What is it with the North East?

[awk]

I was bothered by Robin Field's comments on this area in Focus - still pushing the schools side as the answer. In some places it may well be, but my feelings now are that Mrs H. is right - the real development area for clubs is families, followed by a programme that retains the young people (now there is a challenge!).

Congratulations to NATO on Clubmark - but does it make a club better at recruiting young people? I've seen sports club jump through these and similar other hoops, schools jump through Investing in Pupils hoops, companies jump through Investing in People hoops and so on and so on, but they don't seem to make any difference to the ability to do a job.

[Mr timE]

We in the military are trying to do our bit for the poor NE by having the Army Champs on Otterburn Trg Area next year Thur/Fri 18/19 May and we will have a training day event on Wed 17th running into the evening. All are welcome to attend so why not take a couple of days off work at do a Harris Relay on the Thur afternoon and then a conventional relay on the Friday, teams of 3 or 4. We are able to get any training area mapped for 'O' purposes so if anyone in the NE would like an area done or to use some of our areas they only have to ask. The Feltham map is easily regional standard and BAOC have recently updated and extended all the mapped military taining areas around Catterick and we are now looking to do other training areas more into in the NE.

[Mrs H.]

Once we have doubled the membership

Despite the fact that Malvern was very well populated with orienteers in the first place - that is precisely what we have done in the past 2months (fully paid up club members) and I suspect there is a lot more to come. the schools development is a spin off not an objective in itself. these new members have already offered (not been asked) to help at the ADO events (control collection and the like). then there is the question of retention - that's where the new mini-league comes in.....

On the subject of clubmark - I was astonished this morning to receive a letter from Sports Relief saying YES I can have a grant if I answer 3 questions - one of which is "can you tell us more about clubmark". I had niavely thought that after all the flaming hoops Ifititches had jumped through - and all we had been told by BOF Central - that Clubmark was some kind of universally recognised short hand which told grant making agencies that you had all the required policies in place - I am very surprised to be asked to explain this to a specialist sports-grant body. It doesn't seem to have been instrumental in them deciding to give us the grant in the first place if they didn't know what it was at that point - which is contradictory to what we have been told by BOF central at the outset of what was an extremely time consuming exercise.

[graeme]

There has been another National event this year where the map wasn't adequate.

That's absolutely true. And the association in question has recognised the problem and is doing everything it can to make sure it doesn't happen again. Things will never be perfect, the important thing is to identify ways to make them better the next time.

Graeme the contours and tracks were fine. The vegetation wasn't always clear enough to navigate by but then it wasn't mapped as distinct - so that is what you should expect.

The tracks were wrong off the start, the contours missed the flat section and reentrant just before "that" boulder in the relay. The vegetation often was distinct, even when not mapped as such. But I really dont want to criticise the mapper, he's done an enormous amount of updating on the previous map in a forest which has obviously changed a lot.
I don't think anyone else would have done much better without a good, recent basemap.

A foreign competitor said that when you're used to running on very good maps, you hear alarm bells when things dont look quite right. And whole course was run to the sound of alarm bells.

Perhaps some other wealthy regions or BOF would lend/give the NEOA some money to pay for those pg plots!

Becks tells me that BOF has a fund for precisely this purpose.

[Becks]

Not precisely those purposes! But there are funds available.

[HOCOLITE]

I did not go and would not have gone unless it were a crucial selection race for child and I couldn't find anyother way of getting him there. Reading above it's clear I made the right descision. However I thought that Nationals had to have the area and map approved by bof 18mths in advance. I could be wrong, but surely at this stage they should have offered the grant for the PG plot and mapping assistance if they wanted the event to run.

[Guest]

The tracks were wrong off the start, the contours missed the flat section and reentrant just before "that" boulder in the relay.

A foreign competitor said that when you're used to running on very good maps, you hear alarm bells when things dont look quite right. And whole course was run to the sound of alarm bells.

I don't have the advantage of being foreign, but I honestly didn't have an issue with any of the map and found all the controls where I wanted them to be. I guess it comes down to what you are used to. And I didn't run in the relay, so I can't comment on that boulder.

On the subject of using up to date base maps, you are of course correct and I am pleased that the SOA is planning to do something about it. I checked up on the major events this year and the situation in other regions is no better.

Kilnsey based on a 1994 PG plot and previous maps (although given the area this is probably reasonable)
Hambleden based on a 1973 PG plot and previous maps
Brown Clee on a 1980 PG plot and previous maps
Tentsmuir on previous O maps from 1978 and 1982 (and no mention of a PG plot)
Kyloe based on OS and previous O maps (again no mention of a PG plot).

These are the ones I could lay my hands on this morning.

[neil m37]

that last post was me

[Guest]

Mrs H said:
On the subject of clubmark - I was astonished this morning to receive a letter from Sports Relief saying YES I can have a grant if I answer 3 questions - one of which is "can you tell us more about clubmark".

I have spoken to the Sport England Clubmark lead man and passed on the information that this particular funding body person did not know about Clubmark. SE will try to improve and increase information and was grateful to hear of this.

At the risk of repeating myself - Clubmark is not just a hoop jumping exercise. It is a good practice template for sports clubs in the areas of club management, coaching, training volunteers etc related directly to a club's junior programme but can also impact on the whole club. Just one part, for example, is for the club to have a development or action plan which can only be a good idea.

HP

[RJ]

I was bothered by Robin Field's comments on this area in Focus - still pushing the schools side as the answer. In some places it may well be, but my feelings now are that Mrs H. is right - the real development area for clubs is families, followed by a programme that retains the young people (now there is a challenge!).

You are certainly right about the model that was used by SELOC for two years (Focus page 5) and copied/reproduced by MADO. It is a very successful route to increasing membership. You are also right to point out that schools' development works in some places.

My point would be that it is not one or the other.... both are worth pursuing wholeheartedly. I think there has been a tendency to compare the two models agressively, which can be counter productive.

Robin Field seems to be suggesting that we find more common ground, perhaps less argumentative comment/criticism, and a greater promotion of our sport, which has so much to offer. I am convinced that we spend too much time examining our navel and not enough time celebrating the fantastic orienteering experience that we have to offer.

[Mrs H.]

You are certainly right about the model that was used by SELOC for two years (Focus page 5) and copied/reproduced by MADO. .

Excuse me! I'd never even heard of Seloc or their model until the development conference at the end of September - after MADO had been in full swing for some time - nothing copied or reproduced there! I do so hate having my ideas ascribed to other people!

I do however doff my cap to the POW model which did set me thinking my own thoughts!

I would just liketo thank HP for taking time on her day off to look into the clubmark thing - she knows what's what! As opposed to others - who don't seem to.

The flaw with what you are saying Roger is that schools development has been aggressively pushed by BOF central in the first place and it has taken some dogged work by clubs individuals to come up with an alternative which -initially at least - looks like being a whole lot more successful at increasing membership (as opposed to participation) that is what we want isn't it?

[awk]

My point would be that it is not one or the other.... both are worth pursuing wholeheartedly. I think there has been a tendency to compare the two models agressively, which can be counter productive.

I suspect that it will often have to be an either/or decision, given that even with expanded RDO time, the bulk of any work will come down to volunteers. I doubt that many clubs will have the time to pursue more than one avenue at a time, and comparisons come in because decisions have to be made which is the most effective in a particular area.

I equally suspect that the aggressive comparison comes in because people are bringing their own very personal experience to the table and applying it globally. One of the objectives behind the club development conferences was for people to sample as many different approaches as possible and apply the most appropriate to their own circumstances. As a 'consumer' of BOF activity nowadays, it does seem to me that the schools approach is being promoted as the prime means of development, and that will not be the most appropriate in many areas. I may well be mistaken, but this appears to be the case.

[King Penguin]

Back to the Kyloe map - I didn't find anything to complain about on my course (M45). Yes, it was hard going underfoot and I prefer runnable beech / oak woods or moorland, but variety's good experience. The view from assembly was the best I've ever had. I was happy with my run apart from 3 minor mistakes which were all my own fault and in no way due to the map (I must learn not to simply try and keep up with overtakers...)

[awk]

I checked up on the major events this year and the situation in other regions is no better.
Kilnsey based on a 1994 PG plot and previous maps (although given the area this is probably reasonable)
Hambleden based on a 1973 PG plot and previous maps
Brown Clee on a 1980 PG plot and previous maps....
These are the ones I could lay my hands on this morning.

Surely, the age of the plot is not especially important? What are important are things like was the ground clear at the time of the aerial photos, the quality of the photos, the quality of the plot etc. So, for instance, there was no ground cover for the Kilnsey photos (obviously!), and the plot was by Stirling Surveys. It'll probably be good for many years to come, as long as the quarry doesn't continue to grow too fast!

[CHS]

I don't know much about PG plots but suely they can only be as good as the photos they are made up from. The areas which have not had a PG plot for twenty years wouldn't benefit from a new one unless the boday which provides the photos has had more taken in the mean time. (I think its the responsablity of councils and its supposed to be every ten years but its not a proirity use of their budget)