Routegadget reproduction

[andypat]

Agree with AWK on the difference between tricksiness (where you need the control description to avoid ending up on the wrong side of the feature) and unfairness (where the control description could mean more than one thing). Tricksiness is expected in Urban - its how planners stop you getting bored with long runs along boring streets. I'd say that the events Graeme is referring to this weekend are sprints rather than urban where tricksiness is not generally the aim of the game.

However I think AWK is being too dismissive of the barriers that exist to newcomers in the sport of orienteering. Lack of legend on maps is one, the pictorial control description is another. Like it or not, a control description looks like a differneet language to those unfamiliar with it. I made a couple of (minor) mistakes in the cds for the last event i planned and I've 25 odd years of experience.

Control descriptions are not in the main intuitive either to a newbie- how do you explain paved area, or man made feature. Even re-entrant or spur are only obvious because we know thats what they are. I you think this is wide of the mark, take a control description into work and show it to someone who isnt an O geek and see how they get on.

[SeanC]

I wonder if AWK means that newcomers can handle the technical /unintuitive aspects of the sport with a little coaching/training/whatever you want to call it. A lot of orienteering (control descriptions/map symbols, terminology) is intimidating rather than too difficult for newcomers... but enough to put many people off - especially at events where the manpower is insufficient to give all the newcomers lots of help. Plus I think many non-orienteers fear getting lost, that they will be wondering around for hours, or will feel like a failure. Maybe we need to explain that in orienteering you are never lost, just less sure of your location than normal?

I see that he London race has a "newcomers" course. Seems like a good way forward as such courses could have things simplified considerably for urban orienteering - simplified maps, simple control sites and simple descriptions etc. What are SLOW doing?

[andypat]

I wonder if AWK means that newcomers can handle the technical /unintuitive aspects of the sport with a little coaching/training/whatever you want to call it.

I think you are right Sean, some coaching/training/whatever could (and does where it exists) help newcomers handle the technical/unintuitive aspects of the sport. But to put that in place we need to acknowledge that there is something there that needs to be handled in the first place. Well done to the London guys with their huge entry for the city race. Sounds like they are getting something right - wish i could make it.

[awk]

That is pretty much what I meant.

I wouldn't expect a beginner to have or to receive a pictorial control description such as the one where the verbal version caused Mrs H grief. But then I wouldn't expect a beginner on that course unless they were comfortable with the descriptions. After all, I wouldn't ask a beginner to perform a complex gymnastics move, perform a difficult martial arts move, paddle in high grade water, climb a technical climb or compete at national level against experienced sportsmen/women in a wide range of sports.

Orienteering is a technical sport. Using complex maps and complex descriptions is part and parcel of that technicality. I for one would object to any dumbing down, especially for a race that is part of a national league.

But I agree, andypat, that technicality needs to be acknowledged. Given SLOW's track record over the past years, I'm not really surprised they are getting the numbers they are, because they have acknowledged and addressed just that.

[graeme]

Using complex maps and complex descriptions is part and parcel of that technicality.

This question comes down to "whose side is the mapper on?".
To me, the mapper should be 100% on the side of the competitor, creating a map which is as simple as possible while conveying all the necessary information. The best mappers dont put in extraneous clutter and detail just to make things more "complex".
Complex terrain is good. Overcomplex maps are not.

Similarly with control descriptions. If a control is on a path, and the navigational challenge is to get to that path, then you call it "path", not "southwesternmost wall inside southeast-pointing concave corner". Even if there is a wall by the path. The best mappers dont use obfuscatory pictorial verbiage just to make things more "complex".
Complex navigation is good. Overcomplex descriptions are not.

[andypat]

You are quite correct Graeme. But also missing the point. In the case in question the navigational challenge wasnt to find the path. It was to navigate to the correct side of the control feature. In this case an uncrossable wall. The fact that the control site may have been incorrectly described doesnt mean that "path" was necessarily a suitable alternative!

PS Assume you wont have time to reply as you'll be up all night checking the control descriptions for the PWT?

[DJM]

andypat wrote

I'd say that the events Graeme is referring to this weekend are sprints rather than urban where tricksiness is not generally the aim of the game

Not sure exactly what is meant by "tricksiness", but if it is something to do with having to think hard about the best route, then "tricksiness" is definitely a feature of Sprint too, as supported by the IOF Competition Rules:

Finding the controls should not be the challenge; rather the ability to choose and complete the best route to them. For example, the most obvious way out from a control should not necessarily be the most favourable one

[andypat]

I guess for me the difference is more in the spirit - its difficult to define though.....

Tricksiness for me goes further than just having to think hard about the best route. In urban I'd also be looking out for the red herring route that looks good but passes 20m below the control, that sort of thing.

If I was planning an urban event and I managed to tempt a competitor into the circle but they had to go back out of it again to get to the control I'd be happy.

I think it all depends on the area, but in a sprint event I'd be much less inclined to put in a "trick" control that could cost a competitor so much time that it affected the event - it wouldnt seem to be in the spirit of sprint.

[pete.owens]

Similarly with control descriptions. If a control is on a path, and the navigational challenge is to get to that path, then you call it "path", not "southwesternmost wall inside southeast-pointing concave corner". Even if there is a wall by the path. The best mappers dont use obfuscatory pictorial verbiage just to make things more "complex".
Complex navigation is good. Overcomplex descriptions are not.

But the purpose of control descriptions is (as stated in the IOF spec):
"to give greater precision to the picture given by the map of the control feature and the location of control flag in relation to this feature"
"path" is a long linear feature - and would usually be a poor description (for forest or urban-o) due to the lack of precision of how far along the path to find the control. In this case the inside corner of the wall tells you exactly where to find the control (how far along the path and on which side) and also ensures that the controller can check that the planner has placed the kite exactly at the intended position.

Symbolically, this is no more complex than "southwestern shallow re-entrant, upper part" that we would think entirely uncontroversial in a forest course. It is only when we attempt to translate descriptions into English that they get overcomplicated.

The other, rather pedantic, point is that the control description should correspond to the ISOM symbol used on the map. (for path 505-508). In this case what is mapped is a thin paved area (529) enclosed by uncrossable walls (521.1).

[awk]

Similarly with control descriptions. If a control is on a path, and the navigational challenge is to get to that path, then you call it "path", not "southwesternmost wall inside southeast-pointing concave corner". Even if there is a wall by the path. The best mappers dont use obfuscatory pictorial verbiage just to make things more "complex".

I don't regard two simple symbols as being overly complex. In the example being discussed, we've got one symbol saying that it's on a wall, and a second symbol showing very simply where it is on that wall.
I agree that this could be very complex to describe verbally, but the pictorials make it simple.
Rather than it being obuscatory, I also regard it as simpler, or at least clearer, because it tells me exactly where the control is. We had a control later on on the course where the descripton was the much simpler "path" or "road" (I can't remember which precisely now - about c22 on the B), and I was a lot more hesitant coming into it because of the lack of precision.

[roadrunner]

I agree with AWK on this one. It doesn't just apply to urban events; for a moorland event, you could describe almost every control as "open land" (IOF 4.1) followed by "northeast part" etc, but although correct, that would be no use at all to a competitor. On the other hand, you could describe a specific control as (for example) "gully" (which would be better: a line rather than an area) or "boulder" (which happened to be next to the gully - a point, best of all). So the best description is that which specifies most precisely where the control is located.

As far as the problem of newcomers to the sport understanding the symbolic descriptions is concerned, I don't think the ones encountered in urban races are too bad - you have to understand what the symbols on the map mean, and many of the control descriptions look similar (with the odd exception, like monument or building pass-through). For forest events, there are a far wider range of descriptions, and I agree that these are more difficult to learn.