Uncrossable boundaries

[Scott]

Aye, that's how I thought it'd be done, but my concern with the "forking" is that (perhaps not in that example, but when the crossing points are farther apart and at a greater angle) muppetish folding will lead to some people taking the less efficient route without realising that they had a choice until too late, resulting in interminable complaining in the car park afterwards. At the least it would need some sort of special note in the control descriptions (which shouldn't be that hard to do).

I also approve of the implication that I'm no longer "a little small".

[RJ]

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

It is not my place to answer that question. A decision will be made depending on the perceived (or actual) damage caused by any perceived infringements of the request NOT to cross the wall except at the crossing points.

But as an illustration of the situation..... as a club we have four or five members who work for the NT. They are very useful (key, in fact) in our access negotiations because they understand both sides of the 'usage' request. They offer suggestions for 'when', 'where' and 'how many runners' depending on time of year.

As a club we support financially the NT 'Fix the Fells' programme in a small way...... Repairing the footpaths in the Lake District, and rebuilding walls. On Angle Tarn Pikes it might be that the NT have plans to rebuild those sets of walls??? They therefore wanted us to use the gateways and avoid causing further damage.... who knows! Whatever the reason, the organiser arranged for those walls to be protected by using a purple line on the map and insist that we use the specified gaps. Did we, as a group of competitors, do well on this score? It would appear not.... well, not good enough. Do we feel guilty?..... well, it would appear a few do NOT! Do those club members (& NT members) have a good report of our behaviour and of our subsequent opinion on the matter?..... perhaps NOT!

How hard do you suppose we, as a club, have to work next time we want to hold an event on another sensitive area to satisfy the NT that we are going to protect a piece of woodland/wall/marsh or whatever?

We need to take this far more seriously in future. It night be an 'individual' sport, but we definitely have a 'collective' responsibility.

[Mrs H]

I've just read this thread - are you seriously suggesting you had wall crossings which were so crucial to future usage and yet they were not marked on the ground at the very least - let alone the obvious simple solution of putting controls on them.

This is just bad management - even if everyone was to be trusted people are still more than capable of making mistakes - I'm glad I wasn't there trying to judge which was the right bit of wall.

...and anyway there is an obvious strata of people who are not to be trusted at all - why else would three people turn up at Brown Clee with dogs on leads admitting they'd seen the instruction not to bring dogs under any circumstances but... "well we're here now - you don't mind do you?"
I may be "a little small' myself - but i think they understood my response.

[Darwin]

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

It is not my place to answer that question. .

Well exactly! So why did you repeatedly assert yesterday that it had been banned?

It's clear to me that you have no idea - and that furthermore you don't even know if the wall was designated Uncrossable (read the final details) at the request of the NT, or by the organisers unilaterally for H&S reasons.

As for the rest, I don't see why you feel obliged to lecture me as if we had any disagreement on the principles involved. I also live in the Lakes, am an NT member and know many people who work for the Trust.

For the Trust to start banning orienteering in Lakes open fell areas would be catastrophic for our sport - and I don't appreciate you spreading rumours to that effect to support your otherwise valid case.

You should apologise for misleading the forum.

[geomorph]

We cannot afford to upset our hosts - the landowners

A few moons ago the better half worked for a 'country landowners support organisation' who held on behalf of their members a file on 'good and bad guests', that is users of these lands.

The potential is there for a real downside, so we do have to be vigilent and do what is necessary to avoid abuses by the minority

Scott - car park moaning is trivia compared to loss of an area, so your revisit on multiple enforcement controls is good but it could take some doing/software where there are multiple routes and multiple sets designated crossing points on a long leg.

Should such controls be sequential numbers or just 'X' - you can use any 'X' at any time (for those of us who have unusual route choices - or are recovering from them)?

[IanD]

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

While in general I like the idea of the same control code on two alternative crossing points, there is one aspect of this that could potentially cause confusion if planners/controllers are not careful.

It might happen that one course would have a route choice that could reasonably use either crossing point, hence the two alternative controls both marked on that course's map. But a second course might go in a different direction, meaning that only one of the two crossing points was sensible. The temptation would be to mark only one crossing point, and one of the two controls with the same code, on this course's map. Then some lost person might attempt to relocate off the control with the right code but not in the place where is was marked on his/her map.

So I'm not against this idea, I just want to make it very clear that if there are multiple controls with the same code, every course map which has any of them must have all of them.

[Scott]

Yeah, that was my point about keeping the TD1-3 courses clear of such controls. There's no harm in offering the TD5 courses a choice of which crossing point to use, even if that choice is trivial, so long as all the controls with the same code are clearly marked on the map and competitors are aware of what's going on. But a choice is only going to confuse youngersters/newcomers (and is inappropriate at TD1/2 anyway) and, as IanD says, the risk of somebody on these courses finding the wrong control but the right code is too great.

Geomorph - yes, the software can't cope with the situation where one route choice involves two crossing points but the alternative involves none, but I'd reckon that that's a relatively rare situation anyway.

[Meat Market]

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

It is not my place to answer the question.

You should apologise for misleading the forum.

Have you guys really managed to write 5 pages about a hole in a wall? My non-orienteering friends would be having a field day!

Seriously I don't know any orienteers in the Uk who would try and deliberately cheat by not using crossing points. At the top level in most age classes most runners are best friends so why bother trying to go over the top policing when everyone knows everyone elses motives? It's an amateur sport so all that's at stake is glory and for most cheats that's not enough.

It should be made clear on the map (using purple lines and crossing points) and details (we could lose the ability to hold orinteering events on the land - as RJ quite rightly pointed out) that people must use crossing points. If they aren't used people should be able to report fellow competitors but ideally people should admit their mistakes and police themselves- as has happened numerous times in the past.

I've not read any of the previous posts so this may have been said 60 different times previously.

[geomorph]

Geomorph - yes, the software can't cope with the situation where one route choice involves two crossing points but the alternative involves none, but I'd reckon that that's a relatively rare situation anyway.

As an agent provocateur I thought I'd keep this topic steaming along and keep Meat Market bemused with endless trivia.

Dalegarth West JK1976 - sensible route choices involved one with zero and one with 2 or 3... but I just can't remember if the fences/walls were of a height that might now be regarded as 'do not cross'.

There were other potential choices on the leg which involved different crossing points but although not significantly longer than the zero route were technically 'silly' choices, (were part of another later leg), but they illustrate why we would need quite a sophisticated system of crossing point control neutrality

[Stodgetta]

It is possible to have controls with the same code at several different crossing points - at a recent MTBO we had a choice of compulsory road crossings (leg 19-20) that had controls at either side (so time spent crossing the road could be excluded from a health and safety point of view). These weren't marked on the map but competitors were made aware of them in advance and everyone punched them. Good old Autodownload!!!

The solid red/purple lines indicate bridleways which are OOB for riding on (against the law to race bikes on a bridleway), and competitors are good at not riding on them.

Because we have massive potential access issues and disgruntled local bikers who would love to make trouble for the club, we have to do everything we can to make it clear where competitors are & are not allowed to ride. So far, so good.

[EddieH]

It occurs to me that maybe a way forward might be to place punch units at all crossing points, which competitors know to expect, and to punch as they cross. The computer maybe could be programmed with the possible combinations and anyone that has clearly got there illegally be disqualified. No control code, or even flag required if the points are styles (on top) or gates (at the hinge) ....

Rules evolve. Maybe a local Lake or Peak District type event might try it (software capability permitting.

[andy]

The computer maybe could be programmed with the possible combinations and anyone that has clearly got there illegally be disqualified.

would work in some cases, but not all.... what about when there is a way around said obstruction?

software capability permitting.

autodownload already does it (as stodgetta says above)

[Wayward-O]

I was at the Twin Peaks on Sunday, but not on a course that crossed "The Wall", but between my map which has the purple overprint and Routegadget, I can say that only the Black and various Brown courses crossed the wall, up to three times. One of the suggestions has been that controls with a common control number could be put at all of the valid crossing points. I do not believe that this would have been a solution as the uncrossable section of wall is only around 1/3 the width of the competition area and valid route choices exist that both cross and avoid the wall for many of those legs. For those who were not there but who look at Routegadget, the uncrossable wall section consists of the short section extending SSE from Angle Tarn with three marked openings and then the section running WSW from the S end of the first section to the next wall junction with two marked openings.

Taping of crossing points: Many have commented that the valid crossing points should have been taped. I've seen gates, styles and even 'safe' crossing points over barbed wire fences taped, but how do you tape or otherwise mark a gap in a dry stone wall? Roadcones? Canes and tapes producing on the ground the double funnel of the map symbol?

Controls at crossing points: It would have been possible to have placed controls at one of the crossing points and forced the competitors to navigate that way but this would have, arguably, reduced the technical difficulty and route choice of the leg. In addition, putting a purple circle too close to the crossing point would potentially have produced a rather confusing area in the overprint with control circle, course lines, uncrossable wall overprint and crossing point symbols all close together. At other events where the uncrossable feature cannot be navigated around and a crossing point or points must be used, then a control at the crossing point(s) looks a good solution, but maybe treated differently and not marked with a circle but highlighted on the map and descriptions identifying that competitors must punch controls at crossing points.

Technology: Back when pin punches were used (before I started orienteering), I understand that some competitors would cheat by visiting the controls out of sequence in order to reduce the length of course to be run. Since the introduction of electronic punching, this is no longer an option. When planning for pin punches, planners will have needed to plan courses to minimise / negate any benefit from punching controls out of sequence. I would hope that planners now plan courses to minimise any advantage from / reason to cross an "uncrossable" features at places other than designated, especially as many more activities compete for land access and access conditions become stricter. Technology could come to the rescue in the future by incorporating GPS into the e-card, enabling the entire route of the competitor to be checked as well as being confident that the physical controls have been visited, but this is not with us yet.

Land Owners / Tenants: When attending an event, I'm not usually unaware of the number of land owners and tenants that have given their permission in order for the event to take place. Could details of all the land owners, farmers, etc. that have given their permission be included on maps, possibly including logos of entities such as National Trust, Forest Enterprise, Water companies, etc., so that competitors are aware of the number of individuals and organisations involved.

[Scott]

Good stuff

Taping of crossing points: Many have commented that the valid crossing points should have been taped. ... How do you tape or otherwise mark a gap in a dry stone wall? ... Canes and tapes producing on the ground the double funnel of the map symbol?

I wasn't there, but knowing the area I suspect that a couple of canes (or, for sturdiness, unused control stakes) at each hole with some streamers of tape attached would have sufficed to indicate to competitors that they were in the right place. The funnel sounds like a good idea if you want to make sure that everyone crosses in the hole, although on a windy day on an exposed fellside it might be more prone to blowing away.

[LostAgain]

The maps on Routegadget make the "Crossing Ponts" look a lot clearer than they were on the competition maps.

The Red/Purple line on the Angle Tarn competition maps abscures the fact that the crossing point is actually a "gate opening". The competition map just shows the crossing sympbol over the gap. Which could then easily be a "gap" in the wall either gate opening or "collapsed wall".

I still think the crossing point should have been marked with tapes.