Discussion: Rule 19.4

At a sprint event (1:5000 scale map), the direct distance between two controls was around 15 metres, although the effective distance (the actual distance that a competitor would have had to travel along two sides of a building to get between the controls) was around 30-35 metres, depending on who measured it. Did this control placement contravene rule 19.4 (Controls shall not be sited within 30 metres of each other)?

When a competitor looks at map features that are close to each other they probably look at them in the context of the straight line separation, so I would suggest the direct distance and this seems more in keeping with the purpose of this rule which is not to mislead competitors by having closely spaced controls.

can you provide an upload of the map for discussion?

the new (or proposed new) version of this rule is 15m (instead of 30m) for sprint, when the map scale is 1:5000 or larger. 15m would put the other flag at the edge of the control circle, which is a pretty significant error for a decent orienteer to make.

what seems a little strange to me is that this is so often raised, yet the precision required to distinguish between 2 controls 15/30m apart is low compared to the navigational precision require to determine, for instance, what side of an uncrossable fence a control is on, which can potentially cost heaps of time.

of course - both problems are easily solved by actually reading control descriptions, and/or the map, rather than guessing.

Also in the new (or proposed new) version is the allowance of dummy controls, so Robin's comment "the purpose of this rule which is not to mislead competitors by having closely spaced controls" does not apply to sprints any more.

Does anyone know where these proposed new rules are published and if they are approved?

They are in the IOF WRE guidelines and are listed as proposed/experimental rules for sprints. You can apply to use them for an event, and if they are used, competitors should be notified.

Isn't that distance calculated by the shortest legal/possible route. So if the building is out of bounds/impassible then you must go around and it is now 35 m and with in the rule?

As per the new rule, I believe the COC sprint event in august had dummy controls and it was a WRE meaning they are in use.

I saw the copy that eric had at the event on the weekend, but the copy I just downloaded from the IOF page doesn't mention either of these changes.

regarding dummy controls - this shouldn't* make too much difference. the course setter can already create dummy controls by putting controls from different courses close together, and they shouldn't be closer than the minimum distance anyway.
*this of course doesn't allow for the occasional idiotic course setter/controller who decides to put a dummy flag on every available feature - which will happen.

Try the WRE Hnadbook 2007 at
http://www.orienteering.org/i3/index.php?/iof2006/...

There is a section at the end on experimental sprint rules

So the Micr-O concept lives! That's the one where you get to see elite orienteers standing still looking bemused, or you can get to humiliate them by disqualifying them or make them run a penalty loop.

This also has similarities to Trail-O, where you have to decide which is the correct control while standing or sitting still.

Could we not bury this concept? This is trickery: putting a "dummy" control, or a control from another course 15m from the correct one is patently unfair when people are running at high speed.

And if we have to have it I don't think our current rules can cater for it - the penalty of disqualification is far too harsh for punching at a flag 15m from the correct one; that the organiser has placed there deliberately to trap you or make spectators laugh. Perhaps if the rules were amended to apply a 30 second penalty for such mispunches - but then you have to reprogram Sportident etc.

I don't see that changing the rule to 15m for sprint is a problem. its 30m for middle and long - therefore the difference on the map ends up being the same. sprint maps are more detailed, and the features are easier to define.
a 30m gap is pretty huge on a sprint map, and it means you can really just run in about the right direction, for about the right distance and punch whatever you come across... we've all got used to being a bit lazy.

> putting a "dummy" control, or a control from another course > 15m from the correct one is patently unfair when people are > running at high speed.
I think this isn't quite this black and white. Try the extreme cases.
One control is a pit, another is a mound. Unfair? I would not have thought so. Failure to read the difference would be because of a decision not to read the control description or check the map closely. One might choose to take this risk to gain a time advantage. If this resulted in an error, I would think the error would be a direct outcome of a tactical decision by the runner.
Now the other extreme. Two controls on identical features within a collection of similar features. Perhaps two boulders of similar size in a boulder field. Clearly a lottery. Luck would often triumph over skill.
I think the truth is somewhere in the grey area between these two extremes.

OA Rules have an appendix 'Principles for Course Planning', in which 3.5.5 states that 'only when the control features are distinctly different in the terrain as well as on the map, should controls be placed closer than 60 metres'. Perhaps a pit and a mound may be different on the map, but a pit often has a mound next to it, which the mapper may have considered not significant enough to show. This similarity on the ground can be the case with lots of other 'pairs' of 'different' features, and I'd be arguing for extreme caution in placing two controls closer than 60m.

If the proposed IOF rules for sprint races reduce the minimum distance to 15m, this shouldn't give course setters carte blanche, as logic suggests the OA principle 3.5.5 above would caution against using less than 30 metres for sprint events.

I don't know what the two control features were in the original question, but if as someone suggested it was two sides of a building, then notwithstanding that they were on N-S or E-W sides, in my view they are not 'distinctly different' so the minimum distance should be 30m.

What if you had two controls close together (either 15m or 30m) and there was an out of bounds area (such as a garden bed) or a barrier, mapped as impassable, between them? The temptation to cross illegally would be very high.

In my view, even in sprint orienteering, there simply ought to be no need to put controls as close as 15m to each other. To me it smacks of either laziness or deliberately tricky course setting.

is this conversation about control 60,62 or 63 at the Australian sprint champs

I've just read the Experimental Sprint Rules, and they do seem reasonable. In the first place, to be only 15m apart the features should be distinctly different, as I described in my first post - otherwise it must be 30m. Secondly, the rationale for the use of a dummy control makes sense in the context of some more open terrain sections of some sprint events, and seems designed more to make orienteers 'navigate at high speed', and not simply 'run at their highest possible speed' without reading the map or control description. Thirdly, these rules are experimental, not compulsory, and if used they should not be at the expense of fairness.

Also, what about all the other classes on the day (not M/W21E) for whom this is not a WRE. As such for these classes wouldn't normal OA rules (not IOF) apply, and hence have the 30m rule (or 60m for not distinctly different features) anyway?

Pits without adjacent unmapped mounds are not rare.

Simon is correct, the new rule would only apply to the elite courses, and the WRE Handbook makes clear that common controls with other courses should be kept to a minimum, unless the WRE classes and other classes are run at different times.
IL I take your point, that goldmining was a long time ago and the mounds have disappeared. But in many urban areas what I said holds true. By the way, two of those controls would be deemed unsuitable for a WRE event (in the pit), and the one with a string of runners demonstrates why IOF wants to introduce dummy controls.

im going to put my 2 cents worth in and probably throw a spanner in the works (please noone take offense)...

what is is the sport is about? its about navigating, this is done at whatever speed is needed... what are we given to do it? a map, control descriptions and all the other stuff... so if we are to navigate to different controls at the speed that is needed, paying attention to what is around and what we are given. then noone would dnf or even have the need for protest or the 30m rule... but if we were to try and do this too fast and forget to check descriptions or check the wrong description then thats when things become a bit of a problem cause we are not doing what the sport requires us to do.. if we dont do what the sport requires us to do it is our fault cause we have tried to take a short cut and not check things properly..

so if we are doing what the sport requires us to do is there a need for all of these rules and regulations? i say not, as each and every control site is distinct and unique. therefore if we are reading the map right and checking things right, doing what the sport requires us to do, there should be no need for rule on distance apart or what ever..

my next question is what are we there for? im there to have fun.. so the result good or bad is a bonus... there is no point winging and complaining about a control that is to close to another. it is the same for everyone.. and complaining about it isnt going to change it. the fact is that it was a fair race. so instead look on the bright side of life.

so if we as competitors are there to have fun.. what do you think that the organisers and course setters are there for? they im sure are there to have a good day too.. after all the organising and planning that they put into events im sure they just want things to run smoothly so that they can relax after putting in all the time, effort and late nights. they have done there best to give us a fun enjoyable race and course so dont let them down by complaining about minor things they could have dont better.. instead thank them for the work that they did and the sacrifice they made... so that they can enjoy the day free of protests and problems... there is always next time to improve on things and make sure problems dont occur...

so in the end i say keep it simple and keep in mind what we are there to do... HAVE FUN.... dont worry about the small things.. think about the big picture.... do what we are meant to do navigate to a point.. not look for a flag and run.... maybe to fix the problem we should go to the orientshow style of things no flags and no control numbers.. that should fix the problem... remember we are all humans and arent perfect and make mistakes.. so enjoy it and have fun.

I agree with Toph - if you can pick the correct control based on the allowed tools and techniques of the sport then the control is fair. I'd add that knowledge of the rules is a tool and may be used in competition.

Take a scenario where I have navigated successfully into the control circle and see a control on the correct type of feature. If I'm confident of my location and assume that the setter has followed the 30/60m rule I would deduce that the control in front of me is certainly my control and could punch it without checking the code.

The rather obvious conclusion from this is the advertised rules must be followed.

On the other hand, some orienteers I know are of the opinion that the navigation in orienteering should be about getting to the control circle rather than trying to pick the correct feature once you're there.

Returning to the original question, perhaps the straight line measurement is too simplistic, and consideration of the terrain needs to be taken. An example would be a long narrow building. Two controls on on similar features but on opposite sides of the building might only be 20m or less apart but would this cause any orienteer problems? I doubt it. The 20m direct line measurement would be meaningless.

Nicely said Toph.

Not so nicely said, Toph! ;p

It's about pushing limits. A cyclist who has never fallen off his bike probably doesn't race as hard as he can. If you're not running fast enough for your brain to melt occasionally you're probably not running fast enough.

Then take a mistake on the map. Every competitor gets the same map so it is fair and no-one should complain. I think not.

We want high-standard competitions. Organisers want to provide them so that we are happy and don't complain. Our role is to complain if they don't. (It doesn't mean we are not grateful for what volunteers do)

Nicely said ndobbs!

Eoin, is that photo from a trail-O?

Yep, from the World Champs in 2006. If general orienteering is heading that way I don't like it.

i agree that we need to push to our limit (both mentally and physically). but when we do it we still need to do the task that is set in front of us properly (check code and navigate.. thats why we are given them). so when we dont check codes (which i dont check codes about 50% of the time) or read maps properly and then mp we cant blame other people. i wasnt at the event and havent seen a map but if you had to run at least 30m to get to the other that suggests to me that you wouldnt be able to see one from another and 30m in a sprint race would equate to a reasonable mistake (say 10 second) in a sprint race. so doing what was required (navigating) wasnt happening, possibly because of pushing beyond the limit which leads to brain melt.. which then brings the outcome... so maybe controlling speed when needed would be a good idea..

a mistake on the map.. (which i would not call this a mistake as i understand the map was correct and controls were in right spot).. is a different scenario and quite possibly a protest or complaining is in order.. but in the end whats it going to achieve? not much on the day it will just change things for next time.. so why not get over it and enjoy the day for what it was...

enough from me.. time to go enjoy the day and go camping..

> Our role is to complain if they don't. (It doesn't mean we are
> not grateful for what volunteers do)
I have a problem with this position unless it is ironically intended. If the latter is true, just write me off as lacking a sense of humour.
Does complaining mean expressing displeasure? If so, you might believe you are a grateful complainant but the risk is that your complaint will be interpeted differently by the organiser if it is not packaged very carefully. Most orienteers are experiential. A minority is focussed on high performance. To run quality events most clubs need to draw upon experiential orienteers to assist. I have often seen them shocked by rude finish chute behaviour. Helping to raise standards through cooperative enquiry and contributing to training and mentoring is one thing. This isn't complaining. Complaining implies the problem is someobne elses responsibility.
Our club is running a declining number of high level events with each passing year and a growing number of low level events. Few people are willing to put up their hand to run a high end event. You have to get in early to grab a spot to organise a lower level event. Part of the reason is fear of the expectations brought by some competitors at high level events.
Anyone who uses complaining as a strategy to improve the sport may have fewer and fewer opportunities to complain with each passing year. (I admit to guilt in this regard).

> Our role is to complain if they don't. (It doesn't mean we are
> not grateful for what volunteers do)

I was all set to flame the author when I read this but decided it was intended as irony and no need for me to comment. My experience is that it is best not to communicate negative feelings to the event officials until at least 30 minutes after the completion of one's run. The logic being that is sufficient time to cool down and accept one's own failings.

My interpretation of the WRE rules is that they are intended to create sprint courses which permit fast running between controls with minimal time within the circle. There should not be any need to slow within the circle to find the correct control.


Harking back to the photos above, the map can be seen at http://picasaweb.google.com/donald.fell/Orienteeri.... Or on the Bendigo Orienteers Route Gadget site.
It looks harmless enough until you realise that there were 3 other courses/control sets in the same area, and no control identification numbers were given. I think I top scored on penalty points for wrong controls.

The photo showing the line of orienteers approaching the control is misleading in that this was the western-most hub control we visited 4 times with individuals running the legs in different sequence. The orienteers approaching from other direstions are not visible in the photo.

Organisers would get fewer complaints if they didn't try to trick or trap competitors with dummy controls. Since the only penalty available to the organisers in the current rules is disqualification, no wonder people who have travelled a long way might complain. That's why we need a 30 second penalty or similar option.

As a relatively frequent event organizer, I strongly second the "30-minute cool-down principle" suggested by Oxoman. Not because it offends the event organizer (if you can't handle being yelled at, you might want to avoid the post of Meet Director), but because your comments will likely be discarded out of hand if they are presented rashly. I welcome feedback, particularly negative, from competitors. The last thing I want to do is repeat a mistake. However, if I hear a harsh word from someone who is still sweating and breathing hard, I generally ignore it simply because such expressions are rarely coherent enough to learn from.

Back on topic, I think it's reasonable to expect competitors to find the RIGHT control, even if alternatives exist, but I'm also against deliberate trickery. If you want to put a premium on navigating to the right feature, hang the control on the far side so you can't see it until you are there. The 10 seconds lost by a competitor who just runs to the circle and hunts is ample penalty for such sloppiness in a sprint.

Just a couple thoughts.

It seems to me that there shouldn't be any other controls in the circle. With a 6mm circle (3mm radius), that's:

45m for 1:15000
30m for 1:10000
15m for 1:5000
12m for 1:4000

In all cases, it really pushes my comfort level to go that close.

I'd be much more comfortable if both controls were on the course. That way it's very clear that the two are close, and if you mispunch, the other control won't be there, so you're likely to figure it out.

I realize going this close is in violation of certain rules, but especially when both controls on are the map, I love the tempo change these short legs give.

I can think of one course on a 1:4000 map where a leg was about 14m long. It was just manic.

At the 2007 Canadian Champs, there was a short leg---I'm guessing 30m---where I was in such a panic to go that I left at 90 degrees to the line...on probably the easiest leg on the course. The design of this leg was actually tricky. I usually look at the angle of the incoming and exiting line, and turn accordingly to leave the control and then check other things. For this leg, the approach to the control was around some stuff, so I was approaching the control at about 90 degrees to the incoming line, and when I turned and took off, I couldn't make sense of the map for probably 30m.

I hate hate hate Micro-O. We discussed it in great length before WOC 2006. Type Micro-O into the search window.

From the 2007 WRE Handbook, copied here for convenience:

Appendix 3 --- Experimental Sprint Rules

Current planning constraints: The Sprint format is very new and is the format most likely to meet the criteria of the Liebnitz Convention, in particular, those of attractiveness for TV, excitement and visibility.

The Foot-O Commission believes that the concept can be developed further and is keen to see some experimentation in WREs. Organisers of Sprint races are invited to consider the proposals given below. If a WRE organiser wishes to implement them, then the organiser must apply for deviations from the 2007 IOF Competition Rules. It is very likely that the Foot-O Commission will be sympathetic towards any such applications.

It is essential that the competitors are made aware of any such changes to the Rules beforehand.

Proposal 1: Rule 19.4 is amended by the addition of "In the case where the map scale is 1:5000 or larger, the minimum control separation is 15 m." This requires an alteration to Appendix 2, #3.5.5 also which should now be worded to allow separations of 15 m and 30 m for different and similar features at 1:5000 (or larger) map scales.

Proposal 2: Appendix 6, #1.2 is amended by adding a new third sentence, "Courses may be planned with dummy control sites, provided such sites are on mapped features and obey the amended proximity conditions of Appendix 2, #3.5.5."

Rationale: just as Micr-O has been developed to try to show orienteering in a more exciting way, these proposals will maximise the chances of Sprint race planners to plan legs which will make good TV and spectator interest and, of course be more challenging for the runners as well. Currently we just see runners going through control sites without knowing how they got there and whether they made any mistakes on the way -- when a runner comes into view they can usually see the control they want.

But if a runner sees other controls as well then he must navigate properly and not be distracted by the "wrong" ones. Mistakes may be made (and corrected) and the navigational essence of orienteering can be shown. Sprint races have short leg lengths in general so control sites must be closer together than for Middle/Long courses in order to maximise this navigational challenge.

These suggested changes to the Rules should allow planners to plan more exciting Sprint races which, in turn, will allow the development of TV coverage so that the navigational essence of orienteering can be shown. It is envisaged that this can be done best in the more open parts of the terrain, e.g. in park-type sections.

Of course it won't be compulsory to have control sites close together and to use dummy sites too, but the idea is to provide these facilities should the planner choose to use them in order to make the best use of the terrain available. In addition, it goes without saying that the controller and event advisor will ensure that the planning of such courses remains fair.

It is expected that the IOF Event Advisor will write a short report on the outcome of any such experiments so that the Foot-O Commission can evaluate the proposed changes.

> if you can't handle being yelled at, you might want to avoid the post of Meet Director.
An indictment of the sport?

>> Failure to read the difference would be because of a decision
>> not to read the control description or check the map closely.

I admit to being very lax about reading control descriptions in sprints. It is a decision I usually make because of the huge time penalty. My near vision is not great and the descriptions are often hard to read without stopping or looking at them for a long time. Since they are not on the part of map I am using, or on the back; I find it much more useful to concentrate on the map and only check the code and main feature. That can usually be done without stopping.
Control descriptions in advance make a huge difference since I can copy them larger and darker or at least have them separate so they can be viewed without having to refold the map.

This is the part of the experimental rule that was missed at the Australian Sprint Champs:
"It is essential that the competitors are made aware of any such changes to the Rules beforehand. "

The penalty of a few seconds for reading the control description and number are small compared to mp.
One possibility is to put the control numbers on the map alla MTBO.
Personally I don't see the point of dummy controls, nor the need to have controls within 30m of each other. It starts to seem like the course setter is trying to add extra tricks to compensate for an area that isn't good enough or poor couse setting. Particularly for a championship the area should be good enough and the course setter skilled enough that you don't need to resort to those sort of tricks.
Being lazy if I thougt I needed two controls that close I'd just use the one. Why carry two stands, when one will do.
The other issue is knowing what rules the event is being run under and making this clear to all competitors.

Dummy controls? Seems like an unnecessary corruption of a format that works fine at the moment. Running fast enough to make map reading difficult is already an option for the competitor in sprint orienteering. Novelty-value concepts - like dummy controls - cheapen the sport and further complicate it. But isn't that what dyed-in-the-wool stalwarts want... more rules, more technobabble?

phatmax, i don't see why having "extra" controls is poor course setting. i've heard that sort of crap from so many "older" orienteers who think less controls is better. there are no "tricks" involved, its just a course. the best orienteer is going to race the course faster than anyone else.

as long as the map is correct, the controls are in the right spot and there are unique control codes there is no issue. if you can't navigate to the right control when there are 2 controls (almost always on different features) 15 metres apart then maybe the time you spend complaining would be better spent learning to read a map.

i liked your comments toph! every runner is given all the information they need to complete the course. thats the bottom line.

btw if i sound pissed that's just my injury talking ;)

An indictment of the sport?

Hardly. More a reality of the human condition. I've also run youth swim meets and umpired Little League Baseball. Both of those make running an A-meet pretty tame. Being in charge means you catch grief from time to time. Oddly, I've found the more valid the complaint, the more likely it will be presented in a civil manner. It's the folks who know they (or worse, their kid) screwed up and are looking for someone else to blame that go off on you.

I can say that on the one occasion when one of my courses was formally protested (not upheld, but the competitor had a point), the competitor was torn because the only remedy was to throw out the whole course, which he certainly didn't want to see happen because he knew that it wasn't a clear-cut case of negligence and most people got through it just fine.

That same principal certainly applies in the case of close controls. One thing that Micro-O has right is that you dole out a modest time penalty rather than MP'ing the whole run. If adding dummy controls is going to become part of sprints, there needs to be a less draconian way of dealing with the ensuing errors.

I was IOF event advisor for the 2008 Canadian Sprint Champs where we used the experimental rules. Our conclusion was that the rules can add to the fun of Sprint orienteering so long as the course planner keeps in mind the fundamental nature of Sprint orienteering - which is navigation at very high speed. Here is a link to my Event Advisor's report to the IOF about the use of the experimental rules.

And here is the text for those that don't want to follow that link ;-)
(Note that the link includes pictures)

IOF Event Advisor Report
Canadian Championships ? Sprint Distance
Fundy National Park, New Brunswick
Aug 22, 2008

Submitted by Adrian Zissos

According to the IOF?s WRE Guidelines reports to the IOF should only be made if there are unusual circumstances. This report is being submitted since the organizers took advantage of the experimental Sprint Rules described in Appendix 3.
Here is a copy of the ?All Controls? view of the event, including non-WRE-course controls.

< PICTURE MISSING >

The original reason for the request to use the Experimental Rules was to provide the course planner with flexibility to fully exploit the complex area of small chalets immediately south of the finish area. During test running it was felt that having controls spaced according to the ?normal? rules would simplify the orienteering due to high visibility. The idea of the course planner, supported by the IOF EA, was to maintain navigational difficulty in the chalets by requiring orienteers to navigate to the feature ? rather than seeing the flag from far away and simply running to the flag. It was felt that having more than one flag in sight would improve the technical challenge. At the same time the planner was very aware that he did not want runners to slow down (he was not attempting to make a micro-O ? like course), so would use the experimental rules only if absolutely necessary.

As it turned out the course planner was able to find suitably different control features in the area that allowed him to stick to the original rules with no controls ?given away? by too-high or too-early visibility. However some controls were very, very close to 30m apart and so it was nice to have advertised in advance that controls may be closer than 30m as this prepared competitors for a high density of controls and also eliminated any possibility of protest.

In the event the planner did make two pairs of controls closer than the normal rules, but these were not in the chalet area. Here is a brief report:


Controls 60 / 61
< PICTURE MISSING >

This picture shows control #60, second control on the M21E course. The feature was ?between two copses?. Control #61 was on a boulder 17m to the southwest (see the ?All controls? map above).

There was one mis-punch at this control site. The runner, a member of the Canadian National Team, explained that the loose control description sheet was very long and to fit it into his arm band he had to fold over the sheet so that the first two controls were not visible. His route choice took him through the open field west of the lake and so past control 61 which he punched. Note that control descriptions were also printed on the front of the map; this runner did not check these descriptions. As well, the size of the loose control descriptions had been published in advance of the race.


Controls 33 / 34
< PICTURE MISSING >

This picture shows Controls #33 & #34 which were 20m apart. The W21E had a leg from 31-33, and the M21E had a leg from 31-34. The two control sites were used to split up the courses while keeping them both within the channels of fast forest. The features were very different and there were no issues.

Control 52
< PICTURE MISSING >

This picture shows control #8 from the M21E course. There were four runners (out of 38) who did not punch at this control since they went directly from #7 - #9. As described earlier, this area did not use the Experimental Rules and all controls were spaced according to the normal rules.


In summary, the Experimental Rules were used sparingly. It was comforting to the organizers to know that competitors expected close-together controls and that controls could be placed at the limits of the normal rules with no worry about protests over a meter or two here or there. Competitors enjoyed the courses and made very few comments about the use of the experimental rules. My opinion is that so long as the rules are not used to change the nature of a Sprint race (i.e. so long as they are used to maintain or enhance navigational difficulty while maintaining high speed) that they are useful to the course planner and can provide for more enjoyable and more challenging orienteering.

Respectfully,
Adrian Zissos, Calgary, Canada
September 8, 2008

I can appreciate the many sides to this discussion. I think one thing that must be taken into account is that mapping and interpretation of features is subjective. The fact that there might be different interpretations possible will likely be more of an issue if controls are closer together, simply because the orienteer is already more likely to be thinking they are at the right spot. The example with pits that sometime have small (unmapped) mounds beside them. If this pit control is 250 metres from the next control ("real" 'dot knoll') well of course we would agree that if the orieenteer shows up at the pit and thinks its the dot knoll because of the mound that is his fault - but if the controls are only 15 metres apart and there are things that could be open to interpretation you cannot blame the orienteer quite as much. (of course I think a good Controller would avoid controls in areas that might be open to different interpretation like that).