Discussion: Touch-free e-punching

Last Friday I competed at the JK Sprint, which used touch-free e-punching. This was decidedly sweet. Run close to the control, wave the card near, and check the display on the card as you leave, to verify that a punch occurred. (It did on all 19 controls, plus a twentieth (my control 8, which I ran past later in the course).)

This is definitely my favorite form of punching so far as a competitor, from what I experienced. The focus is on orienteering, not fiddling with a mechanism or discerning a beep. Way easier than stick-in-a-hole, which is way easier than wrench-a-wrist.

I wonder how the organizing is. If the units are always-on, like normal Emits, and the software is decent, then it could be a dreamy system...low hassle for organizers and competitors alike.

Any other experiences with it?

Units have to be turned on as the system is quite draining on the battery, this is done by placing an Emit card in front of them for a couple of seconds, then they are timed to switch off after 2 hours of no use. So in a small area you turn them on as you put them out and everything should be fine. Or send a few test runners out who will have to wait a bit longer at the control for them to turn on.

We used them at the Oxford City Race last November, and plan to for future runnings of this race. Don't think anyone had much of a problem with it, although you do have to move out of range of the control for the display on your card to change which is one reason for not using contact free at the finish.

Software is the same as for standard Emit, no real reason for it not to be, which means it isn't particularly great but does the job...

I have to say that I still prefer SI with the beep feedback. It's probably just lack of practice but I find having to check the display after every control a real distraction to my routine and it breaks up my flow.
The other thing I suppose is that you need a gated start and beamed (?) finish for sprint races if you want to get accurate results, I know it's not the World Champs or anything but it would still be good...

I am definitely with Jenny on this one. SI all the way, especially after all the problems with normal EMIT at the JK and all the needless mispunchings! Touch-free was good, but having to check whether the thing registered after every control totally threw off control flow and concentration.

Interesting one this - I guess with contact free the procedure at each control is different and so breaks the flow. And with a sprint race, the time taken out to check the card relative to the time taken for a leg is quite large. Maybe checking the display as you go through is the answer...

But also, the flow has been improved quite a lot by not having to slow down as much to physically punch at the unit - so the extra time spent checking the card would previously have been used actually punching. Problem is that you're still moving!

Suppose this all leads back to Jagge's article about the future of e-punching...

Don't see any advantage of touch-free e-punching if you have to check display for punch. And what to do if punch didn't register? Run back to control? In that case you can lose more time.

I'm wondering if we aren't straying a bit from the concept. The idea of a control is that you go to that exact location. Is 5m close enough? NO! 2m? NO! You have to go the the EXACT location. I think physical contact with the control is an integral part of the sport.

I'm with the go with the flow crowd--close enough is close enough. Does the punch ever not register? Maybe because the technology is new, people just don't trust it, so you are compelled to check. If it works all the time, then why check? Just run!

I like the idea of actually touching the control (or something attached to it) in some way. I think it's a nice provider of a clear separation between one leg and the next. Might have something to do with tactile senses... I'll stick with real maps rather than go to goggles with projected maps, too.

How do you know if you have passed close enough to the control (aside from checking your card display)?

An ideal system would make it impossible for people to take risks to try to gain a few seconds by cutting the control short.

A gate would work perfectly. It could be as simple as two control bags on stakes set 2 meters apart or so and you would have to pass between them to register. You could incorporate a beep or flashing light with such a system and it would be just as foolproof as any current system with the added benefit of being able to run through.

I don't see any reason why the ability to punch controls quickly should be a determining factor in any race. Orienteering is about choosing the fastest route and executing it perfectly, not getting your stick into a hole quickly. There is plenty of time to engage in such activities off the course...

I used to use emit all the time in Norway and this worked perfectly. The system went down on Saturday and all those who happened to be downloading at that time could have had time added to their total time. I noticed I had 5 mins added as I retired this wasnt a problem but I just wonder if everyone else was picked up.

I also noticed in my class about 3-4 people with no splits from control 1 onwards. What is this all about?

We used SI this last week in Hungary on a training camp. I was using my new SI stick on the last event. It was special in that the controls were not on stands, but just hanging in the area where the control should be. The funny thing was that I didn't actually need to put my stick in the hole - just touching the stick to the control, which caused it to read and register and I got my beep :) I'm not sure if this would always happen, but this could be a real solution to this problem.

Having to turn on the units is a definite downside...there are enough hassles organizing, and two hours is a narrow window. I've been the first out on SI events and waited a second or two for controls to wake up (like in Portugal once)...a bit annoying (though no more than that, admittedly, for me) and not fair for someone truly competitive.

With touch-free, I found that being able to run without stopping reduced distractions markedly. The range is about a meter. When controls have multiple punches, they're normally that far apart. I doubt many controls are placed to that precision. Nor, except in extreme doglegs, is there any real scope for distance saving. It didn't save me any distance, just fuss. Checking the card as I leave the control is something that I always did in pin-punching days, so fairly familiar and quick. Personally I'd rather do that than stop and poke or twist. But maybe it's just my taste.

Perhaps the optimal would be to have units that woke up briefly and transmitted when shaken. Then you'd have to touch the control (or unit) to punch, and most of the time the unit would be not transmitting, thus saving power. The acceleration might even conceivably generate power. And it would give meaning to punching controls,,,

jfredrickson, about the gate idea. What if you need to leave control same way you approached it. How close you need to go to the gate line you need to go before you can turn around? Or do you need to go through and run around one of the gate poles. How big battery is needed to maintain the 2 meter gate operating about for dome day. How much the system would cost? How much it would weight / size would be - someone has to carry those units to forest and back.

I don't see any reason why the ability to punch controls quickly should be a determining factor in any race...

True. Absolutely true. At the moment it is a factor with both (old) Emit and SI. With emit wrench-a-wrist skills are needed, with SI you need re-punch with an other unit/pinpunch if unit is dead. And buy faster and faster sticks...

An ideal system would make it impossible for people to take risks to try to gain a few seconds by cutting the control short.

How about doubled touch free system. You get first punch (level 1 punch) inside 2 m range, and second punch inside 10 cm range. If you try to win a second or two by making a fast sloppy punch, you would get only level 1 punch. So at download we would know you really were there, but you didn't punch carefully enough. Then all we need is rules to handle this, like "two sloppy punches + one per 10 control is allowed (16 contol course = thee sloppy ones allowed, 23 controls 4 sloppy punces allowed etc.)".

(imagine kind of running with both touch free Emit and SI at the same time, level 1 = Emit, level 2 = SI)

JennyJ:I have to say that I still prefer SI with the beep feedback. It's probably just lack of practice but I find having to check the display after every control a real distraction to my routine and it breaks up my flow.

For Emit users SI beeb and waiting for feedback is a pain and it breaks up the flow. I don't see there really is much difference between getting feedback from unit compared to brick display. The real problem is the feedback itself. If there is need for feedback checking, we need to get used to it. And if unit is dead and we don't get feedback, we need to react (=try again with same or an other unit). This is why there should be no feedback and we should simply get used to puch without any feedback. If there is dead control unit, competitor should not care or even know it. Dead unit should be organizer's problem, not competitors - and all competitors should be qualified for that control and time period if dead unit is found. Manufacturer should try bit by bit make units more reliable, but we should accept the fact sometimes it happens and build our rules in a way one unlucky unit would not spoil the race.

---

One more thing. I don't know what happenned in JK, but we must separate timing software problems and e-punch problems. It sounds like JK problem was timing software problem, not e-punch problem. There is several software you can use with both Emit and SI. For example here in Finland Emit's own software has never been used, we use Emit's hardware only.

(I know, nothing new here. Sorry. Wrote the same here only couple of weeks ago...)

I think physical contact with the control is an integral part of the sport.

It seems that in races with 100ms timing, just getting close enough would possibly add an uninteresting (to me, anyway), tactic to the race. Yeah, its the same for everyone, but like I said, developing that skill of saving exactly 1m at each control doesn't interest me, but you'd have to do it. Would saving 1m at 27 controls in a sprint save 100ms? I actually don't know, but it seems it could.

It also could eliminate skill on top of cliff vs bottom of cliff. Sometimes the penalty for getting this wrong can be a few seconds, depending on the cliff/terrain. But if you can just lean down or raise your arm and register the thing after getting this wrong, that would eliminate a more interesting (to me, anyway), skill. This would favor tall people (which I guess in concept is no different than favoring fast people, aside from trainng, of course).

Ok, so what was that slogan to not attract geeks to the sport :)

Jagge - I think the JK suffered from both Emit hardware problems and timing issues, it was the biggest event in terms of numbers in the UK that has used the Emit system. And it was using a new results software system which, to my knowledge, hadn't been used before. So some might say there were bound to be teething problems.

Also, am interested in the software used in Finland - I think the JK was unique in being the first event not to use the standard Emit software. how does the finnish system differ? - I presume there have been favourable comparisons over the standard Emit software?

and (apologies, off topic a bit) as was mentioned in your previous thread, the advantage pin-punching had was that it was the same action every time and there was some visual feedback to see whether the punch had registered, i.e. you could look at the card to see the holes! As you say, having an electronic confirmation of whether the punch has registered shouldn't be necessary, but could/should there be a mechanical confirmation like there used to be? You still wouldn't know whether the unit was electronically dead...

distracted, you are right of course. There could be confimation - telling you have done the right thing, but not telling you have got the e-punch. This means you should get this confirmation even if punch unit is dead.

The difficult thing is how this could be done without making the punching operation too difficult. Maybe a button in the bottom of the brick (or on the tip of the stick) and punching is touching the "control plate" with this button. Pressing the button views message on the brick (for something like 30 sec), or brick beebs/flashes or what ever. You would get the same beep by pressing the button with your finger, so it would be just for you and it would not need functioning punch unit.

The very same button could be used in trainings without punch units - you push the button at each control and you'd get split times.

About "the Finnish timing system" by Pekka Pirilä. It was already used in most/all events late 80' -early 90' before e-punching appeared. When Emit appeared he added support for Emit hardware to the system. Finnish O clubs kind of kept using the same system they were used to use, now with Emit support.

Before Emit there was an organizer at the finnish line pressing a button each time a runner ran over finnish line. Each button press added one new line to a sheet and other organizers took runners punch cards and typed in competitors number to right row. The essential thing was keeping button presses and competitor numbers in sync.

With Emit this changed. There is no button any more, there is finish punch instead. A little after finish punch competitor puts his brick to download unit. Computer reads from the card how many seconds ago competitor punched at the finish line and calculates the finish time.

Also all the old functionality for handling pin punch checking status is not needed any more. Instead there is lots of functions for for example setting allowed emit codes for each control (if you have put punch unit with wrong code to a control, you just add it as on of the allowed codes for the control), changing something like start times, compititor names, e-card numbers etc on the fly during the event if needed.

The software has been used for about 20 years now, and I wouldn't be suprised if it hasn't crashed for ten years. And because it's alsready so old, there is already lots of software written on it, like online result systems and like the fancy utility some of yoy saw at Jukola, at start area you put your brick in an unit and you saw previous leg runner's results from online controls.

The bad thing is you kind of run it in shell mode, there is no any fancy Windows GUI. And the 80' style menu system (pressing F1- F12 buttons) is pretty difficult to get for today's users.

I really not an expert on this software, I have used it with Emit only once. But I used to use it before Emit (Fin5 -95).

I guess this is a good candidate for being the most off topic post I have ever written at AP...

The bad thing is you kind of run it in shell mode, there is no any fancy Windows GUI.

Another 'bad thing' - considering this software is often stated as an example of a well functioning system - is that everything is in Finnish.

Jagge - if you translate it you´ll get the Orienteering Nobel Prize ;)

I think he already deserves one for Route Gadget!

Yeah, but that wasn´t the Literature Prize ;)

Yes, everything is in Finnish and as far as I know all language texts are written in the source code, so there is any external files to translate. So you need to translate texts in source code.

Many Finnish clubs would happily start using a software with GUI like OLA instead. I have heard this from several directions. The only reason why this is used is the fact it is almost foolproof. Using it is a pain, it's like going back to 80´s and most users hate it. But it always works and it is very difficult to make something wrong with it.

And I believe source code (which is not an open or shareware) is not available for translation or GUI implementation.

I don't know, maybe no-one has ever asked. Who knows how Pekka sees it. Writing software isn't his real job, this is

The funny thing was that I didn't actually need to put my stick in the hole - just touching the stick to the control, which caused it to read and register and I got my beep

With my SI 6 card, I've noticed that just touching the tip to the hole usually works, but never noticed being able to just touch it anywhere. (But maybe you're using an SI 7 card? :-)

Jagge: For Emit users SI beeb and waiting for feedback is a pain and it breaks up the flow. I don't see there really is much difference between getting feedback from unit compared to brick display.

I think the difference is that I'm not using my ears for anything else when I'm orienteering whereas I have to have my Emit in my map hand (I use a baseplate compass) and therefore checking it definitely interrupts my usual navigation.

I like the idea of no feedback though and have to say that for the rest of the JK I just punched with Emit 'properly' and didn't check the card once (I taped the back up card on though just in case!).

Nice (and a bit surprising) to hear you don't hate the no feedback idea (I am afraid most orienteers used to run with SI with feedback disagree with me on this).

I can see your problem. If you punch with map hand, you may need tu use your thumb for punching. And map hand's thumb is where the magic hides (right?), taking it away from the map is begging for trouble.

Thumb compass users don't have the same problem, they have a free hand for punching.

(O tech hint: sloppy map thumbing technique is probably the most common reason for errors like huge parallel errors and reading wrong leg. If you think you make such errors all too often, try focusing on your map hand's thumb. Usually it helps.)

What it comes to ears, counting on a sound feedback is risky if there is other competitors punching at the same time with nearby (SI) units.

Quite off the thread, but I thought the parenthetical part of Jagge's comment was worth repeating.

"(O tech hint: sloppy map thumbing technique is probably the most common reason for errors like huge parallel errors and reading wrong leg. If you think you make such errors all too often, try focusing on your map hand's thumb. Usually it helps.)"

With punching technology, my main issue is which system is most compatible or convertible to a running finish line. I think punching finishes feel stupid and look stupid. Swimming is the only racing sport I can think of where the competitor has to stop their own clock, and that's mostly because there is a wall in the way. Does anybody else care about this?

I also feel that punching finish is kind of stupid.

I've said this before in other threads here, the electronic punching systems were NOT originally designed to time the race. The main purpose was to replace the manual needle punch checking. They put the clock (crappy one) in there to get splits as a bonus. When I started running with Emit (is it really over 10 years ago?) the timing of the race was still done the same way as it was done with needle punching, synchronized clocks and some dude pressing a button when you crossed the line. At most of the biggest meets today (WOCs, European Champs and similar level) they tend to use a separate timing, with gated start and automatic finish (same stuff as they use for downhill and cross country skiing).

I've always figured that I was navigating to a series of points, and the finish was one of them. If the other points use orange nylon and a punch, why not the finish? (If anything, I've tendd to think that some habits, like a marked route to the finish, were there to ameliorate the difficulty of finish line timing, or to make O more like running. In some ways I find a punching finish more "pure". (And for other reasons, I think that logistics should be the most minimal that will adequately support the important essence of the sport...timed navigation.) Just my contrarian view :-)

There are some sports that can have a comparatively delicate maneuver at the end, rather than a full-out effort. I'm thinking of a catcher trying to tag out a runner sliding into the plate, or Rugby, where you have to get across the goal line and then put the ball down, or gof, which almost always ends with a putt. But those aren't races.

Note that punching finishes still aren't used for mass-start races. In those situations, it's the first runner across the line who wins, and the runners are then instructed to punch in order. But I think this is in part because you'd want more than one punch in order to avoid having fisticuffs as two people fight over a single one, and once you have two, with current-day equipment you couldn't be sure that the clocks are synchronized well enough.