Midland Champs 2013

[david_rosen]

It was a great event - thanks to NOC for their work in staging it. And I enjoyed my course.

However, the mapping of significant trees didn't really work for me. Too often I was just looking for the flag. As the note in the final details explained, only standing dead trees were marked on the map. It seemed to imply that the large live trees had not been mapped because they could not, for conservation reasons, be used as control sites.

Without leaves on the trees, it was very difficult to distinguish live trees from dead ones. Most of the large "live" oaks are clearly 90% dead with just a few live twigs.

I think either all or none of the significant trees should have been marked. Even if trees are marked on the map, they don't need to be used as control sites. The criterion for whether to put something on the map should be whether it will assist the orienteer to navigate, not whether it is suitable for use as a control site. If necessary, they live trees could be green circles and the dead ones green crosses in order to help the planner know which can be used.

[King Penguin]

If necessary, they live trees could be green circles and the dead ones green crosses in order to help the planner know which can be used.

As they were on a previous version of the map I have.
I agree, a great event, but quickly reailsed I could not rely on my interpretation of which were mapped and unmapped trees to agree with the mappers. However, my biggest error was triggered by mistaking an unmapped track for a different one on the map.

[Ali Wood]

I hadn't read the details beforehand and so can only accept blame for being totally confused by the tree placements - agree with David, they should have marked Dead and Alive! Or even just Alive... Thanks planner for an interesting course.
Not really bothered, but how come for such a prestigious (and really good) open event there were no prizes for individuals outside the Midlands? Guess this is this just the status quo?

[Rich R]

If necessary, they live trees could be green circles and the dead ones green crosses in order to help the planner know which can be used.

As they were on a previous version of the map I have.
I agree, a great event, but quickly reailsed I could not rely on my interpretation of which were mapped and unmapped trees to agree with the mappers. However, my biggest error was triggered by mistaking an unmapped track for a different one on the map.

I expected this to cause some debate but I was happy in the end with how it was interpreted. Previous maps of the areas have been a mismatch of dead and alive trees based on the mappers interpretation but was very inconsistant. This time we had data of which were dead or alive which formed a baseline. Of course there is a level of how dead each tree was but you get this with many features - when is a boulder big enough to map, a pit or depression deep enough or a veg boundary distinct enough. 90% of dead trees on the map were very obvious and stuck out like a sore thumb (comprising large stumps with no branches) from the other stag oaks (many braches) but like with other features there are that 10% that are less obvious.

[Rich R]

Results and Routegadget:

http://www.cix.co.uk/~neper/rht2013/index.htm

[Ali Wood]

However, my biggest error was triggered by mistaking an unmapped track for a different one on the map.

Was the track dead or alive?

[Ali Wood]

RouteGadget link still halts with "map not found". This despite waiting 20 minutes or so.
Think it must be my server problem.

[Sloop]

I think the splits and routegadget will show an area very near the end which had an unfortunate abundance of decoy live trees around the interesting dead one (#52).

I was running straight at #52 but ground to a halt when there were three candidate trees to look behind. Puzzled, I looked round and saw a kite on a tree I'd just gone past, so had a look at that (#34). Decided I'd been right first time, and back to the question of which tree to start with. Problem solved when someone else dived in and punched.

Elsewhere I wasn't unhappy with the dead tree mapping, though not always certain. This last bit, however, was a touch disappointing.

[Karen]

Have to admit the trees dead or alive didn't work for me, and as a very early runner I found most of the controls decidedly hit or miss. It would make a big difference if you saw another competitor punch at the one tree out of three that might be hiding the control. Shame because the centre block was lovely to run on, but perhaps lacks good control sites unless the trees are used.
Worthwhile experiment which probably took a lot of time and effort, so thanks to the planner and mapper for presenting us with a different challenge!

[MAPS]

I found the mapping of the dead trees to be very useful, more so than when significant trees are mapped in the normal way. Also easier to find than say clearings within a forest. Really enjoyed running at Sherwood.

[awk]

For me, the dead or alive identification of trees didn't really cause any problems - although had a similar experience to Sloop towards the end of my course (course 9).

If I did have an argument with the map, it was around controls 3 and 4 and just beyond on course 9, where there seemed to be little if any difference between what in different areas was mapped semi-open, pale green, and white. Indeed, the white seemed more open than the semi-open in some places! In addition, I thought that for a clearing or vegetation boundary to be used, the vegetation change needed to be significant enough to warrant a dotted line. Control 4 was not exactly obvious either on the ground or the map.

All that aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the course which provided loads of variety, and really put pressure on the competitor to get it precisely right at high speed. Good event!

[ba-ba]

I had no issue with the tree mapping and was seldom lead into controls (out late so on my own a lot), I worked out in the first couple of hundred metres of the walk to the startwhat was alive and what was dead. Enjoyed the day out and glad of last week's snow in some of the brackeny bits!

There's a mistake on the BOF results on M21E - Tom Fellbaum has undergone a transformation into Alice Fellbaum. Looked for fixtures sec contact details but can't access the e-mail address, so if someone could let someone in the know know, that'd be great!

[gowrie]

Thanks for your comment about the M21E results ba-ba. The organiser has asked me to post that this amendment is in hand - indeed I notice from the results that the revision has now been made.

[SeanC]

Out of curiosity to see who's winning M/W 21E at big events these days I checked out the results.

1 person on W21E (not a W21)

Other M/W21 classes not exactly overflowing with competitors.

[Rich R]

[quote="awk"] In addition, I thought that for a clearing or vegetation boundary to be used, the vegetation change needed to be significant enough to warrant a dotted line. [quote]

Correct - but it wasn't used if you check your descriptions!

Thanks for all the positive comments