Navigate to finish?

[Clive Coles]

I am not opposed to the suggestion that finish locations should be "described" on the control description to define the feature (where it exists) just like any othe control point. i have known some clubs to even put a control kite on the finish stake along with the finish box.

The problem surely comes with the location of the Finish line. Under current rules, by having a common control and a taped route to the finish, this does allow you to locate the Finish in a featureless area such as the middle of a playing field (if this suits spectator/assembly area arrangements) . To have a meaningless description in such circumstances does not really help. So we really need the flexability to do both.

I think if a planner proposes to allow "navigate to finish", the finish should be visible from the assumed direction of approach and placed on a describable feature that is shown as such on the map. You should not turn the Finish into a bingo control like "somewhere along the path". if you need the finish to be on an unmapped feature it should at the very least be taped from a last (white course) control.

Having said all this I wonder how many orienteers will admit they navigate to the center of the circle and just look for the kite. It's probably only when they find themselves at the wrong place that they start to look for the feature they have just missed.

Not expecting any Nopers to admit to such casual tactics

[Gnitworp]

I am not opposed to the suggestion that finish locations should be "described" on the control description to define the feature (where it exists) just like any othe control point.

I think we just need the description sheet to be designed so that we can 'describe' the Finish location if we feel it would improve fairness: a facility you could use if you wanted to, with a normal control kite, (in addition to any banner)at the site to show you exactly where to 'punch'. when you get there.

[SJC]

I think we just need the description sheet to be designed so that we can 'describe' the Finish if we feel it would improve fairness: a facility you can use if you want to.

No.

Just plan the finish according to the rules and then it is fair.
You just seem intent on complicating things.

[Gnitworp]

Actually, I probably agree with you, SJC. I've just been following self-concocted red herrings up blind alleys!

OK, my ideal scenario:

A technically very difficult penultimate control followed by a short leg to a very easy last control (e.g. on a track) followed by a 50-100m taped route to the Finish.

[lakesorunner]

OK, my ideal scenario:A technically very difficult penultimate control followed by a short leg to a very easy last control (e.g. on a track) followed by a 50-100m taped route to the Finish.

That's what you'll get at Graythwaite for all courses over Light Green
Coupled with Esthwaite Intake the day before - will be (probably) one of the best weekends of orienteering you'll all get this year...
Get your entries in now...
http://www.lakeland-orienteering.org.uk

[Sloop]

Completely agree with Gnitworp's latest summary.
It's not only finished runners who linger at Finishes.
There's often a Finish official. Usually a planner and controller. Potentially a First Aider with kit. Drinks, etc.
So there's lots of reasons the Finish shouldn't be a technical feature, and the rules as they stand are perfectly sensible.

[EddieH]

Clearly the finish should be clear and easy to find (including the siting of the electronics). Regarding the last control what does it matter if it's technical or not? Surely competitors should assess it just as they assess every other control on the course.

Whether it is taped or not should be clear from the descriptions which I always look at if the control is not on a path, (although many planners controllers clearly don't appreciate the meaning of the IOF descriptions).

At one multiday after a particularly good run I decided that rather than navigate to the very complex last control I'd be quicker to run to the tapes and follow them back to the control. Problem was I followed tapes back to 5 wrong controls before I got mine Entirely my own fault.

[Glucosamine]

Back to the frustration of a hidden finish SI box last Sunday, apparently driven by the 'two finishes but only one finish banner' issue. Appreciating (or trying to appreciate) planning constraints, it might be nice to remind planners (and controllers) not to put the box behind a tree (not that I'm not myself capable of most howlers without a longstop). But I did enjoy the rest of the course in the indian summer sunshine. Autumn weather will be with us soon enough ...

[Red Adder]

If two finishes are needed but a club doesn't have the banners for both its probably best not to have a "navigate to finish' leg at the end. I'm sure every club at least will have enough tape to have a short taped route from what the planner views as the finish to the actual finish SI/Emit finish check box, hopefully placed on a very obvious feature. A weather-protected sheet of A4 with FINISH in large font on both side can then be hung over the finish box to complete the job.

[Adrian]

"Navigate to Finish" doesn't mean that the leg can be TD5. In fact it should be TD1/2, perhaps 3 at a pinch. All it means is that aren't any tapes. This should be true at all Level A, B, C events. The exception is Level D where the planner might use the leg to the Finish as a "proper" leg on the technical courses in order to cut down their workload. But in this case the control itself should be on a feature or easily visible.