Control Description Reading Contests

[graeme]

At the JK sprint we had three controls placed on one side of an "impassible" feature. If you went to the wrong side, you had to run a LONG way round. It was impossible to determine which side to go using the map - you had to interpret the control descriptions.

In each case, the control could have been placed on an adjacent feature giving EXACTLY the same route choices in and out (i.e. slightly shorter dogleg), while making the control position unambiguous from the map. Thus the ONLY purpose in choosing the map-ambiguous feature was to test how well competitors can read their control descriptions.

Is there a guideline about this? And what do people think it should be?

As a planner and controller I have always avoided/vetoed such sites unless there was no alternative, obviously the JK planner and controller think it is important to test control-description reading.

In defence of my previous decisions...

1/ Orienteering has always had a problem with appearing geeky. Street races are (IMO) a great way to introduce new people to the sport, and I want to make it as accessible as possible to new people. Requiring advanced control-description interpretation is another barrier to participation.

2/ Had we been using "hands free" emit, one could have punched through the fences at two controls. Planning should not be dictated by the use of punching system.

3/ People arriving at the wrong side of "uncrossible" fence controls are inclined to cross them anyway, especially if they've navigated exactly as they intended to.

4/ Having to get the descriptions spot on is one more complication for the planner.
I wouldn't want people nitpicking at me about "Building inside" descriptions when the building is OOB.

Graeme

(co-compiler, Moray 2003 Pictorial control descriptions cryptic crossword)

[andy]

1/ Orienteering has always had a problem with appearing geeky. Street races are (IMO) a great way to introduce new people to the sport, and I want to make it as accessible as possible to new people. Requiring advanced control-description interpretation is another barrier to participation.

This point says a lot to me - in any 'less competitive' event I'd say you are 100% correct.

Where 'advanced control-description interpretation' is acceptable (in my view) is at the major champs: JK and British (Elite)

I thoroughly enjoyed the controls at the sprint where this mattered, if there was any doubt from looking at my map I double checked the description. I think I checked the description to the third last control on the MOpen 3 or 4 times on the long run round the buildings to that control just to make sure I was going to the correct side of the building!!

[Spookster]

I agree with you Graeme. To me it felt like those three controls were set as "traps" to catch people who hadn't correctly read the descriptions, rather than being placed to provide route choice challenges.

I managed to end up on the wrong side of the impassable feature at all three of those controls, because for some reason I chose to use only the map to locate the control, then the descriptions to check the codes. The circle positioning wasn't absolutely accurate, so my poor technique cost me dearly.

Anyway, I'll be reading the descriptions better in 2 weeks time, just in case the British Sprints planner has also set some "traps".

[Homer]

I tend to agree with Graeme. Do they have similar issues with Sprint races abroad?
On the other hand, I think we are all still learning that reading the descriptions is a very important part of sprint orienteering. It certainly gives you something else to do in case you're getting bored in the long spaces between controls!!

Interestingly we had a description at Leith Hill which I know caught one or two people out. It was a control on the junction of two merged thickets and was described using the inside corner symbol with which I was very familiar after running the sprint the day before. I suspect those caught out hadn't run the sprint race.

Of more concern to me is the issue of cheating. I suspect a lot of it is done unwittingly but it must happen quite a lot judging by those I know of from Guildford. Mostly it arrises from the crossing of features 'not to be crossed', eg walls, fences and impassable vegetation. What is the best way to deal with this? I suggest a few options:

1. Plan courses where there is no advantage to be gained in this way.
This would seriously compromise the planning and produce far less interesting courses.

2. Tape off all possible features where people might digress.
This didn't appear to work at Guildford. I know of a least one person who admitted to crossing the tapes put on an 'uncrossable' fence.

3. Place marshals (with cameras) at all or random places where cheating is likely.
All competitors would have to wear numbers, but after a period of intense policing, spot checks may prove sufficient.

4. Rely on personal honesty as at present.
Persistent cheaters will be found out eventually.

Any more?

[Mr Average]

Interesting comments made and something i have always wondered about.

When does impassable vegetation become impassable? .. what is impassable for one person may not be for another. The same could go for a wall - having been a high jumper in a past life, i might not have the same problems as a fellow competitor(still have some spring in my legs).

I would not cross an uncrossable fence if specifically not told to, or if there was a chance i would damage it, but i would have to serious consider it, if it was marked on the map as uncrossable but i found it to be not so - is that just the mappers opinion ?

As Graeme states if Emit had been used some may have been able to 'wave' their brick near the site - or even worse take advanage of having long arms !!!

[DJM]

Graeme,

You've delivered a lot of flack here! Let me try to deflect at least some of it ...

Advanced control description interpretation is another barrier to participation - where is the evidence for this? This is a sweeping generalisation with little or no foundation as far as I can see! In any case, I can't accept your implication that you should be able to find the control site without looking at the control description. After all, what are the CDs for in the first place - to tell you which feature in the circle is the one you want? So to expect to be able to find your feature without checking the CD, especially in a complex Sprint environment, is simply asking for trouble!

Planning should not be dictated by the use of punching system: agreed, but in no case was there a control site near enough to be punched by leaning through or over a fence/hedge. I deliberately sited the stakes so that this was not possible. In any case, it's illegal to do this so you risk disqualification by doing so.

Temptation to cross anyway: it's very very hard indeed to plan courses in a place like the University of Surrey so that competitors are never faced with the temptation to pass impassable barriers. In the ideal world, all would have been manned to stop this happening, but there were simply not the resources to do this so we had to rely on competitor honesty instead. And it was good to hear that one or two declared themselves disqualified after the race when they realised they'd gone OOB.

One more complication for the planner: yep - planning for Sprint is certainly complicated, especially when there are many courses in a small area, so we had to take great care to get the CDs right. Unfortunately we failed - but few seem to have spotted that a couple of feature symbols appeared in column E instead of column D. But luckily these errors didn't actually matter in the slightest ...

[awk]

When does impassable vegetation become impassable? ...I would not cross an uncrossable fence if specifically not told to, or if there was a chance i would damage it, but i would have to serious consider it, if it was marked on the map as uncrossable but i found it to be not so - is that just the mappers opinion ?

In sprint racing, using ISSOM mapping standards, an object is not "uncrossable" but "not to be crossed". Therefore, if marked as such, you must not cross it, even if you think you can. Not an opinion, but a statement.

[DJM]

Mr Average wrote:

When does impassable vegetation become impassable? .. what is impassable for one person may not be for another.

This is easy to answer as impassability is not a subjective aspect at all - it simply means "forbidden to cross", even if it's a barrier only two feet high. Passability is determined by the planner/organiser/mapper/landowner and not by the competitor.

[Neil M40]

Interestingly we had a description at Leith Hill which I know caught one or two people out. It was a control on the junction of two merged thickets and was described using the inside corner symbol with which I was very familiar after running the sprint the day before. I suspect those caught out hadn't run the sprint race.

Thanks Homer, that would be me. (Number 9 on course 7 on Leith Hill)

The description was "Thicket, North West Corner (Inside)" (taken from maprunners guide to pictorial descriptions). It wasn't inside the north west corner of the thicket at all, it was outside the thicket on the south east side. Bonkers.

I'm told this is quite a common style of description in sprint races, but I wouldn't know about that since I am not inclined to run them - partly, at least, because of the sorts of issues raised by this thread, but mostly because life is too short and I can't be arsed.

Oh well, I'll know next time. Then it really will be inside the thicket and i'll lose even more time.

[andy]

To me it felt like those three controls were set as "traps" to catch people who hadn't correctly read the descriptions

...

because for some reason I chose to use only the map to locate the control, then the descriptions to check the codes.

It looks like this is why a lot of people might complain about this, a simple case of not checking the description for anything other than the number.

If Graeme is suggesting removing the ambiguity from circle on the map what need is there for control descriptions at all, other than to check codes? I know I've taken an extreme point of view there but in my mind control descriptions are there for a reason, why not use them and make things tough?

[Patrick]

Interestingly we had a description at Leith Hill which I know caught one or two people out. It was a control on the junction of two merged thickets and was described using the inside corner symbol with which I was very familiar after running the sprint the day before. I suspect those caught out hadn't run the sprint race.

Thanks Homer, that would be me. (Number 9 on course 7 on Leith Hill)

Don't know which site Homer is referring to, but M21E had a similar example (control 2). Those interested can check out map with description (along with Daniel Hubmann's route) at this link.

http://www.danielhubmann.ch/dh/images/stories/maps1/2008/2008jkmiddle.jpg

I read this as "inside south edge of thicket". Given the vagaries of overprint registration (as covered in another thread), I feel that is the logical interpretation from the information given. I can certainly see no reason not to use the standard "thicket, north side" symbol. Even though there is a minor indent in the thicket, that information is already on the map. Perhaps this is an example of the precision afforded by computer-based mapping and planning getting ahead of that required by competitors.

Incidentally, I lost 20-30 seconds through this despite having run the Sprint the previous day. I expect to see non-standard symbols on an urban Sprint course - I didn't expect it in a forest.

I should also say that this was my one genuine complaint about the planning and organisation all weekend, which was otherwise superb.

Cheers,

Patrick

[epocian]

Can someone enlighten me on what the zigzag symbol means in column E on the CD for Control 10 on Course 7 (165)

[GML]

Can someone enlighten me on what the zigzag symbol means in column E on the CD for Control 10 on Course 7 (165)

I had to look that one up too - it means its a radio control.

So now my follow up question - why does the competitor have to know this?!?!

[graeme]

If Graeme is suggesting removing the ambiguity from circle on the map

He isn't.

There is often, and inevitably, ambiguity on the map: e.g. sides of point features.

Sometimes, a non-standard hanging (reentrant foot, crag top) can make the difference between a good leg and a bad leg, and no other nearby feature will do. As regular runners of my courses will know, I'm not averse to using unusual sites/descriptions in order to get the flag where I want it.

What I'm asking is, if the leg navigation is identical, given a choice between a map-ambiguous site, and a non-ambiguous site, which should we choose? Is it a mapreading sport or a map-and-control-descriptions-reading sport? As I tried to make clear in my postscript, I think its quite possible to have geeky fun with control descriptions. As I competitor, I have my own opinions, but as a planner/controller I'm trying to give the competitors what they want.

Graeme

PS Radio controls should be in column H. if it's manned it would be a good place for a competitor to report a missing control/injury. And in a major relay it tells you the control isn't gaffled (hmm, maybe you aren't meant to know that... )

[roadrunner]

I'm surprised that no-one's commented yet on the paragraph "Control Separations", which said that controls on similar features in the JK Sprint could be 30m apart (15m for dissimilar features) measured around impassable features. This means that it would have been allowable to have "uncrossable fence, inside NW corner" and "uncrossable fence, outside NW corner" (the same corner ), provided that the fence extended 15m each way from it! The two control circles would be impossible to distinguish. (Not that I'm suggesting that there were controls like this in the JK sprint.)

Does anyone know if the rule about measuring around impassable features applies to the normal rule about control separation?