This is to enlarge a thread that has been happening in a more obscure location. Ther eis a strategic point to this question, but that can wait till later.
What aspects of course setting make for an enjoyable or fulfilling competitor experience? Limit your self to five points.
Go!
1) Controls in the right places
2) Interesting route choices
3) Controls on solid, non-hidden features (i.e. no bingo)
4) No obligation to wrestle with well-armed vegetation
5) Constant technical challenge
for a beginner 1) and 3) of the above
5) is a requirement for middle distance, and 2) for long distance - not sure the two can really be mixed.
Assuming you talk about "classic", long distance orienteering:
1) mix short and long legs in order to...
2) challenge from the start, through the middle, 'til the end (mixing physical and technical challenge)
3) no bingo control
4) mixing different technical skills (reading contours, using linear features, aiming off...)
5) avoid "artificial" difficulty, like tracing a course which looks like a deranged spider web (reading the terrain should be difficult, not reading course!)
I'd replace J-J's #4 with "offers plenty of opportunities to really enjoy running."
J-J has most of what I think is important, but I usually complicate it with a lot of other concerns. I tend to use rules of thumb that are mostly right, but not always:
- Variation in leg length.
- Harder nav is rewarded and easier nav is punished.
- Variation in tempo---long then short; slow then fast; and vice versa. Especially when the course has a lot of similar legs (and especially when each leg has a lot of climb), I like to use a control picking section in a relatively flat but interesting area.
- The longer a leg, the better it needs to be---Short legs for tempo change, dogleg avoidance, making the course prettier on the map, etc, can be trivial. The longer a leg, the more important it is to avoid a trivial route choice (unless that trivial route is penalized by distance or cimb, for example).
- At least one long leg, if at all possible
Regarding J-J's fourth, "No obligation to wrestle with well-armed vegetation", I'm a lot more liberal. Perhaps, "As little obligation as possible..."
I thought about this question, "What makes a course an enjoyable experience," a lot during the setting I did for the Ultralong courses at the Flying Pig this year. There was a lot of green on the map, and there was not much terrain suitable for intricate navigation.
The question, "What makes it fun?", I answer with a few personal opinions:
1. Running in terrain. If the running is variable such that the map doesn't give you a good idea of runnability, or if the runnability is largely bad, I try to link up runnable sections so that fast people can go smoking through it. I have the advantage of having seen the terrain, so if I notice an area that is nice running (or just pretty), I try to use it. I also try to give the runners something non-trivial to do, such as count reentrants or some nav related task---something more than just "Run fast until I hit a big obvious feature." If the map is really slow most places, I'll compromise on nav to let people run fast in terrain. I'm a slow runner, but I get a big grin on my face when I find some fast running forest. It's a drug.
2. Reading the map, and then later seeing the shape of the terrain in front of you. It's better when you can see a long way, and the land is just undulating even more like the map than you expected---when you think, "Oh yeah, that's right." Also a drug.
3. Deterministic, not Probabilistic. Regarding J-J's third, "Controls on solid, non-hidden features (i.e. no bingo)", I worry that I might be too much a softie in giving away the control. I rarely have the chance to hide it on the other side of a boulder (since we have few boulders here). I attempt (attempt) to make the problem solvable. By that I mean obvious routes into the control are deterministic, not probabilistic. If you read the map and hit the attackpoints right, finding the control should be virtually guaranteed---You should go *right to it*. When I'm in the circle (and I can see the circle terrain), if I can't see the flag, then I better be able to look at the clue and then go right to the flag. I notice a lot of Attackpoint logs that talk about problems in the circle, and it troubles me that it's possible to be there and not see the flag or the feature. As a course setter, if I think the placement truly hides the bag, I change the clue to something else (like to the edge of a depression rather than the default "center of" or I set the stand so the flag is visible). For example, let's say the control is in a depression 100m from the closest attackpoint. If I found that attackpoint and headed for the control from it, that depression had better be visible. If there is a reasonable chance the obvious attack will miss the feature, it's a bingo control. Some runners will find it quickly, and some will have to look for it. That is unfair. If the depression is easy for a good orienteer to miss, then the course setter has two choices---Use another location, or give away the feature with the flag. When in doubt, hang it high.
There is one exception here that should mention. When I check a leg that requires a compass attack, I don't aim off. I go straight for it. When I get into the circle, I might be right or left, and it might be difficult to know whether to go right or left. Hopefully there will be some clues, but there might not be. This is a probabilistic attack. But I think it's fair. I think an experienced orienteer will either aim off or figure it out quickly. (I should probably say that I don't like courses with a lot of compass running, but I do think it's legitimate for a minority of the legs, or as a possible route choice among other options.)
I do try to use more difficult placements on the shorter advanced courses (for example, so the runners can't see the flag from 50m away), but the distinction is that I try to hide the flag from view using the mapped terrain, so the runner knows exactly where to expect it.
Certainly, "in the circle" is a legitimate place to have *some* navigational difficulty, but the best place for difficulty is executing the route choice---between the controls. As course setter, I don't want people standing around trying to decipher the circle---I want them in and out as fast as possible. It's more fair that way.
Here's one that often gets overlooked:
Convoluted course layout - with many twists and turns to the legs; vs. a course that is simply laid out as a big round circle back the same start/finish.
Regarding trouble in the circle, one thing I don't have a good feel for is when the terrain is very intricate---When the circle is basically filled with possible attackpoints. I have trouble thinking an intricate control location is a problem, even if there are people standing around. I'd hope the better orienteers navigate right to the control, but if they have to stop and look at the map, isn't that legitimate?
Perhaps someone who has experience with setting in intricate locations can write about what is fair and unfair.
I've put controls in intricate areas (and gotten a few complaints, but more about the map than the location). Often the hardest part is finding a control location you can describe with a valid clue.
Re the main question, I think JJ's is the simplest and best summary. I don't think interesting route choices and constant technical challenge are incompatible - as Cedarcreek said harder navigation should be rewarded, so on a long route choice leg the fastest route should be the most technically challenging.
Re well-armed vegetation, JJ's key statement is 'no obligation', so if there is a longer route around, fair enough. I do think you have to work with what you've got, and if the area is steep, rough, and green its still orienteering and some people will enjoy it (I always do!). Those that don't can stay away.
Re controls in complex areas, I feel that with the first glance at the control- on the run - you should clearly be able to see the control feature. This means that either it is a large feature, or a contour feature with the brown not obscured by masses of black (rocks), or if it is a small feature it must be sitting on its own with white space around it right in the middle of the circle. For a 'between' description, both features should clearly be visible. You shouldn't have to stop running, or have to stare at the circle for more than a second or two to be able to pick out the correct feature. So when you're course setting, draw your control circle then run around the room and see how it looks!
Perhaps someone who has experience with setting in intricate locations can write about what is fair and unfair.
This is my personal favorite. In my opinion, this isn't fair.
Especially when the description is "boulder, south side". Whether or not it is fair, it certainly isn't enjoyable, at least not to me. (Hard to see on the scan, but there is more than one boulder in the circle). And I believe this was in a WRE. I guess it passed IOF controller muster, so what do I have to whine about?
Re IOF Controller, at a WRE event they would be concentrating on the WRE courses (ie elites/junior eites) - if this control was on say M40 and not on the elite courses they probably wouldn't have looked at it. That's not to excuse the other controller for allowing it, though.
simmo wrote: ...so on a long route choice leg the fastest route should be the most technically challenging.
I am dangerously close to a semantic argument here, but...
My goal for a designing a long leg is for the possible options to be overwhelming. I've used the term "brain-exploding long leg". In the past, I've used similar words to simmo, but I've tried to get away from them: I'm one set of eyes judging the leg, and often I move around the two controls to balance the routes such that I can't easily decide which way I'd go. The problem with that can be that either way is a good way to go. If a runner knows that's how you or I design long legs, all he or she has to do is pick a route that's not bad.
If you design such that the route with hard nav is going to be faster, and people know you do that, then you've taken some of the challenge out of the leg.
So I changed the way I think about designing long legs. I really don't know which way is fastest. My big concerns are (1) that harder nav is shorter or has less climb (or other factors---e.g., less vegetation) than easy nav, and (2) that there is no short and fast but trivial way to complete the leg.
1) Controls in the right places
2) Don't have to fight for a control
3) Wildlife
4) Hills and different terrian.
Barbecue afterwards, with beer.
On-On and down-down. Good one, tundra-desert
One point that seems to be overlooked is that easier courses should be set no harder than the standard requires. For some reason this isn't always the case.
When I set, the first thing I do is look for suitable very easy and easy course possibilities (Blue and Green courses here in Australia). These at local events will probably dictate my starting location while at larger events we have more flexibility.
A course set too hard will often result in youngsters getting terribly lost and often upset.
Also consider the height of these kids and what they can see. Get down on your knees and you might be surprised at how different the forest can look from down there.
I think I am reading of four segments of the orienteering community with four differing criteria for enjoyable course setting:
The young/novice and the older are obvious. Based on this and the related thread about mapping generalisation, there seems to also be a split between different attitudes to navigational complexity.
To me the enjoyability equation is directly proportional to the number of decisions one has to make on the course. This can be applied equally to sprint, middle or long distance courses.
Runnable terrain helps also.
A misplaced control (or being slightly off course at Easter and finding one with no SI unit) might cause a sudden increase in the demand for decision-making - would you still enjoy it?
I assume Bruce means 'deterministic' decision making. That was a great line. Only on an orienteering blog site.
On the advanced courses, as little trail or road running as possible. I like my terrain au natural.
For me, the 'unknown' factor also makes it enjoyable. i.e. if you have been on that terrain before, you get a sense of exploring. So I guess setting courses in previously unused areas makes me keep wanting to come back.
This discussion thread is closed.