Northern Championships - not grim up North

[mister blobs]

Thanks to NATO for the Northern Champs.
Even before the event we'd had to change start times and this was all completed in good humour - thanks Patrick.
The helpers on both days were universally helpful. One of the start officials helped our M10 with his loose control descriptions which was much appreciated.
The weather was beautiful - is it always like that up there?!

Having looked at the previous map and the final details I think that the instructiosn for the wall/fence crossings were understandable but I understand not everyone reads the final details with such care.

I also had some confusion between 5's and 6's on the loose descriptions but most of the time it was still clear. My biggest problem was the blue on the 1:15,000 map. I had a couple of controls that I was surprised to find were on ditches when I looked at the description because I couldn't see the ditch on the map. Maybe it is just my eyes getting old. Not the this delayed me at all - I just can't run fast enough.

[Freefall]

There are some new photos of Ray Demesne on the NATO website including "action" fence crossing pictures. Most taken on Sunday but a few (including a miserable looking planner) taken in the run up to the event.

[Wayward-O]

Really enjoyed my course, except the heather.

Regarding the uncrossable wall issue, I prefer a purple underprint, as this retains the wall / fence symbol being so marked.

A second option, as previously mentioned, is to take guidance from ISSOM. Here, though, I'd suggest it is not the symbol that should be 'borrowed', but the interpretation. For walls and fences that are not to be crossed, symbols 521 High Stone Wall and 524 High Fence would be used and identified as 'forbidden to cross'.

[seabird]

Wayward O's second option certainly has attractions for my club's Dales areas which are plagued by maintained walls which must not be crossed. It means that if the rules are followed the map is festooned with purple underlay.

In the past we have made it clear in final details and on the start line that the High Wall and Fence symbols mean MUST NOT be crossed. The normal wall symbol means can be crossed where the wall is already broken (irregular gaps), and the ruined wall or fence symbol means they can be crossed anywhere.

We have had no known breaches of these instructions, but the many debates there have been here, suggest to me that the correct interpretation of the High Wall and Fence symbols (crossable if you can manage it) means that this approach is no longer realistic.

[seabird]

It's sad to see Colin write in his Planners comments: -
"I was disappointed to see deliberate cheating by runners who knew that crossing fences was prohibited. I assume you will add your real routes on Routegadget? "

The people I have talked with who crossed fences at unauthorised points only realised their mistake when back in the car park. They were certainly not "deliberately cheating".

At race speed they had not picked out the thin fence line on the map. When they hit it, particularly if they were in a patch of open land, (not all the wooded enclosures were entirely wooded) they could not be sure whether it was one of the permitted fences to be crossed or not, particularly as they were all easily crossable.

Proper use of the purple underlay would have given them no excuse. Some have suggested that this would have been too confusing in the final stretch of woodland where some courses did a couple of loops. I'm not sure this would be the case. But if so, in my view, the planning should have been adjusted in this area so that the purple underlay symbol did not unduly confuse the picture.

[Jethro]

Graeme wrote,
As I clambered over a rickety gate beside a stout-looking barbed wire fence, it occured to me that in many years of climbing hundreds of such fences I've never managed to damage one, and in any case the time needed to repair is tiny compared with the effort that goes into planning and controlling. Are we being too precious about this?

Graeme, you normally spout forth fairly sensibly on this forum, but for once I feel you are way out of line. It is very easy to cause damage to a fence by climbing over it (and not everyone will cross a fence as athletically as you doubtless do) some of which, such as strectching the wires and causing them to lose tension, might not be immediately obvious to the casual observer. Fences, particulary between farmland and forestry, are a vital part of farm management and should not be treated lightly. Far better to do what NATO did and specify crossing points either using existing ones or creating them specifically for the event to localise any damage rather than it being potentially scattered at random over a considerable length. I still think however that a purple overprint should have been used and I have to agree with Seabird that if it was felt that it was going to cause confusion then the planning would have to be changed. At the end of the day if a landowner requests that fences, for whatever reason, are not to be crossed then we as competitors and organisers have to respect that.

[andypat]

It's sad to see Colin write in his Planners comments: -
"I was disappointed to see deliberate cheating by runners who knew that crossing fences was prohibited. I assume you will add your real routes on Routegadget? "

Colin has certainly proved himself to be no shrinking violet in the past few weeks! Suspect he and Mharky are in fact distant cousins.....

I wonder is anyone has the inclination to take the fence crossing issue to the obvious next level ie to admit to crossing one mistakenly - be disqualified and then challenge it to get some sort of definitive answer. ( I entered but couldnt go - injured - so not me!)

[AndyC]

As the guy who made the temporary crossing points and spent most of Monday repairing them and walking the rest of the fences -can I comment?
Graeme is right in that I noticed rickety gates with solid and secure fences less likely to be damaged next to them that I would (while out walking) have preferrred to cross - but the one point of possible damage involves a large fence end post with new looking wire. I presume that it looked reliable and can quite understand someone going over it rather than the gate next to it. Unfortunately it was rotted at ground level and snapped at that point so appearances can be deceptive. To add to that I'd rather deal with localised damage to a gate than have to sort out a long fence damaged in a couple of places.
For the fences I cut I'd already commented that I'd crossed more difficult fences on LG courses but we needed to limit possible damage and cater for both the younger and the older runners. I just hope that I made them appropriately obvious and that our Club Chairman was alone is using it as a target from a long way away hence reducing the navigational challenge.
On the point that some of the fences had clearings "wood-side" - I cut two of those and on the others it should be clear that the fence bounds the wood on either side of the clearing and even in the mist before everyone started that should be obviously not to be crossed surely?

[RJ]

I still think however that a purple overprint should have been used and I have to agree with Seabird that if it was felt that it was going to cause confusion then the planning would have to be changed.

Using a purple underprint has to be thought through carefully. I would suggest not using the overprint colour of the course. You will end up with loads of lines that can cause confusion when tracing your route on the map. I feel a different colour should be used, and would suggest red. For most 'normal' sighted people this will give a sufficient difference in the visual interpretation of the map. For those who are 'red' deficient(?) in their eyesight it will appear black.

The crossing of walls and boundaries is such a sensitive matter in most parts of the country, and as is often the case, permission to use the area at a subsequent event is only refused when that second permission is sought. It is very rare to find out immediately after an event that permission is lost. Farmers and land owners discover the damage done to fences some time after an event and then aren't keen to have the club back again some years later.

As Jethro says, a fence or wall can be destabilised by crossing it, it can be weakened. Don't assume that just because it was OK when you crossed it that it remains so.

We have to be sensible and sensitive with this matter. Planners should do their best to make the matter clear and unambiguous on the map. Some options are on the table..... so lets decide!!

[EddieH]

It is a really weird thing in sport how certain things are considered unacceptable cheating whilst others for no obvious reason are treated with huge respect from competitors, e.g. in cricket fielders never calim a catch when they know it bounced, but batsmen almost always dishonesty claim to have missed a ball when caught.

I am afraid that crossing illegal features in orienteering is one of those where a large number of people don't respect the rules, (although amongst the elite most seem to be scrupulously honest). Perhaps too many ambiguous or unclear markings has led to this attitude. Many people even seem to feel aggrieved or unlucky if caught and disqualified.

I can never get my head around how people who have not completed a course can wish to claim a result. Even more so when they are potentially cousing problems for future access.

As I suspected before the event happened it is absolutely clear that in this case many people were not clear of what they were allowed to cross. My comments on people cheating do not apply to these people - there's nothing I hate more on a course than not knowing where I am allowed to go.

[seabird]

Yes, AndyC, the gates were appropriately taped and obvious if you were looking for them.

I haven't had the opportunity, like you, of looking at the points that people have described to me where they have crossed the fences at unmarked spots, so cannot judge the validity of their arguments.

My point is simply that all these were people who are very aware of the need to keep landowners on board, and to respect their wishes. They were all far faster orienteers than me, who made genuine errors, which they are not happy about. At my speed it is much easier to take in the less distinct information on the map.

We have to learn that however copious and detailed written instructions are, they do not adequately take the place of that information clearly and boldly shown on the map.

[Jethro]

Seabird wrote,
We have to learn that however copious and detailed written instructions are, they do not adequately take the place of that information clearly and boldly shown on the map

Hear, hear.

[DeerTick]

Of course, I am being utterly naive, by saying put a control at the crossing point, or even one on each side.

AP

[DaveR]

Seabird wrote,
We have to learn that however copious and detailed written instructions are, they do not adequately take the place of that information clearly and boldly shown on the map

Hear, hear.

Absolutely correct. A lesson quite frequently taught and less frequently learnt.

[Scott]

Of course, I am being utterly naive, by saying put a control at the crossing point

That is generally the best solution, but doesn't work so well when you have a choice of crossing points. In that situation you could perhaps put controls (with the same code?) at each of the possible crossing points, but we don't really have a nice standard way of representing that on a map (or control descriptions).