Planning for juniors

[Gross]

The start kite should always be on a definate feature. A 'few metres down the path' is wrong.

[NeilC]

We have always been perfectly happy sticking controls on paths, earthwalls etc (rather than path bend, earthwall end, path/earthwall junction etc) and I have no problem with this so long as the feature can be cleanly navigated to. I don't suppose the IOF rules that you mentioned in another post are any more relaxed on this subject?

[seabird]

The start kite should always be on a definate feature. A 'few metres down the path' is wrong.

And what's more definite than "Path" or if there happen to be other paths in the triangle "West Path", "East Path" etc

[Gross]

Lots of things are more definate than 'path'. Where on the path - you don't have controls on rides or roads or paths you have them somewhere definate like ride end etc.

Having the start kite on 'the path' is wrong.

[drobin]

The control descriptions, at least for the Blue, at the BKO District/Yvette Baker Trophy Final on Sunday, did not have a description for the start. It was about 400m along a wide ride (which we had walked up from the car park). Due to the thickness of forest either side, the only logical route on starting was to continue along the ride for 150m to the first 'feature', a right angle bend, where I think a control (White course?) was situated. So did the td1/2 courses have a start description? If not was its omission because 'ride' would have been unacceptable?

[Red Adder]

I see nothing wrong with a path as the start feature. In fact unless the rules / guidelines state that the start must be on a point or intersection of line features then for TD1 / TD2 courses by implication the control must be along a line feature. For TD1/2 it leads towards control #1. For other courses the centre of the triangle (which presumably has been accurately measured and tagged and positioning of the kite not left to the whim of the start team) gives opportunity to accurately set the bearing to #1.

[Snail]

... you don't have controls on rides or roads or paths, you have them somewhere definate like ride end etc.

This idea appears quite common outside the UK - although I 've never understood the logic behind it. There is no reason why the a control can't be reasonably accurately sited along a line feature, particularly man-made features such as paths.

Once you start extending the same logic to less distinct features - such as earthbanks or erosion gullies - it can get even more ridiculous. Insisting on using "gully end" - when the end is by definition the point where the mapper regards it as being insufficiently distinguishable from the surrounding terrain - rather than a point further along the gully where it will be obvious if you cross it, is surely nonsense

[EddieH]

I have been rereading the rules following Gross's insistence on not using line features for control sites. I cannot find any reference to this.

A control is there to end or start a good leg. Sometimes a point on a line feature fulfills that. After all we use reentrants and spurs all the time, and most of those ARE line features.

[Gross]

Eddie, I never said anything about not using line features as control sites. What I said was the START KITE should be on a defined point. So clearly placing the Start Kite somewhere on 'a path' is not a defined mapped feature.

[NeilC]

Which is why your friendly IOF advisor will insist you call it re-entrant upper part!

I suspect that Red Adder's presumption that planners accurately use pacing or trigonometry to decide on the location of a control on a line feature is not water tight. Many will base the location on neighbouring features, others will simply make an estimate. For a TD1/2 courses this is probably not an issue. For someone taking a bearing 10-20m out is significant.

I agree with Eddie that things like ride and gully ends are often a nightmare for mappers, planners, controllers and competitors.

[Gnitworp]

Eddie, I never said anything about not using line features as control sites. What I said was the START KITE should be on a defined point. So clearly placing the Start Kite somewhere on 'a path' is not a defined mapped feature.

Am I missing something?

How is a start kite different from any other control marker as a point of 'embarkation' to the first or next control?

[johnloguk]

There is nothing like an argument about rules to stir up a bunch of orienteers

To put my own soap box slant on all this I would add that a course can be perfectly within the rules but still be a bad one from the point of view of the paying punter, so my bottom line isn't whether or not it (including the start kite) is within the rules, but is it fair?

You can have every control in the right place, but it can still be boring. If the map is dodgy the whole experience can be a pain. Juniors can have a perfectly planned course rules wise but if the tracks/paths chosen are a quagmire or overgrown it ain't fun. Are junctions as obvious on the ground as on the nice clear OCAD screen etc?

I think a lot of this goes back to another of Gross' threads about planning too much by computer instead of getting out into the wood and getting a feel for the place, that is the "art" of course planning for me, not sticking rigidly to rules. There are lots of subtleties in terrain, you need to get out there to see them, not slavishly stare at OCAD for inspiration.

I think placing the start kite simply "on the path" is perfectly acceptable if it is in the right place. 20 or 30 metres this way or that might not make much difference to courses that continue straight on to the first junction, but anyone heading off on a bearing from the start kite will hope it hasn't been placed there at random!

Going back to planning for juniors. The most important tip I ever got for planning for juniors was to think about the course from their height, not 6 foot up (yes I know there are some tall juniors ), and that is equally as important as sticking to the rules.

[NeilC]

I've met planners who felt that TD2 courses ought to be easy and so put controls at every decision point, and many more who felt that they ought to be more difficult and so stick controls in pits or behind bushes off a path. That's why the rules and guidelines are there, and why planners should stick to them. Interesting and challenging courses can, must and should be planned within this framework not outside it.

Gross wasn't for one minute suggesting the OCAD screen as an alternative to forest work. The best legs are planned by a combination of knowing the area and seeing the map from the competitor's perspective.

[johnloguk]

That's why the rules and guidelines are there, and why planners should stick to them. Interesting and challenging courses can, must and should be planned within this framework not outside it.

Gross wasn't for one minute suggesting the OCAD screen as an alternative to forest work. The best legs are planned by a combination of knowing the area and seeing the map from the competitor's perspective.

I wasn't saying that planners should ignore rules, simply that you can slavishly follow rules and still have horrible courses, there is more to a good course than being within rules and guidelines. For instance, planners rightly ignore the rule about placing controls on every decision point to avoid 6 controls in 100 metres when there are lots of paths.

The rules are always being tweaked as new situations come up, and when I did my controllers course I was told to be aware of anomalies and use common sense as well as rules and guidelines to produce fair courses.

Planners who do daft things like hide controls in pits behind bushes on yellow courses should be sorted out by their controller, although I'm sure they would say they were within rules because the kite was at a prominent feature right next to a line feature

As for quoting Gross, I think you misunderstood me. I know Gross wasn't suggesting OCAD screens as an alternative to forest time, I think he was saying the same as me, don't let the computer take over from valuable time in the forest. What looks a great course, within the rules, on the screen doesn't always work on the ground.

[NeilC]

For instance, planners rightly ignore the rule about placing controls on every decision point to avoid 6 controls in 100 metres when there are lots of paths.

Interesting, so how is the TD1 competitor expected to navigate between the two controls in such a situation? Presumably look ahead, see a control and run to it - hardly good practice. If a TD1 leg can't be planned then tape it.

If there are anomolies in the rules and guidelines then let your rules group representative know about them. Unfortunately "common sense" is commonly applied but not always sensibly.