Short Green vs Light Green

[pete.owens]

A score course is a very bad idea for novices as it is guaranteed to be more difficult than any of the other courses using the same controls. And the novice competitor having no way to judge which controls are within their limits and which will lead them to get haplessly lost.

[SeanC]

I do agree score is far from perfect for newbies and red does a job. Probably I'd give red a 6/10 as an adult newcomer course and an appropriate score course 7 or 8.

Score courses can be hard to squeeze in and in places like shooters hill a red course can guide the newbie to the nice bits - like the lovely view over London at Shooters Hill or Severndroog Castle, and of course away from the brambly bits.

On the other hand with red you can still walk away with nothing/disqualified for missing a control. Such a harsh experience and doesn't reward the success, just punishes the one failure. And for some it will either be too long, or too difficult ... whereas score there is no failure... so long as you can find at least one, and of course find as many or as few as you can manage. For the better navigator they can get stuck in to the fun 'in the bush' controls straight away, and for some even red is too far to run/walk.

But most clubs aren't offering either red or score to adult newcomers. Looking at this Sunday's events (ignoring local events) only LVO are offering a red. LOC, OD, BADO and SLOW are not.

Finally this score concept probably works well in southern TD4 forests with lots of paths and a reasonable density of controls. So a lost newbie can simply stop scrambling around in the block and return to where they came from with no disqualified for not finding the control, ideally with a scattering of controls on the paths as well so they can relocate by stumbling across another control. It won't work for newbies I'm sure in a big scottish forest with few paths and lots of wilderness.

[IanD]

TD5 then also introduces a number of specific skills - eg. recognition of indistinct features*, and concentration over long distances.

* thats not just contour features - it could be indistinct vegetation boundaries.

Slightly off topic, but indistinct vegetation boundaries are not necessarily recognisable - that's why they are indistinct. Indistinct vegetation is mapped to give an idea of running speed, not for navigation.

[SJC]

Indistinct vegetation is mapped to give an idea of running speed, not for navigation.

and hence why an Indistinct Vegetation Boundary should never be used for a control site.

[Atomic]

Indistinct vegetation is mapped to give an idea of running speed, not for navigation.

and hence why an Indistinct Vegetation Boundary should never be used for a control site.

it is not uncommon to see the edge of small clearings with no distinct boundary or the corner of a funny-shaped bit of green or even light green forest surrounded by white to be used as a control site - they are probably OK on TD5 courses.

[Atomic]

On the other hand with red you can still walk away with nothing/disqualified for missing a control. Such a harsh experience and doesn't reward the success, just punishes the one failure.

I agree entirely with that sentiment, and I am a huge fan of Score generally BUT I'm not convinced it is good for total newbies, too many decisions, potential to stick to just the very easiest controls or to try and do just the closest controls but end up in really technical stuff, have a poor experience and never come back.

BUT I do think that DQing people (especially new people) in local events for missing a control is probably harmful to the sport. I don't know why we don't treat it more like Schools O does and apply a time penalty (potentially calculated from the worst splits of people who do find it so its never helpful to skip it!) - if you can change Score rules so there is no time penalty (also I think a bad idea - you don't know if someone has been out for 2.5h because they are totally lost/injured somewhere or just liked the idea of finding all the controls) - then you can apply special rules to your local event / beginners courses.

and for some even red is too far to run/walk.

If red is too long do the orange! until you are actually moderately clued up working out which controls are going to be hard/easy is quite difficult.

I don't like the idea of segregating juniors into an event within an event. If you want more juniors do things to attract more juniors - don't treat them as a side show.

[IanD]

it is not uncommon to see the edge of small clearings with no distinct boundary or the corner of a funny-shaped bit of green or even light green forest surrounded by white to be used as a control site - they are probably OK on TD5 courses.

So long as they are described as "clearing", "thicket", "forest corner" or similar. If the control description is "vegetation boundary" and there is no line of black dots on the map, then the control has been placed on an unmapped feature.

[IanD]

I do think that DQing people (especially new people) in local events for missing a control is probably harmful to the sport.

Absolutely agree. Disqualification carries, to those from outside our sport, implication have having done something naughty. Just changing it to 'did not complete course' (or DNF if constrained by existing software) would be better.

[pete.owens]

But results listings don't say dsq for those cases. They tend to be
mp for missed control
wp for visiting wrong control
dnf if you retire and don't go to the finish
dns if you forget to punch the start

[Scott]

BUT I do think that DQing people (especially new people) in local events for missing a control is probably harmful to the sport. I don't know why we don't treat it more like Schools O does and apply a time penalty (potentially calculated from the worst splits of people who do find it so its never helpful to skip it!)

I saw someone suggest somewhere (Attackpoint?) that results for local/club events should be sorted first by number of controls found and then by time taken, so that people who have missed a control still get ranked, but are guaranteed to be beaten anyone who found all the controls. I thought it might be worth trying, if the software could be made to play ball.

[Arnold]

In the US they (used to?) put HFA for people who didn't complete the course - Had Fun Anyway. I always thought that was a lovely sentiment and much better than the existing alternatives.

Although I do also like the ideas of time penalties or order-by-number-of-controls. For beginners the binary completed / didn't complete does feel quite harsh.

[iainwp]

HFA is good ... we could put GMW (got money's worth) for everyone who took over twice the winner's time.

[awk]

And could we please get rid of the colour designation 'Light Green'? Clumsy and confusing.

[pete.owens]

I thought the idea was to repurpose RED now it is no longer the designation for LONG ORANGE, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

[awk]

I thought the idea was to repurpose RED now it is no longer the designation for LONG ORANGE, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

Sounds sensible to me.