Malvern Hills - Eastnor

[OCM45]

I enjoyed the HOC event on a Sunny Saturday despite, not for the first time, running (well) off the map. You think I'd know better after 30 years orienteering!

However, checking the results it looks like a number of people had trouble on the same leg (Blue 2-3) including 3 of the impressive number of "Independent" runners, who gave up at that point. Others like me struggled valliantly onwards and upwards!

It would be nice to have Routegadget to download my GPS and see where I went .....

[distracted]

For GPS with or without routegadget, take a look at Quickroute - you'll need a copy of the map (scan/photo etc) but otherwise works almost identically, and you'll get a bit more info out of it too...

[DJM]

On a different thread, Mrs H said

I thought the MADO green on Saturday had a very middle distance feel about it - it was certainly the course I have most enjoyed so far this year.

I too enjoyed the Green course but, as one who has had a bit to do with Middle courses since their inception, I must disagree with Mrs H to a certain extent.

The middle part of the course ("3" to "8") had a Middle "feel" to it, but the longer legs and TD3-ness of the rest, whilst enjoyable, were a long way from giving the consistent technical difficulty which Middle planning demands.

Proper Middle races need proper Middle terrain - you can't stage a Middle race on any old land, however good the planning - and this means technically complex terrain. The Clydach Terrace Middle event on 20th June ("prologue" for The Harvester) could be the next event where this happens ... (unashamed plug)

[graeme]

Proper Middle races need proper Middle terrain - and this means technically complex terrain....
The Clydach Terrace Middle event on 20th June ... could be the next event where this happens

Not the British Middle Distance Champs then? But open land is OK?

Do the areas used previously for the British Middle Distance meet this criterion? Certainly they aren't areas which meet the old TD5* criteria, but maybe that's not what "technically complex" means for middle?

I don't have strong views either way, but like MrsH, I'm still struggling to understand what middle is, and my understanding isn't helped by all this. Which wouldn't matter except that people keep asking me to control the things!

[DJM]

A generic Middle race Guideline is in production at the moment and, when published, should settle many arguments about what is and what is not Middle-style planning/terrain.

You can get a sneak preview of what it will say by looking at Appendix 6 of the IOF Competition Rules http://www.orienteering.org/i3/index.php?/iof2006/content/download/2045/9416/file/IOF%20Foot-O%20Competition%20Rules%202007%20-%20amended%20August%2008.pdf as the Guideline will be based on what's there.

Can't comment on the British Middle Champs - apologies for overlooking it ...

Open areas: why not? I accept that the IOF requires a "non-urban (mostly forested) environment" but then it says the same for Long races too, and most countries have enough forest not to need to consider open areas. We Brits have long been happy to use technical open terrain for our top events however (but not IOF ones I think?).

[Mrs H]

Well it was certainly the "middle" part of the course I was refering to - I didn't see the need to be quite as pedantic as you and I only said it had a Middle distance feel about it - I never said it was a middle distance race
Graeme - who says I'm struggling? the Middle Distance Race that was held in conjunction with the Scarborough Sprint Race a couple of years back was magnificent and easily ranks as ne of the best events I've ever been to - and I also enjoyed the age class race held in conjunction with the BEMOC in the West midlands a while back.

[graeme]

Graeme - who says I'm struggling?

Er, David did.

Anyway, I'd agree that (Mulgrave) is about the only so-called middle race I've been to which did have a different feel to it (i.e. control picking in the woods, no major route choice, testing good compass work). Good that you enjoyed it - I did quite well, but can't say I cared for it much. Is this the canonical example of a middle race?

[King Penguin]

I enjoyed the HOC event on a Sunny Saturday despite, not for the first time, running (well) off the map.

I will confess to also running off the map between 2 and 3 on the Blue - and I know the area quite well.
Like me, I expect you were west / north-west of the mapped area north of the western house, where there are several tracks in the unmapped area including at least one running parallel with the one you wanted on the ridge crest which is on the edge of the mapped area. I realised this quite quickly - but then I knew the track I should be on is on the ridge crest.
Coming through the gate by the house, we should have initially gone SE down a short path to join the main track and then turn NE. I went directly NE from the gate on another track which immediately disappears into the unmapped area. Without that maybe I'd even have beaten DN....

[Adventure Racer]

That gives me a fairly good idea, but any more details on where the controls were, KP (maybe in relation to the WNL controls), as knowing the area very well, and having controlled on part of it, I'm itching to know?

The Clydach Terrace Middle event on 20th June ("prologue" for The Harvester) could be the next event where this happens ... (unashamed plug)

Successfully plugged - was a possible before, now determined to try and fit it in. What will the start times be (ie will it be possible to get there from MADO in the morning?)

[King Penguin]

That gives me a fairly good idea, but any more details on where the controls were, KP (maybe in relation to the WNL controls), as knowing the area very well, and having controlled on part of it, I'm itching to know?

Blue 2 was on the stream in the main south to north reentrant in the white woods north of the 2 ponds in the open north of the monument. The pond control was also in the WNL but the white wood stream was not.
Blue 3 was the platform which was in the WNL north of the main track / stream going down The Gullett. I think it was possibly 18 in the WNL; can't be certain without the map.

[ribbo]

Two points

I enjoyed Eastnor on Saturday - I also ran the Blue. From 2 I dropped down to the main East/West path and carried on to the South of the two buildings. As I had an early start the path to the South of the fenced area was not blocked (it was by the time I returned from 7 to 8 ). I carried on too far crossing the fence and 2nd path entering the green to the South of the stream, but I realised my mistake at this point so probably didn't lose that much time. The fact that the path was blocked by workmen could have confused some people.

On the subject of the Clydach Terrace middle race (which I am planning) I was thinking of start times between 12.30-14.30 or 13.00-15.00 but am open to suggestion (within reason).

[Gnitworp]

I've looked at the Guideline on DJM's link.

I struggle with the concept of a technically easy or difficult 'control' as distinct from a 'leg'. At what point does the 'leg' element in a leg cease, to become the 'control' element? Sprint courses I've run e.g. WMOC 2008 Final, have certainly involved complex navigation close to controls (helped by a large scale), yet the table in the Guideline suggests that (all?) Sprint course controls should be 'easy'. (I sincerely hope a 'difficult' control isn't a euphemism for an unfair one!).

I think there's a danger that these assiduous, overarching attempts to absolutely define contrasting technical difficulties across the disciplines may compromise planners' freedom to plan imaginative, challenging courses that get the best out of the areas used; and this, I think, is the key; differences in techniques needed are more relatable to the nature and size of the areas used than to differences in course planning principle (good planning is good planning). Contrast for instance a university campus with detailed forested sand dunes or a complex area of abandoned mining debris. The types of terrain determine the differences in skills needed more than anything else.

[Big Jon]

I completely agree with Gnitworp - we must stop trying to compartmentalise all orienteering into little boxes - it is a sport based on the real world with all its myriad of differences. For different races give different length winning times, suggest styles of planning eg control pick/route choice and leave it at that. Let the planners/controllers/mappers do their best with the areas chosen. Aim for inspirational events rather than formulaic races.

[Gnitworp]

Aim for inspirational events rather than formulaic races.

An inspirational statement

[DJM]

gnitworp wrote

Sprint courses I've run e.g. WMOC 2008 Final, have certainly involved complex navigation close to controls (helped by a large scale), yet the table in the Guideline suggests that (all?) Sprint course controls should be 'easy'.

I've never been happy with the IOF table which compares "Controls" for Sprint, Middle, Long and Relay as it seems to me that it should refer to "Legs" instead. It's also difficult to understand what's meant by "technically easy" with respect to Sprint "legs" - I believe that this should be read appreciating that the IOF Rules are written with top international competitions in mind and not in a wider context. So, if "difficult" equates to TD5, then "easy" will approximate to TD3 (or thereabouts) and not to what you find on M10 courses.

[However, TDs are defined with conventional forest orienteering in mind and don't map onto Sprint quite as comfortably as suggested above ...]

Re WMOC 2008 - as one who visited every site (more than once) at both Sprint races I am happy that all courses met the IOF guidelines. Indeed, in my official capacity at the event, I would not have approved the courses if they had not.