GOO Planning?

[greywolf]

An interesting article on planning in the latest Compasssport, which makes a number of useful points but the authors appear to have got the wrong end of the stick wrt course lengths.

They misquote the guidelines as "Planners should note that course lengths refer to course lengths which are “corrected” for height climb (by adding 0.1 km for every 10m of climb)." and suggest therefore the "Min max length (km)" column in the table of courses should refer to course length + height climb...and that therefore a recent Short Brown 9.4km course with 270m climb = 12.1 and should've been labelled as a black course ....

In fact the guidelines say "(a) The Black course (has) an expected elite winning time of 67 minutes. All other course lengths should be scaled to the length required for this course, which has been allocated a course length ratio of 1.00.
Where no Black course is planned, it is still necessary to determine the length of a nominal Black course with an elite winning time of 67 minutes in order to use the ratios for the other courses. In this instance the winning time on the Brown
course by a top standard elite competitor should be 57 minutes. [because the Brown course length ratio is 0.85. Short Brown course ratio is 0.69 therefore by extension top elite winning time should be 46-47 mins]
(b) Planners should note that course length ratios refer to course lengths which are “corrected” for height climb (by adding 0.1 km for every 10m of climb)."

So it's elite winning time that matters, everything is calculated via course ratios which use course lengths corrected for height climb, and the "min max course lengths (km)" in the table courses are meant to be just that. Indeed had they read a bit further, they would have found: "(d) The lengths shown are intended as a guide. For easy areas the course lengths will be towards the top end of the range. For difficult or more physical areas the course lengths will be towards the bottom end of the range."

As it happens the course in question was won by Sarah Rollins in 59 mins, with Colin Dickson a minute behind...so arguably the course was a wee bit long - who'd bet against Scotia or GG going round in sub-50? - but not long enough for Brown and certainly nowhere near Black... The perception of it being much too long arises because lots of other planners persistently make their courses way too short - spin through the results on the BOF site and it's easy to find Short Brown courses being won by vets in well under 50 mins.

This is Orienteering's version of "vanity sizing" - instead of size 12 getting bigger, short brown is getting shorter... and maybe it doesn't matter all that much if it's what the punters want - personally i'm a fan of short courses precisely because 6k is usually more fun than 10k (and 3.1k at lossie this morning was even better ) - but it seems harsh to criticise the planner in this instance. Of course if organisers published course details well in advance, competitors could make an informed choice...

[distracted]

Of course if organisers published course details well in advance, competitors could make an informed choice...

Agree with that for pre-entry events - it also gives quite a good idea of what the area will be like if you haven't been there before.

Otherwise, as has been mentioned on here before - guidelines are exactly that, and they by no means guarantee good courses. I'd rather have a course which is 5 or 10 minutes too short if it is imaginatively planned and makes best use of the area. Tacking an extra km or so of boring orienteering into an otherwise enjoyable course just so it "meets the guidelines" really isn't necessary but it seems that some planners/controllers feel duty-bound by what they feel are "rules".

[greywolf]

I'd rather have a course which is 5 or 10 minutes too short if it is imaginatively planned and makes best use of the area.

Indeed...but the punchline to that section of the CS article is "Please stick to guidelines for course lengths"
...and if your short brown course is 5- 10 mins too short you should call it Blue

[EddieH]

It is abundantly clear to me that colours have very little whatsoever to do with the correct length. Typically the planner decides to provide Brown (or black for higher level 2 events) downwards. He then plans the longest course he peceives as reasonable (unless the area is massive), calls it the top level and reduces other courses in a vaguely proportional way. One recent short brown I ran looked closer to black with the results - at other events brown is nearer to green.

According to the rules we should get away from the same courses at every event and start providing different sets - and why not?

This is not what is happening and I suspect that it will just go on as it is now, but if not there needs to be a concerted effort to make controllers aware of and conform to the new guidelines. After all why shoud an age related level 2 event not have courses from blus downwards if the area is superb, but small?

[Mrs H]

I want to know who the Grumpy Old Orienteers were - there were no names at the bottom of the letter

[Tatty]

So it wasn't you then !

[andypat]

I htink they were GOMs rather than GOWs....

[Mrs H]

So it wasn't you then !

ME! I've never felt qualified or even worthy to pass comment on course length/guidelines/climb/ stuff like that.

Like andypat says - it's definitely GOMs - there's an awful lot of them about

[graeme]

I do hope fans of approved lengths will be running their approved lengths at the Trossachs. 7.6-10km would really be brown goo planning.

[greywolf]

IMHO Championship races should be staged at the appropriate length (calculated via elite winning time etc etc) and Championship areas should be selected on the basis that they have sufficient quality and quantity of terrain to support such courses...for all other events it's much more important that that the planner plans the best courses the area allows and then labels them correctly - if you can plan for 18k then do so (and invent your own colour), and if the longest course your chosen area can provide has an EWT of 38 mins then call it Blue (or consider having a Middle distance event)
Either way you need to be honest and allow punters an informed choice at entry...I don't know what distance i'm running in the Trossachs because I've never found a list of course lengths...(but it definitely won't be 7.6 - 10 km )

[EddieH]

Greywolf wrote
[quote]I don't know what distance i'm running in the Trossachs because I've never found a list of course lengths...(but it definitely won't be 7.6 - 10 km )[/quote]

You hope