Distance measurement over different terrain

[Neil M35]

I was interested to hear how everyone else estimates distance through thick forest? What different values do you use when pace counting over different terrain? I know everyone's different, but I'm interested in the scaling factors (i.e. uphill over rough terrain is x2.5, contouring through very thick forest is x2, or whatever the factors are).

I tried pacing as a junior and could never really make it work. Since then I have just guessed and that works fine for me. No sums involved. Really I am always looking for anything on the map to take the guesswork out of it.

[seabird]

Only really find pace counting useful when heading for a bingo control - a pretty indeterminate control in a largely or completely featureless area.

Neil's right - developing your map reading skills will be of more help. Pace counting is very rough and ready off an even surface. If you really need to use it, reserve it for when you are proceeding slowly and are not taking long strides. Handling different ratios etc for varying terrains would be mentallly taxing if you've been running hard. I'd find myself slowing to do the maths!

[runnerbean]

I think pace counting can be very useful and knowing how far you've gone, even if it's only a rough estimate, can give you more confidence when trying to relate terrain and map.

We had a training session on pace counting last summer, but unfortunately no-one got on to the "extreme pace counting" exercise!

I know how many paces I take for 100m on flat paths (36 - not a very nice round number), and tend to just round it up rather unscientifically to 40 for flat runnable forest. If I'm reduced to a walk (either due to runnability or gradient), I tend to give up pace counting altogether. I'd like to know how to scale my paces for moderate uphill and downhill path running (running along a track for a certain distance, then heading in to forest is a technique I end up using quite frequently in the SE), I just haven't got round to checking it.

[candyman]

I'd be interested to know what you are supposed to do when you have been pace counting on a compass bearing and come to the place that you calculate the control should be. Keep on running until you hit something? Turn around and head back from where you came? Wander aimlessly? Start a grid pattern search?

Perhaps better distance estimation would help but perhaps the confidence problem comes instead from not 'contacting' with enough features along the way to know where you are. The further you have travelled with passing a 'known point' (a point where you can pinpoint exactly where you are on the map) the less certain you will be of where you are, the lower your confidence will be, the slower you will move and the more likely you are to make a mistake.

If you read about how Thierry Geourgiou orienteers he 'flows' from point to point and feature to feature with slight deviations from side to side to touch on known points and keep his confidence and speed high. Of course when faced with a long distance through incredibly vague terrain it is necessary to be very disciplined with compass and direction but it is still important to have a plan as to how you will collect yourself at the end of that section, which may include but probably shouldn't rely on pace counting.

Hopefully our planners and controllers are educated well enough to avoid 'bingo' controls

[runnerbean]

I'd be interested to know what you are supposed to do when you have been pace counting on a compass bearing and come to the place that you calculate the control should be.

You do the same as you would if you weren't pace-counting, but didn't find the control where you expected - relocate as best you can! But those situations should be less common if your distance judgement is better.
Just because there are no features between your attack point and the control, doesn't necessarily make finding the control a game of bingo. If you can be expected to find the control using accurate compass and pace-counting then it's a fair one. I don't think anyone would suggest that pace counting should be your only (or even main) navigational technique - it's just useful.

[candyman]

Perhaps my first sentence was a bit facetious, but I still think an orienteer is better served by looking for more contact points on a leg so that they know their exact position rather than spending too much time trying to refine pace counting technique and distance judgement when it can only ever give you a rough estimate of your position.

Perhaps your idea of an attackpoint is different to mine but my definition of a bingo control is that it has no attackpoint... that you have to rely solely on compass/direction from a distance where you can not reasonably expect to pass within sight of the feature, that distance would of course differ depending on visibility and runnability of the terrain.

If you have a plan of how you are going to collect yourself at the end of a section run on compass and have a picture in your head of what you are going to see then it is possible to run with more confidence, some will combine that with pace counting others may not, either way I'd argue first of all make sure you are doing the former before spending a whole lot of time and effort on the latter.

[HOCOLITE]

I rarely use pace counting, because I started as a geographer so use the map and features(probably too much), but I have found it very useful at night when Ifor has planned and you have to go a fair distance into the undergrowth, and there are more ditches on the ground than on the map.

[Big Jon]

I am sure most orienteers start with pace counting as an aid to distance measurement, particularly as it is often taught as a specific technique to beginners. However it is not very accurate (+/- 10% would be very good even on a level path), it takes up a lot of brain processing power, and is very susceptible to forgetting the number or being affected by an obstruction - thicket, gully, crag, steep slope, undergrowth... etc.... The next step for an aspiring orienteer is to start using distance estimation - based on a feeling of how far one has gone - this involves many factors - a time based element, noting all features that are passed etc. It is as accurate as pacing, but takes little brain power - good for me! - (and not in a specific way, more as part of a general noting of all features and holding them in a 3-D picture in your mind).
As was noted earlier in this discussion, Thierry Georgiou "flows" from point to point and feature to feature - thus does not need to rely on such a crude technique as pacing. Juha Peltola (WOC silver medal middle distance Scotland 1999) - asked how he orienteered stated "I run as fast as I can and I READ EVERYTHING ON THE MAP" (my highlight).
It is this reading of all detail on the map and the ground that makes these guys such great orienteers, how much does the average orienteer read - 20%, 30%??
Aim high - learn from the best orienteers in the world - and practice your "reading all features" and "flow" in the forest - you'll come a cropper a few times but ultimately you will learn to orienteer like the best in the world.... and know what - you'll improve your results massively!

[Adventure Racer]

Though Thierry presumably has the advantage of doing most if not all of his orienteering on maps where there is enough detail to make that possible. The problem ordinary orienteers in the UK have is that that's often not the case. I've actually never really learnt pace counting - tried once or twice, but never really worked it out, hence I can struggle when it's something I need to do. Reading this thread suggests it's something I should put off learning for ever rather than just until I can be bothered.

[runnerbean]

In theory, (as opposed to Thierry), if you practice pace-counting enough, it should become almost subconscious and therefore require very little mental effort (but I can't say I've ever reached this nirvana-like state).
Reading everything on the map?! What happened to the traffic light technique and map simplification? Are they old-hat?
I can't say I agree with Big Jon - I can get better than 10% accuracy on a level path - and given that you're only going to be pace-counting for short distances (max 200m), 10% accuracy through forest takes you within 20m, which should be good enough if the feature and flag-hanging are fair.

[Neil M35]

Reading everything on the map?! What happened to the traffic light technique and map simplification? Are they old-hat?

Traffic lights/simplification are a necessity rather than an ideal - trying to read everything on the map for the whole course is going to slow most people down (not to mention exploding their brains) so you have to look for where it is appropriate to try. If you could read everything on the map without slowing down then you would have a big advantage.

Once you can find controls consistently and accurately with a traffic lights type approach then it would be good to be able to increase the speed of the red phase without any loss of accuracy, or increase the detail level of the green phase without any loss of speed. If you take the process to its extremes then the phases all merge into one high speed/high detail phase with slight variations in shade.

Whether you see Thierry as red or green depends on whether he is coming towards you or going away from you.