Lakes 5 Days 2010

[Jon Brooke]

I've come up with a new and interesting way to decide the winner of an orienteering race. Everyone runs the course as normal, but instead of taking the fastest time, we look at each split. You split times are converted into points using some random flawed formula. You then take your best points from say, 7/10 splits, and the winner is the person with the highest score.

This allows people to make silly mistakes, like missing out a control or retiring half way round to actually get a complete result. Everyone's a winner! (Except the winner probably)

What do people think?

I think that on the whole the same people would win, but fewer people would be disqualified.

But then nobody IS suggesting that are they?

It's a strawman argument.

It's ironic thatt you want everyone to stick to one set of rules for orienteering events but that you think it's OK to play by any old rules for conducting an argument.

[lilywhite]

Why don't we take the ditching an arbitrary number of your crappest days scoring system to it's logical conclusion and count only your best 0 from 5 days. That way everyone would be a winner and there'd be no disqualifications.

[awk]

Let me rephrase that... Who would you want in your relay team?

A bit late in responding, but missed this initially. Answer is, that it's completely irrelevant. As I said, I know all the arguments, but am quite prepared to put up with this sort of thing for the sake of simplicity and immediacy of results. After all, I could put it another way - would one rather have 4 wins under one's belt, or 2 (e.g. think World Championships) - who gives a toss if one's won by 1 second or 5 minutes, it's still a win.
I'm quite prepared to play by the rules of races with mathematical fudges (it's the rules, just get on with it), but prefer races where it's done on places. After all, time is not absolute in orienteering: 10 seconds in a long race is very different to 10 seconds in a sprint; a win is a win.

[pete.owens]

So for Caw - no trees

But there were trees at the end at Caw, and some courses had a control on a copse which was simply invisible on the map.

(Didn't cause me any problems, the copse wasn't on my course, but a clubmate was seriously annoyed).

But the copse (more of a hedge really) was in an area of dark yellow so the contrast would have been exactly the same. A very thin line of white with an earth wall running through the middle is always going to be a bit tricky to spot.

[IanD]

But the copse (more of a hedge really) was in an area of dark yellow so the contrast would have been exactly the same. A very thin line of white with an earth wall running through the middle is always going to be a bit tricky to spot.

It was spotted on the map, but mistaken for rough open, since that was white on the map too. I don't want really want to get too involved in this argument, since it didn't affect my course. I merely pass on the comment from someone else.

For the record, I really enjoyed Caw, and thought it the best area of the four (despite being my discard day). My personal criticism of Caw would be that the final details could helpfully have mentioned that in some areas 3m crag were not mapped, it took me a while to work that out (hence my meanderings around 5 on course 5).

[Mrs H]

Yes I enjoyed it too - it was my best run of the week but the colour certainly fooled me and I didn't have the copse. Coming down through the bright yellow and folding my map small I lost touch with the rest of the map and started looking for a control on a wall in trees. The trees were of course the "magnolia" rough open which a noted mapper explained to me as perfectly legal "urban wash" I missed out on my coaster by 3 seconds - but given that I also had one of the fastest split on that leg I'm guessing that everyone else on my course was even more confused so I'm not complaining.

Can anyone remember if the colour convention was mentioned in the details - I think it has been when used in the past in Scotland etc. The colour coded maps were VERY different and my day 1 map was a sort of citrus green

[rocky]

...would one rather have 4 wins under one's belt, or 2 (e.g. think World Championships) - who gives a toss if one's won by 1 second or 5 minutes, it's still a win.

@Mharky - this was exactly the argument I used when proposing the current six day system. I've been on the wrong side of a 1 second deficit often enough to know that it does make a difference - and at the top that's what counts.
Further down the page the two systems arrive at very similar results anyway, so the choice of system isn't really that relevant.

-Murray

[graeme]

this was exactly the argument I used when proposing the current six day system.

Along with "don't use it for my class"

[pete.owens]

Can anyone remember if the colour convention was mentioned in the details - I think it has been when used in the past in Scotland etc. The colour coded maps were VERY different and my day 1 map was a sort of citrus green

I don't think there was any specific convention for the event - other than standard ISOM. Maps were just whatever yellow colour they happened to be. looking through my collection of Lake District maps there does seem to be a wide variety from pure white (Pike O Blisco), lemon yellow (Swindale), urban paved area brown (Lingmoor).

I do agree that the colour was a touch too pale on the Caw map - especially as waterproof paper is not as white as older maps, but there are legitimate reasons to use different shades in different circumstances.

Perhaps it depends on the level of dehydration of the mapper:
http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/downloads/ ... nkaart.pdf

[slang]

Can anyone remember if the colour convention was mentioned in the details - I think it has been when used in the past in Scotland etc. The colour coded maps were VERY different and my day 1 map was a sort of citrus green

I don't think there was any specific convention for the event - other than standard ISOM. Maps were just whatever yellow colour they happened to be. looking through my collection of Lake District maps there does seem to be a wide variety from pure white (Pike O Blisco), lemon yellow (Swindale), urban paved area brown (Lingmoor).

I do agree that the colour was a touch too pale on the Caw map - especially as waterproof paper is not as white as older maps, but there are legitimate reasons to use different shades in different circumstances.

Caw's rough open was printed with 15% Yellow. I think we should have added a note to final details; and I agree it was too light making it impossible to distinguish between rough open and easy forest. Unfortunately this was not spotted in the samples or during printing.

I understand, the printer for Days 1-3 had intended to match a shade of ISOM yellow, but at the last minute his printer developed a fault. His workaround was to adjust the yellow. He made a call that the maps were still fair with the change. I think he was right.

BTW, BOF Rule Appendix H, 5.1.1 allows the intensity of yellow to be reduced which accounts for some of the variations.

Steve.

[pete.owens]

Caw's rough open was printed with 15% Yellow.

Ahh - so it was -
I thought it was 20% yellow.

[Billy Whizz]

Mharrky wrote:

Let me rephrase that... Who would you want in your relay team?

Let me re-rephrase that: Who would you select (A or B) if they were both eligible (if not by birth, then otherwise ) to run for Scotland and there was just the one place left to fill in the (Scottish) Senior Home International (6-7 Nov) team?

[andypat]

Well I wouldnt base selection on just one event- I'd look at the selection criteria which presumably everyone is aware of and are reasonably fair.
If that doesnt separate them I might just look at other factors - ie is one of them a great team motivator and good for team spirit and the other .......?

[mharky]

Aye, or perhaps one of them has excellent local knowledge of the terrain...

[AndyC]

Is that a euphemism for "knows where the best local pubs are"?