Telegraph Article

[Sunlit Forres]

The Oxford English Dictionary describes orienteering as "a competitive sport in which runners have to find their way across rough country with the aid of a map and compass." http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/orienteering

So what's the problem with expecting people to be competitive then? I remember when I started there used to be a thing called wayfarers' courses. Maybe these (not timed) should be introduced and anyone not wishing to be listed in any results could do that instead. Or perhaps offer course maps but no SI Card at a reduced price to anyone wanting to merely go for a wander in the woods with the dog.

You can practice orienteering skills anywhere anytime, but isn't the idea of an orienteering event to be a competition? Just as a football tournament is all about who can score the most goals.

[Mrs H]

I don't think anyone is disputing that orienteering is a competitive sport. But the reintroduction of wayfarers might help people like Andy's partner enjoy the 'activity' of orienteering with him.

[AndyC]

There's a video too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9CstT5O4No
edit and another article about school sports cuts in the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10062338/Blow-to-Olympic-legacy-as-schools-are-forced-to-cut-sport.html

[ifititches]

I suppose another possibility for those enjoying the navigational side of a walk in the competition area, whilst not appearing on the results, would be to allow this group to be "paying participants", rather than competitors. This would mean that they simply punch at Start, so the organisers know they were out on the area, and punch at Finish to show they're back. They could visit as many or as few of the controls on the course they have picked as they wished, but not register at the control site with SIcard, EMIT or whatever.
You've got a safety element in there (knowing you've not left anyone out in the forest), you've covered your costs and registered another participant for the figures, you've not had to draw up an extra set of courses, and the "participant" don't have to feature in the competitive results, as they could be listed separately as "participants" without a time. The only things you've lost (unless I've completely missed something here) would be that they wouldn't be able to look at their splits, which theoretically wouldn't matter since they didn't want to compete, and you wouldn't be able to interrogate control boxes in the event of them not returning from the course as expected.
The theoretical loss of a start slot for a "competitor" on the course concerned could be answered by letting a "participant" start at any time, as they are unlikely to be racing a competitive starter or giving them an advantage.
As I recall, even Wayfarers' courses used to be recorded in the results with finish times, rather than just as a list, so you could still feel bad about "finishing last"

[Stodgetta]

We've had success by putting on score events for adult beginners at out colour coded events. We never have huge numbers, but it takes no extra effort to print a few maps with most of the controls... It means they don't have to get beaten by a load of kids (including their own!), if they don't find a control they can give up and move on without being disqualified, they know how long they are going to be out for and they can make it as hard or as difficult as they want.
One of our "middle aged Mums" had never done any sport until New Years Day this year, but has been coming along with her family and was persuaded to give it a go rather than standing waiting in the cold for an hour. She has been hooked ever since and will always take the score event option if it's available.

[Oldman]

I support the great idea of "participants" punching at the start and finish as ifititches proposes.