Control Description Reading Contests

[Adventure Racer]

How many times do you lose time because of detail obscured by the control number? I can think of several examples for circles and lines getting in the way, none for control numbers. I have to admit I did realise the flaw in the idea when I suggested it, but reckoned I should let you lot shoot it down.

[swat]

Here's an example: at last year's Oxford City Race, a control number was printed on top of a solid black wall, unfortunately the number had a thin white border which cut the wall leaving an apparent break. As it happened there was an unmapped gate at that point - some people went that way and some but not all were able to get through as helpful students held the gate open for them.

[GML]

Here's an example: at last year's Oxford City Race, a control number was printed on top of a solid black wall, unfortunately the number had a thin white border which cut the wall leaving an apparent break. As it happened there was an unmapped gate at that point - some people went that way and some but not all were able to get through as helpful students held the gate open for them.

Which is precisely why control numbers and the like are not supposed to have white borders around them!

[Adventure Racer]

Good point swat - but that was just a good example of poor overlay layout (as discussed at the time), and could have easily been solved by moving the control number to the other side of the control (away from any logical route). Certainly on the Oxford map, there is plenty of space to have descriptions next to numbers (I'm only suggesting small pictures about the same size as the number, so doubling the size of this item) without obscuring any important detail. Also checking the sprint final map I reckon there is just about space to add descriptions without obscuring detail on any likely route choices (in most cases there is plenty of space - it's just a few where it's tight). Totally different to obscuring detail with lines and circles where you can't move them and have to remember to cut them.

The more I look at this, the more feasible it actually appears - I thought it would be a bad idea due to map clutter when I first suggested it, but not so sure now.

[Scott]

As AR says, that was our fault for not considering the position of the control numbers properly (I'm still generally in favour of using the white border on town maps, given how hard I find it to pick out the purple against that vomit-green OOB colour).

I think the main issue with printing the mini-description on the map is whether it's actually preferable to the alternative possibility of using micrO-style dots, which would certainly leave the map less cluttered but would require far more checking if litho printing was used...

[DJM]

AR wrote:
How about printing the principle pictorial and "which side" description on the map next to the control number?

Apart from everything else, how would you actually do this? There's no facility in either Condes or OCAD to do this as far as I'm aware. The hassle of doing it manually would be tremendous and would certainly have made me give up planning the JK Sprint recently!

I understand that it would reduce the mental gymnastics needed to identify which side a control site is on. On the other hand, one of the requirements of a Sprint course is that it should "require the athletes' full concentration throughout the race" (IOF Rules Appendix 6) and I guess that some of this concentration is needed to determine just where the site is on the map.

[Adventure Racer]

Apart from everything else, how would you actually do this? There's no facility in either Condes or OCAD to do this as far as I'm aware.

Get them to upgrade the software to provide the facility - I'm sure they could without great difficulty if there was a demand for this.

[EddieH]

Definitely no demand from me. I want to see the map, not the bits that the planner lets me see.

I once risked running under the pasted control descriptions, guessing correctly how to join paths up despite several hidden junctions. It was the fastest route by some way and as far as I know no-one else tried it.

[graeme]

m4rk asked
Are you allowed to lean over an impassable feature, eg to punch a control on the other side of it?

Impassable means forbidden to cross and, although ISSOM doesn't spell this out in concrete terms, crossing is defined as having some part of your body over the impassable feature.

So, the answer is no!

...and presumably you are also required to screen your touch-free emit card from any signal emanating from the other side No Faraday cage, no go

Though of course, if the planner is following the IOF guidelines, there wouldnt be a control on the other side.

Graeme