Navigate to start kite

[IanD]

The responsibility for rule breaking is entirely with the rule breakers

At a championship, I would agree with you.

But we all want to encourage novices into our sport. Expecting a novice to know every detail of our rules is unrealistic, and disqualifying them or even shouting at them when they break an obscure rule would not encourage them to return.

There's a limit to how much new people can be expect to take in, and I would suggest that we should concentrate on explaining the important rules - you must report to download by course closing time even if you retire; this is what out of bounds looks like on the map and you must stay out; you must take controls in order. Visiting the start kite does not feature on my list, therefore IMHO at most events we shouldn't expect people to go to the start kite unless it is hard to avoid - eg it's at the start boxes, or has waist high tapes on each side of the route to it.

[pete.owens]

The thing is we are not talking about novices here. We are talking about very experienced competitors, posters to this forum and event officials who really ought to know better.

Following marked routes is not obscure - it is very much in the same category as not entering OOB areas or using compulsory crossing points. Indeed novices are more likely to encounter marked routes because they are often necessary on junior courses when the paths run out.

I doubt that it would have occurred to any novices on seeing a marked route to the start that they were supposed to do anything other than follow the tapes. Going to the start of the course is very much part of what a novice would expect to do, since that is the only place where they would actually know where they were on the map, rather than relocating from some random place on a hill side.

[King Penguin]

I knew the rule and I asked for clarification from the start official because I saw so many in front of me NOT going to the start kite. The official could not give me a definitive answer so I followed the rule (and the tapes).
I too think 2 start kites would have been the best option in this case.

[pete.owens]

That is possible - One year at S6D there were 4 start triangles with different coloured tapes leading to them. But I don't see the need for added complication. If people can't get their heads around following a single taped route then they are unlikely to follow one of many.

And the start location is good. The reason for it is not just to get the junior courses to a path (which you could just as easily do by marking the first leg of those courses) but to ensure competitors were making their first decision out of sight of the start lane.

It is too common at events on open hillsides such as this to see the start placed just in front of the start lanes to to be able to see the competitors in front of you trace the optimum route to the horizon.

[Homer]

I need to hold my hands up and admit that I (inadvertently) 'cheated' at Cribarth.
It's very clear that I was not alone. A sizeable minority have done the same.

I can try and defend myself but there really isn't a satisfactory defence.

However, the fact that so many people have failed to follow the taped route to the start, suggests that there is a problem with the set-up of the start. I can't understand why the pre-start was not directly downhill from the start kite rather than down and around the hill. This would have removed any potential to gain an unfair advantage.
If there are good reasons for an extended taped route to the start triangle then perhaps the rules should stipulate a continuous taped funnel (as at WMOC)?

As has been said many time previously, better still to have a start set-up where there is nothing to be gained by not passing the start kite. This will definitely be the case at JK25 Day 3 and does require coordination between Planner and Organiser.

[ben_mitchell]

Just for clarity this is a copy of the map that was printed.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AsYqyKaKiTvvh5EPxq5--v417i4yLA?e=n8dXae


The route to the start was clearly drawn and marked.

This was deemed the most sensible start location. Pete has mentioned quite a few of the reasons why.

I did not realise the start officials were unaware of the rules and the question wasn't brought to myself or the controller which is where the problem may lie.

[Homer]

Thinking a bit more about this issue. I think one reason the start at Cribbarth caused problems is that we're not used to following taped routes to the start triangle in the UK. The standard start set-up is for a start kite visible from the start line (which is generally pointed out by the start official at -1). In this set-up it seems to be accepted that you can set off in whatever direction you like having picked up your map. Maybe being within sight of the start kite counts as having visited it?

Looking through the rules, I found this in Appendix B (2025 version):
B4.3 The position of the start line should be such that competitors waiting to start cannot see any route choice options taken by competitors who have already started. The map issue point should be such that all competitors will visit the start flag.

Obviously the start set-up at Cribbarth failed the second part of this rule (maybe in trying too hard to comply with the first part?)

Having the map issue at the end of the compulsory taped route (rather than the start) would have ensured that all competitors visited the start kite.

[IanD]

Not commenting on Cribarth in particular but in general .... orienteering is a navigation sport; dead running along tapes should be absolutely minimised. Our competitions should find the best running navigator, not the fastest tape-follower.
Rather than have people racing along a taped route, have the tape between the -2 and -1 (or -3 & -1 if the distance justifies it) start boxes. So the waiting area and the initial start processing is out of sight of the start kite, as required, but you don't start running before your real course starts.
Just don't get me started on overlong run-in's from the last control to the finish....

[rf_fozzy]

Not commenting on Cribarth in particular but in general .... orienteering is a navigation sport; dead running along tapes should be absolutely minimised. Our competitions should find the best running navigator, not the fastest tape-follower.
Rather than have people racing along a taped route, have the tape between the -2 and -1 (or -3 & -1 if the distance justifies it) start boxes. So the waiting area and the initial start processing is out of sight of the start kite, as required, but you don't start running before your real course starts.
Just don't get me started on overlong run-in's from the last control to the finish....

So which is preferable?

(A) A longer taped run out to the start kite to minimise the chances of people behind you taking advantage of seeing where competitors go off the start line.
(B) A start kite visible from the map issue and probably -1 & -2 boxes.

For a "bog standard" event then I'd argue (B) is sensible as it means simpler logistics. But for a big event (A) is clearly better, even if it means "dead running"

Orienteering may indeed be a navigational sport, but the running is an equally important part, particularly at the pointy end.

I do think (and this is a sweeping statement for which I have no evidence other than anecdata to support me) that some (most?) orienteers would rather run races and not do any actual running training and this biases the narrative sometimes.

This is perhaps a little tongue in cheek and as I say totally unsupported statement and you can all send me Strava links (other training log websites are available...fetcheveryone.com - just saying) and I shall be proven totally wrong.

(Also I am sure that many orienteers do train regularly as well as I see many recognisable names in fell race results for example)

[awk]

I do think (and this is a sweeping statement for which I have no evidence other than anecdata to support me) that some (most?) orienteers would rather run races and not do any actual running training and this biases the narrative sometimes.

And a lot run orienteering events as part of their training: hard to otherwise get the combination of technical and physical training needed for races. For instance, pretty much every event at this time of the year is pure training for me. Far more pleasurable training too than yet another session from home.

(Also I am sure that many orienteers do train regularly as well as I see many recognisable names in fell race results for example)

More races - or maybe they're using the fell races for training, or maybe the orienteering is part of their training for fell races?

[PG]

I had been under the impression that the ISOM 2017 introduction of a map issue point symbol (702) was just a useful aid to help competitors work out where they were on the map as they headed for the start. But following this discussion, I've realised that the use of this symbol involves the use of the marked route symbol (707), which makes it mandatory.

I’m sure I’m not alone in realising that this removes ambiguity about need to visit the start triangle. How do we make sure all competitors and start officials are aware of this?

[IanD]

I’m sure I’m not alone in realising that this removes ambiguity about need to visit the start triangle. How do we make sure all competitors and start officials are aware of this?

Major events produce 'final details' and 'helpers notes'. Everyone should read one or the other. So tell them, preferably mentioning that this is a general rule, not specific to this event.

[Arnold]

I think it's pretty simple. It's the planner's job to find a suitable start location that ensures i) everyone visits the start kite without this needing to be policed and ii) later runners can't see where earlier runners are going.

Ideally both can be achieved without too many issues, eg by having a clear corner that you can't see around between -1 and 0 lines, or a 100% unambigous way out of the start to the first 'navigation point', including if needed a clearly taped route. If not possible, then choose a different start location.

Having to remind start officials to remind runners they must go via the start and then policing it all is far too much hassle, and invariably someone will succumb to the temptation to shortcut (including me!)

To bring together a different thread, it is also the planner's job to find a good common last control (or two) leading to an obvious and taped run-in...

[SJC]

Having to remind start officials to remind runners they must go via the start and then policing it all is far too much hassle, and invariably someone will succumb to the temptation to shortcut (including me!)

Totally agree with this.

... ensures later runners can't see where earlier runners are going.

All the planner needs to do is make sure that competitors don't have a route choice option when they leave the start which is visible to those who haven't yet started. If all they see is everyone leaving the start in the same direction then this is no different to having a taped route out.

[pete.owens]

And how on earth is a planner supposed to arrange for no route choice on a highly visible open hillside without using a marked route?