Routegadget reproduction

[Mrs H]

Probably one of the factors at play here in the siting of it and the resultant control description was that the control was also used on the other courses, not just the D course.

S.

Could you explain why?


graeme wrote:
I'm sure even MrsH could have figured that out .


Cheeky monkey! Incidentally the answer to you question on how to not split the infinitive is simply not to split the infinitive

[andypat]

Well I for one am looking forward to reading Mrs H's column in the next issue of CompassSport!

[Strider]

Probably one of the factors at play here in the siting of it and the resultant control description was that the control was also used on the other courses, not just the D course.

S.

Could you explain why?

If you look at the three other courses, A-C, on routegadget, they all use the same control, but approach it from east/south east. The planner was trying to create the classic urban 'trap' scenario of runners not reading/interpreting their control description properly and ending up navigating to the wrong side of the feature. A trap I unfortunately fell into....

Placing it, and then describing it, as 'path' would have removed this trap.

S.

[Homer]

The planner was trying to create the classic urban 'trap' scenario of runners not reading/interpreting their control description properly and ending up navigating to the wrong side of the feature.

I thought so! I also fell into this trap, but feel a little hard done by because in reality there was no access to the other side of the wall. The only way into that area had a locked gate barring access but the map shows an open entrance. I think as there was no access into the area in question it should have been mapped as olive green as other private garden areas were.

Another query. I note a number of retaining walls were mapped as crags. A reasonable use of the crag symbol. However, some of these appear to be thick black (not to be crossed) lines, whereas others are thinner black lines. I wonder whether the intention was that these were OK to cross? I note from Routegadget that most people on course B appear to have gone around the wall within the park with the maze, but not all...

[mappingmum]

Hats off to Strider for answering all these questions.

[SJC]

The planner was trying to create the classic urban 'trap' scenario of runners not reading/interpreting their control description properly

Orienteering is about navigation, not the dark art of interpreting the control descriptions.
Calling the control site a path doesn't change the navigational challenge of getting to the control one iota.

[Strider]

I thought so! I also fell into this trap, but feel a little hard done by because in reality there was no access to the other side of the wall. The only way into that area had a locked gate barring access but the map shows an open entrance. I think as there was no access into the area in question it should have been mapped as olive green as other private garden areas were.

This area can be accessed, as it is part of the University campus and not a private garden, and so the mapper represents it as such. However, you're right, the access gate was locked on the day of the event. I can't vouch for the planner/controller on whether this was checked as part of the planning process - you'd have to ask them on this one!

Another query. I note a number of retaining walls were mapped as crags. A reasonable use of the crag symbol. However, some of these appear to be thick black (not to be crossed) lines, whereas others are thinner black lines. I wonder whether the intention was that these were OK to cross? I note from Routegadget that most people on course B appear to have gone around the wall within the park with the maze, but not all...

Some discussion between the organising team took place after the event as to whether those crags in the arboretum should have been mapped as uncrossable or not. Approaching from above, the crag was relatively easy to drop down from, as I did. However, it was a different proposition when approached from below...

Looking at the IOF ISSOM 2007 guidelines gives the following:

2.3 Barriers that are forbidden to cross
To make sprint orienteering fair to all competitors, features that are represented on the map as impassable, independently of their effective passability, shall not be crossed. This rule is essential for two reasons:
It is impossible to declare an exact height when an obstacle becomes impassable. Effective passability depends very much on the physical characteristics of the competitors such as body height and strength.
Running and navigational skills should be the success factors for competitors in a race, rather than luck when it comes to climbing or jumping barriers or violating public law.

Which would tend to indicate that they should have been marked as uncrossable. However, when you look at the '5. Definition of Symbols' section later on, it gives the following:

201 Impassable cliff
An impassable cliff, quarry or earth bank (see symbol 106). Minimum height is 2 meters.

203 Passable rock face
Minimum height is 1 m.

And the crag is certainly not 2m high.... Interesting.... Thoughts of others on this one?

S.

[madmike]

As it was mapped as crossable, I went down to the crag for a look but given the fragile state of my ankle/foot elected not to jump down and then went along to the steps losing a few seconds -my considered choice. The crags were probably too high for all orienteers to jump down even though most probably could.

You can argue how to map these crags both ways and as long as it is consistent across the map either is acceptable in my view.

Senior Cses can (should/must) be planned to not offer crag jumping as an option whilst leaving a valid micro-route choice in for the more agile.

As an aside it is interesting to speculate how many legitimate control descriptions you can have for some sites in urban areas?

[Spookster]

And the crag is certainly not 2m high.... Interesting.... Thoughts of others on this one?

S.

As I ran up through the park I couldn't decide if the crag (retaining wall) was allowed to be crossed or not. I tried looking on the map for a "thick line crag" but couldn't immediately see one for comparison, so I took the safe option and went round.

I spoke to Bill about it - he did the same but spotted a thick-line crag (beside the road) and therefore immediately realised that the retaining wall was only a thin line, so crossed it (up and down).

[Mrs H]

The planner was trying to create the classic urban 'trap' scenario of runners not reading/interpreting their control description properly and ending up navigating to the wrong side of the feature. A trap I unfortunately fell into....

Placing it, and then describing it, as 'path' would have removed this trap.

S.

I'm finding your explanation a little hard to square with your assertion that the control description was not ambiguous or open to interpretation - which is my assertion. You seem to be saying that the planner was deliberately creating a degree of uncertainty about the location of the control so that some people would fall into "a trap" because in your own words

describing it, as 'path' would have removed this trap.

[Gnitworp]

Am I alone in the thought that transposing East & West on Control Descriptions is another form of the "180 degree error" we experience regularly as competitors?

No you're not!

If I have sufficient time before the race, I always translate the compass direction qualifiers into words on the symbol clue sheet. In the case of the 'offending' control 60, I would have written 'NW facing' on the sheet given the chance.

Re the crossable crag above the maze. I heard that some Norwegians at an IOF mapping conference a while back (before ISSOM) wanted a special symbol for a crag crossable in one direction: their request was rejected!

[AndyC]

The planner was trying to create the classic urban 'trap' scenario of runners not reading/interpreting their control description properly

Orienteering is about navigation, not the dark art of interpreting the control descriptions.
Calling the control site a path doesn't change the navigational challenge of getting to the control one iota.

I have in the past noticed from Control Codes that my wife (running TD3) and myself ("running" TD5) have a control in common -more than once that has stopped me making the mistake of assuming a more difficult location and wasting effort.
Just for clarification is it legitimate (I know it is possible) to give the same control different descriptions on different courses in the same event?

[Neil M40]

from BOF rules appendix A

"1.1.2 A good control is found primarily by map reading. Descriptions and codes can assist
in this task, but should be kept as short and simple as is necessary to locate the control."

so according to the rules "path" is the appropriate description, but then it only says should be and not shall be, and being a bit tricksy seems to be more accepted in urban-o than real orienteering.

[Strider]

being a bit tricksy seems to be more accepted in urban-o than real orienteering.

Oh, very definitely.. every urban event I've been to in the last year has had at least one control on the course where careful reading and correct interpretation of the control description is an absolute must in order to solve effectively the planner's conundrum that he/she is setting you.

Whether that's strictly legit or not, as implied earlier in the thread, it is a definite part of the UK urban planning scene.

S.

[graeme]

Whether that's strictly legit or not, as implied earlier in the thread, it is a definite part of the UK urban planning scene.

Not in any event I have anything to do with it ain't.

I don't much care if Mrs.H can't tell the difference between
"SE wall corner NW side", "wall SE inside corner" and "wall SE corner inside"
but it is completely opaque to newcomers, especially when translated into pictorials.

Urban races have fantastic potential to promote what is essentially a simple sport, without the geeky/uncool complications of mud, brambles, gaiters, bearings, pacing, whistles, cagoules etc. Its quite depressing how urban races have failed to bring in a cohort of new members.

Some geeky things like "forbidden to cross" features seem inevitable, but making detailed knowledge of heiroglyphs a key part is a majorly backward step.