Updated Event Structure article

[Paul Frost]

I thought I should start a new thread given the length of the previous one.

In case you hadn't noticed, the post on the British Orienteering website has been updated (10th Dec) to try and explain the mapping of courses better (example below).


On first look I think it could be a good way of presenting the information and make it easier for newcomers to choose which course to enter. I plan to create a slightly modified version for my club site and a poster to put up at events.

[graeme]

Following the whole system being wrecked by the controller nonsense nobody will own up to introducing, another example of tidy bureaucratic minds without understanding.

Real people, running or planning, increase (or decrease) distance as a percentage, not a number of kilometres.

So the scale is too broad at the short end, and too narrow at the long end.

I'm sure those M/W10s can't wait to get stuck into a 5km yellow course.

[Paul Frost]

That's why I thought I would modify it a bit to match our club events.

[frog]

I've orienteered for about 15 years and never seen a black course. When/where do they happen?

[mikey]

This Sunday at Wendover Woods.

[SeanC]

You'll see them at the new mixed mode regional events as (I think) M21A will be Black, at least that's how SAXONS are doing it at Eridge.

I'm still confused though. Are we having the new colours (short green, short blue etc). Have SAXONS got the descriptions right? They have Light Green and Short Green courses.

[Spookster]

You'll see them at the new mixed mode regional events as (I think) M21A will be Black, at least that's how SAXONS are doing it at Eridge.

I'm still confused though. Are we having the new colours (short green, short blue etc). Have SAXONS got the descriptions right? They have Light Green and Short Green courses.

Yes, those courses are all on the list of new colour coded courses in the January 2009 Draft of Event Guideline B.

[SeanC]

ok, thanks.

I'm going to put something in our club newsletter. Light Green and Short Green might confuse. Is the difference just the TD? What happens if the area is only a TD4 area?

[NeilC]

I'm still confused though. Are we having the new colours (short green, short blue etc). Have SAXONS got the descriptions right? They have Light Green and Short Green courses.

No! Current thinking is to stop naming courses by colours and restrict the use of colour names to those courses where colour standards can be gained. Although DRAFT guideline B has these colours it is likely that they will disappear in the final version.

Clubs are encouraged to put on whatever courses they feel suitable for their event. The descriptors in the table above seem to fit pretty well with how most competitors choose which course to run. However for a specific event clubs can redefine Short, Medium etc as they see fit (eg Long - estimated winning time 50 mins for an elite M21). Plus of course nothing to stop clubs putting on multiple courses within a given category (eg Short and easy).

I agree though that the short category is perhaps too wide

[graeme]

Light Green and Short Green might confuse. Is the difference just the TD? What happens if the area is only a TD4 area?

Traditionally, you just lie and pretend its TD5. Which is fine until people encounter real TD5 and are out of their depth.

I think the "light" designations have some merit for TD4 courses of whatever length. But Neil seems to have hit the same problem I did a year ago drafting Guideline B - there aren't enough colours to fill a 2D table, but there are enough to describe the courses at the majority of events.

Interesting to see TD replaced by "easy/hard". Is there any plan to update the definitions to be less forest specific (contour/attackpoint/catching feature)?

[NeilC]

The five difficulty descriptors are just TD1-5. One of the main reasons for lying about the TD of a course is that if the area was not TD5 then you couldn't offer a green/blue/brown/black course. If though you offer a course and describe it as Long and Hard then that would still sound pretty macho - plus you could still offer it as a qualifier for a brown colour award standard (assuming that this incentive scheme will continue). So perhaps clubs can now be a bit more trueful.

Non-forest descriptors are interesting since TD descriptions were not really formatted with non-forest events in mind. Most urban or campus based races are really only TD3 by traditional definitions but we all know that that doesn't tell the whole story. I think it was Roger who said that he lost more time at the JK2008 sprint than at the other three days combined. So for urban races easy / moderate / difficult can still be relative terms although much more difficult to define. Attempts are being made to do so though and feedback from those that have planned such courses on what makes one leg more difficult that another would be welcome - including the Barbican/Istanbul multi-level problem.

[Gnitworp]

The difference between urban and 'forest' (for want of a better term) technical difficulty, I think, is that a novice could efficiently execute a 'difficult' urban leg if taken slowly enough; a 'difficult' TD4/5 'forest' leg however requires the learning of additional skills such as contour interpretation, holding a compass bearing, distance judgement etc. The 'difficult' urban leg is difficult at speed because, with the larger scales to represent building and other object proximity, decision 'density' and frequency increases, and, significantly, visibility can be greatly reduced (you can't see round corners!)

[SeanC]

NeilC wrote

"No! Current thinking is to stop naming courses by colours and restrict the use of colour names to those courses where colour standards can be gained."

but DM wrote a while back that colour badges weren't being awarded in his area pending a review?

If these new colours are going to be a temporary thing, I think I'll write the article on the new event structure when things are a bit more settled.

[SeanC]

Thinking about this a bit more.

I quite liked the old colour system. So long as you remembered that the technically harder courses were really as hard as the area would allow then you knew what you were getting pretty much. The new colours seem ok too (apart from the short green / light green confusion).

The crux of the problem (if I understand you right Graeme and Neil) seems to be that newish orienteers used to say TD4 green courses are suddenly out of their depth when faced with a TD5 green course, but the course description (Green) doesn't give any warning.

Apologies if this has already been discussed and discounted, but why can't the technical description simply be in the event details in the "description of terrain" section? This would have the advantage of allowing a more detailed but more easily understood description than a label like TD5 and therefore giving the new orienteer a better chance of picking the right course.

The important thing is that controllers would need to put their red pen through the terrain description if not accurate. We could then keep the new colours as used by SAXONS which I think are reasonably straightforward to understand.

Is it that simple, or have I missed the problem?

[RichT]

NeilC wrote:
No! Current thinking is to stop naming courses by colours and restrict the use of colour names to those courses where colour standards can be gained. Although DRAFT guideline B has these colours it is likely that they will disappear in the final version.

I quite like the colour naming.

Given the group associated with the Event Structure Review has changed over time, who is now providing the "current thinking" for our sport ?

It would be good to know the composition of the current group so that they could be lobbied, and also what timescales they are working towards.