Inadvertant cheating on ISSOM

[Mrs H]

I went back and looked at the wall again today - I was so worried - its about 8 ft high. No one would contemplate crossing it
ps I'm not coming on nopesport next week

[dch]

I would consider that marking the pass-throughs as out-of-bounds could actually make things worse

As shown, it should be obvious that the permissible route is entirely open air and it is unlikely that someone would mistake a pass-through for an open-air alley. Also, as far as I remember, there are doors at the entrances to the pass-throughs and, especially if they are closed, it would not be obvious that it was not just an entrance to a building. Therefore the risk of someone inadvertently following the prohibited route should be low.

If the pass-throughs were indicated as out-of-bound, this is likely to obscure the fact that they are pass-throughs. Thus (approaching from the East) there would appear from the map to be two open-air alleys when there is in fact only one. This is likely to disadvantage someone taking care to avoid going out-of-bounds as they may take time to confirm that the one alley they can see is the in-bounds one or divert in case it is the out-of-bounds one.

The situation would be worse if, hypothetically, there was a further out-of-bounds alley north of the in-bounds one as then someone approaching from the SE could reasonably assume that the in-bounds alley is the out-of-bounds pass-through and the out-of-bounds alley is the in-bounds one.

[andypat]

Agree entirely with AWK. There's an awful lot of comment on Urban from people who havent experienced it first hand.

Yeah, mate, you made a flippant comment to an earlier post of mine on this thread. I haven't detracted or adversely commented on Urban here or anywhere else, just because of my lack of experience of it. I just noted that if the situation that was being discussed had happened to me, I'd be a bit hacked off. I haven't tried it because I don't fancy running on city streets with my 60 year old joints, I find the extreme map detail and rules on urban maps uninteresting and I am not comfortable with some safety aspects about racing among traffic and shoppers. That is a personal view, but from some of the comment here from people who have tried it, you ain't selling it to me...

Andy - having planned and organised a few of these and run several dozen, I know the last thing the planner needs is criticism from people who not only werent there but by admission have no experience of the discipline. Apologies if you were offended by my off the cuff remark - which was flippant as you say - but your comment "I'm not a detractor of urban but...." was simply asking for it. Sounds like you wouldnt enjoy urban racing, but funnily enough, these people that dont enjoy it seem to keep coming back for more "misery" .

[AndyC]

ps I'm not coming on nopesport next week

What not even to hear the praise about what I'm sure (well I hope at least) will be an excellent event without a meaningful issue ?
Just wish I wasn't recovering from illness and could join you

[pete.owens]

The solution for the Cambridge map would be to map the middle OOB square as building.
OK someone may still end up there by accident - and if they do they deserve to be confused, but no-one would intentionally try to cheat. The passages at the outer ends would still be marked - so the map would still be accurate for those who were where they were supposed to be.

[NeilC]

The solution for the Cambridge map would be to map the middle OOB square as building.

That may be the official ISSOM policy but at the next event they may get permission to use that college and so I really wouldn't want to have to remove/hide all the detail of that college (and all the other forbidden ones). The olive green is also more aesthetically pleasing that black or purple OOB stripes. I also have no problem with the terminal passage ways not being coloured OOB since that aids navigation.

I can't believe that anyone who knows the rules of urban orienteering would consider that a legal route. If however if there is no Skullion or gate to prevent passage, and it would be a significant shortcut, then marshalling would be appropriate.

[EddieH]

Returning to St Andrews there were 2 cases I am aware of where a forbidden gate(s) was open for a part of the time. In one case althought the circle was well broken, the red line was inside the control circle and so hard to see. It was also not a massively significant advantage over going round - indeed nobody could possibly be dqd on the eveidence of their time.

The other case had 2 clear red lines on what otherwise was the only sensible route. The saving was massive and split times make it indisputable that that route was taken.

The reason for using the red lines was made abundantly clear in the details and is inevitably relevant in most urban venues. These are gates which are expected to be closed, but may at times be open.

The logical conclusion to me of those that think we should ignore it is - what the heck let's go and look at every illegal route just in case it's easy to get through just now and if I'm lucky I might just benefit

[andy]

The logical conclusion to me of those that think we should ignore it is - what the heck let's go and look at every illegal route just in case it's easy to get through just now and if I'm lucky I might just benefit

But I think it's generally through lack of care with navigation that people do it, and if that's the case you're probably not going to win.
could you really do what you said there and not feel really guilty about it? I know I couldn't, after I'd found out I'd crossed some oob on Saturday there was only really one thing to do...

[EddieH]

I might try to make this my last post here.

It is the CULTURE that concerns me. Let this carry on sliding and ISSOM competition will lose all credibility. Dq people and change the culture - then everything will police itself (not just those lke you and me that wouldn't take the result knowing we'd not done it).

Drink driving was considered acceptable when I was young amongst all classes - it was just "don't get caught" - it took a long time but through enforcement the attitude has changed totally.

[graeme]

It is the CULTURE that concerns me.

I don't think there's a culture of deliberate cheating, and inadvertant errors aren't something you can self police. I've been trying to stop myself making inadvertant errors in forests for over 25 years - still can't do it!
In your St.Andrews example, if I had made the mistake of thinking I could get through the short route (which I didn't), I would have twisted through the alleys to the main street without being bothered by the absence of a gate I wasn't expecting. If I had seen it was impassible, I certainly wouldn't go all that extra distance just to check!

Self-DQ? Well I went over a thickish black line on Saturday (2ft drop - no feature visible from above, looks like a wall from below). Decided that was and uncrossable wall, went back round, lost time. But I now reckon it should be (and may be) a passable crag, which would be a 0.3mm thick rather than a 0.4mm thick black line ISSOM. Still not sure what it is! The point of the story is not to prove I should get out more , rather that if even I don't know after obsessing about it, you can't expect a culture of self-DQs.

[70plus]

Graeme's latest contribution nicely illustrates why this discussion looks like remaining inconclusive. If even he can't tell a passable crag from an uncrossable wall in the comfort of his own home, it seems that too many fine distinctions are expected in the mapping, as well as philosophical (or cultural) ones in disqualifying.

In terrain-O going o-o-b is usually prevented by careful planning, or if really necessary, 'dead' controls at crossing points. This clearly inhibits the character of urban-O. So where trespassing is considered unacceptable there must be marshals; if it may be OK, let it go. Some deliberate cheating may happen, and some of it may be obvious from splits, others less so. The true finishing order just may be a little dubious in some races. But as it's only for fun, who cares?

[Adrian]

This doesn't seem a difficult matter to resolve at all. 1. Forbidden routes should be marked with the forbidden route symbol: either red crosses or red lines. 2. If a forbidden route might be taken in error (or on purpose) it must be marshalled. If these things aren't done, the controller isn't doing their job.

[EddieH]

Adrian wrote: [quote]This doesn't seem a difficult matter to resolve at all. 1. Forbidden routes should be marked with the forbidden route symbol: either red crosses or red lines. 2. If a forbidden route might be taken in error (or on purpose) it must be marshalled. If these things aren't done, the controller isn't doing their job.[/quote]


RIP urban O

[AndyC]

I think as a lesser measure to marshalling (and less resource intensive) some "Forbidden to Orienteers" signs to mark oob routes might be in order - would stop "Inadvertant cheating" as per the title of the thread. Anyone who passes an obvious sign isn't an inadvertant cheat they are a deliberate cheat.

[Adrian]

Adrian wrote:

This doesn't seem a difficult matter to resolve at all. 1. Forbidden routes should be marked with the forbidden route symbol: either red crosses or red lines. 2. If a forbidden route might be taken in error (or on purpose) it must be marshalled. If these things aren't done, the controller isn't doing their job.

RIP urban O

Don't be daft. How many marshalls do you think you might need? Surely not more than five or six for any race?