Sheffield City Race 24 Nov 12

[Wendles]

Sorry I don't know how to 'quote' but I was one of those people mentioned by awk and strider who crossed at the pelican crossing and I'm happy to be disqualified. Awk has described it exactly as it was, I came out of my control to the road and saw the crossing, remembered we had been told to cross at crossing points and didn't give it a second thought. The road was very quiet both ways when I crossed and I didn't realise there was an underpass until we discussed it at lunch between the two races. At no time was I actively cheating and there were lots of people crossing when I did. I'm not sure how you would avoid it in that particular place other than having someone there directing people down the underpass.

[RS]

See my suggestion earlier, Wendles

[awk]

How is it that after nearly every urban event we hear stories of people cheating?

Cheating to my mind involves deliberately doing something one shouldn't. To that end, I think urban races involve little more cheating than terrain races. Very, very few people (if any) in this instance were to my mind cheating. As someone whose technique just hung together sufficiently to use the underpasses (I came awfully close to crossing the road accidentally), I wouldn't want anybody on my course to have been DQed for crossing, as it would have wrecked the competition in the afternoon, and made little difference (other courses may have been different).

There are, in urban racing, far more chances of somebody transgressing where they shouldn't; we are dealing with far, far more landowners, not all of whom can realistically be approached, and thus far more areas of out of bounds. Equally, given the depth of detail on an urban map (as anybody who has ever tried to draw one will confirm!), it's not surprising if occasionally some detail is wrong or misread. Those who decry urban orienteering as not very technical don't appreciate that urban is often just as technical, but differently so, and that people make these mistakes simply because their technique is struggling to keep up in a way that it doesn't in terrain.

To help with this, planners (and controllers) need to be very careful on the planning and organisation of courses to reduce the opportunities of transgressing gaining a time advantage. In this case, if the use of underpasses was so important, then RS has one solution. I think an extra line in the control descriptions, saying 'use underpasses' would also have helped, but I know I offer that with the benefit of hindsight.

As for 'cheating' at terrain events: time after time at terrain events, I've been aware of people crossing uncrossable walls, transgressing into out of bounds areas, etc etc. It happens less often because there are fewer such opportunities, but they happen quite regularly when those opportunities are present. Most of the time, it's not cheating - people aren't doing it deliberately - but it still happens. It just doesn't get noted so publicly.

Incidentally, it's not after nearly every urban race. I've been to loads this year where there hasn't been a murmur hear. You're falling into the trap Gross of thinking it does, because such a high proportion of those instances are discussed here. The publicity created by the media can often distort our perceptions of how frequently etc things happen.

[ianandmonika]

re strider's comment, as so many others appear to have also used the crossing, I think the organisers know what they should do with your result.

[Gross]

You're falling into the trap Gross of thinking it does

True

[Strider]

re strider's comment, as so many others appear to have also used the crossing, I think the organisers know what they should do with your result.

Interestingly, on the way to the chase, where I was off to start with the rest of the mp/dsq bunch, I was informed that I'd been reinstated, due to the amount of people who had 'illegally' crossed the road between 3 & 4, and had already been called up at the 'non-dsq' time I'd posted on the prologue. Looking at the final results, this reinstatement doesn't appear to be the case...

I'm not that fussed either way, but I'm just after consistency. Either have a system for dsq'ing all folk who have infringed the OOB/crossing rule or allow all of them to continue their runs in the chase as usual.

[graeme]

How is it that after nearly every urban event we hear stories of people cheating?

Probably because we're bored of stories of people following and asking for help in every forest orienteering event.

[Wendles]

Why not put a control in the underpass so everyone has to go that way? Simples.

Sorry RS, missed that bit of your post somehow, better idea than mine but wonder how you would show it on the map?

Hope you haven't explained that further on, must stop skim reading!

[madmike]

Why not put a control in the underpass so everyone has to go that way? Simples.

Sorry RS, missed that bit of your post somehow, better idea than mine but wonder how you would show it on the map?

Hope you haven't explained that further on, must stop skim reading!

Wendles
we have had this in the past at RAFO/TVOC events on RAF Halton and put the control at the bottom of the stairs at the underpass (control description bottom of stairs) rather than in the underpass its self. Worked well so I think RS is spot on and also agree with comment above put text in control descriptions must use underpass.

[awk]

but wonder how you would show it on the map?

I think one would use the 'Building pass through' symbol? (With a clarification in final details)? Or, rather more off the wall, how about using the 'road' symbol, in combination with the 'beneath' symbol?!

[Roger]

How is it that after nearly every urban event we hear stories of people cheating?

Woking? (although I grant that there's still time for some stories)
Southampton?

Although we're not there yet, mappers, planners and controllers (and competitors!) are steadily learning how to minimise problems.

[Wendles]

Just a handful of photos with Sheffield in focus more than runners (new camera!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wendles56/sets/72157632096933395/

[nooomember]

cheating isnt when someone deliberately breaks the rules, but when they break the rules. Competitors who crosses this road know who they are and should of course declare themselves, or people whom the organisers know did this should be dsq. It is obviously unfair on those that didnt ,cheat, and does affect results
and leagues.
Also some Did just follow on the chasing start, not even looking at their map for at least the furst 3 controls, and if that isnt against the rules, then clearly the rules are wrong.

[awk]

cheating isnt when someone deliberately breaks the rules, but when they break the rules.

Checking a variety of dictionaries, they all include an element of intent in their definition, so I disagree with this: cheating is precisely about deliberately breaking rules.

Also some Did just follow on the chasing start, not even looking at their map for at least the furst 3 controls, and if that isnt against the rules, then clearly the rules are wrong.

Only because you think they should be different. You've already expressed your views on chasing starts, so I can understand where you are coming from, even if I disagree with you. Following without reading a map is a risk that competitors take/took; it can (and does on occasions) fail, sometimes spectacularly, and is a feature of chasing starts that makes it different to other races (I remember some years ago seeing the lead train on the last day in the O-ringen with ten men keeping a very close eye on each other zigzagging across my line, with spectacular results at the finish!).

[EddieH]

I remember someone at a White Rose relay, knowing that the courses would be ungaffled deciding to follow Pete Jagan. Half way round he lost touch and had to get his map out of the paper bag. He had no idea where he was nor even how many controls he had visited and it never occured to him to see how many punches he had on his control card

Nearly an hour later he managed to finish