in: Bash; Bash > 2008-05-03;
| # Posted 2008-05-05 20:11:28 | |
| urthbuoy: | I believe it was last year, when yours truly sent a letter to two prominent race directors (including FAR) detailing almost verbatim the frustration you've described:
- don't penalize those with skill and reward those without. All we can count on is the tools they give us, and if those fail, we literally have nothing except luck to fall back on. Missing the proper CP location and blindly continuing along a trail to find the CP vs. stopping at the proper location and searching for 1/2 hr before giving up and heading on, only to find the CP 1 km further along is an example. - the complexity of the CP location has to equal the map provided. CPs are on features. We should know for example that if we arrive at the top of a hill and don't find the CP we may be on the wrong hill and not waste our time searching at the toe of slope. - all teams should have equal information - accurately located - one of the most frustrating experiences for me was to follow a 20 year old overgrown road (the one on the map) throughout the night to come out to the CP located on a brand new road (not on the map). Those that missed this feature on the ascent would have just lucked on to the brand new road and toodled along at speed to the CP. And so on as you've described. Rest assured others have been in the same boat as you just went through. It's frustrating, and words have been written. I can only suggest you make the effort to pass on these details to the appropriate race directors, and hopefully, eventually we'll make a difference. |
| Advertisement | |
| # Posted 2008-05-05 21:02:13 | |
| FB: | Great report Barb ( I didn't write one so as not to be shown up by you ;-) )
Thanks for calling me lucky urthbuoy ;-) I agree with all you've both said. I have been on the other end too many times (often with urthbuoy) and it actually really helped in this race. Plus I was less precise (+ - 100m?) in plotting my controls expecting that the written instructions would be the biggest help.. so I actually plotted 6 at the east end of the swamp and since we did that section in reverse we just followed the swamp as closely on the north side as we could. When we left that control heading south I said that there would be problems for the other teams, because of the more difficult approach from the south. I've always hated cartoon maps and urthbuoy has had to listen to me whine about them many times (usually at ski resorts)... so I just took a few valium and tried to do what Barb indicated... I was in 'stay calm and don't get run over by a charging Bobkitten mode' |
| # Posted 2008-05-05 22:42:21 | |
| Bash: | FB, you are being too modest when you fail to mention that your team totally aced the cartoon map section, which put you in the lead by a LOT. Congratulations on an awesome race - we were proud of you! I don't think any of the top racers succeeded only through good luck. The top 3 teams were exactly as expected. We're also proud of all our other Attackpoint buddies on various teams who did so well on Saturday. The best part of the weekend was the chance to hang out and chat and laugh. |
| # Posted 2008-05-05 22:54:24 | |
| urthbuoy: | Yep, in no way am I suggesting FB you made a 3hr, 90 degree error!:-). I'll praise you after this on your own log:-).
Bash, this is spinning around in my head again, and I'm trying to decide if it's something I want to do something about (again). The order of my thoughts were: - CARA governing this. Nope too much wrangling. Likely little support from race directors. - Accredited course vetters. As above. - A handbook on course vetting. Hmmmm...possible. Do I want to add yet another hat? Anyway, not sure where this will lead, but it may be worth collecting such details on courses from competitors. Get as many details as possible - real world examples on this type of thing. With no inclination for finger pointing or calling folks out. Just a handbook that could be distributed to AR folks on course vetting - with a section on errors. Thoughts? Want to co-author and/or start collecting examples? I certainly can go back through some of my maps from history. |
| # Posted 2008-05-05 23:33:54 | |
| Leanimal: | I think that is a great idea urthbuoy! You guys have brought up so many great points and have a lot of experience that I think putting some of them on paper would help race directors to make sure they cover their bases. For instance Bash CP #6 was a perfect example of using GPS to identify a point and then verifying that with the map. Once you discover that the junction is actually north of the wetland then you change the UTM accordingly because most of us were using that swamp/stream as a feature to verify where we were. |
| # Posted 2008-05-05 23:35:00 | |
| Leanimal: | Oh I also want to say that I HATE cartoon maps but if there is anyone to get a big enough lead on us at the finish I am glad it was FB since he returned to his room, cleaned up, and came back with cold beer for us - perfect! |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 00:59:07 | |
| AngrySeagull: | G'day all. Hope you don't mind my creeping around attackpoint and jumping in here. I've really enjoyed reading your race description and especially this conversation thread. I'm finding all your reviews of past course setting & CP placement mistakes, and your course setting suggestions, to be fantastic reminders and lessons - both for course design and for race navigation. Keep 'em coming!! From a race director/course designer perspective, I think a handbook (or other forum) listing many past examples of these frustrating course setting mistakes would be amazingly useful! If you've got any other examples of pitfalls to avoid, I'd love to hear them! |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 01:06:19 | |
| zoolander: | Excellent write up as usual Barb, but it left me with a major sense of Deja Vu. Sorry to hear about some of the challenges. Let the course test the skill of the teams, not poorly placed/described cps that must be search and destroyed, which reminds me of a wonderful Metallica song.
Congrats to FB and crew though! |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 01:22:46 | |
| zoolander: | To respond to Urthboy's comments...2 points:
1. Ultimately search and destroy becomes a safety issue and is a serious concern to me 2. Talk is cheap, especially with certain RDs. |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 09:07:29 | |
| Bash: | I'd be happy to help with a CARA project on course setting/vetting if Urthbuoy decides to take his idea farther - here are a few thoughts:
- I think it should be written in the *positive*, i.e. primarily focused on providing examples of good course setting, with course setting mistakes discussed within this context. - Best to keep the examples of mistakes general rather than singling out any particular race. All course setters have made the odd error! - A real orienteer needs to be involved, e.g. Hammer. After 5 years, I'm a mere newbie. If you read the main Attackpoint discussion forum regularly, there is plenty to be learned here about good course setting. - Last, but not least... not every race or RD has the same goals. For example, in Appalachian Extreme, some bike CPs were dots in the middle of mountains with no indication of how to get there, and that's exactly how the RDs wanted it, in order to increase the adventure. I held FAR to a higher standard on Saturday because they called their section "mountain bike orienteering", which suggested that it should have been a map and compass problem - and I think they honestly thought it was. Those are the situations where I think the RD might appreciate some advice on how to make it work better. However, I don't think that we want to prohibit the use of non-standard maps like the Deerhurst trail map or ski hill maps or whatever. From the course setter's perspective, it can be really hard to find maps for races, and we wouldn't want to make it any harder. |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 09:14:41 | |
| Bash: | Oh, and welcome to Angry Seagull! |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 09:47:39 | |
| urthbuoy: | Don't know if I'd make this a CARA project as mentioned.
Specific examples would be great references, there just need not be any reference to the event. Just the details of the CP and nav instructions available. I hesitate on the "real" orienteer part (not Hammer at all though) as AR nav is not orienteering - it is it's own beast on to itself. Orienteering standards are somewhat null if only due to the maps usually available to AR. The Prairie Dog was very similar to Appalachian Extreme it sounds like - and I did speak with the RD afterwards to give them an idea. I don't see this as being a set of rules. Just a guide. Guidelines vs. standards if you will. |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 09:58:07 | |
| Bash: | Agreed - guidelines. As in, "if you don't want people to have info about your CP other than its GPS coordinates, that's OK, and you can ignore all this". I was only thinking about the RDs who are actually trying to add orienteering-style nav, as GL was, but are missing some of the background to make it work as well as it could.
And no, we wouldn't want to apply orienteering standards to AR, but there is a lot to be learned from the best practices for orienteering course setting. The stuff I wrote in my log today was a combo of orienteering/rogaining principles. Involving an experienced orienteering course setter in the conversation would bring up other principles, some of which would apply to AR, perhaps in adapted form. |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 18:38:35 | |
| cedarcreek: | I propose that you at least consider some negative examples. I've been thinking of doing that, but I'm lucky enough to be able to mostly use legs of my own courses as examples of bad things to do. You might also be able to use an existing map and just design a leg to demonstrate a poor or unfair design---Although I think using real examples is preferable because with fake ones, people can just say, "Oh, no one would design a leg like that." |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 19:11:36 | |
| Bash: | I was just thinking that the negative examples could be presented in the context of the positive guideline, e.g.:
"The CP should be placed in a location that is supported by the map." Then show or describe several CPs that are supported by the map, and explain why they are supported. Then show a few examples of CPs that are not supported by the map and explain why not. It's really just semantics. Race directors and orienteering course setters often hear negative, picky feedback, and some of them end up deciding to ignore it in order to keep their sanity. I thought that a positive slant might be better received. But agreed, it would be impossible to explain the guideline without showing examples where the guideline isn't met. |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 19:30:40 | |
| urthbuoy: | "Bashbuoy" Productions |
| # Posted 2008-05-06 19:44:28 | |
| Bash: | Ooooh, I like it!
I was on an orienteering relay team that we called "Barb and her Boy Toys". So I guess another option would be "Bash and Buoy Toy". |
| # Posted 2008-05-07 09:31:05 | |
| hammer: | Deja vu indeed.
What I found annoying about the all too common search and destroy approach due to misplaced CPs was that it was viewed by some (many?) as 'real navigation' and that the 'best teams are those that can get inside the head of the race director to figure out where the CP really is'. That was complete crap as a misplaced CP penalizes the best navigators because they would not go to where a CP shouldn't be. Bash wrote: "there is a lot to be learned from the best practices for orienteering course setting" Absolutely! I'll stick to my view that navigation is navigation is navigation so simple rules will apply in all forms of adventure nav sports (I still don't see a major difference between O, AR, Rogaine, mountain marathon - but that is for another thread). Two simple guidelines. 1) The CP should be placed on a feature that is on the map 2) Vet your course by someone independent of the race director |
| # Posted 2008-05-07 11:07:43 | |
| urthbuoy: | Welcome hammer (hambashbuoy...bashambuoy Productions)
Just some semantic changes 1) The CP should be placed on a feature that is "accurately" portrayed on the map. I see nav for AR in different terms as there is no universal standards to the nav material provided; thus, we get some crazy stuff to try and navigate off of. So, focusing on what makes for fair controls in AR based on the tools available is where I see us making some gains. I too have just been given UTM coordinates with no control description and found myself standing in the middle of the woods. That would be the classic example of not getting "navigation" as a sport. "If you had to use a GPS to get there and we don't have one, how are we supposed to find it?" - I've asked. I've had to follow given bearings for a set number of steps or follow written directions without a map. The list goes on. We can't stop RD's from putting these type "events" in, but at least we can try and give them some head's up as to what they are truly asking of racers. Before all this, I'd say the market will sort it out. Unfortunately, I don't think AR is robust enough for that. |
| # Posted 2008-05-07 18:36:18 | |
| Bash: | Hammer was one of my original Buoy Toys on our winning relay team!
I've had to follow given bearings for a set number of steps or follow written directions without a map. We've had both of these things in GHO's adventure running series, and actually I enjoyed them. In fact, people will see the latter in the Salomon Navstock Raid that I'm designing for June 8. Here's why they dont' bug me: 1) Following a bearing and estimating distance are two tools that good navigators use. Isolating them and creating a fair exercise that focuses on those two skills can be valid, as long as it's not ridiculous, e.g. going for longer than a few hundred meters or aiming for a random birch tree. For example, last weekend, Lawrence sent us 400 m on a bearing from a known point (which is about as far as one of these things should be), but we knew we were aiming for a hilltop, so that helped us to correct the drift of our bearing as we approached the control. In the GHO adventure run, we were aiming at a linear backstop feature, e.g. go 200 m at 93 degrees, then turn left on a trail. 2) Using a written descriptions with no map is *not* navigation, but it can still be fun in the context of the right race. I would be angry to see this in Raid The North, but in this year's Salomon Giant's Rib Raid, we had a section with written instructions and photographs, e.g. "Travel along the bottom of the cliff going roughly northwest until you see this large boulder in the photo." It was cool because it totally changed which parts of our brains we were using - you could almost feel the rusty gears swapping over! It was also fun to include our non-navigating teammate in this route-finding section. My concern is the race sections where the organizer legitimately believes that it is a map and compass exercise, but needs a bit more background in course setting to make this possible. Urthbuoy describes it well: "If you had to use a GPS to get there and we don't have one, how are we supposed to find it?" |
You must be logged in to add a message