Northern Championships - not grim up North

[Gnitworp]

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).

It was once recommended as an alternative solution in a now defunct BOF Guideline, but I've never known it done. In my view legs involving a choice of compulsory crossing points, which I cannot ensure will be used, are far from ideal. Personally, I'd try to get comparable challenge in my courses a different way.

[Scott]

I've seen it done at a Mountain Trial a couple of years ago, when we had three controls on three different footpaths across the same bit of farmland and had to visit one of them. As far as I'm aware it worked fine, although perhaps it's perhaps a bit easier to ask competitors to remember that sort of "special rule" when you only have eight controls in 30km.

[seabird]

You'd have to be careful that you didn't use either of those controls on junior courses - or you might have some very unfortunate relocation at the wrong control!

[SYO Member]

Although I wasn't at the event, it's always mystified me as to why ISOM mapping symbols have continued to exclude a symbol for walls and fences that shouldn't be crossed.

Prior to 1990 there was a thin line double tag fence symbol for 'uncrossable boundary', but that year's ISOM spec excluded this and kept the thin line single tag fence and single dot stone wall but also added the thicker line double tag high fence and double dot high stone wall but neither had an indication of crossability. And these remained unchanged in the ISOM 2000 spec.

It was only in the first ISSOM 2007 spec that the IOF recognised that there was a requirement for fences and walls of whatever height on the ground not to be crossed, and gave new symbols with double tags/dots and of line width double those for ISOM. They are also described as 'impassable' and 'forbidden to cross'.

Although it's a pity that these enhanced descriptions still aren't applied to their ISOM equivalents, it looks like things may be changing....

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=1 ... 6&topic=78

.....and not before time.

So hopefully after the next IOF mapping conference in 2012, there may be no more need for purple lines on boundaries or to say that all adjacent fields are OOB.

[EddieH]

I do remember an event where there were lines drawn between controls via 2 control crossing points both with the same number. It was heavily publicised and caused no-one any problem. Clearly easy to do with the old John Bull printing kit. I'm not sure how we'd do it in Condes.

[Mrs H]

I remember such an event as well - possibly with 3 identical controls and definitely only about 5 or 6 years ago. It was also well publicised and caused no problem - can't remember where it was though

[AndyC]

In the specific instance of Ray Demense that sensible approach wouldn't work as there are at least 3 courses where route choice gave the option of going through a wood (and needing crossing points) or running around the wood (and therefore not needing crossing points) - isn't obvious which is slower so competitors might choose either route.

[Gnitworp]

Was it quicker, or more precisely might people have thought it was quicker, to cross the fence not at the crossing points? That's the issue.

Also, extending the same logic (if you must preserve your choices), why does your 'alternative' control have to be on a crossing point? Personally, as I said in my previous post, I'd try to avoid the dilemma in the first place.

[Freefall]

How do I insert a couple of pictures illustrating route choice option and purple overprint? How do I get the image url e.g. it is on my c drive a few directories down

[andy]

there's an 'Upload attachment' tab below the save/preview/submit buttons that'll do what you're looking for

[Freefall]

Some images of the course to add to the debate!

Straight or around by the crossing

straightorround.jpg (80.39 KiB) Viewed 9748 times

Too much confusion?

purpleoverprint.jpg (137.57 KiB) Viewed 9751 times

[EddieH]

That extract is not confusing to me anyway. I'd far rather have a little problem working out where my next control is than have the major dilemma of not knowing what I am allowed to do.

[AndyC]

I'd have shown them the leg between 4&5 on course 2 or the leg between 6&7 on course 1 Picture and route choices from Routegadget . I trust the blue line is a drawing error not an illegal fence crossing as i don't remember a crossing point there

[seabird]

Re Freefalls illustrations:

With the first I was cursing having taken the long way round the outside of the fence (having used the north displayed crossing). A club member who beat my by 10 minutes had taken the straight route through the west crossing and had said it was good running all the way. But then I looked at the splits and it was the one leg on which I beat him.

The second illustration is a little unfair. The purple should be an underprint so that the fence can be seen, and it would also need to be cut at the crossing points. Likewise the line to Control 13 would need to be cut and possibly directed through a crossing point unless their was a reasonabale choice. All extra work for your hard pressed planner - but necessary.

If the suggested changes, which SYO member drew our attention to, are implemented in ISOM I'd be delighted.

[andy]

I'd have shown them the leg between 4&5 on course 2 or the leg between 6&7 on course 1 Picture and route choices from Routegadget . I trust the blue line is a drawing error not an illegal fence crossing as i don't remember a crossing point there

wow, someone else chose the crappy route I took on 7!