Better Planning

[Paul T]

We all know that some courses just work better than others and that some planners have the knack of producing them regularly. It's not really to do with the guidelines, comforting though it is to know, for example, that

"If the master maps are displayed in the open, both the master maps and the area in which they are copied should be adequately protected from the weather".

I'm not bothered here about the mechanics of planning, how to us this or that piece of software, or about making sure flags are in the middle of the circle. I'm hoping for some rules of thumb or tests which can sort out interesting courses which hold people's attention from those that don't. Google can't find anything about that sort of topic so clearly it can't exist ?

What makes a well planned course?
What keeps your interest?
What are your pet hates

Or is it that if you have to be told, then you probably can't understand anyway? Can we make a science out of an art?

To keep it simple think about TD5 courses only.

[graeme]

Leaving aside the trivial "good area and map", and the things the guidelines already tell you, I think the main thing is variety.

Different leg lengths, different "right answers" to the "straight or round" and the "how fast should I be running here" questions.
Many legs being important to the final results.

Pet hates:
1. Courses where the result is mainly determined by time taken at a single control.
2. Courses comprising a series of 200-400m legs where the best route is straight.
3. Hiding controls to "make up for low technical difficulty".
4. Running through featureless grot to avoid path running.
5. Big route choices off the start before you know how runnable the woods are.

[FatBoy]

Yep variety is the key. Use the area's natural variety (if any) to help with that. Variety from other courses is important too - never have common legs for more than a couple of controls.

The way I tend to plan is work out where the best long legs will be on the area and then plan around those. Not many areas in the UK (well perhaps England and Wales...) offer good long legs from anywhere to anywhere.

Pet hates:

1) "route-choice" legs which while offering route choice offer no navigational challenge whichever way you go.

2) Long legs across difficult terrain which would be challenging except for the gurt big line feature just before the control.

I agree with Graeme's - I would add to that short and medium legs which use paths and then "in-off" are more interesting than a 2km tonk on a track.

[helen]

ditto to all that has already been said and definitely agree that variety is the key. a couple more things:

1) changes of direction are good, they keep you on your toes. much better than just a plain circuit or route back to the finish.
2) variety in leg length, always including a couple of fast control picks in some of the trickiest areas, and one or two long legs (providing its not a long slog of dead running on a track)

[PKJ]

Entirely agree that variety is the key, testing as many skills as possible.
And this can include less obvious skills like concentration and decision-making.
Eg:-
- real either/or route-choices (even on fairly short legs)
- legs which 'work backwards' (eg: the best attack-point isn't the obvious one)
- tricky controls just before or after an easy section

Also agree with most of these pet hates - I'd add visiting every part of the map for no good reason.

I rarely see TD5 terrain (like many I guess), but on TD4 I'd prefer to have a few really good legs even if it means compromising elsewhere on the course.

[stodge]

pet hate - spaghetti planning 'as an advantage of using electronic punching'

[FatBoy]

Ditto Stodge. There's no excuse for planning a leg such that on a possible route you pass a control you haven't been to yet!

[redkite]

Good planning
Changes of direction
long and short legs
route choice

Pet hates
A course where legs are all similar length and there are no unexpected changes of direction.
Not forgetting controls hidden for the sake of it

[NeilC]

Ditto Stodge. There's no excuse for planning a leg such that on a possible route you pass a control you haven't been to yet!

I would say this is almost impossible. There is always someone who will find a route that you hadn't envisaged - be it leaving the control in the wrong direction, getting hopelessly lost etc. Changing "possible" to "sensible" might be more accurate. Even then I wouldn't rate this as too grave a sin.

[Nails]

Then there is the back to basics argument -while planning is about the design of courses with variation etc that you've all mentioned -its also about getting the controls in the right place!!! This is the primary concern for planners/controllers everything else is everything else!

I'd be more pissed if i ran a course with all the things you've spoke about and then a control was in the wrong place, than a course where legs were all the same length, in a loop, no routechoice, no changes of direction etc, but the controls were all where the planner said they'd be!!!

[ryeland of doom]

Hate of hates:

Doglegs...

Oh the fun of dodging folk coming in through grot as you fight your way out the same time.

Also excess controls.. It has been said that a course can often be improved by leaving one or two out, but beware the points above about route choices between two boring routes and gert great catching features wrecking long legs.

A trick I like is a maze of tricky short legs near the finish to sort out run addled minds.

Best of all no excessive climb for the sake of it, and great scenery.

[King Penguin]

Avoid "bottlenecking" - using the same legs for a significant proportion of lots of different courses. Where this can't be avoided make sure there's sufficient units at the most heaviliy used controls. e.g. at Cold Ash I came across a queue of 6 people clearly from different ages at one control which only had one punch station.
This seems to be most common when getting close to the finish. Not infrequently the last two or three legs turn into a single motorway no matter what course you're on, which can tarnish an otherwise great event.

[Nails]

obviously you've not frequented the o-ringen -its like an autobahn and doesn't 'tarnish' an otherwise great event -because its part of the event!

[graeme]

To be a bit more controversial...

Things you're not supposed to do but are OK to compromise. Obviously on the perfect area the guideline-drafters had in mind you wont need to, but in the real world...

1/ Don't put the flag on a feature. There's no real need to do this if the flag is in the right place. Better to use the features for navigation to the flag (if there aren't many).

2/ Use dog-legs. Sure, they're annoying for the 20sec or so if you see someone leaving the control, but that's not much of a 60min course if they start and end good leg. A really good route choice leg may have people leaving/approaching from many different directions, so dog-legging is inevitable.

3/ Combine controls. The fewer controls you hang, the less likely you are to get one
wrong. As with dog legs, the few seconds of annoyance of seeing people at a control (which is meant to be as visible as the person punching) is much less than that of having a rubbish leg because "we had to use the other feature, which made the trivial route best".

4/ When in doubt - stick the flag up in the air. The guidelines say "if in doubt, don't use it" but in reality to get a good course you need often to go through certain areas where the map is rubbish. Same principle as before, seeing the flag from far off is annoying for a few seconds, but losing minutes because of dodgy mapping, or constraining the course design to avoid crucial areas, is far, far worse.

5/ Use TD1 features: there's no merit in making people fight 40m through brambles to a feature they can see from the path/attackpoint, then back out again (plus its v. unfair on earlier starters).

Graeme

[HOCOLITE]

I like courses that keep path/track runs to the minimum, but accepting they have to happen I'd rather dodge in and out than have one long run. Saying this I'm probably quicker on these or would be if I didn't hate them so much. I also detestlong slogs up hill whether in terrain or on paths, if theycan be broken up by a control or a traverse all the better.
I also think that where there is a good control site planners often overuse it because it is good, and it then becomes less good due to number of courses using it. A control is never as challenging when it has lots of hits cos of tracking up and the viewing of fellow competitors.