Development committee minutes

[Scott]

To me that says we don't have the necessary balance of opinion within this workgroup and that their output is highly subjective.

You mean unlike the balance of opinion on that exists on Development Committee, and non-subjective output produced there?

But yes, I agree that the RWG (myself included) have failed pretty badly on the "evidence-based review". There were originally big plans for a survey on the BOF website, along the lines of the participation survey done a few months ago. Why nothing came of it, I am not sure.

[Scott]

To me that says we don't have the necessary balance of opinion within this workgroup and that their output is highly subjective.

You mean unlike the balance of opinion on that exists on Development Committee, and non-subjective output produced there?

But yes, I agree that the RWG (myself included) have failed pretty badly on the "evidence-based review". There were originally big plans for a survey on the BOF website, along the lines of the participation survey done a few months ago. Why nothing came of it, I am not sure.

Repost, as my original posting appears to have vanished between pages...

[seabird]

Oh hell - more prevarication with different committees offering their 2 pennyworth.

The ranking list is only a bit of fun - for those who are interested in it at all.

The RWG proposals seemed a godsend for those who have to do the calculations for local leagues - but reading the runes suggests it may never come about in a form available for that purpose - and certainly not for the coming season.

[Scott]

do people agree with the concepts (and underlying reasoning) of the proposed Navigation and Racing Challenges?

I like the general idea, but (to make the same points I made in an exchange of emails with Mike Hamilton this morning):

• I'd like to see the levels of the Navigation Challenge called "one star" (=TD1) up to "five star" (=TD5). That makes a far more intuitive progression for newcomers.
• Although I'm now told that there will at least be a separate base time for women, the proposed basis for the Racing Challenge scheme (using course ratios and an M21L winning time of 67mins) means that hardly anyone over 40 or under 18 will stand any chance of attaining even a Bronze standard, which seems faintly absurd - do we really want a Green-course bronze time of 39mins?
• I think it will be very difficult to persuade many planners that publishing an "expected winning time" for their courses is a good idea.

[Gross]

I think it will be very difficult to persuade many planners that publishing an "expected winning time" for their courses is a good idea.[/list]

That should be the easy bit. Any decent planner should be more than happy to state how fast / slow they believe their course should be won it. If the course ratios are standard then only estimate needs to be for the M21L / Black / Long / Hard / Difficult / Navigationally Challenging.... or whatever name it's called nowadays

[SeanC]

I like the navigation challenge concept. This is easily understood, and gives newcomers something achievable to aim for as they get more experienced. I wouldn't get wrapped up in the TD4/TD5 stuff though or we'll have organisers, controllers and committees having to decide whether the course is a TD5 or a TD4. Anyone coming to Shorne on the 27th will have maybe 4 controls out of 19 that might be defined as TD5, which is 4 more than many other forests in Kent, but 19 less than some complex Scottish forest. Should they get a TD5 award?

Also if you complete 3 black courses then that is a bigger navigational challenge than 3 light greens since that's 4 X as much distance. Why not keep the existing colour awards but make the qualification criteria 3 finished rather than 3 within 50% of the winner?

For the racing challenge that seems more appropriate at regional and national events as this award is for more serious orienteers. I wouldn't want to be calculating expected winning times at local events as these should be easy to organise.

[Scott]

Any decent planner

Aye, but my understanding is that this scheme is supposed to operate at every event - including all those small local events which often have relatively inexperienced/novice planners and no "proper" controller. I'm planning an small urban race tomorrow and I haven't the foggiest what the winning time will be, but at the moment, it doesn't really matter.

Sadly, planners get enough grief over their course lengths being "wrong" as it is even at this level, and that's without people being able to point to their EWTs and the results and "prove" that they made a mistake.

Standard course ratios won't work, at least not without significant modification to what is currently being proposed.

[roadrunner]

do people agree with the concepts (and underlying reasoning) of the proposed Navigation and Racing Challenges?

I like the general idea, but (to make the same points I made in an exchange of emails with Mike Hamilton this morning):

• I'd like to see the levels of the Navigation Challenge called "one star" (=TD1) up to "five star" (=TD5). That makes a far more intuitive progression for newcomers.
• Although I'm now told that there will at least be a separate base time for women, the proposed basis for the Racing Challenge scheme (using course ratios and an M21L winning time of 67mins) means that hardly anyone over 40 or under 18 will stand any chance of attaining even a Bronze standard, which seems faintly absurd - do we really want a Green-course bronze time of 39mins?
• I think it will be very difficult to persuade many planners that publishing an "expected winning time" for their courses is a good idea.

I share Scott's concerns. I also can't see the Navigation Challenge being of much interest beyond TD1 and TD2: isn't it the same as the former "Iron Badge" which hardley anyone claimed?

The "expected winning time" concept also worries me: first of all, is that what a world champion would run the course in or what would be expected from those who would be likely to turn up, and secondly, it could well be affected by the weather on the day (fog on open areas, for example). I don't think it will give any better standard than the earlier concept of averaging the fastest three finishers' times - and surely that wasn't difficult for anyone to calculate.

With the Racing Challenge being based on an expected winning time that's independent of age (although not, seemingly, independent of sex, which seems illogical), and the Ranking List restricted to Level 1 events which, as Ian D says, many will not travel to, what incentive is there left for veterans, who after all make up the majority of the orienteering population?

[Gross]

I'm planning an small urban race tomorrow and I haven't the foggiest what the winning time will be, but at the moment, it doesn't really matter.

That is the 'worst' comment of the year on Nopesport and show's a complete disrespect to potential competitors - no matter the style of the competition

Of course it's important to have 'the foggiest' of how long your courses will take (even if it's only 'winning times between 30 & 40 minutes'........... how can we build technical expertise for the future??????

[Scott]

The "expected winning time" concept also worries me: first of all, is that what a world champion would run the course in or what would be expected from those who would be likely to turn up

I've tried to get some clarification on this, but the answer seems to be that nobody knows yet - I think it needs to be given more thought than it has so far, although that's not a major problem in itself.

[Scott]

Of course it's important to have 'the foggiest' of how long your courses will take (even if it's only 'winning times between 30 & 40 minutes'........... how can we build technical expertise for the future??????

Well, it's 6km straight line, so I'd guess somewhere between 30mins and 50mins, but it depends on who turns up... I was planning to jog round this evening to get some idea, but given that I was asked to plan it on Wednesday afternoon and only got hold of the map yesterday, I haven't had much time to figure it out yet .

[Gross]

so I'd guess somewhere between 30mins and 50mins, but it depends on who turns up...

so not as foggy as you thought

[Scott]

No, but hardly enough for base a badge calculation on

[distracted]

As for other aspects of these minutes, do people agree with the concepts (and underlying reasoning) of the proposed Navigation and Racing Challenges? Opinions are welcomed, yes there will be implementation issues to clarify but let's try to avoid getting bogged down in those for now and focus on the ideas.

Thank you Scott...

[EddieH]

I have now read the "Racing Challenge" part of the minutes and am ADAMANTLY in disagreement with it.

Long ago we had expected winning times for all ages in badge courses and many hours were spent estimating how fast various people would go in the terrain type, and indeed guessing who would turn up.

Course ratios were a godsend for planners/ controllers, and whist these have not moved on with the advancing quality of our older competitors, they save these hours of work AND reduce criticism of officials.

Asking planners to provide EWT's on which you are then going to base your ranking (or whatever it is) is simply NOT ON. Unnecessary work and masses of scope for slanging off officials of which we already get enough.

I have planned/ controlled/organised 6 events in the first 6 months of this year, with a further championship planning projected. If such a rule is brought in I for one will NOT be offering to produce ths workload in the future. I RUDDY WELL mean it