New Event Structure

[greywolf]

how likely is it that a club will ever be truly honest about the nature of their lower-quality areas?

The event info (http://www.dearman.org.uk/Moravian/Sanq ... mation.htm) for the Moravian event at Sanquhar and Cluny Woods on November 16th says:

"Sanquhar and Cluny woods lie just to the southeast of Forres – they are well used and have an extensive path and track network.... All controls are in “normal” forest orienteering terrain, however, all courses involve some “urban” orienteering.... Given the nature of the terrain Brown Blue and Green are unlikely to be more than TD4, however this is more than adequately compensated for by the range of route choice options. "

Not sure if this attempt at honesty is brave or foolish - guess we'll see how many turn up...those who do will certainly get something a bit novel - a combination of "middle race" style in the woodland blocks and big route choice legs between...

But at the same time its worth noting that our "bog standard" CC events are usually held on areas like Roseisle, Lossie & Darnaway which outshine the venues of many Regional and National events...

(if all these big events have Grade 1/2 controllers then maybe their job could include an assessment of TD?)

[Mrs H]

But Greywolf there were bits of the O-ringen this year that could have been described as a mix of forest and "urban" settings when we had to cross cabin complexes between bits of terrain.

I personally would not want to overstate things as I've already said in this thread - I'd rather people were pleasantly surprised by what was on offer than disappointed by the same things even if it meant fewer people turning up in the first place - at least they are more likely to come back - it's all about expectation and the organiser should be in control of that - which is what is worrying me about the arbitrary level setting - it takes that control away.

In a nut shell I'd always rather put on a cracking good local event than a mediocre district or regional event (and the same would go for Level 2 or 3)

[greywolf]

this will be very different from O-ringen!
but the important bit was the acknowledgement that the area is only capable of TD4 - which is what I think distracted was asking about, and which IMHO clubs should all do.

[andy]

I'm confused, I just want to go orienteering

[Tatty]

Too true. That's what most of us just want to do

[distracted]

but the important bit was the acknowledgement that the area is only capable of TD4 - which is what I think distracted was asking about, and which IMHO clubs should all do.

Yes, but also you get clubs writing "mixed woodland with good path network, some areas of undergrowth" which turns out to translate to "bramble-filled forest, stay on the paths if you want any skin left on your legs"...

[Paul Frost]

In the scheme the ESG proposed, Paul's first example would be L2, and the
second L3.

But isn't the problem that our event on Creag Mhic wouldn't have a controller (other than the one planning it), limited range of courses, low entry numbers, no facilities (toilets, traders etc.) so wouldn't (and perhaps shouldn't) qualify as a Level 2 event.

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.

But at least there was an option for some of them to be considered C4 events without any extra rules/requirements causing extra work/cost.

With only 2 levels (as the L1 seems to have a very clear cut definition) to choose between it will be much harder to decide which one to an event belongs to.
The requirements for external controlling, embargoes, facilities etc. that may be the qualification for a L2 event may well push a lot of quality events into L3.

I don't see how any of this will help the newcomer (which I understood to be one of the aims of the review), but it will make it much harder for organisers.

Honesty
Perhaps in the event details we should include the planners name and experience (perhaps even list their previous events) so people can have some measure of their ability. Many events are now recorded on RouteGadget, so you can even go and have a look at the quality of courses a planner has planned in the past.

EckO have always made our maps publicly available on the website so that you can have a look at the area and make a judgement on if it looks worth travelling to.

This would only benefit experienced orienteers, but after all, they are our biggest customers!

[graeme]

But isn't the problem that our event on Creag Mhic wouldn't have a controller (other than the one planning it), limited range of courses, low entry numbers, no facilities (toilets, traders etc.) so wouldn't (and perhaps shouldn't) qualify as a Level 2 event.

Only the lack of controller conflicts with the original proposals.

I've been to enough one-man events to know that, also regardless of who the planner is, problems slip through. And I've never controlled an event where the planner got the controls in the right place and lengths right first time. Several previous posters have indicated that even their C5 events have a "second pair of eyes" (controller, vetter, checker, call it what you will). This hasn't come from BOF, lots of clubs have reinvented it independently, I think this shows its the right idea. (Yes, I know ECKO covers a huge area and might regard itself as a special case - if L2 is sanctioned by SOA you should be able to make that case).

Oh, maybe toilets were in. BOF regards no-loos as a major deterrent to female beginners - but for tiny numbers there is the farm there?

[geomorph]

had hoped to hear from Wayward-O to help support the following verbiage by now, but the discussion rolls on.

By using the term 'level' we are imposing a hierarchy throughout. I see it more as a network of complementary offerings. Whilst we may believe that 'championships' are a cut above the rest in terms of most criteria, who says that so called L2 is 'better' than L3 or Graeme's informal. What counts is the expectation satisfaction.

I'm with Graeme and others who believe entry level needs consistent applied standards and formats. Entry level events are not lesser or more than other types of events, they satisfy a critical demand. If we include experimental in entry level we turn people off cos we get branded as Geeks.

I also agree with Awk that the geographic terminology is misleading and has not helped in the debate. As I cannot think of replacement terms I’ve just used letters, but we need something like Adrian’s ‘Map Racing’ instead. I don’t think one word will do it.

Debate has also fallen foul of a ‘need’ to map the existing structure to the new one. It is not necessary and is possibly destructive. It is also not a good idea as any new structure is then confined to its mapability from the old, and designing under these confines is not desirable

The success criteria for event types are different depending on the audience.
There are four major criteria: organisation; the course offering; standards and quality assurance; newcomer support.

Pivotal in this classification is the course offering. The new colour code range provides the baseline, and the event may choose to provide that full range, less or more, and this helps define the type of event. Where more is used then the breakdown probably will be by age class.

Championships, Type ‘C’, offer the highest standards of terrain, course range, QA and organisation, but do not have to offer newcomer support beyond providing some courses in TD1-4. Typically they are targeted at experienced and elite orienteers and frequently attain ‘international’ status.

Graeme's informals work best with the experienced orienteer, but do not exclude novices. However their experience possibly will be less than optimal because we do not offer the course/organisation/QA suited to their capabilities. In this type technical range can be very limited, as can course length and organisation. Experimental formats are frequently employed. Let’s give them the designation ‘Q’.

Unfortunately, at this stage ‘score’ only events fall into this category, but I’m sure that this does not need to be the case if we can define a consistent score offering.

For the newcomer we need to offer an event type in which it is clear what will be delivered. Full newcomer support, courses adhering to TD standards and that encompass a range of TD appropriate for newcomers, plus a location that makes it easily accessible, define this event type. A TD 5 would be nice but not essential. Is the newcomer range TD1-4 or some sub-set? If TD1 is not essential then this allows a number of extra areas to be used for this type of event which otherwise would have to be ‘Q’. Colour coding used to classify the courses. Colour coding explanations to adhere to national standards. An external controller is not essential for this type.

Furthermore the newcomer should be able to turn up anywhere in the country and find that the minimum offer is always the same. This event type does not allow experimental formats, but it can be on any type of terrain that is ‘safe’ for newcomers.

Clubs are free to offer this type of event with one or more of the criteria above the minima. In order to stimulate interest from experienced orienteers ‘local/club’ level leagues and cups may be offered.

This type I’m calling ‘S’.

Many experienced orienteers perceive the need for formal orienteering in which competition is the primary focus, but which is not at the organisational and terrain quality level of championships. They wish to measure themselves against their peers on a regular and on-going basis, and many are keen to see how they fare against all ages of competitor. Whilst such events may offer newcomer support, it is not necessarily offered at the same level as found in type ‘S’.

Let’s call it type ‘E’.

In this type the minimum is defined around the level of technical quality assurance (external controller), and a full complement of courses, in both TD and length. This course offer minimum is the new colour structure. Where the event attracts a large number of competitors, courses based on age classes are an option, and they can be grouped as per now.

This does mean that certain areas will not be able to hold such events as they do not allow the longest TD5’s to be planned, and thus these areas can only ever offer type ‘S’ or ‘Q’.

Regardless of the course coding (colour or age) the software can produce comparative results to satisfy all combinations of all national, regional and club competition schemes. Some special criteria may be needed to ensure that there is no advantage to competing only on one type/quality of terrain.

Both type S and type E can offer, in addition to the type format, formats of type Q, e.g. long, score, experimental etc, though typically only type ‘S’ would do this.

Relay events fall into one of the four categories, but need the range of courses to be defined differently than full or part colour or age.

Pre-printed maps are de facto standard for ‘C’, ‘E’ and ‘S’

I would like ‘punching’ to be always electronic for ‘C’, ‘E’ and ‘S’, but realise for many areas this is not practical with the current technologies. Using other recording methods should NOT mean the event is of type Q. It needs to be an aspiration, and we need to work with the suppliers to get location identifiers that are cheap and ‘disposable’, and put the cost/technology into the recording device.

By classifying along these lines we can create simple flow charts. A club can use the flow chart to classify an event they have already decided how to hold, or they can work out what they’ve got to do in order to get an event designated in a certain way.

Finally don't design to satisfy constraints, design to maximise results, and then fine tune if the constraints are unmodifiable/cannot be ameliorated.

[SJC]

There appears to be two different points of view coming through here.

A) events should be clasified according to what facilities are provided -
Level 2 = high quality, all of electronic punching, pre-printed maps, etc.
Level 3 = low quality, so some or all of pin punching, master maps, results a week later, etc.

B) events should be clasified according to what the level of competition is -
Level 2 = high quality competition, people will travel a considerable distance to take part.
Level 3 = less competitive, only local people attend, rules are a bit flexible.

Unfortunately whichever method is used is going to lead to some confusion.

What is ideally needed is a way of classifying events as:
High quality facilities; High quality competition
High quality facilities; Low level of competition
Low quality facilities; Low level of competition

but I don't see how this can be done under either the present or proposed structure.

( I am assuming that no-one will put on an event with low quality facilities and expect it to be highly competitive).

[Paul Frost]

( I am assuming that no-one will put on an event with low quality facilities and expect it to be highly competitive).

What, a bit like the Purple Thistle?

Kerrera, 300 people, 5 courses, unmanned start, and no facilities (apart from the ferry to get you onto the island).

[Vidalos]

Having watched this discussion develop I'm left thinking of what I might experience in the future and what if I don't get what I've paid for. My expectations for a level 3 event will not be that high. But what if I've decided to travel to a level 2 event because of the 'quality' of the event. What if I don't get that quality area, quality course, quality competition ?? Just bad luck or miss selling of an event . What guarentee do I have ???

[geomorph]

( I am assuming that no-one will put on an event with low quality facilities and expect it to be highly competitive).

What, a bit like the Purple Thistle?

Kerrera, 300 people, 5 courses, unmanned start, and no facilities (apart from the ferry to get you onto the island).

Hmmmm. would be a type 'Q', though I suspect many would regard it as type 'E' with a limited course range. Definitely not type 'S'.
Was there an external controller thus making it eligible for 'E'? if I'm more flexible on the course range

Or would it be better to say that 'Q's that have all the QA necessary for cross-event course comparison can qualify for such as the rankings?

[roadrunner]

Reading all the discussion here (still no Focus in deepest Berkshire )), it strikes me that people are going to be more confused than they were before. A current "District" event will almost certainly offer courses from White to Blue (usually Brown as well and occasionally others), which are of a broadly consistent standard in terms of length and TD. But now we have a wider set of courses, not all of which will be provided at all events. So say someone tries the "Light Blue" course at one event, finds that's about right for him/her, then turns up at another event of the same "Level", and finds that there isn't such a course. Aren't they going to be confused? I can't help but think that three "levels" of event simply isn't enough, though there could well be a case for changing the classifications from what we have today.

[RJ]

We have had event guidelines for badge events and national events for years. Surely folk would read those guidelines and clubs would insist their events stuck to the letter!! It would appear not. Events evolve, things change. How come national events started to appear on poorer quality areas?

What makes 'you' think that a new system of event structure will produce a more consistent competition!! It won't. Clubs will still do what they want. It is after all the club that drives this sport, and any two committees will rarely think alike. Hardly surprising really since our market place, terrain, resources are different.

If your turn comes up to host a CompassSport Cup first round event you go to the guidelines and follow them, probably because you believe in the competition. You wouldn't start from scratch if you wanted to plan a colour coded event.... you would do your best to follow the course guidelines.

Perhaps we just need a more detailed set of 'requirements' for each of the events we are likely to put on. It would certainly make more sense than trying to reinvent an entire event structure.