Fair play by planners
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
32 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Fair play by planners
How small could the dot be?
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: Fair play by planners
Gnitworp wrote: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.
meanwhile...
ISOM2.11.1 When a feature is exaggerated on the map, neighbouring features may need to be displaced to ensure readability and correct relative positions.
So e.g. consider two large boulders. 1m apart, 1m diameter
From the W end of the W boulder to the E end of the E must be 1.35mm on the map = 20m on the ground.
The "centre of circle/precise position" of W boulder, W side is then...
(a) on the west side the black dot (on the correct side, ~8m from where the flag is).
(b) on the centre of the black dot (position of boulder on map (~4m from the flag).
(c) on the east side of the black dot (position of boulder on the ground).
ISOM also specifies that precise position refers to "symbol" for point features and "control" for line and area. So the answer is (b) for boulders, but if the features were parallel walls, it would be (a).
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: 4724
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Fair play by planners
Going back to the 'above or below' discussion, yesterdays grand Bazaar sprint in Istanbul used green circles for the upper level, and purple for 'ground level'. There were no control descriptions. Seemed to work well.
- Attachments
-
- istanbul.JPG (12.55 KiB) Viewed 10488 times
- jonesy
- string
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:48 pm
Re: Fair play by planners
jonesy wrote:... used green circles for the upper level, and purple for 'ground level'. ...Seemed to work well.
says the presumably not colour blind Jonesy
![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
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
Curious that British rules contradict IOF rules:
IOF 19.4 "The distance between the controls is measured in a straight line."
BOF appendix 10.3.4 "These separations are measured around impassable objects rather than being straight line distances" (BOF 22.3 also says "Controls should not ...", rather than "shall not ...", which implies a guideline, rather than a rule).
The IOF interpretation deters course planners who consider the competition to be between themselves and competitors. The different interpretations could also cause problems in competitions where IOF rules take precedence (e.g world ranking events).
IOF 19.4 "The distance between the controls is measured in a straight line."
BOF appendix 10.3.4 "These separations are measured around impassable objects rather than being straight line distances" (BOF 22.3 also says "Controls should not ...", rather than "shall not ...", which implies a guideline, rather than a rule).
The IOF interpretation deters course planners who consider the competition to be between themselves and competitors. The different interpretations could also cause problems in competitions where IOF rules take precedence (e.g world ranking events).
- GregHawthorne
- string
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:41 pm
Re: Fair play by planners
That is an interesting divergence in the UK/IOF rules.
The IOF appendix also requires the feature to be distinctly different in terrain if the controls are to be less than 60m (30m for 1:4 or 5k).
I love Graemes example of an informal event with 3 controls on the same feature (although I'd have repositioned the numbers) but I doubt it would fulfil that criteria.
The IOF appendix also requires the feature to be distinctly different in terrain if the controls are to be less than 60m (30m for 1:4 or 5k).
I love Graemes example of an informal event with 3 controls on the same feature (although I'd have repositioned the numbers) but I doubt it would fulfil that criteria.
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
GregHawthorne wrote:Curious that British rules contradict IOF rules:
IOF 19.4 "The distance between the controls is measured in a straight line."
BOF appendix 10.3.4 "These separations are measured around impassable objects rather than being straight line distances"
By contrast, IOF rules expect you to measure sprint course distances around impassible objects, BOF rules say measure in a straight line.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
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: 4724
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Fair play by planners
graeme wrote: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.
This is an interesting reference. I generally find that rule 1 of anything is an over-simplistic attempt to describe the totality of a law, game or sport, which is then followed by umpteen additional rules all trying to clarify what rule 1 actually means. Indeed, on a strict reading of this, control descriptions should be banned. Some may see that as a good thing, but I doubt that would be an outcome achieving popular support.
I say this not to be antagonistic, but because I am genuinely confused. As a relative newcomer to these parts, it strikes me that there are many bad habits in orienteering that are so pervasive that they are commonly regarded as not just acceptable, but the way things should be. This may of course just be my own naivety and ignorance.
I thought that orienteering was about finding specific features in the terrain. A description of that feature is, therefore, an important (though not necessarily essential) element of the information given to competitors. If this is not the case, and in fact it's about finding points on the map, then why not do away with the need to use a specific feature as a control site? Indeed, this would possibly increase the technical challenge offered by many of the otherwise bland areas on offer throughout large parts of the country.
Admittedly there is a fine line between a deliberate trick and a fair challenge that will catch out those paying insufficient attention, and it's a natural reaction for anyone falling foul of the latter to claim the former. But what is the point of control descriptions if not to clarify the exact location of a control? And if a competitor chooses to take the risk of not reading the control description in order to save time, why should someone else be held accountable for the consequences of their freely chosen actions?
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Fair play by planners
Reviving an old thread now we have the new rules.
10.8.1 says diciphering complicated control descriptions is not part of sprint orienteering.
10.8.3 now tell me that if a control is on an impassable feature it should be offset so that it is clear from the map where it is.
So who defines "complicated", they're all simple to me?
And how far should it be offset?
and how much to we worry that the flag won't be in the centre of the circle any more?
more importantly, to me, is there an equivalent IOF rule to these?
10.8.1 says diciphering complicated control descriptions is not part of sprint orienteering.
10.8.3 now tell me that if a control is on an impassable feature it should be offset so that it is clear from the map where it is.
So who defines "complicated", they're all simple to me?
And how far should it be offset?
and how much to we worry that the flag won't be in the centre of the circle any more?
more importantly, to me, is there an equivalent IOF rule to these?
- iainwp
- orange
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:55 pm
- Location: loughborough
Re: Fair play by planners
iainwp wrote:Reviving an old thread now we have the new rules.
10.8.1 says diciphering complicated control descriptions is not part of sprint orienteering.
10.8.3 now tell me that if a control is on an impassable feature it should be offset so that it is clear from the map where it is.
So who defines "complicated", they're all simple to me?
And how far should it be offset?
and how much to we worry that the flag won't be in the centre of the circle any more?
more importantly, to me, is there an equivalent IOF rule to these?
My personal view:
Something like "middle feature" when there are more than 3 in the circle would be complicated - the description itself is easy enough to understand but not so easy to see on the map.
The eye is quite sensitive to things being central and uncrossable features (on the map) are thick lines (0.4mm minimum) - so I would have thought that a very small offset would suffice. Have a look at this (yes, I know the colours are wrong, I don't have a recent version of OCAD with the sprint colours); the top circle is centred on the side of the "uncrossable feature", the bottom one 0.4mm further offset. I can't instantly tell which side the top one is centred but the bottom one is very clear, so that suggests that it doesn't need much of an offset. At 1:4000, 0.4mm on the map is 1.6m on the ground, so I don't think that's significant in terms of the flag not being at the centre of the circle. Of course, it might not be as clear if the uncrossable feature wasn't straight
- Attachments
-
- Untitled.jpg (14.1 KiB) Viewed 7357 times
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: Fair play by planners
Not sure those are new. I seem to recall writing something very similar for a previous major rewrite.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Fair play by planners
The changes list on the front suggests they are new. I'm now looking to see if I've archived the old ones.
- iainwp
- orange
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:55 pm
- Location: loughborough
Re: Fair play by planners
graeme wrote:GregHawthorne wrote:Curious that British rules contradict IOF rules:
IOF 19.4 "The distance between the controls is measured in a straight line."
BOF appendix 10.3.4 "These separations are measured around impassable objects rather than being straight line distances"
By contrast, IOF rules expect you to measure sprint course distances around impassible objects, BOF rules say measure in a straight line.
And this is one thing that does seem to have been sorted out in the latest BOF rules:
10.5.3 Course lengths are given as optimal distances (see 21.12).
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Fair play by planners
Not really. In order to plan a course with a particular expected winning time in the first place you need to measure how far the competitors are actually going to run.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
32 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests