Route Choice- what is it ?

[Kitch]

2/ According to the new IOF guidelines, elite "long" course terrain should be primarily about route choice. My map (at BEOC/BOC) was pre-marked with the fastest route. By IOF standards, Culbin is not suitable for elite "long" course terrain - I'm worried that someone might decide to take this seriously and turn BOC "classic" orienteering into something else.

Like Graeme I don't like the sound of this guideline

"primarily about route choice"
I guess most of us would define a route choice leg as one where there are distinctly different routes to choose between on a given leg, left or right, over or round.
And that choosing "the right route" is essential to achieving a good time for the leg.

It is also required that the pro's and con's, the fast and the slow of any route should, in the interests of fairness, be fully apparent from the map.

So if one route is faster and another is slower, and this is apparent to the competitor (as it is supposed to be) then there would be no choice.

Unless there were more than one route of equal speed.

And this is what generally you would expect to see on a "route choice" leg.

So then it comes down to commitment and execution - i.e. getting on with it and doing it right.
If "primarily about route choice" is applied does this mean that the execution should be straight forward ? i.e. you'd have to be a right duffer to muck it up.

boiling all that down would reach the conclusion that long races should mainly be about choosing between a number of obvious and easily executed routes.

and that would be pants.

By the way I thought there was tons of route choice at Culbin - not the Macro choices that immediately spring to mind when you mention route choice but there were several mid (200m) and countless micro (20m) scale route choices.

If mid and micro route chice comes under the guideline then fine, long races are no different from any other races, but then the guideline is meaningless.
lets just hope so ....

however I must admit that looking at recent WOC long races (Denmark, Ukraine) I did think they looked rather dull.

long live the Classic

[Gnitworp]

long live the Classic

Amen

Sustained technical orienteering.

[Gnitworp]

Perhaps, the deliberately provocative statement below will galvanise this thread:

In planning courses to preserve the distinct 'identities' of the 'new' disciplines, you can (if you're not careful) compromise leg quality:

[Mrs H]

Well it might do if we could understand it!

[Gnitworp]

Well it might do if we could understand it!

Maybe - just maybe('if you're not careful')

with 'Middle' you get a single beaten trail between controls through the undergrowth on your 'short legs',

and with 'Long', as Kitch pointed out, you just might get 'rather dull' boring track runs.

whereas, maybe, with 'Classic' we got sustained quality orienteering as technically difficult throughout as the planner could make it.

[awk]

whereas, maybe, with 'Classic' we got sustained quality orienteering as technically difficult throughout as the planner could make it.

No you don't and didn't! On occasions yes, but not always by any means. Some areas lend themselves to different types and lengths of orienteering. I've run on plenty of areas where a middle distance race would make superb use of that area, but a classic would (and has!) become a boring grind. Other areas are suited to a classic. And others suited to sprint. On top of that, any style requires a good planner to make it really work - plenty of dodgy courses over the years in any style.

Can't say the long style overly appeals - most courses look a bit of a trudge - but then I've not been fit enough for a while to get the most out of them (have thoroughly enjoyed long-O though). However, that's only a personal opinion, and others find them excellent; I'm just grateful for the increased variety.

[greywolf]

...My map (at BEOC/BOC) was pre-marked with the fastest route...

...routegadget indicates that you neglected to follow the planner's advice on a number of occasions

By the way I thought there was tons of route choice at Culbin - not the Macro choices that immediately spring to mind when you mention route choice but there were several mid (200m) and countless micro (20m) scale route choices.

I think the planner will be very pleased to hear that, this was one of the biggest planning issues, and a lot of effort went into designing meaningful route choice legs in a forest where running the line was so often the best option

[Gnitworp]

Some areas lend themselves to different types and lengths of orienteering.

Don't some areas simply lend themselves to the best orienteering you can get out of those areas, regardless of 'type'? They do when I'm planning.

Can't say the long style overly appeals - most courses look a bit of a trudge - but then I've not been fit enough for a while to get the most out of them (have thoroughly enjoyed long-O though). However, that's only a personal opinion, and others find them excellent; I'm just grateful for the increased variety.

What's the increased variety you're grateful for? Remember, there's no 'Classic' distance if you have 'Long' and 'Middle'.

[graeme]

routegadget indicates that you neglected to follow the planner's advice on a number of occasions

...but I wish I had.

IMO, route choice means where you look at two or more options well ahead of time, and decide which one to go for. As Kitch says, if its the responsive mid- or micro- type the guideline would be meaningless. I think Ukraine WOC-long in particular rather strikingly avoided the most intricate bits.

I disagree with Kitch that setting long routes with unique solutions isn't testing. Just because there is enough information to find the right answer doesn't mean everyone will be able to find it. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to try my latest Quantum Mechanics exam .

In recent years I've enjoyed the variety of using different areas which don't suit the straightjacket of badge event guidelines. e.g. the added value of the JK sprint is great. I also like the variety and added value of traditional (2hr +) long-O, whether its the "best orienteering for the area" (e.g. ESOC, Pentlands) or a different take on an over-familiar classic area (e.g. GRAMP, Glen Dye).

But I don't care for reduced value. BMOC still looked like a green course with the route choice interest taken out, and WOC long looked like a classic with the detailed navigation removed.

[Gnitworp]

BMOC still looked like a green course with the route choice interest taken out, and WOC long looked like a classic with the detailed navigation removed.

Exactly: slavish adherence to the 'guidelines' to the courses' detriment.

[awk]

Don't some areas simply lend themselves to the best orienteering you can get out of those areas, regardless of 'type'? They do when I'm planning.

Yes, but quite often that conforms to a certain type/distance. For instance, much better to have 4-5k of really interesting orienteering, than 9k of boring drudge just to "get the distance in". Equally, some areas need a longer course to make the most of them (one of the problems we had with Attermire National last year was making the shorter courses sufficiently interesting and varied!). Some areas of course could take pretty much everything.

What's the increased variety you're grateful for? Remember, there's no 'Classic' distance if you have 'Long' and 'Middle'.

The introduction of a wider variety of types of races. My one concern is that Long will replace Classic (it hasn't yet except for the elite), as it doesn't look as interesting or challenging technically. But the others are great, and have really enjoyed them.

[Gnitworp]

I'll say it again:

The perceived need to establish/preserve/maintain the supposed unique/distinctive character/style of the Long and Middle disciplines is damaging the quality of the orienteering.

[Kitch]

here here,

For years before the advent of the middle race for JK day 1 (or is it 2?) I would tell anyone that listened that it would be a good idea to have a middle race to make best use of the crappy other area we often found ourselves trapsing round for 16km.
As long as it is - best use of i.e. most challenging use of -
then good

anyway - isn't route choice a fundamental element of sprint 'O
why do we need 2 disciplines with route choice ?

[Patrick]

The perceived need to establish/preserve/maintain the supposed unique/distinctive character/style of the Long and Middle disciplines is damaging the quality of the orienteering.

Given that 95% of orienteering in the UK is neither Long nor Middle, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. So far as I can see, colour-coded and most age group events use basically the same planning principles they always did. The only Long courses (in the IOF sense) I can see in the fixture list are JK, BOC, Scottish Champs and the Brown Clee selection race. Middle and Sprint races aren't much more common.

Can you please expand on how this perceived need to recognise the characteristics of specific disciplines can have such a damaging effect on orienteering, when said disciplines account for such a small proportion of the sport. If anything I'd say we have the opposite problem - too many nondescript events where Brown/M21L is won in 55-65 minutes and insufficient efforts to do something new and different.

Cheers,

Patrick

[DJM]

Patrick wrote:
Given that 95% of orienteering in the UK is neither Long nor Middle, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. So far as I can see, colour-coded and most age group events use basically the same planning principles they always did. The only Long courses (in the IOF sense) I can see in the fixture list are JK, BOC, Scottish Champs and the Brown Clee selection race. Middle and Sprint races aren't much more common.

The "IOF sense" is broader than you suggest here in that the term "Long" is also used to describe courses at WMOC which have winning times from 35-60 minutes (Qualifications) and 45-70 minutes (Finals). 90-100 min (men) and 70-80 min (women) Long winning times apply to Senior Elite competitions only.

Thus the "Long" description can more loosely be regarded as applying to virtually any Regional/National Event (L/E courses) as well as to the races Patrick lists. For example, W45L at the local Regional Event is "Long" in the IOF sense.