Discussion: Fair Hill sprint control #2

This control point was a round cement thingy (planter?) about 2 meters in diameter and 1.5 meters high. On the map it was a black dot, and the control description was a boulder.

I don't think I can fault the map maker, but I don't think that the control description should have been a boulder. I was speaking to someone (was it Eric Weyman) who was arguing that the control description was correct, since it matched what was on the map. I was arguing that the control description should match the feature, so I knew what to look for. My guess is that the best resolution of this issue is not to place a control at such a point. But there's still the question of how to map the planter -- the argument against an X is that it takes too much map real estate.

The control description should always match the map, no matter what - even if the map is incorrect. However, a MM object like that should be a black X. If there isn't room for the X on a 5000 map, then it shouldn't be there. If the feature on the map doesn't match reality to a large degree, then it probably shouldn't be used as a control location.

There is some grey area when it comes to MM things. Is there such a thing as a MM boulder? Probably. Big chunk of concrete or asphalt. On the long course yesterday there was a MM cliff. That was a little confusing, because I saw a bunch of MM objects (wood-post lined dugouts in a hillside), but they were mapped as cliffs....technically they were cliffs *and* manmade objects. Quarries often have MM cliffs in them. Pits are often manmade. The line should probably be drawn with the material makeup of the object and intent in mind. And most importantly, with how the runner will interpret the object in the field. Personally I would not interpret a big concrete flower pot as a boulder or a wood-lined dugout as a cliff.

I agree with the man-made object designation on the map for the flower-pot-on-crack. It was very far from being a boulder.

The cliff wasn't really a cliff, either, since it wasn't rock, but it at least had the right shape and a logical placement (cut into a hillside). It's more like a reinforced earthbank...

Any way to designate something as a "man-made boulder"?

Rule # 1- map is always subjective to mapper’s view; Rule # 2 - as an orienteer, it is your job to adjust to mapping stile on a course , the more experienced you are the faster the adjustment goes, in this particular case when you approached # 2 on the sprint you could see same object (a little taller), mapped as a black dot, and if you did not notice that - you are moving too fast to pay attention to the map details during control approach - a cardinal sin in orienteering, so please, do not blame the mapper or the course setter. I would probably map it as a black circle, but only for 1:5000 map, do not forget this map was made to be printed in 1:10000 and 1:15000

I had my one problem to speak of on that control (came to a stop and was confused right next to it) and so am sympathetic to dness's feelings. But, I know when to defer to Greg's judgement... (generally, always is good policy).

I agree with Greg, please do not start unnecessary discussion.

Agreed. But dness' questions were:

1) Should the clue sheet match the symbol on the map? Answer: yes, always.

2) Should a MM object be mapped with the boulder symbol simply to squeeze it onto the map? Answer: no, never.

The mapper and the course setter did both of these things correctly. Interpretation of the features in the terrain is the job of the mapper, and every mapper has their own interpretation. However, runners visualizing what they will see in the circle in that case would be a rock, not a flower pot. Even a good orienteer "adjusting" to the map is not going to adjust all rocks to flower pots and vice versa.

Hm, actually I didn't look at description at all during the sprint (really didn't have time to do so) and I didn't have any problem with finding control flag inside circle ...

Yesterday's mapper, Vladimir Zherdev, is a good friend of mine. He also made one of the two the maps for this coming weekend's Susquehanna Stumble. Yesterday he asked me to go through my route with him and show him features that I used to navigate. In particular, I thought that the vegetation gaps and trail openings on the edges of the forest sections were mapped very well and I was able to use some subtle green changes to get in and out. Veg changes quickly with time - especially when lawn mowers are used to cut new trails a week before the event :) I thought the mapping was excellent, and I hope that map holds up for a long time since its pretty close to home for me.

Do I hear the beginnings of rumblings of using Fair Hill for a future Stumble?

The thing is, when approaching the control point, I was confused because the area didn't match my mental image of what it should have looked like, thus I slowed down a little. I didn't think that someone might map a planter as a boulder!

I find it interesting that there's an inviolate rule that the control description should match the map. My orienteering style is to find the item matching the control description in the middle of the circle, not the 'mapped' item in the center of the circle, somehow divining the mapper's meaning when it deviates from what I am accustomed to.

I thought of another solution to the problem: In cases like this, the course setter's notes should make the competitors aware of the issue (this should be the case whether or not the setter actually placed a control at such a point).

Oh, and by the way, I'd also like to offer kudos to the mapmakers. It made me want to find more maps like it to run on.

The primary function of the clue description is to allow the runner to identify which of the features in the circle is the one the control is on (sometimes there is more than one such feature in the circle, and sometimes the circle is not perfectly centered). If the clue sheet says "X" but there are no "X"'s in the circle you are in serious trouble! :) This is why the clue sheet *must* match the as-mapped symbol.

The secondary function of the clue sheet is to describe the actual feature in the terrain (height, etc) and which side or part of the feature the flag is on.

And as Eric W will be the first to tell you, course setter's notes should not be necessary. Successful completion of the course should definately not depend on setter's notes. There are exceptions of course like things that change at the last minute that are beyond the mappers/setters control, but if a feature needs support from the notes it probably should not be used. I'm guilty of using notes to support controls myself! But not every competitor is a native english speaker, and not everyone will remember to read the notes, and a successful race should not depend on either of those things.

I still wish I had read the course setter's notes at the Norristown Sprints last March. Somebody there actually told me that it was required (after I had finished of course). But that is digging up an old skeleton :)

oooh...

I saw control 13 on the way to control 1, so I was already primed for what was to come. The area of #2 was littered with black lines that were clearly not trails or cliffs, so it was no surprise to me that there were also black circles that were not boulders--at least not of the natural variety. I found control #2 by geometry: "it's on the miscellaneous object near the far side of the field of miscellaneous objects."

I used exactly the same approach as Eric B.

Given the context of the control, one would think that no one really lost any time to it. At most, a moment of confusion while approaching the überpot, followed by a quick realization of what the mapper had done. The thing is, the same approach (the context of the area) would have worked as well if it had been mapped as an X, but there wouldn't have been that moment of confusion. Not sure it really matters.

And I'll add my kudos to the mappers. It's nice to be able to pick off small openings, individual trees, and changes in vegetation...

Should not have been mapped as a boulder; nor should the clue sheet have identified it as such. Feature, map and clue sheet should ALL match, not just 2/3. Check out the IOF Mappinng Specs for Sprint and Trail-O. Should have used symbol # 537, 539 or 540. Yes there is some 'leniancy' with all symbols. In the case of the boulder symbol that leniency allows the inclusion of man-made boulders such as a concrete block, but based on the description of the feature in question I cannot see that even a lenient interpretation of the definition of boulder could lead to its inclusion as such.

From what I remember--which isn't reliable, since I didn't stop to smell the flowers--the feature was a cement/aggregate pipe, about 1 meter in diameter and 1.5 meters tall. There were flowers, or at least some vegetation, peeking a few inches (?) above the top.

I agree with upbnorthguy. All 3 (feature, map, clue sheet) should be in synch. Similar thing happened at US team trials a few years ago. a cliff on the map and on the description sheet was used for a feature but in the terrain it looked very much like a boulder from the upslope side. Several people lost time as they didn't run over to the control beside the 'boulder' because they were looking for a cliff.

Although I had it explained to me but a fellow competitor that the map and description sheet were OK as it was indeed a "2-sided cliff" and not a boulder.

It seems clear that both the map and description must agree with the control point as it appears on the ground. In the case of a special feature marked with an X or O (black, green, blue or brown) the definition must be given in the map legend. At least that's what the IOF says; whereas in practice black X's, for instance, are often used for a variety of objects, from a near ground-level manhole cover to a gigantic play structure, even on the same map. But then the legend may say merely “man-made object.” That being the case, the rule requiring that X’s and O’s be defined in the pre-race information is even more important. I agree with Eric about relying on meet notes but there is still that rule. Given the wide variety in the application of these symbols, it may otherwise be impossible to recognize the actual feature. At an “A” meet a few years ago I naively asked what the control feature was and was told that was privileged information. It turned out to be a control marker on a permanent course.

I had no trouble navigating to the control on the "boulder", and was momentarily amused to see what it was. Not having researched the rules, I was happy enough to have it be called a boulder, and to have #13 described as the top of a cliff. All in the spirit of fun.

While the map may have been designed to be used at 1:10000 and 1:15000 as well, I did see that a trail in the vicinity of sprint #3 did not appear on the 1:10000 version of the map, so there must have been some additional work done to accommodate the sprint map.

I never looked at my clue sheet, and I have no memory of that feature at all. Not a boulder, not cement pillar, flowers, nothing. Just into the area and punched and on to the next one...

Those are the words of someone in full concentration, moving at blazing speed...

The black dot of a boulder is already ambiguous. It could be a boulder, a round pillar of rock, or a round building. If it looks round and rock-like, I don't see how calling it a boulder could be a problem. I could see using 539, but not 540, unless the map was covered with them or the pipe was on its side. Even then, 539 is a stretch to me. I personally would object to 537. I'd vote "boulder". My two cents. (And I wasn't there, so...)

I was there and although my split says otherwise (that was a mistake made halfway through the leg, not at the control), I had no trouble finding the control. It seemed pretty obvious that the large cement structure in the middle of the circle was the "boulder".

While this discussion has some marginal academic value, let's take it easy on DVOA. The sprint wasn't sanctioned and they never billed the map as being prepared to ISSOM standards. Just a chance for us all to go out and have some fun on part of the map. In that respect, it was a complete success.

Will there be flowerpot controls at the stumble?

My solution would be to use boulder as the primary feature, and the manmade X or O symbol in the adjective column (that is, in the same column the overgrown or shallow symbol might appear). I would have liked to have seen this on the manmade cliff as well. I did this at the stumble last year when the feature was mapped as a boulder but it was actually a cement sewer entry portal. No one complained (at least about that control :-))

Eric W and I talked about this on Sunday, and he says this is (no longer) possible (therefore what I did at the stumble was probably invalid). Which is a shame, because I think it elegantly uses the existing information delivery framework to present the most accurate picture of reality possible.

As for meet notes, I think various separate uses are coming up and being confused. When going from reality to map or control descriptions, you lose information, and I agree 100% that, in this case, meet notes should not be used to compensate for that information loss (unless locals have unfair knowledge of the information lost or reality has changed in the mean time). Other uses of meet notes are probably off-topic for this thread.

Thanks ebuckley.

I understand it's not out of the ordinary for AP'ers to go off on tangents and enjoy listeneing to themselves and each other pontificate ad nauseum about minutae, but this thread seems rather over the top.

Anyone who was not at Fair Hill this weekend is likely to walk away from this thread with the impression that the weekend, or at the very least the sprint was a sub-par event.

I've dug through the discussion threads and find few positive comments about the weekend, although if you dig in personal training records (less public) you might find some.

I'm biased but I walked away from the weekend feeling like DVOA put on an excellent A-meet, with the addition af a sprint and trail-O for those who wnated to have a littel more O-fun.

If this experience was shared by others, it wouldn't hurt to balance these "academic" discussions with coments about the event in general.

And those who were not present at the event, could at the very least make that clear before they launch into their diatribes.

Not only does it require a huge amount of effort and time to pull of these events, but if you like to follow AP, it also evidently requires a thick skin.

Please do keep in mind that AP is a public forum.

One more note. While I didn't clear this with the rest of the Board, I'll go out on a limb and say that if you feel like the sprint, or for that matter any of the other events this weekend, did NOT meet your expectation or did not live up to its advertised billing, we (DVOA) will refund your entry fee.

I apologize if I implied that the control detracted from my enjoyment of the weekend. This is definitely not true (I was puzzled briefly, not annoyed in the least, then put it in the back of my mind until I finished the course). DVOA put a truly excellent event on a map to die for.

I started the discussion just to get clarification, because I'm still learning about orienteering, and I wanted to understand these things so I could set courses better.

obviously I wasn't there (did you miss me?), and for what it's worth, I don't get the impression from this thread that anyone is unhappy with DVOA. it reads to me more like academic/technical discussion than criticism.

if you're wondering why eddie seems to be the expert, its because he learned from experience after choosing a much more controversial [though apparently interesting] control location in the past, which I recall ended up causing that course's results to be voided.

I dont know anyone who posted in this thread and was not there. I did not read the discussion as undue criticism. As a newer orienteer (2 years) who sets courses I think this discussion is going to help me set better courses and avoid possible problems in the future. I was not even aware of the possiblity of some of these "problems" until this thread. I do think everyone should make it a policy to personally thank course designers and volunteers for all the work that it requires. I know it makes a difference for me. I would do it without the thanks but its nice to know that the work you did was appreciated. I also welcome feedback after an event but do appreciate when its done gently and respectfully...I am not implying that was not the case here.

By the way, as course setter, I'm happy to see this discussion thread.

I, too, had trouble describing this location with the control descriptions - at first I called it a building, 1.5m, NE side.

It wasn't even clear to me whether this was mapped as a manmade boulder, or a small round building.

Interesting discussion, and if all we can argue about the Sprint is the subtlety of a control description, and the few seconds lost there, I think that means the rest of the course set a reasonably high standard.

Definitely could have put something in the notes though...

Condes lets you add text to the clue sheet (if you've learned the secret way from Vladimir G, as I have). Would it have made sense to put the normal clue for boulder (to match the map), NE-side, 1.5m and then "flower pot" or something as text on the same or next line of the clue sheet?

I stand by my own comment; which in no way was meant to be a comment on the quality of the meet or the people involved. It was simply a technical point in response to the posting seeking clarification on the particular control in question. Was the feature a boulder or was it not? No it was not. It was a man-made feature. The argument - "Be easy on them re. the standards as this was not the World Sprint Champs" misses the point. We should all be striving towards employing and following the standards as much as possible - that's the whole point of having them isn't it? A point made to me by Robin Harvey at a mapping clinic years ago was that we must be careful not to drift away from the definitions in the standards - it's a slippery slope. For example we can't just decide that since a feature is roundish we will use the boulder symbol; we must draw on the actual definition for that symbol. And yes there is the point that this is all being anal, and doesn't matter - so of course it is all relative - but in the context of the original posting I think it is a valid discussion.

I guess my point was that, "Yeah, it's man made, but it's man-made *rock*."

Yes I totally see your point, it's just that (IMHO) I think the fact that it's a "man-made feature" should overrule the fact that it is "boulder-ish", because the defiition of the former (by it's very nature) is broader than that of the latter.

but... man-made features must be pre-defined (meet note and map legend)and black X can only stand for one thing. Humans are pretty inventive when it comes to making objects for nice sprint maps.

Uncrossable one-sided walls are almost always mapped as crags, nobody complains about who made them... I think it is reasonable to represent a large round block of cement as a boulder. The alternative is to draw the flowerpot as a wall/building which would end up looking like a boulder in any case.

Test: how would you map the following:

One can pass underneath between the barrel-like supports...
Test 2: What is it?


Btw, any sprint-mappers out there think that the black X/O are way too big at 1:4000?

I think it should be mapped as a solid building, as running under it shouldn't even be considered in a normal Orienteering race.

It looks like a Toblerone factory.

A Tolblerone pod, not factory.

JDW,

as someone who was (unfortunately) not at the event, but has read this discussion, as well as many people's comments in their training logs, I have to say that my impression, overwhelmingly, is that DVOA put on a fantastic event that I wish I had managed to come to. The discussion of the boulder/flower pot, in my eyes, has taken away nothing from the merit of the meet, but as Wyatt said, only attests to its quality if this is the biggest thing people can find to pick on! So, one again, well done DVOA!

Well, I guess ndobbs raises a valid point. But I have never interpreted the definitions to mean that a black x on any given map can only stand for one thing on that map. Otherwise you would only have the black x, the black circle and the cairn/monument symbol to cover all man made objects that are possible. I always interpreted it to mean it would cover a range of man-made objects (playground equipment, statue, large artwork, enclosed electrical stuff too small to map with fence, etc) similar to the way the boulder symbol would be used for a range of boulders (granite, sandstone, partially moss covered, knoll-like, and yes concrete block etc.)

As far as the test - that is a great example. I might map it as either a black x or a black circle, but may need more info - for example a black x may not work if it is close in to trails on the inside of an acute trail junction. In this case the fact that you can get under it is irrelevant because it is easy enough to simply run around it. The mapper does not need to inform about the fact that passage is (technically) possible. Alternately maybe it could be mapped with a short 'impassable wall' symbol (521.1) - "An impassable wall or retaining wall is a wall, which fulfil the function of an enclosure or solid barrier."

Who has time during sprint to look at control descriptions? Plasements are so obvious, that when you are in circle you have it.

as for the test, building with the canopy (passthru) symbol;
the pillar symbol for the round supports?

I think I just figured out something that puzzled me -- Eric B said that #13 "primed" him for what was to come. I thought -- what was so strange about the tree? Then I reread Charlie's note about #13 being described as a cliff (sorry, Charlie, it was described as a tree). So I guess Eric saw the board on the far side of the knoll the tree was on in passing. Is that right? If so, I'm surprised he was even looking in that direction when he passed. Or could you see the board/cliff from earlier in the approach?

div, I beg to differ. or at least, it depends on the terrain. it can be vital in sprints to know on which side of the uncrossable wall the control is or if it is on or below a bridge etc. The first Sprint Nationale in a mediaeval walled town in France featured at least four controls where one had to read the description before making the route choice!!!

Eddie, I thought you'd have done better than toblerone factory... it's in my university and the French don't do Toblerone... do you see the copper things inside?

JohnF, reasonable... it would end up looking like an uncrossable wall (fair enough too) due to its shape... I went for pipeline, partly because of what it contains :)

Here is a similar challenge (sorry, no photo). In Forest Park, we have two roughly 3x10 meter (several joined, supported, pieces of thick glass) skylights for basement rooms of the Art museum. Each is flat and nearly flush to ground (grassy, open), mounted on a rectangular cement base, and crossable (with spikes?). Would its mapping differ on 1:10000 vs smaller Sprint scale? (Eric B is the mapper for this and I haven't seen his 'decision' yet.)

Suggestions?

Careful Rick, there's two Eric B's in this thread. Anyway, for the 1:10 Forest Park map I left the windows off. My rational was that the only ISOM symbol that could be used was Man Made Object and that would throw a competitor expecting to see something above ground level. There are plenty of other features in that area, so I didn't feel bad about not having it.

If I was to map that area at 1:5 for sprints, I might think harder about how to represent them, but nothing comes to mind.

As for the earlier quiz, I think I'd use "Uncrossable Wall".

On the related question, while I don't think I'm a "Sprint Mapper", I am a mapper who has made a few 1:5 ISSOM maps. Perhaps I misread the standard, but my interpretation of the 1:4 rule was that you DON'T enlarge the symbols by 25%. Therefore the X and O symbols would be the same size as at 1:5 (where they are still kinda big IMO).

The 1:4 scale is for dense urban areas where things like stairways can't be represented with the given line width. By switching to 1:4, but retaining the 1:5 symbol size, you can represent more complicated shapes. As I've never done a 1:4 map, I didn't read that section too carefully.

All this discussion got me thinking about what coursesetters do when there isn't a usable control location just exactly where you need one. There are stories of piling rocks to make a boulder cluster, and you might have heard about my sprint problem last year when the park cut down the distinctive single tree, deciduous, I used as the go control for all three sprints. Here's one possibility:
Need a control location?

NEOC has a "cultural object" that I was going to use for the Traverse until I had to change the course because of a dog sled race.

All this discussion got me thinking about what coursesetters do when there isn't a usable control location just exactly where you need one.

In our local meets, we have used our inflatable whale for a control a few times. On the control description sheet, we will either write "whale" or draw a whale symbol.

SLOC anticipated this situation when the West Tyson map was created. Note the cairns on the northern slopes (e.g., #12 & 13). There's no shortage of rocks at Tyson, so these are fairly large piles.

Mel Edwards, one of the volunteers who helped build them was on a nature walk in Tyson a few years back and the guide pointed out the cairns as some sort of Indian memorial. He had a hard time objecting because he was laughing so hard.

Beached Whale, NW Side or would NW end be more appropriate?

In the UK they have a feature known as a 'tripod', which is basically three sticks leaning on each other; less permanent than a cairn but also less effort to build (and more bogus).

Ah, the dreaded tripod. Can be a variety of things, but is usually just three sticks tied together. Usually used in flat, featureless forest and usually a bingo-control.

Why not just have the control feature as 'red and white flag'?

dness wrote: "Eric B said that #13 "primed" him for what was to come. I thought -- what was so strange about the tree? Then I reread Charlie's note about #13 being described as a cliff (sorry, Charlie, it was described as a tree). So I guess Eric saw the board on the far side of the knoll the tree was on in passing. Is that right?"

dness has uncovered my orienteering technique secret: I spend a lot of time looking behind me. No, but seriously, I simply noted the fact that the hill clearly looked man-made, and it reminded me that I would be seeing a lot of equestrian props. I may also have noted some of the clutter to the South of 13.

>>All this discussion got me thinking about what coursesetters do when there isn't a usable control location just exactly where you need one.

I ran a sprint in Silesia where the organizers put in about 15 features with controls into an open field, in one hour while the elites were held in a holding pen where they couldn't see what was happening. There were two different types of trees (pines and deciduous), stumps, and pits.

It was fun to watch the elites run out of the forest thinking it would be easy to match map to terrain in a field, and then making mistakes as there were lots of controls visible everywhere. Then we, the masses, got our turn too, but the element of surprise was less for us.

An instant tower was necessary at our rogaine this summer. As we were heading out to hang the control on the "tower", the land managers advised that it had been removed for safety reasons and was lying there behind the shed. All that was left is the base, visible under our temporary structure.

Looks like a tripod to me!

True but at that point the clue sheets had been printed as "Tower" so we had fun with it during the pre start briefing. And everyone was advised that if a strong wind came up, the "tower" might be further down the hill top than the very top.

Answer to test 2: Part of a linear accelerator.

A symbol defined as man-made object in an urban area seems silly to me. How would one map a 2m high genetically modified pumpkin?

From a distance.