Uncrossable boundaries

[EddieH]

From what people who were there have said, if the NT do bring up the problem of competitors ignoring the crossing points I think there is scope for the club to apologise to the NT saying that they overestimated people's ability to read the map clearly, and that they should have marked the crossing points more carefully - a mistake they have learned from and will not repeat.

There is nothing lke a bit of humble pie to diffuse an awkward situation.

[AndyC]

From what people who were there have said, if the NT do bring up the problem of competitors ignoring the crossing points I think there is scope for the club to apologise to the NT saying that they overestimated people's ability to read the map clearly, and that they should have marked the crossing points more carefully - a mistake they have learned from and will not repeat.

There is nothing lke a bit of humble pie to diffuse an awkward situation.

Coupled with an offer to help restore any damage (identified as "orienteer damage" or not) and improve the infrastructure perhaps? Most Orienteers love being in the countryside and don't mind a bit of manual labour.

[Roger]

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

If you're worried about losing access to an area then surely you're going to stick in a compulsory control (without multiple options), and never mind that your great route-choice leg isn't quite so great.

Sometimes, in our efforts to make the sport theoretically perfect, we lose sight of the bigger picture.

[RJ]

It is definitely a question of everyone taking the problem more seriously. Planners and organisers doing their bit..... yes. But it is the competitor who needs to readjust their mindset when competing.

A 'not-to-be-crossed' boundary is exactly that, and for whatever reason it is designated as such on the map ALL competitors need to pay heed. As mentioned earlier, the whole of the Sprint-O idea won't last long if we don't take heed!

In CompassSport, April 2009 Issue 2, Scott Fraser admitted to crossing such a boundary at the ESOC Hopetoun Chasing Sprint. Which is fair enough.... good on Scott. But it does show that we have a way to go to get the mindset right!

[andypat]

While I agree that its everyone's responsibility to be responsible, I think in this type of circumstance the buck must stop with the planner and controller. Its essentially about risk assessment. If there is a signficant risk of competitors running over a cliff it may not be deemed sufficient to warn competitors and show it on the map in red, if the course still requires competitors to navigate up to and around it and the visibility is poor. You have to account for the reasonable risk of human error in those circumstances.

The principle is essentially the same whether the risk is competitors damaging an SSSI or running over OOB land. If we are developing the sport as we should be, then you have to assume that some competitors will be new to the sport, may not be that good at navigating and may not always know the ful set of symbols or rules.

The point made above about ensuring one compulsory control at crossing points even if it detrtacts from a particualr leg is a good one and shows an awareness of the need for compromise in certain circumstances.

[RJ]

......running over a cliff ..... ......damaging an SSSI or running over OOB land.......

Yes, very good examples, and can probably, in most cases, be dealt with by the organiser/planner with a judicious use of tape. But then, can you reasonably expect ALL dangerous crags on the map to be taped, or do you rely on a certain amount of basic skills so that competitors don't visit crags nowhere near any controls.

But suppose a farmer asks for a normal barbed wire fence, 600m long, not be crossed, even though the 'running' is obviously so much better on the other side. You don't tape that. You list it in the final details, and show it with a purple line on the map. Some runners disobey. OK, the controller spots three of the miscreants and disqualifys them. The farmer has seen ten and is furious. The damage is done, the area lost.

I still say that the mindset needs to change. A 'not-to-be-crossed' boundary is exactly that.

[Becks]

Re. Hopetoun: The ditch that Scott crossed was only mentioned in the final details, it wasn't marked on the map. As Scott had pitched up on the day, there was no way he would have known about it. And when he found out, he DQ'ed himself instantly. It doesn't get much more honest than that.

RJ, no one is arguing with you. Of course the majority think that not to be crossed means exactly that. But there will ALWAYS be a small percent with good intentions that think they're crossing in the right place and aren't, especially if the specific points aren't marked, and there will always be a malicious (very small) few that will cross regardless of anything the planner and controller try to do. The first lot can be made to behave correctly by marking the crossings/using controls at the crossing points. There is nothing we can do about the second lot, other than DQ them if they are seen, or in very sensitive areas, maybe even issue bans.

There's now been six pages saying exactly this - it's not an arguement! Everyone is agreeing!

[IanD]

Scott's case demonstrates the folly of relying on final details.

Sometimes one remembers that some final details said something. Now was that today's final details, tomorrow's or yesterdays? One said only used mapped crossing points, another said easy crossing points mapped, but you can use others. Which was it today?

By all means mention things in the final details, but it's the map people have in their hands which can be referred to on the course. That's where the definitive information must be. If the map doesn't say not to be crossed, then expect some people to cross.

[andypat]

IAN D makes a sound point about the info on the map. Final details are a useful guide but if there is entry on the day you have to assume that some people may not have accessed these. The map needs to be clear and the planning sensible. I would ahve thought its a responsibility of the controller to flag up legs where an obvious route choice would be unacceptable for any reason. The planner can then make any minor adjustment necessary to avoid any unfortuate errors of judgement amongst competitors. Obviously there are degrees of importance depending on circumstances, but where errors or errors of judgment on the part of competitors could put future events in doubt then signficant care with plannig is clearly needed.