Consecutive codes and DSQ

[eagh]

Browsing through the CC results I was struck by the number of DSQs where the codes were consecutive - 6 different sets in fact (138 for 139; 139 for 138; 164 for 163; 149 for 150; 159 for 160; 135 for 136 and even 142 for 143 on the Orange).

I don't want to jump to conclusions - except for the obvious that some people did not check the codes but were these controls adjacent/on similar features...

??

[tim sleepless]

Well, any mispunch is most likely to be in the general area, which often tend to have similar codes, whether they are on similar features or not.

[distracted]

The control descriptions are still on the TVOC website if you want to look - I'm aware that 138 and 139 were both distinctive trees on the same broad spur but about 100m apart and 25m climb between them. Moral of this story, as always, is to check your codes...

[MikeWinter]

OK, just wondered what happens if you had mispunched the wrong tree control here and then realised. Can you just go on to the correct control and punch and will the system ignore the wrong punch, or do you get dsq'd anyway?

[Harley]

You most certainly can.

As long as the control numbers on your course all appear in the right order then you can have what you like in between - including other 'out of order' controls on your couse.

Believe me I'm an expert on this, and regularly have stray controls appearing in my splits - I'm sometimes just a tad too optimistic. Fortunately , I do occasionally check my control codes so I rarely get dsq.

[MikeWinter]

Thanks Harley, I thought that was the case, but have not had to worry about the problem yet, although I had wondered what one should do if the error occurred.

I 'm sure I remember being dsq'd as a kid with pin punches having put the 'wrong' pins into a particular square on the control card and then putting the right one in the next box down and so on.... Looks like the electronic systems make a way of overcoming this.

[Harley]

However, checking control codes can go against you, as my mess today shows.
I picked up my short course map instead of my long course (adjacent map boxes) . I was finding the controls ok (the first few were in common) but then the numbers stopped matching. Very confusing. Eventually I packed thinking I must have made some massive parallel error that I was failing to recover from.
Had I not checked my control codes then I would have been blissfully ignorant until I downloaded, at which point I may have been able to twist the organisers arm to swap me retrospectively to the short course (providing I could demonstrate no advantage being gained).

[ian]

OK, just wondered what happens if you had mispunched the wrong tree control here and then realised. Can you just go on to the correct control and punch and will the system ignore the wrong punch, or do you get dsq'd anyway?

It's also worth noteing that if by accident you punch a control out of sequence it will also be ignored, so you can correct your error and go back to the missed controls as long as you repunch the control to maintain the order. (really badly explained sorry)

eg.

if you puched

1,2,3,4,7, then you would have to go 5 then 6 and then 7 again.

[FatBoy]

Of course it's the software which decides whether you are disq or not, rather than the hardware. That said I've not come across software that doesn't allow you to have extra punches between the correct sequence of punches.

[MikeWinter]

Thanks for all this info everyone, very helpful to know should I ever need to use it!

[SJC]

There has been a lot of useful discussion about what to do if mis-punching, but going back to the original theme of this posting, and the comment:

Well, any mispunch is most likely to be in the general area, which often tend to have similar codes, whether they are on similar features or not.

Placing controls with similar codes close to each other, even if on different features, is one of the most common causes of disqualification. Souldn't we be asking planners and controllers not to do this? They should make sure that controls that are near to each other have very different codes. Not only does this make it less likely that a competitor will mis-punch, it also reduces the chance of the planner / controller placing the controls out the wrong way round.

[NeilC]

Remember though that the most commonly used SI cards in the UK only hold 36 punches. Thus if your course has say 28 controls you can only punch 8 extra controls before your card fills up (and won't cause the SI unit to beep).

Unlikely to be a problem for most courses, but I have seen some planned close to this limit of 36 controls.

[Steve]

Placing controls with similar codes close to each other, even if on different features, is one of the most common causes of disqualification. Souldn't we be asking planners and controllers not to do this? They should make sure that controls that are near to each other have very different codes. Not only does this make it less likely that a competitor will mis-punch, it also reduces the chance of the planner / controller placing the controls out the wrong way round.

It can also assist the competitor to have controls with similar codes near each other: at some events you can use similarly coded controls as an indication of proximity to your target control. Sloppy I know, and only if you're lost, but you can get the feel of the planning after a while. So this is another reason to scatter codes randomly.

... apart from white and maybe yellow courses where you can have codes running sequentially as an assistance to the competitor. E.g. white codes rising in intervals of 5 (to allow some flexibility), and yellow with various intervals but always increasing.

[EddieH]

To me there is no reason tmisread a code which is one number away from yours as surely yo look at the end of a 3 digit code carefully - what I think should be avoided is things like 845 and 9 close to each other. I agree with randomising, but don't see consequtive controls as a reason for mispunching. Personally I rarely check control codes so I get dqd occasionally.

[FatBoy]

Unlikely to be a problem for most courses, but I have seen some planned close to this limit of 36 controls.

One of the reasons I've splashed out for a Card 6 - takes a weight of my mind knowing I don't have to worry about the card filling up.

I always try to scatter control codes a bit when I plan and try and avoid similar looking numbers close to each other - e.g. 115 and 116 look too similar, but 114 looks different.