New Event Structure

[distracted]

I'll think you'll find that there was a British group who went to the training camp out there, at least 4 girls and 3 guys. The British Orienteering website had this:

Pre-World Championships Training Camp-Hungary - 21st-26th October

Women: Rachael Elder, Helen Palmer, Sarah Rollins and Pippa Whitehouse

Men: Matt Crane, Graham Gristwood and Oli Johnson

although a different group of guys went out, given Craney was at the SHIs for one...

[awk]

Eddie, unfortunately your interpretation of the new system does not match that of the powers that be...we don't meet their stringent quality control guidelines (i.e. we don't have a G2 controller)

From what I've seen of the details, this is exactly the sort of event that we (ESRG) had intended to be included at Level 2, and is exactly why, to my mind, either the definition of a G2 controller or the requirement to have one has to be changed.

Sadly, I'm working that weekend, otherwise it looks like a must-do!

[EddieH]

Get your priorities right Andrew

[mappingmum]

Course 1 (M21E Classic) will be named Deep Black.

What about "The Black Hole"?

[Adrian]

[quote="distracted"]I'll think you'll find that there was a British group who went to the training camp out there, at least 4 girls and 3 guys. [quote]

I stand corrected. I should've inspected the results more carefully!
http://diosgyoritc.hu/versenyek/oneb2008/bukkfennsik_eredmeny.html

I'm delighted that the team went - it'll be interesting to hear what they made of it all.

[Clive Coles]

This whole matter has been dragging on for too long. ~ 5289 opinions since I last looked !

What we really need now is for the review groups and working parties make up their minds and publish their FINAL proposals. It's then time to draw a line and agree to move forward into the new world.

I don't agree with everything the draft guidelines are suggesting but I can live with the plans as drafted. If however we keep challenging proposals we will never clear the fog bank and reach clearer waters.

The sad thing I find about the on-going debate is that neither the draft proposals, nor this forum, have really addressed the quality issue. That if I remember was one of the issues that originally drove the move to review the structuring of events.

Moving to a 3 tier structure is cosmetic. It seems likely that C3 will move to level 2 and C4 & C5's become Local level 3 events. So what will change ?

We seem to assume that our small panel of Grade 2 controllers can deliver quality. Good luck guys ~ you will be busy.

Our regional events will now be colour coded with a age classes mapped to an increasing selection of colours and tints. Big deal.

But the delivery of quality is not just about the nuts and bolts of administration and the packaging of our sport.

We need good maps ~ the delivery of the up to date survey being in the hands of the planner and controller within a time scale agreed by the event planning team.

Draft courses should be made available to a controller sufficiently early so that comments can be taken on board before it is too late to make adjustments. Sensible planners listen to their controllers ~ a good way of learning the craft of course planning.

These two guidelines, if observed, help to minimise the risk of controls being misplaced or placed in areas where the cartography is slightly strange.

Quality is ensured by time spent out in the field ~ "just in time" event management is risky.

The good news ~ quality can be achieved al level 3 as well. You don't have to drive 100 miles to a regional event and pay £10+ for an entry fee to experience a well run competition.

I still have an unanswered question " What is the added value ( other than ranking points) that level 2 delivers over a large Level 3 event offering a full selection of colour coded courses ? "

If all that comes from this period of debate and review is a justification for clubs to increase their entry fees we will have all failed our membership. Perhaps the definition of quality should also include the phrase "value for money ".

I choose not to hide behind a silly name to protect my identity.

Clive ~ EAOA Fixtures Secretary

[NFKleanne]

I agree - being relatively new to the sport I don't care what the structure is as long as I can go out on a sunday, with a map and hope I don't get too lost - thats whats important really!

[Godders]

http://www.scottish-orienteering.org/in ... structure/

[graeme]

The sad thing I find about the on-going debate is that neither the draft proposals, nor this forum, have really addressed the quality issue.

The working group proposals were primarily about quality, it has now been stripped out.

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... GuideA.pdf

The other quality issues you mention are addressed variously in planning and controlling guides. True, they get ignored too often, but by and large they are there.

I still have an unanswered question " What is the added value ( other than ranking points) that level 2 delivers over a large Level 3 event offering a full selection of colour coded courses ? "

At level 2 you know what you're getting. At new level 3 it's a lottery. I controlled two "Level 3" type events in the last 10 days.

1/ Senior Home international relay (falls foul of L2 embargo and controller regulation)
2/ Interlopers spook-O (falls foul of L2 embargo regulation)

In the first, hours of forest time by planner and controllers delivered a top-quality relay for our top elites in an outstanding technical forest.

In the second, some small children found sweeties next to fluorescent skeletons on a course used a few months before, using a photocopied 8-year old map not to any proper mapping standard.

So, if you see I'm doing an L3 event under the current proposals, it tells you nothing useful whatsoever. I'm also presently controlling the Edinburgh Street Race and Day-1 at the 6-day (probably L2) - you can guarantee they'll be good.

I choose not to hide behind a silly name to protect my identity.

[Kitch]

Reading the last couple of pages I've come to the conclusion that colour coding in the way it has previous been applied may not be helpful.

- it throws back to the old (existing ) structure and so fails to communicate change.
- it obfuscates (1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand. 2. To render indistinct or dim). the actual nature of the course i.e. TD and distance.
TD and distance need to be explicit, not only for the competitor but also for the planner and controller. Otherwise you end up with Blue, Brown, Black courses that aren't, they are just the longest and hardest course on offer.

This thing about - "you can have any course you like but if you call it Blue then it must be so long and so hard" - is fine but you'll just end up with all sorts of random colours being made up, with no consistency from one event to the next.

If we must use colours could they just be limited to one factor ?
e.g. the Technical Difficulty
1 = Yellow, 2 = Green, 3 = Blue, 4 = Red, 5 = Black - as used for skiing, and mountain biking.
Then just add on the distance factor

so you have, for example, Black short/medium/long/extra long.
and state the actual distance !

Surely estimated winning times become a bit meaningless if anyone can compete on any course ? You have no idea who is going to run which course.

[NFKleanne]

I like the current colour coded system - white is easy, yellow a bit harder, lt green nearly impossible. The kids understand it too, which saves me having to explain it over and over.

Having a length after would help, but at events I have been to, the course distance is give on the instruction sheet -

[Kitch]

that seals it then

[SeanC]

Noooo.... not the "new event structure" thread

Latest FAQ's are on the BOF site. I found the following interesting:

"19. Do all Levels of Event need Controllers?
The welfare of event participants is very important, so we must take safety
and risk management seriously even at small or local events. Consequently
an experienced or trained person is required to review the arrangements for
the event and ensure that the standards required for the event are being met.
This person is currently referred to as a Controller. However the role and
responsibilities of the Controller will vary at the different Levels. Rules Group
are currently reviewing and defining the requirements for each Grade of
Controller. Controllers for Local Events (Level 3) will not be required to do all
the tasks that they have traditionally done."

[RanaldMacdonald]

[quote="Kitch"]"If we must use colours could they just be limited to one factor ?
e.g. the Technical Difficulty
1 = Yellow, 2 = Green, 3 = Blue, 4 = Red, 5 = Black - as used for skiing, and mountain biking.
Then just add on the distance factor

so you have, for example, Black short/medium/long/extra long.
and state the actual distance !"

Exactly what the group I chaired at the Conference/EGM last year concluded. It subsequently got lost but may well rear it's head again. Consideration perhaps also needs to be given to a combination of distance, height and physical difficulty as a Short Black might be a reflection of a lot of climb and extremely physical and not just that's it's short. However, we certainly don't want it to get more complicated just something which newcomers can get used to very quickly.

Ranald

[SJC]

If we must use colours could they just be limited to one factor ?
e.g. the Technical Difficulty
1 = Yellow, 2 = Green, 3 = Blue, 4 = Red, 5 = Black

Then why bother with colours at all.
If you want it to be obvious to newcomers then:
1 = Very Easy, 2 = Easy, 3 = Medium, 4 = Hard, 5 = Very Hard
plus the distance.

What could be simpler ?