Planning for C5s

[johnloguk]

I was going to add this to the thread on Planning for Juniors, but at the last minute thought it was far more wide ranging and warranted it's own.

I wonder what the views are on C5 events, specifically the courses on offer and the lack of controlling at most of them? Are they a mess or a fine example of clubs being creative?

Some clubs stick rigidly to course planning guidelines and offer limited colour coded courses at their C5s, others develop their own "rules" for courses usually described as "short", "medium" and "long".

One of the most enjoyable summer leagues around is the HALO Lincolnshire Poacher Series, which has "short" and "long" courses, where the only real difference between them is length. Logic would suggest that this isn't condusive to beginners, but actually most appear to cope perfectly well, and I think The Poacher has been the major source of new members for the club.

A few years ago LOG copied the format exactly, but we've since tweaked it a bit to try an appeal to a wider audience. We now have a "short", which is effectively an "orangey-yellow", a "long" which is basically a 5-6km red, and a "technical" which is often a green, but could also turn out to be map memory, brown features only, score, windows, corridors or any combination of the aforesaid.

This seems to work, attendances go up every year, but I can see issues over consistency of courses when compared to colour coded course guidelines. Are we confusing the punters or are we being creative and attracting people who would otherwise be put off by courses named after colours?

Internally our guidelines for courses are quite strict now on technicality and length, after we had problems with the short course getting too difficult for complete beginners, but they are nothing like as strict as they could be and aren't controlled. We do have a series co-ordinator though who tries to keep an overview on things.

C5s tend to be planned and organised by 1 person, getting controllers for all your C5s would be impossible for most clubs I guess, but does this lead to inconsistency, and if so are the inconsistencies really an issue? I accept that planning C5s is most people's first experience of planning, so there is an argument for starting off right and following guidelines from the start, but is it practical?

My gut feeling is that C5s don't need to strictly adhere to colour coded course guidelines (street-O anyone?), or be controlled.

Advertising "white", "orange" and "green" courses means a lot to orienteers but nothing to newcomers. It also puts extra pressure on planners to follow guidelines and sets them up to criticism if they stray. Personally I think that having people available to talk to newcomers and explain the process is more important than perfectly consistent courses, and "post race analysis" in a nearby pub (garden for kids if possible) is a requirement too

[NeilC]

My own club runs four C5 leagues, the Spring and Autumn ones have yellow/orange/green and blue courses which correspond closely to BOF guidelines. All courses are "arm-chair controlled" by an experienced planner. It is accepted that mistakes will be made and it's a great way to get new planners. A summer park league is aimed at juniors and again follows BOF guidelines - again armchair controlled. Finally a summer evening league offers variety such as corridors, phone-O, micrO plus other variants that break many rules. Very rarely controlled.

I suggest that if you intend calling a course "orange" then it should follow orange/TD3 guidelines to maintain consistency.

Other leagues in the SE use courses A,B,C etc. Some explantion of difficulty is helpful though (very easy / easy / medium / difficult). These need not fit a particular colour but should hopefully fit the basic principles of fairness (ie don't hide controls, and try and place the kite by the feature shown in the centre of the control circle).

Producing a short guide explaning the basic principles of planning can help novice planners who may not wish to plough through all the rules and regulations. An example of such a guide can be found at: http://www.southdowns-orienteers.org.uk/sog_planning.pdf

[Rich R]

If the C5's are part of a series/league consistancy particularly in the shorter courses aimed at beginners is important. Once beginners have run one or two courses of a given standard if its suddenly quite a lot harder they may be put off. For other, longer courses it is less important.

The experience of the planner also makes a difference. For our (NOC) summer leagues we often use new/inexperienced planners but give them some one to check courses, make sure they have done all the things they need to and help control on the day etc. With experienced controllers they should be competant enough.

[SeanC]

We had the same sort of discussion in our club last week. For our C5's should we go to colour coded courses or stick with the existing "easy, intermediate and difficult" courses? We thought it was better to stick with the status quo because

a) beginners and non orienteers relate more to "easy, intermediate and difficult" than colours
b) the little bit of extra work involved with planning and organising colour courses (calculating the colour times, keeping up with documentation on standards etc).

I think this issue is the fundamental issue with the sport. We all agree we should have as many C5's as possible, so lets make them low tech and easy to put on as possible. But we also want electronic punching, pre-marked maps, coaching, publicity, good quality maps, consistent planning standards, different forests each week, a nice assembly area, courses for different abilities etc etc, - And we all agree it should be really cheap

I dunno what the answer is. In my club, if someone is organising/planning a C5 for the first time they are given an advisor to guide them through the event in as friendly and low key way as possible, this seems to work well but no-doubt there are still events where beginners courses start on a path junction. Also our organisers dont seem to have a problem getting volunteers to help on the day as the events are all low key and not too stressed.

[PeteL]

Danger that this thread won't go very far as we all seem to be agreeing with each other!

In our club, GRAMP, we've also been discussing C5s. My feeling is that where possible they should be used to encourage innovation at the more technical end in order to make best use of areas that struggle to offer a challenge to experienced orienteers and to get away from the 'routine' full map, line courses at C4 and above. GRAMP is now aiming to add coherence to this approach by using club coaches to structure innovation by giving planners guidance on a particular technique for each event. Obviously, it's important to give less experienced planners support and we have discussed producing a document simliar to the SO link above - thanks for the steer, Neil C!

I agree that ensuring consistency for the less technical courses is important and that's why GRAMP guidelines for our summer league (18 events in 2007, is this a record?) require Yellow and Orange standard courses in addition to the 'technical' course(s)

[Oldman]

C5s should be almost exclusively aimed at "local" potential participants. I therefore think the nomenclature used should be left to the local organising Club and its knowledge of existing and potential new participants (although they should remember that, as said above, colour codes don't mean anything to complete newcomers until the concept is explained).

However, since the colour codes are intended to create some degree of consistency across the country, I think a Club should only use colour codes if the courses so described conform with the guidelines for that colour.

[roadrunner]

If I understand the guidelines correctly, a C5 event is any cross-country event that isn't a C1 to C4 - so, if we're to allow innovation at all, it can't be mandatory to have courses that correspond with the standard colours. Having said that, I agree with Oldman that, if the courses do use the colour designations, they should be to the correct standard, and whatever they're called, there should be some consistency between events in a given league. But if people want to try a different format from usual - why not?

[Marco Polo]

I agree that ensuring consistency for the less technical courses is important and that's why GRAMP guidelines for our summer league (18 events in 2007, is this a record?) require Yellow and Orange standard courses in addition to the 'technical' course(s)

Hmm, Not sure about the record, but that is an impressive series of events! LEI and OD both have extensive summer series. In 2005 LEI organised 19 competitive events + some training and a joint event with OD. I think OD had even more planned in 2006 but had to cancel some events.

MP

[PMG]

Just to be boring:

In 2006 OD staged 38 C5 or S5 events, 4 x C4 and 1 x C3 = 43 events. Plus 2 Schools Festivals via the work GG is doing for us.

I organised a C5 last Saturday and it was really pleasing that some of the competitors had come as a result of information picked up at the Kenilworth Schools O festival the week before.

Peter G

[AndyO]

In answer to the original post, in my experience, C5s are certainly not a mess, but are able to provide a wide range of experiences according to the needs of each club.

Sometimes they can be simply mini colour coded events, offering a reduced choice of courses but catering for as wide a range of technical ability as the terrain will allow. Sometimes they can be used for technical training, with courses designed to focus on specific techniques. They may be a mixture of both, as PeteL has pointed out, with courses for less experienced (TD1 or 2) and training courses for others. To support the technique training, our club (like Gramp) encourages innovation in planning, using contour-only, line courses, map memory, or no-compass control picking.

We have our weekly Night series (long, short courses, both TD5) run jointly with Gramp from January to end March, then we follow up with a Spring training series focusing on different techniques each week.

I don't think they need to be "controlled" as such, but colour-coded courses must be planned to standard, and technique training courses should be planned/overseen by experienced coaches, with shadowing available for less experienced runners where necessary. It is also important that someone is available to discuss the course afterwards to reinforce the lessons learned. Pubs might be OK for older runners, but not for families/younger competitors.

Above all, C5s should be fun, so clubs should be encouraged to try out different formats, give budding officials some experience and attract newcomers. The increasing popularity of these events (at least in the north-east of Scotland) is testimony that the format is working, and families especially support these events where they can be more reluctant to travel further afield for a C4 event.

[SeanC]

I'm surprised we've not had the MADO viewpoint on this thread along the lines of

"beginners courses are more effective when there are lots of helpers to help the beginners"

and

"beginners courses need beginners, so local events need publicity"

Since everyone is being far too agreeable what would be better for a typical mid sized club: a 20 event C5 series, or a 10 event MADO style C5 series with intensive publicity and coaching?

[Mrs H.]

Oh I am sorry - it's a very busy time of year for us house wives you know

My view is (and this is just my view) that C5s are the point of entry into the sport but with sufficient help on hand they should be a proper introduction to the sport as it really is. You shouldn't teach a child to speak by using words they are not going to use in later life like 'Moo-cow" and "Bah-lamb" -what's the point. You use the proper terms (in this insance colour coded) and explain them properly. BOF actually produce a very good leaflet which does this

I think it's important for newcomers to see the sport as it really is - proper courses planned to the guidelines on proper terrain with experiencd orienteers doing hard courses along side the beginners.

This has the Extra Value of having the experinced orinteers on hand to help the newcomers before their proper run (so they don't mind giving up an extra hal;f hour/hour and get a half price proper run) and he newcomers can go out and look at some TD4/5 controls if they like - after thir TD2/3 courses if they like.

It also gives a "real feel" to the event and shows them what the progression in the sport is. It's also great for me when someone like Tess turns up in her MADO t-shirt and I can show her off to the newbies

We have planners and controllers - and try to plan a more experienced one with a less experienced other - I don't much care which way round. We have not had a problem finding officials and Me and Mr H. do ALL the organisation - except where other events are attached like Western Night League of Hereford and Worcester schools Champs (or both together!) then Hocolite and Ancient Grouse are highly involved.

I'll get back to making mincemeat (of Christmas) now

[Gross]

speak by using words they are not going to use in later life like 'Moo-cow" and "Bah-lamb" -what's the point.

Hate to disagree with you Mrs H but the above words are in common usage. I think it's all I managed to say all last night:)

[johnloguk]

That's better

It's starting to feel like a proper Nopesport thread now, all that consensus was starting to unsettle me