Discussion: Same for the other US Champs in GA

Because they're sticklers for rules, is my guess.

Thats only a rule for the WRE classes, ie M/F21. It is enforced for all IOF events.

The only mention of GPS in the current OUSA Rules is in the Rogaine section. And as far as I know, nobody has yet managed to use a GPS device to advantage in an orienteering competition. But since this is a championship event, there is the slim outside possibility that skillful use of a Garmin watch could make the difference between, say, 19th and 20th place on M40. And the unfairness thereby unleashed would rip a hole in the space-time continuum the likes of which you couldn't imagine. (According to the website for North Carolina, the GPS prohibition applies to all US Championship classes. For Georgia, it appears to apply to everybody.)

Remember who the Meet Director/Course Planner is for this BOK event. (And the Course Consultant.)

The GAOC event specifically mentions the Gamin 305 as an example of a prohibited GPS device. I don't have one, so I'm not familiar with its capabilities. What information can you get out of it when you're in the woods? I've heard some reasonably convincing speculation that something like an iPhone could be leveraged to navigate around an orienteering map, but a watch? I'm not so convinced.

I'm a supporter of the canonical 1000-Day Rule: "Microwave ovens are specifically permitted".

As far as I know there are no OUSA rules banning use of GPS devices, so you can use them for any class that is not a WRE.

Markku (the event advisor for the Ski-O world cups) had a much better interpretation of the IOF GPS ban. His interpretation was that it only forbid use of GPS devices with a display that could overlay an orienteering map. So you couldn't run the race with ghettocad on your iPad, but he was allowing people to wear their Garmins.

In Foot-O, it has been enforced that you can't wear any gps device with any visual or audio feedback. At the 2011 SML champs someone was disqualified for wearing a garmin.

BOK had a similar rule at the Intercollegiates back in 2010. However, in at least one case, they accepted a model with a display, after a start person put a piece of duct tape over it.

There is no OUSA rule about it, but both events have notices on their web pages saying that GPS devices with displays will not be allowed, for all classes, not just the WRE. It seems to me that it is probably the organizers' prerogative to add reasonable event-specific rules, somewhat analogously to the rule that DVOA had at their meet a year and a half ago requiring everyone to wear bright orange clothing. Whether it is a good idea is another matter.

Wouldn't any event specific rule modifications/additions have to be approved by the sanctioning committee?

If you were to wear a garmin for the classic champs and were disqualified, what rule would be cited?

This did go through both sanctioning and rules for the BOK meet. The rule being applied is an interpretation of

36.4 The use of any navigation aid other than a compass is prohibited. (e.g. transport, electronic apparatus, radio, pedometer, altimeter)

The conclusion in Sanctioning was this:

...
Therefore, I think this is ultimately a question for the rules committee on what the rule governing GPS devices should be in general, since it affects more than the current meet. I propose therefore to refer the GPS rule question to the Rules Committee for decision. For the current meet, I think that because we are in a gray area of the rules, it is reasonable for BOK to enforce the existing ban on the use of GPS devices as they propose. If there is substantial complaint about it from meet attendees, that should enter into Rules' thinking on the matter for the future.

The conclusion in rules was not finalized, pending feedback to Rules. However, there is substantial support in Rules also for forbidding everything except loggers. I am on record elsewhere on Attackpoint from last time BOK held an A meet as thinking that forbidding Garmins was overkill; I'm not so sure any more.

I think any GPS displaying distance travelled could be used for pacing purposes - ie 400m on rough compass - at a higher speed than manual pacing technique might allow. I don't think it would trump the skills of an elite orienteer, but in non-elite classes it 'could' provide an unfair advantage.

I have to add two things. First, the somewhat rude comments by J-J are not adding much to the discussion. And second, there are a lot of people who object strongly to a rule that would ban GPS device usage in M/F21 only. Treat all classes the same, they say.

I have never understood why it is so difficult to have simple rule - allowed to carry what ever gadget you want but not allowed to use them for navigating.

Forerunner's map view sure is useful for minimizing errors. If you take splits you can see your location compared to your previous controls (in butterflies you see your next control) and you can always see your track as tail. If are about to make mistake and terrain doesn't match you can quickly check have you steered left or right and use that information avoid making even bigger parallel error. But to use it you would have to look at the gadget and have the map view on / turn it on by pressing buttons - it would be spotted at some point by someone, at manned control or by other competitors.

Agree with Clint - the major advantage I see would be the distance data from the watch. Although I'd love to wear my Garmin (quickroute is way more fun than drawing my routes), I am totally behind upholding rules to be consistent from event to event, especially in WRE races.

Nothing in the above changes my opinion that this is exceedingly silly. And to be enforced, in my particular case, to a small group of very old men, most of whom have known each other for years, who are traveling some distance to compete in a second-rate championships. And who, if trying to cheat with a GPS, pretty surely couldn't figure out how to do it.

All this reminds me unfortunately of a Seinfeld episode involving soup.

Can anyone direct me to someplace that makes it easy to set up an on-line petition?

I also agree it's silly. There's no way me standing still fiddling with series of buttons is going to find me the ten minutes I'm going to need to beat Ali this season. The GPS distance is about as accurate as my pacing, which is why I will likely use neither in any kind of race.

But the stats and feedback I get from my Garmin afterwards are very valuable for me to improve as an orienteer, and I'm sure many top runners agree.

It seems silly to handicap development of top orienteering by banning them, when the biggest advantage will not effect seriously competitive classes. As a compromise shoe tape over the screen would definitely work, if people are that bothered.

I know this stems from the IOF and not from OUSA originally, hence criticism is a bit misplaced, but I would very much prefer for this rule not to extend further than it already does, because I still believe it's a silly rule.

... but GPS use might win you (say) M16 or F16 against a small field.

Loggers cost a small double-digit sum. Just buy one and have done with it. The IOF rule generated the same complaints until people realized that owning a logger was a straightforward workaround.

Do the loggers also work with my 305 heart monitor and record that data?

jankoc wrote some time ago:

On a few trainings I've actually used the track-display on my Forerunner 305 display to find out about my mistake - and making a potential 3-4 minute mistake into a 1 minute mistake by looking at the direction of my track for the last 100-150 meters. Especially on a training in Slovenia it really saved me once. By using it actively, I am 100% sure I would be able to reduce my total time spent on mistakes on a yearly basis by at least 3-5%

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

This is going to sound harsh but...

If M16 or F16 can be won using a GPS, it sounds essentially like winning that course is a random event...do we care? Edit: I think providing juniors with some actual coaching (other than Blue Mountain, which does a great job) is a better work around for that problem then banning everyone from using GPS units.

I already have a GPS watch that logs and does many other things, including get me to the start on time. Why should I buy a less functional item for occasional use? The world has finite resources you know.

My main point is - why do people care? It seems from this discussion that most don't, thus imposing a rule is silly.

Most people who read PG's log don't care, you mean. Selection bias much?

Becks, there are a *lot* of opinionated people who don't hang out on AP.

PG, to answer your previous question, http://www.attackpoint.org/log.jsp/user_62

I disagree with feet on loggers: by all means a logger in not even close in functionality to Forerunner, no HR monitor is biggest drawback. I use my stopwatch for years to control distance covered from last split with great success. Let's forbid stopwatches! I my opinion this rule is actually bad for developing orienteering, because GPS devices with HR monitors are great post race analyzing tools, especially in this country were access to real coaching in orienteering is very limited.
I would sign PG's petition to drop this rule in a minute.

Agreed. The real athlete doesn't benefit from GPS watch during race and the real race cannot be won by using GPS watch. But it is a very good tool for after race analysis ...

So Balter, you need to buy a logger, an old school polar HRM, and then somehow find a way of fudging the two onto the same graphical output. Then it will be almost as useful.

I'd prefer my Garmin to do it for me, thanks. Balter is spot on about the use as a coaching tool in a country with very little access to coaching, and very little access to top level racing.

ndobbs: I have no idea who these opinionated people are. Everyone I know, which is most of the movers and shakers on the East Coast, reads PG's log. Thus I don't really care who these mysterious others are. I know, I know. Whatever.

So, I wrote to the club about this. Here is the response I got:

Some forerunner models can't save waypoints, but yours can. Since we can't read every manual and IOF has banned them in competition, and OUSA is trying to be more consistent with the IOF rules, and OUSA does not allow using other navigational aids, and this is a US Championship, we decided to not allow GPS with displays.

Here is how you use your watch to recover from an error:

From the Garmin Forerunner manual...
GPS MODE
Touch and hold the GPS menu to view the GPS menu.
SAVE LOCATION Save your current location. Press Enter to edit the location.Press Quit to exit.
GO TO LOCATION
select a location form the list and then select Go. Your Forerunner navigates you to the location using the navigation page.
(the navigation page shows a compass with a bearing and a distance.)
To stop navigating to the location, Press Quit, select, Stop Go To.

Now you know the direction and distance to your last control thus your current position.
Total time under 1 minute.

Joseph

So I guess it can be done. I am going to try it out soon.
But I wish there was a way around this, I really don't want to buy another gadget, and I really am looking for that HR information.

how about putting the Garmin in an otterbox with a padlock, the keys to which are held by race officials?

I apologize for my comment above about the space-time continuum, which I think is the only thing that could be construed as rude. It was an over-the-top way of saying that I think this is kind of like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. There are acknowledged benefits to allowing people to use the GPS devices that they already have, and I think it is reasonable to trust them to not use the watches for navigating. There are myriad ways that people could cheat at orienteering, and we just trust them not to. (In fact, the most effective one (following) seems to be part of the culture in some places, although less so here in the USA.)

I will make a suggestion, and people can do what they want with it. If you are not in contention for a medal (and maybe even if you are), then overtly wear a GPS watch with a display at these events, and every event that has such a prohibition. Make no secret of it, run the course, and take the DSQ without complaining. Civil disobedience. If I were going to either of these meets, I would get a watch just so that I could do this. You still get all of the real benefits of the meet (you get a map, course, you'll get your splits, etc.) other than a ranking score. I think that organizers of such events will dislike having all of those DSQs in the results of their meet, and will be reluctant to have such a rule.

The rules are there for the competitors, not for the organizers. Are there any competitors out there who are in favor of such a prohibition because they fear that their rivals will derive an advantage from it? If so, speak up, and I'll back down from my position.

putting tape over the display as several have mentioned would seem like a good compromise.

I don't wear one so not sure what all is displayed but thought the advantage to the compeitior was keeping track of distance so you don't need to pace count to those bingo type controls in the green.

Tape is easily removed and replaced. I have a hard time imagining that someone who feels that the watch should not be allowed would think that tape would solve the problem, but I may be mistaken.

It's all extra time needed to take it off and on I guess.

The person that removes tape to look at their watch is going to cheat any way they like. Making everyone else pay for that person sucks.

BOK were talking about testing out some tape to see that it was adequately non-removable but wouldn't damage watch screens. If you don't like their current blanket ban, I suggest you email them and ask for the status of that idea (which we've heard nothing about since 1 January).

Can someone clarify how HR data from one (or two) championship events is used for training purposes? Just curious.

See the notes on Sam's log from Jeff about HR and navigational ability.

An example - you make an error, and when you go back to look at your data, you notice a HR spike just before. Well, if your heartrate was well into level 5, your brain was focussing more on breathing than on reading the map calmly and collectedly. And this kind of scenario only occurs in races, where there is real pressure to deal with. You can simulate with O-tervals all you like, but nothing is as good as race practice in actual races with real pressure. Any data you can get from that will help you to improve your future performance. If you learn that nailing it down a trail well into oxygen debt is a bad thing for you, then it will help you chill out a bit when all your instincts are screaming "this is a race, you should be running MEGA FAST!"

I wish I had popcorn.

BOK were talking about testing out some tape to see that it was adequately non-removable but wouldn't damage watch screens

Talk about overthinking the problem...

Somehow I get the feeling this thread will be longer than any discussion on the athletic achievements of the soon to be crowned US Champions.

which is sillier? banning GPS watches or allowing a SI start unit at a Championship race? The latter allows people to miss their start time and not be penalized. The former? Umm not so much.

Popcorn? Check!

Should we move this out to the public discussion area? Or does PGs log get more traffic?

People who helped put the event on? Or people who had to look after small children? Sure let's dq them.

Hammer raised the same point I was going to:

"OUSA is trying to be more consistent with the IOF rules."

And this is where they're choosing to start? What about free starts and championships? Or sprint standard maps?

OUSA is trying to be more consistent with the IOF rules

What would Ralph Waldo Emerson say?

He might send the meet directors a link about Sweden's rules.

Or what about sending all runners to a simple first control that they have to punch, in place of a proper remote start triangle.

Opening a can of coke with my popcorn!

It seems that the biggest issue here is that we don't actually have a rule saying "no GPS devices with a screen", but we do have a rule saying "no navigational aids other than a compass". And the fact that sanctioning chooses to enforce this "only compasses" rule as a "no GPS" rule, seems to be setting a precedent - if that is OUSA's interpretation of that rule, then every OUSA-sanctioned meet should ban GPS devices, to be consistent with the interpretation of the rule.

There was no judgment from Sanctioning as the various rules are ambiguous (see feet's earlier post). The issue was sent to the Rules Committee for review. Still waiting.

I think barometric devices have been long frowned upon, with such a rule viewed as excluding them. I would support banning the *use* of them for navigation, as Jagge suggests.

I don't think there would be any objection to a ban on using the watch to navigate (as the rule already says). But does that mean you can't bring it? It's not as if there's no purpose in having it other than to cheat. I mean, performance enhancing drugs are banned, too, but that doesn't mean we don't let people bring epi-pens with them.

I have worn a barometric altimeter watch for about the last 10 years.

>Opening a can of coke with my popcorn!

This thread is rated PG.

So it seems like I have several options --

1. Buy one of those loggers, whatever they are, and a heart rate monitor figure out how to work it, figure out how to download it, all of which is highly unlikely given my current available time.

2. Go naked (in the GPS and heart rate monitor sense), revert to drawing my route on the map. Plus come up with some other thing besides checking my heart rate to keep me entertained during the less interesting parts of the course. Maybe take my ipod and listen to car talk (or is that illegal gear?).

3. Hide the 305 in my shorts. If asked what's there, just say it's my whistle. I would say more, but the thread is rated PG.

4. Wear the 305 openly. See if they DQ me. If they do, so be it.

5. Skip the event.

6. Summon an emergency meeting of the organizing committee of the Western Mass 5 Day to decide what our policy will be about wearing GPS devices. Ooops, meeting already over, there will be no restrictions.

So many choices in life.... :-)

#4 Bobby Orr

I vote #4, but if you want to do #1, I could provide the technical assistance to get the track downloaded. Operation is pretty damn easy: you press the button, the LED comes on, and when it stops blinking and remains steady, it has satellite lock. When you're done, you press the button again and it turns off. At least that's how the one I have works.

#5 why put up with ridiculous readings of the rules.

Just a little touch to this all: last week, I was at QOC event where they offered club's 305 units to use on a course ( I believe, they had at least 5). I thought it was a nice touch.
On a serious note: anyone who thinks, I would cheat in any way on orienteering course, is not a friend of mine, whether it is a club official, or a club (collective ignorance), of IOF. As a matter of fact, it is a direct insult.
I could go on and on, but you do not have enough popcorn for that ;)

To answer PG's question: I would play by the rules, use whatever gadget is legal, and start collecting signatures for the letter to Orienteering USA for dropping that rule, like Sweden did.

I've got a small datalogger which I like to use for rogaines that was way cheaper than my Garmin 305. Because the Garmin runs out of battery in 10 hours, it is useless for 2/3 of the rogaine anyway, and on a rogaine, having the display on the Garmin could conceptually actually be pretty useful (in bland terrain during the night, for example). As JJ has commented it is completely trivial to turn on a typical datalogger before you start, and you can tell just when you started, because from your track, all of a sudden you go from zero speed to going quickly. I would think that in practice, by comparing heart rate vs. speed in other events (with some compensation for elevation gain), that in practice you could derive most of the same information from speed as a function of time or distance that you normally think in terms of getting from your pulse rate. It is conceivable to me that the occasional glance at the watch (if set with display showing heart rate) might be a useful pacing guide to people in real time. I personally wasn't planning on going down to GA for this upcoming meet anyway, but would likely go along with their prohibition and just use my datalogger if I were. In general I wear my Garmin at A-meets, and don't usually pay any attention to it until I get back. After all, if I looked at the display, there's all too good a chance that it would tell me that I was at risk for getting back after 3 hours and either offending someone or launching a search and rescue mission.

Is there a GPS logger out there that has a very nice and elegant link to downloading on AttackPoint?

There are plenty of places to start an online petition. Probably the best known is Change.org.

Come on Balter, no one is accusing anyone of cheating in this thread.

Yes, on a serious note this is actually an interesting topic. I disagree with most here who simply dismiss it as "a gps is the same as a stopwatch", or "elites are too good anyway to get any help from it". It's not about pace counting! Did you actually read (and reflect on) what Jagge/jankoc is saying earlier in this thread? You don't have to stand still and fiddle with buttons. You don't have to have any deeper understanding of how to configure your GPS. Simply leave your 305 (or almost any other gps with a display) in the map mode where you see your track plotted. Even an elite runner can with a quick glance on the watch confirm if his/her direction is drifting. A stopwatch, altimeter or HR monitor clearly does not have that capability. To repeat what Jagge said "Forerunner's map view sure is useful for minimizing errors".

In my opinion there is no point discussing whether a GPS can be used to "cheat", because clearly it can easily. What we should discuss is how to write and interpret the rule. Apparently the US rule already says that it's not allowed to use the GPS to navigate. What we should discuss is whether this rule can be handled the same way as e.g. following (i.e. in practical reality an honor system, which seems to be the Swedish rule), or if an actual ban is needed.

I'm not arguing either way! I think I'm leaning towards the Swedish approach, i.e. only ban GPS at IOF sanctioned races.

+1 pi

I've run out of popcorn. Coke I can at least get down the street.

The logger that I have appears to be discontinued, but it simply creates an NMEA file when I hook it up to a USB cord and run the simple download software. Then I use GPSBabel to convert that to a GPX file that I can upload to AttackPoint. In order to get rid of the extra points at the beginning between when it's looking for satellites and when I actual start moving, I edit the NMEA file and delete the extra points from the beginning. (How I determine how many to delete is a little more involved.) It's not a big deal for me, and I'd be happy to lend my logger to PG and create the files for him, but it's a far cry from the simplicity of using a Garmin watch. Of course, there's no way to take splits with the logger, so you don't wind up with the controls marked in the file, which I think probably makes things a little more complicated still if you're using QuickRoute, for example (but maybe not, I've never tried that).

See now if people were really being efficient, they'd use Ór-like software that automatically overlays the gps track on the map using the split times from the SI... wear your gps, download at the finish, organisers upload everything to RG or whatever.

Come on Balter, no one is accusing anyone of cheating in this thread.

I don't think he's saying that about anyone in the thread. I think he's saying that the rule assumes that by having the watch, he may be cheating, or tempted to do so. Or somebody might be.

So I want to bring up an interesting point: we have a bunch of rules, but most of them have to do with how to set up the pieces on the board and play the game. The rules for what the competitors have to do are really pretty simple: go to the following places, in order, as fact as you can. I know there are a few anecdotes about people getting disqualified for cheating, mostly in other countries (like the guy who threw a control into the bushes at the O-Ringen), but most of the things that resemble "cheating" involve people going places that are marked on the map as places you can't go, usually inadvertently. And most "disqualifications" (in the USA, at least) are for accidentally missing a control. Other than a few rare cases from pin-punch days of people falsifying a punch pattern, do we really have any anecdotes about anyone intentionally cheating? If we have a rule saying that you can't use the GPS device to navigate, can't we trust people to follow it? Do we have to assume that the temptation would be too great? Heck, over here, people don't even grab maps out of each other's hands!

I don't think this decides the issue: but the idea that orienteers, whether elite or recreational, won't cheat, if it can be done simply and without much risk of being caught, shows an astounding ignorance of human nature. (And, no, I am not accusing Balter of cheating.)

I think the idea that a significant number of orienteers would cheat given the opportunity really misunderstands why people do our sport. There are no significant prizes in orienteering bar at the very top level: we do this because we like to challenge ourselves in the woods (or more generally with a map in motion). We are competing mainly against ourselves.

GPS devices have been around for quite a while now and I'm not aware of widespread cheating using them, actually I'm not aware of a single incident. Jagge/Jankoc have been on the "helpful GPS" bandwagon for a while, but the use they are talking about is after someone has already lost time and is making a mistake - the GPS may help limit that mistake but I would contend that it would not help an elite win a competition against another elite correctly reading their map and running flat out.

So if there are very few prizes to win, and a GPS can't help you win one of them anyway, why on earth are we trying to ban a new technology that is really useful after the event?

They may be on the "bandwagon", but Jagge argues identically with you in this very thread:

"I have never understood why it is so difficult to have simple rule - allowed to carry what ever gadget you want but not allowed to use them for navigating."

we are competing mainly against ourselves

The same is often said of marathon runners, but cheating at major marathons is rampant. This includes not only the famous cheaters who did it for prizes - Rosie Ruiz, Martin Franklin, and the Irish guy who took a bus to a third place finish in a marathon last year. But there were 46 disqualifications for cutting the course short at the NYC marathon in a recent year, and none of these were for prizes. "Why on earth" would they do it? Maybe to impress - or avoid being embarrassed in front of - their fellow runners. Who knows. But the experimental data on cheating is pretty damning.

Certainly, GPS cheating is, and never will be, widespread; and in M21 it would be of no help to win a prize. So I'm fine with an honor system, even at championship events. (Like for following, or crossing out-of bounds, where one doesn't have much choice). But if one decides to go with the honor system, don't sugarcoat the consequences. (Like for following, or for going out-of-bounds).

I come from the coaching school, witch says if you made one step in wrong direction you already lost the race; good luck to anyone with the best GPS unit to come even remotely close to that. My point: using GPS watch, in this stage of their development) for orienteering does not give any proven advantage (there is no real tests made, or any, close to scientific data, besides talking about hypothetical advantage), where cutting the course in running race is like skipping a control in orienteering.
to PBricker: I am not saying that people will not cheat, by using some features of GPS watch at the race, I do not think it will beat good map reading skills, distance estimation, terrain interpretation, and most important it takes this game's fun away.
The way Jagge describes potential cheating requires at least two bad apples, it makes it so much harder.
And one more: try to beat this with GPS: I have an early start and an older version of the map, run the course, come to my late starting conspirator and draw the course and discuss all routs and features, pass all possible info. That gives huge advantage. How do you stop this? You have to trust people a little more,and be a little less serious about bragging rights in an obscure activity.

re: NY marathon. 46 people cheating out of 45,000 is pretty good.

46 disqualifications is a very small percentage, of course. Out of 40000, that corresponds to a rate of less than one person at a large US A-meet. And when you have a field that large, you get people with motivations that are very different than what we have with orienteering. Nobody shows up to orienteer dressed as Batman, for example.

I fully respect your philosophy cred as it applies to this issue, Phil, so I will ask for your help in understanding what I perceive to be a difference. I really think that in the USA, we don't have cheating in orienteering. (But in Europe, the situation is different.) What is it about the sport here that makes that the case? Is it simply because the sport is so small? Or because there is so little at stake (not even qualifying time to enter another race)? Or am I simply mistaken?

Greg's example above is interesting, and to a minor extent, I'm guilty of somethmg similar. I've occasionally had a friend run a course early enough to be able to talk to me before I ran. And we did have discussions that were probably very helpful to me, but they were limited to very general strategy (e.g. "The woods are incredibly thick, take trail routes whenever possible.") In fact, US orienteers seem to take it to extremes. I've had people tell me that they almost got a glimpse of a new map, and had realized to their horror that if they had seen it, they would be disqualified. There is always concern about who is allowed to stuff and seal maps for an A-meet, because a peek would constitute "prior knowledge". (And to put my cards on the table, I freely admit that there have been A-meets -- maybe even championship events -- where I have been the one who entered all of the courses into the computer for printing, including my own course, and because I had no interest in obtaining an advantage, I simply didn't pay much attention nor think about route choices, so that when I got to the starting line, the fact that I had seen the course before made no difference.)

I'm with Phil. There is plenty of cheating in North American orienteering. The most frequently infringed rule is the out-of-bounds rule. An OCIN Flying Pig race at Fort Ancient in 2003 or so where competitors were asked to keep off the 'mounds' was a disaster. Competitors frequently do not disqualify themselves for infringing out-of-bounds areas (I have done this, by 'pretending' I never went through an out-of-bounds area in the past; usually this happens when you get slightly lost, veer into the OOB area accidentally, but don't choose to reverse course back the way you came). Why is this rule frequently infringed? Because the temptation is right there. Same as with GPS tracking on watches with displays.

OK so why not REQUIRE GPS watches and that you will have to hand in your GPS track at the finish to track any OOB infringements.

Now you make the sport more sponsor friendly.

I have the impression that most OOB incursions are inadvertent (i.e. the offender doesn't realize he's doing it at the time). Ideally, there's no opportunity for this, because ideally there are no passable OOB areas. I don't know how many that leaves that are either intentional or the result of conscious denial. With a GPS watch, I think you can put the watch into a mode that displays no navigation information (e.g. just time and HR or whatever), right? In that case, switching to a display mode that would be helpful would require an intentional move. (Or if there is no such display mode, then yeah, a piece of blue painter's tape.)

Here's my thinking on this. If I were on the rules committee, unlike most writers on this thread, I would not find this an easy or obvious decision.

First, all the crying about them taking your Garmin away is ludicrous. We've only had these toys for a couple of years. Somehow, without having them for training, we learned how to orienteer. And somehow, those like Peter who use them for amusement rather than training, figured out how survive "less interesting parts of the course". Come on. Not getting to use your Garmin for a few races a year is at worst a very minor inconvenience.

Second, Jagge's post made me think that a Garmin in map view could, with practice, be used to cheat effectively. Say you miss a control, but nothing you see tells you right away whether you missed left or right. If you can tell by a quick glance at your watch, you will save on lost time, and not likely be caught. And it seems to me any orienteer, at any level, sometimes finds himself in this situation. I agree with Greg that it needs to be verified that this method of cheating is effective - I never use my Garmin in map view - but I conclude, tentatively, that the Garmin can be used as an effective navigational device, and will be used by some small number to cheat.

Third, if I read the Swedish rule right, all GPS devices with a map mode are banned, including the 305 that I, and most of the orienteers I know, use. So most the writers of this thread are to the right of the Swedes on this. Why do I say "to the right"? Because, in the US at least, the right wing is against regulations that would catch cheaters. Let Wall Street be on the honor system they say, and also the big corporate polluters. OK, this is a bit of a stretch, but only because the harms that cheaters do in orienteering are trivial in comparison.

Fourth, we already have a rule that creates a minor inconvenience to ward off cheating: at all A-meets, we have to give up our map if the starts are still ongoing. For me, this is more of an inconvenience than not running with my Garmin, for example, when I have to leave shortly after I run. Now, I would probably lean, for both these cases, in favor of getting rid of the rule and using the honor system. It's a matter of weighing the minor inconveniences, and the negative atmosphere created by not trusting competitors, against the potential harm done by some small number of cheaters. For those that agree, I suggest civil disobedience: when they ask for your map after you run, refuse to give it up! For those that think the rule against keeping your map is OK, but the rule against carrying a Garmin is not, I'd like to know why. Is the difference in the inconveniences imposed? In the likelihood of cheating? In the amount of harm that the cheating would cause?

It's not purely about personal inconvenience. Looking at other people's routes gives us pleasure and food for thought. It can be good advertising too, posting the winners' gps tracks, and showing the gps replays to people using RG (hand-drawn routes use linear interpolation).

I agree it's not clear-cut, but I would say the benefit from allowing gps is evident and the possible negative consequences are worth the risk for the time being.

Impounding maps is not a rule, but is at the discretion of the meet director (unless something has been added recently that I have missed). Whether maps are taken at the finish line varies between meets, and at meets where I am involved with the organization, they are not (with a few exceptions when someone else on the organizing committee feels strongly about it). You're quite right that this presents an obvious opportunity to cheat, and yet we have no anecdotes about it happening. (It is a bit different in that it nominally would seem to require cooperation from one's rival, but it would be simple enough to join in on a route choice conversation, pretending to have already run.)

They didn't collect the maps at any time at the Portugal O' Meeting, including for the WRE. They just had a note in the bulletin that they expected everyone not to share it with other competitors. It would have been a really easy way to cheat but I doubt anyone did, and it was far less hassle for everyone involved.

The issue with the GPS watches isn't about inconvenience but about, for the time being, silliness. Yes, you could cheat with a FR, maybe effectively, but the rules already say you can't use it for navigation. If it ever actually seems to be that people are gaining an advantage by wearing them then I'd support a widespread ban.

(I ran out of popcorn.)

Personally I think it is time to embrace the technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOR73ptONG4

+1

Philosophy and pop corn aside, the concern about use of GPS seems over blown. Consider the fact that one of the most reported Boom is that related to the instrument specifically approved by Rules and is fundamental to our sport. How frequently have we read a report of a great run at a meet until Control #X when the competitor made a 90, or 180, error. If the little device many of us carry on our thumbs that contains only one moving part and no operator manual interface cannot protect us from our errors, think about the possible errors that can be made with multiple screens and buttons to play with in our mind-numbed states at the top of some major hill.

I selected #5 from PG's list long time ago, albeit for the different reason.

@walk. +1. very well stated.

If we think of the magnitude if the problem, GPS display ban is like not letting next competitor start before the previous runner had finished for possible following. But Swedish rule is over blown too, there is no need to actively encourage runners to use gps for navigation and ask runners to freely develop gps use strategies.

Allowed to carry, not allowed to use for navigation would do just fine. If there is genuine concern there really is a problem, just couple of loops tape around the unit at the elite classes in important races. So one would have to remove tape and put it back and watch it in secretly, that would make it too hard to get any real advantage.

Here is example of the way I would use gps if allowed liek it is in sweden:
http://orienteering.ca/cgi-bin/reitti.pl?act=map&i...

I'd take splits at each control, just press a button, no hassle. That would make it easier to see my route from latest control on if there is need. If I get "lost", I'd have opportunity to look at screen to see the direction I have been moving since the latest control/last minute, that would make relocation more secure. Later it the course I'd have network of recorded points (previous controls). So on my way to #6 I could see #2 ahead and my location compared to that and #5. If unsure, I could steer my way to control using just the map view (I'd have that constantly on). Again to #13 I could use waypoints #3 and #4 and spike the control again even without map if needed. On the way to #14 I could use #10, it's about right behind the control and maybe #7 too to make sure I don't start searching too early. #15 would be easy again, just looking at current location and at waypoints #7, #8 and #2. Of course I would navigate as I do today, but I can think of simple habit to take splits and have map view on would give me an extra tool to polish my performance, erase some hesitation and minimize errors. Maybe it's ok and fair, same for everybody and if you make perfect run it wouldn't make me any faster, but errors are part of this sport and polishing performance/errors like this isn't something I would like to see as part of O. Also course planners would have to think of this and set courses the make this kind of gps use harder or challenging, and that would make more difficult to fully use best areas. This is why I don't like the Swedish gps rule.

Note, to use those waypoints you don't have to select them by pressing buttons. Those are seen on the map view all the time. All you need to do is take splits. And maybe zoom out/in if needed, not big hassle either, there is zoom out and in buttons in forerunner 205/305.

Complicating matters a little bit (I think) is that the orienteering map is aligned to magnetic north, but the GPS device is aligned to true north. When looking to see if you have been going in the right direction, that has to be taken into account. (Of course, future devices may have an option to change the angle of map view, or for all I know, maybe the existing ones already do that.) How much this matters depends on the declination wherever you happen to be. In the case that Jagge describes above, the fact that the course crosses itself so much would presumably help to minimize this issue, but that is an unusual course, in terms of both the terrain and the shape of the course. It does strike me that GPS watches as they exist now could be used only for a limited class of types of errors, and for others (maybe most kinds), they would be less helpful. For example, if the control is in a detailed area, and you've successfully gotten to that area but are having trouble figuring out what is what in order to get to the center of the circle, it's probably not so helpful.

An interesting mental exercise: how do you think things would have been different if GPS watches had been allowed on the final leg at the WOC2011 women's relay?

Thank you, Phil.

People are clearly willing break the rules in this sport. Just look at some of the egregious cases of following, or Greg's own admission that "I use my stopwatch for years to control distance covered from last split with great success" - clearly a violation of the no-navigational-aid rule, and at the top of the sport in North America.

Or so I would have said. But according to Greg, "anyone who thinks, I would cheat in any way on orienteering course, is not a friend of mine", and if you talk to any of those followers, they'll tell you it's all part of the sport. I'm sure there exist people who believe they're totally in the clear by using their gps watch to save them from errors. Probably not many (if any) in North America, but I would have thought the case for a rule was pretty sound. The case for not having a rule sounds like a lot of people whining, frankly.

I hope I'm still Greg's friend. I think he's a great guy and a great orienteer, I'm just confused about his interpretation of no navigational aids.

I think it's definitely debatable as to whether using a watch to determine the distance that one has covered constitues a "navigational aid". If one wants to get into splitting hairs, then I suppose one would have to consider pace counting itself, since stride length and counting steps are not on the list of explicitly allowed tools (especially the now-obsolete counters that some compasses used to have on the side). But we don't need to figure out what the "founding fathers" meant by these rules. It's "our" sport, and it has whatever rules "we" choose for it to have. Is there a sentiment out there that using a watch to determine how far you have gone is inappropriate? I wouldn't have thought so, but maybe I'm wrong. This isn't a question of whether it could be construed as technically being a "navigational aid", it's about whether it's not in the spirit of what orienteering as we view it is about. I view these two techniques (stopwatch and GPS) as being on opposite sides of a (probably somewhat fuzzy) line.

Following, on the other hand, is smeared out all over the ethical spectrum, from being saved from an error by seeing someone come out of a control just as you were about to miss it, to the other extreme of literally stuff your map in your pocket. It's hard to generalize about it, and hard to police.

(As far as whining is concerned, I think I've posted the most in this thread, and I'll point out that I do not even own a GPS watch, but I do own a "legal" GPS tracker, which I have used on only a few occasions.)

Nobody shows up to orienteer dressed as Batman...

I wouldn´t be too sure about that ...

Well, maybe not Batman ...

I have used my shadow to keep me on a compass line on sunny days, and I recall relocating from the sound of peepers in a small wetland once. Navigational aids?

All this talk of cheating techniques makes my poor aged head spin. I didn't even know my 305 could do all those tricks. I use only time or time and distance display. Anything smaller than that I can't see. Distance might be useful (I suppose) on the first control. After that, I can't remember how far I had gone by the last point, so the accumulated distance is not a useful piece of information.

My son tells me that when he raced cross-country, they were not permitted to have watches, because knowing how long they had been out would have been an impermissible advantage.

I do get really significant pleasure from downloading my track and imposing it over my scanned map in QR. This is a wonderful enhancement for our sport. Engaging in this is at the limits of my poor technical capabilities. The hijinks J_J describes for downloading from his logger would be prohibitive to me.

I participate in this sport for enjoyment, and prefer not to have that enjoyment diminished by having my GPS unit banned. I hope this foolishness does not catch on.

Also, I am curious about what would happen if PG wore his GPS and was disqualified. Would any of you want the very tainted gold medal?

That would be sad, but it would be PG doing the tainting.

I'm with Charlie. I have no idea how to cheat with my 305 and I prefer to keep it that way. In addition, the people I would be "cheating" against are all my friends. I can't even imagine enjoying any kind of win over my friends if that win was achieved by cheating.

It probably hadn't occurred to most owners of a GPS watch that they could use it to cheat until meets started banning them. ;-)

to bshields (if he is any serious in his statement): it took about 15 years of training with stopwatch and thousands of starts to perfect this "cheating" technical skill with a stop watch, plus as far as I recall using a watch on a course is not prohibited in any way (if you are not throwing it or a compass into your fellow competitors).

Polar (I have 2 high end Polars) has GPS recorder (G5), no navigation screen on a watch, $139, any one tested it?

but it would be PG doing the tainting

I guess, if you consider honestly running the race faster (albeit while carrying a device that could theoretically have been, but wasn't, used for some kind of navigation) to be "tainting". Exactly the same as if he were to win the race and then be disqualified for carrying a sextant.

I think I can see the point of the Swedish "bring it on!" approach. It may well be that, although people can dream up methods by which a GPS watch could be used, none of these methods are in fact practical. Some people have said that they feel that could have saved some particular amount of time by using a GPS, but I think that's speculative. The only way to know is to try it. If it turns out that it really is useful, fine, then either prohibit them from that point forward, or make a separate category, and there's no devastating harm done in the meantime. Much like the developent of skate skiing, or the emergence of the butterfly stroke from the breast stroke. Or conversely, like the development of the shot clock in basketball after it became clear that allowing the team with the lead to play infinite keep-away did not result in a good game. Or it may turn out that the GPS doesn't really help so much after all, unless you get to a device with the sophistication of a smartphone.

I have this picture in my mind of a philosophy professor studying his GPS watch for advantage, while orienteers using their maps are streaming by him enroute to the control.

Exactly the same as if he were to win the race and then be disqualified for carrying a sextant.

or a microwave oven.

to Charlie: any particular philosophy professor? :)

Phil +1

BOK made a rational (though unpopular) interpretation of a rule, discussed it with sanctioning, and publicized it well in advance of the event. Done! Now let's allow BOK and GAOC to focus on logistics, courses, and field work.

Clearly, the Rules committee needs to consider the rule. And it must be assumed that the technology will only improve.

In the mean time, if anyone wishes to wear a Garmin to protest the rule, please do not put the onus on the Start crew, meet director, age-group mates, and the jury. Wear the watch and don't punch the next to last control (or the Finish). DQ - protest noted.

I agree with Rick here, I am planning to wear a HR monitor and use compatible with that HR monitor GPS logger. By compatible, I mean you can combine the data from both units on your computer after the race with software provided by manufacturer.

please do not put the onus on the Start crew, meet director, age-group mates, and the jury

Surely it's not an issue for the start crew, I can't imagine that they would bar people from starting if they were wearing a prohibited watch!

But I'll disagree in a minor way: by all means, put the onus on the meet director, who is directly responsible for this policy. Wear the watch, punch all of the controls, and file the protest against yourself. The meet director should be able to DSQ you without sending it to a jury (just as you can be DSQ for missing a control without jury action).

Or you can just be sheeple.

By the way:
For those that think the rule against keeping your map is OK, but the rule against carrying a Garmin is not, I'd like to know why. Is the difference in the inconveniences imposed?

Yes. In the case of keeping maps, the inconvenience is temporary, and you get your map back in another hour or so.

Here are the relevent rules from the OUSA website:

B.36.3 During the competition only a compass and the map provided by the organizer may be used for navigation. Personal aids not used directly for navigation are permitted (e.g. magnifying glass, flashlight, cane, eyeglasses).

B.36.4 The use of any navigation aid other than a compass is prohibited (e.g. transport, electronic apparatus, radio, pedometer, altimeter).

=====

I do not use my 305 for navigation. Never have. Apparently there is a map display. Never been there. I use the 305 as a stopwatch and display the time. I use it as a heart monitor and display my heart rate. I also have it display the distance I have covered since the start, but that like the rest of the display is for entertainment, not navigation.

I clearly have no problem with breaking rule B.36.3.

Regarding B.36.4, I think it is a matter of semantics. If I am carrying a device that can be used for navigation, but I am not using it for navigation, am I violating the rule? I don't think so, but clearly someone might. Or, suppose I am carrying the 305 but it is taped over, or never turned on, am I violating the rule? I don't think so, but someone might.

I am carrying a navigation aid, but not using it for navigation. I'm not breaking rule B.36.4, or at least the spirit of the rule. I am using it for non-navigation purposes. And it is being banned.

I don't understand why this is being decided by clubs and not the federation. It is the federation's championships, not the club's.

If I do decide for option 4, I will punch the last control. And if they want to DQ me, so be it. But I am not going to DQ myself for doing nothing wrong.

Ok, so Greg agrees with Rick, and then goes on to say that he is not personally inconvenienced. Not much comfort to those of us who are personally inconvenienced.

It seems to me that we generally expect people to carry a watch, since they are instructed to come back if they are overtime.

Greg, I don't have any disrespect for your orienteering ability, and I don't think measuring distance with your watch would have gained you much, but I'm just saying that it's technically against the USOF rules, because you are using a device, which is neither the compass nor the map, nor your brain (as apparently we need to specify explicitly for JJ), for the purposes of determining the distance traveled and thereby location on the map. If that's not using the watch as a navigational aid, then.... I dunno, we can just pack up and go home, I guess.

Now, whether that constitutes "cheating" is a substantially different question, and I would say it depends largely on whether you use this technique because you think it's better than pace counting, or if you think it's totally equivalent and you just prefer it. In the latter case, I would say you're breaking the rules, but not to derive any particular advantage, and therefore not "cheating".

And no, counting paces in your head is clearly not using an external device as a navigational aid. That's just navigation. Quit being ridiculous, JJ.

Regarding "tainting". If the rules are set and you break them to make a point, you should absolutely be disqualified. If you consider the subsequent results to be "tainted", you can only complain to the person who broke the rules. If you don't consider the results to be "tainted" (which I guess is what JJ is saying?), it sounds like Charlie has an argument for you.

Anyway, I think Phil and Ricka have said it pretty well.

It does occur to me that this discussion has been taking place without the voice of anyone associated with the meet administration (other than an indirect note via the head of Sanctioning), and a forwarded note that the meet director sent in response to a query. It would probably be helpful to try and get their voice into this discussion, or to send a petition that shows opposition and to see what they have to say. Although I advocate civil disobedience if the ban is in place, I can completely understand those who would not want to violate the rules that they are presented with, and I think it woudl be a much better solution if the policy were simply changed before the meet comes around. (And I recognize that there are two different meets in the mix here.)

Sounds reasonable.

And no, counting paces in your head is clearly not using an external device as a navigational aid. That's just navigation. Quit being ridiculous, JJ.

I'm talking about using one of these:


I can't see how this wouldn't be a rule violation if looking at your watch is. And yet, there used to be compasses that had them built in, although I can't find a picture of one right now. (Some people used them to keep track of how many controls they had been to, I think, but others used to help keep track of pace count.) I'm firmly of the opinion that using a watch to help judge distance is not technically against the USOF rules.

Reading this is a bit of an eye-opener and the first I'm hearing anything about it. I will certainly bring it to the attention of the GAOC folks.

I know I was pretty crushed when BOK enforced this policy at the Sycamore Scramble a couple of years ago and I specifically asked about a Garmin 405, which doesn't have a map view (as far as I know!).

At that time the feeling was that the organizers wouldn't just DSQ someone for having a GPS watch, but might do if somebody else protested their wearing it. Tape was offered at the start. A few of us risked it.

Might be better in general not to hold this type of discussion in personal logs. It's a pretty tough requirement for everyone to have to read all of them all the time!

But doesn't everyone read PG's? :-)

Discussion possibly moved to the events discussion area.

@JanetT - possibly not.

Wow, I'm late to the game, but buying shares in popcorn.

jjcote, what are the advantages if Swedish "bring it on!" approach over the "allowed to carry but not use for navigation" approach? As far as I can see there is none, just disadvantages.

If the course doesn't cross itself much previous controls can't be used as much as in the example course. Then I would use different strategy - take split both at controls and at my attack point, so if I don't spike my controls I can turn around and look at my current location compared to the previous control and my attack point (seen as waypoints in map view) and determine am I too left, right searching too early or what - if my location looks ok I could suspect I have "parallel errored" my attack point. If leg is long it might be useful to take additional split also at before attack point at a place I know for sure where I am. It might make it possible to use more zoomed in view and make it easier to estimate location.

I blame the IOC! What happened is probably something like this:

IOC member Prince Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah, Kuwait: Nice sport! What is it called?
IOF Big Shot: Orienteering. You navigate between controls as quickly as possible.
IOC member Prince Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah, Kuwait: So you can easily cheat by bringing a GPS? As you know we have a serious problem with people who cheat at the olympics and we absolutely don't want any more cheaters than we already have.
IOF Big Shot: No, using a GPS is against the rules. We take cheating very seriously in orienteering.

IOF Big Shot, calling home two minutes later: We need to quickly make a rule change so that GPSes are forbidden!! Or else we will never be an olympic sport! (Oh, the horror!!)

what are the advantages if Swedish "bring it on!" approach over the "allowed to carry but not use for navigation" approach?

It invites actually testing the premise. I don't know if GPS devices (at least, the existing ones) would be a net advantage or not. I've heard some descriptions of how they could be used, but it's not clear to me that anyone has actually tried it and found that it's helpful. It might be that it's just more hassle than it's worth, and is a net loss. By telling people that it's okay to use them, you'll find out. If it does provide an advantage, then we would assume that people would start using them in order to not lose that edge. At that point, you address the problem. and I can't see that any significant damage is done in the meantime. By banning them initially, what we wind up with is is this phantom threat that people are concerned about but that may not actually exist. (For years we invited people to use whatever they wanted at the 1000-Day, and nobody ever used anything more than a map and compass -- and I guess a watch. I wonder if it would be different today with the improved technology.)

@ Jagge: your points are all clear and valid, let's bring it to reality: do you think it gives any advantage in urban sprint situation, when 1 minute mistake is a disaster and 15 sec mistake is a serious matter. Even if I perfect knowledge of all gps unit buttons (FR305 in particular) I will, probably, loose even more time just by switching different modes all the time. May be I am wrong and do not know my GPS unit well enough. Another point in this, do I have time after that to even look at my map and make route decisions, etc. I understand, I took this case to extreme.

I will try to get to my point here: I think orienteering, as I know it, represents tremendous physical and mental challenge, and using current GPS wrist units in any mode will not replace hard work and countless hours in training. I do believe that "cheating" methods described in this thread will give marginal advantage to lesser orienteers. It is my personal believe, that it does not radically change, at this point, the nature of our sport. I myself, say bring it on, proof me wrong. I believe, that development of in this technology very soon will bring the watch with live track on orienteering map, loaded into the watch, than I say, we create a new sport, or a new category, just like x-country skiers did with skating style. Please, do not just ban it!

Yup, I have to agree with Greg. I still think that relocating with the map will trump relocating with a GPS watch. Now if that GPS unit has a real map on it then that is a different story. If (and it is a big if) the current technology does benefit a few then it is likely the lesser orienteers and I don't have a problem with that if it increases participation. It is a tough sport to learn and if some people think they can run faster using the current technology so be it.

I tend to agree with upnorthguy in the other thread that there are other means of cheating that are much harder to control like a person going into the embargoed terrain and familiarizing themselves. Almost impossible to control this. Or another example where people are deliberately missing their start time because they are rushed but know that using a SI start punch will not DQ them (this is happening at Champs races now!)

Anyway...
I still think that in the end it will be those that can run fast, use a compass and read a map that will win. So yeah "bring it on". Perhaps I'm naive and maybe my relocation skills are better than others but heck, if a person *can* still be competitive after making a mistake and has to lose focus by punching their watch buttons and still does well then I'd argue that speaks volumes about our 'best' orienteers. Perhaps these huge number of rules we bring into our sport is to protect those already in the system that do well. They like it the way it is. Then again perhaps by embracing the technology the end result is that it raises the bar of performance and competition (ie., you better be able to run faster and read a map better because that will always be *the* way to win).

Why would you need to punch watch buttons? Just leave the GPS on map display the whole time.

it will not help you at all if your compass bearing is lightly off all the time, you will have a straight line going into nowhere, and how about sinful distance measurement screen, forgive me my sarcasm.

OK sure feet guess it shows I don't use that function eh. I thought jagge's comments was that you had to punch buttons at checkpoints to create waypoints. Nevertheless what I was getting at is that it adds another distraction instead of the focus on the map and compass. I just don't see how this is a time saver - especially when compared to other forms of cheating that ARE happening.

So... the thing I'm taking away from this is that somebody reasonably good has to train to cheat and see how much they gain from it.

That would certainly be a good thing (meaning an interesting thing to try), assuming that training to use GPS doesn't adversely affect whatever other training the person would want to do. It's not obvious how to interpret the results, though -- how does one know whether using GPS to recover from an error was quicker than just using the map?

To some extent, this seems like the "hot water freezes faster than cold water" myth -- yes, there are some very narrow circumstances in which water that is slightly warmer could freeze slightly faster than an equivalent amount of cooler water, but it's definitely not true in general. Similarly, there may be some circumstances where having a Garmin 305 could save a small amount of time in recovering from an error, but we are not talking about the misconception that I think the general public has, that orienteering with a GPS becomes simply a footrace.

For the issue at hand, though, it doesn't matter. The only thing that anyone is requesting right now (Swedish policy aside) is to be allowed to use a GPS watch as a logger at the US Champs.

By the way, snce I don't have one of these watches, I'm not familiar with the details -- is the concern that people will be able to glean useful navigational information from a map view screen that looks like this?

(Using the GPS as an accurate pace count device is a separate issue, I do iunderstand that one.)

I don't really understand how to use it for accurate pace count either. For example, I was doing interval training one day, running for a bit, then standing in place, then running again over the same distance, etc. Not only did the loops not measure the same on the gps, but the standing in place didn't measure the same, either, and it was certainly non-zero. Furthermore, knowing the total distance since I started is not particularly helpful. If I want to know the distance from some specific point, I either need to re-set it then, or remember the first value and subtract. Pace counting the old fashioned way is way more reliable and easier.

It's actually quite easy to measure distance with a FR. I've done it while vetting as an additional verification. Just take a split at a known point, now your split distance shows you how far you've gone since. Never used it for actual orienteering, but it seems to work fine, close enough to the pace count and measured map distance to be useful. I'm still not sure it's worth worrying about.

@JJ---I don't use one either but from all the discussions, it sounds like if you take a split the watch saves the location as a waypoint. So for example, if you happened to be doing a butterfly loop and took a split the first time through the common control, than maybe you could use the watch to help navigate back to the common control at the end of each loop.

@Carlch: only in therory, at least for the FR305. As far as I know for my FR305, a split is something different than I waypoint and I cannot easily navigate to a split point. If I set a waypoint, then yes, I can activate a function that shows me direction and distance to that waypoint, but that has some significant problems that makes it unusable for quick orienteering back to a common control:
- it takes a significant amount of button punching which costs time
- the GPS is not that accurate, so depending on terrain you may end up near the control, but still not see it. (I usually set splits on every control and can see this split points later on QR. A lot of times the 2 or 3 points for a control I visit more then once end up beeing half a control circle wide apart)
- even if the location of the waypoint would be exact enough to see the control when I reach it, the compass function of the FR305 is too shitty to be used for really fast navigation back - you have to run a bit in the same direction until it stops wildly changing the direction it points to and that only if you are keeping the watch still enough and not changing the direction the display faces all the time. That means you'd have to hold the arm and read the display, like it is a map you're reading - but an occasional glimpse like on a map is not enough, you need to keep it still longer.

I like the navigate back to waypoint functionality a lot if I'm running in unknown terrain without a map and use it often for finding my way back to some hotel. But I'd never use it in orienteering cause a map and a real compass works a lot better and faster for me - and I'm barely a mediocre orienteer...

At one of the test labs at work, they put a tamper-evident tape over the lenses on your phone, so it's obvious if you pull it off while in the sensitive area.

On GregBalter's point about a new sport - why not have the two sports running in parallel on the same courses at the same meet? Then I can gain even more satisfaction than usual from regularly beating the crap out of all the 'gps-enabled' people in my age class. Or I could wear my gps and compete in the 'new' class, but still smash them by not even looking at it. (Half the time I forget to even start the b****y thing!)

I'd like to find someone with similar age, fitness and orienteering skills as Jagge, then put them on a championship level course together, starting at the same time, with Jagge using a wrist-display gps, even a pre-programmed one. I'd be willing to bet that Jagge would pretty soon revert to 'normal' orienteering and would hardly even look at his gps.

Thank you, Tony.

You dont need to push buttons to navigate to a waypoint or to use waypoints as reference to navigate somewhere. You have that map view on, when take split is shows up as "park" and "trail" in that example map. So, if your next control is halfway between home and park you are doing fine, and if your control is a bit right form park you are off a lot. Not that hard and needs no pushing buttons oher than taking spilts. And that's something many orienteers already do to make it easier to adjust route on map with QR.

Also, dont think is as brainless running vs navigating with map. It's just having one aid at hand to be used only if you think you need it. It doesn't distract you more than the normal gps logging use most of you already do. It's just haveing map view on and knowing how to use it if needed. So why would I need to revert to normal orienteering - anfer all, that's what I would be doing already. The only difference is when I am about to make mistake there would be one tool more to get the situation sorted out, to approximate current location or to study what is the direction I have been moving last couple of minutes - takes two second, then back to normal relocation with sligtly better idea of location to start with.

You all seem to be in favour of swedish approach, letting people openly use gps for navigation, abut as descibed here - measuring distance, taking and using waypoints, looking at gps tail to get idea of movements during last minutes. Why you think that is better than letting people run with any device they like but saying they are not allowed to use for the navigation? What do you win here? You like to change wikipedia O descrioption to racing with map, compass and gps?

I am not good enough at this sport to maintain map contact while simultaneously fiddling with a gps watch (and despite all the good advice here I still don't understand how it could possibly be useful). On the other hand, when I put my energy into maintaining map contact, somehow I usually find controls. I suspect that two orienteers of similar ability would quickly be sorted out if one of them were required to consult his gps once per control. But perhaps I am an unusual case. I can barely read the time display unless I come to a complete stop.

No, what I'm in favor of is letting people use the popular, easy to use GPS watches that they already have to log their tracks. I am not worried that letting them bring these watches will lead to any significant number of them using the watch to navigate in any effective way.

As host for the 2012 U.S. Individual O-Champs, our goals are to offer a fair and competitive event, make it as enjoyable as possible for the competitors, and keep it as low stress as possible for our volunteers.

With that in mind, we’ve asked OUSA for a ruling and guidance on the issue of carrying and/or using GPS devices during competition. When we hear back, we'll post an update to our event website.

If this issue is important to you, please contact your OUSA board representative or the rules committee. You'll get more accomplished communicating with those who can change (or interpret) the rules.

Regards,
Laurie Searle, Event Director
2012 U.S. Individual O-Champs
www.ousa212.org

While Peter decided to contact Clare, I decided to contact the meet directors, since they had the authority to change the GPS ban. I pointed them to this discussion (and the one on the main page, and asked if their club would consider changing the ban or was open to discussion, or if the ban was set. Laurie has replied (above) and we are carrying on an email conversation also.

Here is the response I received from Joseph Huberrman, meet director for the BOK champs:
Thanks for the links to the discussion. I'm glad this issue is being discussed and I'm looking forward to a decision by the Rules Committee.

I have the self sealing tape, and we will be happy to wrap your GPS display with it. It won't stick to the watch, but is impossible to remove without tearing it. It is a silicone rigging tape I use on my sailboat. It comes in a bunch of colors.

Feel free to post this reply. I'll be putting this information in the Event Notes and sending it to the event mail list in a few days.

Ways to use gps I described above isn't cheating in Sweden. I's what SOFT literally asked people to start practicing. I find that strange.

What would be cheating is saving some data in advance to device's memory. Like georeferencing old map and saving some objects fit suitable density as waypoints. Like all big stones or big cliffs or trail junctions or something. Then there would be no need to use controls, just look at map ens see if there reference points nearby and use them to navigate in map view. Should work nicely and not be that bad to have at hand if needed for night O. People seem to think one would need to have the whole map as backround to use gps, but I'd say nice network of reference points would do just fine.

At major events in Australia (other countries too, I'm sure) it is specifically forbidden for competitors to bring a previous map of the area to the event. My feeling is that this would include loading the map, or information from it, into a gps which you bring to the event. You are therefore correct in saying this would be cheating. Perhaps one way of preventing this, while still allowing competitors to use gps with display would be to ensure that all of the units are totally cleared during the registration or starting procedure.

I do agree with the current ban by IOF on elite classes at IOF-sanctioned events. We have to do it to ensure the integrity of Orienteering at elite level, including World Masters. But why have the ban for non-elite age classes at events other than World Masters? Noone outside of orienteering is interested in what a M12 or W65 does. What are the consequences of them using a gps as a navigation aid? The M12 will never develop good orienteering skills so will never make it to elite level. Likewise, the W65 will not be able to win World Masters, and her peers will pretty soon realise what she is doing and discount her results.

Huh. The US has no such rule about bringing old maps to an event.

Are you sure, J-J? I always assumed that such a rule existed in the US, but I guess I never checked.

EDIT: I guess there is indeed no such rule. Feels obvious to me that there should be.

Maybe I misunderstood. I'm pretty sure there's no rule about bringing an old map to an event, but bringing an old map on a course is a different issue (and the issue that matters in this case). B.36.3 says that you can use only the map provided for navigating. Bringing an old map and leaving it in your car is okay (unless I've missed something), but having points loaded into a GPS would be a clear violation (if you used it).

I also thought there was a rule about that for US Champs events. Did it change, or did meet information lie to me?

These rules seem to indicate that it is OK to bring old maps to the event site in the US:

B.22.9.1 When the competition map has been previously used in a competition or otherwise distributed to potential competitors it shall be posted in the competition center and shall be sold at a reasonable and customary price prior to and at the event. (Section A.12.2)

B.22.9.2 When the competition map has not previously been used or distributed and an earlier map of the terrain exists the earlier map shall be posted in the competition center and if possible sold at a reasonable and customary price prior to and at the event.

IOF Rule 15.6: On the day of the competition the use of any map of the competition area by competitors or team officials is prohibited until permitted by the organiser.

However:
IOF Rule 15.5: If a previous orienteering map of the competition area exists, colour copies of the most recent edition must be displayed for all competitors on the day prior to the competition.

Have now exhausted my supplies of popcorn and pretzles, jelly-bellies next......

Tom, your popcorn was probably buttered with real butter, too.

Well, this almost worked: we finally decided to ship the younger boys off to Georgia with Grandpa and I wanted Zach to wear the Garmin so I could see his routes afterwards, since he plans to try Red. He refused. When I said there was controversy, that was almost enough to get him to wear it. A DSQ is not really a big deal, since he runs the races for the fun of it, not for the glamorous and valuable prizes.

What I seem to hear is "I love this one particular gadget, and damned be anyone who dare tear me away from this one gadget". That's entitlement. Putting things in absolute and categorical terms doesn't help, and JJ's idea of civil disobedience is as shortsighted as things can get in an organization stacked with unpaid volunteers with strong social ties. Pitting one longtime devotee against another is a sure way to grow membership and get these happy volunteers, eh?

I suggest thinking about what it is in particular about wearing the 305 that makes the experience so satisfying. Then about what it is about the sport that would make it a very different sport. Allow for the fact that not everyone is like you (please), and then perhaps there can be a constructive discussion. People—it's just a gadget.

GAOC has asked the rules committee for an interpretation on the use of GPS devices. After reviewing their response provided below, GAOC has adopted the following policy for its 2012 U.S. Individual Champs A-Meet:

- WRE Competitors: GPS devices with a display are not allowed. GPS dataloggers without a display will be allowed.

- All Other Competitors: GPS devices may be carried but not used for navigation. “Tamper resistant tape” will be available at the start.

[Rules committee wrote]
The rules state that devices other than map and compass are not to be USED for navigation. The rules are silent on what equipment competitors are allowed to CARRY with them. The rules also put enforcement onto the meet director. This gives the meet director the latitude to require a ban on GPS devices if they feel it is necessary to enforce rule B.36. Such a ban is not required, however, except as required by the IOF for WRE races.

While there was some limited discussion of this issue during the (last) Board meeting, there was no official rules proposal on the table and no vote took place on the rules. The matter was referred back to the rules committee to provide a recommendation to the board for the next board meeting.

==
We have posted this update to our event website on a new page called Rule Variances & Policies: http://www.ousa2012.org/index.php/rule-variances-a....

Regards,
Laurie Searle, Event Director
2012 U.S. Individual Orienteering Champs
www.ousa2012.org

Damn. I had my garmin set up to beep every 240m and all. Foiled again.

Hmm. Interesting. I see nothing in that which would exclude a GPS logger that has buttons and all kinds of audio feedback, so long as there's no display. Not that I'm aware of any devices like that (other than some experimental stuff for blind people). Writing bulletproof rules or instructions is so hard...

This "controversy" reminds me of two incidents that both took place at a meet at Pakim Pond in the Pine Barrens in 1989 or 1990.

1. Navigational aid? On Red day 2, I missed the end of a dry ditch, and continued out another 25 meters or so to the road that bordered the park. I looked left and right and saw the ice cream stand across the street, which many of us had patronized the day before. That was enough to tell me I had been off to the right, so back in and spiked it on the next pass.

2. On Orange, Rhonda ran with the lovely 5 year old Jessica on her shoulders. At the finish, Rhonda was quizzed about whether Jessica had found any controls for her, and threatened with DSQ for getting aid on the course. Well, no. Jess hadn't announced any controls, and Rhonda was allowed to enjoy her triumph and the valuable scrap of wood that came with it.

I am kind of curious how observing an ice cream stand can let you know you are too far to the right. Is this a general rule or specific to that particular course? Do different types of stands give different information? What about hot dog stands for instance?

Beware of those ice cream trucks, as they tend to move.

In my opinion an ice cream stand - mobile or not - would not be considered an illegal navigational aid since you didn´t bring it with you on the course as such.

Technically I guess it would have been against the rules to ask the person selling ice cream where you were though...

Statute of limitations has certainly expired. Based on my fine ice cream experience of the prior day, I remembered the stand and its position relative to the entrance to the park. The park entrance was on the map, the stand across the street from the park entrance and not on the map. The control I was looking for was closer to the park entrance than I estimated the stand to be from where I was standing. Worked perfectly.

Such a ban is not required, however, except as required by the IOF for WRE races.

I asked WRE Event Advisor Mike Minium if he would give GAOC permission to allow taping of GPS displays for those races. Apparently, he might be inclined to grant it if the organizers or WRE participants (as opposed to just I) request that he do so.

Hint, hint...