BOC & BRC 2010.

[Gross]

has anybody/could anybody take a picture so we know what the debate is about?

Fraid I don't have one.... and actually I'm having great difficulty in picturing the control in my head.... so obviously not much unusual about it from my side....

Be interesting to go back to the old Scandinavian tradition of mark 'high points' with dot knoll symbols on the map.... Nopers would have a field day

[mharky]

As someone spotted teams 4011 & 4012 on M40 ran with the wrong first part maps. I think this mix up happened at the folding and labelling stage. It’s very hard to find this after folding because we try to make the identity of the map secret from that point onwards. This resulted in the 3rd place team running about 50m further than a properly balanced team. Looking at the times I don’t think this affected the placings.
Overall I was happy with the outcome, the relays are very complex so it is a relief that a major mistake did not occur.

At the big relays I have done the team number and leg number have been printed on the back of the maps. At most relays in the UK all that is printed on the map is the gaffel, and then the team number is printed on a sticker, and this is suck onto the folded map. Human error happens, remove it from the process. Some events/clubs already do this, but it should become common practice.

At POM this year butterfly loops were massively over-used. But, each map had the gaffel, name and start time printed on the back. It doesn't take much effort, but it makes a big difference.

[HOCOLITE]

I had the knoll and like several others navigated to it checked the no. punched and thought looks like a hide. I did then notice the hide on my map. I had a later knoll which caused me a blip. I was off line and found a flag on a feature. Obviously a pit or depression, but on initial inspection of my map I could not see this feature. The reason being the number (5) was on top of it. Fortunately panic had not set in and I rotated on the spot and saw my very small knoll to the left. As I recollect this knoll looked like someone had brought a barrow load of soil and deposited it there on the day. There was no sign of the soil being dug from the environs unless of course the small sepression/pit was the source of the soil.

This knoll was 224 if anyone is interested

[HOCOLITE]

For any readers of Ad Hoc this debate on knolls will almost certainly create an article for Rocky Knoll, as I'm sure Rocky must have experienced all these problems in his carreer at knoll towers.

[rebbid]

Aren't you all making a mountain out of a molehill

[cbg]

How very bizarre. I think if you were out on a walk in the wood with any orienteer, without a map, and you asked them how they’d have mapped that particular feature, very few (if any) would have called it a knoll.

I guess the planner and the mapper thought it was a knoll also?

The real knoll was about knee-height (no, not to a grasshopper); fair enough as a feature in an otherwise clean forest floor, but one would have seen the flag before the feature. In an area of bracken it would never have been found. The knoll was then covered in a pile of branches and vegetation that took it upto table height; every part of the knoll was covered in wood. This meant that a feature could be seen as well as the flag, even if it was no longer a hide - I didn't see it as a hide, in that it wasn't hollow under the branches, but equally it appeared to be a pile of wood, with who knows what underneath. It would seem that the planner was too keen to keep it as a control to step back and assess it objectively, rather building it up into an 'enhanced' feature.

However the visibility in the forest varied enormously dependent on the direction of approach, with lines of new growth being much more extensive, and up to 10m from the sitre, than mapped. Thus it was unexpectedly Bingo.

More importantly, the 'depression' (aka pit) to the south is mapped incorrectly in relation to the vegetation boundary to its south.

On my course (M50L) at least 2 minutes separated each of the first 5 runners, so what is gained by a formal protest?

[seabird]

Ian D and EddieH have commented on the relay changeover.

There was a lot pre-event discussion about this. I shared the concerns about a downhill finish with only a short view of incoming runners and no pre-warning system. I had assumed that we had resolved the matter by agreeing to move the tents from their Individual day location to afford a longer view of the run-in. It turned out my assumption was wrong, and that there was no plan to move the tents, nor the manpower and means available to do it.

As a result the Organiser and I experimented with a loop beyond the changeover and back again, but with the limited space available it meant that the lanes were too narrow and the loop back uphill was too tight.

We decided to revert to the plan you saw on the day. I checked this out with Dave Peel early on the morning and he felt it met the needs of the elite, who obviously approach changeover fastest.

Despite my reservations about the layout, my observations no the day were that changeover largely worked smoothly. My apologies to anyone who nevertheless was inconvenienced.

[seabird]

At the big relays I have done the team number and leg number have been printed on the back of the maps. At most relays in the UK all that is printed on the map is the gaffel, and then the team number is printed on a sticker, and this is suck onto the folded map. Human error happens, remove it from the process. Some events/clubs already do this, but it should become common practice.

Good suggestion - but claiming it eliminates the possibility of human error is perhaps a tad overstated.

[easternmost?]

At the big relays I have done the team number and leg number have been printed on the back of the maps. At most relays in the UK all that is printed on the map is the gaffel, and then the team number is printed on a sticker, and this is suck onto the folded map. Human error happens, remove it from the process. Some events/clubs already do this, but it should become common practice.

At POM this year butterfly loops were massively over-used. But, each map had the gaffel, name and start time printed on the back. It doesn't take much effort, but it makes a big difference.

Unless the map printer can automatically do a "mail merge" to print team numbers onto the backs of maps then you would have to run them through a printer for a second time, human errors could still occur. It would be easier to audit the shuffling process if the gaffle was visible on the map but I think it is vital to keep this concealed. The whole point of a gaffled relay is ruined if runners can determine who is or isn't on the identical course in the waiting pen. Adding the name to the map would require entries and registration to close quite early so that there is time to prepare the maps.

The great problem is that we only get one chance to do it. I work in manufacturing and when we develop a manufacturing process we trial it, measure the performance and then implement improvements. We don't have that luxury as we get one shot at the event. Each time I think we are re-inventing the process. Perhaps this should be an area to focus on at the major event conference with an aim to produce a robust relay map shuffling method.

It does take a lot of effort ; I spent 5 hours counting and preparing maps for shuffling. 3 hours printing labels and then checking the numbers against available bibs and team sequences. many hours determining the choice and distribution of gaffles. 5 hours shuffling and labelling maps with a team of 10 people. 3 hours counting spare maps after shuffling. 2 hours checking through one course because my audit showed there was an error, which I found and corrected .2 hours labelling more maps when late entries boosted numbers. I'm not content that we had an error rate of 0.13% but we tried our best.

[distracted]

I would guess Mharky's suggestions come from his experiences in Scandinavia. I often wonder why we ignore their "best practice" over here as they have shown it to work at events of far greater size than we will ever get.

It would be easier to audit the shuffling process if the gaffle was visible on the map but I think it is vital to keep this concealed. The whole point of a gaffled relay is ruined if runners can determine who is or isn't on the identical course in the waiting pen.

Another advantage of the Scandinavian system in not having a map-issue system - the first time the runners see the map is at the point of changeover. No chance for any comparisons or cheating by looking at the map beforehand. But when the system has suggested for use in recent years, it has been dismissed because the JK is "too big an event" - yet it works at TioMila and Jukola?

Adding the name to the map would require entries and registration to close quite early so that there is time to prepare the maps.

I think Mharky was suggesting just a team name/club and number, and lap number on the back of each map. The names was something that happened at an individual event. I think the team/lap printing process is probably less error-prone but would require the planner to have the gaffle allocation sorted in advance and sent to the printer. But you'd have a double-check here - at the printer as well as with the planner.

[easternmost?]

Another advantage of the Scandinavian system in not having a map-issue system - the first time the runners see the map is at the point of changeover. No chance for any comparisons or cheating by looking at the map beforehand. But when the system has suggested for use in recent years, it has been dismissed because the JK is "too big an event" - yet it works at TioMila and Jukola?

The risk I see with these systems is that you have to be very careful putting the maps out onto boards or canes, human error can again cause a mix up. There can also be problems if someone picks up the wrong map. But, if they work for the big Scandinavian events we should consider them.

[King Penguin]

Worked for BUCS relays last year as well.......

[ba-ba]

aye. No comparing of gaffles down the tube/through the paper there...