Trail-O in Focus

[kedge]

Like Nemo, I too have been involved in a Trail-O event with very few competitors; largely because the organisers of the Foot-O event associated with it decided to move the event car parking to an FC car park at the other end of the map, rather than using forest roads as originally intended. The planners replanned the Foot-O courses starting and finishing in an area totally unsuited for Trail-O. So the Trail-O event was now a 20 min drive from the car parking for the main event. Result - on a cold day, very few came. Moral - always have the Trail-O adjacent to the main event if at all possible. We want to be included in the event with everyone else. I can remember Peter Palmer getting very cross with the organisers in a similar situation.

However, Nemo wilfully distorts the Trail-O ethos. Trail-O is a test of navigation skills. it isn't a race. Nor is it solely intended for wheelchair competitors, and its certainly not a wheelchair race. Most Trail-O competitors, whether in or out of a wheelchair in everyday life, would not be physically capable of wheelchair racing, even if they wanted to!

Conventional orienteering (Foot-O) tests both navigational and running skills. If you don't want to navigate, you join a running club.

Trail-O is for those who want to take part in a navigational competition but don't want to (or can't) run. As such it is a different discipline of orienteering, together with Ski-O, MTBO etc.

While amongst the Trail-O fraternity in the UK there are competitors who have no background in competitive foot-o, most of us are orienteers who are now for one reason or another incapable of competing over conventional Foot-O courses. Most of us have been in the sport for years.

Nemo says " if you can't race you can't do orienteering" .Sorry Nemo, but that's b*ll*cks. Would Nemo have us abandon orienteering, our friends in the sport? Because some of us now limp or walk with us stick do we make the place look untidy or do we frighten away those young, thrusting bloods which the sport is failing to attract. If we can't race, (God, I wish I could still run, how I wish: but I can't) would he have us banned form orienteering?

BecauseTrail-O is a minor branch of a minor UK sport, we have enough difficulty persuading event organisers to put on Trail-O courses at events without ill informed comments like Nemo's discouraging them further.

[NeilC]

Moral - always have the Trail-O adjacent to the main event if at all possible

Unfortuantely the requirements for Trail-O means that this is often not possible. For BOC2006 we spent some time trying to identify an idea near the main assembly area which 1) had wheelchair access and 2) had suitable terrain visible from paths/tracks. We couldn't, hence BTOC is being held at a venue 5-10 miles from BOC.

[awk]

I think you have misunderstood Nemo, Kedge. I won't repeat what you say, but I actually think it's you that has got it wrong. I would leave him/her to answer for themselves, but you have raised issues which I have always struggled with when dealing with Trail-O and people in Trail-O.

For both Nemo, myself and many, many others, orienteering sport has to involve a physical element. It has to involve a physical race of some sort, otherwise it is not an orienteering sport. What we are both trying to point out is that Trail-O doesn't include that, and therefore is fundamentally unattractive to us and many others involved in sport, as the experience at Stoke Mandeville illustrates. You could put Trail-O next to the car park, but whilst it might be an interesting diversion for me, if I couldn't race, then I would find another sport rather than do trail-O as anything other than a sideline.

Nemo doesn't distort the Trail-O ethos - s/he recognises it exactly for what it is, as do I, but neither of us are attracted by it, nor it appears are many others. Indeed, I would say that the ethos of Trail-O is actually even narrower than you suggest. It is NOT a test of navigational skills. Navigation involves an element of travelling. Trail-O is a test of very fine map interpretation - many elements of navigation (e.g. route choice) are missing.

Basically, I believe Trail-O needs to change its ethos if it is to build up real interest. How one does that, I don't know, but it needs to be addressed, and it needs to build in a stronger element of orienteering sport. I will be blunt - I don't regard Trail-O as orienteering, as too many elements are missing. It is a form of navigation. That is not to denigrate the skills of those involved - it is a very skilful activity, but it is, to me, not orienteering, and for me the Focus article really underlined that.

Until those involved in promoting Trail-O take that on board, numbers will always remain low. Particularly if trying to attract those from outside orienteering. The package is simply not attractive enough, and is very labour intensive - things I found time after time when doing coaching/development work. In the meantime, after mulling this over many times in the past, I agree with Nemo - if you aren't racing (in one form or another), then you aren't orienteering. It's just too fundamental to what orienteering is.

[Ian W]

An interesting discussion. I have to admit I'm in the camp which finds the current Trail O format totally unattractive. I tried it once and decided I wouldn't bother again. Like Andy, if I couldn't run, I'd try to find another sport.

However, it occurs to me that, if one were specifically to target wheelchair athletes, would it be possible to have real wheelchair courses? There must be quite a few areas which would support longish courses on tracks that would be accessible.

OK, they would never be highly technical but it ought to be possible, by introducing route choice, to make them almost as navigationally challenging as MTBO. Maybe this is what the athletes at Stoke Mandeville were expecting?

Ian

[awk]

However, it occurs to me that, if one were specifically to target wheelchair athletes, would it be possible to have real wheelchair courses? There must be quite a few areas which would support longish courses on tracks that would be accessible.
Ian

Particularly if linked with sprint races - I can think of quite a few parks where a wheelchair race could run closely alongside a foot based race. Similar in style to Ski-O, with different goability of paths/grass etc.

Just a thought.

[Nemo]

Awk's, Ian W's, Fatboy's and Graeme's reaction, having tried trail O, I fear, is not uncommon.
I think the trail O fraternity have delusions of grandeur. I do not begrudge any of them the enjoyable activity trail O provides for them; but I think trying to promote 'elite' trail O as a potential paralympic sport with world championships of equivalent stature to the mainstream sport, with perhaps even televised publicity, could actually damage the public image of 'real' orienteering; a sport described by the late lamented Chris Brasher in one of his newspaper articles as 'the best sport ever devised by man'. We need to vigorously promote this. We owe it to the public to let as many of them as possible know what they are missing.
As Awk says, trail O shares virtually none of the essential elements that make orienteering the best sport in the world, and its aficiondos should recognise this and, either incorporate these essential elements into its product, or promote trail O in its current format as a pleasant diversion, nothing more, similar to photo O (I love this) and other quizzes with an O flavour.

[kedge]

Sorry to be tardy in replying to the last few postings. I've been away at the British School's this weekend, then busy writing reports.

This argument can clearly go round and round in circles for a long time and most of the contributors are fairly entrenched in their positions and unlikely to change them.

I accept many of the criticisms about 'Elite Trail-O' in the UK. It is labour intensive,(but so are the Elite Foot-O races, which also don't have many competitors), it does have a small following in this country etc. In contrast, the orienteering scene in Sweden, with a far greater participation in orienteering generally, supports many more Pre-O events over the season and with reasonable numbers taking part in them. Clearly, there is a market for Trail-O, but its always going to be a small fraction of that for Foot-O.

I'm not going to get into the argument about whether Trail-O is

a sop to political correctness

Where does that leave other paralympic sports?

However as IOF accept Trail-O as an orienteering discipline, with regular world championships, then it must be regarded as a legitimate form of orienteering, not

a pleasant diversion, nothing more, similar to photo O (I love this) and other quizzes with an O flavour

and we need to be actively encouraging organising & promoting Elite Trail-O events in the UK on a regular, if not necessarily frequent, basis if we are to build on the recent successes of the GB Trail-O team. They will continue to be Open events and AWK, Nemo etc will be free to take part, or not, as the fancy takes them.

[graeme]

the organisers of the Foot-O event associated with it decided to move the event car parking to an FC car park at the other end of the map, rather than using forest roads as originally intended. The planners replanned the Foot-O courses starting and finishing in an area totally unsuited for Trail-O. So the Trail-O event was now a 20 min drive from the car parking for the main event. Result - on a cold day, very few came. Moral - always have the Trail-O adjacent to the main event if at all possible. We want to be included in the event with everyone else. I can remember Peter Palmer getting very cross with the organisers in a similar situation.

As a volunteer foot-O organiser, I don't want people to get cross with me, and I don't want to compromise the courses for a different sport which is added to my event. I already have enough compromises finding somewhere appropriate for string, short technical and white courses (all of which I do want to organise).

So I deduce that I'm not a suitable organiser for events including trail-O, and will remember not to offer in the future.

Graeme

[kedge]

Graeme wrote

So I deduce that I'm not a suitable organiser for events including trail-O, and will remember not to offer in the future.

Graeme,
That's fine by me, as long as others do offer to put them on.

The point I was trying to make was that if you put on a Trail-O course as an integral part of an event, and then stick it miles away from the rest of the action, don't be surprised if you don't get many takers. You wouldn't get many kids on a string course similarly situated.

For championship courses, such as those at the recent JK & British, it is obviously OK to separate the events if that is necessary: for lesser events where you might pick up casual entries on the day, the arrangements need to be a bit more user friendly, so that the injured/infirm etc and others depending on someone else as driver can get to the Trail-O rather than having to sit in the car, which is what happened a to a number of potential entrants to the event which I was referring.

[RJ]

The point I was trying to make was that if you put on a Trail-O course as an integral part of an event, and then stick it miles away from the rest of the action, don't be surprised if you don't get many takers. You wouldn't get many kids on a string course similarly situated.

Kedge, I don't think that analogy is going to work. Firstly, a string event course can go almost anywhere, so long as the string can follow a route that toddlers can manage. Fairly easy. And the size of the area need not be enormous.

Whereas Trail-O is far more specialist. From the comments earlier in the thread it appears that Trail-O requires very much more from the map and the area. I would say that, by and large, the imposition of a Trail-O course onto a mainstream event is very unlikely to work within the constraints of the other requirements of the Foot-O event. Undoubtedly it may work on one or two areas, but I don't think the two competition areas should overlap.... runners shouldn't run through the Trail-O control setup.

There is no harm in Trail-O being associated with every major (even Regional) event, if there are people to plan the event. But Trail-O may have to put up with not being able to use the same start and finish. In fact there is no reason why they should!

[FatBoy]

but I don't think the two competition areas should overlap.... runners shouldn't run through the Trail-O control setup.

Absolutely. JK 94 (?) mid course I remember being freaked out somewhat coming into this block of forest to see 5 controls in close proximity!

[Nemo]

I think trail O, as presently constituted, is little more than a sop to political correctness.

Where does this leave other Paralympic sports?

All competitors in Paralympic sports do the same sport as able-bodied competitors.
Trail O is not the same 'sport' as orienteering.

However, as IOF accept Trail O as an orienteering discipline with regular world championships, then it must be regarded as a legitimate form of orienteering.

There are many historical instances of authority instituting flawed policies and subsequently recognising it; Prohibition in the US and the Corn Laws in the UK spring immediately to mind.

[Guest]

All competitors in Paralympic sports do the same sport as able-bodied competitors.
Trail O is not the same 'sport' as orienteering.

Not sure that this is correct. Wheelchair rugby is indoors for example. And there aren't able-bodied versions of goalball and boccia.

[kedge]

RJ wrote

but I don't think the two competition areas should overlap.... runners shouldn't run through the Trail-O control setup.

In general they don't unless they are lost or they've taken an unexpected route choice.

There was an exception at Penhale this year when the Trail-O course was located on the dunes either side of the military road within the Foot-O courses but with no overlap between the areas used. The longer Foot-O courses passed over this road and through the course, via the drinks points, but the location of the Trail-O controls, near the roadside and clearly nowhere near the Foot-O sites, should have caused no confusion.

In one of his earlier postings, AWK talked about the lack of route choice in Trail-O. Whilst often in the UK, Trail-O courses seem to go up one side of a long flat ride and back down the other side, courses on the continent often give a certain amount of route choice along suitable paths between clusters of controls.which certainly adds to the interest of the course. Obviously around the control sites, the competitor has to stay on the 'Trail' and view the flags from the correct viewing positions.

In the permanent Trail-O course which I planned for our local country park, I've tried to give a chance for this too, so that users of the course actually have to navigate around a Yellow standard course whilst doing the Trail-O. We sometimes use it with local school groups as an introductory map walk, illustrating the various map symbols using the positions of the permanent Trail-O posts, before letting the children use on the White or Yellow courses of the permanent Foot-O course.

These two courses in turn, (at least in summer and Autumn when the tracks are dry) are wheelchair friendly, so hopefully we've got most options covered.

[Nemo]

All competitors in Paralympic sports do the same sport as able-bodied competitors.
Trail O is not the same 'sport' as orienteering.

Reply

Not sure that is correct. Wheelchair rugby is indoors for example, and there aren't able-bodied versions of goalball and boccia

Goalball and boccia are not claiming to be versions of able-bodied sports.

Wheelchair rugby is far more similar to the able-bodied version in that its objective is the same, i.e., to get the ball over the opponents' goal line and prevent the opponents doing the same. Trail O or trail orienteering is claiming to be an orienteering discipline while lacking the basic ojectives of the sport.