Discussion: NOL & State League - Routegadget, splits & photos

Attackpoint Splits


Race 1 - NOL Sprint Relay at Sydney Uni
Routegadget

ONSW Facebook photos

Eventor official results


Race 2 - Saturday afternoon at Sir Joseph Banks Park
Routegadget grouped by course

ONSW Facebook photos

Eventor official results by class

The Routegadget for the relay is acting rather strange.

Race 3 - Sunday morning at University of NSW, Kensington

Routegadget grouped by
course ( not sorted by time)


Eventor official results by class

GPS trace a bit wacky for the middle part of today's UNSW course due to all the canopies so not worth uploading it.

Shingo, you can still draw your course manually and run the animation with the average speed for each leg.

if you can remember where you went ;)

By the way, is anyone planning to post results separated into A and B finals? (the ones currently on Eventor have them all mixed together).

If not I should be able to put something together in the course of sorting out the NOL points, once a decision's been made on what to do with those who mispunched in the qualifier. (Normal international practice is that people who don't finish a qualifier aren't eligible for an official result in the B final, but it turns out this doesn't actually currently appear anywhere in the OA rules or NOL guidelines - the equivalent IOF rule is specific to WMOC and JWOC, not a general rule, as those are normally the only events held under IOF rules which have B finals).

I thought that rule was only for WMOC; and I thought it was pretty harsh. Imagine travelling to somewhere like Brazil and having a good run scrubbed out like that?

It wasn't actually a good run, it was just considerably less bad than that of anyone else who had the misfortune to end up in the B final.

Why can't the splits be on WinSplits - much better format
As to the results for Sunday - wasn't the race also a separate WRE essentially so everyone's results should stand in that surely

Yes, they stand in the WRE - it's only the NOL results we're discussing here.

Race 3 Winsplits by class

I agree, WinSplits are the best, but it needs the results to be uploaded separately, were as others just read the results on Eventor

http://www.bendigo-orienteers.com.au/wordpress/?po...

Splitalyzer is another one I like, is a of-chute of loading Route Gadget

*Updated link, Thanks Rockman*

http://garingal.com.au/gadget2014/cgi-bin/reitti.c...

Relay stuff all on the Big Foot site,...just realised that on the official site there is (and has been) a picture of the map showing a control at the same site as #218, the radio control.

18? the observant will notice the map has changed there.

Winsplits, by class

Race 2 - Botany Bay Gift


Race 3 - NSW Sprint Championship


SplitsBrowser (also on ONSW Routegadget event listing )
this is the current version, Jim's original link above was to the old RG site which has been retained to preserve web links from 2008 - 2013.



Race 2 - Botany Bay Gift - sorted by course

Race 2 - NSW Sprint Champ - sorted by course

Absolutely no idea how i was 9th to the 1st control... i had thought i'd mate a bad route choice to head west... apparently not!
I felt like i saw Brooner approach 1st control as i was leaving (about 20 seconds after me, he started a minute later)... but winsplits says he punched over a minute later...
strange...

@Undy, Cant get your 1st link to work

@Rockman, Thanks, have updated my link

@Uncle Jim, try this http://www.bigfootorienteers.com/drupal_2/node/463

Blair, would that also mean anyone who didn't run the heat wouldn't qualify for NOL points in the B final? Wouldn't make much of a difference to the weekend given there were 43 in heats (for M21E) and 44 in finals but might affect future points. It'd make sense given it's a 'NOL weekend' but an MP is just unlucky so in my view shouldn't affect points for the final.

more photos (all 3 races) by Tony Hill

The Routegadget for the relay is acting rather strange.

Yeah I can't draw my course past #7 because it is forcing me to go to the wrong control.

Bart - I unfortunately approached the second control before finding the track to the first...

tRicky - yes, a DNF and DNS in a heat would be treated the same way (whatever that ends up being).

Blair, as much as I think our 2 points for the Nomads team competition is really going to cut it across the year, didn't we beat SA in the men's competition at the sprint final? I put their only three competitors against our three and we should have gotten in front by <1min.

Anyway I realise it's provisional so I'll leave you to sort it out ;-)

@ tRicky: since when has an mp been 'just unlucky' - surely 99.9% of mps are the runner's own fault?

When might something appear on OA website or Facebook? Photos have been on Facebook for 36 hours, but no results or story yet. Website has NOL scores (although the wrong link to the Final and no individual scores), but nothing under News on the home page.

tRicky - you're right. Am waiting until we formalise a decision on the MPs-in-heats issues before posting updated scores.

Unless the rule was in place and publicised beforehand I would strongly advise against a retrospective ruling. It would not be fair.

That's certainly a strong influence on the discussions currently taking place.

Fair enough Blair, it's just that I'm impatient to see a Senior NOL list come out with a Sandgroper at the top for the first time!

Simmo blames the control :-)

Simmo, the men who were given women's course maps in the qualifier might beg to differ with you about it being their own fault - that's the cause of Tyson's apparent MP.

He went back to the start to let them know and was offered the option of waiting until the end of the start list for a restart (which option Eric apparently took) but Tyson said not to worry, because he'd be in the B final either way. He certainly assumed that his result in the B final would still count.

That counts as a MP?!?

Only because the organiser/computer operator failed to go into the software and change the result to 'DNS'. I know organisers are busy, and there isn't always time at the event to do this (although it only takes half a minute or so) but at least it should always be done before official results are posted.

My original post wasn't intended to include any circumstance where the organisers are at fault, or even where someone fails to finish due to injury, etc. In these cases once the outcome is resolved, it needs to be reflected in the results without an ignominious 'mp'.

tRicky - that event was when we used street O flat board markers with a (small) piece of masking tape to write the code with a texta, and that board had been hung with the code on the other side to the station. Even so, I acknowledge my fault and accepted the outcome.

The link to the Sprint Final results on the NOL Points Score page is still going to the Relay results in Eventor, and there's still no individual standings.

What is the world coming to???

ending.

@Jayne, rather profound!

I've moved on to next weekend - it's hard to see beyond Saturday morning at the moment.

Having trouble getting into the NOL points page to update it. If that's not sorted tomorrow I'll post files via a news item as a short-term fix.

By the way, our ruling ended up being that DNFs in the heats are eligible for B final points, in the absence of any written OA rule which says otherwise. (We're not going to reopen previous years, though).

Good job Blair - I wouldn't have mp'd in the qualifier if I knew it would render my mp in the final invalid.

Don't two mp's make a result?

2 mps in one weekend, 2 driving fines in one weekend - what's it to be next?

I once mp'ed consecutive sprint races, albeit two weeks apart - the first was a foot sprint (Orange, NSW) and the second MTBO (Rotorua, NZ).

Wait did I understand Robin and blairtrewin correctly that the WRE results are the combined results of the A and B finals?

If so, wtf?

If not then, umm, carry on.

Umm same course, B first, A's were quarantined until they started. So basically the same race, no unfairness.
I don't think anyone would want to organise a WRE just for 10 competitors.

But they were different races! Different start fields, different pressure. Doesn't matter that it was the same course.

I'm not suggesting organising a WRE for only 10 people. Both finals should be separate WREs, that's the way it's (often, or always?) done in Europe.

Updated NOL points at http://www.orienteering.asn.au/menu/get-involved/n... (still sorting out how to get this properly linked from the main NOL page).

If the object is to simulate what happens in Europe you have a point.
I just look at it from a much more basic viewpoint - a better "ranking" would compare all racers on the same course.
Part of the problem with the current farcical* WRE rankings is all the artificial tweaking that the IOF does to it.

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

Yep WRE in this event was based on the total results, A & B final plus M21E and M20E (or W21E and W20E). Same course, same quarantine. Don't they have 'red' start lists in WOC sprint races based on world rankings at the time (I know they do at WMTBOC)? Wouldn't this be a similar scenario?

NOL results based on whether you were in the A final or the B final - i.e. all competitors in the A final ranked ahead of those in the B final regardless of time (unless you MP'ed).

It's not a different start field unless there were two different mass starts. If it's interval starts, you could always draw an arbitrary line anywhere and say there were separate start fields before and after that line. And the pressure is always different for everyone. (You could argue that the competitors should know that they're in the same field for WRE points before they start -- and perhaps they did.)

We did know. Well I did since I read the pre-race info, something that some people tend not to read and then complain about afterwards.

It was implied in Bulletin 1 last November, but not elaborated upon in the final bulletin (which also didn't remind people how many from each heat were going through to the A final).

When I enquired last year how the WRE was going to work with heats and finals, the IOF Event Adviser told me that the results from A and B finals would be combined before submitting to IOF. Only M/W21E are in the WRE though, not M/W20, from what I understood.

I was pretty sure that it's not really meant to work that way when there are A and B finals - but perhaps this outcome isn't much different from combining juniors' and seniors' times into the one WRE result list, which I believe will happen with the sprint at Easter.

For some reason when I saw that we were running the same course as the juniors in the heats, that they'd just take the top ten finishers in each heat given the W20s didn't have ten starters. I made my own assumptions on that one given the lack of info in the final bulletin!

@jennycas The juniors (i.e. me and my cohort) were combined into the M/W21E results that were submitted to the IOF

Maybe that wasn't in the draft version of Bulletin 1 which I originally saw and queried...really think all the WRE and heats info should have been copied into the final bulletin.

@tRicky: Bulletin 1 made a song and dance about the "Top 40" race (which was explained as 5 from each heat/10 from each age class running in the final) but this title seemed to have sunk without a trace when the final info came out).

Yeah I read it in Bulletin 1 but thought maybe they had changed it when they saw the entry numbers for each class (8 in W20E compared to 44 in M21E!) When I saw no info in the final Bulletin, that was the logical conclusion for me to make :-)

In 2013 in SA we had 3 heats and the top 50% from each heat in each age class went through to the elite final with the remaining 50% running their corresponding A class in the SA sprint champs.

Yes I recall I got through into the elite final (just ahead of Blair) because my heat was so poorly weighted. Blair and I went on to finish last and second last respectively in the elite final. I think they were the first 3 NOL points I ever received. I've improved 200% since then because I now have 9 points!

@tRicky yeah red start lists do happen, even in NOL races, but that's a very different scenario. The key difference is the qualification race.

@jjcote we're not talking about an arbitrary line drawn through a start list here - there was a qualification race! There were 2 finals, an A and a B, with different start fields - those that qualified in final A and those that missed out in final B. They just happened to be running the same course. I don't know what point you're trying to make saying pressure is different for everyone - the fact is an A final (where you're running for a medal) is a very different race to a B final (where you have nothing to lose, everything to gain).

Why bother with the qualification of you're going to combine the results? What purpose did the qualifier serve for eg Lizzie who won't be racing the rest of the NOL season and probably cares more about WR scores than NOL points. According to the WR scores Lizzie and Rachel beat Krystal... but they didn't! They were in a different race!

Same course, same day... same race. Everybody had WR points on the line (for whatever that's worth). Some people were also motivated by the possibility of getting... a medal! Oh boy!

(Which group is disadvantaged here?)

I think Shep was the most disadvantaged because he didn't go so missed a fun weekend ;-)

Don't know about the purpose of one particular athlete not racing for NOL points for the rest of the year. That's an isolated scenario whereas the rest of us WILL be running for points. Well not me since I tend to get zero points in bush events but that's a wholly different matter.

The way I see it, everyone knew in advance that you'd get WRE points in the final regardless of which final you ran in whereas only those in the A final could WIN the event and get top NOL points in the process.

Maybe those in the A heat were disadvantaged because of the number of better runners in that heat but then the B heat was longer and with more controls and the B heat in both M20 and M21 had longer times so is that a disadvantage too? I don't know.

Yeah @tRicky it defo looked more fun racing than it was spectating!

@jjcote you keep saying it was the same race - when has an A final and a B final ever been considered to be "the same race"?? Ask any runner at a world cup if they think the A and B finals are the same race. I'm not sure what you are trying to say by talking about being disadvantaged.

I've never seen a qualification race simply be discarded like this before (even the commentary at the race made more of how far Krystal (A final) was behind Lizzie (B final) than they did about Krystal winning). Maybe with no qualifiers at WOC it's not so much an issue, but Australians have so few opportunities to race qualification races I am really disappointed that last weekends qualification race wasn't a real one.

(On another note, I did a study a few years ago and found that if we had A finals with only the top 10 runners then the winners would get more WR points than with a full field, where low ranked runners would drag down the mean score. At the time it was looking like WR points would be used for WOC qualification and I was trying to work out how our top guys could score more points at home.)

Never mind, I'm wrong again, as usual.

Shep, I guess the question is, is it normal practice to cull that many % of runners from the heats in a typical WRE? In the M21E <25% of runners made it through, unlike W20E where 100% of runners got through and they still qualified for WR points as far as I'm aware given they were on the W21 course.

I think maybe in a typical B final it is a different course (in my experience anyway). Maybe I should read the rules or something ;-)

@tRicky good question... I've certainly done races in Europe with only 10 in the final. I've done WC and WOC races with only 45 of 115+ runners going through to the final. And I've raced in Swedish long champs with only 40 of 150+ runners going through to the final (eg here where I missed out!) and Swedish sprint champs with only 20 of almost 100 runners going through (again, I missed out - 1 min down in 16th in the qual!). So as far as normal practice goes then <25% is (or at least was :P) normal practice.

An yep like you in my experience if there is a B final it's usually a different course. I've even done races where the start field is so big they've split the M21E start field in two and had E1 and E2 classes - on slightly different courses...

It is pleasing to see that someone else feels the A final was undervalued. It was disappointing to listen to a commentary that gave very little credit to the Girls who made the A final. "Unfortunately the 2 girls missed punched" was the comment. And then much was made of their results. The result of the A final was considered to be secondary to the performance of others in the B final. There is nothing unfortunate about a MP. It is a break down in technique. The fact remains that the A qualifiers got both races right without a MP and under the same pressure in the qualifier and greater pressure in the final.
Races I have attended in Europe give no commentary on the B final and do not mention the results regardless of the quality of the athletes who take part.

While I am in a grumpy mood I would also like to comment on the maps that did not use the correct ISSOM standards. The relay map had 2 different colours for paved areas. One of them was so pale it was almost white. The specifications allow for one colour for urban and 20% darker for non-urban. Distinct differences in urban should be indicated by a step edge, not a different colour.

This difference caused a runner in one team to make a significant error and cost the team a win. The error may seem silly and some may say that should have more sense but the fact remains the athlete mistook the pale/white paved area for a forested area and ran on wondering why it did not come into view. To have your navigation affected by the mapping brings an element of luck into the result and makes for an unfair result.

And now the tunnel. When I tried to comment on the tunnel I was roundly ticked off for not reading the info flyer. An announcement was then made over the PA that those athletes who did not read it had nothing to complain about. Those athletes meaning me. The problem I had with the tunnel was that it looked more like an impassable wall. The purple line made it look very dark and obscured the dots. The ISSOM specs clearly show that the purple line should not obscure the dots and that they should be clearly separated. Discussions with 6 athletes about their route choice on the leg affected by the tunnel ascertained that none of them used the tunnel even though it was the fastest route choice. They commented that yes they had read the flyer but no they did not go that way as they could not make sense of the map and felt it was safer to avoid it.
This indicatives that if a map interpretations is so confusing that it need explanation in a bulletin then to include it in a route choice adds an element of luck to the result and again makes it unfair.

If it makes you feel better, I read the pre-event info then failed to even see the tunnel on the map until after the event. I (and Greg Barbour) decided my route was faster anyway ;-)

@ Hawk14: it is quite common practice to use the darker (non-urban according to ISSOM) shade to show paved areas with vehicle traffic. It has certainly been used at Australian Championships (2011, 2013, 2014), and was also used at the recent World Cup in Launceston. One would imagine that Australian Elites would be quite used to this convention.

There should always be a step line between the different shades, and this appears to be the case on the Relay map.

I haven't seen the printed maps, but on the Routegadget image the colours are acceptable - although my personal preference is to use the darker ends of the ISSOM range (0-30% brown for urban, 20-50% brown for non-urban. Note that 0%, ie white, is allowed under ISSOM, but would be quite rare.)

I've always been confused as to what constitutes 'urban' paving and what is 'non-urban'. Is urban the type that trendy people have installed around their pools? What is non-urban paving, dried up mud in the forest?

"The relay map had 2 different colours for paved areas. One of them was so pale it was almost white. The specifications allow for one colour for urban and 20% darker for non-urban. Distinct differences in urban should be indicated by a step edge, not a different colour."
Actually no - ISSOM has 4 options for urban paved areas - white, 10% brown, 20% brown and 30% brown. and no - ISSOM says "The black border line can be omitted where it is logical" which in this case the mapper has employed in extremely limited circumstances to emphasise passageways and run-throughs.
Every map is to a degree subjective; orienteers have to deal with it. The Sydney University map is one of the best examples of an ISSOM campus map- to criticise this map as unfair is to question the entire basis of the sport. But it seems like no sprint event can go past without someone arcing up.

@O-ing I think that at least one person at each event will have something that they do not like about the map or use of the map.

I've always been confused as to what constitutes 'urban' paving and what is 'non-urban'

It's not the paving that is (non-)urban, it's the context.

The lighter paving colour is quite difficult to distinguish from rough-open yellow, which is more likely to be adjacent to a marked/paved path. In an urban context, where the surrounding areas would be predominately buildings, lawns, OOB areas and dense vegetation, the lighter colour works better.

Actually no - ISSOM has 4 options for urban paved areas - white, 10% brown, 20% brown and 30% brown

Actually, while the wording is unclear, the intended meaning is that on any one map you can chose which of the four shade combinations you want to use (eg urban 20% , non-urban 40%) but you can't then use more than one shade in urban areas or non urban areas. While it doesn't explicitly say you can't use two shades to differentiate between car and pedestrian areas, it doesn't actually say you can do it either. I am pretty certain it is the intention of the IOF mapping committee that you can't. I am not necessarily agreeing with this - I personally have no problem with differentiating between car and pedestrian areas - as Simmo says - it is common practice. But the fact that it is not specifically allowed in ISSOM is evident when mappers in some places (other countries) reverse the shades (darker for pedestrian areas) - ie: since ISSOM does not specify standard shades for pedestrian/non-pedestrian paved areas there are inevitably differences of opinion and confusion about which shades should be used.

I was surprised to see the two shades on the Tas WC sprint maps -again I have no problem with them doing that but I would have expected the IOF mapping committee to not allow it. But perhaps it just shows the wording in ISSOM is unclear and the IOF controller's understanding was that it is allowed.

My understanding of the reason for offering a choice 4 shades is to allow the mapper to optimise the choice of shade to the printer - ie shades of brown can be very variable depending on the printer used - so you can chose the shade that works best on your printer.

But I am mystified as to why 0% is an option - surely that is a mistake. 0% brown is not a shade of brown - it is just white - which means forest.

So do we actually use what is written in ISSOM or do we use a medium, such as yourself, to channel Havard Tveite's innermost thoughts?

robplow you are probably right in the sense that I haven't seen separate shades for car and pedestrian paving on any WOC maps, but roads are always closed for WOC. As far as I'm aware in Australia we haven't had an event where absolutely all vehicle traffic has been excluded for the duration of the event - even on campus maps the landowners would very likely refuse to do this. The Uni of Tasmania map is a case in point as I saw traffic (including some ground staff vehicles) driving around during the event, although the course setting avoided most of the areas where there was likely to be a clash.

For the Australian Champs in 2011 (Mandurah) we could not close the roads to residents of the canal development, and I used separate shades. However for the recent Sprint The South West I judged that since the event was in school/uni/tafe holidays there would be very little traffic and did not use two shades for the two campus maps.

For sprint mapping I've found Kjell Soenniksen's website a great help. In particular he discusses this very point (colour and edges) on the Paths and Roads page, and his conclusions about strict interpretation of ISSOM are very interesting.

I'd be interested to know how many sprint maps Mr Tveite has produced, as opposed to, say Kjell Soenniksen, Ales Hejna or robplow.

Geez Eoin - you really want to pick a fight don't you.

I am not channeling anyone - the wording is poor, but if you read it carefully it certainly never suggests you can use different shades to differentiate paved areas by type of traffic. OK, it doesn't explicitly say you can't do it - but then it doesn't say you can 't have red contours either.

I was not agreeing with ISSOM, just pointing out what it actually says. I have never been a supporter of the ultra strict enforcement of IS(S)OM - in fact I gave a presentation at the 2005 IOF mapping conference on exactly that point. I think the zero tolerance approach they take is impractical and actually results in worse maps - even if they seem to think it will mean better ones.

As I said several times above - I have no problem with two shades of brown for pedestrian/non-pedestrian areas. I like it - I do it my sprint maps. I just don't pretend that it is ISSOM compliant. If you are going to deviate from the norms it helps if you understand what they actually say and why they say that.

Yes Simmo your point about traffic is a good one - ISSOM has plenty to say on that (Section 2.4). So very strictly speaking all sprint events in Australia run under IOF rules (inc WC in Tas) where all traffic was not kept out of the area were not in accordance with ISSOM and should have been cancelled ;) But not even WOC sprints necessarily have all traffic excluded. In 06 in Denmark an Irish guy missed the final by seconds but got 'reinstated' on appeal because he lost time on one control when a car parked in front it for a while obscuring his view.

And yes I have also read Kjell Soenniksen's page and find it useful. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says but I particularly agree with him about the clumsiness of changing shades of brown between urban and non-urban. Note that he also says using two shades of brown to differentiate between traffic and pedestrian areas is not 'in conformity with ISSOM'

The luck of the Irish.

Rob - How are we supposed to guess a hidden meaning? I don't buy the "careful reading" argument. There is nothing in the text that says you can, or can't, use different shades to differentiate paved areas. BUT it gives 4 alternative shades for both urban and non-urban. The implication is that multiple shades are allowed.

I'm not advocating a more prescriptive ISSOM. As Soenniksen writes that can result in illogical and ugly maps. But I do think mappers should and do have some flexibility within ISSOM to portray the area in the most helpful way to navigate. Much like your maps always do.

This is the full text:
529 Paved area
A paved area is an area with a firm level surfaces such as asphalt, hard gravel,
tiles, concrete or the like. It should be bordered (or framed) by the symbol
(529.1). Distinct differences within the paved area can be represented with the symbol (529.1), if they serve navigation. Where a paved road, footpath or track goes through a non-urban area, the brown fill-in shall be drawn darker, so that if (x)% brown is used in urban areas, (x+20)% brown shall be used in the non-urban areas, and the line width of the black outline shall be increased from 0.07 to 0.14 mm.
The black border line can be omitted where it is logical (e.g. indistinct/gradual
gravel-to-grass transitions).
Colour: URBAN brown 0 (white), 10%, 20% or 30% / non-URBAN 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%
(min. 60 lines/cm), black; the colour and the line width shall be the same
as for symbol (506.1).

529.1 Step or edge of paved area
A step or an edge of a paved area. Steps of a stairway shall be represented in a
generalized manner. Edges within paved areas are generally not represented,
unless they serve navigation. The thickness of edge of paved areas shall be
enlarged to 0.14 mm in non-urban areas to improve legibility. The thickness of
step lines shall always be 0.07 mm.
Colour: black.

Colour: brown 0 (white), 10%, 20% or 30% / 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%

That is as clear as mud.

Colour: URBAN brown 0% (white), 10%, 20% or 30% / non-URBAN 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%
(The ISSOM picture didn't come through in copy and paste, sorry)

@O-ing The part that says:

....so that if (x)% brown is used in urban areas, (x+20)% brown shall be used in the non-urban areas...

suggests that only one shade of brown should be used for each type of paving (i.e. urban or non-urban)

Yeah and if you look at the examples in the link in Simmo's post, that interpretation of the mapping looks craptacular :-)

Simmo, glad I have been following the examples in Kjell's website for the Metro maps I've been creating, at least regarding the mapping of scattered trees (in open land) versus bush/forest! At least there are two of us with similar interpretations.

No, sorry, I still don't buy it. You left out the first part of the sentence .. Where a paved road, footpath or track goes through a non-urban area..... I take that as referring to that "paved road, footpath or track", not to the map as a whole. So if a track goes from urban to non-urban you should change the colour of it.
The fact that there are 4 options for the shading....does that not give a "suggestion" as well?? The fact that many sprint maps use two shades ... does that not say that the practice is widely accepted?

That is indeed what I had intended. It looks like there was a misunderstanding, where you said multiple I assumed you meant that more than two shades were allowed (i.e. multiple shades for each type)

I think you guys are truncating the colour list, or I keep looking at a different spec. - I see:

Colour: brown 0 (white), 10%, 20% or 30% / 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%
(min. 60 lines/cm), black

So it can be black or white or one of many shades of brown between.

The "black" refers to the bounding line. I don't know why there's an "or" in the urban list but not in the non-urban. And in any case, it seems very ambiguous and poorly-worded to me.

bloody hell - you guys all seem determined to make it more difficult than it really is. Andy - when it says black, it is referring to the black border line - not the fill color - the fill must be a shade of brown (or white apparently).

Eoin, I really dont know what you are arguing now. You wrote So if a track goes from urban to non-urban you should change the colour of it. that is exactly correct - that is what the rule intends - you change to a darker brown fill (and thicker border lines) in non urban areas - the reason being legibility - pale brown paths with thin borderlines tend to be very hard to see in 'non-urban' areas. What the rule does NOT allow is use of more than one shade of brown in urban areas in order to show traffic differences. You can argue that the rule is loosely worded and allows (or implies) such usage, and your argument may stand up in court - but that is clearly not the intention of the rule.

But, as you say, it is common usage to it - I am not arguing against that - I was just pointing out that Roch's interpretation of the rule was 'correct'. It seems to me Roch's real point was that the brown shades where too light. To me that means a printing problem or a choice of too light shade - but then again since 0% brown is a legitimate choice according to the rules then strictly speaking Roch has no grounds to complain. But if you consider it in terms of 'common usage' and 'what most orienteers would expect' then really the brown shade used for paving should be clearly distinguishable from white, yellow etc.

But I do think mappers should and do have some flexibility within ISSOM to portray the area in the most helpful way to navigate. Preaching to the choir mate.

I wish I had your clarity Rob. I'm looking at the words and that meaning ("What the rule does NOT allow is use of more than one shade of brown in urban areas in order to show traffic differences") does not come out. I think I need to lie down now, maybe in the morning someone can explain it to me.

Email Håvard Tveite - he'll set you straight.

You guys all have too much time on your hands!

Really, if a competitor had an issue on the day they should have spoken with the controller or organiser so that we understood the situation and could have responded appropriately. You never know, we all might have learned something constructive to share.

I consider ISSOM is ambiguous but certainly the map is consistent with local/national practice and I am surprised someone found it confusing.

wow. threads like this one are enough to convince a newbie orienteer to NEVER EVER try setting/mapping an event.

@Bart I agree. There's a reason this the first time I set an event since London in 2012, you have to be quite thick-skinned, and be fairly confident that your event is ok - having a great controller helps but with a uni campus the main worry is things happening outside your control.

That said, always open to constructive criticism, think it's necessary to improve. Do people ever have wrap up meetings here with everyone involved? i.e. go through event, what went well, what could have gone better, what went wrong, how you'd do things differently the next time. Is that what the controller's report is for?

Jayne, it was a great event. I'd come again :-)

Why is no one complaining that the qualifier map was longer than A4 (as per ISSOM) in one dimension. I lost precious seconds refolding the map when I scanned it!

@tRicky thanks! In general I think there's lots we could do to improve O round here, and I can moan as well as the best of them but really we don't have enough people involved in the sport to put anyone off who's willing to do stuff.

(@tRicky see you guys coming to the MTBO - I just entered the long, second ever MTBO going to be interesting!!)

Yes we go to all the MTBO NOL events (and seemingly this year the foot NOL's too) so we're making a side trip to Sunday's sprint event at Lilyfield, hence why I was inquiring after the fort :-)

@tRicky not a fort but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callan_Park_Hospital_...

The sprint event was a great event. Jayne set great courses, O-ing ran a good event. The qualifier was fun and Nicks course were great and very challenging. From all reports everyone enjoyed the races and the challenge of the courses.

The only fault was my perpetual bad mood over the weekend. I apologise if I have caused you all to feel bad about your efforts. I can see from my poorly worded post that I have done so. Getting a $100 parking fine even though we had a correctly displayed ticket did not help. 2 weeks of negotiations has finally solved that.

I did want to challenge some accepted practices however and see what others thoughts on the matter are. It is true, however that every or at least most NOL's have problems, no matter how minor that cause mistakes that are not entirely the fault of the athletes. If we highlight and discuss them the sport can only improve. I think I have gone away from every NOL with some point of frustration and then just shrugged and moved on. Even from the ones I have been involved in.

It is evident from the discussion that there are a few inconsistencies in our sport that are perpetuated by our own experts. And some of those view are extremely inflexible. I am told growth comes from conflict. If so we can only get better.

I am sorry again for causing offense. That was not my intent.

@Hawk14 Thanks (Cath was controlling though, not Eoin).

NSW really likes fining people - ask undy

Definitely agree re. feedback. I ended up setting this year because I moaned about last year...

We have a hospital over here, the Graylands Mental Hospital, that'd make a pretty good sprint map. Currently it is incorporated into one of our summer series' maps but I think there may have been issues with using it for a sprint.

I like being less involved in orienteering.

Having said I did just remember I'm setting a NOL/State Champs and separate State champs this year. Can't wait for the AP threads.

Regardless of all the negative comments received, minor issues with the event or whatever, you just have to remember when putting on events that it's the fort that counts.

Boom-boom.