Split starts

[Electrocuted]

Just out of interest, what start split do people normally allow when allocating split starts? I just had to email the entry organiser and ask for the second start to be put back as we only had 69 minutes between them. With a 10 minute walk to the start and 15 minutes back from the finish it didn't exactly give me much time to do my course. It got increased to 86 minutes so it was 3rd time lucky for us to get something near 100 minutes.

Now I know I am not exactly fast getting round my course but hassle like this before we even get to the event makes me think why bother. I missed the last SOL because there was a 4.5k walk added on to the course with the walk to the start and back from the finish.

[graeme]

Just out of interest, what start split do people normally allow when allocating split starts?

First starter - whenever they ask for. Second starter - punching start whenever they arrive at the start (unless its been taken down). I can't understand why you'd do anything else.

At the Clunie SOL, you could probably have driven to the start/finish for a handover. Maybe you missed a trick not asking?

[Electrocuted]

Both the JK and the 6 day do that Graeme. If they can with 4000 competitors I don't know why smaller events can't. It makes life so much easier.

I didn't even think to ask about driving to the start of the last SOL. I saw 4.5k and thought, No thanks.

[smf]

Allocation of split starts depends on what people ask for. Did you ask for early & late and a split start? If you ask for any and split, that could be the problem. When allocating start times (as I did for Clunie SOL) the start time allocation software ignores the split request if any has been chosen.

At Clunie the split was 90 to 110 minutes (in a 120 minute start window) depending upon courses.

[andypat]

Wait till he starts running then get used to missing your run altogether!

[housewife]

We do the longer, less busy classes, which means we tend to get what we ask for, one v early, one v late. Long walks to the start and finish are a problem with split starts. Most organisers are pretty understanding / laid back sorts. At a recent event when we wanted to leave quickly afterwards I turned up at the start well before the first start time and was allowed to do a punching start, then the other half talked his way into a punching start too. I've turned up at the start 15mins after the start closed, but the maps and the si were still there so they were happy to let me run.

[mappingmum]

Generic split starts are designed for the class leaders when they know they only need an hour for a run. Event logistics like 15+ mins walk to the start become challenging for parents who are slower (ie S) runners.

When you enter you need to request specific start times in the "special request box". I always ask that parent 1 has a start in the first 10 mins and then advise how much delay you need for parent 2 ie +1.5 hours or last start of the day. I have always had such a positive booking experience when using this method. Parent 2 frequently had a stressful wait for parent 1 to arrive back wondering if they are going to get a run.

It gets a bit more complicated when parent 1 then needs to take junior around a white course (more justification for the first start of the day). Later it changes again when you need someone to be around the car for junior's safe return.

Seriously, it gets easier as the children get older. The S6D this year we don't need split starts YAY!

[Electrocuted]

We did ask for an early start for me and a Late one for other half as well as split starts. The event software doesn't have very early and very late as options.

Seems the way forward is either to be very detailed in the special requests box (I really hated these when I allocated starts for the Scottish Champs a few years ago - it was like a complex maths quiz) or just turn up and ask nicely for a punching start. Cheers everyone, will try these in future.

Claire

[Arnold]

I think ideally the way forward would be to formalise the JK/BOC/6day approach into some sort of rule or guideline - ie first parent gets an allocated start time typically close to first start, second parent gets an open start. I don't see why this shouldn't be possible at all events (even though it introduces a bit of hassle for the organiser) - most are punching start for all anyway.

How one gets that done, I have no idea...

On a related note there seems to be a resurgence of allocated start times even for smaller events here down south. Apart from the impact on parents I'm not really sure what the point is - at Hampstead recently there were so few people per course that everyone started when they wanted anyway, increasing confusion for the start official would had to find them on the list.

So I think for all level C events there should be no allocated times, unless really there are classes with 100+ people.

[superstartradesman]

Just out of interest, what start split do people normally allow when allocating split starts? I just had to email the entry organiser and ask for the second start to be put back as we only had 69 minutes between them. With a 10 minute walk to the start and 15 minutes back from the finish it didn't exactly give me much time to do my course. It got increased to 86 minutes so it was 3rd time lucky for us to get something near 100 minutes.

Now I know I am not exactly fast getting round my course but hassle like this before we even get to the event makes me think why bother. I missed the last SOL because there was a 4.5k walk added on to the course with the walk to the start and back from the finish.

For the avoidance of doubt - TAY, who are organising the event I'm assuming this post refers to, are sympathetic to the situation of parental split start times, as other clubs are. Requests for parental split starts are always honoured as best as we can, and our policy is that while we might allocate parents an early and a late start time, if a parent can't make the late start time, let the start officials know as soon as you arrive and they'll give you a punching start at the next appropriate time.

The last thing we want is to put off parents with young kids from entering our events because of perceived hassle or inflexibility in start time allocation.

It seems that amongst their many strengths, a weakness of online event entry systems seems to be highlighting special requests and applying them in start time allocation (from recent personal experience - and thanks again Andypat for fixing it!). So perhaps that's something event entry system vendors can consider enhancing for future versions?

[AndyC]

I do note that the Northern Champs seem to be making efforts to help parents by having both a colouring tent and a string course to occupy youngsters (presumably supervised allowing parents to run?).
I do remember at the Slaley CSC heat the string course and an area next to assembly seemed to keep a lot of juniors occupied (my (adult) daughter being quite assumed by the antics as she supervised the string) in view of a lot of trustworthy adults in assembly. Possibly the use of EVO (MrsH's term) provided by organisers could help parents more?

[NeilC]

On a related note there seems to be a resurgence of allocated start times even for smaller events here down south

I haven't noticed any resurgence of allocated start times for Level C events although there have been quite a few small (by entry number) Level B events. The provision of allocated start times at Level B events was written into the rules as part of the process of making them better events than Level C ones. What I have noticed is that some clubs are allocating start times at small Level B events but then completely ignoring them and letting competitors start whenever they want. I think I read in some minutes somewhere that a review of how well the four event level was working was under way. Perhaps that review might make recommendations on start times. There is no rule stating that punching starts for the second split start is not allowed (although at the very biggest events there are rules on seeding etc that can affect things) so I suspect it's more a case of it becoming common practice rather than a new rule. In my experience clubs tend not to read the rules but put on events according to how they have always done, or how others put them on. Often this involves doing things that they believe are in the rules rather than actually being so.

[Clive Coles]

What I have noticed is that some clubs are allocating start times at small Level B events but then completely ignoring them and letting competitors start whenever they want.

What's the problem with this ? If it really is a small level B the start team should be able to ensure that runners are started without compromising the "fairness" by slotting people in where there is a gap in allocated times.

It seems in the quest to make level B events more "special" we have a rule that creates hastle before you even start. Who is kidding who ? It's a funny way to make an event "special". The challenge of orienteering should surely be what is encountered between start and finish.

Our club rarely stages level B events. We don't feel the urge to charge "special" entry fees. When we are obliged to put on a level B ( because of the rules of the competition) we are however quite likely to allocate time boxed start times just so that we don't penalise folk who get tripped up by a delayed journey time or the late return of a family member who is running an earlier course. And.. shock horror we could well use a punching start. But I guess we are just more relaxed in our area ~ we interpret the "rule" as a "guideline" and accommodate problems as best we can.

[smf]

It seems that amongst their many strengths, a weakness of online event entry systems seems to be highlighting special requests and applying them in start time allocation (from recent personal experience - and thanks again Andypat for fixing it!). So perhaps that's something event entry system vendors can consider enhancing for future versions?

You could use the AutoDownload start time allocator which took me less than 30 seconds to allocate start times for the SOL at Clunie.

[superstartradesman]

It seems that amongst their many strengths, a weakness of online event entry systems seems to be highlighting special requests and applying them in start time allocation (from recent personal experience - and thanks again Andypat for fixing it!). So perhaps that's something event entry system vendors can consider enhancing for future versions?

You could use the AutoDownload start time allocator which took me less than 30 seconds to allocate start times for the SOL at Clunie.

Sure, but did that 30 seconds include reading and interpreting all the written special requests (without missing any), and applying them successfully to the automated start time allocation process? That was the issue I was referring to.