Uncrossable boundaries

[EddieH]

Electrocuted, the information regarding the fence was deliberately put on the late details that all teams got with the map bags. I'm sorry you climbed it, but I am sure there was a hole in the mesh nearby - they do not necessarily shouting out their presence, but they truly are abundant.

At least the top wire didn't match your name

[mappingmum]

Electrocuted,

I missed it too ie I didn't read the final release of info on Sat and yes, my team captain did provide me with it.

But if I'd have read it in advance, I wouldn't have experienced the euphoria I did when a little hole-in-the-fence presented itself at ground level which I was able to wriggle through, at the exact spot I was planning to cross! I really could not believe my luck . . .

[Electrocuted]

Unfortunately I wasn't made aware of any final details on the Saturday by my team captain. However, surely it would be better to put information such as this in the final details that were posted on the web - it must have been known at this stage. I would imagine that for larger clubs, letting every member know of further final details only received on the Saturday morning with everything else that is going on is pretty hard.

As for my name, it comes from one of my first events when the electric fences were not turned off as they were meant to be and I didn't realise what the purple line across it was - ouch and ouch again about 2 seconds later.

[Billy Whizz]

Eddie H wrote

A number of competitors on RouteGadget admit to crossing fences at other points than were allowed if you revisit the instructions - I feel sure that none were deliberately cheating otherwise they would be unlikely to go on RouteGadget. More to the point the majority, like I did, climber unnecessarily to a voluntary crossing point.

Eddie - sometimes (ie mea et alia culpa) people are so keen to enter their routes on Routegadget that they do so without reference to their paper map and since the RG course shows the straight line between controls, without diversion via a crossing point, they draw in the route they thought they would have taken; not the route they took. They may or may not realise their mistake, and even if they do, the idea of redoing the route is too much like hard work.

So I submit that "a number" were not admitting; they were erring at their desks.

[AndyO]

Eddie H wrote: Here we had some instructions which were not a single sentence but in reality some fences (possibly only one) were allowed to be crossed anywhere. My mind was trying to remember what I had read, and I only realised that I didn't have to visit one crossing point as I was approaching it.

I wondered why you had taken that route from 10 - 11, Eddie, but you were by no means alone, as most runners were using a marked crossing point when I was on that leg. Like you I thought the instructions complex, but the directions on the map and the control descriptions were clear in noting where crossing points had to be used. Just wish I hadn't bolloxed the next leg

[pete.owens]

Most planners seem to follow the convention of marking compulsory crossing points, braking and bending the line joining controls to show which way to go. This seems unambiguous enough to me - if not strictly the IOF convention.

It is a bit more tricky where there is a choice of crossings, and the line is simply broken. This is where you really need an overprinted purple line to show that the crossing points are mandatory.

[RJ]

......an overprinted purple line to show that the crossing points are mandatory.

Either the boundary is uncrossable (physically impossible) or it is 'not to be crossed'. The penalty in the former case is a detour by the competitor to find somewhere to get through the obstruction. No damage is done.... except to the lapse time of the runner.

However, in the latter case, a breach of the instruction may very well lead to a loss in the use of the area. There will be good reason why the boundary must be crossed at the marked points! If it is a condition of access for the future then the culprits should be asked to account for their actions. Name and shame!

The event at Angle Tarn Pikes today had such a purple overprint and mandatory crossing points at good gaps in the wall. However, several people crossed at 'less broken' points in the wall..... but not at the actual marked ones which were significant holes in the wall. So.... we end up with a grey area! Should those who flouted the instructions be reprimanded.

Should the mapper/planner have defined the purple line with more care, showing all the crossing points. Or..... should the planner/controller have put a control on the crossing point and left it at that!

[graeme]

My map was clear and unambiguous, the ground less so. With big gaps in the wall and no tape at the crossing, it was pretty hard to tell if you were going through the right one. I'm about 95% sure I did, which I think is reasonable (but note 4 crossings, 200 people, 5% wrong = 40 accidental illegal crossings). In fact, I'm sure there were lots more than that, but no serious damage is likely as the wall was already broken down in so many places: I didn't see anyone climbing...

It does seem obvious to put a control there if it really matters. I'm not sure if you can have multiple controls when you're allowed a choice of crossing points

[RJ]

.......but no serious damage is likely as the wall was already broken down in so many places...

That's this time! Either the purple line is to be obeyed or it should not be there. Either we have a rule that we adhere to or we end up with competitors making the decision 'on the fly'. Now, that just isn't good enough when permissions and access are dependant on adherance..... why else do you put the purple line on the map?

Surely this is a case for the SHALL rather than the SHOULD.

Personally I think we need an extra control at the crossing point..... problem solved!

[Scott]

With big gaps in the wall and no tape at the crossing

"Not using tape" seems to be a Lakes tradition, and it's pretty silly. Nobody going at race speed is going to slow down to check that the gap in the wall they're about to cross is one of the "permitted" gaps. If you're dependent on everybody using the right gaps in a wall and nobody using the wrong ones, put some tape on the ones that you want people to use. Then put a note in the final details, and tell everyone about it in the start lane. It's not guaranteed to work, but it certainly helps.

Using a control at each crossing point is the best solution, but (under the current rules) it only works if you're not offering people a choice of crossing points - on some areas, putting a control at each crossing will eliminate the possibility of any decent route-choice legs.

[RJ]

No.... sorry, but you are all missing the point.

WHY IS THERE A SPECIFIC CROSSING POINT?

When you are protecting permissions and access then you MUST use the crossing point. If a purple line is used to define the uncrossable feature, or the details say use the crossing point..... THEN USE THE ******* CROSSING POINT!!!!

Either we are adult about this problem or we lose the use of the area.... saying that you can't be bothered to read the map adequately to locate the crossing point won't do!

If you have a choice of two crossing points on a wall in order to allow route choice, then just use two controls with the same code at each of the crossing points.... job done!

[EddieH]

pete.owens wrote:
Most planners seem to follow the convention of marking compulsory crossing points, braking and bending the line joining controls to show which way to go. This seems unambiguous enough to me - if not strictly the IOF convention.

100% wrong - as RJ eloquently states there is a BIG difference between should (or advisory) and MUST.

In orienteering we do not have to follow lines, e'g' if a line is drawn around an OOB area there is nothing to stop anyone choosing to go the other side of the area providing they don't go anywhere the map tells them they must not.

[Scott]

saying that you can't be bothered to read the map adequately to locate the crossing point won't do!

But (believe it or not) sometime people actually make these things called "mistakes" in their navigation. If there are several identical looking gaps in a wall and you fail to mark the correct one, then it's inevitable that some people are going to go through the wrong one. Putting a bit of tape out really doesn't take that much effort.

Using multiple controls with the same code when you have a choice of crossing points is a pretty good solution, as long as you keep the TD1-3 courses well clear of them, but I fear that any attempt club who are brave enough to try it (at least at a biggish event) will face all sorts of protests to the controller/complaints to Rules Group.

[Londres]

Why does this keep cropping up over and over again.

If there is an uncrossable feature then write so in the details. Highlight this impassable feature on the map with the designated thick purple line. If there are specific crossing points then put them on the map, control descriptions and make sure they are obvious in the terrain. Gates are not a problem, single plank styles can be hard to spot from a distance, red and white tape lets everyone know they are at the designated crossing point. Controls should be placed where you want everyone to cross at one specific location, at the beginning and end of a taped route through a special area for example.

If the organising team don't do everything in their power to ensure than people cross at the correct place, then they cannot be annoyed if people fail to do so. If everything mentioned above is done then there can be misunderstanding.

[RJ]

...... If there are several identical looking gaps in a wall and you fail to mark the correct one......

Your attempts to cloud the issue are not helpful! The holes in the wall were proper non-gated openings. Other bits of wall were very slightly broken in the top third. The crossing points were obvious, the area was completely open fellside and the whole wall was visible for quite a way.

IMHO the breaches of the 'crossing point rule' were due to.... sloppy orienteering.... or blatant cheating to gain advantage.

So thanks very much Scott..... the landowner has now said that we are not capable of controlling our competitors and we needn't come back again. A few people who can't see the importance of following some simple instructions have ruined it for everyone.

A few disqualifications from photographic evidence at a future event will solve this little problem!!!