Didcot Urban Race, 30 August

[Blanka]

Analysing splits as one does, see Medium race, position 52nd, leg 8(134) to 9(136). Methinks he won't be marking his route.

Actually we had the same leg on the long course and if you look at the colours carefully (as I did whilst on my course), the green to the north of 136 (#9) is forest fight not the impassable hedge sysmbol. So the guy may have gone north out of #8, along the road and then through the hedge to #9.

I was considering the same route choice (hence having double-checked the colour on the map) but simply couldn't find a reasonable gap in the "fight" vegetation and had to go round and into the control from the east. I think if you did find a gap then you got a *legal* advantage.

[drobin]

Although not shown on the map, there was a (visible) fence with vertical wooden slats (expressly forbidden to cross as per the final details) bordering the dark green and the open.

[Roger]

Analysing splits as one does, see Medium race, position 52nd, leg 8(134) to 9(136). Methinks he won't be marking his route.

The thorn hedge north of 9(136) is 'fight' but not 'uncrossable'. It looked pretty dense to me when I mapped it last year and I didn't expect people to try to go through, but it's a legal route and for a small person with a high tolerance of pain and a good eye for gaps (or a good squirming technique) it could possibly have been fastest. Hearsay maintained that it was less dense a bit further east, where crossing it would have put you into the out-of-bounds gardens (and with another hedge to cross to reach the control). I hope that nobody did that.
[Edit:] the comment in the final details about vertical wooden slats was in the context of fences that had been mapped as uncrossable. It was intended to discourage people from climbing / jumping things that were feasible for an M21 but not for a W70, so for the sake of fairness had to be shown as uncrossable (reluctantly -- at least three of them would have opened up new routes). I should have mapped the fence in question, but as I hadn't then the route was legal.

[Gnitworp]

I investigated the possibility of getting through the hedge and rejected the idea, concluding that 'very difficult to run' was somewhat of an understatement in the context.

[DaveR]

Interesting - from RouteGadget http://www.tvoc.routegadget.co.uk/tvoc/reitti.cgi?act=map&id=7&kieli= this looks like a good area for an urban race with some splendid courses...........and one very dull one.

Have a look at the U 16 course and try and imagine it inspiring anyone to want to go orienteering!

Clearly the planner (who obviously knows how to plan good courses) has followed the "guidance*" on U16s and urban orienteering and this is the best that can be engineered into the area. Pretty dull really, and I can't imagine the planner was happy with it, but I can't see how to get anything more interesting into the area without the occasional road crossing.

If we cannot alter the "guidance" then we will kill urban orienteering for the U16s. Even worse, in our club around 1/2 the families who regularly attend local events have U16s in them so it is close to pointless to map urban areas and put on urban events. This was an area where we had real growth. Amateur mappers (even very amateur like me) could make passable urban maps and they provided a good and very local source of events.

I should be absolutely clear that this is NOT a dig at the planner, but rather at the "guidance" that has apparently been introduced without any decent consultation or explanation and apparently any great thought to its consequences.

Hardly the way for increased participation.



* the "guidance" is that U16s should not take part in any race where they are likely to or required to cross any road (with some very specific exceptions like controlled University Campus areas)

[DM]

If we cannot alter the "guidance" then we will kill urban orienteering for the U16s. Even worse, in our club around 1/2 the families who regularly attend local events have U16s in them so it is close to pointless to map urban areas and put on urban events. This was an area where we had real growth. Amateur mappers (even very amateur like me) could make passable urban maps and they provided a good and very local source of events.

Hardly the way for increased participation.

We have 3 U16, all keen on urban ( and I don't mean park races) and 2 adults. If there's nothing for them then chances are we'll stop going.

The next few urban races will be critical for us.

Another post posed the question "has cost of cover be asked for, or has covered been absolutely refused by the insurers?" Can anyone clarify this and can we all raise our concerns directly with BOF on this subject by emailing or writing in please.

[Oldman]

Personally, I would not wish to be an organiser responsible (including potentially personally financially, and even subject to criminal court action) for the aftermath of a child (ie under-16) being injured or through their action causing injury or damage. I would only undertake such volunteer work if there was insurance, and if the insurers demand such restrictions, then we have to accept them having had sensible discussions with them, which I'm sure there will have been.

[OCM45]

Excellent event, thanks to all involved. Most enjoyable day on a good urban area, with many fiendish dead ends (but where good map-reading eyesight is a real advantage). Car park was excellent with it including the Start, a route option on Leg 1-2 and some headless chicken runners! I met lots of inquisitive youngsters en route, asking "what are you doing mister?" as I ran past- all very good natured.

Very well planned too, I thought, with lots of twisting and turning- indeed I ran out of the control in completely the wrong direction on several occasions. Good to see lots of Routegadget routes now up showing me where I should have gone!

[Roger]

... some splendid courses...........and one very dull one.

I apologised in person to a group of U16s for the enforced tedium, although I did point out that -- if they were still awake -- there were a couple of 'pavement' route-choices cutting through the closes that just about complied with the guidelines and gave slightly shorter routes than the boring runs down the grassy bits.

Most of the roads were traffic-calmed with bends, chicanes and speed humps, so although theoretically the speed limit was 30 mph, in fact the traffic was pretty slow-moving. A bit more flexibility in the guidelines (i.e. not referring to [from memory] campuses with 15 mph limits being the limit of acceptability), allied to a couple more marshalled crossings on the main through-routes, would have enabled me to plan a decent U16 course on this area. But the organiser, who was the person in the firing line, insisted that we follow the guidance and my hands were tied.

The youngsters said that they did enjoy the control-pick in the children's playground at the end of course. Originally all courses had this finish, visiting 3, 4 or 5 of seven closely-packed controls, but ten days before the event the town council said that only the children's and U16 courses could enter the playground. I was really looking forward to observing lots of headless chickens in there, so apologies to the adults that you didn't get the chance. And to the juniors: you did get one treat that was denied to the adults.

[Blanka]

We have 3 U16, all keen on urban ( and I don't mean park races) and 2 adults. If there's nothing for them then chances are we'll stop going.

The next few urban races will be critical for us.

It seems like more and more races are introducing this kind of stipulation. In fact, this coming weekend's Sheffield race even states that you have to bring proof of age if you're an M/W16 running the open courses:

M/W16's who are 16 years old on the day of the event may run in the
Men's/Women's Open class on Course 1 if they so wish, in line with recent BOF
guidelines. If an M/W16, who is 16 years old, wishes to run in the
Men's/Women's Open class, they should enter that class on Fabian4 or EOD,
then on the day they MUST bring proof of age to assembly. M/W16's who are
not 16 on the day of the event HAVE to run in the M/W16 class on Course 3 due
to safety and insurance reasons.

It does seem rather like the restriction has been brought in very suddenly and without much consultation. From the handful of fell races I did in the Peaks I do remember that some of those were restricted to over 16s/18s in some cases, perhaps also due to insurance reasons, so maybe orienteering is not the only sport affected by such restrictions.

[archimedes]

Yes, the requirement for proof of age rather eliminates the possibility (being considered by at least one junior) of running in drag, with wig and sunglasses, under a false name!

[Blanka]

Yes, the requirement for proof of age rather eliminates the possibility (being considered by at least one junior) of running in drag, with wig and sunglasses, under a false name!

But wasn't there some kid who went to vote in the elections even though he was only about 14? He managed to do it by dressing in a way that he would look like an oldie conservative voter...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 667850.stm

I wonder what sorts of ID SYO are going to accept...

[Spookster]

Yes, the requirement for proof of age rather eliminates the possibility (being considered by at least one junior) of running in drag, with wig and sunglasses, under a false name!

But wasn't there some kid who went to vote in the elections even though he was only about 14? He managed to do it by dressing in a way that he would look like an oldie conservative voter...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 667850.stm

I wonder what sorts of ID SYO are going to accept...

Well, only two 16s have entered the open class, and we know their birthdays, so it's a non-issue. But the same rule will apply to any EODs...