Lincoln City Race 2011

[Gnitworp]

I hadn't read the qualifier as 'foot', but still went to the foot, because the description didn't say 'top', and I couldn't see how a marker could be placed at the top of a crag inside a corner facing away from the face of the crag, so I went to the 'default' foot.

[Sloop]

That was more or less exactly my thinking too.
The expectation it couldn't possibly mean "top" was reinforced by the previous (first) control whose description was explicitly "crag top of".

[Gnitworp]

Advice to planners/controllers: if in any doubt whatsoever, ask 6 people who haven't been to the site where they would go.

[lincolnsteve]

My point is that the control could have been 3m further north, and described as being on a hedge (which is actually a row of trees),

Actually, it's a row of vines, not trees, and as the growth is intermingled it's fair to describe the feature as a hedge.... as we are being pedantic......

[Gnitworp]

as we are being pedantic......

....which is probably exactly what we need to be all the time.

[epocian]

[/quote]

Actually, it's a row of vines, not trees, and as the growth is intermingled it's fair to describe the feature as a hedge.... as we are being pedantic......[/quote]

Anyone have time to notice how the grapes were progressing on the vines?

[cbg]

I hadn't read the qualifier as 'foot', but still went to the foot, because the description didn't say 'top', and I couldn't see how a marker could be placed at the top of a crag inside a corner facing away from the face of the crag, so I went to the 'default' foot.

Not having been there, but so intrigued that I checked on Routegadget, I agree that the inside corner is between the two sides of the feature. This implies that the control, if at the top of a crag, was hung in free air! Surely outside the corner would have put it on firm ground at the top, as opposed to buried inside granite/brick at ground level?

Possibly a change of plan (moving site from foot to top) without changing the Control Description?

Post-script: Awk (in 2 posts' time) says that it was on the inside of a SW corner. In which case I apologise for the above - it couldn't have been at the bottom of the crag/wall as then it would have to have been buried within.

[Jona]

No one should place a control on top of a cliff or rock face as it's dangerous and you can't really see the feature when you're on top of it. In reality control 50 was at more of a wall corner but this couldn't be mapped on top of an uncrossable crag feature on the map so another feature should have been used.

I thought the course was good but to be fair it is important in urban races to get the control descriptions accurate.

From the BOF guidance on urban events:
"Control descriptions are often more important than at forest
based events. Many control sites have a number of
possible descriptions. The planner should try to use the
most obvious description; the challenge of urban
orienteering is to navigate (and chose routes) between
controls rather than decipher complicated control
descriptions."

[awk]

I hadn't read the qualifier as 'foot', but still went to the foot, because the description didn't say 'top', and I couldn't see how a marker could be placed at the top of a crag inside a corner facing away from the face of the crag, so I went to the 'default' foot.

I went to the control, because it said inside SW orientated corner, and the only SW orientated corner I could see was on the north side, and the circle was centred on the north side. I suppose it's being used to the fact that the crag symbol is often used for retaining walls on urban maps, and many of them have a reverse side. Indeed, I've seen a fair view crags with reverse faces in the Lakes, even if they are a lot smaller than the main face. Also, there are quite a lot of features in urban races which don't conform to my normal expectations, and where one has just had to trust to the map and control descriptions being sufficiently accurate to guide you to the point.

At least with the tags on the south side, it gives people approaching from the north some warning that there's a big drop to the south.

[IanD]

Thanks to everyone involved with Lincoln and Sheffield for two great events. The contrast between two ostensibly similar events on the same weekend was an additional bonus.

If there is a prize for the best long leg in an urban event this year, I think it will be going to Lincoln (and thanks for making it downhill, it would have got a bit tedious in the other direction).

Comparing the two events does highlight one point which Lincoln could have done slightly better. Sheffield did really well at showing 'odd' bits of mapping in the final details. I would have liked to have seen this bit of unconventional mapping explained in the Lincoln details.

Railway bridge.jpg (3.88 KiB) Viewed 3750 times

The "covered passage" grey squares are in fact stairways leading to the upper bridge level. Fortunately for me, I had studied RouteGadget from previous years, so knew that they indicated some sort of crossing point. But I don't think I would have known that from the map alone.

One other idea from past Lincoln maps is the enlargement of a section. I think the Bishop's Palace could have benefited from a 1:3000 inset; certainly my eyes could not interpret it at 1:5000.

Hope nobody is offended or discouraged by the lengthy discussions on this thread. Lincoln was a really good event, and the fact that there are a few suggestions for making it even better should not be taken as a minus.

[Strider]

Having resisted the overwhelming temptation to post within 24hrs of the race, I've taken the opportunity of a break to Italy to let the dust settle and to put my thoughts on paper and, in conjunction with Peter's controller's commentary, I've now attached our overall perspectives on the event to this post. They'll also be appearing on the LOG website in due course.

Many thanks for everyone's input - it's made for interesting reading - and for all the kind comments received on both the day and after the event.

S.

[andypat]

Nicely reasoned comments guys. I have to say you seem inadvertently to have stumbled on one of all time great urban tricks! I'm almost sorry now I didnt fall for it.

[Gnitworp]

Just a thought from Pedants Corner: would it help if the inside and outside corner qualifiers were 'made to measure', i.e., showed the exact angle of orientation, which would have meant, for example, rotating the Control 50 symbol about 22.5 deg anticlockwise. Symbols can be very easily edited in OCAD, and similar adjustments could also be applied to other directional qualifiers (sides, ends etc) if desired.

[mappingmum]

A fair and honest critique from Mr Controller. Thanks for the illustrative map extracts.

[SJC]

Looking at the map extract, this is an obvious example of where off-setting the control circle slightly would have removed any ambiguity about which side of the crag the control was on. As the controller says, the challenge was the run to the north side and the complex navigation within the Bishops Palace. However, for many it seems once again to have turned into an exercise in deciphering the control description, so its back to the question as to whether this is part of the sport or not.