pete.owens wrote: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).
Course Planning, Urban rule says
11.5.4 Course lengths are given as optimal distances (see 21.12).
21.12 For all types of event format, including Sprint and Urban, the course length must be given as that of the straight-line route from the start via the controls to the finish deviating for, and only for, physically impassable obstructions (high fences, lakes, impassable cliffs etc.), 'out of bounds' areas and marked routes. This is the shortest route which a competitor could reasonably possibly take, irrespective of whether or not the competitor would be sensible to do so.
But rather confusingly for urbans:
11.5.5 Guidance should be given on the entry information as to the approximate distance competitors will actually be expected to run.
Assuming that 11.5.5 should have been deleted, it seems that urbans, as well as sprints, should now be showing actual running distance course lengths. I missed any publicity about this and didn’t spot the reference on Nopesport earlier. Checking a few recent events, it seems others may have missed it too, so thought I’d start a new thread.
The Condes Route Choice Lines feature looks like it makes it straightforward to calculate, but presumably a bit time consuming to get the lines accurate. Any tips?