New Event Structure

[awk]

Keeping C5 and C4 events together in L3 is good sense.

I'm glad you feel that, but cannot share your feelings. To me, after many hours and months of discussion and deliberation, it makes no sense at all, and will, I believe, continue many of the problems that we were asked to address. Indeed, issues that others have introduced here, indicate to me that to this extent, it will make the situation worse, not least because whilst Rules group anticipate L2s being approximately 100 a year (with all the protection preventing other events from happening, embargoing limiting land us etc etc), that is 40-50% more than previously, the number of Grade 2 controllers is both ageing and falling. There aren't enough even now.

One of the objectives was to move localisation up the ladder - thus encouraging more events more locally. The way the scheme is now structured, it will have precisely the opposite effect.

[distracted]

However I don't see the need to have any embargo on areas that are holding events below championship standard.

I suspect that there might be complaints if a regional squad went on a training weekend on Scottish Six Days or November Classic or FCC final areas a few months before the actual events. Especially if these events were selection races.

Agree with selection races, and perhaps events like the 6-day, but otherwise all that embargos are doing is restricting use of our best areas. Are you telling me that people who ran in an area 13 months ago will have forgotten about it by the event? Or that there exists a group of people who will go out into an area and recce it to gain an advantage just so they can win their age-class at a low-key badge event? That just sounds silly to me.

We're meant to be encouraging participation in the sport - putting an introductory event on in a green brambly woodland when you've an excellent runnable, technical area five times the size sitting there doing nothing because you're going to use it for a badge event in, say, 9 months time seems absolutely ludicrous to me...

We're also trying to encourage more events in more places - this of course means more volunteers. Needing a controller for every event doesn't help from a volunteer-time point of view. I know of clubs who will assign a novice planner a 'mentor' who effectively takes the role of controller - to me that's perfectly adequate from a local event perspective - there are plenty of experienced orienteers out there who don't have the official controller qualifications but could fulfil a role like this.

[NeilC]

Distracted, agree about embargoes but that's the point if one Level 2 event (JWOC selection race) deserves an embargo whereas another Level 2 event (small district event) doesn't then there has to be sub-levels. That isn't what the ERG wanted I believe.

There is a problem with controller numbers and this has to be addressed somehow. My own club uses non-qualified "controllers" to arm-chair control and sometimes forest check our C5 events. Perhaps non-qualified (but BOF member) "controllers" could be allowed to control the most informal events or make the lowest level of controller qualification easier to obtain and allow clubs to control their own level 3 events as a norm.

[Snail]

NeilC

It is inevitable that there will be sub-divisions between events, and that these will be greater under the new system. (Partly because of the strait-jacket that forced "non-standard" events to be old level 5, enabling 2,3, & 4 to be more consistent.)

My understanding is that the whole point about the working party's Level 3 was that virtually no rules applied to it: no controllers, guidelines, TD levels, ranking lists etc. You take your chance with those events - some would be reasonable, others less so - but the majority would probably be aimed at a single club so the participants would know what to expect. The bottom level of event will always be in that position.

All events that require a controller, guidelines, count for ranking lists etc would become the new Level 2 (unless Level 1). Partly the logic was that there is now little difference between (old) level 2,3,& 4 in terms of what they offer the competitor. There can still be sensible variations within new level 2. Embargos could be optional (mandatory for Level 1) with the organising body requesting one if appropriate, eg for FCC, CSC finals, BSOC etc. I am sure something could be sorted on the controller question.

But if you lump old levels 4 and 5 together there would be even more of a need for sub-levels within that category. Obvious areas might be whether you really want attendance from other clubs, whether there is any form of controlling at all - either internal or external - and ranking lists. For the last of these, how do you identify which new Level 3 events count for ranking, since clearly the intention was that the old C4s would do so? On second thoughts I quite like the idea of all my club training events counting for the ranking list.

[PG]

There can still be sensible variations within new level 2. Embargos could be optional (mandatory for Level 1) with the organising body requesting one if appropriate, eg for FCC, CSC finals, BSOC etc. I am sure something could be sorted on the controller question."

It wasn't so long ago there were two categories “badge event” and “ranking badge event”. Even though the ERG may not have wanted this, I suggest we might have a similar distinction in level 2s. A “ranking level 2” would have a level 2 controller, pre-event training embargos and an expectation that the terrain and courses provide a true test of orienteering. Others would be a similar quality in most respects, but may not conform to all the qualifying criteria.

Although many people don’t care about rankings I suspect for most they are either important or at least of interest. But personally I am happy that more than half the events I go to are not ranking events. It means I can use them for focusing on a particular element of technique without considering the impact on my own or others’ ranking positions.

[RJ]

......whilst Rules group anticipate L2s being approximately 100 a year (with all the protection preventing other events from happening, embargoing limiting land us etc etc), that is 40-50% more than previously........

Just where are all these quality areas coming from to provide all this quality orienteering? One of the current problems is that poor quality areas are being used for the 'regional events'. I don't see the specification of having a controller of G2 and ranking points making the area any better. If the system is to work then, with 100 events a year, we need at least 300 areas of that quality. Where are they?

Leave L2 to host the old 'regional' or 'badge' event. Just insist on quality..... if the area is not up to it then don't have a L2 event. Just hold a L3 'district' event instead.

The reason why the badge events are poor is often because planners are on their first plan...... how many times over the years have we had comments in the results that the event was 'my first go at planning'. C3 and L2 is NOT the place for first time planners. They need to craft their skills at informal L3 events first. Of course there are not enough volunteers either to keep these positions going.... planners and controllers! The problem is purely numbers. We don't have enough people in the sport. Solve that first! And you don't need to crucify the event structure to make the sport 'more attractive' to new participants. Just put on more local, informal events at club level.

Why are we letting the ranking list 'tail' wag the dog. Who cares about the ****** list anyway. Construct an event structure and then the ranking list can work with what it gets. Full stop!

[distracted]

Just where are all these quality areas coming from to provide all this quality orienteering? One of the current problems is that poor quality areas are being used for the 'regional events'. If the system is to work then, with 100 events a year, we need at least 300 areas of that quality. Where are they?

Why 300 areas? And what about those quality areas that clubs can't use for a current regional event, as they are too small, but would be fantastic for a middle distance event, or even a sprint? I can think of several off the top of my head that are within spitting distance of Oxford, and we're not blessed with areas around here, unlike you guys up in the Lakes. Then there are the city races etc...

One of the major changes that the new structure should encourage is a *variety* of events. Some clubs are ahead of this - we're currently in between two consecutive weekends where South London will have hosted a middle-distance 'regional' event and a city race, on areas appropriate to those disciplines. I'd have no quibbles in putting both of these in the 'Level 2' category yet the club hasn't used an area which would *traditionally* be considered "quality". We should make the best of the limited resources (i.e. areas) that we have rather than moaning that an event doesn't fit to stereotype...

[Wayward-O]

As someone reasonably new to the sport, I may be able to give a more “Joe Public” consumer point-of-view. From my perspective, I’m not interested in the level of the controller (or whether there is one) – I’m looking for an experience that meets my expectations for the advertised level of the event. Against the current event structure, my expectations are:

Regional
Events on Sunday or Multi-day
Full range of age and junior ageless plus limited CC courses
On-line / postal registration plus limited EOD
Pre-determined start times / start time blocks
Decent car park, including a parking charge
Good assembly area with food stall (Wilf’s, Junior Squad cake stall) and retailers (CompassPoint, Ultrasport)
Good publicity, website, flyers
Managed start with call-up, etc.
Offset printed maps
Good areas and good courses
Full-size control kites and SI/EMIT boxes on stands / stakes (not on ground)
Results displayed in the assembly area
Results on-line quickly, RouteGadget

District
Events on Sunday
Full range of core colour coded courses (at least Yellow to Brown)
All EOD – turn up and run
Reasonable parking, possibly strung out
Small assembly area, no retailers but possibly Junior Squad cake stall
Managed start, no call-up
Laser-printed map, possibly loose CD’s available
Full-size kites, SI/EMIT boxes on stands / stakes or on ground
Results displayed in the assembly area
Results on-line reasonably quickly, possibly RouteGadget

Local
Events not on Sunday
Limited courses with varied formats
All EOD – turn up and run
On-road parking, no charge
No assembly area; everything out of the back of a car
DIY start – just a clock and maps (laser-printed)
Small kites or similar, SI/EMIT boxes on stands / stakes or on ground
Printed splits on the day, results on line a couple of days later
No RouteGadget

Against the new guidelines, I’m not sure what to expect. There appears to be conflicting information, or the proposals have changed since originally floated. The two extremes appear to be that (1) all District events become Level 2 or (2) all District events become Level 3.

Looking at the consequences of the two extremes, I see these as possibly being:

(1) All District events become Level 2
Current Regional events without a distinct identity become devalued. Only a few of the current Regional events (multi-day events) keep their identity, albeit slightly devalued due to change to CC courses, whist the remainder become no different from current District events. In order to retain their distinctiveness, some Regional events may move to offer International courses. People are less likely to travel as far for competitions, unless looking for different terrain. Level 3 events as current Local events.

(2) All District events become Level 3
Current Regional events retain their current position, albeit slightly devalued as offering CC courses. Level 3 events cover everything from current district events with full range of CC courses down to very low-key evening events with only a couple of courses on offer.

What transpires will be somewhere between the two, but of the two I’m drawn more towards the latter, as I see the need to keep a smaller number of higher quality events below the Nationals that encourage people to travel and experience other areas and different competitors. But this leaves everything else under the Level 3 “Local” banner. My personal feeling is that Level 3 should naturally split into two types of event – those that are aimed at a very small target audience and those that aim to attract people from further afield. The former I would not see listed on the BOF fixtures list, rather only listed on club, region or other website such as Lakes-O. The latter, including all the current District events and others aimed at a wider audience, would be included in the BOF fixtures list. This would provide effective differentiation with on-BOF and off-BOF Level 3 events. Now all we’d then have to do is to recognise off-BOF events as Level 4 . . . . .

[RJ]

....Why 300 areas? And what about those quality areas that clubs can't use for a current regional event, as they are too small, but would be fantastic for a middle distance event, or even a sprint? I can think of several off the top of my head that are within spitting distance of Oxford, and we're not blessed with areas around here, unlike you guys up in the Lakes. Then there are the city races etc...

300 areas in order to give 100 areas per year with a three year recycle.

What a brilliant idea to have City races, Middle distance 'regional' events, Sprint races all in the L2 bracket. Just so long as they are of a quality.

Surely the important thing is to make the L2 events of such quality that they will attract competitors from a wider geographical spread and produce the higher quality competition to test the best orienteers. Set the guidelines for these events.... we don't need to rearrange the structure to achieve this end. Wayward-O has a very useful descriptive list to work with!! Make sure the L2 events are worth the travel.... classic, middle, sprint, short, city.... doesn't matter what sort of orienteering they provide, just so long as it is QUALITY.

[awk]

One of the current problems is that poor quality areas are being used for the 'regional events'.

And many district events are held on good quality areas.

Just where are all these quality areas coming from to provide all this quality orienteering?

Don't ask me - you're the one that seems to equate having to have a top quality area for L2, not me. My belief is that L2 is defined by some basic organisational criteria, and the quality of the race is what is provided by the organisers. My concern over the hundred is nothing to do with areas (indeed, my beef is that there won't be enough L2 events, and that they will be too like the old C3s, including being over-protected), but with the fact that G2 controllers are being required - nonsense, unless the criteria are changed to create more.

What a brilliant idea to have City races, Middle distance 'regional' events, Sprint races all in the L2 bracket.

so brilliant, they have always been part of the proposals, which is why we structured the latter the way we did.

Wayward-O: your expectations don't seem to match my experience - for instance many of your regional expectations don't happen quite often (very often in some cases!). And personally, I see colour classes as adding value - far more and usually better competition. Interesting that RJ thinks your list useful - Lake District events being amongst those that regularly 'break' the criteria and don't provide you with the quality that you expect .

Also why should L3 events be aimed at those further afield? The whole point is that generally they are not. Further afield equates far more naturally to L2.

[geomorph]

Wayward-o
Thanks for your expectations and it was great to see somebody spend time clearly defining these.
Am fascinated by the fact that day of week is an important classifier.
Am also pleased that you are not letting the operational issues cloud these. It is important that we determine an offer aspiration to maximise participation, and only dilute it if delivery is economically inviable.

If you were turning up for the first or second time as a novice what then would be your expectation?
Is, as a newcomer, consistency of format important to you or would you be at ease in the possibly free-format suggested for locals?

edited for typo

[Paul Frost]

I'm not sure what the benefit is of only having 3 levels of event. If the reason was to make it easier for newcomers, it doesn't.

Newcomers to orienteering don't know anything about levels, grades, courses, controlling etc. What they do know is that have seen an advert/poster for an event near to them or a friend drags them along. Knowing that it's a Level 2, "SI units on stakes", "Offset printed maps" etc. means nothing to them.

When an event is advertised it can/should include all this sort of information so that experienced orienteers can judge for themselves if it's worth travelling to, and locals will just go because it's local.

How far would you travel to a small local event with the following description:
International quality area (Creag Mhic), Blue, Green, Orange, Yellow courses, SI on stakes, pre-printed map (updated for the event) on waterproof paper, G2 controller planning, Results and RouteGadget online within a few hours, £4/£2 entry.

We might get people travel over 100 miles, but also some newcomers from the local village trying their first event.

What happens if having enjoyed themselves at the above, whilst away on holiday they see another "Local" event and decide to go along.
They have to mark up their own map, use pin punches, planners first event, battle round a bramble packed scrap of wood without any real contour detail, some controls were not correctly placed, no results or several days later etc.

Yet both these events would be the same level/classification, how did that help the newcomer?

I accept that Scotland is very different to many parts of the UK, it only has one region, so people don't often travel outside of it to orienteer. There are also probably more "Local" events per head than in England due to the spread out population.

[distracted]

The point Paul raises is a good one - and how likely is it that a club will ever be truly honest about the nature of their lower-quality areas?

There's also the point about making marketing/advertising understandable by all - it doesn't take much effort to remove/explain jargon - how many of you have handed a flyer to a friend who doesn't then have a clue? Picking an example - "Courses: all from white to brown" means nothing to most people, whereas even "Courses: A range of courses, from white (short, on paths, very easy navigation) to brown (long & tough, navigationally difficult)" makes the sport seem more accessible and less 'cliquey'. Let's see more advertising to the masses, not just to the orienteers!

[Strider]

How far would you travel to a small local event with the following description: International quality area (Creag Mhic), Blue, Green, Orange, Yellow courses, SI on stakes, pre-printed map (updated for the event) on waterproof paper, G2 controller planning, Results and RouteGadget online within a few hours, £4/£2 entry. We might get people travel over 100 miles, but also some newcomers from the local village trying their first event.

What happens if having enjoyed themselves at the above, whilst away on holiday they see another "Local" event and decide to go along. They have to mark up their own map, use pin punches, planners first event, battle round a bramble packed scrap of wood without any real contour detail, some controls were not correctly placed, no results or several days later etc.

Yet both these events would be the same level/classification, how did that help the newcomer?

But this happens currently under the 5 level structure.... I go to a number of C5 events in the East Mids and the approach is very varied - some with SI, premarked maps, great areas, etc. and other events with pin punching, mark up own map, crappy areas, etc.

Newcomers thus have a very varied experience in just this one region. I don't see that streamlining 5 down to 3 changes this aspect at all.

[graeme]

The point Paul raises is a good one

Yes, it illustrates perfectly why we wanted the levels to relate to quality.

In the scheme the ESG proposed, Paul's first example would be L2, and the
second L3. Newcomers will understand perfectly well that (for them) the only difference
between Paul's Craig Mhic and the other extreme in L2 (Nov.Classic, say) is the
number of people attending. Experienced orienteers dont need BOF guidelines to help them tell the difference.

BOF's broadening L3 to include quality events is a mistake.