[quote="kedge"]
I'm not sure about how likely Trail-O is to get Paralympic status. On the other hand, if it was included, in say London in 2012, might it not raise not only the public awareness of the sport, but also the amount of competitive Trail-O in the country beforehand, which would be no bad thing.
It would reinforce public misconceptions of what the sport really is.
Trail-O in Focus
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
by Jon Brooke » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:51 pm
Now you're just being silly.
Do you really think newcomers (potentially 6 billion of them - lets hope they don't all turn up at once) get their first exposure to orienteering via the BOF and IOF websites?
But even... even... if they did - what you say about trail-O having similar prominence to foot-O is rubbish. It isn't even mentioned on the homepage of the BOF site and on the IOF site (and I do wonder if anyone has ever got into orienteering in the UK through first contact with the IOF website) there is one small picture and link at the end of a row of four pictures showing different O disciplines.
Do you really think newcomers (potentially 6 billion of them - lets hope they don't all turn up at once) get their first exposure to orienteering via the BOF and IOF websites?
But even... even... if they did - what you say about trail-O having similar prominence to foot-O is rubbish. It isn't even mentioned on the homepage of the BOF site and on the IOF site (and I do wonder if anyone has ever got into orienteering in the UK through first contact with the IOF website) there is one small picture and link at the end of a row of four pictures showing different O disciplines.
- Jon Brooke
Hang on...
by Jon Brooke » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:56 pm
That post was actually in response to the one before last from Nemo - sorry if this is becoming as hard to follow as an article in Focus.
- Jon Brooke
by Guest » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:01 pm
Jon Brooke wrote:Now you're just being silly.
But even... even... if they did - what you say about trail-O having similar prominence to foot-O is rubbish. It isn't even mentioned on the homepage of the BOF site and on the IOF site (and I do wonder if anyone has ever got into orienteering in the UK through first contact with the IOF website) there is one small picture and link at the end of a row of four pictures showing different O disciplines.
On the BOF Homepage it's one of the 'various orienteering disciplines' of equal importance, so we are lead to believe, to Foot O
- Guest
Trail O in Focus
by Nemo » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:04 pm
The last posting was me again. Maybe I'm trying to preserve my anonymity.
- Nemo
Sorry...
by Jon Brooke » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:10 pm
You're just wrong...
... and obtuse.
If you are really arguing that trail-O has equal prominence and importance on the BOF site to foot-O, then there probably isn't much point our continuing this discussion. You are obviously inclined to overlook the facts for the sake of argument .
... and obtuse.
If you are really arguing that trail-O has equal prominence and importance on the BOF site to foot-O, then there probably isn't much point our continuing this discussion. You are obviously inclined to overlook the facts for the sake of argument .
- Jon Brooke
by mharky » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:15 pm
Nemo, stop talking rubbish
On the BOF site it is listed as one of the orienteering disciplines, because it is. At no point do BOF ever say that it is of equal importance or stature to foot orienteering. Indeed Ski-O is on there, and how much of that do we do???
You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about Trail-O, and I can't think why...
What is so wrong about having a disability sport, if anything it makes our sport looks better because we cater for the disabled.
On the BOF site it is listed as one of the orienteering disciplines, because it is. At no point do BOF ever say that it is of equal importance or stature to foot orienteering. Indeed Ski-O is on there, and how much of that do we do???
You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about Trail-O, and I can't think why...
What is so wrong about having a disability sport, if anything it makes our sport looks better because we cater for the disabled.
-
mharky - team nopesport
- Posts: 4541
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:39 pm
Trail O in Focus
by Nemo » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:57 pm
mharky wrote:
What is so wrong about having a disability sport, if anything it makes our sport looks better because we cater for the disabled.
To have credibility on a world stage it needs to bear some resemblance to 'real' orienteering.
Just as most other 'disabled' sports do to their 'able-bodied' versions.
Kedge mentioned all controls being 'timed controls'.
This would be introducing one of the many missing 'orienteering' elements, i.e, making quick decisions against the clock
- Nemo
Trail-O
by Guest » Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:17 am
Having just been advised to visit Nopesport, I am amazed to find this website with a great row going on about trail-O. Like the Irishman of legend I shall ask "Is this a proivate foight or can anyone join in?"
I stand beside Kedge in defence of this exciting and absorbing aspect of this great sport of ours. He is a man who has commited a great deal of time and effort in the promotion of trail-O (is a tireless worker in regular foot-O to boot) and is a world class competitor in his own right. Is he not to be allowed to "orienteer" any more because he has wonky joints? Should he (and we with him) go and ask the Countryside Alliance or the Amateur Boxing Association if we may do our thing under the aegis of their "sports" as the "orienteers" do not want us to becloud the public image of their "sport". Or should we, to keep the likes of Nemo happy, tell the people with wasted limbs, or uncontrollable muscles, or arthritic joints that they have got to race round this navigational or map-interpretational competition with their zimmers or wheelchairs because a few, dare I say, narrow-minded, able-bodied purists say it is not to be included in the sport of Orienteering?
Orienteering should be an Olympic sport. Its world-wide participation must be a million times greater than that of synchronised swimming. The latter gets into the Olympics because it is a discipline of swimming (presumably). It would be wonderful to see Trail-O as a Paralympic sport. Maybe it would help get the other orienteering disciplines into the Olympics.
Now, if you have followed me thus far, let me turn to the initial point of this discussion: BTOC 2005, Control 11. I planned the British Trail-O Championships at Penhale and am in a position to clarify the details of control 11 which started so much heated discussion. The statement in the article in Focus that "The centre of the map circle on the ground was no more than one metre away from one of the flags" was incorrect. Sorry about that, but it does shew that much of your indignation was justified. I suspect a typographical error had crept in. It was, in fact, 4.3m away (I have photos of all the control sites). Also none of the flags was closer to another than 10m. The original purpose of the arrangement of the flags was to test the competitors' ability to judge distance. A rule has been promulgated in trail-O that where distance assessment is the only way to answer the problem set at a control, no flag should be closer to another than a 25% difference in the distance to the viewer. To this end the flags were hung at 40m, 50m, 65m and 85m from the road. However, Brian Parker, the Controller, spotted the alignment of ditch and tree and suggested I use this as another way of solving the problem, or of confirming the first solution. His solution by means of a bearing over the nearby thicket I do not altogether follow, but I see the possibility of a solution by this means. Unfortunately there is a discrepancy in the accuracy of the map here as the thicket aforementioned has its NW edge on the line with the ditch and the tree on the map, but I have a photograph in front of me which shews this not to be the case; there is broken ground where the other half of the thicket once was, so perhaps it did not get adjusted in the final map after the digger had been in. As it is, the thicket is 3m - 4m too close to the ditch/tree line on the map. I hope this did not affect anyone's decision, and if it did I apologise. This does highlight what I feel is the Achilles heel of trail-O: map accuracy. It is impossible to get a fair trail-O competition using just a blown-up foot-O map. A 5m contour interval on a 1:5000 map is a nonsense. This map was 2.5m, but I would rather see a 1.25m contour. We succeeded in this case by dint of close collaboration between mapper (the indefatigable BP again) and planner.
If Micro-O catches on and all controls have to be treated as a trail-O competition, then those who have expressed their dislike of trail-O are going to regret the training opportunities they have been denying themselves for this new development in the sport. Instead of dashing for the centre of the circle and beating around for a flag, they are going to have to stop and think about where precisely their control should be hung - if only we could have zero controls as well.....
. I should love to see overlapping of trail-O and foot-O as well, maybe a combination of micro-O and trail-O 
I cannot now outline the road to public acceptability for trail-O as I have been shovelling snow for hours and it is past my bath time and I want to get to bed, but let me put to the dissenters what I feel is one of the great points of trail-O. In no other discipline of orienteering (or in any sport that I can think of) can fit and able elite competitors, their children, their parents, their grandparents, their paraplegic cousin and their arthritic aunt take part on the same terms in the same competition with map and compass.
I stand beside Kedge in defence of this exciting and absorbing aspect of this great sport of ours. He is a man who has commited a great deal of time and effort in the promotion of trail-O (is a tireless worker in regular foot-O to boot) and is a world class competitor in his own right. Is he not to be allowed to "orienteer" any more because he has wonky joints? Should he (and we with him) go and ask the Countryside Alliance or the Amateur Boxing Association if we may do our thing under the aegis of their "sports" as the "orienteers" do not want us to becloud the public image of their "sport". Or should we, to keep the likes of Nemo happy, tell the people with wasted limbs, or uncontrollable muscles, or arthritic joints that they have got to race round this navigational or map-interpretational competition with their zimmers or wheelchairs because a few, dare I say, narrow-minded, able-bodied purists say it is not to be included in the sport of Orienteering?
Orienteering should be an Olympic sport. Its world-wide participation must be a million times greater than that of synchronised swimming. The latter gets into the Olympics because it is a discipline of swimming (presumably). It would be wonderful to see Trail-O as a Paralympic sport. Maybe it would help get the other orienteering disciplines into the Olympics.
Now, if you have followed me thus far, let me turn to the initial point of this discussion: BTOC 2005, Control 11. I planned the British Trail-O Championships at Penhale and am in a position to clarify the details of control 11 which started so much heated discussion. The statement in the article in Focus that "The centre of the map circle on the ground was no more than one metre away from one of the flags" was incorrect. Sorry about that, but it does shew that much of your indignation was justified. I suspect a typographical error had crept in. It was, in fact, 4.3m away (I have photos of all the control sites). Also none of the flags was closer to another than 10m. The original purpose of the arrangement of the flags was to test the competitors' ability to judge distance. A rule has been promulgated in trail-O that where distance assessment is the only way to answer the problem set at a control, no flag should be closer to another than a 25% difference in the distance to the viewer. To this end the flags were hung at 40m, 50m, 65m and 85m from the road. However, Brian Parker, the Controller, spotted the alignment of ditch and tree and suggested I use this as another way of solving the problem, or of confirming the first solution. His solution by means of a bearing over the nearby thicket I do not altogether follow, but I see the possibility of a solution by this means. Unfortunately there is a discrepancy in the accuracy of the map here as the thicket aforementioned has its NW edge on the line with the ditch and the tree on the map, but I have a photograph in front of me which shews this not to be the case; there is broken ground where the other half of the thicket once was, so perhaps it did not get adjusted in the final map after the digger had been in. As it is, the thicket is 3m - 4m too close to the ditch/tree line on the map. I hope this did not affect anyone's decision, and if it did I apologise. This does highlight what I feel is the Achilles heel of trail-O: map accuracy. It is impossible to get a fair trail-O competition using just a blown-up foot-O map. A 5m contour interval on a 1:5000 map is a nonsense. This map was 2.5m, but I would rather see a 1.25m contour. We succeeded in this case by dint of close collaboration between mapper (the indefatigable BP again) and planner.
If Micro-O catches on and all controls have to be treated as a trail-O competition, then those who have expressed their dislike of trail-O are going to regret the training opportunities they have been denying themselves for this new development in the sport. Instead of dashing for the centre of the circle and beating around for a flag, they are going to have to stop and think about where precisely their control should be hung - if only we could have zero controls as well.....
. I should love to see overlapping of trail-O and foot-O as well, maybe a combination of micro-O and trail-O
I cannot now outline the road to public acceptability for trail-O as I have been shovelling snow for hours and it is past my bath time and I want to get to bed, but let me put to the dissenters what I feel is one of the great points of trail-O. In no other discipline of orienteering (or in any sport that I can think of) can fit and able elite competitors, their children, their parents, their grandparents, their paraplegic cousin and their arthritic aunt take part on the same terms in the same competition with map and compass.
- Guest
Re: Nit Picking
by awk » Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:27 am
Jon Brooke wrote:Is Awk short for Awkward?
No it isn't. They are my initials.
If you don't want to do trail-O, fine, if you thought that the Focus article wasn't so great, fine. But why don't you get off your high horse about telling people what they can and can't enjoy. What elitist claptrap.
Interesting to be called elitist, having worked for 13 years professionally and a lot longer as an amateur to help develop orienteering at grassroots level. Equally interesting to be completely misrepresented. If you're going to sling insults Jon Brooke, at least get your facts straight and have the courtesy to read my posts a bit more carefully.
For instance, not once did I say anything about what people can and can't enjoy.
What I did outline was my belief what the problem with trail-O was. I don't see it in the light of being an attractive orienteering sport, partly because it's missing the main elements of 'sport', and many elements of 'orienteering', This is primarily based on my experience in trying to support its development, and what I have observed since. Now if I'm the only one who believes that, then fine, I'm in a minority of one, and that belief is not important. However, if, as I suspect, many others looking at Trail-O think along the same lines, then Trail-O has got a problem.
You talk about loving orienteering for its inclusivity. My own belief in inclusivity tells me that to offer people with disabilities a form of orienteering that excludes most of the elements of the sport that attract people to the other disciplines is likely not to be successful.
Nothing to do with what people can do, can't do, or call themselves!
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3263
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
OK
by Jon Brooke » Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:58 am
Sorry for the "Awkward" comment, it was a cheap shot - but it did seem to fit the moment.
My comments have been made with no axe to grind at all - I don't know who you and Nemo are, but I can assure you that I did read you comments carefully and my response is genuine - maybe you should look at them again and try to swork out what it was in your tone that got my goat up. It's all very well trying to come across all reasonable now. You've just said
Have a look at your first post!
After telling us you didn't like trail-O all you did was to tell us that it was
That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "outlining your beleif in the problem" with trail-O, it's just having a go, and inviting others to do the same - sorry you can't see it.
My comments have been made with no axe to grind at all - I don't know who you and Nemo are, but I can assure you that I did read you comments carefully and my response is genuine - maybe you should look at them again and try to swork out what it was in your tone that got my goat up. It's all very well trying to come across all reasonable now. You've just said
What I did outline was my belief what the problem with trail-O was.
Have a look at your first post!
After telling us you didn't like trail-O all you did was to tell us that it was
More an exercise in nit-picking than sport
That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "outlining your beleif in the problem" with trail-O, it's just having a go, and inviting others to do the same - sorry you can't see it.
- Jon Brooke
Re: Oh come on...
by gross2007 » Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:35 am
Jon Brooke wrote:Worrying about 'real orienteering' becoming lost in the maelstrom of publicity that trail-o is likely to get is like worrying about choosing the right tie when you're not wearing any trousers.
Get real.
So what about chossing a tie to go with your kilt????
- gross2007
Re: OK
by awk » Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:14 am
Jon Brooke wrote:Have a look at your first post!
After telling us you didn't like trail-O all you did was to tell us that it wasMore an exercise in nit-picking than sport
That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "outlining your beleif in the problem" with trail-O, it's just having a go, and inviting others to do the same - sorry you can't see it.
I have had a reread of the first post. Even on rereading, I was having a go at the article rather than Trail-O itself. Yes, I did state my position on Trail-O - "It's OK, but not something I'd want to do regularly", which is not, at least to me, an expression of dislike, more one of indifference. I thought it relevant to make it clear where I was coming from when offering such a comment.
Being someone who has a bit of a reputation for long windedness on this forum, I was trying to keep the post fairly short and snappy: see what happens when you do! My underlying agenda for writing it is that Trail-O has a problem, and the article underlined that.
Even though you have now tried to deflect the argument, I would remind you that your comment was
But why don't you get off your high horse about telling people what they can and can't enjoy. What elitist claptrap.
and I would reiterate that at no stage did I say, or even imply that.
My point throughout, and something emphasised by Arthur's post, is that I believe Trail-Oers are missing the point, as exemplified by that article. It doesn't matter how inclusive the sport is in terms of its accessbility, if it misses out so many of the key elements that makes orienteering an attractive sport, then it isn't going to attract people. It doesn't even matter whether people like the message, or whether they even believe it. If (and it is IF) what I'm saying is true, then Trail-O will fail to expand beyond the tiny size it currently is, and thus fail to do the job it sets out to, which is to be inclusive. To that extent I believe the Trail-O model is fatally flawed.
Yes, I don't believe Trail-O is a sport, because it doesn't satisfy my definition of it. You might have a different definition. Fine, it probably doesn't really matter except for those of us who like to discuss semantics (another exercise in nit-picking perhaps?!). As I said, I don't think of chess as a sport, but I do find it exciting and absorbing. If enough people believe, as Arthur does, that it IS "exciting and absorbing", then it will take off. However, if people believe anything in the range from it's a complete waste of time (which I don't believe) to it's OK, but not something I'd want to do regularly (as I do), then it won't. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3263
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
by Guest » Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:35 pm
Two points -
"Orienteering began in the forests of Scandinavia, where it was introduced as a form of army training. The word 'orienteering' or 'orientation' was being used in military circles to mean crossing unknown territory with the aid of a map and compass as early as 1886" ... "The first public orienteering competition was held ... on October 31st 1897". Map and compass navigation first, competition later.
Secondly, reading the details on SLOW's Esher event - isn't the Micro-O element just trail-O rebadged into a foot-o format, and lots of people seem to be getting excited about that?
"Orienteering began in the forests of Scandinavia, where it was introduced as a form of army training. The word 'orienteering' or 'orientation' was being used in military circles to mean crossing unknown territory with the aid of a map and compass as early as 1886" ... "The first public orienteering competition was held ... on October 31st 1897". Map and compass navigation first, competition later.
Secondly, reading the details on SLOW's Esher event - isn't the Micro-O element just trail-O rebadged into a foot-o format, and lots of people seem to be getting excited about that?
- Guest
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests