having worked on registration for 2.5 hours, I did not hear one complaint from anybody about the queue or the £9 EOD senior
No - and there was none from my family either, who quite accepted that by entering on the day they were going to be charged a large fee. But at the time they expected to get appropriate courses. The complaint is that what they bought wasn't what they were told it was going to be.
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 ..
Not once has this been a whinge about a bad run. One of the key things I tell anybody I coach/teach is that you take responsibility for your own actions, both mistakes and otherwise. Indeed, the comments about W45S were that it was too easy, not a complaint from someone trying to excuse a bad run!
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Spookster wrote:EODs: We got far more EODs than we were expecting (over 200, on top of the 550 pre-entries). ... 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.
Just a quick comment here:
The very obvious answer here is to use a method of registration that forces all competitors to be entered into the system before they start their run.
-
Simon - brown
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 7:40 pm
- Location: here or there
Again, just a note of information on registration.
In Cumbria we use pink cards for registration, which are filled in before any money is taken. At the computer they are briefly sorted so that juniors and likely early finishers are entered soonest. Our EOD colour coded events regularly attract 250+. Just several years of experience has taught us that.
In Cumbria we use pink cards for registration, which are filled in before any money is taken. At the computer they are briefly sorted so that juniors and likely early finishers are entered soonest. Our EOD colour coded events regularly attract 250+. Just several years of experience has taught us that.
- RJ
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.
This is quite often the opposite of the case actually, from an M21 perspective. To get the distance in to many smaller areas you often end up visiting all the non-interesting parts of the area you wouldn't send any other course to. Perhaps all the more reason that W45S should be TD5?
some people got to download before their entry had been put into the computer.
This is a major grumble of mine for the "standard" SI software. Seeing as most people's details are in the BOF database and most people complete their course, then why is it we need to enter people on to the system at all? i.e. Get name, age class and club from the SI number, and work out the course from the pattern of controls visited. Match age class to those possible for that course to insert result (skip step for colour coded). This would cut down the amount of work required massively for the "download" team to those who've retired/mispunched/run an innapropriate course and to hire cards and newly purchased cards.
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
FatBoy wrote:
No, sorry this would be horrendous. The last thing you want at download is a non smooth system. You do not want to be asking people for their details at this stage.
When entering data you use the SI database and Direct Entries. Very quick. 150+ entries an hour, no problem. Hire ecards require all details to be added.
This would cut down the amount of work required massively for the "download" team to those who've retired/mispunched/run an innapropriate course and to hire cards and newly purchased cards.
No, sorry this would be horrendous. The last thing you want at download is a non smooth system. You do not want to be asking people for their details at this stage.
When entering data you use the SI database and Direct Entries. Very quick. 150+ entries an hour, no problem. Hire ecards require all details to be added.
- RJ
RJ wrote:When entering data you use the SI database and Direct Entries. Very quick.
How come on Sunday some people managed to run their whole course before their entries were on then? Put hire cards on before no problem, then have a problems download queue (which you need anyway for a big event) - refer any mispunches to here regardless.
I will concede your system is better than some clubs who inisit on making competitors "download" before running which always strikes me as pointless.
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
FatBoy wrote:work out the course from the pattern of controls visited.
Wouldn't work because
FatBoy wrote: those who've retired/mispunched/run an innapropriate course and to hire cards and newly purchased cards.
How would you know if they have run an inappropraite course?
Ok it could be done but what complicate things rather than make them easier.
Fish are friends not food!
-
Rich - orange
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:50 pm
- Location: At work in Edwinstowe - Home of Robin Hood
FatBoy wrote:RJ wrote:When entering data you use the SI database and Direct Entries. Very quick.
How come on Sunday some people managed to run their whole course before their entries were on then? Put hire cards on before no problem, then have a problems download queue (which you need anyway for a big event) - refer any mispunches to here regardless.
I will concede your system is better than some clubs who inisit on making competitors "download" before running which always strikes me as pointless.
While 'pointless' to some it does guarantee that the competitor is entered into the system and that they have made no mistakes in filling out the form.If the system is set up correctly then when the person 'downloads' all the data will automatically be picked from the BOF database and you just need to enter course (and we have shown it is possible to easily enter more than a person a minute per operator using such a system). Also if you have any queries about what the competitor has put on the form then the person is right there for you to ask. Part of this does reflect on the software though, and better software, on the line you suggest, would probably allow for a much better system.
I agree with the idea of having one place for download and another for referring mispunches too (and it helps if this later person has access to an all controls map). It is very good for keeping the download queue moving, which is especially good in bad weather.
- Bored at work
Rich wrote:How would you know if they have run an inappropraite course?
It's not exactly complicated. Let's say I run Course X which is M21S, W21L, M45L, M18A. I am male and born in 1974 therefore I must be M21S. You could easily allow for running up too. You may get situations where two courses are appropriate - e.g. a W45 running that course could be running W21L or M45L or even M21S. You could list the options easily and even show them in the most likely order. People running up where there are more than one option are few enough that won't be a problem.
I apologise I should've qualified my use of "pointless". I was referring to the competitors perspective - i.e. there is no apparent point to sticking a card in a hole when you've already written down your SI number and it's on the BOF database. I understand why it's done from a software perspective as people will break the system (refer to problem download!)
-
FatBoy - addict
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46 pm
Sorry to dredge the topic up again - just back off holiday and found the thread with Fatboys contribution to SI software.
He says it works because it does. He has written the software he describes already and we have been using it at all our colour coded events (competitor numbers >300 every time) for the last 2 years or so (he's just too modest to say so himself). It's fab!
If someone is on the BOF database and runs the correct course, there is no data input to do.
If they are on the BOF database and run the incorrect course, the only data input is which course they ran on a drop down menu to be DQ'd from.
If they use hire cards, it is generally only a small proportion of competitors, and takes very little time to input them.
On the events where his software has been used, we have had no problems with queues. There is no pressure on the results team to get entry details in the computer before people finish.
Thanks Fatboy! Whens the update finished?
He says it works because it does. He has written the software he describes already and we have been using it at all our colour coded events (competitor numbers >300 every time) for the last 2 years or so (he's just too modest to say so himself). It's fab!
If someone is on the BOF database and runs the correct course, there is no data input to do.
If they are on the BOF database and run the incorrect course, the only data input is which course they ran on a drop down menu to be DQ'd from.
If they use hire cards, it is generally only a small proportion of competitors, and takes very little time to input them.
On the events where his software has been used, we have had no problems with queues. There is no pressure on the results team to get entry details in the computer before people finish.
Thanks Fatboy! Whens the update finished?
Make the most of life - you're a long time dead.
-
Stodgetta - brown
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:55 pm
- Location: north of brum, south of manchester
Stodgetta wrote:He says it works because it does. He has written the software he describes already and we have been using it at all our colour coded events (competitor numbers >300 every time) for the last 2 years or so (he's just too modest to say so himself). It's fab!
I had wondered if the comments from Fatboy were about an implemented system.
Is this software available to others to use and are there more details available on how it works (i.e. does it do all the event processing - results, etc for all types of events).
-
Simon - brown
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 7:40 pm
- Location: here or there
Anonymous wrote:Perhaps I'm missing something - but when an event is run using the "Fatboy System", how do you know whether someone is left out in the forest at the end of the event?
A guess would be that you use the check box system to generate a record of all the people who start. This is then matched to the list of people who have downloaded, leaving you with a record of who is left out in the forest.
- Bored at work
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 193 guests