Who cares about planning guidelines?

[greywolf]

Widening out one element of the debate from the Area Middle/Sprint champs thread, I was wondering whether anyone takes much notice of the planning guidelines, and if not, what are they there for?
Benig a novice planner of a few L3 events over the last 12 months, I took the revolutionary step of reading the docs available for download from the BOF website, and trying to understand the principles and the various do's and don't's before attempting to apply them in the forest.
Not sure if planning has made me a better orienteer, but i have become more conscious of the planning of events in which i compete...and i've noticed (at Regional events) a number of situations i thought were verboten:

Legs where one course runs exactly the opposite leg to another
Controls which different courses attack and leave from all points of the compass
Consecutive courses which have the first 5 or 6 controls in common (by consecutive i mean e.g. black & brown - don't think it matters if this happens for M21E & W65S )
(And as for course lengths and TD 3.5 areas...)
Note: i'm talking about standard forest events, not urban / sprint where some of these might be ok

So have I misinterpreted the guidelines and these are all acceptable? or are they wrong, but nobody wants to upset volunteer planners (and Grade 2 controllers) by pointing it out? or does it really not matter?

[mharky]

Apparently you're not allowed to criticise someone for doing things wrong if they are a volunteer...

[graeme]

Yes you do misunderstand. None of this is verboten. The clue is in the title - guideline not rule.

Common controls on brown and black aren't a problem: the real point is that people shouldn't be following each other. If your entry is so small you don't expect people to see each other, then no problem.

Similarly with legs in opposite directions. If this is the "best" leg through the area and direction of approach to the sites is irrelevant, there's a balance between the danger of giving the control away vs having a poor leg. Answer - depends on the area.

Do people bother to read the guidelines? Not usually: In the last year various Scottish Championships have been in clear breach of the guidelines.
"To be competitive the team must comprise 11 different members of the same SOA club" - none of that 8-person stuff
"The planner should aim for the course to be long enough that the fastest competitor visits almost all the controls in the time allowed. Thus it is necessary that more than one course be offered." - not just give the slower people less time to find the same controls

Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, the 8-person relay was popular and the guidelines are now amended to allow it. Almost nobody (especially the organisers) gives a [nope] about the score so maybe least effort is OK.

[AndyC]

I'll add one "no-no" that I've come across -a course where the optimum route to the first control was back through the start line -luckily no-one was in my way.

On the other hand multiple directions of departure from a control is good as it reduces the risk of following dramatically (and at later controls as well as the follower won't be sure that he is following someone going the same way

[andypat]

The area where mistakes in planning end to be least acceptable (apart maybe from major champs) is on the TD 1 courses. You see a lot of variability in these depending on the area and I'm tempted to say we should have a TD1 czar who oversees these electronically to point out where potential issues may warrant tapes etc on the ground.

[AndyO]

All planners should refresh their knowledge of planning guidelines before embarking on each new event, and doing a "sense check" of courses at a fairly early stage can help to avoid potential howlers. Inexperienced planners are also well advised to get a second opinion on courses from a more experienced planner if there is no controller.

Graeme is right to say that it very much depends on the area what can work and what won't, but having the optimum route to the first control back through the start is so avoidable. It really needs the planner to think not just what the best route may be to each control, but what other routes that a competitor may possibly take - and there can be some bizarre route choices, not all by accident. I know some planners and controllers like to see a common "flow" of courses through the terrain, and would throw their hands up at people running in different directions, but I like the sense of chaos and excitement when competitors encounter other runners going across their line of sight, if the area allows it.

Courses at TD1 - 4 are more difficult to plan, and planners have to take more care in following guidelines and meeting the correct technical standards so that inexperienced competitors are not presented with problems that they don't have the skills to solve.

[simonbeck8848]

I had various opinions from controllers over issues like entry and exit directions when 2 or more courses share a control, or whether it is acceptable for the route to the start to intersect possible routes between controls. I would like to think that 'guidelines' are rules that may be broken when the result is a better course, planning is, after all, the art of compromise.

Simon

[andypat]

ME!

Mispunched for the first time in around 10 years today at the SOL 7 event near Linlithgow (the day event of the Tinto twin)

Punched a control (108 or 110 I think) in error. The control I should have punched was 109 (my number 10 on the blue course). My control was a reentrant. The control I punched was between two knolls just above the reentrant on the main body of the hill. The controls look around 25m apart on the map and the wrong one was sufficiently similar that I punched it without checking. Obviously I have to take it on the chin and did so as I've not checked the numbers (in my defence it was so wet I could hardly see!) but I'll be interested to see if anyone else did the same.

If the planner and controller are reading this - heres the relevant planning guidelines from IOF!

Incidentally the control circle also obscured some of the contour detail on the way into the control which didnt help.

3.5.5 Proximity of controls
Controls on different courses placed too close to one another can mislead
runners who have navigated correctly to the control site. According to Rule
19.4, controls shall not be sited within 30 metres of each other (15 metres for
map scales 1:5000 or 1:4000). Only when the control features are distinctly
different in the terrain as well as on the map, should controls be placed closer
than 60 metres (30 metres for map scales 1:5000 or 1:4000).

[campervan]

Cross Posted from Tinto Twin thread

campervan wrote:
Andy did you get caught out on Blue 10?
Control 110 associated with knolls at top of Rentrant, versus reentrant control 109. within the same control circle?
Looking forward to seeing it on routegadget cos I'd appreciate some explanation. ( mispunched and duff run anyway.)

Could these controls have been any closer?
Were they an amoeba in a state of binary fission?
If so could those of us with earlier starts get some discretion as they would have become distinct entities throughout the competition giving late starters a distinct advantage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binar ... n_anim.gif

How it was on the map:
http://www.doctors.net.uk/DocStore/DSVi ... erid=62323

[graeme]

Unlike greywolf's examples, which are simply bad planning, two controls too close together *is* verboten by IOF rules (see the "shall" in the rule)*, such that that the controller could take action to void course/reinstate you.

This thread nicely illustrates why. Being led in by someone on another course is annoying for the 30sec or so when you are deprived of the fun of navigating. It may unfairly save you a few seconds. Being tricked into mispunching wrecks your whole run.

Planning a set of courses leads to compromises which the competitor can't see on a single course: here the compromise is between overloading a control site, planning a poorer leg or having two controls too close. I would have gone for overloading the control site (109 is the better site, esp. on black). No doubt someone else would have pointed out that I was breaking a guideline , but as a volunteer at least I could call on mharky to protect me .

* see later - EddieH points out that BOF rules are different from IOF and have a "should".

[andypat]

Graeme - thanks for putting the case for the prosecution so clearly!
I'll not be lobbying for reinstatement myself - I'm aware of my responsibility to check the numbers.

Funnily enough I remember having a fierce debate with Terry O'Brien (controller) after the day event of the Tinto Twin at Drumlanrig (must have been about 10 years ago) after losing about 10min searching for a non-existent control, having found the right one but which had the wrong number on it. Terry graciously agreed to void the relevant legs either side of it when it became clear it had caused a signficant confusion to several competitors.

I've yet to work out whether those that it didnt affect were simply so confident with their navigation or hadnt bothered to check the number!

[Red Adder]

I am suprised that you had to have any discussion with the controller - if the control code is wrong you have the most open and shut case to void a course. Whether the event is important enough to bother persuing a protest is up to the individual competitor. At a minimum though I would expect the controller to refer to the situation in his report.

[EddieH]

Graeme you are too hasty in condemming the planning team outright as the rules do NOT say as Campervan has said.

Rule 6.2.3 says "Should" not "shall" and refers to appendix B for more details.

Here it goes into more detail but there is clearly no element of compulsion. From what you all say it would seem that this was a case of where it should have been avoided, but as in most things there is interpretation to be made and maybe the planner and controller erred on the minority side.

I was slated for a similarly distanced pair of controls at a SOL in Rogie - I was of course really upset that anyone had been disqualified as that is not what anyone wants, but had decided with the controller's acceptance that a west facing crag and a boulderfield on a southern slope were sufficiently different to be okay. Maybe we had made the wrong judgement but there was definitely no black and white case that we were in error.

[campervan]

Eddie, Andy and I do not seem to wish to make anissue with planners, I suspect we only wish to learn from the experience.
Guideline- I do believe they are for the guidance of wise men and obedience of fools after all.
Both of us admit we should have checked the control number and its a situation I would like to learn from for planning myself.
I'm interrested in how you good guys approach a control over a ridge in situations like this you know where it is over the ridge, roughly. Did you go round the bottom of the ridge or over the top, or half way. Perhaps the control description might help, bottom of reentrant rather than top?
you did this leg Eddie, how did you approach the control?

[EddieH]

Well I doubt I checked any control codes, (and after the map exchange not even descriptions). This control however I had read "between hills" - a glance at the map told me it was up on top of the ridge so I simply ran up there and looked for the control between the bumps.