in: Orienteering; General;
| # Posted 2008-06-27 01:28:48 | |
| toddp: | I am setting a sprint for my local club. Where can I find the official IOF definition of what a sprint course design should look like? I expect that there are some rules or guidelines for course length, number of controls, appropriate terrain, control location, etc. |
| # Posted 2008-06-27 01:32:40 | |
| JanetT: | The USOF site has a link to the IOF documents from the Club Resources page; click the 'IOF Technical Articles' link at the top of the page.
Or click here for a direct link. :-) |
| # Posted 2008-06-27 02:02:41 | |
| cedarcreek: | PG has some general guidelines here. |
| # Posted 2008-06-27 04:00:22 | |
| simon: | I know there exists some documents. The appendix 6 in the IOF rules gives some information (including the above guidelines from PG).
For a general guideline, sprint is about route choice and concentration at high speed, not about navigation in complex terrain. This means: - control features should be simple to find - but do play with control description! Like, "is the control on the top of fortification or at the bottom?" (= very different route choice, great time loss if the competitor does not read the description) - it's all about route choices! First there should be some, second the choice must be difficult, either because they feel the same, or because the most efficient is hidden (for example, backtracking for turning around an obstacle), or because there is a "hidden" obstacle at 2/3 of the easy route choice (which means the runner should carefully read the whole leg before choosing it) - in particular, you can set a back and forth control (i.e. exit is same as entry) - which is discouraged in classic course setting - should include many sharp turns, direction changes - also impassable cliffs/fences, as well as some area of vegetation (like flowers patch) become forbidden to cross - take that into account for course setting If you have mixed terrain like forest/urban, the challenge of switching between different kind of orienteering is also very interesting. |
| # Posted 2008-06-27 04:04:14 | |
| simon: | Actually, the best thing would be to take an actual sprint course and analyze it with such goggles.
Also I remember reading some elite's blog, where he/she was talking about his/her strategy for sprint. For example, read the whole leg before making your choice (in response to point 3 above). It's great to see how an elite thinks about a sprint course. Unfortunately, I cant remember who said that (I think it was a british one, before the JK sprint) |
| # Posted 2008-06-27 06:05:36 | |
| ebuckley: | I think sprint setting can (possibly should) also involve a certain deviousness on the part of the setter. In normal woods orienteering, one tries to challenge the competitors. You make them change speeds, assess routes, use attack points, etc.. However, a good classic course does not try to "trick" the orienteer into going the wrong way. The choices are presented and the competitor is expected to see the alternatives. In sprinting, the setter may well set a leg where many competent competitors won't even see the optimal leg, much less take it, because they are distracted by a seemingly obvious alternative. This alternative may turn out to be a literal dead-end, where competitors don't realize it's blocked by an uncrossable feature until commiting to the leg, or it may just be inferior because it involves crossing some obstacles whereas the alternative was clear running. |
| # Posted 2008-06-27 06:33:28 | |
| simon: | You're totally right about the "trick" thing! (and that's another way to put my thing about non-obvious route choice, something like "set a leg to get an obvious but inefficient route choice, and make the efficient leg non-obvious - but then, the competitor could get used to this rule, and seeing an obvious route choice would lead to seeking the non-obvious one - so the next trick is to make the obvious choice looks inefficient while being effectively efficient, throwing the competitor in despair - yikes, too much neurons consumed today) |
| # Posted 2008-06-27 08:38:25 | |
| cedarcreek: | I sat down to write a quick post and completely failed:
Use 1:5000 or 1:4000. Make sure the course overprinting is easy to see. Use standard 6mm circles. See ISSOM 2007 (pdf) 1. Make it fast. 2. Shoot for extreme tempo changes and a lot of direction change. Complicated legs mixed with short trival legs that are run flat out. 3. Make the runner choose between running fast and reading the map. My preferences: a. If you have the start and finish separated, try to put the start higher than the finish. Minimize climb. Any big uphill that will give them time to walk and read the map should be late in the course. b. Have at least one really good longer leg. Don't go nuts with the length of that leg. c. Have a lot of controls. I personally think 18 is a good number. (15-24 maybe?). If you have too few, you can't get the sprint feeling. (full disclosure---A lot of my sprints have had less than 15 controls. I now try for a lot of controls, but especially for local events with SportIdent, it gets tough to have so many.) d. Have at least 1 leg where the circles touch or almost touch. Attempt to keep the second flag out-of-sight of the first flag. This is the 2nd biggest reason to use 6mm circles. e. With the exception of a Team Trials Sprint, where the length and winning time should match a WOC (meaning world elites would finish in 13-14 minutes---the lower half of the window), favor shorter, faster courses. For an A-meet, I'd probably design for 14 minutes winning time. For local events with 2 or 3 sprints, I prefer having each course a different length, and keeping them short. f. My personal experiences (as a setter of sprints with low attendance) says the longest sprint should be no longer than 2.7km. I favor 2.2-2.5km, though. If you have a lot of uncrossable features, measure the distance the runner has to run. For a local event, I prefer a 1.8, 2.2, and 2.5km sprint day over a 2.7 and 3.0 day. There is a fine line here though, in that people might be disappointed if they drive a long way for really short courses. g. If the terrain is slow, shorten the sprint, or give up on calling it a sprint. h. For the more complicated legs, try to have at least 3 or 4 "steps" in the navigation for the runner to complete the leg. i. If you are using a 1:10000 or 1:15000 map file printed at 1:5000 or 1:4000, consider editing the symbols to make it look more like an ISSOM map. I'm talking more about thinning the contour lines and getting the point symbols and screens the right size rather than changing the road color and urban trails. My two philosophical ideas about sprints are: 1. Get everyone beyond their comfort zone regarding running and reading the map. Reward the runners who can read the map faster and those who can get into and out of controls faster. 2. Take climb out of the course as much as possible. This gives the experienced, map reading older runners the ability to be competitive with less experienced young runners, and broadens the competition. Broadening the competition is good. Stuff I've been thinking about: Are 6mm circles and ISSOM maps the best solution for older orienteers with vision issues? The ISSOM makes a big deal about map legibility. I want the older runners to have every advantage possible regarding map and overprint legibility. I'm nearsighted, which means I'm unlikely to ever have trouble reading the map. I'm interested in older orienteers opinions of sprint map legibility in general, but specifically these two items: 1. Is a 1:10000 map printed at 1:5000 better than one with the thinner ISSOM line widths? I find the former has contour lines that look like they're drawn with crayons. I favor the latter---my eye makes out the terrain shapes better with thinner line widths. 2. Are the ISSOM 6mm diameter, 0.35mm line width overprint symbols legible to old eyes? I favor 6mm circles for at least 3 reasons. |
| # Posted 2008-06-27 11:34:57 | |
| simmo: | IOF home page just happens to have the new IOF rules as it's latest news item. Course planning is covered in Appendix 6, with some specific comments about Sprint courses.
The reference given by Cedarcreek (ISSOM 2007) also has a preamble relevant to the planning of courses, not just the mapping. |
| # Posted 2008-06-27 19:34:42 | |
| upnorthguy: | Excellent points by Cedar Creek. All I can contibute is the editorial comment that I think some meet organizers/sprint planners still don't "get it" that sprint truly means short, with winning times as described above. |
| # Posted 2008-06-28 08:13:30 | |
| ebuckley: | Hear, hear! A sprint with a 20-minute winning time is not a sprint! Think short. Anybody who wants a long course is not going to travel for a sprint, so don't worry about that.
FWIW, the Carol's Team series last summer saw winners ranging in age from 22 to 55. Just because it's fast doesn't mean that experience becomes irrelevant. In fact, I've found that a well set sprint course actually favors older runners who take the extra time to read the map and not fall for every cheap trick thrown at them. |
| # Posted 2008-06-28 13:29:13 | |
| simmo: | The odds are that a sprint course set for 12-15 minutes for M21 is going to take the average M55 18-20+ minutes. It's therefore not a sprint! (to paraphrase ebuckley). If its a local club event, the women and older guys may not mind, but if it is something more important, you need separate courses to cater for different age classes. Doesn't mean too many more controls! I set the Aust Sprint Champs in 2006 with 8 courses, but only 25 controls - 23 of which were on the M21E course. |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 00:55:52 | |
| ebone: | I agree that there should be some tricks/traps in sprint courses, but keep it in balance. It should not be the case the that choice of route on one leg makes or breaks the race, overshadowing the running and navigation problems on the rest of the course. A course with a trap that could cause significant time loss should have other tough route choices that could result in significant losses of time. Otherwise, a runner who makes 17 correct choices and 1 wrong choice (on a trap leg) could be beaten by another similar runner who makes 13 correct choices and 5 wrong ones but happens to get the tricky trap leg right (by skill or a lucky guess).
This principle of balance in course setting is very important and almost never mentioned or taught, from what I've observed. |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 09:41:02 | |
| EricW: | ebone, thanks for some sane language on this issue.
Still, the question remains, what is a reasonable max time penalty for a trick/trap leg? Suppose a serious sprint event (WRE, Nat champ, selection race, or higher) had a trick/ trap leg that was worth a min of 60 seconds for the fastest runners, is that OK? Where should the guideline be set? |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 11:32:04 | |
| Ricka: | As long as the map and clues are accurate and readable, I'm not sure what an 'unfair trick/trap' would be. I've run several A-meet sprints and numerous Eric Buckley local sprints - lots of challenges, no tricks. (I wasn't at Lehigh)
At the 2008 Pig Sprint (Green #1), I did DQ on the second sprint. Starting with Vlad (of course, he was on the Red course), we started on a trail in the same direction. I had no qualms about following him into #1, punching, and u-turning to #2. No qualms although Red #1 was in opening on right side of trail; 30 m shy of Green #1 further on on left side of trail. No "trick" - just a really dumb error - that's Sprint! Hey Eric, I won at 57, not 55:). I had an edge in sprint #2 due to a staggered start, but 4 different club members caught me in last 3rd of course. On detailed 1:2000 (?) park map: #1 suddenly ran fast east, not south; #2&3 did not see 'between the ponds' route; #4 stopped dead 5 m from last control when he couldn't match 5 m stag statue with 'man-made object' - I ducked in and sprinted to Finish. Great course, nothing unfair. My advantage was that I'd looked ahead to last 3rd of course while running easy leg to street junction and a couple guys chose to run without a compass. If there is just 1 sprint to be run, a 12-13 winning time lets me finish in 17-20 on a good day. That's okay since my 10-minute course pace really wouldn't be much different from my 20-minute course pace - in each case though, I'm able to push it all the way - a Sprint. For A-meets, I do appreciate when 2 or 3 course lengths are offered. Rex of BAOC organized a great 1-day sequence of 4 sprints in May in Golden Gate Park. With winning times of 9:16; 4:11; 3:49; and 9:56; my '% behinds' were 75% (errors); 22%; 54% (cautious); 24%. Lots of fun! Course setting advice: Lots of direction changes; lots of mini-decisions (even if all seem 'easy'); reward map reading, clue reading, and planning ahead; variety of leg lengths - short legs still mess me up. Strong, large-scale map. Though not fast, I've enjoyed Sprints much more than I ever expected. |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 16:38:59 | |
| fossil: | Which was the trick leg at Lehigh? |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 16:54:50 | |
| EricW: | fossil, sorry, I'd rather not go that direction, and editted my posting above. It wasn't necessary for my point to use an example, and I regret making a comment in that direction. If others want to cite examples, fine, I think it might be useful for the discussion. |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 17:03:17 | |
| Fly'n: | I think you need to be careful with the term 'trap'. The goal should not be to trap anyone without it being obvious on the map, it comes down to getting trapped by the runners fault of not reading everything correctly etc, but the course setter should not be trying to 'trap' runners by means which they can not make out clearly from the map, thats not the point of any orienteering course.
Fast decisions and quick direction changes are the key to sprints, any course/area that is bland and gives runners plenty of time to read and plan normally turns into a running race. |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 17:38:20 | |
| randy: | Yeah, what was the trap leg at Lehigh?
Vetter didn't mention it. WRE controller didn't mention it. No competitor mentioned it to me. Yet, a month after the race, I read about it as an insinuation in a public forum that in initiator after all doesn't wish to talk about after making the public insinuation. Not saying it wasn't there, but this is the first I am hearing about it. Geez, that makes course setting fun, doesn't it? How is one to learn if this is the feedback mechanism? If there was a trap leg, please disuss it and the problems with it so others can learn going forward (me, my course setting days are behind me, so this isn't all that important to me except in prinicple). For the record, Lehigh was rife with trap leg possibilities that I decided against. I apologize if something unfair slipped thru the process. I apologize for late unmapped construction that may have made one leg unfair. I apologize that the high WT made the experience not a sprint. I even apologize for the weak dollar and high price of gas. But I don't apologize for calling this sort of feedback mechanism absurd. |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 18:16:04 | |
| EricW: | I'll take a stab at describing a trick/trap leg, recognizing that it is highly subjective, but nonetheless critical to course setting guidelines for the Sprint, at least in denser settings.
First, it is my opinion/ observation that, for practical purposes, trick/ trap legs do not occur in parkland or forested settings, which is why many people may not have experienced one. They only become an issue in settings, with tight spaces, such as dense campusses or completely urban areas. These settings are less common, at least in NA, but I believe they are also viewed as extra interesting and desireable, and therefore worth discussing. So how's this- A trick/ trap leg is one where a critical route choice hinges on the observation of a single small detail, typically a small opening, or an impassable barrier (legally or physically), which is right at the edge of perception, for a human, running near threshold effort. Cartographically, the visual difference between passable and impassable features, is often not proportional to their importance for a leg. This is not meant to be a criticism of the ISSOM, but an inevitability, when we are trying to map dense environments. Trick/trap legs often hinge on legal O definitions such as the min. width for drafting an opening, or the latest official symbol in an evolving discipline. Remember those double line veg boundaries that meant "underpass" at the Danish WOC? None of this is beginner friendly, which I think is still supposed to be a driving rational for Sprint O. I am also assuming that Sprint O is meant to be a serious event, where competitors invest a large part of their life, and don't want to feel screwed by the organizer after months of training, airlines and hotels. For non serious events, anything short of a dangerous situation sems OK, in fact trick/ trap legs certainly make good training. This trick/ trap "stuff" is at the heart of the excitement of Sprint orienteering, so I don't think the question is whether to eliminate or not, but what is a reasonable level of impact on a given leg or course. The goal is to keep this issue out of the hands of juries and grievance committees, and limited to a "normal" level of post race discussion. So where are we? 10 sec, 1 minute? unlimited? |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 20:14:14 | |
| ndobbs: | Don't avoid uphills. They change HR and bloodflow to brain, and they make route choices less obvious.
Regarding "traps", first thing one does when evaluating a route in Sprint (or Middle/Long, for that matter) is to make sure there are no uncrossable cliffs/roads/rivers/walls/fences blocking one's way completely. This is more important in an urban environment, of course. Sceond thing is to evaluate time loss compared to a potential fastest route (seen or unseen). Third, decide whether the possible time loss is greater or less than the possible time gain for finding a faster route (incl the time to find it). Risk (good AP, easy nav etc) don't come into it so much in sprint. Planners have to play with this. The runner who plans ahead should get the optimal route faster/more often than the runner who punches, then reads the next leg. "Trapping" runners isn't necessary for good orienteers to beat bad orienteers. Note that the more kinks on a leg, the harder it is to evaluate. Also, top of wall vs bottom isn't necessarily a "trap" - runners should be aware of these problems. In any case, an armchair orienteer should be able to choose a close to optimal route based only on map and condtrol descriptions. Sprints in flat park/woodland are often dull because straight line (or banana choice: left or right around obstacle) is close to optimal. Blowing up 1:10000 maps can be awful. I ran one sprint where a trail at the edge of a plateau looked like uncrossable cliffs... to be avoided. You don't have to use ISSOM if you have a good reason not to, but don't blow up the symbols... you may as well run on 1:10000. |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 20:17:58 | |
| EricW: | I agree with Fly'n that "trap" and "trick" are unfortunate word choices, but for the sake of this discussion, I accept them.
These terms strike me as part of the "course setter vs competitor" attitude which is the cause of many problems, and I don't think Sprint O is an exception. I think "consultant - client" is a better analogy. |
| # Posted 2008-06-29 23:32:51 | |
| Ollie: | This is a very interesting thread, with a lot of useful information and ideas - thanks especially to cedarcreek and EricW. As it happens, I'm currently planning a local sprint event, being put on on the 8th July at the QMUL campus - anyone in/around London is welcome to come and see if I've followed the principles above.
The map is very urban indeed, with few large sections of open space where someone can run straight. I'm certainly hoping to put in as many trap legs as possible. Someone I was speaking to a while ago said that he didn't like them, and that they weren't what orienteering was about. I think he missed the point of sprints though - they *are* very different to normal orienteering. Someone else was unhappy at a recent sprint race because all the controls themselves were very easy to find - typically on street corners (this was deliberate, to raise the profile of the sport as much as possible.) Again - it's all about the leg, not the control, for sprint racing. Much as I would like to "hide" my controls in the most intricate section possible, how the competitor gets to the circle is more important than how they get from the circle to the control itself. |
| # Posted 2008-06-30 02:10:34 | |
| ndobbs: | Now Ollie you're touching on something that occurs much more in sprint o than in normal o (although french 6days maps may prove an exception).
Where in the circle is (side of fence etc) can affect route choice. This means you have to study the whole leg before making your route choice. It penalises "lazy" orienteering - say just deciding control exit and general direction and choosing approach to control on the fly... And maps/courses where one still has to orienteer inside the circle are great ;) On the other hand, controls shouldn't be hidden. You go to the point indicated by the map (and control descriptions) and you should see the control. Confused orienteers under the bridge when the control is on top is to be encouraged, of course :) |
| # Posted 2008-06-30 03:36:18 | |
| bubo: | Interesting discussion - IŽll give you a few examples of courses where 'traps' may have affected the results:
#1) The first map is from a Swedish Elitserie Sprint in 2006: Map. The results were protested and deemed to be unvalid on race-day, but reinstated a week later. The 'trap' here was a forbidden 'bridge crossing' (which wasn't actually a bridge) marked with a cross - a symbol that is not used this way in ISSOM. Mats Troeng lost 45 seconds on his initial route choice which he had to abandon and turn back for a longer detour. #2) I donŽt know if the large number of 'traps' at the Biofarm Cup this spring caused any protests, but my feeling is that they were fully legible on the map - at least for an armchair orienteer. This is a typical urban sprint of the kind that has been used for many PWT and World Cup sprints the last couple of years. Map. |
| # Posted 2008-06-30 04:32:33 | |
| fossil: | Sorry, I didn't mean to start any kind of disagreement about Lehigh. I've run very few sprints so far but did run that one and enjoyed it thoroughly. I did make a couple errors but both were entirely my fault due to concentration lapses. The only reason I asked was that without digging out the map I didn't recall there being anything particularly tricky, and wondered if I'd missed noticing something interesting or noteworthy.
And thanks bubo for mentioning the Biofarm Cup map. I benefited imensely from studying that map in preparation for Lehigh, having never run on a map of this sort before. |
| # Posted 2008-06-30 09:21:56 | |
| jjcote: | I don't see any reason to be evasive about this: in my opinion, the one leg at Lehigh that I'd describe as "tricky" was #17 on Blue. The gap (staircase) to get through the building complex about 2/3 of the way through the leg was very small and hard to see on the map. There was another option one building to the west which was an okay choice if one had left the control on a left-hand route, but definitely inferior if one had gone to the right. Not initially seeing the staircase, I was about to just take the safer but probably a bit slower route all the way around to the right, but then realized that there was no such route, that was all impassable unless you went way too far around (almost to #19). I consider this tricky because it hinged on seeing tiny passages (or lack thereof) on the route options. I don't consider it grounds for criticism at all.
That said, the whole concept of urban maze orienteering that's being discussed here really isn't of very much interest to me. I understand that it has some advantages in terms of being photogenic, but if that's what orienteering primarily consisted of, as opposed to running through forests and fields, my attention would quickly drift to other activities. Which isn't to say that there's anything wrong with it if other people like it. |
| # Posted 2008-06-30 13:06:13 | |
| TheInvisibleLog: | When the crucial detail about route choice is very fine on the map, we start to get into the limitations of digital printing, older orienteers eyesight and perhaps a need for exageration in mapping. I can remember one sprint event where I just couldn't read the crucial fine detail, but the young things seemed unfazed. And I wasn't competitng, just reading the map after the event. |
| # Posted 2008-06-30 17:01:10 | |
| jjcote: | In the case of Lehigh, the map was offset printed, at 1:4000. But the passage was in fact very narrow. |
| # Posted 2008-07-01 05:53:56 | |
| EricW: | for_________- There are minimum dimension specifications in both the ISSOM and ISOM that are intended to directly address the eyesight/ exaggeration issue. Frankly, on many/most maps these specs are ignored with little consequence, but in these dense Sprint settings they can obviously be critical. The intent is there, and I think the specs are reasonable, but the application and enforcement are the crux of the issue.
An additional illistration of the fine tolerances we are dealing with here ocurred on at least one person's Lehigh map. At the second last control, #21 on Blue, common to many (?)courses, a printing fluke occurred so that there appeaed to be a break between between the cliff/retaining wall and the bldg that it was in fact solidly connected to, immediately next to the control. This break was not much different from other intentional openings. The registration from the offset printer we use has been consistently excellent, and at a quick glance around the rest of the map, it appeared to be normally registered. I have no explanation, and I wouldn't believe it if it wasn't pointed out to me. |
| # Posted 2008-07-02 05:33:15 | |
| AZ: | Randy -
No need to apologize for the weak *US* dollar - that made the event even more enjoyable for those with CDN dollars. But why are your course planning days behind you? Lehigh was a highlight and I would hope to be able to run on more courses set by such a thoughtful course planner. |
| # Posted 2008-07-02 09:14:54 | |
| TheInvisibleLog: | Sprint and Micr-O divergence.
Not so many years ago the concept of sprint orienteering was much more ill-defined. Sprints sometimes happened in 'urban maze terrain, and sometimes happened in forest terrain. From the discussion above it seems opinion has tended towards urban maze. Is Micr-O going to become the alternative for those who prefer forest terrain? This question is interesting to me because of my location. In our town there is only one location that would make an 'urban maze' sprint map. But we have many locations of high detail gold mining terrain that can be mapped at sprint or finer scale and provide an intense navigational challenge. I enjoy setting sprint length courses on this terrain. It doesn't provide the maze type problems discussed above, but it has many changes of direction, many runners travelling in different directions, but a requirement for navigating to locate a mapped feature rather than an emmphasis upon the route to an easily located feature. Maybe this is where Micr-O will evolve? |
| # Posted 2008-07-02 09:43:01 | |
| Eoin: | Please forget Micr-O! That was a made for TV horror show. Sprint O works well in forest terrain, especially what you describe. |
| # Posted 2008-07-02 10:48:42 | |
| TheInvisibleLog: | Micr-O as described by the Norwegians is a subset of what is being described as Micr-O now. I agree that the Norwegian proposal's premature death was timely. My impression is that Micr-O seems to mean more than just the control lottery proposal. It also means high detail maps at a scale of 1:3000 or similar, such that navigation to locate the control is more important than route choice. This facet may survive long after the lottery is forgotten. |
| # Posted 2008-07-02 14:09:31 | |
| Eoin: | Yeah but, no but, all anybody remembers about Micr-O is elite orienteers either standing around scratching their heads or looking stupid running penalty loops. |
| # Posted 2008-07-02 23:24:52 | |
| bishop22: | The first two campus sprints that I did had trivial navigation - as in a Yellow (M/F12) runner would have no trouble picking very good routes. The Lehigh sprint was much more challenging. Neither my son nor I were mentally ready for the map reading challenge and were both spanked brutally that day.
I'm not passing judgment on either kind of campus sprint (I loved them both), but after seeing the JWOC Sprint map, I'd say we could use more Sprint courses like Lehigh! |
| # Posted 2008-07-03 01:39:37 | |
| toddp: | Will someone please post a link to the Lehigh map? I would love to see it. |
| # Posted 2008-07-03 01:48:27 | |
| hkleaf: | It's available on route gadget. |
| # Posted 2008-07-03 05:12:35 | |
| Ricka: | Gerald, thanks for the link. (Except for the length), I would love to have run the (Green or Red) course! Comparing routes (especially the fastest Blue runners), there was LOTS more to the course than the leg to #17. It seems that Randy allowed little time to look ahead - making #17 that much harder.
On campus sprint courses, I don't take contours into my route choices - I just don't see the flow of the land. The contours obviously made this course more physical; but did it also impact your route choice? |
You must be logged in to add a message
