Control circles centred on the feature

[70plus]

I do not agree with the concept that reading the control description is a crucial aspect of sprint/urban orienteering. Ideally the location of the control should be obvious from the map.

Maybe the varied opinions here depend on whether the runner gets as fast as possible to the centre of the circle, then if the control doesn't appear, checks the description. This strategy may save a few seconds when it pays off? Maybe the ideal strategy is to memorise the complete description list before starting

In the context of classic O, the circle should be centred on the symbol for point features, not offset for 'Knoll, N side'. The quirks almost verging on practical jokes which seem to be creeping into urban and sprint should not require different interpretations of this kind.

[SJC]

The whole premise of the article appears to be that you should be able to find the control without needing to decipher the control descriptions. I find it hard to disagree with this, although there are clearly others on this thread who think that decoding them is part of the game. (Are these the same people who hide controls in the bracken to make a forest event "more interesting" ?)

Route choices that involve avoiding dead ends are part of the navigational challenge of urban races. What I do object to though is going down a dead end to a control only to find it is the other side of an uncrossable wall, which you can't tell from the map because the planner has centred the circle on the middle of the wall.

[Marco Polo]

I think I would prefer the risk of voiding (all/part) a sprint course because the control descriptions were incorrect over the risk of doing so because the circle was a fraction of a millimetre out and competitors made errors because of it.

In other words, I think it is a useful convention and agree that the planner has a responsibility to centre the circles accurately; but it is a huge responsibility on the planner and controller if competitors are lead to believe that they need not look at the descriptions, and looking at descriptions at the beginning of the leg (or planning legs in advance, of course,) is all part of the "sprint for the mind" concept for me.

Agree with those who have said this is a different problem from burying or hiding controls. There would be a control description for 'hidden' were that allowed

[andypat]

Would you also put the control flag at the bottom of a pit or within a bush?
This would be similar to me and fortunately the planning guidelines have developed to discourage this.[/quote]

No - we are talking about Urban - keep up!

[quote="LostAgain wrote:When Urban grows up and the planning guidelines become established hopefully your attitude will be discouraged.

Well if there's a schism we'll be in opposite camps. I think Urban will grow up to be a rebel teenager, not the class swot.....

[Adrian]

As far as I am concerned dead ends, uncrossable walls etc are defining features of both sprint and urban orienteering and are to be encouraged so long as the map is clear and the scope for taking illegal shortcuts is minimised. I appreciate that some will not enjoy this but others relish the additional mental challenge.

I do not agree with the concept that reading the control description is a crucial aspect of sprint/urban orienteering. Ideally the location of the control should be obvious from the map. Many of our informal street events (and the Harvester ultrasprints) used the dot in the centre of the circle approach. I'm a great fan of this - it gives me confidence that I know where I'm heading just leaving the real orienteering skill of choosing the best way to get there.

I agree with the first paragraph but disagree with the second. The control descriptions are not superfluous, and if a competitor thinks that they are and doesn't bother to read them, they should get their comeuppance.

[SJC]

The control descriptions are not superfluous, and if a competitor thinks that they are and doesn't bother to read them, they should get their comeuppance.

Orienteering is about reading a map, not understanding IOF hieroglyphics. If the map is clear and the the controls well located then the control descriptions should be superfluous. I will go to a birthday party if I want to play a game of hide and seek or take part in a treasure hunt.

[Adrian]

Orienteering is about reading a map, not understanding IOF hieroglyphics. If the map is clear and the the controls well located then the control descriptions should be superfluous.

If you're talking about normal orienteering, that's usually fair comment. But in urban orienteering it just can't be true. There's no way you can tell just by looking at the map which side of a fence a control is on. If you move the circle it is no longer showing the accurate position of the control. If you don't like reading control descriptions, don't do urban orienteering.

[70plus]

If you're talking about normal orienteering, that's usually fair comment. But in urban orienteering it just can't be true. ... If you don't like reading control descriptions, don't do urban orienteering.

I'm with SJC here. I don't do urban-O as it doesn't appeal, but I think it should be as 'normal' as 'normal' O, regarding basic rules and conventions. When controlling I always try to correct planners' deliberate or unintentional attempts to site controls unfairly. But I accept that if an urban map suggests that a control may be inaccessible from certain directions, the description must supply the missing information - provided the map makes that clear.

[Arnold]

I would argue that in urban/sprint races, figuring out where the control is located is actually part of the game (by reading the control description and looking really really closely at the map) - after all you will need to look really really closely to figure out how to get there, so it's just another difficulty thrown at the competitor. That's why many people really enjoy sprint/urban races, you are constantly bombarded with information and have to process it all without getting caught out.

But what is really important is that the control location can be unambiguously determined from description, and that counts for both sprint and forest races.

So "small wall, east side" is fine for me even with the circle centered on the wall - as long as the description is clear then it's fair.

But missing out the side of the feature on the description is not. Neither is "middle depression" when there are 10 of them (because you might not be able to see exactly which one). Nor in my view is just "stream" when the stream is long..

So I think adding the little dots would make things less interesting.

[Red Adder]

I think you will find that a map is also a set of "IOF hieroglyphics".

People clearly bother to learn symbols on the maps so I can't see why they should have any problem also learning, and using, what is presented in a description sheet.

I actually think run to centre of circle & hope or digesting every nuance from the description sheet are both valid approaches - its up to you to decide what, under whichever circumstances of a race - is best for you.

[Red Adder]

I don't have any problem with Barry Elkington's idea of offsetting circles to reflect more acturately but would point out two things

(a) currently a lot of planners (and therefore controllers) either don't follow or don't know the existing rules as inaccurately placed circles on point features are very common

(b) if you do this someone is bound at some stage to throw a right strop as they wrongly interpretted (second-guessed ?) the adjustment made by a planner - cue mega nope-thread.

[keever]

If you move the circle it is no longer showing the accurate position of the control.

Mappers don't draw the maps 'accurately' anyway, they move things about a bit to make the map readable.

[70plus]

I think you will find that a map is also a set of "IOF hieroglyphics".

People clearly bother to learn symbols on the maps so I can't see why they should have any problem learning, and using, what is presented in a description sheet.

Drifting onto a related topic, I have been slightly irritated since the arrival of pictorial descriptions by their inconsistency with map symbols because CDs are always in B&W. So a black blob on the map is a boulder, but a knoll on the CD; while a triangle may be a boulder on one and a platform on the other. How much simpler might it be for youngsters if we used coloured CDs? At least the IOF hieroglyphics would be less to learn?

[graeme]

How much simpler might it be for youngsters if we used coloured CDs? At least the IOF hieroglyphics would be less to learn?

Still more complicated than just having a blow-up of the control circle (square?) with a red dot to show the exact location.

From your moniker I'll hazard a guess you can remember when control descriptions were Xeroxed separately from the printing. As you say, there's no need stick with black and white now, its just an anachronism, but there's no point in inventing some half-measure of coloured control descriptions. Just show us where the flag is.

This whole thread is based on misunderstanding the rules. The "feature" must mean "east side of the wall" just as it means "east side of the building". Nobody puts the circle in the middle of the building and the rules don't recognise any difference between line, area and point features.

[70plus]

From your moniker I'll hazard a guess you can remember when control descriptions were Xeroxed separately from the printing.
This whole thread is based on misunderstanding the rules.

Indeed, Graeme - I think the last event I controlled with verbal descriptions was the 1996 Welsh Champs, and I had already done about 20 years before that . But this thread is (was) about Sprint-O, so I guess your idea of a dot on a piece of map isn't a bad one. Could help any uncertain control-hangers too ...