Is it compulsory to visit the start kite?

[graeme]

If the idea of the start site is to conceal where runners are going on their first leg

start kite is there to mark a definative point and indicate the start of the orienteering.

Both right. Mharky mentions the FCC - at the medium final I spent about 20 minutes trying to figure where to put the pre-start and -1, -2 boxes so that competitors running the first leg couldn't be seen from either.

In fact, you could see most of the leg from midway between prestart and -1/-2 boxes, but since you only had a minute to walk 100m between them I don't think anyone noticed.

I think its a controllers problem to get it right, being more to do with fairness than orienteering quality.

At my first ever visit to the O-ringen, I ran up a 4-contour hill along tapes from prestart, touched the start kite, then ran back down the tapes through the prestart for a path route to #1. There was some debate as to whether this was legal, but the splits said it was quick

Graeme

[Gross]

Mr Ackland is wrong - as are lots of other people. There is nothing in orienteering that is 'right' if it involves hiding or concealing anything from the competitors!!! Good planning will ensure that route choices at the start are not openly visable to runners yet to start... bad planning will conceal things from runners!!!!

[seabird]

Mr Ackland is wrong - as are lots of other people. There is nothing in orienteering that is 'right' if it involves hiding or concealing anything from the competitors!!! Good planning will ensure that route choices at the start are not openly visable to runners yet to start... bad planning will conceal things from runners!!!!

Gross you have just agreed with what Graeme and myself are saying with your final sentence.

[Gross]

No I didn't Good planning doesn't conceal or hide anything... bad planning does. Both you & G said that the idea of the start kite is to conceal where runners are going....

What I said was different if you read it.... even if it kind of sounds the same and could get the same result... one is by good practise, the other by bad practise

[johnloguk]

Is this the point to mention the controller I once had who snapped the bamboo cane in half to get the kite even lower so no one would see it unless they fell over it

If you navigate to the feature and are on the right side of it you should be able to see the kite, I bet we all agree with that. But is anyone brave enough to admit that they have "tucked the kite away" just a little bit because they thought it would catch people out? I certainly haven't, but I've run a few courses where someone obviously had done .

[graeme]

Mr Ackland is wrong - as are lots of other people. There is nothing in orienteering that is 'right' if it involves hiding or concealing anything from the competitors

Silly me. Remind me to post the courses on nopesport before my next event.

Not sure what constitutes "tucking away". as controller I certainly spend a lot of time moving controls up and down to get a fair sightline (i.e. not visible from miles off in open areas). I generally reckon that from anywhere in the circle either the flag or a mapped feature should be visible. If not the flag is too low.

[seabird]

[quote="Gross"] Both you & G said that the idea of the start kite is to conceal where runners are going....

WRONG!!!! (to quote)

This is getting tiresome. There is no disagreement just misreading of what has been written.

[johnloguk]

Graeme my view of a fair control is exactly the same as yours. Once you have navigated to the control circle you should be able to see the feature or the kite. I guess in very complex areas this might not be possible, but then at least you should see other features very close to the kite.

By "tucking away" I mean putting it right under a rhododendron bush, or so deep in a pit that you can't see it until you are on top of it. I would certainly try to push them lower if they were visible from miles away, but pits are often difficult to spot from 25metres away.

We could have a completely new thread on interpretation of the rules and consistency of planning/controlling, but then we could also have one on the varying qualities of drying paint

[John Morris]

I've been neglecting nopesport recently - during my absence we seem to have relapsed into mediaeval scholastic dispute.

As an average plodder, I understand that once I've heard the whistle, punched/dibbed/palmed the start control and collected a map - in whatever order - I am then free to navigate where I will, subject to to just one constraint (the presence of on-ground OOB markers, tapes and/or on-map OOB indicators) and with just one objective in mind (reaching the next control site as expeditiously as possible).

The term "expeditious" in the above may be elaborated endlessly by those so minded to reflect subtleties of terrain, stamina, scenery, tactics and (even) personal satisfaction/enjoyment...

Is there more to it than that?

[Gnitworp]

I understand that once I've heard the whistle, punched/dibbed/palmed the start control and collected a map - in whatever order - I am then free to navigate where I will, ------------------------------- and with just one objective in mind (reaching the next control site as expeditiously as possible).

Exactly.

As I see it, there are just 2 sensible options for the planner:

either have a 'start' kite on a defined feature visible from the pre-start and pointed out to competitors on the start line,

or , if you must have a taped route, make sure it's exactly on all the sensible routes to all the first controls.

If you can't do either of these, rethink your pre-start location. Don't design 'in' problems you can't legislate against, design them 'out'.