Scottish Sprint Champs

[awk]

I went south on course 2 between 11 and 12 and wasted time as couldn't get through a section marked as grey. It was an entrance to the grounds of that building, which seems to have been a pair of big oak doors which were shut when I went past. Apparently you could get through them earlier.

As I ran past on the way to 11, I tested the doors to see if they were openable - they weren't so I took the northern route. Trouble was, I was so focused on that, I forgot to punch at 10!

On control 17: I don't see this as requiring a degree in control description reading. The description was straightforward and precise. It just needed to be read accurately, something I failed to do in the sprint final, when I forgot to check in which angle no. 15 on course B (M50) was hung, losing about 15 seconds and several places hesitating with the control in sight but still uncertain which side of the fence it was hung. That's the name of the game to me - I know that some prefer the more traditional approach to control descriptions, but personally I enjoy, indeed prefer, the extra demands that this places on the competitor.

BTW, I do agree about ambiguity in descriptions, but in both cases the descriptions were pretty unambiguous.

[Big Jon]

BTW, I do agree about ambiguity in descriptions, but in both cases the descriptions were pretty unambiguous.

Maybe unambiguous when sitting in a warm room quietly reading the map, but certainly over complicated for reading when in the heat of a race. As I have said a few times - why not move the control position 1m and change it to Fence south end? - clear, unambiguous and lets people get on with choosing and executing the best route.

[awk]

Maybe unambiguous when sitting in a warm room quietly reading the map, but certainly over complicated for reading when in the heat of a race.

Jon - I beg to differ. I thought the description was pretty unambiguous and clear at the time I was planning the leg in the race itself.

[graeme]

Remember that the BOF guidelines say ...

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.

I can't figure out if I'm more annoyed at knowing this or wasting time typing it in when I could be doing a crossword or correcting some punctuation.

[andypat]

I'm with the planner and AWK on this one. I dont think the control description for 221 was too complicated. I just think there were some people who didnt bother to read it and are using their own carelessness to grump about urban planning and cover up their own mistake - man up everybody - some you win and some you lose...

[SAL]

A selection of photos from the event is now available here: https://picasaweb.google.com/Orienteering.Photo.Gallery/ScottishSprintChampionships2012
Sorry it took so long - there were a lot to sort out!

[graeme]

In this case the description fence junction inside NW corner accurately and unambiguously describes the control site.

And in the sprint race we had a "fence crossing, inside NW corner." Now a fence crossing is a point feature, and the control was on the south east side
I've done enough of these things to decipher this nonsense, but when NW corner means SE side, and it is critical to the leg, it is a nonsense.

[andypat]

Thats a good point Graeme, if a bit technical. I assume you are making it to advocate simply avoiding the feature as a control point rather than suggesting that fence crossing SE side would make a more suitable control desccription (I think its a lot less clear than the first).

I do think that if we restrict ourselves to control points and features that would be acceptable in forest orienteering we lose a lot of the potential for making Urban a new, exciting and unique brand for the sport of orienteering.

With respect to yourself (and with the possible exception of AWK) the majority of the people who seem to have a problem with this type of control are experienced (older) forest orienteers who seem to have some difficulty coming to terms with the different techniques (yes there are different techniques) involved with urban.

I'm not disputing these opinions and these guys have every right to voice them. I'm just standing up for those of us who have a different opinion. My opinion is that urban is an exciting developing branch of orienteering and I dont want it just to end up as a boring long sprint (seriously whats the point in that!). In urban racing you have much longer to plan ahead and I think that gives the opportunity to planners to set controls and legs that require more than just a simple route choice decision. In short I think there are things that should be acceptable in Urban that maybe should be avoided in sprint. But to do that I think creative use of the control description is vital. Please feel free to disagree of course - thats why we are here!

[NeilC]

My opinion is that urban is an exciting developing branch of orienteering and I dont want it just to end up as a boring long sprint (seriously whats the point in that!). In urban racing you have much longer to plan ahead and I think that gives the opportunity to planners to set controls and legs that require more than just a simple route choice decision.

What like those adventure races you see on Channel 4 where teams have to solve puzzles and get locked in a cage for several minutes if they get it wrong? Is that where you see Urban going? For me the best Urban races provide great challenges in identifying the best route, especially when some seemingly good routes prove to be impassable. Why not just stick to these basic orienteering skills and not introduce puzzle solving - leave those for informal events.

[mharky]

On a totally different note...

This year it was two proper sprints races, but the two times added together. Why? This isn't sprint orienteering.

It's great having 2 sprint races in one day. Value for money for punters, and a trial for BEOC or WOC for elites. But I don't see why the morning can't just be a fake qualifier that only decides the start-order for the final that everyone will be in.

You can't call it a sprint championships and then change the rules. Is this how the British Masters Sprints has been done? I don't like it.

[andy]

There isn't actually anything in the guidelines about what races should make up the SSC.

I don't think many people like travelling for a single 15(+)min race but people also don't see the point in a race just to determine start order, I certainly don't see the point unless the final is restricted, hence the 2 courses with cumulative time. I think it worked pretty well...

[mharky]

I'd like to point out the BOF and IOF guidelines probably trump the SOA, having said that, how about the first line of the first guideline?

A sprint race is a course aimed at a winning time of 12-15 minutes

Scottish Sprint Champs winning time: 26:53

[andy]

Scottish Sprint Champs winning time: 26:53

/2 = 13.26, it's 2 sprint races combined to make a championship?

[andy]

Irrespective of rule interpretations, I'm sure it was checked with the SOA beforehand (graeme probably?), and everyone seemed to like the format!

[mharky]

Don't get me wrong, I think 2 races in one day is great.

As an elite I'd prefer to see it inline with elite sprint races in that is it Q then F, but obviously we have no where near enough people to make that even remotely viable. And it isn't the SEOC either.