Electronic punching

[Wayward-O]

There has been a lot of discussion recently on another thread regarding electronic punching systems, mostly about EMIT and the problems encountered at the British Sprint Championships.

Now, electronic punching has been with us for quite a few years and has become the de-facto standard at all levels of orienteering event. The two systems in use have been around for a while and have been developed a lot to reach their latest incarnations (SI-Card 6, EMIT Version 3). Both systems have their failings that would appear, unfortunately, to be inherent so that evolutionary changes to either system are unlikely to overcome them whilst backward compatibility with older equipment is maintained. These systems will continue to be developed, but the improvements may not be those that orienteers would want.

As with everything, the current systems will eventually be eclipsed by a new system just as surely as the DVD displaced VHS and Blu-ray will displace the DVD.

I’m not proposing this thread to be SI against EMIT. Instead, I hope that the discussion can be at a slightly higher level and, therefore, I’m posing three questions . . .

• What features of the existing systems do you like / dislike?
• What changes would you like to see made to the existing systems, and why?
• What features would you like to see in the system that eventually emerges to displace the current systems?

[Mrs H]

Well it's a nice try W-O, let's hope everyone can keep positive.
i'll try and start the ball rolling by saying I do like a beep with my flash - infact i could probably do without a flash (but i realise there are others who couldn't)

[grubby]

Can I suggest an electric shock for the rest of us blind and deaf old gits . . . . . .

[Adventure Racer]

How about a nice big, flat and round target area? Wouldn't have the issue either of having to get it the right way round as with Emit, or with having to punch down into a hole in the right direction as with SI. Of course you wouldn't be able to get the backup punch as with Emit, but the new system should also be flawless such that having got the confirmation flash (or beep) it's then 100% reliable that you will download correctly.

Sound effects from the card rather than the forest unit, so those who like the beep can have one and those who like to be stealthy can turn it off. This would obviously require more battery power than the current version for those who like noise, so an easily replaceable coin cell battery along with some sort of battery meter too - also it should stop beeping to preserve battery life well before it stops recording punches.

[distracted]

The key aspects of each system which are good:

Emit - the integrated back-up system. If a unit fails, then you don't have to mess around with a manual punch. And for the cards with the screen - a record of how many controls have been visited.

SI - (relative) ease of use - a round peg in a round hole.

and the fallibilities:

Emit - the flimsy nature of the back-up system, which could easily be lost/destroyed.
SI - the beep and flash (I can hear the gasps already! - but read on). And no record of how many controls you have visited.

Key aspects to consider in the design of an electronic punching system, in order of importance:

1) It records your visit at the control site quickly and accurately.
2) The punching method is the same, irrespective of whether the electronics is working or not. Hence an integrated back-up system and NO electronic feedback. The electronics should be able to work fast enough (~0.1 sec) so that if the punch is made correctly it wouldn't need to tell you it had worked.
3) The punching method is simple and user-friendly.
4) There is a visual record (probably mechanically-based) of how many controls you have visited. Just like you could look at the paper control card to see what you'd punched. Maybe a little counter that gets incremented at each control.
5) The system can produce split times.
6) There is duplication of electronic systems e.g. timing in both the units and card, so that if one fails, there is still a record in the other.
7) The system is easy to use from an organiser's point of view.

and there are probably other things that should be there that I've forgotten...

[IanD]

I've tried to remember back to the paper cards we had before.

So the biggest change, and it's a massive plus, is instant results and split times. Both current systems offer these, and obviously any future system must.

I perceive the biggest problems with the current systems as being failures to record or remember “punches”. So requirements of the ideal system:
- if it relies on batteries in the forest units, it must be possible to reliably check remaining battery life at home before putting the units out.
- if it relies on batteries in the competitors 'cards', it must be possible to reliably check battery life before starting a run.
- and ideally the batteries should be easily replaceable too, although this is less critical provided a replacement unit/card is available.
- 'punching' should be simple for an arthritic veteran approaching the control from the 'wrong' side, no twisting to get a brikke to fit, and preferably no need to get SI Card in hole either. Simple contact would be ideal.
- a correct 'punch' should always register, it should be impossible to punch too quickly
- there should be positive visual feedback that the 'punch' has registered (some orienteers are deaf, why put us at an unnecessary disadvantage?)

Of course, the ideal system will be so reliable that there will be no need for a physical backup.

Other factors are less important, but ideally I would like to be able to readily obtain displays of:
- elapsed time since start (for score events)
- code of last control punched
And as a lower priority:
- number of controls punched
- codes of all controls punched (not just the last one)
- split times (without waiting for download)

From the organiser/planners viewpoint, I would add
- forest units to be light and robust
- units not to need reprogramming (unless you want to change the control code)
- no pressure to put units out late, or to 'wake them up' in the forest before the event

I haven't mentioned entries and results software, because I think these can be written independently of the punching system. (Subject for a separate thread?)

[Gross]

Ho choice.... SI crap... emit perfect:)

[SIman]

I’m not proposing this thread to be SI against EMIT.

That was obviously too much to hope for!

[RJ]

I reckon the electronic punching systems have a rather short future now. GPS will be used to record your route through the course. Each control site will merely be a marker with a number/code on it, which will tell you you are at the right control point. The output from your GPS recorder will give you far more interesting information than just split times, it will show exactly where you have been. The results webpage will then have everything on it..... not just a list of split times.... but a fully functional routegadget showing ALL competitors' routes.

A GPS receiver/recorder carried by the competitor will be relatively cheap. Something that then transmits the information to assembly for real-time display will be rather more expensive.

[Adventure Racer]

On the basis of the accuracy possible from GPS technology right now, and that which will be possible in the near future (particularly under tree cover), I reckon we've got at least another couple of generations of electronic punching systems before anything like that becomes remotely feasible - unless you're happy that the athlete just got within 20m of the correct control site. The only way to get the sort of accuracy you'd need to determine that somebody had got within 1m of the control site at present is using DGPS - which in a heavily contoured forest location over several square km would require the use of multiple ground based transmitters - I can't see any organisor wanting to use that.

[RJ]

Hold on a mo! Just look at the GPS traces on RouteGadget now. Good enough to show the competitior was pretty close to the control site.

[SIman]

How would the following specification match up to your wish list?

* Combined passive/active punching card for orienteering
* Changeable battery
* Interactive user interface
* The combination of an active and a passive system guaranteeing highest system reliability.
* Full support during the race by showing punching history
* Online time taking
* Comfortable data evaluation after the race
* Manual data checking with intelligent push-pull menus
* Data interface to a personal computer
* User data menu
*The firmware can be downloaded from the internet. Software extensions and updates can be done easily at home.
* Highly flexible card data structure supports the adaptation to the needs of special event types

[greywolf]

not able to run just now so fannied about on an orange course with my son today - he had the map and control descriptions, i had the (hired, v3) emit brikke, and for the first time had chance to explore all the stuff it does....far more than i need, i think.

as a competitor, i have simple demands from a e-punching system: it must be quick and easy to use (from whatever direction i approach the control, and however tired my brain is), and I need to leave the control certain that my visit has been recorded.

i ran in the first electronic punching event in the UK (in fact, if the control hanger had been deemed n/c i'd've won it, not that i'm bitter, 11 years on.... ) - and those were the main issues then, as i recall. Still not entirely sure there's a system that has both these basics absolutely nailed down, (but at the moment i think SI is closer, tho' I use Emit more) and until this is so, everything else is superfluous.

[DaveR]

Hold on a mo! Just look at the GPS traces on RouteGadget now. Good enough to show the competitior was pretty close to the control site.

This is either irony, or you have never tried uploading a GPS route onto routegadget

The main reason these look so good is that the competitors who use them spend quite some time tweaking the GPS route so that it does go to the controls! Most maps are not accurate in terms of GPS coordinates and, as others have pointed out, the GPS accuracy is not yet good enough. It is not unusual for my Garmin to report that my house has apparently moved by 10 or more metres between the start and end of a run!

[graeme]

If I'm responsible for ensuring that the system has registered correctly, I would like to be able to check that it has done.

I can't see GPS tracking working. As organiser, I don't want to have to decide when someone has or hasn't gone close enough to the kite when they're trying to shave a few seconds. It would be nice to have for post-race analysis, and to prove to people they really have mispunched (I found this is the case in about 9/10 complaints I've dealt with about e-punching).