BOC 2008 maps - Stupid Decision

[RichT]

I think it is fair to say that the decision making process as to map scales has lacked clarity, and that this has been recognised by various committees and groups within BO.
Although it has not attracted much comment, there is apparently a similar situation with the map scales for JK Day 2 on Leith Hill where the one size fits all approach is being applied.

I would hope that a positive to come out of this is that some rules(?)/recommendations(?) will be put in place to remove any ambiguity over map scales in future years. The sport is constantly evolving and this debate should be seen as being productive.

[graeme]

assuming the Planners' / Controllers' final decision is the same as their original proposal, what was the justification / authority to override that original intention ?

Well, the BOF site notice includes the mapper AND coordinator in the decision making process. Assuming both of them concur that could give a sizeable majority if the Planners/ Controllers weren't in agreement.

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

RichT and others have commented that out of this should come rules/guidelines etc for the future.

They already exist: the guideline for the British Elite Champiponships says:
The map scale for the Middle distance race should be 1:10,000.
The map scale for the Long distance race should be 1:15,000.

Harry commented that there aren't many opportunities these days for the elite to practise on 1:15000 maps in UK - I guess they could be said to be being disadvantaged.

[awk]

RichT and others have commented that out of this should come rules/guidelines etc for the future.
They already exist: the guideline for the British Elite Champiponships says:
The map scale for the Middle distance race should be 1:10,000.
The map scale for the Long distance race should be 1:15,000.

the guidelines also cross-refer to the rules, which state that 1:10k can be used in complex terrain.

What this may indicate is a need to decouple the Elite races from non-Elite; after all the Elite classes are effectively a separate event, the British Elite Champs, which happen this year (to some over-35s annoyance!) to be at the same event as the age class championships. They obviously have certain needs, and I respect those, but they shouldn't then dictate what happens to the rest of us (and, of course, vice-versa). So, if the elite need a 1:15k map, even if the area is very complex and normally justifying 1:10k, then go ahead, but don't then require the rest to effectively follow in tandem. In Sweden last year, whilst we M45s had 1:10k, the super-super vets (c. M/W80+) had 1:5k, and from what I heard that was really appreciated.

However, I suspect from one or two elite comments (including Harry's) that needs and wants are two separate things!

[greywolf]

RichT and others have commented that out of this should come rules/guidelines etc for the future.
They already exist: the guideline for the British Elite Champiponships says:
The map scale for the Middle distance race should be 1:10,000.
The map scale for the Long distance race should be 1:15,000.
Harry commented that there aren't many opportunities these days for the elite to practise on 1:15000 maps in UK - I guess they could be said to be being disadvantaged.

That's one issue (settled early on when it was recognised that Culbin was an exceptional case) - but it wasn't the one under debate here, which was whether or not M/W45+ (& M/W16-) should get a map at an enlarged scale / with enlarged symbols cf that provided for the elite and the rest of M/W18-40.

Confusion of the two issues may have been part of the problem, thankfully now resolved.

And I'll be very happy to plan courses, hang controls and even produce maps at whatever scale required for Harry or any other Squad members who want to train round Culbin after April 20th

[graeme]

the British Elite Champs, which happen this year (to some over-35s annoyance!)...

Indeed. Why can't we run both the major races of the year?

But the levy discussion suggests we could split into two events and all that would remain is the small issue of racing 26km in a day ... and coping with the change of scale

[greywolf]

all that would remain is the small issue of racing 26km in a day

Or maybe make a long (May BH?) weekend of it: Elite champs (& some middle distance open public races) on the saturday, Age group champs on the Sunday (the elite can join in as training), relays on the monday...

As i understand it you only get to do both at the moment if the area chosen for BOC is too rubbish for the elite, who then get to play somewhere nice - must be better to make sure that every British Champion has to win in the best terrain

[EddieH]

I am a fan of the event moving around for several reasons, not least that terrain that was rejected as too trivial at the time when the events were first split are sometimes rated highly now. Variety is the spice of life, and orienteering's greatest asset.
Secondly we do far more than our fair share of putting on major events in Scotland, and I don't want the load increased even more.
Last time (I think) we had the Elite long distance race separate, it was up here, but was hardly a showcase for the sport - I came in the top 40 for heavens' sake - and as for atmosphere it felt like a squad training day. The course was great but most of the people I spoke to would rather have had an "event" shared with BOC.

[SJC]

Indeed. Why can't we run both the major races of the year?

Because if it was a true Elite Championships you wouldn't make the selection cut-off ?

[graeme]

Because if it was a true Elite Championships you wouldn't make the selection cut-off ?

True, but in the real world I got seeded last year . I'm not sure if there's selection at Culbin, the
usual UK cup points system wouldn't be very fair as the people who would be on the borderline are getting
chucked off elite at the JK.

Last time (I think) we had the Elite long distance race separate, it was up here, but was hardly a showcase for the sport

Also true, but last year's UK cup final elite races were far superior in terms of the field to the BEOCs, and generally far superior
technically to BEOC (Scarborough perhaps excepted). They were the races elites and selectors took seriously: none of the BEOC men's champions even got on the WOC team for their discipline. It could have been a showcase.

[Mrs H]

the report of the appeal panel is now on line - it certainly isn't a boring document:
A couple of phrases stand out - one being

No evidence was available to discern the view of the
membership – it was recognised that around 20 people had
expressed views on Nopesport but committee members were
aware that these are the ‘noisy’ ones and not necessarily
reflective of the membership as a whole

Mmm "Noisy"? I think "vocal" might have been a better choice of word and either way 20 views are 20 views.

Also it describes the staging of BOC as a "Delegated task" not a "franchise opportunity" and states that some clubs have had problems understanding this. I would have to give those definitions some serious thought before i could work out the real difference between them - have to say on the surface it doesn't sound much fun from an organisational point of view.

It also states that the map group's original decision stands which seems to be at odds with the eventual outcome which makes you wonder whether the appeal panel actually had any powers at all.

can't spend any more time on it as i have an event to organise tomorrow - but i'd be interested to know what the rest of you make of it.

[Marco Polo]

It also states that the map group's original decision stands which seems to be at odds with the eventual outcome which makes you wonder whether the appeal panel actually had any powers at all.

Looks like that is dealt with in the final section- 'so thats it' ?

agree- it is very interesting

[Mrs H]

Certain comments contained in section 5d are a bit - err - surprising

[IanD]

I find it sad that so much of the decision making seems to revolve around literal interpretations of rules and procedures, and so little around producing the best possible quality of event.

Two things I must pick up on from the report:

there’s a strong – and totally understandable - thread of the frustrations of age, of orienteers following Dylan Thomas’s advice to “rage
against the dying of the light”. We detected two highly-debatable arguments:
(i) a view that “my infirmity should be compensated for”;

Right then, no more namby-pamby shorter courses, never mind enlarged maps, for the elderly at any event, they can run the same course, on the same map scale as the 21's, and **** off if they don't like it.

(ii) a view that the distinctive challenge of technical/tricky-to-navigate areas should be reduced or even eliminated so that, as one writer said, “I can flow through the controls”.

Obviously I haven't seen all the e-mails, but there has been no suggestion of this on the Nopesport thread. Rather, people have been arguing for the map to be visible at speed precisely so that the technical challenge can be embraced.
- unless of course the technical challenge of orienteering is now supposed to be a test of eyesight rather than navigational ability.

Finally, there is an attack on the technical competence of the mapper; well I can't comment on that until after I've seen the map, but if I were the professional mapper involved, I might well be considering a libel suit.

[Mrs H]

Finally, there is an attack on the technical competence of the mapper; well I can't comment on that until after I've seen the map, but if I were the professional mapper involved, I might well be considering a libel suit.

i don't know anything about the technical side of this row - but i do know a thing or two about the law of libel and it's interesting that you picked up on that Ian. the report seems to suggest that the comments should not have been published - and yet they were. Publishing is part of the things you have to prove under the laws of Defamation of Character (you can say what you like about someone in private but not publicly - unless it's true ).
so if the appeal report thought

Is (and was) the information in the public domain? No, it wasn’t. And no, it still isn’t. Nor should it be.

who published it?