Routegadget - Lyme Park

[epocian]

Looking at the winner's route on the Short Course at Lyme Park it would appear he chose to ignore
the instructions not to cross any walls 'only use marked crossing points' thereby taking a much more direct line. It now begs the question should he be disqualified retrospectively? As he won by only 8 secs the second placed runner should have every reason to feel slightly miffed

[graeme]

Looking at the course it appears the uncrossable walls weren't properly marked on the map (see recent focus). This affected the result. So in the unlikely event that anyone cares that much, the course should be voided .

[Gross]

Void, void, void:) Obviously it does nothing to promote our sport as a fair competition. Only by voiding such things will we create fairness

[DM]

Looking at the course it appears the uncrossable walls weren't properly marked on the map (see recent focus). This affected the result. So in the unlikely event that anyone cares that much, the course should be voided .

This incident was spotted last night almost as soon as the route was posted. I can't believe that anyone who had read the details would then broadcast the fact that they crossed a wall where they should not have done, so the assumption must be that the runner did not read the details.

One thing which is being considered for future events here is to mark the maps as you suggest.

The event itself was a charity fun event and once again was a success.

[EddieH]

This has come up AGAIN.

Compulsory items MUST be marked on the map a) for fairness, and b) to keep good relationships with the landowners.

[Gnitworp]

I've said this many times before, but placing a control at a compulsory crossing point that all competitors must pass through anyway guarantees they do so. If not antagonising landowners etc, etc really is important, why don't planners do this, or at least site a control so that the obvious fastest route passes through the crossing point?

There used to be a BOF Guideline recommending doing just this.

Rather than post-event hand wringing at iniquitous transgressing competitors, why not make it impossible for them to gain advantage by cheating in the first place?

[NeilC]

I've said this many times before, but placing a control at a compulsory crossing point....

Three possible reasons why not to:

1) Allowing competitors a choice of crossing points has been a valid route choice option for several courses that I've run in heavily walled terrain.

2) If a course has 10+ crossing points then an SI-card could fill up pretty quickly

3) A lot more effort for the planner

More use needs to be made of the uncrossable overprint. Competitors are generally pretty good at avoiding settlement or striped OOB areas. Those that want to cheat will do - after all with a laptop and masterstation it's pretty straightforward to download your splits onto your SI card in the comfort of your car without the hassle of actually running the course.

[Adventure Racer]

after all with a laptop and masterstation it's pretty straightforward to download your splits onto your SI card in the comfort of your car without the hassle of actually running the course.

I reckon you'd still need to run the course first in order to come up with a plausible set of splits though.

[Scott]

Well, quite - the cunning thing to do would be to run the course first, then nip back to your car between the finish and download to make a few creative adjustments to the times on the SI card. That way you also get to arrive at download all muddy and sweaty, rather than suspiciously clean and dry...

[Gnitworp]

I've said this many times before, but placing a control at a compulsory crossing point....

Three possible reasons why not to:

1) Allowing competitors a choice of crossing points has been a valid route choice option for several courses that I've run in heavily walled terrain.

2) If a course has 10+ crossing points then an SI-card could fill up pretty quickly

3) A lot more effort for the planner

Depends on your priorities.

It still absolutely prevents cheating (outside software wizardry), and where possible, in my book, should be encouraged. I've always done it.

I'm not advocating it as a hard and fast rule, but as a desirable principle; after all, the BOF Guidelines used to 'think' it was.

Re point 1: isn't the 'validity' of a leg questionable if advantage can easily be gained by crossing a forbidden area or barrier or using a forbidden track or road undetected? Plan, if at all possible, to avoid giving people the opportunity, especially if it could result in the loss of an area. For instance, if there's an unfenced out of bounds area, don't plan your courses so that people are encouraged to cross it.

[DM]

Pity this thread about a fun event to raise money for a charity seems to have degenerated into hints on how to cheat.

A few facts;
1) On the short course there were 15 controls and the number to be visited was between 11 and 13, depending on age.
2) You could visit controls in any order except for the last which was to line people up for the finish.
3) The areas consists of several blocks, all had plenty marked crossing which are not on the routegadget map but were on the event map.
4) The short course passed through blocks with 27 crossings, some blocks had up to 9 crossings available.
5)The finish was manned and differences between the people finishing each course at the end of the run and at the presentation of prizes would be noticed.

I struggle to see how compulsory controls at crossing would help in this case, 27 of them? I do see a case for them on conventional courses.

[IanW]

The problem is that this was a variant of a score event so

Controls at crossing points wouldn't work (without a very intelligent download program)

Large numbers of walls and fences would have needed marking - look at the Lyme Park map - it would have been virtually unreadable if everything uncrossable had been marked with a red line

Every competitor (vehicle anyway) was handed the rules which they needed to read to some extent to work out which course to do and how. This stated that crossing points must be used.

Personally, I think it would be much better if the accepted rule was that anything marked on the map as uncrossable must not be crossed except at a crossing point. The red line should only be needed for things which are apparently crossable (and marked on the map as such) but, for some reason associated with a particular event, are forbidden. How many times would one want to set a course where competitors were encouraged to cross a boundary that the mapper had deemed to be uncrossable? This itself would almost certainly be unfair on all but the most agile of competitors. (Incidentally the wall in question is not one I would have readily attempted - 8ft high?!)

This was a youngster who, as DM said, almost certainly wouldn't have broadcast his transgression if he had known it was wrong. Maybe parents/group leaders should make sure they convey any important aspect of final details to their charges.

Ian

[Godders]

Personally, I think it would be much better if the accepted rule was that anything marked on the map as uncrossable must not be crossed except at a crossing point. The red line should only be needed for things which are apparently crossable (and marked on the map as such) but, for some reason associated with a particular event, are forbidden. How many times would one want to set a course where competitors were encouraged to cross a boundary that the mapper had deemed to be uncrossable? This itself would almost certainly be unfair on all but the most agile of competitors. (Incidentally the wall in question is not one I would have readily attempted - 8ft high?!)

But the map symbol is high "you will find this difficult to cross" and not "uncrossable" - only when it has the added red line is it "you are not allowed to cross this". However much you put in final details competitors don't run round reading them.

[IanW]

But the map symbol is high "you will find this difficult to cross" and not "uncrossable" - only when it has the added red line is it "you are not allowed to cross this". However much you put in final details competitors don't run round reading them.

I stand corrected, the ISOM2000 specification is indeed 'high'. However, it then (for both fences and walls) says "not crossable to the average orienteer" which is pretty close to uncrossable. I think my question still stands. Does it make sense (and is it fair) to set courses which encourage competitors to make such a crossing? If not then nothing would be lost by making the rule that such features must not be crossed except at a crossing point.

Ian

[slang]

Sadly this also occurred on the long course between 3 and 4. It only gained the competitor about 10 seconds. Was his 10 seconds worth the risk of damaging the fence and putting future events in jeopardy.