Discussion: GPS Watches at NAOC

For those of you who wore your GPS watches in today's middle in M21E, do the right thing and DSQ yourself. You know the rules and who you are.

I have it on good authority that that rule is bullshit.

The obvious solution is to use a GLONASS device, rather than a GPS device.

Yes I agree but rules are rules until they are changed.

Why are you bothered? Did you see someone using a GPS? Did you hear somebody boasting about how their GPS got them to the control faster?

A moron could use a GPS watch to gain an advantage. I don't think all that many people in North America (including many of the participants), take the sport seriously, so a) they don't see how this is possible, or b) they don't care, or c) both of the above. This applies to rule making bodies as well (at least in the US).

Since US rule making bodies are trumped in this instance, yes, those using the devices, whether they gained an advantage or not, should be disqualified, if not for the simple reason that following the rules of the sport matter if you want to be taken seriously, and, for the comfort of those who did follow those rules and observed those who did not.

This would be one of those times when I agree with Randy. It would be trivial to gain advantage with a GPS watch, particularly in this terrain. Even without any special settings or programming, an accurate estimate of distance traveled would have saved dozens on folks on Elite WRE courses from losing loads of time, both today and tomorrow. Vague terrain amplifies that advantage. Check out how many people either undershot or overshot their controls.

Anyone under/overshooting a control can't be an elite so the rule doesn't apply. Just ask our rogaine camp manager how rules don't apply as stringently to social participants.

I got a pin punch with a single pin outside the box once. Naughty naughty.

To Randy: a moron would, smart , technically sound orienteer can not. I have being using stop watch to estimate distance covered in orienteering for years, beats pace counting in accuracy and effort reqiered. Compared to GPS watch no difference in accuracy. The rule is BS in my opinion, but, unfortunately, needs to be followed.

GPS is an excellent training tool for orienteers to analyze race after it happened, and not allowing it use in competition make progress for any athlete slower. It gives any coach tremendous help in dicecting the race, since we can not observe our runners in the woods. The benefits to this sport in using GPS outwait the drawbacks.

Otoh, screenless loggers exist, and don't cost much compared to a serious orienteer's monthly expenses. And if NAOC wants to be a serious race meriting spots at WOC, following the rules would seem to be a small sacrifice.

Otooh, for national champs etc, who cares, as long as people aren't using the nav data?

GET A * LOGGER YOU CH* (skate)

$80 on Amazon.

Even I did.

There is really nothing to discuss here. Randy is 100% correct.

Nobody is entitled to an exemption from the agreed-on rules.

Not even lazydave? But he's an Elite!

Who is this Nobody?

While I typically agree with following rules, I do think some of the statements on this thread are a little strong. Sure "rules are rules" - but what does that mean? If we look at the wider world I find I gladly follow some rules, reluctantly follow others, sometimes follow some, and almost never follow others. In particular point - how many people here speed while driving? All of you do. How many of you run red lights - almost none of you do. Both are rules, why treat them differently?

gps may be unlikely to give an elite competitor much advantage - it could be more of a distraction. vehicular accidents due to diverted attention to gps devices is becoming an interest, the same may apply here.

however, if gps devices are "ruled in", this may be the last generation of elite competitors. younger generations (from my perspective, they are all younger) love their interactive devices. many trainers now restrict trainees' use of the compass to map orientation or ban it alltogether, so that students learn to do map analysis and terrain feature matching rather than "follow the needle". add gps, and we will see new orienteers become more device dependent, and less competent in map interpretation.

costs of gps devices continue to fall, making their availability very widespread. bottom of the line is the Tate's model, which has the map painted on the glass front with no antenna, chipset, or battery. very inexpensive, and lives up to its ad promise - "He who has a Tate's is lost".

I don't speed.

Speeding and traffic lights?

Police will stop you for both, regardless of how you feel about the rule.

Not wishing to jinx myself, but the police seem to have quite a lot of leeway when it comes to speeding and I would say only a teeny percentage of speeding infractions are enforced. It is quite common to drive past speed traps going over the limit and still not get stopped. I have never tried, but I doubt you could run a red light in front of a police car without getting stopped

I feel that rules about speeding and red lights are not only treated differently by drivers, but also enforced very differently by the authorities.

I rode through a lollipop crossing today and didn't get pulled over although the crossing guard blew her whistle very angrily. I was wearing a GPS watch at the time so perhaps the authorities thought that was a dumb rule too.

Just don't run through a lollipop lady.

It is easier to enforce speeding rules. You can choose to be selective in cases like that. Rarely is there a red-light trap.

In person enforcement would necessarily be opportunistic. Unless there is a camera which eliminates subjectivity.

In the absence of the threat of enforcement, I'd expect the crowd to incline faster toward speeding than not stopping at lights.

Anyway, what kind of sport do people want? What rules are tractable?

Regarding GPS, a simple rule, with opportunity for simple enforcement, already exists.

Have to throw this in - Orienteering is not the only sport with potentially questionable rules.

Track & Field prohibits headphones / music - well completely until 6 years ago when it was allowed for non-championship events:
http://www.usatf.org/news/view.aspx?DUID=USATF_200...

I mean - if you have to run around that oval 50 times for a 20k event, you really need something to take your mind off it...

Some people loved the rule, some hated it, some enforced it, some ignored it.

Oddly enough, that sport looks for items that would distract the participant from the monotony of it...

What kind of a society do people want? I think most people are okay with the way speeding / red light violations are treated differently. And I think that we will soon be faced with an issue that will shine the spotlight on this. For example, my Garmin GPS navigation system already has data about the speed limits on many roads, and it can obviously calculate my speed. How big a step to having this information used to control speeding - either by issuing tickets automatically or by limiting the speed of the car. I guess most people would not like speeding rules to be enforced this way - or at least to allow a certain "buffer". On the other hand I doubt many people would like leeway in the rule about stopping at a red light. I think this is because breaking one rules has much more serious implications than the other.

I think that there is a parallel to the rules of orienteering.

I would also point out the widespread outrage at Hollie Orr's DQ in which the orienteering community seemed to feel quite strongly that the sport looks really bad when a rule is followed blindly.

So what is it to be - follow the rules to the letter or else not be taken seriously, or not follow the rules strictly and not be taken seriously.

I think you either have to prohibit technology altogether, or embrace all of it. If you're going to prohibit, I think you need to enforce it.

Distance-estimation by GPS watch is an advantage (even if one person prefers a stopwatch). As I've said before, a larger advantage would be to use a smartphone with a custom app, which you would use to take a photo of the competition map, quickly georeference it witih a couple of swipes and and taps, and bam, you have a blue dot on your orienteering map. Sure, it would take a minute to set up, but there were a lot of minutes to be had on the NAOC long.

The GPS watch would be like driving 65 in a 60 (technically breaking the rules, but accepted by most people) and the smartphone would be like driving 90 (disapproved and you'd likely get a ticket).

But, there could soon be tweener devices. The new Garmin 920 allows custom apps to be written to the device. It has a color screen. It can connect wirelessly to a phone. Who knows what you can do with all of that and have it still be "it's ok, it's just a watch". Ditto for the upcoming Apple Watch, etc.

This thread started with "You know the rules and who you are."

If you really want to be serious about it, then report it (it seems like someone knows exactly who these people are). Look at photos, videos, eyewitnesses, whatever. If it's a rule, and you want it enforced, then enforce it, right?

Maybe it takes a few DSQ's to either send the memo that this isn't ok, or that the rule is silly and we should get rid of it. By having a rule and not enforcing it, we're creating an ethical gray area that isn't necessary.

Pink_Socks wrote ...
Distance-estimation by GPS watch is an advantage (even if one person prefers a stopwatch).
And then ...
The GPS watch would be like driving 65 in a 60 (technically breaking the rules, but accepted by most people) ...

No, distance estimation by GPS is clearly against the rules and is not accepted, period. It should not be used at all, whether in a WRE or any other orienteering event. If people want to use their GPS watches for post-race analysis, fine, but they should not be using the GPS functions out on the course.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I think I needed to clarify that wearing a GPS watch is accepted by a lot of people. But there's no way to tell if someone is just wearing the watch versus using the GPS functions.

My favorite is taking splits at every control and having "map view" on. If I get lost I can turn around and look at the watch and check my location compared to previous two controls and other nearby controls I already have, those are seen as numbered "waypoints" on screen. That gives me good idea where I about am and where to go next. For example NAOC middle:
http://www.powersoft.ca/files/results_centre/maps/...

If I miss #4 I can look is there 90 degree angle (my location-control 3 -control2). Control 5, angle 5-3-4 should be 90 degrees. Control 6, triangle 3-5-curren location should look like 3-5-6 on map. And so on. Sometimes you can take extra split to get a help point for "triangulation". Like on the way to 3 one could take extra split at the corner of the fence, and compare2-"fence corner"-current location triangle to the corresponding triangle on map.

For example:
http://www.sprintseries.org/doma/show_map.php?user...
When things began to not match at #5 Charlie could have just looked at screen and checked location compared to #3 and #4, would not have been difficult to figure out has he gone too far or too much left or right. And steer right and cut the mistake in less than half. Much much more powerful tool than just measuring distance.

The good thing is if you don't start making big mistakes you don't cheat, you are just taking splits. And this is perfectly allowed in Sweden.

(1) If you are wearing it, you are using it. Period. The "but I'm not looking" part is utter BS. If you were going to not look, you would have a screenless logger. (If you are really, really that cheap but honest, you would tape over the screen and put it in your back pocket.)

(2) If you are using it, you are violating the rules.

Clear enough?

I like the current rule structure because it lets you carry a GPS for almost everything except big races, so there is no little somewhat-reduced incentive to develop cheating strategies, at least for elites.

If screenless loggers weren't such a crapshoot.... (see miles 10-20)

I think organizers just need to enforce the rules. Whoever hands out maps at the start should check for watches. If no one does this, it would be as if there were no police on the highway so everyone would drive 120 and die. And that's bad.

@T/D - I don't think anyone is claiming the wearing a GPS watch is in violation of the rules. My question is whether this is a "speeding violation" or a "red light violation". I claim that society's norms are that not all rules should be enforced to the letter, and so feel the distinction is important.

Pink Sock's example of the Apple phone suggests this is a "Red Light" issue.
But then Jagge's info that GPS is perfectly allowed in Sweden perhaps suggests it is a "Speeding" issue.

Sweden has allowed GPS devices for several years now, right?

What's been the result so far? Do the elites take advantage, and if so, how big is that advantage? What about recreationals? Do people hate it? Love it? Is it ruining the sport? Or causing it to grow?

If the US were to allow GPS, what's the worst that could happen?

Wearing a GPS watch isn't like speeding, it's like carrying amphetamines (or epinephrine) in your pocket. I wear my GPS watch in races all the time, and I don't look at it. I think it displays some kind of distance, but I'm not sure. It might be miles from the start of the course. I also have a logger. Why do I wear the watch instead of using the logger? Three reasons: 1) The logger doesn't take splits, 2) The watch more easily uploads to Attackpoint, 3) My orienteering pants don't have a back pocket. On the other hand, I'm different from a lot of people in that I really don't care if I get disqualified. If the situation were different, I'd just use the logger. For important championships, the rule is reasonable. At some lower level it becomes silly. Where that dividing line is becomes a matter of opinion. Now, there's also a question of whether anybody who did well in a race like the one this weekend actually did use a GPS watch to help them navigate. My guess would be that they did not. Checking for watches at the start is unlikely to be useful, by the way, because anybody who intends to use a GPS device to navigate probably won't wear it on his wrist. (And why did we never have this conversation about pedometers? )

Jagge, could you clarify the situation in Sweden for us. Is using GPS in the ways you've described actually considered Ok in Sweden?
* Is using a GPS legal by the rules?
* Is using a GPS considered acceptable behaviour by the competitors?

In North America, I've pretty much considered any "use" of a GPS on course as both illegal and unacceptable (i.e., RED LIGHT), so I'm intrigued by these seemingly different opinions of the matter.

[Note that "wearing" a GPS isn't the same as "using it". I'm quite Ok with GPS being carried around the course for post-race download and analysis. And, when I wear a GPS, it's pretty much as JJ says - I think the screen usually gives me total time and total distance (neither of which has ever helped me navigate to a control).]

I think having and wearing a GPS watch is an important safety measure.

How many newbies could do with a breadcrumb trace to lead them back to the start when they are absolutely and completely lost? I've had to use mine twice (obviously I am no elite) so having the GPS on me makes me feel safer when I run out into the OZ bush with no water.

That being said, my gps watch display is always the time only. If I also had a phone and was lost or injured out bush (ideally with some sort of reception), wearing a gps would be handy to give co ordinates for a rescue. Otherwise, if you're off the map or lost... how can you tell someone where you are?

Loving the very Black vs White opinions on rule breaking, but not everyone is out to use GPS for navigational advantage.

Once you have set a rogaine in nontrivial terrain, you will never think of your total-distance display as innocuous.

I often wear a gps datalogger with no display that doesn't give me information about my route until I get back home. I really don't much like the simple rule of gps devices being prohibited, rather than gps devices WITH A DISPLAY being banned. I have found that wearing the datalogger pinned into the top of my hat almost invariably gives me a much cleaner track of where I went on my race than a wristwatch version, anyway, and it has the added benefit of giving me the full 24 hour record for a rogaine, which most of the older wrist-watch gps versions would not.

I was wondering where Mr. Wonderful had his datalogger situated to get the miserable trace of his canoe route from 10 to 20--backpack upside down on that canoe leg, maybe? I've had traces for several hours on little twisty-windy creeks where the datalogger track never leaves the 5-10 meter wide stream as shown on Google maps. I've also had gps tracks from wrist-worn devices where the track is terrible, and also one or two nasty examples from my datalogger when the device unintentionally got stuck into the pack or hat with battery-up rather than antenna up.

On the speeding/red light question, my most expensive traffic ticket ever was an (inadvertent) speeding ticket leaving the outskirts of Prescott, AZ (presumably no relation to AZ, Canmore) at 2am with no other traffic on the road, all caught on traffic camera, while I was heading off to a rogaine after a greatly delayed airplane flight. Fully automatic enforcement, and in a location where it was a bit hard for me to imagine much reason for a 40 mph speed limit even midday, other than for small-town fundraising.

Whereas I happen to generally come to a complete stop for stop signs or red lights followed by a right turn while riding my recumbent trike (admittedly much less of a nuisance than on a normal bike, because of no need to unclip from the pedals), I've actually noticed that most cyclists don't really fully stop under such circumstances, but slow down to check cross traffic and then roll on through if none is around. I've noticed a smaller, but not negligible number of cars that do the same thing, usually coming a lot less close to a full stop than do the bikes. And I've noticed a lot more cars in the last five or six years that will just go barreling on through a red light with almost no sign of slowing down at all.

I find T/D language offensive and distasteful, no wander, not too many people come your GL events. Keep doing it and your next event will bring even less attackpointetrs, than US Rogaine Champ. Time to wise up and grow up. Keep insulting people and no one will want to talk to you. I think, you are much smarter than that.

Rogainers have looked at the gps issue at length, and it was a major topic of discussion at the IRF general meeting in August (see upcoming issue of ONA for a report on that).

for the 2014 WRC, two rules applied, which covered the ground, so to speak. They can be viewed by going on the peakassurance website (the 2014WRC website), going to the Advice tab, and clicking on the rules link.

Basically they say that 1. all gps devices have to be bagged and sealed before the event, and opened at the finish by the organizer crew. and 2. that national associations can modify this (and other rules) at their discretion.

In other words, the event organizer can state what is allowed and disallowed, specific to the event. This allows usage on "fun" or club level activities, while preserving some freedom from electronic information advantage on more competitive events of championship nature.

To continue the sidetrack into the red lights vs. speed limit, all law enforcement can enforce the rules, but under specific circumstances (i.e., during evacuation from our recent fire areas here in the Sierra Foothills of California) the rules can be suspended without penalty. Personally, I think it is still a risk to go over the speed limit even if it is waived, but each driver is ultimately responsible for their decisions, and the same goes for map and compass sports. If you want to use an interactive device, disclose it to the organizer in advance and get a ruling. If the answer is "no", and you use it anyways, accept the DSQ.

Greg, what is your objection to carrying a screenless logger?

21.4 [...] GPS data loggers with no display or audible feedback can be used.

No GPS device will ever replace hundreds and thousands hours of training running with map and compass though the terrain, I keep saying. No GPS device on a market now will find optimal route in orienteering race. I challenge all the conservatives to prove me wrong. One day may be, not now though. Rules shell not be broken, but have to make sense, Swedish rules are very liberal in that respect, and it comes from experience and common sense. I would love to see Garmin as one of the major sponsors of Orienteering events on this continent. Real sponsors, not the superficial ones, we are dealing with now.

T/D: Can you clarify whether your objection is just to WRE usage? That's how I'm interpreting it, but perhaps Greg isn't.

bmay: My understanding of the US rule (and I'm going completely on memory and I may be wrong---it might just be "an understanding"), is that GPS watches are allowed with the (unenforced) understanding that using it for navigation is not allowed.

My objection is to any and all use of information derived by competitors from GPS in navigation races, unless specifically allowed by organizers. My statement is that under certain conditions, supplementing information derived from the map by that derived from the GPS can improve the participant's performance. My personal experience is proof of the statement.

Greg, you are manipulating the discussion and avoiding directly addressing the concerns that have been expressed. The concern is that people will cheat. You are saying that even if they did, it won't help them. This is wrong. You further state that there is a benefit to the sport from post-race GPS analysis; I wholeheardtedly agree. Such benefit can be had in full by using screenless devices, which are widely available with accuracy being comparable to that of devices with screens. Using a screenless device makes this discussion moot.

My further statement is that a significant number of orienteers in North America find purchasing a second GPS device unwise because of either (a) frugality or (b) sense of entitlement. You and others may find this statement offensive, but it is nevertheless true. Without pointing the true cause of at least some reasons to this discussion, I don't think there is a wise path to its resolution.

To address your last point, most sponsors who I talked to find one of the main objections to their engagement with the sport of orienteering in North America to be the intrinsic frugality of the participants. Nobody wants to give money to people who won't in the end buy your products. ["Won't buy more of your products" would be truer for Garmin, since most orienteers have one without any sponsorship-related advertising, but aren't usually buying the latest model nor have multiple devices.]

I don't always agree with T/D, but that is a nicely structured argument.

to T/D - no objections to that, it has nothing to do with being cheap. I just do not believe that using GPS devices the way they are designed now and can be used now, even with the use Jagge described above, is such a big deal.
All advantages described above are only apply to lesser navigators, I would love to see tighter competition, when lesser navigators will start legally using GPS in orienteering.
On a side note: Marion Jones was given supplemental steroids (strictly forbidden by rules) for more than 6 years, she was one the most tested athlete in the world and never was caught. Same applies to Lance Armstrong. It is an uphill battle for WADA, against trillions of dollars medical community spends on finding new drugs to save lives, most of the times.
That said, I think, it will be foolish to battle GPS developments and it use in navigational races, much easier to change mentality and embrace the change, keep our sports as an "extreme" outdoor adventure with brains involved in this challenge.
What are you going to do when GPS device will be implanted under ones skin? :)

Well, I bet our best navigator (as evidenced by multiple national Championship titles and 20 years of National Team selection) would have loved a bleeping dot at some point during his 20+ minutes of wanderings near CP #2 on the Long Course if said dot were legal to use. No, you say? if your arguments stand, the "no" can only logically be because he's really not that good of a navigator.

Great, then since the national Champ is no good, then there logically isn't a good navigator anywhere in this here country. We are all a bunch of lessers. Let's just have some beers and quit putting on those events.

The point of mine and others is that even the best navigators sometimes make mistakes. (How about Minna? Simone? I'm sure you can make this list as long as needed.) If you make GPS use legal, the "sometimes" will become "never". You are thus making up a new sport.

greg - i accept your challenge, in part. i do beta testing for one of the large companies that develop and market gps devices. the technology and software to analyze map data, configure fastest route, provide audio and video real time guidance via ear bud and the equivalent of google glasses with "heads up" display of current location superimposed over map exists right now. it is just not ready for the consumer market as yet.

a rudimentary form of this technology has been in use at specific universities in the U.S. since 1990, for blind students coming to those campuses (obviously the ear bud, not the video display). and, yes, it can outperform thousands of hours of
trainng.

a similar problem affected sports car rallying in the 1970's with the advent of on board computers replacing Larry Reids rally tables and the peppermill hand calculator. result - formation of two groups of competition classes. computer and non computer. map and compass sports need to be proactive in this.

and, I agree with j-man

What are you going to do

I am going to do that once they officially give up on drug testing in real sports. Once the big community decides that it's OK to pursue the enhanced-human achievement experiment, our little one should throw up and put the retinal imager into the eyelid. Until then, "we" are no "better" than "them". A healthy dose of introspection is something this little one has never had and could greatly benefit from, sometimes.

To buzzard - excellent, I wish we could give it a real test. Yes, I perfectly realize that possibility of future development of two or even more categories in orienteering. Would not you love to see that happened, I do. Looking at results of "traditional" and "GPS" orienteers and telling me, "You see Greg, you were wrong"?
To T/D - yes, that list is very long, and true. There is long way to perfection in everything, most of those mistakes are result of search for such perfection under tremendous physical and mental stress, and sometimes - poor mapping or course setting. I believe, GPS is a tool to get closer to that perfection. Also, I believe it will take countless hours of training with GPS help to open real potential of this technology to navigation, just like with only map and compass. May be the learning curve will be faster (easier); if so - great, the competition will get closer, it is always more exiting. I still believe that extreme fitness, brain use, and quick decision making will be much required, so philosophically speaking, it will not be that much different from what we love to do now.
I have GPS capable watch from Polar, and honestly, just like J-J - we are old school, do not have time on a course to look at it on a run. I consider, it is a very bad habit to pay attention to anything but map, terrain and compass, every time I do, it ends up badly, especially if it is a pretty woman in the woods, I am paying attention to, forget about my GPS watch.

And, to make my earlier statement a little more clear: I use stop watch for distance estimation in orienteering less and less these days, since map quality and density of mapped objects has increased drastically from the days, I started orienteering. That is a topic of a different discussion. I use my stop watch all the times in ROGAINEs for distance estimation, does wanders, requires lots of experience with different types of terrain.

But you just turn on the distance screen in your Garmin, and no experience is required and there is no adjustment to be had whatsoever for any type of terrain. And the screen is already there by default, you just profess not to look at it. Sure you don't, but what about others? what about some of them competitors who beat you at the WRC? how would you feel if you found out that some of them (hypothetically) used GPS at the checkpoints at which your team lost time, wouldn't you then feel justified to look at your distance display at the next rogaine? And what if that information, that they used GPS, would then prove to be a deliberate fake, how would you then feel?

extreme fitness, brain use, and quick decision making will be much required, so philosophically speaking, it will not be that much different from what we love to do now

Right, and competing in androgen-enhanced sports aka cycling still required tons of training, smart structuring and recovery, and good nutrition. It's not like Armstrong didn't do at least as much training as his competitors. He just reliably beat them. That's the problem.

And to come back of topic of this discussion: I think D-man is right. The blame is firstly on athletes... and, secondly on organizers of not developing a good plan to enforce that rule, and clearly explaining beforehand, how it will be enforced.

T/D, please read my statement above, I personally, welcome that sort of fast improvement, I like competition, I would love to see fit adventure racers kick "weak" orienteer's butt, it would make us train harder :). (Dear adventure racers, there some superb navigators among you, proved it many times. I used it, only to emphasize my point of view:)

But how would you feel if a lower-fitness-level weakling kicked your butt because they knew how to use their distance screen and did, and you didn't?

no, bring it on :), still have to cover 100 km or so over rugged terrain, weaklings are usually not capable of that, lol.

The assertion is out there that we can't trust people to carry GPS devices that have a display that could be used to help navigate, because they will use them. That being the case, how can we trust them to own such devices and not carry them secretly? The only remedy I can see to this is strip searches (or some kind of airport-style security scanners) at the start line. Seriously.

Anyone who trys to search me will have a ninja kick to the knee cap :P

Well, those in the real sports have to pee in a cup every now and then. Seriously.

Shouldn't you guys be asleep?

Orienteers have to pee in a cup sometimes, too. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't have strip searches, I'm saying that for the events where it's important enough to ensure that people aren't using GPS, it's the only workable solution I can think of. For rogaine, I can't think of any workable solution.

(On the other hand, there are plenty of ways to cheat without GPS. What kind of enforcement is there on embargoed areas?)

(It's only a little after 11 PM for me, tRicky. For Vladimir, it's 8 PM.)

Nah, too much fun arguing. (Not yet midnight on the East Coast US, and 3 hours earlier where T/D is.)

Well I can't talk; I'm at work.

I think we here in the 3rd best WA put the GPS-in-a-bag rule into place before it ended up in the IRF regs due to the number of competitors (approx 10 or fewer) who requested it.

Old news at www.orintering.se

Ny anvisning om hjälpmedel 2009-09-08 16:30

Den senaste tiden har det flitigt diskuterats vilka tekniska hjälpmedel som får användas under tävling. För att ge svar på frågan har nu Svenska Orienteringsförbundet definierat tillåtna hjälpmedel i en anvisning.

Debatten intensifierades när Internationella Orienteringsförbundet (IOF) den 1 juni i de internationella reglerna ändrade till att det nu är förbjudet att bära med sig elektronisk navigationsutrustning med display eller ljud. De internationella reglerna gäller enbart på världsrankingtävlingar, Junior-VM, Veteran-VM, World Games, World Cup och VM.

Styrelsen godkände anvisning
Vad är det då som gäller på svenska tävlingar? I tävlingsreglerna står det under paragraf 7.3.6 att ”tävlande får under tävling inte använda annat än av SOFT godkänt tekniskt hjälpmedel.” Vad som är godkänt hjälpmedel har tidigare inte varit så tydligt, och därför har nu Svenska Orienteringsförbundet (SOFT) skrivit en anvisning om tekniska hjälpmedel. Denna diskuterades på styrelsemötet den 3 september och godkändes.

"Hoppas att oron försvinner"
I den nya anvisningen, som du hittar i faktaboxen till höger, står det att glasögon och andra synhjälpmedel samt konventionella armbandsur inte anses som tekniska hjälpmedel och därför får användas fritt. Till samma kategori räknas pulsklockor, höjdmätare, avståndsmätare, stegräknare samt navigationsutrustning (t.ex. GPS-enheter) som saknar kartdisplay och/eller kursorienterande signalfunktion.
– Med den här anvisningen hoppas vi att orienterarnas oro inför att köpa en ny GPS-klocka försvinner och att fler upptäcker den fantastiska analysmöjlighet dagens teknik ger vår idrott, säger Niklas Wrane, regelansvarig på SOFT.
– Dagens GPS-modeller från Garmin, Polar och Suunto är alltså fria att använda på vanliga svenska tävlingar eftersom det i modellerna hittills inte finns någon möjlighet att lägga in en bakgrundskarta.

Orienteringens grundidé påverkas inte
SOFT är överens med IOF om att förbjuden teknisk utrustning inte bara är förbjuden att använda utan också att bära. Däremot gör SOFT och IOF skillnad på vad som är tillåtet och inte, och där ser SOFT nyttan med en GPS-enhet som kan mäta avstånd som så pass liten att orienteringens grundidé inte påverkas nämnvärt.

Tillåtet att utveckla metod
Vill man utveckla en metod för att nyttja en GPS-klockas avståndsmätare är det alltså nu tillåtet. Niklas Wrane är dock skeptisk till vilken nytta det kan ge.
– Till att börja med ska man, i tävlingsfart, mäta sträckan med en linjal på kartan och dessutom veta exakt varifrån man mäter. När man knäpper igång avståndsmätningen ska man sedan hålla en väldigt exakt kurs från denna punkt. När väl klockan indikerar att man är framme ska man ha någon nytta av den informationen. I viss extrem terrängtyp kan det kanske ge en fördel mot traditionell orientering, men frågan är om inte kompasstekniken är betydligt mer avgörande i det fallet, menar Wrane.

---

As I can see, the decision was based on thinking these devices can be used only for measuring distance and failing to see there actually is map view with waypoints and route travelled as background. This "map view" feature is not enabled by default in 205/305, you needs to enable it in menu before it can be used. So possibly that decision was made without knowing such feature exists.

NAOC long #2, take split at #1 and again by one of the towers halfway. If you think you are getting lost comparing location on screen to those two reference points would take you pretty close or back on map.

I'd like to see WOC compass-free.

Block the sun out somehow too - I've heard some people might gain an unfair advantage by knowing roughly in what direction it sits.

The blame is firstly on athletes... and, secondly on organizers of not developing a good plan

1) It is not good that we use rules that we can not enforce (blame organizers)
2) It is not good that we don't care if athletes brake the competition rules (athletes and coaches)

My view:

Athletes don't forget SI stick and organizers don't forget to check athlete's SI number at the start procedure. They always have this in plan, always. If organizers & IOF adviser are seriously about GPS rule they'd put this in plan too.

I understand that organizers (& IOF) don't see this as a huge problem especially if elite athletes in most cases (~100%) use GPS at WRE events for their post-race analysis and not to get a competitive advantage. The rule is here just to stress out the fair play and the basics of the sport in order to succeed in the sport. I think there is a bigger problem than just how to enforce the rules if athletes in reality don't care what the rules say (hard to believe) and see more value in their GPS track than in their official WRE result (they are willing to take the risk to be dsq).

One of the guys at my sprint race last weekend forgot his SI stick.

This is not against the rules :)

Back in the old days, it was easier, but not trivial, to police other athletic competitions for performance enhancing technique. Caffeine? Hard to eliminate, but excessive amounts? Amphetamines? Steroids? HGH? EPO? Which ones are sufficient to worry about?

Other sports have had to tackle these issues to be taken seriously, and don't always. Look at the blows baseball and cycling, for example, have sustained.

At some point, if we want a real sport, you need to have rules and enforce them, even if it is hard, even if you and your friends wouldn't really break them.

Or not. Hikes and geocaching are legit things to do. Who cares who finishes faster? Maybe no one until there are more competitors than medals to go around.

I orienteered without a GPS for the first time in ages for all of the Oz champs carnival. I didn't notice the difference. I don't think I even started my stopwatch for any of the races. It didn't affect me at all during the races, because I wouln't normally have a reason to look at the watch anyway. That said, I did once accidentally gain an advantage from wearing Gps. During running training I had ben playing with what the watch could do and what info it displayed on the screen and I forgot to reset it, so heading into a bingo control I glanced at my watch looking for leg time and got leg distance instead. It helped a lot in that case.

I'm in the 'don't care what people do at local meets and love them as training tools' boat and the 'major meets go screenless or don't use a gps at all' boat.

I know people could still cheat, but it is far more likely that a normally 'honest' person will have a sneaky look under pressure if it is easy to do so because it is on your wrist than it is if you have to make the conscious decision to hide a gps somewhere before you head to the start.

Oh. I'm also in the 'too cheap to buy a second gps device camp'. I'd far prefer to go without for the events where the rules state it than shell out the cash for a device that I might use two or three times oper year.

^^^Pretty much my thoughts exactly. My Garmin has enough issues without me wondering what is also wrong with a headless logger. I wear the GPS at all races except WREs but only so I can upload the trace to RouteGadget/TBT afterwards so I can see where I went (wrong). I actually did better in the races where I didn't wear it. Perhaps the weight on my wrist was dragging me off line.

Don't forget the last GPS AP thread.

http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me...

What, you mean there is a thread on AP that rehashes a previous topic??? I've never seen the like before!

I'm somewhat tired of the assertion that we can't be a real sport if we don't have rigorous rules and enforce them. That's bunk.

Let me offer Basketball as a star witness.

It is absolutely viewed as a sport on national and international levels, and it has an official rulebook.

But it is played very differently - in the NBA, at Olympics, in universities and high schools, and on the local court.

They have rules that allow one to do things - and not do other things. There's a penalty for some actions, but those infractions are not always flagged.

Sure, some infractions are so egregious as to get one thrown off the court.

But get this - in general, a competitor is allowed to break the rules 5 times before they are disqualified from the event!

Just sayin...

(And yes, I use a hand-me-down GPS watch; my next purchase is not going to be a gps button, but some O-pants. Perhaps new gaters a year or two after that...)

On the other side, compared to football, basketball, or hockey, I've never seen parents / spectators get into brawls at orienteering events (or Track or XC)...

no, bring it on :), still have to cover 100 km

So here's the deal with the bring-it-on position: You may or may not like the "it" you have brought on. It is like telling everyone to bring on your bike to a running race, hoping it would motivate you to train more and run faster. It will, but you will lose, and will bring your own bike soon. And it won't be a running race, but a biking race. Some will like it and some will not; I didn't sign up for biking. If I wanted to bike in the first place, I would.

I didn't think the bring-it-on opposition was realistically present in this culture in significant amounts; most of the "so what? no big deal" people were actually motivated by (a) and (b) above. Both of these have been amply demonstrated to be in abundance among this culture, both are materially bad for the sport. They need to be looked in the face, then radically reduced, ideally eradicated, the sooner the better. The bring-it-on is dignified, and so deserves an argumented reply.

It is also bad for the sport as it is, but perhaps good for (slowly) transforming it into a different sport. You need to decide whether you will like what you will have created or not.

Here's what you the bring-it-oner should do:

For a year, use your GPS every time you can. Use your distance and map screens at every navigation race at which it is not explicitly prohibited by the organizers. Set training courses that would utilize Jagge's last-three-spits triangulation. Set a rogaine, or two, or three; there's been some asking lately for more rogaines, no? Use both the GPS for distance estimation and a barometric altimeter for elevation, download your track afterwards and marvel at how you hit that little single-contour reentrant in the middle of a bland slope dead-on in the middle of the night.

For a good measure, turn your cellphone on a few times when doing a rogaine into Google maps. Ask for others' experience, with newer devices there surely are newer tricks. Since you aren't motivated by frugality, check out what the latest Garmin products can do, throw in those from Polar and Suunto for a rounded assessment.

Then decide.

I did most of those things (legally, where allowed), indeed since the last AP GPS thread, so I am even more grounded in my assessment. I placed over 200 rogaine checkpoints in the past 4 years while carefully watching my device screens. I know what is possible. You, the bring-it-oner, most likely don't.

I also know after placing those 200 checkpoints how I feel while augmented. I am not in the same mental space as I am while racing unassisted. I derive far less enjoyment from solving the mental-rotation problem. Heck, I don't have to mentally rotate. I have devices to do that for me. I don't have to read the map looking for that funny-looking spur before the single-contour reentrant, nor do I have to judge my ascent rate by matching up some features. I don't have to take the safe route around on trails and ridgelines, I will go straight, it's faster. All I have to do is watch the screens and the thing will come up.

I already do something like this new sport. It is called trail running. People apply their ample athletic abilities, stare at the GPS screens, and aid stations come up. I enjoy it. I want a different challenge. If you bring it on, the two will be mostly the same challenge, so there's not much of a reason for me to be in this version of your sport.

Most old-timers will feel the same way.

However, it is entirely possible that a new group will be drawn in that will be thrilled by the off-trail challenge and feel empowered by the backstop of the devices, elevated by the lack of humiliation that comes from making extended errors, and that this group will be larger and more vibrant than the existing dying breed.

Perhaps. If so, let's do it. I have no data to substantiate this forecast. All I know is, after four years of trying, that whether or not GPS was allowed was not one of the primary reasons people didn't come to our events. I saw plenty of enthusiastic people using their screens and their phones. Problem is, we couldn't provide the experience the masses wanted; but this is another thread topic.

So, try and see if you like what you are asking for. Until then, you are speaking hypotheticals.

I have also used GPS while organizing races and find it very useful - when I'm in the forest for five or six hours carrying lots of stands & flags & water jugs I really want to reduce time loss due making a navigation error ;-) Slow and accurate is the game - which isn't quite the same as racing.

But T/D your trail run is not exactly the same as the scenario that will emerge - the key difference will be the route choice (well, and the not being on trails).

I'm not convinced that it will be so terrible to have some kind of map / course / current position display. For one thing I think it really will bring a lot of people into the sport - many of my friends who have tried orienteering once don't do it because it is too hard. Making it easier might sound horrible to us elitists, but it may be part of the answer. And we could then have different categories - "traditional" & "modern" (or perhaps "too cheap to buy a device" and "money is no object" categories) in which displays are allowed in one category (we might call it the "baby" category because we're like that) and body searches to ensure no devices in the other (where we suffer not only the humiliation of making big mistakes but also of the body search ;-)

And of course it eliminates the map scale discussions

I'm with AZ in that having inclusive/exclusive categories will most likely not break anything, either for the purists or for the masses. It may be beneficial, it may be not; I'm not sold and I may be wrong. We do allow and sometimes encourage GPS use at most of our non-Championship events (not all).

The top events should remain device-free: national and North American Championships in both orienteering and rogaining. I believe this is the subject of the current discussion. You have to have graduated from the baby wheels.

With this, I urge everyone to try the augmented experience. If this mixed bring-it-on materializes, it is what you will have for the bulk of your events except for a few times a year. Let me know if you like it.

But wait - we are talking about the difference between cheating or not, and how far the rules and organizers go to keep it out, right?

The current rules prohibit getting outside information (like from a GPS device or prior competitor or ignoring an embargo).

Rules also prohibit following, but we know how much of that goes on... And while we might penalize someone for breaking an embargo if we were to find out, we don't post guards on the park to keep them from doing it.

If we accept a competitor's implied promise not to follow (and do not-much-at-all to prevent or penalize it), why can we not take one at his or her word to not use features of a GPS watch?

Different tack - I may have found a corollary - golf clubs.

It is a penalty to carry more than 14 clubs in your bag, but I don't see people wandering around counting clubs at the course.

But at a high-profile event - you might get caught at it:
http://nypost.com/2013/08/09/golfer-given-4-stroke...

It's ok to have a rule, but then take people at their word on it.

Anyway - It's not the end of the sport. Really.

Just the death knell. ;/

GPS devices with displays can be used to find distance from the previous control. Easily. Marketers of these devices advertise this ability. This is an advantage as compared to a pedometer where you may not go in a straight line or have even footing. There are plenty of orienteers who will wear these devices and never use them to find the distance they traveled. They will not cheat. However, others might. If people want to use them for training and that is great. However, the US Champs or the NAOCs are not "training". If the rule is that you aren't supposed to have them, then they shouldn't be worn or be covered up so you can't see the display. Then, if anyone sees someone looking at their display, then that person is cheating because few people would spend time looking at a taped screen. The board discussed this issue a few years ago and banning them was rejected. It might be that it should be revisited.

Canadian rule ..
"15.3.2 A participant shall not use any altimeter, distance meter, radio or other
electronic aid. To facilitate safety and post-race route analysis, electronic aids
such as cellular telephones and GPS units may be carried but any display other
than time must be concealed at all times during the race."

Seems sensible enough for lower level races (i.e., non WRE).

I agree it seems sensible. Would a conventional (non-GPS) watch count as an electronic aid?

I would assume that it's an oversight that "leg number" is not listed as an allowed display field (i.e. when you take splits, the leg you're on is displayed, and I actually have been known to look at that occasionally).

Putting a small piece of tape over the very bottom of my watch where I think the distance is displayed would be no big deal.

Unless you have a device with ability to cycle through multiple screens, one of which has 'lap distance' up the top part of your screen...

Doesn't one of the Emit bricks have a display with leg number and maybe control code? I don't think SportIdent has a similar product.

Unless you have a device with ability to cycle through multiple screens, one of which has 'lap distance' up the top part of your screen..

The Canadian rule is clearly based on some degree of an "honour system". If you set your GPS to show only Time (e.g., on Screen 1), then it is presumed that you will not then switch to a different screen that shows lap time, lap distance, total distance, etc.

* I think the Canadian rule is too weak (i.e., unenforceable) to be used at WRE, therefore I prefer the IOF rule that doesn't permit having the device at all.

* I am also inclined to think that the Canadian rule might be a bit weak for Canadian Champs (Elite classes) for which it might also be better to have a prohibition on carrying a device with screen.

* I also think it would be sensible to allow other non-navigation electronic values to be displayed that could be obtained with non-GPS devices.
Lap Time
Lap Number
Heart Rate

@Jagge: When things began to not match at #5 Charlie could have just looked at screen and checked location compared to #3 and #4, would not have been difficult to figure out has he gone too far or too much left or right. And steer right and cut the mistake in less than half. Much much more powerful tool than just measuring distance.

Well I still don't understand how that would work, and it seems like a waste of time. If I could figure out how to do this, and if I could see something as small as the screen of my GPS watch, I could damn well read the map. My problem wasn't going too far or too much left or right, it was going to the right place and then not seeing the bag, because I couldn't see the map in the vicinity of the circle, and was looking for a cliff facing the other way.

I wouldn't mind using a faceless logger if I had some way of knowing that it was actually on, and if I could use it to download my track to AP and QR. I don't mind paying for one, I just don't really look forward to the learning curve.

Equivalent Orienteering Australia rule, which was the version that the least number of people disagreed with, and which applies to all age classes in all national championship events (except M/W21E when it's also a WRE, of course):

21.6 Competitors may not use or carry telecommunication equipment between entering the pre-start area and reaching the finish in a race, unless the equipment is approved by the organiser. GPS devices with no map function or signal to aid the user in finding direction may be carried. The organiser may require competitors to wear a tracking device.

Which is interesting jennycas, because despite the competitors' handbook for the AusChamps containing a statement along the lines of 'screens must be covered' - I did not notice any official at any point request non-WRE people to tape their screens or check if people were wearing devices. Quite a few people did the righty, but many others totally forgot. In this case it seems the (sensible?) decision (or non-decision) by the organising crew was just to let things happily happen rather than trying to enforce what (at least currently) is Absolutely Not a Problem.

This may or may not have been the intent behind such wording :)

As I recall, the OA rule was felt to be somewhere in the middle ground between IOF's hardline approach and SOFT's direct contradiction of the IOF rule. I am nothing if not a fence-sitter!

We can speculate all we want about what will and should happen, but I'd recommend taking a closer look at what Sweden has experienced. It's a big orienteering country (the biggest in terms of starts?) and they've allowed GPS for 5 years now.

I used Google to translate Jagge's link, and I read this: "Eyeglasses and other visual aids, and conventional wristwatch is not considered as technical aids, and therefore may be used freely. To the same category are counted pulse watches, altimeter, distance meters, pedometers and navigational equipment (eg GPS devices) that do not map display and / or course orienting signal function... Today's GPS models from Garmin, Polar and Suunto are therefore free to use on ordinary Swedish competitions because in the models so far there is no option to add a background map."

What do the Swedish elites use during competition? Do they use the distance estimation? Do they use the basic map features with lap pins manually added? Is there a big debate about this 5 years later? Has Sweden seen an increase in recreational orienteers? What about looking ahead to future devices?

I'd like to know.

I don't think SOFT are contradicting IOF. What they are doing is not "trickling down" IOF rules to apply to non-elite, junior, masters and lesser competition. IOF rules are necessarily tighter for WOC/WRE. It makes no sense to apply all those rules to everyone else.

Tooms - the organisers made a decision not to enforce it at the start line, and that was the instruction to the start crews. 1 min start intervals are chaotic enough without getting bogged down in a discussion of whether someone's fancy watch needs tape over the screen or not.

It seems to me there is a big difference between the various rules, particulary SOFT vs. everyone else.

IOF - You may not "carry" or "use" a GPS on course (exception for screenless data loggers).

Canada - You may "carry" a GPS on course, but you may not "use" the navigational features of the device on course. Only time may be displayed.

Sweden - You may "carry" a GPS and you are also free to "use" its navigation features, e.g., distance, map, waypoints, splits, etc. Seemingly, the only restriction is not allowed to use background map with location on top.

I agree with Pink_Socks, I'd like to hear more about the Swedish experiment. Are elites learning how to use their GPS units in the forest to augment their map-reading navigation? Are they indeed using the techniques explained by Jagge (e.g., waypoints at each control, distance estimation from control, map view to look at angles/direction)?

I have never heard of anyone actually using a GPS while running, but that's just me. Why would anyone do it? I doubt it is faster. At least at the Scandi-elite level.
My guess is that SOFT's approach to ease, or simplify, the restrictions was to avoid too many discussions about the rules. Similar to what they did with headlamps a couple of years ago when the traditional halogen lamps became, more or less, obsolete and type of headlamp became allowed.

Indeed, why?

I think we need to recognise there are two types of "advantage" being talked about here. T/D and Jagge appear to be pointing out that when you make a big mistake or get lost that you can recover from it if you have pre-entered a GPS waypoint at a previous known position like a control (or are using an actual map on the GPS screen). Calling that an "advantage" is a real stretch.

Most other people remain sceptical that there is a real "advantage" as commonly understood: that there is a GPS technique that is faster and leads to quicker times than map reading with the orienteering map provided (no mistakes involved).

Note - I am talking about orienteering, not rogaining which I have never done. In the olden days before GPS became standard wrist wear, I used to wear a watch. However after some time I actually stopped wearing a watch during serious competition because I recognised that losing focus from map and terrain wastes time. Although I now wear a GPS most times I have stuck by this principal and never look at it during a race.

There is no other problems here than the ones we create with our rules.

- Back when rules did not mention anything about this, other than navigational aids are not allowed, lots of us used gps watches only in trainings because they see those were not allowed. That was a problem. And some did not like seeing other people running with them. That was a problem too.

- if we ban gps watches at all levels and just allow screenless loggers there would be less devices to choice from and more difficult harder to log barometric elevation and HR data. Also it would be safer at beginner level (and oldest classes) to encourage runners to run with gps and phone instead of banning them. So banning them would be a problem.

- openly allowing them and encouraging runners to use and learn techniques to use them for navigation changes this sport when/if new generation practices gps use to the same level as compass use is. And runners form nations where gps is not allowed may feel is is not exactly fair to race in gps countries, because they have not had opportunity to learn gps use the same way at races. And we might need to re-describe orienteering to "...using a map and compass and satnav device to navigate from point to point...", who likes seeing that at the wikipedia page and explaining to newcomers? I do not know anyone who likes to learn race gps use so I find it is absolutely not necessary to encourage and allow the active use of these devices. So allowing and encouraging the use turns something that is not a problem into a problem. Allowing active gps use also opens door for true gps cheating like having controls as waypoints preloaded in the device - one can't identify cheater by seeing them look at watch constantly, because that becomes normal behavior. If you thing athletes don't just cheat think how common following and asking for location is.

- having perfectly reasonable rules like not allowing them at the very very high level is not a problem. It is a problem if we openly ignore our rules (speeding / red light issue).

Other than a cursory glance at devices obviously visible, how feasible is it for start officials to ensure compliance with rule 21.3 or its equivalent? There is no provision in the IOF rules for start officials to either vet competitors' equipment, or prevent them from competing if their equipment contravenes 21.3.

The part of 21.4 that allows data loggers with no display or audible feedback to be used is redundant as they are already allowed by 21.3.

Hawkeye - it's not (which is exactly why we didn't at the recent Aus champs.) It's up to competitors to enforce it amongst themselves in classes where it matters (ie. elites) and leave it alone where it doesn't (everyone else).

That's the theory. In reality no one enforces it and you just get threads like this as some gutless attempt to make people dsq themselves without actually having to take a stand and name names.

In MTBO, we have allowed for the last two years GPS devices that do not contain a breadcrumb or map display. We have been drawing up a list of allowed and forbidden devices to let athletes check their device is permitted (although the list is acknowledged to be non-exhaustive, it will be updated when needed to include the latest changes).

So far, there have been no issues, even at major races. Using a GPS watch or handlebar GPS is pretty difficult (and would require training) to do while riding at full speed in rough terrain.

Notwithstanding that someone above writes that he is able to measure distance travelled by time elapsed on his watch - that is a really good skill!- it seems the biggest and simplest advantage of using a GPS in competition is to transfer the measurement of distance travelled from the brain to the wrist. Is that such a bad thing? Orienteering involves taking information from a map to find the best way to go to a series of control points. Tradition allows a device called a compass to help you find and follow the direction. It seems a natural evolution to allow another device to help you determine distance. Yes, I think it is unfair when I hear some people (in non-elite classes) are using the distance measurement feature and others follow rules imposing restrictions on that use but if it were allowed for all it would then be fair for all.

Calling that an "advantage" is a real stretch

Scenario 1:

Competitor E, a many-time national Chamption, loses contact with map at CP #2 at a Regional Championship and loses 26 minutes relocating, primarily because his initial decision as to whether he is short or long is incorrect. He otherwise has a clean race and finishes 34 minutes behind the winner. He does not contribute points to a regional Federation competition, the most prestigious nations competition in this region.

Scenario 2: As above but E, once uncertain (about 2 minutes into his error), quickly checks his total-distance display on his device. He sees that he is 200 m short of the checkpoint. On the map, he narrows down the list of features nearby he can use for a relocation. One of them is an overgrown marsh. He looks around and sees the overgrown marsh. To be very sure, he runs over to it, everything matches. He just spent another 2 extra minutes to look at the watch, do some mental calculations, and go slightly out of the way to the marsh. From the marsh, he has no problem locating the checkpoint.

His total time loss is 4 minutes. He finishes 12 minutes behind the Regional Champion in 14th place overall and 6th among the Regional-eligible athletes. He doesn't get a medal, but his point score in the federation competition changes the point balance in favor of the visiting nation.

He has used his device exactly once on the course and he never had active contact with the screen on the 25 other legs on which his navigation was clean.

Do you want Scenario 2?

Personally, I don't want to question the use of GPS at normal events. I think the IOF rule is clear for WREs and should be enforced.

The only thing that bothers me, and I tried to convey it with my del tags above, is the incentive, or more likely, the perceived incentive, of elite competitors using GPS to cheat during a competition to improve their chances of making a WOC team.

I question whether that incentive exists. Others do not. I'm sure it's there, I just doubt how prevalent it is, and how much advantage is available over the set of courses that is used to determine rankings and select team members.

My recommendation would be for OUSA and US Team officials to support a GPS tracker service (such as biggins and eddie were using for the Tahoe Ski-O events) for Team Trials and other "important" races like WREs or US Championships. The team selection committee decides who gets GPS vests. If you get a vest, you can't take a personal *non-IOF-conforming* GPS with you. If you don't get one, you can (except for WREs, of course). This would remove the perceived incentive, would provoke scrutiny of any outliers without GPS vests ("...an experiment for the benefit of future rules changes..."), and would open up those events to in-stadium and online tracking, in support of the Leibnitz Convention. (Had to throw that in for T/D.)

One more thing. I would support junior competitors, especially those with coaches, to always be allowed GPS for all events not sanctioned by IOF.

{edit: Although the vest rule could apply to them as well. The point was that some form of GPS track would be available after the race.}

If you get a vest, you can't take

Why? You can. Just make sure it's screenless. $80 on Amazon.

There are mature, debugged solutions around that make for great live tracking using a cellphone. (Also, great peace of mind for parents.) Problem is that there is little or no cell coverage at the majority of areas in which I'd want to put a Championship event.

screenless...screenless...screenless.
I am so tired to hear it again and again. I have a Polar wrist GPS. It has multiple screens configured through PC only ( no way to re-program on a fly) Every single screen I set to show: Time, Lap Time and HR. What a problem of my using it either on WRE or Rogaine?

I don't see a problem with this particular device.

@T/D: I edited that line to read: "If you get a vest, you can't take a personal *non-IOF-conforming* GPS with you."

As I understand it (from edwarddes), the European GPS trackers used for O' use a cellular signal to transmit the location to the arena. And, the European cellular signal is different than the North American signal so using those European units like they did at Tahoe was a PITA.

On the second day at NAOC they were definitely asking at the start line if you had a GPS unit so they were trying to enforce the rules. I can't remember if they were asking the first day but based on the initial post, I assume not.

Does anyone know someone in Sweden so we can hear a perspective about how their five-year experiment is going on over there?

Because I'm sure not getting any of that here. More speculation, conjecture, and trivial details. Sure, I have my opinions and thoughts, too, but I'd like to hear about how it's been somewhere where the rules are the opposite. Maybe it's been great. Maybe it's been a headache. Maybe they have experienced some things that we haven't thought of, etc.

Reading this thread is like reading about states wondering what would happen if they legalized recreational marijuana, but not asking anyone in Colorado or Washington how the legalization has had an effect.

Compass, of course, gives direction. However, if you stray from that line, it gives you a wrong direction to the control. Knowing the distance from the last control to the next one gives you more information. The GPS can give you distance from the last control regardless of your route. You now just have to travel on the circumference of the circle. The combination of distance and direction (yes you ran a compass line) says that when you have run the appropriate distance in the appropriate direction, look for the control (you don't have to run very far along the circumference and it may be that some features become obvious rather than being parallel features. I got a GPS device a few years ago with no display. It works when you see the LEDs flashing. You then download your route. Mine requires downloading it to my computer and then you see the route. The data may be exported to other media. The other alternative is to put tape over the device. Then, if you have an "uncovered" device you are cheating. People can see that.

Unless the GPS watch looks like... a watch. Mine isn't obviously a GPS device unless you're really up on these things.

(Using the method above, you still can't square a circle or trisect an angle.)

if you have an "uncovered" device you are cheating.

There is a difference between breaking a rule and cheating. You could have a rule that says it is not permissible to carry a toaster on the course. Maybe you might then disqualify someone who was carrying a toaster, but it would be a bit ridiculous to say you disqualified him for cheating.

Or to take a less hypothetical example, Rule A.34.2 says, in part, "The competitor shall not conceal any information on the bib". If somebody folds the bib such that a sponsor logo isn't showing, that's breaking a rule, but it's not cheating.

Isn't toast on the banned substances list?

Does anyone know someone in Sweden ...

I guess I could chip in...

I´m by no means elite any longer (never have been actually) so I can´t really vouch for what elites in Sweden think about this issue at present. They generally tend to be very quick to discuss/critizise whenever things go wrong though and I still haven´t heard/seen any discussions at all about this verbally or on any online forums. Haven´t heard anything about this through more official channels either...

That may imply that this is a non-issue - in Sweden at least. This also coincides with my general feeling on the subject: "If it´s not a problem - don´t fix it!"

I fully understand that there are scenarios - as descibed above by Tundra/Desert and Jagge - where the use of GPS may be an advantage. At higher levels - like WOC and WRE it´s already taken care of and GPS use is banned, but I don´t worry too much about what´s going on in the rest of our "recreational" classes.

Yes, people are breaking rules of all kinds - knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally - but until someone has been proven to cheat explicitly using a GPS I still prefer to have a positive view towards my fellow orienteers.

As a non-elite orienteer who has been following the fitness watch industry closely, I'd like to add a few observations.

First, except for a few specific high-end models aimed at hikers, GPS watches have been removing navigation features in favor of fitness features. My Garmin Forerunner 305 from 2007 had basic breadcrumb features and could help me navigate back to my starting point; my Forerunner 220 has no navigation functionality whatever.

PGoodwin points out that a "distance to/from waypoint" display could be very useful. I agree, but none of the watches I'm familiar with have that as an available field, primarily because it's not useful from a fitness tracking standpoint. Instead, they all display distance traveled along the route taken.

Knowing distance traveled is better than not knowing distance traveled, but it's much closer to pace counting or using a stopwatch in terms of strategy. It can put an upper bound on how far you've gone since the last control, but that could be a very big circle.

This brings up a side issue: there are fitness watches that will track distance using accelerometers instead of GPS - in fact, the current generation of fitness watches will fall back on this method if they lose lock. In this case they are literally counting steps and multiplying by a calibration number to estimate distance.

Having that data available is one thing; making use of it effectively is another. There's only so much you can visually process at once, and looking down at your watch to read a number is distracting and greatly increases the likelihood of losing contact with the map, especially at speed.

I think that the main way it could be useful would be in determining whether you've made a mistake after the fact - at that point you're likely to pause and take a good look at the map and your situation.

That said, I think there are simple devices that could easily be made that would assist in much more useful ways. The best and most basic would be a GPS that would announce your absolute distance from last waypoint through an earpiece ("50 meters... 75 meters... 100 meters..."). That would let you keep your eyes focused on the map and terrain while getting audio feedback of your actual progress on the ground. It would also make it much easier to relocate if you did lose contact with the map.

The largest annual rogaine in North America has a category that specifically allows use of a GPS.