Route Choice Skills

[chrisecurtis]

I am planning the programme for this autumn for school. I think we will have fun and it will be useful, but trying to put in something about "better route choice" got me thinking.
The basics are pretty obvious (attack points, using handrails, simplification, nature of terrain) but skilled route choice seems a bit of a "black art" to me - I know when I have made good route choices and when I haven't. I can look at a map and think "that would work for me" and I can analyse the choices I made or other people made, but how do you explain to someone, especially a complete beginner, what is involved and what they should do. Planning the sessions so far, I feel like I am either keeping it too simple, or it easily becomes very complicated. Any advice?

[Becks]

When I did single sessions with kids we looked at maps of their route to school and talked about whether their route was the quickest route or not. We then talked about different routes you might take if you were walking or going in the car, which has some interesting parallels to looking at track sizes and hills and things. This was a rushed introductory session though, and there's probably better ways to do it when you're teaching a series of sessions.

A way we do it on squad weekends is in two or threes they pick different routes and then race to the control. You then discuss why one route was better than the other and stuff.

[Guy]

I need to learn route choice because i am often stuck wondering about wether to hit the rough stuff or go the slightly longer track route.

Any training tips would be helpfull.

[gross2004]

I suspect complete beginners need to know zero about route choice after all the technical standards show courses should have no route choice - but teaching orienteering isn't my area of expertese so I'll gladly bow to others superior knowledge:)

[Godders]

A few suggestions:

Best thing is to go and run the same leg several times and see what the differences are.

But remember that, for example, taking on a steep climb could save you a few seconds on a leg but will mean that you are fatigued, and hence slower, at the end of a course.

As noted in thread about min/km 10m climb is worth roughly 100m.

If you run a round route the extra distance compared to the straight line is approximately the distance you go away from the straight line (measured perpendicular to the straight line).

Running straight is, usually, more technically difficult.

A lot of planners are obsessed with keep you off the paths so going straight ought to be quicker.

Running round early on in the course can allow to look at the map for the rest of the course.

On long, ie 1km+, legs it can be worth spending a few seconds stopped still to select a route that will save you time. In the early 70's a World Champs was won by taking the time to spot a route choice that no one else, not even the planner, had noticed.

In the summer (ie not in Britain) routes through woodland can be cooler than open area and tracks.

You can go into a race with a pre-determined strategy to run either round or straight - this will save you time phaffing around making decisions.

At the Scottish 6 day at Roseisle last year I ran round on almost every leg in the second half of the course. Despite not being a fast runner I only lost 10-20 seconds to the fastest split on each leg, never made any mistakes in executing the routes I chose, and ended up with one of my best results on an elite course. If I'd chosen to run straight I wouldn't have been able to save much time and could well have had a complete blow out on one control.

In summary, go and do the training and eventually you'll get a feel for what is best for you.

Edit: I'd also suggest subscribing to O-sport magazine. http://www.orient-sport.com/index.php. Plenty of route choice analysis in different types of terrain

[miss m]

I think one of the most important things in route choice is knowing your individual strengths and weaknesses. It is best to choose a route which fits with those. If you are strong through the terrain and good on hills then straight routes might suit you better and likewise if you can cane it along a path much faster then you would probably choose that option.

I guess though it all depends on how you are feeling that day whether you are feeling in a hilly mood or a track mood and then the terrain aswell.

Another thing is to be decisive and not faff around changing your mind. Obviously there might be some flexibility in the route but generally the best thing to do is just get on with it.

[chrisecurtis]

Part of the problem is that there is so much to think about. I can't imagine properly calculating the amount of climb or even how much further "going round" will be - you do look at those things and much more too and use your experience to go with what "feels" right for you. This all happens quickly (or should) and without being explained, even to yourself. THis can make it hard for someone new to get into.

I was reading a visual design book the other day, where the author had managed to reduce all the complexity of visual design to one word "C.R.A.P" (contrast, repetition, alignment and proximity). It is a major over-simplification, but you can look at any piece of design in those terms and it will get you a long way.

Anyone want to try for something similar for route choice? Sorry to keep the toilet theme but I came up with "T.U.R.D" - Toughness of Terrain, Undulations (i.e.hills!) Roadways and Distance. Not very good yet I agree, but we need something, even too simple, that beginners can remember when out on the course. I am sure you can do better!

[P2B]

One exercise could be to time the runners over 1 or 2 km on two separate routes, one over terrain and the other along tracks. You can then use their times to work out the ratio of terrain and track running. Then in a race the runner will know that they can run e.g. 1.5 times further round a track in the same time as going straight.

[Ed]

Part of the problem is that there is so much to think about. I can't imagine properly calculating the amount of climb or even how much further "going round" will be - you do look at those things and much more too and use your experience to go with what "feels" right for you.

On most simple over/round route choices the index contours should be able to help with a quick assessment of the climb - obviously if it's undulating terrain where it's a series of smaller climbs they're not so useful, but in Switzerland last year at the WOC selection races I really was taking time to carefully count the index contours... as for judging how far round you are running, the two things I usually look at are the furthest point from the red line, and how much time is spent running across the line rather than along it. Considering both of those usually gives a fairly good feel for things. Where it falls down though is if you wiggle back and forth across the red line, in which case the measure of the furthest point from the red line is a bit of a red herring, which is I think why some people have an aversion to routes which do this as they are usually less efficient than you first think, although if you assume they're less efficient than you first assume then you're probably ok

I probably at this point need to add a disclaimer - route choice of this sort is probably one of my weaker skills... so the waffle above might be complete rubbish

if in doubt - straight is great. or is it round is sound?
probably having a premeditated strategy is a good idea so if you can't work it out properly you don't just spend time faffing.

[FatBoy]

I think Godders has summed it up quite well with the length of his piece. It's a n dimensional problem with n being quite a large number!

I remember one Caddihoe a few (10?) years back I got laughed at by my peers for one round rather than up and down route I'd taken, which added nearly a km to the course, and they laughed harder when they'd beaten my split by 30 secs or so. They weren't laughing so much when I took a minute out of them on each of the next two controls while they were still recovering from the climb!

So the question is how do you teach what is only really learned through experience? The place I'd always start with route choice is not the beginning but the end. Choose the best line of approach into the control, see which route lends itself to that approach and see if that's an ok route using more mechanical techniques such as distance vs contour counting vs terrain.

I think it's very important to play to your own strengths. Personally because I'm 6'2" and 15stone I avoid hills and don't mind undergrowth. Somebody short and light is probably the opposite.

[rocky]

ran a beautiful route coice leg in oslo recenly, one of those 2.5km all the way accross the map legs. turns out the quickest route, though no one took it as far as im aware, was to run off the map to a train station, catch the train (one every 15 minutes) up the hill then run back on!

will try and get the map online sonetime...

[samsonite]

whats the rules on that rocky?

[Ed]

whats the rules on that rocky?

technically, if you're off the map then I think you're OOB. I'm not sure anyone has ever / would ever be dsq-ed for it though...

Ed

[rob f]

A way we do it on squad weekends is in two or threes they pick different routes and then race to the control. You then discuss why one route was better than the other and stuff.

This very successful way. The other important skill is to try and look around the leg for options

[bendover]

whats the rules on that rocky?

technically, if you're off the map then I think you're OOB. I'm not sure anyone has ever / would ever be dsq-ed for it though...

Ed

check out this thread on the New Zealand Orienteering Forum

http://www.maptalk.co.nz/forum/topic.cfm?t=466&f=3