British Sprints

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

As people seem to be giving their 'this is what I would like' options here are mine:
1. Either just 1 sprint race (like at the JK) or a heat and final but please not 2 sprints with the total time - that way it's not 'a sprint' championship; it's more like middle distance split between 2 races.
2. Please consider what is an appropriate length for the over 80s. 2.6km is not a 'sprint' distance for them NB I'm not there yet but will be in 5 years!

Thanks

[rf_fozzy]

That's what the course planning ratios say to plan to - Course 4 should be 0.6 of course 1.

And they were spot on for Leeds Uni (within ~5%). I made sure of that.

[Scott]

When I organised the event I paid SportIdent a reasonable amount of money to write software to automatically sort out the finals. This was also in the hope that if SI ran the event in future years the same software could be used. That didn't end up happening as clubs either used a different results supplier or decided that anyone in their club with basic spreadsheet skills could sort it all out.

The only times I can recall the British Sprint finals going ahead during the previously-published start window have been when Sportident UK have been paid to deliver the results service. There is probably a lesson in there somewhere.

Since orienteering is supposed to be a test of speed and navigation not visual acuity would it not make sense to put all courses at 1:3K and then only move to 1:4K / 1:5K if the course doesn't fit on the map?

All that would happen then is that mappers would use the enlarged scale to cram more detail on and people would start to agitate for enlargements to 1:2K. That may sound fanciful, but the equivalent has already happened with forest maps: clubs in some parts of the country are now staging events where the only scale on offer is 1:7.5K in areas that were previously perfectly legible at 1:15K.

Ultimately, it ends up changing the nature of the sport: planners set shorter legs, it becomes impossible to see the big picture that is required for navigation (how to I get from A to B?), and the experience becomes a high-speed map-reading competition (how do I check off all of these features?). It can still be a lot of fun, but it's not what I personally think of as Proper Orienteering™.

[graeme]

The biggest course was men's open with 50 so you only need an hour start window.

No - the biggest entry is on Course 4: M12 M65 M70 M75 M80 M85 W12 W14 W55 W60 W65
W70 W75 W80 W85

Ok, I meant class - which is what determines the minimum start window. As Neil said, pretty obvious the class combinations need to change. I'm certainly not criticising AIRE for following the rules (or anything else), but I think the useful discussion to have now is how to improve the format,

I don't envy WOC2024

You should envy us - its going to be great . But also, WOC has only two courses to plan and less than a quarter as many controls as you needed.

There is probably a lesson in there somewhere.

Either a series of previously and subsequently competent organisers have had a bad day, or the whole thing is way too complicated. Its obvious what I think.

All that would happen then is that mappers would use the enlarged scale to cram more detail on and people would start to agitate for enlargements to 1:2K. That may sound fanciful, but the equivalent has already happened with forest maps

I agree with you about forest/1:15000, and from my old map collection I can see that one of the reason we need enlargements is that laser printing simply isn't as sharp as litho. But I don't think it's such an issue for sprint maps. 1:5000 required a lot of distortion of the map, e.g. a path between two uncrossable fences was 6m wide, plus tags. I'm not seeing extra clutter appearing on ISSproM2019-2 1:4000 - they're just harder to read because all the gap and symbols are smaller.

[pete.owens]

I'm not seeing extra clutter appearing on ISSproM2019-2 1:4000 - they're just harder to read because all the gap and symbols are smaller.

I think the only symbols that are smaller are the green rings for trees.

All the specified gaps are the same - with rather better illustrations to show where to apply them. If gaps are getting smaller on the maps that is because mappers are drawing things closer.

For stairways (which seems to be an issue from Leeds) it now specifies a minimum of three graphical steps each a minimum of 0.4mm. So a stairway should occupy a minimum area of 1.3mm x 0.45mm. I don't know whether this was the case in Leeds, but it is common to see maps with steps drawn too close together to fit on a smaller footprint.

[pete.owens]

It should be doable with 2 courses (TD2 and TD3) - but I know some will complain at this suggestion, so I'd do a TD2 course (although how you plan TD2 in the urban environment....) and a "long" and "short" course at TD3.

And if you add in the elite world champs format WMMW course( which makes a good spectator race) that is exactly what the rules specify:
1. Elite 4 legs WMMW
2. TD2 (YJ)
3. Long TD3 (J, V, AdHoc)
4. Short TD3 (SV, UV)
I know the organisers at Leeds put on more courses, but that wasn't required by the rules.

Making up teams isn't difficult. As you point out, the courses are short and each has a shorter leg so running up isn't a big issue - and likely to involve running the same course in any case. The only serious barrier could be a shortage of women. I think the suggestion earlier to allow all boys teams in the YJ class makes sense. It could also be considered to allow all male teams in the non championship Ad Hoc class.

[Scott]

Either a series of previously and subsequently competent organisers have had a bad day, or the whole thing is way too complicated. Its obvious what I think.

My interpretation would be that a series of previously and subsequently competent IT teams struggled on the day to do something that they had never done before and haven't done since, but perhaps I am overgeneralising and the issues lie in other parts of the between-rounds process that rf_fozzy helpfully outlines about.

I agree with you about forest/1:15000, and from my old map collection I can see that one of the reason we need enlargements is that laser printing simply isn't as sharp as litho. But I don't think it's such an issue for sprint maps. 1:5000 required a lot of distortion of the map, e.g. a path between two uncrossable fences was 6m wide, plus tags. I'm not seeing extra clutter appearing on ISSproM2019-2 1:4000 - they're just harder to read because all the gap and symbols are smaller.

In general, I agree with you that 1:4000 is fine as a scale for sprint maps. I can, however, think of one recent major sprint event map in my collection (not this year's British Sprints - I wasn't there) where the 1:4000 map prepared for the major event acquired a lot of distinctive trees, small crossable fences and edge-of-pavement lines that weren't on the previous 1:5000 map of the area, with the result that 1:4000 map ended up being quite a bit less readable than the 1:5000. I have no doubt that a move to 1:3000 for everyone (as Atomic suggests) - rather than default 1:4000 with enlargement to 1:3000 for those who need it - would result in even more of the same thing.

[rf_fozzy]

and less than a quarter as many controls as you needed.

But all on trestles? Which takes a long time to put out. I suspect 30 trestles will take nearly as long as it took us to put out 100 controls...

It should be doable with 2 courses (TD2 and TD3) - but I know some will complain at this suggestion, so I'd do a TD2 course (although how you plan TD2 in the urban environment....) and a "long" and "short" course at TD3.

And if you add in the elite world champs format WMMW course( which makes a good spectator race) that is exactly what the rules specify:
1. Elite 4 legs WMMW
2. TD2 (YJ)
3. Long TD3 (J, V, AdHoc)
4. Short TD3 (SV, UV)
I know the organisers at Leeds put on more courses, but that wasn't required by the rules.

Making up teams isn't difficult. As you point out, the courses are short and each has a shorter leg so running up isn't a big issue - and likely to involve running the same course in any case. The only serious barrier could be a shortage of women. I think the suggestion earlier to allow all boys teams in the YJ class makes sense. It could also be considered to allow all male teams in the non championship Ad Hoc class.

No you misunderstand. I meant 2 courses. End.

To be honest, I think it should be done on 1 adult (plus a TD2 for juniors).

Everyone should run the same course. With the same mass start. And the winners of the categories are simply the highest placed team in the category. I don't care if it has 3 legs or 4.

That's how you get more teams - literally anyone can run. If your team doesn't have the right make up on the day because someone is ill. Fine you can substitute it and instead of it being a "vets" team or whatever, it's now an "open" team. Everything is the same, except a category change. Which keeps it simple.

So no ad-hoc teams (by definition, they fall into the open category) and everyone else just collapses into one course. Except the YJ.

And no definitely no mention of "elite" - it's awful terminology. Discriminatory and not inclusive in the slightest. OPEN class is what you are after.

[graeme]

ISSproM2019-2 1:4000 - they're just harder to read because all the gap and symbols are smaller.

I think the only symbols that are smaller are the green rings for trees.

I was comparing what I got this year - ISSprOM-2019-2 1:4000 map, with what I got last year: ISSprOM-2019 at 1:4000
On last year's map, all the symbols and minimum gaps are 25% bigger.

Its not about this event, where the basic map was very legible and most older classes got a blown-up map. Where ISSprOM-2019-2 will really cause problems is when its used in urban races and shrunk to 1:5000.

[rf_fozzy]

ISSproM2019-2 1:4000 - they're just harder to read because all the gap and symbols are smaller.

I think the only symbols that are smaller are the green rings for trees.

I was comparing what I got this year - ISSprOM-2019-2 1:4000 map, with what I got last year: ISSprOM-2019 at 1:4000
On last year's map, all the symbols and minimum gaps are 25% bigger.

Its not about this event, where the basic map was very legible and most older classes got a blown-up map. Where ISSprOM-2019-2 will really cause problems is when its used in urban races and shrunk to 1:5000.

That's why I don't do that! I map urban maps to 1:4000 too.

Shrinking things down inevitably makes it unreadable.

That said, I've seen a map used for another local (to me) urban event that *was* mapped at 1:5k and is unreadable in a significant number of places.

Good job I was too busy with BSOC to control it, otherwise it would have needed a complete remap...

[pete.owens]

ISSproM2019-2 1:4000 - they're just harder to read because all the gap and symbols are smaller.

I think the only symbols that are smaller are the green rings for trees.

I was comparing what I got this year - ISSprOM-2019-2 1:4000 map, with what I got last year: ISSprOM-2019 at 1:4000
On last year's map, all the symbols and minimum gaps are 25% bigger.

But the dimensions defined in the standard have not changed (apart from trees) - and there were most certainly plenty of things on the Skelmersdale map that were too close or too small to map and excesive kerb lines that caused confusion where they ran into fences.

The big change is the vasly improved representation of 2-level structures.

Its not about this event, where the basic map was very legible and most older classes got a blown-up map. Where ISSprOM-2019-2 will really cause problems is when its used in urban races and shrunk to 1:5000.

And that most certainly IS a problem.
ISSprOM allows enlargement from 1:4000 but not "ensmallment" (Whereas ISSOM specified symbol sizes and spacing independent of scale). A map at 1:5000 is simply not consistent with ISSprOM.

We now don't have a standard suitable for maps (either urban or forest) at scales between 1:4000 and 1:7500.

[pete.owens]

It should be doable with 2 courses (TD2 and TD3) - but I know some will complain at this suggestion, so I'd do a TD2 course (although how you plan TD2 in the urban environment....) and a "long" and "short" course at TD3.

And if you add in the elite world champs format WMMW course( which makes a good spectator race) that is exactly what the rules specify:
1. Elite 4 legs WMMW
2. TD2 (YJ)
3. Long TD3 (J, V, AdHoc)
4. Short TD3 (SV, UV)
I know the organisers at Leeds put on more courses, but that wasn't required by the rules.

Making up teams isn't difficult. As you point out, the courses are short and each has a shorter leg so running up isn't a big issue - and likely to involve running the same course in any case. The only serious barrier could be a shortage of women. I think the suggestion earlier to allow all boys teams in the YJ class makes sense. It could also be considered to allow all male teams in the non championship Ad Hoc class.

No you misunderstand. I meant 2 courses. End.

The bit in red implies 3.

There are 2 problems with one course for all over 12s.

1. Imagine at Leeds there was a mass start of 150 runners heading for the same flight of steps and queueing to punch the first control. I think this was the reason that the organisers at Leeds and at Bradford two years ago arranged for more and smaller mass starts than the rules require. At Skelmerdale there were just the 4 courses but the first leg was long, open and gaffled to spread out the field.

2. How long would your course be? Something that is going to keep GG busy for 12 minutes will take a W85 rather longer. If you look at the results for the UV class from Saturday you will see several runners on the short course taking half an hour for their leg.

To be honest, I think it should be done on 1 adult (plus a TD2 for juniors).

I don't think you would find much support for that among the 14-16s

And no definitely no mention of "elite" - it's awful terminology.

A rose by any other name...

Discriminatory and not inclusive in the slightest.

It is hardly as if there was an "N WORD" class.

The only ways it is "discriminatory" - as with all classes at British Championships is that entrants are required to be members of British Orienteering - hence the fastest team on the day was n/c. This does not seem unreasonable.

Also two team members must be female - but that applies to all W classes.

The word itself is not discrimiatory and the class is open to all races, religions, ages, sexualities. There are no selection criterea on entry.

OPEN class is what you are after.

That is actually what we called the class for the trial sprint relay in 2017, but it really isn't worth getting worked up about names. A race to determine who are the national champions is by its very nature an elite endeavour.

[duncan b]

Photos from the steps (and a few other spots) here

[awk]

Interesting discussion. Just a few personal thoughts:

1. Totally agree with Nottinghamshire Outlaw: please either a straight one-off race, or heats and qualifiers. Please neither two sprints added together nor chasing sprint format. Personally, I find the individual in the morning, relay in the afternoon format very appealing if it can be organised. (Although I prefer heats: Any reason not to, or good argument against: all in one class running same course in morning, top X qualifying for A final, rest in B final, then all running a second course in afternoon, with people only counting in their respective finals?).

2. Although a final year M60, I ran the Men's Vets in the relay, a very similar course to the Elite (as did quite a few other 60+, even 70+, and it definitely felt to be a sprint (my time was 3 mins longer than the two I recorded on Sun, 21 vs 18). I would certainly back the general tenor of rf_fozzy's contention that the relays could be massively simplified, if perhaps not so sure of his 'extreme' simplification. Definitely more use of classes within the course, rather than separate courses. And for the age classes, more use perhaps of the model provided by M/W210 at the JK (where women's age have 10 added or qualifying age, eg. a W55 os worth 65) to encourage mixed teams without requiring mixed teams.

3. Totally agree with Scott et al: the 1:3k needs to be an enlargement of 1:4k, NOT the standard. for all those reasons he states. But, please, available at younger than M/W65 (although as I go up to M65 next year, perhaps it behoves those younger to push this?!).

4. Yes, agree with Graeme, it's the steps that are what are primarily difficult to pick up, but actually I would now add the underpass jagged tooth symbol - particularly when down to 1 or 2 teeth.

5. Laser printing is one reason for larger scale - or at least it's more vulnerable to printing issues perhaps, as Bruce found with the Course 3 maps at Coventry (an excellent event BTW!).

[graeme]

Definitely more use of classes within the course, rather than separate courses.

I'm not quite convinced (says the man who turned the Scottish Relays in to a single course).

I ran first leg and there were plenty enough people about to have a few gentle collisions. Partly that was because the controls were tucked into corners (a good thing): I think if you doubled the size of the course, you'd have to compromise control placement for safety. Also, bumping people of your own age is somehow safer than, say, M21-on-W60,