Penrith Urban
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Penrith Urban
Just been out checking the draft map for the York race. No problem with the map but having read some of the above I now realise that, as well as planning the courses and putting out and collecting in the controls, I'm expected to put out 400m of tape round the flower beds and hedges and check that the 112 gates mapped as part of uncrossable boundaries are indeed closed and locked on the day. Oh and I asked Marks and Spencers, Boots and BHS if they minded me taping one of their sets of doors closed (they all have ways through their stores that are short cuts) but they said no so what am I supposed to do about that? I'm sure some one will complain they haven't been told buildings are out of bounds.
- yted
- light green
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:53 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
The "shops" issue is fixable -give them an indelible marker pen and ask them to mark any offenders -after all they will be leaving through narrowish door won't they? Alternatively they could insist on "no purchase no exit" and by the time the offender found some money and queued at the check out all advantage would be gone
Possibly the slowest Orienteer in the NE but maybe above average at 114kg
-
AndyC - addict
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:10 am
- Location: Half my Time here the rest there
Re: Penrith Urban
Another of the variables you can't really plan for occurred at Skipton. A very narrow covered passageway, close to and parallel to several others, had not been mapped and was shown as part of the surrounding buildings. The reason it was not mapped was that on all previous visits, of mapper and planners, including a previous event, it had been locked, and it had not been possible to map where, if anywhere, it went.
On the day of the second event, of course, it was unlocked, and even proved to be a through route, albeit a few seconds longer than the intended route for those who took it.
On the day of the second event, of course, it was unlocked, and even proved to be a through route, albeit a few seconds longer than the intended route for those who took it.
- seabird
- diehard
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:20 am
- Location: Bradford
Re: Penrith Urban
But under the current guidelines anyone who went that way should have been disqualified. Personally I think thats too harsh but given the outcome at Penrith, voiding a leg seems to be an unpopular option too, which leaving DQ or voiding the race.
I hope at some point, someone in the rulemaking hierarchy sees fit to offer the option of something like time penalties for urban races, to be used to differentiate between cheating (ie climbing fences or running through shops which warrants DQ) and inadvertent errors where the competitor is led astray by an unanticipated issue with the map or on the ground.
Effectively forcing the Penrith organisers to choose between doing nothing or DQing 15% of their entire field doesnt really do anything to encourage future particiaption in the sport.
I hope at some point, someone in the rulemaking hierarchy sees fit to offer the option of something like time penalties for urban races, to be used to differentiate between cheating (ie climbing fences or running through shops which warrants DQ) and inadvertent errors where the competitor is led astray by an unanticipated issue with the map or on the ground.
Effectively forcing the Penrith organisers to choose between doing nothing or DQing 15% of their entire field doesnt really do anything to encourage future particiaption in the sport.
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Penrith Urban
seabird wrote:Another of the variables you can't really plan for occurred at Skipton. A very narrow covered passageway, close to and parallel to several others, had not been mapped and was shown as part of the surrounding buildings. The reason it was not mapped was that on all previous visits, of mapper and planners, including a previous event, it had been locked, and it had not been possible to map where, if anywhere, it went.
This is certainly a difficult one. These passageways are often present on the base maps used for Urban Maps and so can be filled in with olive green. The difficulty is that if the entrance to the passage is not visible (eg behind a solid door) then it's easy to miss and as a result a competitor may go down the second passage on the right instead of the third. Of course is pacing is one of those three skills you need for urban orienteering then there's less excuse.
Re time penalties - this has been discussed many times by rule makers and rejected for a variety of reasons. For events out of the control of the competitor then leg removal remains an option now for most events.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Penrith Urban
Goodness AndyP.
I thought there had been enough comments on here to make it clear that the Penrith decision should not have been a difficult one.
The map was unambiguous, the open gate in a place that someone who looked at it properly should never have been. Warnings were given beforehand ...........
It is precisely because people go out of their way to excuse and not disqualify that runners have not taken on board that the rules are real and they need to fulfil them. More situations like this one and the Edinburgh event Graeme cited will get the message across.
I thought there had been enough comments on here to make it clear that the Penrith decision should not have been a difficult one.
The map was unambiguous, the open gate in a place that someone who looked at it properly should never have been. Warnings were given beforehand ...........
It is precisely because people go out of their way to excuse and not disqualify that runners have not taken on board that the rules are real and they need to fulfil them. More situations like this one and the Edinburgh event Graeme cited will get the message across.
- EddieH
- god
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
EddieH wrote:It is precisely because people go out of their way to excuse and not disqualify that runners have not taken on board that the rules are real and they need to fulfil them. More situations like this one and the Edinburgh event Graeme cited will get the message across.
Personally, I'd go down the Jeremy Clarkson route
Go orienteering in Lithuania......... best in the world:)
Real Name - Gross
http://www.scottishotours.info
Real Name - Gross
http://www.scottishotours.info
-
Gross - god
- Posts: 2693
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:13 am
- Location: Heading back to Scotland
Re: Penrith Urban
Gross wrote:Personally, I'd go down the Jeremy Clarkson route
Have you put it on routegadget?
- usuallylast
- red
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:17 pm
- Location: North Cumbria
Re: Penrith Urban
NeilC wrote: These passageways are often present on the base maps used for Urban Maps and so can be filled in with olive green.
In this case, with a covered passageway the solution I (as the mapper) am exploring is to use the canopy symbol and use a the uncrossable black line at the entrance - with possible use of the olive green beyond if I ever get to see where it goes. The map was drawn before we had access to detailed 1:2500 base maps, which is probably why this seemingly unimportant passage was missed.
We learn from our mistakes. In this case it would have been very harsh to disqualify. It was a mapping error which gave no-one an advantage, apart from those who went the mapped routes. The correct passage was close enough to be well within the margin of error for pacing - not that I've ever heard of any one pace-counting at an urban event. The thinking is all about how many turnings on the left or right that you should pass.
Those disadvantaged on the day seemed to take it in good part. A great credit to the orienteering community.
- seabird
- diehard
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:20 am
- Location: Bradford
Re: Penrith Urban
andypat wrote:I hope at some point, someone in the rulemaking hierarchy sees fit to offer the option of something like time penalties for urban races, to be used to differentiate between cheating (ie climbing fences or running through shops which warrants DQ) and inadvertent errors where the competitor is led astray by an unanticipated issue with the map or on the ground.
Effectively forcing the Penrith organisers to choose between doing nothing or DQing 15% of their entire field doesnt really do anything to encourage future particiaption in the sport.
In practice I think it is very difficult to differentiate between inadvertent errors which aid the competitor and deliberate cheating. Some people are happier to bend rules further than others but it would have to be very blatant before I called someone a cheat. The Penrith organisers were "forced" into DQing people because these people had not followed the rules (for whatever reason). The organiser/planner/controller made the right decision.
EddieH wrote:Goodness AndyP.
I thought there had been enough comments on here to make it clear that the Penrith decision should not have been a difficult one.
The map was unambiguous, the open gate in a place that someone who looked at it properly should never have been. Warnings were given beforehand ...........
It is precisely because people go out of their way to excuse and not disqualify that runners have not taken on board that the rules are real and they need to fulfil them. More situations like this one and the Edinburgh event Graeme cited will get the message across.
I completely agree with Eddie (Yes I've checked and I do mean that )
As for encouraging others, I'm personally much more upset when people who don't follow the rules (again, for whatever reason) are not penalised.
- DaveR
- red
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Penrith Urban
A couple more observations:
Try as we might, new and unexpected issues will come up. The best way to deal with them is to have a respected individual to decide between various options none of which are perfect. The same is true for forest races, hence the controller system, which seems to function very well.
I've made enough urban maps to know that decisions about lime green and uncrossible fences are made pretty arbitrarily by the mapper. And organised/planned/controlled enough to know its impossible to police them all. I'm afraid those of you demanding this quite literally don't know what you're talking about.
There are three distinct possibilities:
1/ Competitors deliberately cheating
2/ Competitors inadvertently going OOB and gaining significant advantage
3/ Competitors inadvertently going OOB and not gaining significant advantage
I think 1/ is very rare. At Penrith, anyone who ran into that courtyard must have
made the mistake of thinking they could get through. Going through a gate you expected to be open isn't deliberate cheating.
2/ Covers the Penrith case. The advantage gained is about 3 mins - huge enough to be easily visible in splits and affect the results.
3/ Probably covers Skipton (I wasn't there). If you can't see the difference in the splits, and the unfair route was slower, you can at least argue its not a significant advantage. If you compare the results with the offending leg in vs out, and there's not much difference.
To me, fairness dictates that the runners at Penrith had to be DQed not simply because
they inadvertently crossed an "uncrossable" fence, but because they gained a significant advantage from doing so, and would stiil have had a significant advantage if the leg was voided. This was certainly the rationale I employed at Edinburgh.
Try as we might, new and unexpected issues will come up. The best way to deal with them is to have a respected individual to decide between various options none of which are perfect. The same is true for forest races, hence the controller system, which seems to function very well.
I've made enough urban maps to know that decisions about lime green and uncrossible fences are made pretty arbitrarily by the mapper. And organised/planned/controlled enough to know its impossible to police them all. I'm afraid those of you demanding this quite literally don't know what you're talking about.
There are three distinct possibilities:
1/ Competitors deliberately cheating
2/ Competitors inadvertently going OOB and gaining significant advantage
3/ Competitors inadvertently going OOB and not gaining significant advantage
I think 1/ is very rare. At Penrith, anyone who ran into that courtyard must have
made the mistake of thinking they could get through. Going through a gate you expected to be open isn't deliberate cheating.
2/ Covers the Penrith case. The advantage gained is about 3 mins - huge enough to be easily visible in splits and affect the results.
3/ Probably covers Skipton (I wasn't there). If you can't see the difference in the splits, and the unfair route was slower, you can at least argue its not a significant advantage. If you compare the results with the offending leg in vs out, and there's not much difference.
To me, fairness dictates that the runners at Penrith had to be DQed not simply because
they inadvertently crossed an "uncrossable" fence, but because they gained a significant advantage from doing so, and would stiil have had a significant advantage if the leg was voided. This was certainly the rationale I employed at Edinburgh.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Penrith Urban
graeme" wrote:And it is difficult to find sympathy for colour blind people who win the open course by three and a half minutes from the JK elite champion!
We appear to have got to page 10 without anyone saying "Well done spongey". So now would be a good time!
Completely agree.
Well done to Spongey but how many more races could he have won without this disadvantage. (MP at British Nights because he couldn't see the control circle)
It can be quite disheartening to pick up a map and find that you can't follow the course marked on it.
If it was your first event I don't think you would come back.
- Reiver
- string
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:55 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
graeme wrote:To me, fairness dictates that the runners at Penrith had to be DQed not simply because
they inadvertently crossed an "uncrossable" fence, but because they gained a significant advantage from doing so, and would stiil have had a significant advantage if the leg was voided. This was certainly the rationale I employed at Edinburgh.
Graeme - thats well enough put to shut me up! I notice none of the DQ'd runners is making any fuss so I'll stop trying to defend the apparently indefensible. I reckon I've got a job on my hands elsewhere now...
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Penrith Urban
Why Graeme would someone who took a shorter OOB route still gain a significant advantage if that leg was voided? I can see voiding a leg may change the winner of an event if one fast guy had a slow but within the rules leg and another had a fast non OOB leg, but I don't see how this would affect most folk who went OOB only on that leg favourably.
I'm more inclined to favour voiding legs than mass disqualifications, mainly because we are trying to build up our club and encouraging members to try the different forms of orienteering including urban. Urban events have been thought of as a good way to attract runners into the sport, but if they get disqualified at their first event they are less likely to come back than if they just got told they'd got it wrong and so that leg needed voiding.
I suspect we do need a definite rule on this to stop it being debated at every other urban event, probably Graeme is the best SOA person as competitions bod to debate it within BOF.
I'm more inclined to favour voiding legs than mass disqualifications, mainly because we are trying to build up our club and encouraging members to try the different forms of orienteering including urban. Urban events have been thought of as a good way to attract runners into the sport, but if they get disqualified at their first event they are less likely to come back than if they just got told they'd got it wrong and so that leg needed voiding.
I suspect we do need a definite rule on this to stop it being debated at every other urban event, probably Graeme is the best SOA person as competitions bod to debate it within BOF.
- frog
Re: Penrith Urban
Frog,
someone who used an illegal shortcut has run less distance than someone who ran legally. They can therefore run faster on later legs because they have incurred a lower level of fatigue. That is an unfair advantage
someone who used an illegal shortcut has run less distance than someone who ran legally. They can therefore run faster on later legs because they have incurred a lower level of fatigue. That is an unfair advantage
Possibly the slowest Orienteer in the NE but maybe above average at 114kg
-
AndyC - addict
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:10 am
- Location: Half my Time here the rest there
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests