Discussion:

Looks like tricky terrain, even without being able to see the light green (easily). Was the map pretty good?

In places, excellent. In places, not quite so good. I managed to relocate off a single boulder and the shaping of a knoll in the most technical area of the map (west of PG's day 1 control 5), which is always a good sign for the map quality. But the western parts of the map were not so good (vegetation has changed).

The map was definitely better than some of the course setting, though, which was patchy (intermittently excellent, intermittently a bit less interesting).

Map seemed ok. I thought the orienteering was quite/very difficult because the forest was a little junky underfoot and the visibility was often quite bad. Lots of little pockets of thicker vegetation. The light green, which really doesn't show up on the scans, was a good general indication, but there was a lot of variation within an area of light green. The kind of forest where the white and light/medium green blend in and out constantly and would drive you nuts trying to map well (and might make the map even harder to read).

But the map was certainly sufficient. The technique was what was lacking!

But...but...Peter, you STILL had the fastest time of anyone running the Green course, even with a recent head injury. Now, if Bill P. had pulled ahead or something, I could understand your self-criticism a bit better. :-)

I think the photo in this NYT story indicates another of PG's careers. Or is the resemblance all in my mind? Judge for yourself.

Oh my god, that's hilarious!!!!!
Peter, 'the clown who played grandma'. Nice work, Will!