Feedback is a gift and should always be sought out and given; both positive and negative. However it is essential that feedback is Constructive and not Destructive, otherwise volunteer planners, controllers and organisers will feel aggrieved that all their hard work has been dismissed and make them reluctant to agree to do the roles again.
As to the original post asking whether controlling standards have fallen, IMO as a controller and planner over some 40 years I would say No. I think it’s probably fair to say that events and courses are under much more scrutiny today and we are perhaps more challenging about mistakes and aspects of events that dont meet our expectations.
Controlling standards
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
47 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Controlling standards
maprun wrote:I'm not a controller. How do controllers learn about what has gone wrong at previous events?
I'm a grade 1 controller. I get most feedback from reading nopesport and attackpoint. BOF and IOF seem terribly averse to admitting that anything could possibly be improved.
On the original question - I think the quality of controlling has gone down, mainly because we're getting old. For sure, mine has.
I have no more time to devote to the job than before but I move at half the speed. At M60 I can't test run the long courses to check lengths. I'm a little better at spotting things that older runners can't cope with (ditches, rickety fences) and a little worse at remembering how fast elites move. I certainly can't get around all the sites on the morning any more.
Map quality has improved a lot: I can't remember the last time I vetoed a control because the map made no sense. The planning quality has gone up, with electronic tools and very few novice orienteering doing planning.
Most of all, many of the controllers responsibilities have been transferred to the organiser.
Its not unusual to control a successful event without really feeling you contributed anything.
As a planner, often I pay more attention to comments from my (younger) test-runners than the controller. As an organiser, I can read the rules too, so I seldom need advice from the controller.
All of which, to be blunt, makes one wonder whether controlling is still the best use of controllers time.
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: Controlling standards
On the original question - I think the quality of controlling has gone down, mainly because we're getting old.
To slightly avoid the original question. The most frequent mistakes I see are the TD1-2 courses being too hard. This is definitely something the controller should catch, probably not the most exciting part of controlling but one of the most important.
- DaveR
- red
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Controlling standards
Agree with almost everything graeme says above. Although I would argue that electronic planning tools have improved controlling as well as planning. There was always a limit on the number of times you could ask the planner to redo hand-drawn course overprints or master maps, so there was a tendency to get to a point where things weren't quite right but 'would do'. Now it is much easier to ensure that circles and lines are correctly positioned and broken appropriately, numbers in a sensible place, controls descriptions and map layout exactly correct etc.
On most frequent mistakes I see the opposite, with the TD3-4 courses often being too easy. Probably from being in the south where most terrain is TD4 at best, but there is still a tendency for planners to think that Light Green should be technically easier than Green so it becomes TD3+, and then Orange easier still so it gets closer to a long TD2.
On most frequent mistakes I see the opposite, with the TD3-4 courses often being too easy. Probably from being in the south where most terrain is TD4 at best, but there is still a tendency for planners to think that Light Green should be technically easier than Green so it becomes TD3+, and then Orange easier still so it gets closer to a long TD2.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: Controlling standards
Snail wrote:On most frequent mistakes I see the opposite, with the TD3-4 courses often being too easy. Probably from being in the south where most terrain is TD4 at best, but there is still a tendency for planners to think that Light Green should be technically easier than Green so it becomes TD3+, and then Orange easier still so it gets closer to a long TD2.
This is really a problem with the colour coded standards, or the choice to use them rather than an alternative system. Putting aside the super keen types who travel outside the region, in the south a realistic aim for most is 'mastery' of TD4, so why not have a gradual increase in technical difficulty up to TD4 if organisers are putting on multiple courses? Good for those juniors who want to gradually progress. Those in the North and West might therefore experience a steeper gradient in technical difficulty and more support/coaching is needed from the club, so this is an advantage for southern clubs - that their juniors and adult newbies can progress onto the more technical courses (in their region) gradually without the need for so much coaching. Why not exploit it? (small compensation for living in the south )
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: Controlling standards
My pet peeve at the moment is earth wall (brown line with filled circles on map) being put as a brick/stone wall on the control descriptions (diagonal line with filled circles). Seen it at a couple of recent East Anglian events. For the first, it was wrong consistently. For the second it was inconsistent.
- sborrill
- off string
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:40 pm
Re: Controlling standards
SeanC wrote: why not have a gradual increase in technical difficulty up to TD4 if organisers are putting on multiple courses?
Because it would mean zillions of courses combining permutations of distance and TD. I suspect the problem is that people are too proud to enter anything other than TD5. Certainly, when we started doing sprints and urbans people were put off until they tried it and found running a TD3 course fast is harder than plodding round a TD5 course* - and just as much fun.
Maybe there's scope for an event with white, yellow courses and a range of TD3 lengths. Make sure the course stays in terrain is nice enough to wear shorts. Then if you call it a "forest sprint" people will come and newbies can run alongside experienced orienteers. For longer courses "forest urban" doesn't quite work, maybe "long sprint"
* Insert anecdote about athletes blowing out in the TD3 section of the WOC middle.
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: Controlling standards
There used to be a Long TD3 option - it was called Red.
I never did understand why it (almost completely) disappeared. If we want to try to encourage cross-over from other running disciplines it was the best introductory option.
I never did understand why it (almost completely) disappeared. If we want to try to encourage cross-over from other running disciplines it was the best introductory option.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: Controlling standards
Its now called "long orange". I'm not sure why the name changed - I think the idea might have been to repurpose "red" to replace the rather cumbersome "light green". The reason it has mostly disappeared is that there was never any demand for it - however much it is supposedly claimed to be the ideal transition for runners.
By far the most popular running events are parkruns - something that takes most people 20-30 minutes. In terms of endurance an orange course will probably keep them occupied for longer - so more than enough for an introduction. And if they want to progress they will want to develop their skills rather than simply increasing the distance. In if they don't want to progress then perhaps orienteering isnt the sport for them.
By far the most popular running events are parkruns - something that takes most people 20-30 minutes. In terms of endurance an orange course will probably keep them occupied for longer - so more than enough for an introduction. And if they want to progress they will want to develop their skills rather than simply increasing the distance. In if they don't want to progress then perhaps orienteering isnt the sport for them.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Controlling standards
The AVERAGE park run time is 31 minutes, the bulk of people have finished in 45-50 minutes but its not uncommon for people to take over an hour. I think if you are targeting the 20 minute park runners for a long orange / red course you might be barking up the wrong tree. its the plodders who are more likely to be happy not to move up the TDs. Also a 20-30 minute free run in your local park is a different proposition from orienteering which by its very nature tends to move around so involve more travelling, and almost always has at least a small cost. If it takes me an hour to get there I don't want to be finished in 20 minutes.
Our club has dabbled with Long Orange / Red in the past, got little traction and killed it off as an inconvenience for planner/organiser. That might be confirmation bias - if they did it consistently, every event, all-season people might be more likely to enter or even attract people who think 2.5-3k sounds too short. Certainly we get plenty of people on 5k urban courses so no reason to think that people don't like long TD3 navigation. The question is - are the club working for the existing members (who mostly aren't wanting long orange) or to attract and retain new people - although as we all age we might see more and more people who don't want to climb fences, scramble through brambles or slide down muddy slopes...
I know some other clubs stick the all controls map out as a 60 minute score for people who are "progressing". Not sure if they have any issues with people arriving at controls from unpredictable angles and giving away control locations for others on "more serious" courses - and so might upset controllers? A score is actually a very good approach for letting very good and not so good people compete on the same map (so less printing costs/risk), potentially less effort setting up multiple courses etc, and potentially provides a transition from TD3-4 type stuff without every control suddenly being taxing. Perhaps if you want to appeal to wider audience though we might need to get over our stigma around score being an inferior type of O.
Our club has dabbled with Long Orange / Red in the past, got little traction and killed it off as an inconvenience for planner/organiser. That might be confirmation bias - if they did it consistently, every event, all-season people might be more likely to enter or even attract people who think 2.5-3k sounds too short. Certainly we get plenty of people on 5k urban courses so no reason to think that people don't like long TD3 navigation. The question is - are the club working for the existing members (who mostly aren't wanting long orange) or to attract and retain new people - although as we all age we might see more and more people who don't want to climb fences, scramble through brambles or slide down muddy slopes...
I know some other clubs stick the all controls map out as a 60 minute score for people who are "progressing". Not sure if they have any issues with people arriving at controls from unpredictable angles and giving away control locations for others on "more serious" courses - and so might upset controllers? A score is actually a very good approach for letting very good and not so good people compete on the same map (so less printing costs/risk), potentially less effort setting up multiple courses etc, and potentially provides a transition from TD3-4 type stuff without every control suddenly being taxing. Perhaps if you want to appeal to wider audience though we might need to get over our stigma around score being an inferior type of O.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: Controlling standards
Atomic wrote:If it takes me an hour to get there I don't want to be finished in 20 minutes.
And yet it's interesting that quite a number of people travel to more distant parkruns just to try them out, and indeed a number of parkrun challenges have grown up such as running an event starting with each letter of the alphabet. So obviously people are prepared to travel for a 20 minute (OK, 30 minute) run. Could it be the socialising after parkrun that's the difference?
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: Controlling standards
I think putting the all-controls map out as a score course is a very sensible thing to do.
- Sloop
- red
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:50 pm
Re: Controlling standards
genuine question - do most of those people travel round parkruns or do they do parkruns when travelling, if you see the distinction. I don't know anyone who's driven over an hour just to do the park run but I know lots of people who will pop in to the local park run when they are visiting somewhere else. I'm sure there will be some who travel just for the run - because there are:And yet it's interesting that quite a number of people travel to more distant parkruns just to try them out,
but I suspect those are the people who have become regular park runners and looking to spice it up. Surely few start parkrunning and immediately become travel obsessed park runners. You need to start the habit first and that is a challenge for O, because unless you are very lucky your local O event probably comes that close to your house once or twice a year.a number of parkrun challenges have grown up such as running an event starting with each letter of the alphabet.
So obviously people are prepared to travel for a 20 minute (OK, 30 minute) run. Could it be the socialising after parkrun that's the difference?
Plenty of social interaction at our local O events. No standing discussing route choice or whether the control was in the right place (or two controls were too close together!) at a Park Run.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: Controlling standards
OK to bring the discussion back to more Controlling... two points I've noticed:
1. Controllers are not needed at local events. This creates problems. I realise its about keeping volunteer workload down but controls in the wrong place are an issue. Just as big an issue are badly drawn courses - numbers not clear (e.g. red on dark green) or obscuring key features. I think poor orange courses (basically a yellow with more that 2 decision points between controls is not a good orange) also create a problem when those people turn up at a real TD3 and "its way harder than I'm used to". These last points are easy for someone to review at home. I think local events are often guilty of making people feel more confident about TD than they should - if the terrain only support TD4 we still call it Blue and Green... then you turn up at serious event and discover what Blue and Green really mean. Again an armchair controller could help to label or describe courses so people know what they are getting (or more importantly how it might vary from what they might see next week).
2. Lengths failing to properly account for terrain or climb. I've seen this in regional events with experienced controllers too. Courses where nobody finishes in under an hour, but the winners would "normally" be <40 mins on that colour of course. Given you often enter blind, so have no idea of the actual length, climb etc then its not good. If you get more than a few retirees (or missing multiple controls) per course its a good sign that you missold the courses to people.
1. Controllers are not needed at local events. This creates problems. I realise its about keeping volunteer workload down but controls in the wrong place are an issue. Just as big an issue are badly drawn courses - numbers not clear (e.g. red on dark green) or obscuring key features. I think poor orange courses (basically a yellow with more that 2 decision points between controls is not a good orange) also create a problem when those people turn up at a real TD3 and "its way harder than I'm used to". These last points are easy for someone to review at home. I think local events are often guilty of making people feel more confident about TD than they should - if the terrain only support TD4 we still call it Blue and Green... then you turn up at serious event and discover what Blue and Green really mean. Again an armchair controller could help to label or describe courses so people know what they are getting (or more importantly how it might vary from what they might see next week).
2. Lengths failing to properly account for terrain or climb. I've seen this in regional events with experienced controllers too. Courses where nobody finishes in under an hour, but the winners would "normally" be <40 mins on that colour of course. Given you often enter blind, so have no idea of the actual length, climb etc then its not good. If you get more than a few retirees (or missing multiple controls) per course its a good sign that you missold the courses to people.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: Controlling standards
Atomic wrote:genuine question - do most of those people travel round parkruns or do they do parkruns when travelling, if you see the distinction. I don't know anyone who's driven over an hour just to do the park run but I know lots of people who will pop in to the local park run when they are visiting somewhere else. I'm sure there will be some who travel just for the run - because there are:And yet it's interesting that quite a number of people travel to more distant parkruns just to try them out,but I suspect those are the people who have become regular park runners and looking to spice it up. Surely few start parkrunning and immediately become travel obsessed park runners. You need to start the habit first and that is a challenge for O, because unless you are very lucky your local O event probably comes that close to your house once or twice a year.a number of parkrun challenges have grown up such as running an event starting with each letter of the alphabet.So obviously people are prepared to travel for a 20 minute (OK, 30 minute) run. Could it be the socialising after parkrun that's the difference?
Plenty of social interaction at our local O events. No standing discussing route choice or whether the control was in the right place (or two controls were too close together!) at a Park Run.
Personally, I fall into the category of fitting in a parkrun when I'm travelling for something else (like an orienteering event!). But I know of several friends who travel for a couple of hours each way most weeks just to do a different parkrun (though they're probably the exceptions). Quite a few are somewhere in between - perhaps travelling to another local one for a change.
It's true that there's socialising in the car park at an orienteering event, although that's often limited by the spread of start times - but it's not the same as going to a local cafe with friends for a fry-up after parkrun!
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
47 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests