Trail-O in Focus

[Guest]

Have just read the article in Focus about elite trail-O at the British Champs.

Having done so, I'm if anything completely turned off (and yes, I have done some - OK but not exactly what I'd want to do regularly). More an exercise in nit-picking than sport (and can a map at that scale really be accurate to 1m?).

Is this just me (probably), or has anybody else had the same reaction?

[awk]

Sorry, that was me. Automatic login switched off by offspring!

[RJ]

Was it not also known as Precision-O? And to be fair, are the maps not specially drawn?

I thought the general idea was that this form of O was for those with limited mobility, perhaps those who are wheelchair bound. Some years ago the UVHS trip to the O-Ringen took a wheelchair athlete to the Trail-O. It would appear that relatively able-bodied people take part now. So what exactly is the ethos behind this discipline?

[graeme]

I thought the explanation of how to get 1m accuracy on an orienteering map from the article in FOCUS was nonsense.

The map is 1:2500, so 1m corresponds to 0.4mm on the map: this is smaller than a typical point feature symbol.

A single print dot at 256dpi is 0.1mm. So, if you can place yourself on the right pixel, and take an exact sighting past a feature half way to the flag, your accumulated error is *already* 1m simply from the printing resolution and a bit of trigonometry.

Of course, if you ignore the map completely, it is possible to get that sort of surveying accuracy in control placement and sighting with a sighting compass and the methods described. Personally, I have other things I'd rather be doing.

[FatBoy]

If it works for some people (disabled or not) then that's fine (each to their own?). For me any orienteering that doesn't involve making decisions at speed with heart rate sky high isn't orienteering. Foot or bike is fine (for me - each to their own), and probably skis although I haven't (yet) tried that one. I also feel much the same as Graeme that you cannot get a maps that accurate at any sort of scale which vaguely resembles an orienteering map.

[mharky]

I think the sample used in Focus is taking things a bit far. It is difficult to find a balance though. To close or vague and it's impossible, to sparse and obvious and it's not a challenge.

[kedge]

I suppose that as the only Trail-O competitor who regularly contributes to this forum,and the Organiser of BTOC 2005, I should reply.

Trail-O is an equity sport, i.e. competitors who are able-bodied should have no advantage over those of us who are in any way disabled, whether wheel-chair bound or not. As such it is open to all, and at the British Champs at Penhale the Elite course was for an Open class available to all. A subset of that was a class for Paralympic qualified competitors, so it is always possible for paralympic competitors to win the Open class.

Whilst we actively try to encourage wheelchair bound competitors to take part, there is no doubt that the most successful British Trail-O athletes are those who were originally experienced runners/mappers/controllers who are now handicapped by age, injury, arthritis and other physical disablities. Most of us can no longer compete effectively in Foot-O, much as we would like to. But we don't wish to give up a sport that we've participated in for years.

The example in Focus is possibly not one of the easiest to understand. In practice, from the viewing point,a line between the ditch and the distant tree passed through the centre of the circle on the map.Only one flag was in a direct line and that was too close to the road - hence this was a zero control. Easy (except I got it wrong). A better and more typical control was illustrated in the October CompassSport.

So in a way, yes Andrew, you could call it an exercise in advanced nit-picking.if you are so minded or you can regard it as an intellectual challenge. It depends on your point of view. As for decisions at speed, Fatboy, have you tried doing the Trail-O timed controls, where the problem has to be solved within 60 seconds.

Whatever, the best courses are both very difficult and intellectually satisfying. I regularly finish international competitions feeling both physically and mentally shattered.

The Penhale course, set by Arthur Boyt, kept in check by Brian Parker, was brilliant. Only one person got all the controls correct, no one challenged the solutions offered by the planner, which is very rare.

What we in the British squad need are more Trail-O courses in this country. Currently, only the JK and (hopefully) the British in 2006 offer Elite Trail-O courses, and we need more throughout the country if we are to attract more competitors to the discipline.

[kedge]

I meant to add, in reply to RJ, that the Swedes refer to Trail-O as Pre-O or precision-o, although they also use one or two modifications to the discipline, such as only one flag at a control, with four possible descriptions.

Trail-O maps are usually specially drawn, with visibility screens replacing runnability (after all, we're not allowed off the track) and often with extra details added to the map around control sites. The maps are usually 1:5 000. Maps drawn to Sprint-O standards are often ideal Trail-O maps, provided the area's tracks aren't too steep for wheelchair use.

[FatBoy]

As for decisions at speed, Fatboy, have you tried doing the Trail-O timed controls, where the problem has to be solved within 60 seconds.

No I haven't tried trail-o at all. I reiterate that I fully believe in each to their own but I am stating, for what it's worth, why I won't be doing trail-O. By decisions made at "speed" I mean moving - if I spend 60 seconds standing still making a decision while doing Foot-O, MTB-O or TQ then I've messed up. Undoutbly the decisions in Trail-O as highlighted in Focus are more complicated but I can safely say it's not going to be my cup of tea. I guess I don't do Orienteering for the mental challenge, and I don't do it for the physical challenge, I do it for both at the same time.

[stodge]

Having been injured for 3 years and not able to run or even walk more than 1/2 km before my OP this year ive thought of trail O as a way of continuing to enjoy the sport.
I tried trail O once (French 5 day 03) and found it not at all challenging....and seen it demoed at events like the British before my injury… I suppose it put me off.

I did my first O event for 3 years at the November Classic last week - entered M70s (4km) and walked the whole thing.
Although towards the end, when I was straight lining everything trying to make the course as difficult as possible, I was starting to get a little buzz from nailing the controls but it just didnt do it for me in the same way it used too when moving at speed through terrain, it was just too easy ( yes I know the new forest isn’t the most technical area in the world).

There is a strong possibility that I may get back to running at some point in the future and I agree with Fatboy that I believe in each to their own, but TrailO hasn’t filled my Orienteering Gap. ( or maybe I didn’t let it from poor experiences putting me off)

[awk]

I have to say that I concur with Fatboy. Orienteering without the physical challenge loses for me the central essence of the sport. Having tried it several times in the past, it was a pleasant diversion, but nothing I wanted to take further. If unable to orienteer, I'd rather do something else retaining a stronger physical element of sport.

Even after Kedge's response, which actually doesn't address this issue, I still can't see how the map could sustain a decision based on a control being barely a metre off. That's pushing the map beyond its limits, as Graeme shows, and is a major part of my 'nit-picking' comment - intellectual challenge or not, the map can't sustain that level of accuracy.

[Barny of Blandford (Wim)]

I think that a few of you are missing the point about Trail O
I am very lucky at M55 to be uninjured and fit and running. Many of those who do Trail O were runners who were far better than me 30 years ago and often were the leading lights of Orienteering. Unfortunately through injury and illness some of them are now only able to continue competitively by doing trail o
A number of them still map, survey, run major event and for this we ought to be very pleased.
Without many of them the sport over the last 30 years would often have struggled to survive and it enables them to still be a part of the 'active' orienteering scene and to be involved at all levels.
At the same time it does also enable those who are not as fortunate as us to compete in various disability classes - disability does not mean that you do not have a good brain. Like us they are also able to think through the problems at speed and make a decision in the same way that we do.
After all orienteering is supposed to be the thinking sport.
Finally Awk - ask Kedge or Arthus Boyt to send you a Penhale may and see what a high quality of decision making is needed - probably far harder that ours were

[awk]

I don't disagree with any of your comments about those participating in trail-O Barny - indeed I totally concur. But one thing I never solved with my admittedly limited involvement in trail-O, was the issue that orienteering without the physical element was for me not an orienteering sport. Trail-O is an attempt at solving the problem of dealing with disability sport, I simply don't think it's the solution. It simply isn't sufficiently a 'sport' to appeal, which to me involves a strong element of physical competition.

That is not to denigrate or deny the abilities of those who do Trail-O. Chess after all doesn't to my mind satisfy the definition of sport either. However, the appeal has often been put out for more people to take an interest, and what I was pointing out, perhaps clumsily, is that if anything the article put me off even more, highlighting as it did the very things which are to me so unattractive, somebody who in theory at least should be attracted to the activity. A very personal viewpoint obviously, and one that others will not share, I'm sure, but it seems obvious why trail-O struggles to recruit outside the small market of those who have been forced to give up foot-orienteering.

As to map accuracy, I would be interested in seeing a map, but at 1:2500, 1m is represented by 0.4mm. I'm just not convinced of the general sustainability of that level of detail at that scale, especially given that we're talking about a vague control feature anyway. It may have fallen into place this time, but as Kedge points out, Trail-O is riven with challenges to planner's decisions, and it's easy to see why.

[distracted]

Now having seen the relevant article, it doesn't seem to be the best example to illustrate Trail-O. For a start there's no indication of the designated viewing point (is there only one?) and where the controls were actually positioned, whether it be a photo or just having the controls marked on the map (like the Micr-O decoys) for the sake of illustration. This would have made it a bit easier to understand/follow - especially the last part which I now think I understand...

I'm inclined to agree with those who have have mentioned the possible accuracy achievable with the map - a <1m difference between the centre of the control circle and the nearest decoy control, sighting from 50m away, seems a bit small, even with a 1:2500 map! I might see the situation slightly differently if I knew where the viewing point was, as I guess it could make some difference...

Anyway, as others have said, I'm more than a little surprised that (a) it is possible to position a control in broken ground, what I would consider a vague feature, to the necessary accuracy and (b) the map, even at 1:2500, could be that accurate to allow such a decision to be made. On a more distinct feature I could probably accept that it is possible, but not in this case.

[Nemo]

I've just read the correspondence on trail O.
Here's a cautionary tale.
I was involved with trail O in its early days in so far as I made the maps for the 1995 European Championships and 2 promotional maps for the 1996 World Wheelchair Games at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
A poster advertising the 2 demomstration events attracted a good deal of curiousity amongst the athletes, and a dozen or more put their names down to participate thinking that orienteering would be racing in wheelchairs; great fun they thought.
Upon finding out exactly what it was, however, only 3 people (officials, not athletes)turned out for an event in the hospital grounds, and no one, yes no one, turned up for an event I had planned in the nearby woods.
I think trail O as presently constituted is little more than a sop to political correctness and is actually insulting to the competitive foot racing sport and to wheelchair athletes. Racing in wheelchairs would be totally different and great fun assuming it were possible.
I'm sorry, if you can't race you can't do orienteering. You can do many other things that aren't orienteering, but you can't do orienteering.