I was reading "The Edgbaston Incident" in Compasssport again prior to heading to Livingston for the SOUL race today.
Its an interesting read and obviously the issue itself has been a bit controversial. Adrian Bailey planned to have two controls one above the other on different levels, justifying this by the rules allowing the distance between them to be measured around impassable objects.
Obviously in this case a fair few people navigated to what they thought was their control, found a control in the "right" spot and moved on.....mp.
I recall a simialr issue at a Scottish sprint champs a few years back with back to back controls on either side of a high hedge. The problem being if you had the near side you were OK as that was the control you saw first but if you had the far side there was a signcifiant temptation to mispunch.
My thoughts on this are that its absolutely fine by me if a planner wants to "trick" me into thinking a control is somewhere its not (I'll shake their hand at the end for pulling it off) but I'm not a fan at all of placing additional controls simply to trick the runner into thinking they have got where they thought they were going. (and I think these two examples are pretty close to that line)
The most egregious example of this I can remember was a fun night race planned by Scots juniors at a training weekend earlier this year where an additional control (not on any course) was placed about 20m before the correct control - not sure how many mispunched but given we didnt have control descriptions to check I suspect nearly all!
I think the Edgbaston incident and the Scottish sprint example would have been fine by me if there had been only one control used. Then a good proportion of runners would have had the experience of standing scratching their heads trying to work out what had happened before realising they were on the wrong level/side of the hedge.
As it was some people checked codes (and I know we all should but if you "know" you are in the circle and theres a control there... how many actually would) and relocated but a good proportion only found out at download which is a horrible and frustrating experience.
So....my advice to sprint planners and urban planners for what its worth, is do all you can to trick me into losing time, running up dead ends, ending up on top of the bridge instead of under, but dont try and trick me into mispunching as that just sucks.
Fair play by planners
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
32 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Fair play by planners
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Fair play by planners
Simple if you read your desciption...
If you get mp, it is Your fault.
If you get mp, it is Your fault.
- nooomember
- light green
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:31 am
Re: Fair play by planners
Even with sprint and urban races the emphasis should be on navigating to the correct control and finding it in the correct position. The sport is about navigation at speed and the challenge should be weighing up the route choices and executing the one selected. The control description is important eg on top of bridge or under it, inside or outside of an uncrossable wall and I agree it should not be about tricking the competitor.
- canol
- orange
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:33 pm
- Location: In the middle
Re: Fair play by planners
nooomember wrote:Simple if you read your desciption...
If you get mp, it is Your fault.
I agree. In the Birmingham case, the control description clearly said 'under' and so anyone climbing to the higher level (rather than remaining on the lower main running level which I have learnt subsequently should be where a control is located anyway) was clearly making a mistake.
The two people I know who mp'd accepted this, and recognised that the compromises made when pushing hard are risks that save time, but can backfire. One person I am aware of decided to convene a group in a narrow passageway, blocking the path to and sight of the control for runners still on the course. Personally, I found this discourteous.
I can understand the complaint if the control had been misplaced or misdescribed. It was neither. It was a trap that the unwary fell in to. Urban orienteering is regularly criticised for favouring running speed over technical skills, so perhaps this is exactly the sort of potential trap that should be used more often?
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Fair play by planners
nooomember wrote:Simple if you read your desciption...
If you get mp, it is Your fault.
So, in orienteering ... is the control description key to locating a control or simply informative?
Should the map alone be sufficient?
(Cowardly not yet expressing my own opinion)
- iainwp
- orange
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:55 pm
- Location: loughborough
Re: Fair play by planners
Control circles for symbolic 'point' features, such as a tree, and 'line' features, such as a wall, should be centred on the feature. Only the control descriptions will tell you which side of the feature the marker is located.
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: Fair play by planners
Agree with Andy, with the caveat that the Scottish sprint example differs from the split level in that you are prompted by the map to look at the descriptions to work out which side of the hedge you are aiming for. The other example I thought was ridiculous. Today’s urban was perfectly pleasant. I navigated to the thing in the middle of the circle, punched the control there and ran on. That’s what the sport is about. I checked only one description, to see which side of an impassable fence the control was on. If you want to indulge in some split level jiggery pokery, use a map like Graeme’s JCMB indoorienteering from the big weekend. If the split levels blend with one another and make it too complicated to read, then stick to the main level only or don’t use it!
- housewife
- green
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:28 pm
- Location: probably at work
Re: Fair play by planners
nooomember wrote:Simple if you read your desciption...
If you get mp, it is Your fault.
I agree in principle but I think the rules as they stand were designed with the assumption that if you are at the centre of the circle the control you see should be yours. Checking your code is something we are all encouraged to do but in practice (and especially with SI air meaning you can punch with the control hidden under the flag) I suspect many of us only make a point of doing this if we are in any doubt that we are in the right place.
If it’s now possible that I could punch a control in a reentrant in the centre of the circle but have to check every time in case there could be a control in a tunnel or cave directly underneath then I think we are playing a different game.
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Fair play by planners
housewife wrote:Agree with Andy, with the caveat that the Scottish sprint example differs from the split level in that you are prompted by the map to look at the descriptions to work out which side of the hedge you are aiming for.
Yes I agree its not the same. But I think it highlights the same point - effectively two flags either side of the same line feature can be impossible to tell apart with the naked eye. And while I'm relatively comfortable with being tricked to go to the wrong side of an uncrossable feature to find no control there, I still think its a step too far to have a control there to trick you into punching it (in a proper event - its fine in an ultrasprint etc)
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Fair play by planners
andypat wrote: ... dont try and trick me into mispunching as that just sucks.
Agreed, and as a general rule, if competitors think your planning sucks, you're doing it wrong.
Here at Sprintelope Towers, we've nothing against comedy planning, but we do think the competitors should get to share the fun.
The leg between the two controls in question at Edgbaston would have been quite a decent one as well.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Fair play by planners
Control circles for symbolic 'point' features, such as a tree, and 'line' features, such as a wall, should be centred on the feature.
ISOM 2017 states:
703 Control point
For point features, the centre of the circle shall be the centre of the symbol. For line
and area features, the centre of the circle shows the precise position of the control
marker.
Hence the circle should be centred on the side of the wall on which the control is placed.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: Fair play by planners
What are the arguments nowadays (when overprints can be reliably printed in the right place) for not having a dot in the middle of the circle? Actually on the map not on Graeme's future vision of control descriptions. Obscures underlying detail? Takes away the challenge of working out which is the easternmost SE inside corner when your map is upside down?
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Fair play by planners
The objection to dots on the map is that they clutter the map and are seldom necessary. I expect we'd quickly get used to it, and its already an option in CONDES.
Rule 1...
Orienteering is a sport in which competitors navigate independently through the terrain. Competitors must visit a number of control points marked on the ground, usually in the shortest possible time, aided in navigation by map and compass only.
iainwp wrote:Should the map alone be sufficient?
Rule 1...
Orienteering is a sport in which competitors navigate independently through the terrain. Competitors must visit a number of control points marked on the ground, usually in the shortest possible time, aided in navigation by map and compass only.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Fair play by planners
SJC wrote:ISOM 2017 states:
703 Control point
For point features, the centre of the circle shall be the centre of the symbol. For line
and area features, the centre of the circle shows the precise position of the control
marker.
Hence the circle should be centred on the side of the wall on which the control is placed.
More obfuscation:
ISSOM 2007 states:
702 Control Point
The control points are shown with circles. The centre of the circle shows the precise position of the feature.
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: Fair play by planners
graeme wrote:The objection to dots on the map is that they clutter the map and are seldom necessary. I expect we'd quickly get used to it, and its already an option in CONDES.
An option that resulted in two controls being voided at this years British Trail-O Championship as the purple dots obscured the features!
The dots are for use in ski-O - where all controls are between junctions on prepared trails - A purple dot on top of a thick green line does identify which trail you should be on. They can be used for the same reason on MTBO courses. Also on street-O maps where the only features are roads represented by thick black lines.
A purple dot is going to cause confusion on the map anywhere where the map is detailed. Are there two or three knolls? - Is there a way through that narrow passageway? We cut the purple lines and circles anywhere they obscure important detail and the one place you are certain that the detail will be important is at the centre of the circle.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
32 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests