Pictorial Descriptions

[SeanC]

Some of these comments highlight to me some of the problems with mixing juniors and adult beginners on colour coded courses. The colour coded system is great for juniors starting young and progressing relatively slowly but not good for adult beginners IMHO.

It wouldn't be so hard to offer a special TD2-4 course aimed at adults who don't want it too technical because they are progressing, or because they don't want it too technical. A score course variant with a mixture of easy and hard controls is ideal and easy to plan. Maps could be given out at registration to give people the chance to ask questions before they start, and of course control descriptions could be in text, keeping everyone happy. You could have a challenge variant for the MadMike beginner types, 3 hour time limit or when the course closes, that sort of thing.

[usuallylast]

I just ran to the centre of the circle (eventually) and looked around for a control flag and checked the number matched i.e. everything else on the description sheets was meaningless clutter.

Isn't that what you are supposed to do?

[MIE]

Some of these comments highlight to me some of the problems with mixing juniors and adult beginners on colour coded courses. The colour coded system is great for juniors starting young and progressing relatively slowly but not good for adult beginners IMHO.

It wouldn't be so hard to offer a special TD2-4 course aimed at adults who don't want it too technical because they are progressing,..........................

Err........... Long Orange -- previously known as Red

[SeanC]

Not as good as a score IMHO, too short for some, too technical for others, too long for some. Hard for planners to get the standard right. Score is the perfect course for a mix of abilities (physical and technical). If the control is too hard, just skip and go to the next one. The only problem with score courses for this group is that it's a harder concept to market (and people might run back through the start lanes ).

Long orange/red is quite rare too down our way, possibly clubs think there aren't enough competitors to justify it? Or it's slipped off the radar completely? None at our event this Sunday at Westerham, none at Millbank last Sunday, none at Pippingford Park. At a push clubs could just print some extra all controls maps that are normally printed for control collectors, then find a way of highlighting the ones that are technically easy, or let competitors figure that one out themselves.

[bewildered]

How about using some of the controls at a Level C race (Gallopen here) for a score course for beginnners, both adult and junior?

Of course, they might approach the control from the wrong direction and "spoil" it for the real orienteers (who have never approached a control from the wrong direction - or stood there thinking).

[Sunlit Forres]

Combining a score course with a 'standard' event poses problems with software (in our case as OE2010 users at least). It would need a separate registration/download set up with different software which would add significantly to the organisational workload. I can see the attraction for a minority of competitors, but I doubt if there'd be enough takers to justify the effort in all but the largest of events. I don't think it would make for a very meaningful competition.

I'm a huge fan (and I know others are too) of Moravian's current monthly Saturday & Schools League format where there are just 2 courses (but with various different classes). Straightforward to put on providing a manageable challenge for first-time planners, and easy to understand for first-time competitors. With over 100 entries lately, there are always loads of others to race against. OK the hardest course in only TD4 at best (worst?) but the good orienteers still come out on top, with the best ones really having to nail their technique to beat their peers, while the course is manageabable for the average punter and beginners who have moved up from the TD2 short course.

[SIman]

Combining a score course with a 'standard' event poses problems with software (in our case as OE2010 users at least).

I can't resist - If you used hardware that allowed you to use AutoDownload there would be no problem.

[Big Jon]

Those who are dyslexic find pictorial easier

As are those who have not yet learned to read.
Or those who do not understand obscure orienteering words - re-entrant, knoll, gully
Or those who want 1:7500 maps so cannot see the tiny fonts typically used for text descriptions.
Or those who have not learned the names of the compass points (or like me struggle with east and west)
Or those that are on holiday from Sweden and fancy popping to a local event.

Pictorial descriptions are easier, more intuitive, clearer and unambiguous so should be used for all courses. This gives people chance to gradually become familiar with the system on the less technical courses - where the only important thing is the control code - rather than be faced with learning a completely new system in its entirety just at the point where it starts to become important.

Hear, hear - a great list of reasons to go for pictorial descriptions.

[graeme]

1. siirtolohkare
2. rantakallio
3. kumpare
4. pusikko
5. kuoppa
6. laakso
7. polun risteyksessä
8. oja mutka
9. virta
Yes, I have run with written descriptions in Finnish

[bewildered]

But did you know what they meant?

[graeme]

"run to the centre of the circle and look around for a control flag"

[bewildered]

I got caught out on the first day of the Swiss KIMM many years ago looking for a reentrant rather than a knoll. Never found it, DQed.

Nice campsite though.

[Gnitworp]

(or like me struggle with east and west)

Given the opportunity, I write E or W (and NE, SW etc) on my description sheet because I haven't a clue which the dot, arrow etc represents when I've got my map up-side-down!

[Oldman]

(or like me struggle with east and west)

Given the opportunity, I write E or W (and NE, SW etc) on my description sheet because I haven't a clue which the dot, arrow etc represents when I've got my map up-side-down!

How strange! Presumably you then re-convert the NE or SW etc back into a feature side based on the direction of approach. Why not do this direct using the way the map is set?

[Gnitworp]

My description sheet is always orientated to north, so I would have to reverse that image in my mind to match the map when it is orientated to south, which I find difficult (strange though it may be). I always know where N, S, E and W are on my map however I've got it orientated. There's one mental process less if I've got the description sheet compass direction already written on.