Uncrossable boundaries

[RJ]

.......has future use been withdrawn or not...... I would expect the landowner to discuss this/inform the organising club, MDOC in the first instance.

As is so often the case it will be the next time you approach the landowner for permission to use the area that they will raise the 'question of last time'. Clubs don't find out until the 'damage' has been so ingrained in the understanding of the landowner that 'repair' by the club will cost a lot more than a bottle of whisky!

[Darwin]

Have we been banned or not?

[DM]

.......has future use been withdrawn or not...... I would expect the landowner to discuss this/inform the organising club, MDOC in the first instance.

As is so often the case it will be the next time you approach the landowner for permission to use the area that they will raise the 'question of last time'. Clubs don't find out until the 'damage' has been so ingrained in the understanding of the landowner that 'repair' by the club will cost a lot more than a bottle of whisky!

In your earlier post you said;

..... the landowner has now said that we are not capable of controlling our competitors and we needn't come back again

Which to me is very clearly saying it has already happened, now you're suggesting it won't be known until the next time. Which is it?? Be clear.

[LostAgain]

When you approach the boundary and are unsure where to cross then there is a question as to whether you should continue on the course. Retire and go back to the start.... don't put the area and the club in jeopardy. Or alternatively examine the boundary a little further along and see if you can find the crossing point.

I think you are being unreasonable in your expectation here " Retire and go back to the start...."

If a club has decided there is an "Uncrossable Boundary" and marked it on the map with the relevant purple line then it is not unreasonable to ask them to mark the crossing points on the ground, either ladders or tape or whatever is reasonable.
Relying on competitors interpretation of the "hole in the wall" seems a tad unsatisfactory.

With respect to people who purposefully ignore the "Uncrossable Boundary" and seek to cheat by gaining an advantage in doing so, Disqualification.

[graeme]

I think you are being unreasonable in your expectation here " Retire and go back to the start...."

Totally unreasonable. Bear in mind you might have to risk crossing that wall to get back to the start. Competitors should just accept it and stay out on the fell (certainly you shouldn't ask anyone where you are!)

[The Malcy]

I would have thought that if one was to declare a boundary as “uncrossable” and then ask competitors to cross said boundary then it is not unreasonable to expect the designated crossing points to be marked in some way and made obvious, whether the boundary is physically impossible to cross or not. Sadly participants cannot be trusted, whether by accident or design, to select the desired crossing points without the assistance of them being marked (and even then sometimes…). As stated by some previously the obvious solution is to put a control at the crossing and I would respectfully suggest that this is the only way to ensure that people do go to the official crossing. If there is a “route choice” leg that includes designated crossings then by definition you are restricting the possible choices of route by the number of crossing points available, in effect adding “non-existent” controls to the course.
In summary if you have to plan courses to cross uncrossable boundaries then put a control at the designated crossing points, otherwise don’t ask people to cross the uncrosable!
Just my 2p

[greywolf]

Sensible stuff from the Malcy

Should be straightforward:

On the map - purple line to indicate "must not be crossed", crossing points marked, leg line bent /broken
On the ground - a control at crossing points OR multiple crossing points clearly taped
On the web / in the event details / at the start - text that clearly states what competitors will find on the map and on the ground
In extremis - Mharky with a sniper rifle....

If competitors can't be trusted then planners have to plan "defensively" - don't give them any opportunities to cheat - and if that lowers the technical challenge well that's unfortunate.

Mea culpa I made the mistake of not using the purple overprint for the uncrossable boundary and a TD2 control at the crossing point when I planned planned an event (on a sprint map!) last year... there were a number of stock fences - physically relatively easy to cross, but forbidden...

On the map they were marked with a double thickness black line, the leg-lines were bent to go through marked crossing points, and in the final details and displayed at the start (in 20-point text) it said: 'Some “normal-looking” fences are mapped as “impassable” – please do not cross them (except at the crossing points marked on your map), it will upset their owners and you will be disqualified.'

Inevitably of course some competitors went straight over them - when questioned about this the excuse was "I couldn't see the line and I didn't bother reading the text and the fence looked crossable..."

[RJ]

We, as a sport, are very lucky to be able to use a lot of the areas for our races. We are very lucky that landowners are reasonable and tolerant. Landowners impose very few restrictions, on the whole, but, when they do state they want something observed, then we should pay attention.

Collectively.... that is, all of us.... need to take this whole thread far more seriously. A 'not to be crossed' boundary is exactly that. Let us take the various suggestions on board and reduce the 'infringements' to as close to zero as possible.

[LostAgain]

Collectively.... that is, all of us.... need to take this whole thread far more seriously. A 'not to be crossed' boundary is exactly that. Let us take the various suggestions on board and reduce the 'infringements' to as close to zero as possible.

I whole heartedly agree, in summary:

1. Use Purple Line to mark "Not to be crossed boundaries"
2. If crossing points are to be used then mark them on the ground.
3. It is a shame that it may be necessary to use a control to enforce the protocol. I would hope it was not necessary but can we really aford to risk losing the use of an area?
4. Where there are several crossing point options it must be possible to use the same control number at each still providing the option.

[Scott]

4. Where there are several crossing point options it must be possible to use the same control number at each still providing the option.

I really like this idea, but some serious thought needs to be given as to how such controls would be marked on the map, listed in control descriptions etc - if clubs are going to try it, standard (national) ways of implementing it need to be agreed first, so competitors know to expect the same thing each time.

If done poorly it could still confuse a lot of innocent competitors, and give the dishonest few an excuse if they get caught out. And obviously TD1-3 (and 4?) competitors need to be kept well away from any such controls.

[Gnitworp]

[4. Where there are several crossing point options it must be possible to use the same control number at each still providing the option.

There was once a BOF Guideline, now defunct, suggesting just this, in a special 'how to deal with crossing points' section.

I think it has a lot to do with mindset; you might be able to plan a totally different, but equally good, course, without the best, or any sensible (but illegal) route crossing a forbidden boundary between controls; give it a go! Don't design in problems you can't legislate against; design them out.

[EddieH]

It is wierd that the consensus now seems to be becoming well we'd better just compromise the planning because people can't be trusted. This does not seem to be a problem with the elite who seem to obey the rules rigorously, and not infrequently disqulaify themselves when they realise that they have made an error and infringed the rules.

Clearly it is the planner's responsibility to make it utterly clear, (that was the point about strating this thread,) but it's a very sad inditement of people's morals if that is not enough.

I would contend that because we so often fail to be clear, and because tolerance is shown to those that are caught CLEARLY breaking the rules the attitude towards this vital matter is distinctly carefree and sloppy. (I have often heard a planner say "Oh well anyone that didn't use the crossing point will have gained no advantage") As RJ points out that is NOT the point.

Anyway if the rules follow the tenor of this thread urban orienteering will have a very short life indeed. No the answer is not to invariably plan so that there is never a sensible illegal route, but to EDUCATE and take infringements seriously. Otherwise bye-bye Edinburgh, Lincoln, Oxford, York .............

[Gnitworp]

There was no faster 'illegal' route on any leg in the 2 races I ran in the British Sprint Age Class Champs at Stirling University. I shall apply my advocated mindset to all courses I set.

[Darwin]

RJ - Have the National Trust banned orienteering at Angle Tarn Pikes, or not, as a result of transgressions yesterday?

[Roger]

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.

I'm not claiming that it's a great route-choice leg, and nor am I expecting you to remember the event Scott (as you would have been a little small ), but the DVO Ranking Badge Event in March 1986 had parallel controls at alternative crossing points:

The control descriptions simply said '5 B9 .. gate' and both had the same code.

Note also that the uncrossable walls have been overprinted in red / purple, with crossing-points marked. Sometimes the right thing was being done over 20 years ago...