Emit and SI confidence

[Paul Frost]

Given the Emit problems/comments/reactions at the JK and the increasing planned use of it at major UK events, it would help if there was an official explanation of the problems and solutions. If we are to have confidence in a timing system we need to know what went wrong and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

None of the systems seem to be perfect, but having people that know how to fix it when it goes wrong is the key factor. SI probably has a much larger number of experienced operators and so problems often get fixed before competitors are aware.

I wonder if the numerous combinations of e-timing, event management software etc. is part of the problem. It dilutes the number of "experts" available when a large event comes along.

I don't know if every club in Norway or Finland uses the same event software but we don't hear of big problems there with Emit.

I have become aware of the multiple event software options due to RouteGadget becoming more used. Some software doesn't produce a compatible file and so RouteGadget can't be used.

There is a growing demand to use event data in multiple applications and so compatibility is essential. Think about a typical event held today:

Courses planned in:
Condes, Ocad, Picover, ?
Online entries in:
nTrees, Fabian, Oentries, MDOC, ?
Event management by:
OE2003, Aut-O-Download, Mercs, eTiming, ?
Results in:
RouteGadget, Winsplits, Splitsbrowser, paper, web, live, ?

We need to make the data easily transferable between applications and develop standards (both in data and practice) to reduce the chance of problems.
I know that there is an IOF XML interface project, but not sure how universal it is.

[Domhnull Mor]

Don't know about Norway or Finland but here in Sweden pretty much every club uses the same event operating software (OLA) which was specially developed for the Swedish federation. This, coupled with the online entry system which is also pretty much universally used amongst clubs, means that assistance can quite easily be obtained from other clubs. From my own experience, the assistance from the system developers has been pretty good as well.

Admittedly, it is a relatively complex system but it is suitable for use with SI, EMIT and even old fashioned punch cards and does make the production of start lists, results etc very simple.

[EddieH]

Regretably I bought a displayless version of EMIT as I never looked at the display anyway. At the JK sprint I had to and realised how easy it is to see the scrolling bars.

I thus decided not to bother to insert the units the next day, but 4 times I thought I was close enough but there were no scrolling bars as I left, so I had to go back.

I then had it explained to me that the electronics are at the end of the hand unit, and at e bulge in the forest unit, just get those bits close - the opposite end of the forest unit from the bulge is NOT close enough.

I then had no problems on day 3 or the relay. All in all easier then SI.

[seabird]

Like EddieH, I found the emit use much easier this time, but felt the Emit base unit design could be a little more user-friendly. If the "active" area of the plate was a different colour it would be that more easily spotted. I still found I was giving the plate too careful a viewing as I approached to make sure I was attacking the correct end with the brick.

If all version 2 bricks were replaced with version 3 would there any longer by any need for the plate to accept the back-up card? The awkwardness of using that slows some competitors at the control (probably not the elite - but plenty of the lesser mortals). I haven't used it once and all "punches" have registered first time.

A number of people from my Emit-free area - some of them very experienced orienteers - have muttered darkly post JK that they "hope that will see the end of Emit". I have assured them that is unlikely to be the case. They have talked about some people never intending to attend an Emit event again.

I can already imagine the disdain that this observation will generate here. Nevertheless it demonstrates there is still a considerable task ahead in "selling" Emit in some parts of the country. Until it is successfully "sold" I would consider it questionable whether it should be used for the JK and BOC, as the two pinnacle events of the year.

I am now in the camp that hopes Emit is effectively sold.

[Adventure Racer]

It probably comes down to effective training. Practice controls are really useful for working out how to use the thing properly, but whilst I wasn't actively looking for them, I spotted no sign near my starts (blue) or around assembly on day 2, 3 or 4 (there was a contact free in the hall on day 1). OK, so blue start was only generally used by the more experienced, but it's also quite clear that plenty of experienced orienteers have never used Emit, and need the practice as much as anybody.

[johnloguk]

A number of people from my Emit-free area - some of them very experienced orienteers - have muttered darkly post JK that they "hope that will see the end of Emit". I have assured them that is unlikely to be the case. They have talked about some people never intending to attend an Emit event again.

There was a large groundswell of opinion against Emit before the JK, and that was when there were few if any incidents of it's "failure", compared to numerous involving SI. All the JK has done has hardened these people against it. Personally I've had 1 DQ with SI and none with Emit. Before someone checks the records and says "eh, you were DQd at Oxford" I will add that that was down to me and a friend using each other's bricks by mistake so I won't claim that as a failure of Emit, just a failure of our brains. Which actually is probably the reason for most failures of either system, either competitor or operator.

Both systems are here for the forseeable future, and both work pretty well given the right input and usage. Somewhere there does need to be in-depth analysis of the "failings" to reduce/remove the risk of problems occuring, but sniping on here and deeply held prejudices don't help.

Instead of people refusing to attend certain events in the future organisers need to make sure that the systems are programmed and operated correctly, and that as competitors we learn how to use them properly.

[awk]

Until it is successfully "sold" I would consider it questionable whether it should be used for the JK and BOC, as the two pinnacle events of the year.

I am now in the camp that hopes Emit is effectively sold.

Coming from the same club, I agree with you - indeed in some respects I much prefer Emit. I'd only disagree with you on the point about it being questionable whether it should be used for JK and BOC until successfully sold. Regular appearance at those events are just the sorts of races where it needs to be used to sell it: only the narrowest of minds will boycott them solely on the e-punching system being used.

[bedders]

Despite my vehement comments against Emit, I actually don't mind it. Mostly my comments (and even my signature) are in jest. Emit has its advantages but then SI has the massive advantage of being used more than Emit and therefore people are more used to it. Most problems with Emit must be caused by people not being used to it. I am equally comfortable with both systems but I would like to see either one or the other used, but sadly that is a dream that will never come true.

[JimB]

If I owned an Emit v3 card with a display, I'd probably prefer Emit too. Partly as a competitor, but also as an organizer. (As it is, I have a v2 card, and have to wrench a wrist to be sure (having been MPed when I tried running without doing the paper backup twist).)

The manual backup thing would probably be more feasible if the unit were mounted vertically, open end up, making the punching motion a squeeze. You'd still need to twist your wrist, but on an axis that it twists well on (like turning a door handle).

Or, just eliminate the manual punching thing, and create an Emit unit that can be punched equally in any direction, like SI. (Touch-free allows this, but having to wakethe units and set them out just before the event are hassles. I'm for minimum hassle.)[/img]

[Paul Frost]

I seem to remember that one of the main arguments against SI and in Emits favour was that you didn't need to wake controls up and there were no time limits.
This seems to be reversed now from what I read about the latest Emit, and at the same time SI boxes now don't need to we woken up and the battery life is longer with automatic shut-down.

I agree with JimB, I always seem to have to twist my wrist at funny angles to place the card fully.

My other problem with Emit is that the battery in it affects the compass. I would prefer to hold it in my right hand (same as my compass) and hold my map in the left. But To keep it away from the compass I hold it under my map, then I have to transfer my map to the other hand to punch and then I loose my place on the map.

[FatBoy]

While increased familarity with Emit both for competitors and organisers will no doubt reduce the issues Paul highlights, shall we get back to the topic, rather than having yet another Emit/SI debate?

I'm not going to talk about JK because there shouldn't have been any problems seeing as the results service was being done professionally, but Paul's question is a good one for those who do results as an amateur. How do we develop a network of knowledge about these things? I think anybody who runs a download team regularly already has the skill to fix any problem, as long as they can short-cut the knowledge to do so - after all it's only a job for n days a year, not a full time one. Maybe a good start would be to have an email group or forum (on here?) for e-punching questions/anecdotes. Anybody who learns something new could post on and everybody could learn from it. Questions can be asked etc.

I think the time for a single IT solution for the UK, event management and/or online entries has passed us by. To try and introduce something like that now would almost certainly end up with a legal challenge for imposing a monopoly situation. If it had been done many years ago before companies sprang up doing such systems nobody would have been put out. We can't even agree like most countries do on what hardware to use! So given this situation - how do we ensure that disparate systems can talk to each other? e.g. take entries online and ensure that no matter what system you use for results you can import them in. The answer has to be for IOF to define such standards, which they have in XML (the correct tool), but it hasn't gone far enough. They are caught between a rock and a hard place - they need to improve the standard to include things like score events, but a standard which keeps changing is no good to anybody. I do think it needs improving though.

[Paul Frost]

FatBoy is right, I drifted a bit off-topic and apologize.

I question the statement

I think anybody who runs a download team regularly already has the skill to fix any problem

Is a bit optimistic. I know EckO is a small club, but last year we held 2 large events for which I was the download team. I was lucky to have help on the day from SIman and a couple of others put their head in now and again. Many clubs only have 1 or 2 big events a year and so don't get the experience. By the time the next one comes along you have forgotten what you did last time.

For all our normal club events I am alone and nobody else wants the responsibility that goes with the job. I have started using Aut-O-Download for the reason that it is so simple to use compared to OE2003 that I might be able to get other people to run an event.

[JimB]

Grooming enough knowledgable crew for e-punch is a problem. (When I suggested that this was an issue after one troubled event, I was told that no, the problem wasn't that there aren't enough qualified people around, it was just that the one person who knew SI was run ragged when everything went wrong...)

[distracted]

Perhaps

I think anybody who runs a download team regularly already has the skill to fix any problem

should read

I think anybody who runs a download team should have the skill to fix any problem??

Maybe too stringent a requirement, but could/should it be a necessary one? I think we are too reliant on too few individuals who have the requisite knowledge of the relevant softwares. And I agree that having too many results programs isn't helping the matter, in fact it is spreading the expertise even more thinly, so it is always the same people who end up running things. Should regions/clubs put on training courses on how to use their download software so more people have knowledge of the system? Something TVOC have done recently with both OCAD and an overview of the Emit E-timing software, so at least introducing people to the standard aspects.

Back onto topic - Getting people to have confidence in a system is always going to be related to how much they have used it. You have to remove the user-error before you can start blaming the hardware. Being in the south central region I've almost equal experience of both over the past couple of years, and have come to accept that neither is going to be absolutely perfect. I am currently happy to accept that if I punch correctly at a control and receive the appropriate feedback (if any) it should have worked. If it then hasn't then I feel that is a serious problem with the relevant system which needs rectifying promptly before the system can be totally relied upon.

[FromTheGrassyKnoll]

I think the time for a single IT solution for the UK, event management and/or online entries has passed us by.

I hope so.

The presence of a number of competing software solutions can only be a good thing. Indeed the competition between eMit and SI must be a good thing in itself as otherwise a monopoly on the timing hardware would arise and then we would suffer at the hands of one manufacturer. It doesn't really matter which is best as long as we have two companies ensuring that the solution(s) is/are a good one.

As far as software is concerned... there is a large market share taken by OE2003 etc. This is for good reason... it is reasonably robust and in its various variants it supports most event formats.

However the reason new bits of software keep springing up is because the O community are an inventive lot and there are always improvements to be made... e.g. AutoODownload does simple events well, Peter Drake's software does Competitor self entry well and the ABM software does realtime results using Radio controls well. These variants exist because they add value to events and provide novelty/motivation for their developers.. that's a good thing.

As events use more diverse solutions the adoption of XML standards is more likely... the first generation existed solely on OE2003 standards.

Personally I would be sad to see a single solution emerge. The idea that all events are done by a travelling circus of timing hire and associated results officials isn't attractive to me. I like the DIY amateurism that we have today; out of this DIY attitude comes new inovations.