Navigate to finish?

[DJM]

I have never understood the reasoning for this ("Navigate to Finish" should
not be used).

The most obvious reason is that the Finish is the only point on the map which does not have to be on a mapped feature and thus does not have a control decription.

This makes it different from every other marked point on the map and means that it is unfair to ask people to navigate to it (what is "it"? What am I looking for?). Of course, in many cases, the Finish point is clearly visible and it doesn't matter if it's not a mapped feature, but there are many instances of the Finish just being an anonymous flagged stake in low visibility terrain leading to potential time loss in finding it.

There are other instances of finishers milling around and hiding the Finish flag from view, etc. which would not be a problem with a teped run-in.

So, I can think of many reasons why you should not have to "navigate to Finish" and only one potential disadvantage, that mentioned by King Penguin regarding a narrow/rough run-in. But this should be easily remedied by careful choice of where the Finish is placed.

[Paul Frost]

Take care with very short legs. The new SI Card 11 flash for about 5 seconds after leaving a unit and cant be used in another unit during that time.
We had a problem last week when the check and start were too close together.

I missed this earlier post before now.

Perhaps this bit of knowledge should be taken into account for distance from last control?
The recently issued tips about SPORTident for controllers by David Rosen doesn't mention this restriction (apologies, I can't link to the document as it's not on the British Orienteering website, it was email out).

[Gnitworp]

Taped routes to the Finish are highly desirable, but extreme care should be taken to make them absolutely clear on the ground to everyone. I once followed tapes to the last control on another course!

[graeme]

I once followed tapes to the last control on another course!

and I once followed tapes to a clear station

I've also had negative split times with SI, and I'm not an Italian neutrino .

[King Penguin]

Perhaps this bit of knowledge should be taken into account for distance from last control?

Or between controls, esp. on a sprint.
I can recall at least one instance of someone missing a top place in a sprint because the penultimate and final control were very close together and the window-model EMIT brikke was still showing scrolling bars from the penultimate control and the runner did not make sufficient contact at the final control. The bars continued to scroll so he thought he had punched OK, but sownload showed the final control had not registered.

[King Penguin]

there are many instances of the Finish just being an anonymous flagged stake in low visibility terrain leading to potential time loss in finding it.

Really ? I would have to check back over a number of maps, but I think most events I go to have the Finish on a defined and mapped feature - path, ride, path junction etc. The obvious exceptions are those with finishes in the middle of open fields, but these do tend to have taped run-ins from a final control on forest edge and/or be highly visible from afar.

I agree the finish should not be hidden, but it seems to me that if this is the reason for having a common last control and a taped run-in then we are addressing the wrong problem, the real one being poor choice of Finish location.

[Clive Coles]

Agree with you KP ~ I think having everyone heading for the same last control is to be avoided for the very reasons you give.

This rule is really a throw back to the days of pin punches and a manned timed finish. Then you wanted to gather all finishers to a common point so as to ensure you could manage the allocation of actual finish times to a sequential line of finishers.

But electronic dibbed finishes has changed that requirement.

For the non-technical courses, which are largely path based, a last control on the path approaching the finish still seems to me to be desirable. "Follow tapes to finish" can be used in such circumstances.

Technical course competitors however will have spent their run ducking and weaving around the terrain searching out point features ~ why therefore the need to have their last control on a path so that they can find their way home. The only time that I can see this might be desirable is where organisers want to channel runners so as to provide a spectator run in.

I would however never have the last control and the finish circle overlapping, as the runners now need to remember to dib at both the last and finish point. if both sets of boxes are within close proximity there is a real danger one set will be mistaken for the other. That leads to potential confusions and, for serious competitions, disqualifications. You will end of with some disgruntled competitors , pissed off by their own carelessness.

I actually favour mixing and matching the last control options. As you approach the end of your runs, courses do converge and you often find you are following runners who are on both your own or another course. The runner ahead of you helps you locate a control ~ it could well be the one you are seeking.

So, as well as a path based control for the non-technical courses I like to have, where possible, 2 other last controls so that brown, blue and the various shades of green runners do not all follow each other into the last 2 controls on their course. It keeps them thinking to the end ~ if they follow they may visit the wrong control. This is where you would probably need to use "navigate to finish".

I prefer to advocate good practice planning guidelines ~ I don't believe we should really define a rule as to what has to be provided for all types and level of competition.

Let the planner and controller decide what style of finish is appropriate for their event. They should base their judgement around any landowner imposed constraints, the detail on map, the complexity of terrain, the numbers of likely competitors.

[Gnitworp]

("Navigate to Finish" should
not be used).

The most obvious reason is that the Finish is the only point on the map which does not have to be on a mapped feature and thus does not have a control decription.

Trouble is, we have a totally new scenario here. Before e-punching, runners had to be marshalled across a finish line to be timed. Now all they have to do is 'punch' at a Finish unit. What are the reasons we cannot allow some finishes, e.g., in lower key events with smaller numbers of competitors, to have the finish timing unit with a standard kite on a feature with a code (e.g., the word 'finish') and control description. Are we just being obtuse in not allowing this to happen? It would be easy to have multiple (technical and non-technical) finishes at the same event.

Is one of the reasons that people might congregate around the 'finish', reducing its technical difficulty and fairness, which would seem to support the navigate-to unmissable-technically-easy-finish proposition, which of course you could also 'describe' if you wanted to and the Rules and OCAD allowed you to.

[Clive Coles]

Are we just being obtuse in not allowing this to happen? It would be easy to have multiple (technical and non-technical) finishes at the same event.

Well ~ just thought would be interesting to have a look at the routegadgets for the latest series of level B CSC rounds to see if the "rules" for having a common last control on all courses was being observed in practice.

Bonus points to the EM and NW round ~ you seem to have obayed the rule. Cannot be sure your routes were taped to the Finish as I was not there. But all the other rounds where I found a routegadget map indicated that these events did not have a common last control. So... we are not being obtuce Gnitworp. Our Planners and Controllers are just being pragmatic and staging what they think works best for the area.

We seem to spend hours in committees trying to define precise event rules. If BOF want anyone to take notice and obey the rules as defined they have many people to convince.

It's just not happening even at events such as the CSC. I think, if anything , the rules need to be made less precise to allow for variations over matters which frankly do not seem to effect the fairness or challenge the course .

[NeilC]

Let the planner and controller decide what style of finish is appropriate for their event. They should base their judgement around any landowner imposed constraints, the detail on map, the complexity of terrain, the numbers of likely competitors.

Which is exactly what the current rules and guidelines allow, and what most events do.

[Clive Coles]

I think the problem with the rules is that there appear to be contradictions. So clubs just get on and utilise the bits that suits their purpose and ignore the bits they don't like.

I'm not complaining ~ I have always interpreted event rules as guidelines.

[Gnitworp]

Clive, what do you personally think of the idea I described of having the finish unit as the last described control with a conventional marker? I very nearly did it at my recent event with the enforced 8m run in. I'm sure it would have worked had competitors been pre-warned. Unfortunately, standard description sheets don't allow finishes to be 'described'. Maybe we need to adjust our collective thinking (and description sheets) to allow this to happen?

[frostbite]

Technical course competitors however will have spent their run ducking and weaving around the terrain searching out point features ~ why therefore the need to have their last control on a path so that they can find their way home.

I have no problem with “navigate to finish” becoming the norm - simply a case of the rules not having kept pace with technology. However I still think the navigation should be trivial and the finish obvious. You cannot have the finish at a technical control site because people tend to stop when they get to the finish, and you will get people hanging around there. The difficulty of the finish is affected by how many people are hanging around (and possibly whether or not they like you).

[DavidJ]

.. the idea I described of having the finish unit as the last described control with a conventional marker?

Surely the problem is that when a competitor has reached their 'finish' they stop running and stand around talking. If other people are navigating to the control on a point feature and ther are people there, then its position is obvious and it is no longer a fair control. By having the tapes taking people to a separate finish, there is no navigation so that the presence (or absence) of people standing around does not change the fairness of it.

[SJC]

to see if the "rules" for having a common last control on all courses was being observed in practice.

I don't see anywhere that it says that there has to be a common last control.
Just that there should be a taped route from the last normal control to the finish.
Two final controls for different courses = two sets of tape.

Likewise, nowhere does it say that it has to be a solid continuous tape.

So most planners seem to be applying common sense to this, with a clear route from the final control(s) to the finish, using as much or as little tape as is necessary.