Planning standards

[FatBoy]

Technical standards are a seperate issue and Andy K (or his family) should have raised the issue with the event controller in the first instance.

We often see these "should have raised it with x first" messages posted here. I disagree. Picking up on the positives rather than the negatives hopefully by having it under "discussion" then standards of planning will equalise/improve across the UK. If awk was to raise it with the controller maybe just that controller may change his/her behaviour in future, maybe not. Whether you post it here or talk direct it'll be seen as an attack on controller/planner whether that was the intention of the message or not. So I see it to the good of the community to discuss these things in "public".

[gross2004]

Can't agree here....... particulary as it seems awk wasn't even at the event..... but then again I guess his original point wasn't a complaint as such but a comment.

[Guest88]

Not really relevant whether he went to the event or not, as he has presumably seen Linda's map, and you can see from the map whether or not it is orange standard.

Well if we want to be really constructive, as per Fatboys comment - why doesn't someone scan in the W45S course, and then the experienced and those with too much time can give their comments, and maybe even say how they would have planned it.

[Guest]

Hello,

I'm the planner for the Wharncliffe event and I've been reading some of these comments with interest.

If anyone would like to ask any questions about the event planning then I'll happily respond.

Regards,

Karl Marshall

[HOCOLITE]

As a W45S runner. I can say that often the courses are pitched at Orange-Light Green Standard. It's great to have the occassional one where it is challenging. Where there are lots of line features (and not too much grot) the cross path option adds far more challenge or multiple route choices if grot constrains the planner.

As a person who has spent many on hour on start time allocation. The ideal of say 4 min gaps and no 'seeds' close is only really feasible on a FCC short race where seeds are notified to you in advance and the numbers of competitors mean that there is limited infilling, using non seeds.

If you sit with the competitor requirements trying to create a start list you 'd soon realise that even equal spacing on course is an impossibility. Remember that when filling in the form only a limited no. of people can have mid starts, and that being x mins from Joe Bloggs takes further planning. There is no program that can allocate starts taking in everyone's requirements. When they are used, and ignore the requirements there is just as much moaning. As there is when starts are a free for all. It's a no win situation unless rules are laid down and strictly adhered to. THis would really cause upset in some places where Split starts are always requested the same way to ensure maximum advantage for competitor 'Y'.

[FatBoy]

Re start times. I agree it's a difficult problem but all I ask is in a field of say 25 people ensuring all starters are at least 4 mins apart shouldn't be too much to ask. It's not like I'm having a one-off rant either - it's happened to me on 3 occasions in the last 2 years, and I've probably only done 15 odd regional events in that time.

[PorkyFatBoy]

In cycling time trials, you are required to list your fastest time over the in the last season distance, current season and ever. Thgis is then used to ensure that the fastest riders are sent off at say five minute intervals.

Cycle time trial starts are usually very early in the morning and there is often a pervceived (actual ?) advantage in a late start due to the increased traffic volume passing providing s drafting effect. This is similar to the "elephant tracks" that later starters benefit from.

Could we adopt a similar thing for O, based on min/k over similar courses and use this to allocate start times?

[RJ]

RE: start times

Some time ago we tried self registration. We put out lists of available start times for each course/class. You signed in for a slot and then went to the start. Obviously you can have your 4/5/10 minute intervals as you wish. Start times in between are not available.

With electronic punching you can check this is adhered to, if you have to! There is no need to have a complicated structure of manned allocation points, and then start line checking. You just need a clock visible at the start.

It didn't prove all that popular at the time. However, it is a thought for regional events. Pre-entry guarantees you a start slot of your choice. Entry on the day means you take your chance.

[awk]

I have already written to Colin apologising for not discussing first privately with controller/planner.

However.....

I've been orienteering almost 35 years now, and in that time have discussed course standards with officials on numerous occasions. Not once has this appeared to have had any effect. Time after time that same official has gone out and done the same thing again next time, and the whole issue of planning standards gets tucked up under the carpet. And if my comments are wrong, then I'm the one that will be on the receiving end, as the explanations are available to all, not just to me.

Actually, in this case, I did go to the event details and club website to try and find a contact for directly contacting the planner first, but couldn't find one. If event officials welcome private feedback, then some direct channel would be helpful.

Hocolite reports that this sort of thing happens regularly to W45S (and accompanying classes), and that is sadly our experience as well. This should not be happening at regional events (and above), where planner and controller should be experienced. I decided, rightly or wrongly, that this time I would go to a public forum because I want the debate to be public, recognising the fact that as a planner and controller myself, the boot may well be on the other foot next time. Thank you to Karl for be preparing to answer questions on the planning.

No, I wasn't at the event. I was reporting the views about the W45S course expressed in our household by those who were at the event, views which were expressed by other participants.

Colin's comments on the SYO forum (which I haven't found yet) are perfectly reasonable, and I do understand, having been in the same position myself before of having to change courses at the last minute. However, none of what he says has any real bearing on the issues raised, so I will reiterate them (even if slightly differently worded):

Why was course 7 offered at Orange standard, not least when there was a TD5 alternative available (the JM4 course). If it was for physical reasons, why were boys and girls of 12 years old being put on it? The course was so off the scale compared to the standard, why were competitors not warned, so they could seek an alternative?

Some subsidiary questions that arose: why were TD5 controls included in the JM/JW4 course? Why was a JW5M class offered when none exists in the standards (and for which no badges can be awarded)?

Whilst I generally agree with Gross about the issue of start times for competitions, they weren't amongst the questions I wanted to raise here - that's not a planning issue after all.,

[Mrs H.]

Oh Hell! W45S course no longer orange standard - there goes all my future ranking points out the window

[Guest]

Hello,

In answer to the questions raised by AWK, let me first of all say that this was my first Regional Event as a Planner, although I have planned numerous District Events over the last 5-6 years. However I was extremely well supported by a very experienced Controller in Ian Watson, and Organiser in Phil Haywood. I want to be a better Planner and I'll take any constructive criticism to that end.

I'm sorry if anyone felt short-changed by the W45S course. As well as the BOF guidelines I referred back through 10-12 events held this year to check that all of my course allocations and lengths were appropriate. In hindsight I could have placed W45S on the same course as JM4 / JW4 to provide a more technical challenge, but looking at the finishing times for W45S runners as is, I think we would have seen times well in excess of 75mins and the complaint then may have been regarding the over-physical nature of the course. In order to provide some TD5 legs I would have had to drop the runners into the forest, so it would have been very physical. However, if that's the consencus view then I'll note it for future reference.

With regard to the JM4 / JW4 course I can only say look at the finishing times and note the comments on the Junior Forum on this site. The feedback seems very positive and the times are exactly what I was expecting, so the competitors are either better navigators than you've given them credit for or the legs you've queried were of TD4 not TD5. Either way I tried to make sure that we had obvious catching points on these legs in case the competitors over-ran the control, so I'm content that we got this one about right.

So - sincere apologies if anyone didn't enjoy their runs - I suppose with 750 runners there will be some people who legitimately feel dissatisfied with the event. I can assure you it wasn't for the lack of trying or deficiencies in preparation. I spent many weeks on the area, starting from November 2003, trying to get it right, and the comments I had in the download tent were all positive. If you want to discuss any other aspects of the planning then by all means do so.

Karl Marshall

[gross2004]

Sounds like a positive planner to me...... someone who will take comments on board & use them to improve & learn. I look forward to running on this planners courses in future:)

[SIman]

Why was a JW5M class offered when none exists in the standards (and for which no badges can be awarded)?

I have been going to ask about this for a while. Why does JW5M not exist?
Some juniors have complained at the jump from S to L and it wouldn't mean a new course. Why have a different system for M and W?

[Guest]

Hi, this is the Wharncliffe controller here. There are a few points I'd like to make.

Firstly, an event has to be planned within the constraints of the area. The area is the area as it exists on the day (or in practice a few weeks before the event). It is not the area that one can see from sitting in an armchair looking at the map and it isn't the area that one remembers from a previous event at a different time of year.

The problem with Wharncliffe was undergrowth. Karl had done his initial planning in early summer but by the time I went out in late August the bracken made extensive parts of the area unusable. My initial reaction was, in fact, that the event would have to be cancelled, however Karl put in a lot of work finding legs that were possible. This invovled chanelling competitors through those bits of the area that were OK. In quite a few cases it involved setting legs where the obvious route was a path run. On the day, a few cold nights in the run up to the event had made the bracken far less fearsome than it was in August. Therefore competitors may have wondered why they weren't using certain parts. However, there were still significant bits that were horendous. The hillside just to the north of the first crossing point for example which severely limited where courses could go.

We had the usual constraints of having to find a start and finish which would provide the right standard junior courses and also result in sufficient length for the longest. With the need to channel as above, this led to a few compromises. In such circumstances it does seem to be the shorter technical courses which suffer most. They start in the easy terrain and don't reach to good stuff.

Iaccept that courses 8 & 9 were by no means ideal but it was pretty physial down the slope nearest the start and conventional wisdom says avoid this for such courses.

I did of course worry about course 7 and raised it with Karl. We thought about it for a while but couldn't come up woth a solution other than to make it much like course 8. We decided the juniors could cope with the physical challenge and there were only a couple of hard legs. You can't just decide where you would have put the controls unless you were out there in August and saw all the problems.

All this of course required replanning from Karl's original ideas and time was tight. He and I both have fairly responsible full time jobs and, to be honest, were unable to devote enough time in the run up to the event to make things perfect. So, a few errors crept in like the JW5M course (not a major disaster). We also might have sat down and done a realloction of classes from the BOF recommended ones given the known characteristics of the courses, but we didn't.

Maybe it was an error of judgement on my part not to insist that the event was cancelled in August. But even with hindsight, I feel that many more people would have been unhappy with that decision.

I do believe that I know enough about Orienteering to control such events,
and have a reasonably sound record of both planning and controlling.
But if the community feels that Event Standards Committee should remove my controller status for the judgements I made then so be it. To be honest I don't give a **** whether I control or plan another event again.

Ian Watson

[distracted]

We had the usual constraints of having to find a start and finish which would provide the right standard junior courses and also result in sufficient length for the longest. With the need to channel as above, this led to a few compromises. In such circumstances it does seem to be the shorter technical courses which suffer most. They start in the easy terrain and don't reach to good stuff.

The SYO self-congratulatory prose comments on how wonderful it was to have start and finish close to parking. I'm purely speculating but perhaps this situation dictated some of the course planning.

At a recent SEOA/SCOA technical conference the overwhelming feeling was that the older age classes were happier to walk a km or two into technical, non-physical terrain than have a close start and suffer either physical or non-technical terrain.

Was there ever the consideration at Wharnecliffe to use 2 starts? Seems like it could have solved a few problems in this case, perhaps providing better courses for those on the short, technical age groups. I have even seen this done at a colour-coded, where the technical (TD4/5) courses had a 2km walk from the car park, while the junior courses were adjacent to it. As Neil has pointed out, start/finish location can compromise the standard of courses, but it need not.