Discussion: Tape GPS displays

Apparently if you run with a GPS watch, you'll need the display taped over at the start. Details here: http://backwoodsok.org/gps-use-at-the-sycamore-scr...

Seeing as a standard orienteering compass is made up of two parts, the compass and the base plate, and only a map and compass are allowed as navigation aids should not the starter also be taping over the scales on the base plate, which are not part of the compass, and ripping off the counter if any of the old timers are still using their trusty Silva Type 4/22?
As GPS units show several functions, only one of which measures distance. I trust they do not plan to cover the whole face of the GPS as that would disadvantage GPS users as compared to those who use their Timex to keep track of the time (thus distance) they have been travelling (traveling) on a leg.

>>should not the starter also be taping over the scales on the base plate

That's right! They should also be blindfolded and with their ankles taped together.

;-) Just kidding; I honestly don't think the tape is a great handicap though, and if people are concerned about the distance counter, then does it really matter? I run with a Garmin 305, plan to wear it this weekend, and don't expect the tape to affect race analysis afterwards.

I honestly don't care that much either way, but it seems like a simple way for both sides to get reasonably close to what they want.

I think this ruling is totally ludicrous and am considering running non-competitively in protest.

It seems that we also have the option to "take the chance of being disqualified."

It's not ridiculous. Plenty of elites in Sweden race with taped-over displays even though the rules do not require them to.

I agree with Boris, it would be nice to use the honor system and not bother with taping anything up, but this seems like a decent compromise. I'm glad that they are at least allowing GPS units at the race.

Can I expect the organizers to provide me with a watch that does not have a gps that will tell me only the time I've been on the course for? If not, I think you'll force me to run with my iTouch so that I can keep track of my time; I don't own a second watch (only a 405).

Drew, you can run with my watch if you really want to.

I'd accept the alternative of leaving the part of my display that shows time un-taped and taping over the rest of it... and I was being 100% serious, thanks for the offer of you watch, I accept. =)

Actually, if you follow the letter of the law, you are not supposed to use a regular watch with a time display, either, as that constitues a mechanical aid that is not a compass.
Just sayin'...

If you really wanted to argue that point, we'd be arguing whether a stopwatch is a aid used directly for navigation or not.

The real issue here is not the letter of the USOF rules, but the rules that BOK has set down, which are not the same. Under the letter of the USOF rules, as long as stopwatches are allowed, I'm allowed to carry and use my 405 as a timer.

I personally think this is unneeded in our sport but as with everything, sometimes you have to make sacrifices to play.

I did this in a race once on my own but then I realized that it was a waste of tape.

Was there a specific reason for enacting this rule?

If you can't trust someone to not use his GPS watch as a navigation aid, why would you trust him to not pull the tape off after leaving the start and put it back before finishing? Does the tape somehow reduce temptation?

There's not a specific reason that I know of; I'm just supposed to post the information about the meet here as it comes out, and that was one of the items.

Likely someone heard there's sometimes controversy about GPS watches and decided to make a decision about it.

The ban on GPS units as navigation aids in competition is well meaning and as I understand it mirrors decisions made by the IOF and several major orienteering federations. It is based on the rule that only a map provided by the organizer and a compass are allowed to be used as a navigation aid.
Of course that rule has been ignored ever since the Kjellstrom brothers added a baseplate and distance measuring device to their compasses.
It has been further ignored for the last twenty five years when the use of lap memory watches has allowed participants to know accurately how long they have been travelling since the last control. If he knows his pace of travel the orienteer can pretty accurately calculate distance travelled. So does the GPS reading give much value added? Not really. It can tell the participant the distance travelled but that is not in the straight line as measured on the map.
I do not mind covering up the distance feature on my 405 but if the whole face is covered how am I going to know if has started properly when I start a race?

After having read the information from the organizers on Clubnet, I now have a better understanding of this. The start officials will tape up the display for you, and the finish officials will inspect the tape to make sure it has not been tampered with. (I assume that the start officials will be communicating to the finish officials which competitors have had their watches taped, to preclude a competitor from untaping the watch on the course and then tucking it in his pocket before finishing.) I also have a better understanding of how this decision came to be (which matches my prior suspicions). I consider this to be in the same category as when USOF considered a rule that would have required the start crew at night events to check the competitors' headlamps with a voltmeter and an ammeter to determine the wattage. And I'll remind you: in the Rocky Mountains, microwave ovens are still permitted.

BTW it looks like the information on Clubnet is the same as at Holly's link above.

From the meet site: and you don’t want to take the chance of being disqualified if someone protests you (particularly if you win)

In other words, it sounds like they're offering the taping as a service to runners who are worried about being questioned, not requiring it. What are the chances of a protest?

I was going to let them tape over my FR405, but after reading this I'm not sure. If someone accuses me of using the GPS during the race (what would I use it for?) then I will simply accuse all watch wearers of using their watches to navigate. :-)

I would wear as many watches as a I could, just to be a smartass. Maybe attach a satellite dish or rabbit ears to my head, just for show.

But I only have one watch, a 405. And it broke.

BTW it looks like the information on Clubnet is the same as at Holly's link above.

That is correct. I hadn't read the info from Holly's link before my first comment, I was just making observations based on what people had been saying in this thread. Sloppy on my part.

I would wear as many watches as a I could, just to be a smartass. Maybe attach a satellite dish or rabbit ears to my head, just for show.

At VWC97 there was a stupid* rule requiring long sleeves because of some issue about trees with thorns. After some bickering about the matter, I procured myself a set of sleeves that had no shirt associated with them, and showed up intending to run that way. I would have, too, except that the blackflies were too thick and I needed the shirt to keep them away. I did show up at the start with a short-sleeve shirt and these add-on sleeves, which I removed and stuffed in my pocket after leaving the start.

So, I applaud the multiple watches and antennas concept. If I were going to the meet, I'd definitely do something goofy along those lines.

*IMHO

This was, I suppose, inevitable. I can't see well enough to use the GPS while "running" if I wanted to - but I need the watch to know when to bail to avoid an OT! Either this is my best weekend in years or it will be a long afternoon for the finish crew.

I predict that this taping episode will develop into a precedent -- somebody will see it happening, and understand that to mean that this is how things are to be done, so that some future meet director will think it's obligatory and haveto worry about getting extra people to do this watch policing.

Well, I have decided to refuse the taping and be disqualified if anyone protests. This is ridiculous.

I think this kind of thing is potentially justifiable for one national championship per year and for international events. Even then it's a stretch. For what is essentially a local meet, the organizers need to know where to stop.

I hope others will join me in refusing.

I hope others will join me in refusing.

Hear, hear! Since feet is a likely winner, and therefore in the greatest "peril" in this situation, let's see others step up to the plate and join him.

I will as well.

I think the initial post in this thread is misleading. I don't see anything in the anouncement that indicates that you have to tape over the display. It just looks like it is a service offered by the organizers in case you are worried about a protest. I may be wrong, but that's sure what it looks like to me. I see no reason why we can't just run as normal, no tape.

It also seems to me that they are trying to address a problem that doesn't exist.

It's worth noting that wording on the website changed slightly since it was first published. The organizers' late addition of "if someone protests you" seems like a deliberate attempt to clarify their intent to offer this as an insurance policy only (as Cristina says). I doubt they will be forcing their tape on anyone, and further doubt that we will see any untaped runners disqualified on questionable grounds.

I personally plan to say "no thanks" to tape at least until a jury upholds a GPS-protest on someone I know, or the relevant rules explicitly require it.

It just looks like it is a service offered by the organizers in case you are worried about a protest.

Sounds like an attempt to stir up controversy unless a raft of similar services are being offered, such as taping other previously-mentioned navigation aids, offering control holders and whistles, offering split analysis to detect following, and so on. Since I'm not going, I haven't checked the web site to see, if, in fact, such other services are also being offered.

If I were there, I most certainly would protest each and every runner using such devices without the organizer-provided tape, if for no other reason than to call the organizers' bluff. Then, at least, the issue would be settled once and for all, and runners would not have to worry about different rules being pulled out at the last minute at supposedly "sanctioned" races. (IMHO, one of the things "sanctioning" means is a consistent and expected set of rules of competition, but WDIK?)

What a silly thread. If the organizers want people to put tape over their GPS watches, then just do it and shut up. Not that they even do in this case. So what if it offends your principles? So what if you think its overkill or is unenforceable? Yet more orienteers making a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe if people complain enough, they won't put on any more "local" meets that you're forced to attend.

Dan's got a good point. After you have finished pouting and protesting, don't forget to thank each and every one of these same volunteers for collectively spending hundreds of hours of time for your benefit.

Is there a better way, other than politely refusing to tape your display, to advocate for a sensible approach to GPS watches? If simply all the runners don't want to put tape over their GPS watches, then maybe the organizers should question whether it is a good idea to push this particular agenda. I do agree that we should show our appreciation to those people that put on races for us, but at the same time orienteering is a product and the customer is generally right....

If I were going to the event I would tape my display, but I think that this protest doesn't harm anyone and I'm sure that the people who have written in already are worried that if they "just do it and shut up" this time, that next time there will be something slightly more onerous or something that offends their principles even more.

I don't think it's silly at all. Besides the fact that it's a dumb and unnecessary requirement (for all the reasons detailed above), I wouldn't want sticky tape residue left behind on a $200-$300 watch.

Appreciating volunteer efforts and scoffing at a weird non-standard rule don't have to be mutually exclusive activities.

The problem seems to be that USOF has adopted the IOF Ruling on gps. Australia has followed the Swedish OF in purposely rejecting the IOF rule for our own events. Of course, we will have to follow the IOF rule in a WRE event and ban wrist gps (but not loggers). However, this would only apply to the WRE classes (elite and junior elite), other classes would still be able use their wrist gps.

don't forget to thank each and every one of these same volunteers for collectively spending hundreds of hours of time for your benefit.
We all certainly appreciate the work organisers do (as most of us are organisers as well). The question is - why do really stupid and pointless extra work?

Just because feet and others are honest and do not envision ways in which cheating can occur, doesn't mean that cheating cannot or will not occur. The best example was shown by Jagge a few years and a few hundred threads ago; one runner, however slow and/or mistake-prone, runs the course and programs the controls as waypoints. A second runner on the same course then runs blindly with the same watch. Jagge's context was the Jukola, but Umstead is a as good a place to run straight lines to waypoints as a typical Jukola.

Some rules are silly. Other rules are less silly. At a WUOC, for which Umstead is the qualifying event, the rules will be similar to IOF Rules, perhaps identical. It seems reasonable for the organizers to expose contenders to the same rules, just like we do at U.S. Team Trials—the start intervals and the course-planning philosophy are (usually) designed to be as closely resembling the WOC as possible.

Looks like Australian gps rule is bad, but not as bad as swedish one. Note, in sweden you are alowed to use some models for navigation(!), but other quite popular models are banned, you are not allowed to even carry those. Looks like in Australia using gps for navigation is not allowed (good), but you are not allwed to even carry some models (bad!). There is lots of popular gps models you are not allwed to carry any more, like garmin edge series and lots of other unit popular among biking community. Banned Edge is far better unit for O than forerunner, because it has barometric altimeter, you get accurate climb data. I know people who has recently purchased expensive gps unit and now they are not allowed to even carry it in swedish events. And in same events some units can be used for navigation... IMHO, not the best decission in Australia, even worse in Sweden. I wonder why it is so difficult to have simple wording like at level X events ad below competitors are allowed to carry any gps gadget but not allowed to use em for navigation"?

Taping would be pointless with rulling like that, orienteers run in packs and follow each ohter, so if someone navigates regulary gps it will be seen sooner or later. But this doesn't apply to Swedish ruling, because running around and looking constantly at gps unit is now just normal and allowed behaviour in forest, so seeing someone doing it would not proof anything.

What is the ruling on someone who consents to having their GPS display taped, but during the race, a branch or thorn or fall, etc either removes the tape or otherwise loosens or tears a corner of it?

Somewhat unlikely, but not beyond the realm of the possible, given the number of times we've all had a map, compass, SportIdent, punchcard, cluesheet, and even ducttape (albeit a crappy tape job) ripped off of us mid-race.

When it all comes down to it, tape or no tape, it sounds like there would have to be a protest, and then a jury would have to try to sort through the facts anyway. I'm not too sure how that's different from any other protest.

I'll be very interested to see (here on AP) how this plays out in practice at the meet itself. Will it all be much ado about nothing?

This sentiment been posted on similar GPS usage threads before, but it bears repeating.

Although satellite navigational gadgets now play only a minor role, their proliferation and technical advancement will gradually change the nature of the sport forever. Thus making it less of a skill contest and more of the fanciest device contest. (At the start line just pull out your gadget and watch yourself proceed)

For those that think this rule is "stupid", they should try to recognize that the purpose of rules banning or limiting navigational gadgets is a noble one. This rule is just a meager attempt to save the essense of our sport.

For those who want to change the sport into a high tech woods run, they need to start their own sport and not hijack ours.

To be clear, the point is not whether GPS assistance should be allowed, but whether it is up to the organizers to enforce this rule or merely up to competitors and the honor system.

Thus far the only thing that I'm aware of is that my chest number was marked with the mark of the beast being a GPS user during the sprint. (Ironically I doubt I won that race, whereas the middle, which I comfortably won, had no GPS enforcement.)

I had my bib marked after the middle that my 205 was covered. Didn't bother with it during the sprint.

No one was offering to cover watches that I noticed.

Anyone who thinks that the advent of GPS devices has suddenly opened up orienteering to potential cheating needs to track down a copy of the book Murder at the 13th Control (the story of interest in this anthology is not the title one). Also bear in mind that GPS watches are nowhere near being able to make optimal route choices, and they won't do the running for you.

Yes but I'm sure my chances at the Jukola are much better with pre-programmed waypoints. (If I get the correct forking, of course.)

@Geoman: Just because something is repeated umpteen times doesn't make it right. No-one has come up with a convincing argument that using a GPS is better than using Map and Compass. I firmly believe that Map and Compass is better. A very small number of people will cheat either way - we shouldn't introduce silly and stupid new organisational rules and procedures without sufficient cause. The way to deal with cheats is to use the existing rules.

O-ing: I wish you were right. But you surely know that many in the O community do think GPS will change the sport. This includes many national federations and the International Orienteering Federation

O-ing has got it right. If at the start line I get my map, work out all the lat and longs of the control points and then program them into my GPS, I may as well kiss the race good-bye. The only real uses of a GPS in orienteering are to mark a way point so that if I screw up I can go back. Well the fact that I have screwed up enough to need to use a GPS to get back to the way point means my race is stuffed; or I look at the distance instead of pace counting, and do some quick subtraction to work out how far I have run. This is more accurate at gauging how far you have run from a fixed location, but it doesn't mean you have gone in the right direction, nor does it mean you worked out from the map how far you needed to run. GPS's provide a great means of recording where you have been during a run for post race analysis, but if you think you are going to get an advantage in a race using one, then you aren't going to win anyway.

If at the start line I get my map, work out all the lat and longs of the control points and then program them into my GPS, I may as well kiss the race good-bye.

This is a fairly limited notion of what is possible with gps. I know of people scanning omaps and loading them onto an iphone for use with the gps feature. You could easily do this with a preview map prior to the race, it would take no additional time on the clock, and you would gain an undeniable competitive advantage.

But that's the thing. No, you wouldn't, not in that terrain, not if you know enough about how to orienteer that you are going to be competitive anyway. If you aren't running full speed and knowing where you are and where you're going essentially all the time, then you aren't going to be competitive anyway. GPS just doesn't matter in individual events in terrain this amenable to high-speed orienteering without GPS.

I buy the relay waypoint example and I buy the 'don't use it in races that really matter' thing. So I'm fine with the US champs in Washington banning GPS, and I'm fine with the IOF doing it, and I'm fine with Jukola doing it. But the ban is more from the 'better appear to be clean as well as be clean' principle rather than because I think, at least in individual events, that GPS matters.

GPS could indeed get a person who makes 20 minutes of mistakes to make 5 only. But who are you depriving of anything by doing this? Well, people making at least 5 min of mistakes themselves. But people making that many mistakes shouldn't be winning races anyway, so who cares? Think of your GPS-enabled cheating competitors who deprive you of victory as a spur to get good enough at orienteering that you can still beat them anyway.

@feet

I am all in favor of allowing people to use wrist GPS to record tracks for later analysis. I wear one all the time to train and race. I relish the lessons learned from a fresh QuickRoute examination after a race.

However your argument that it doesn't matter because the people that will be using GPS for navigation will never "win". I would venture to say that 99% of all orienteers competing in North America never win. They compete against themselves, the clock, or some other schmo that will never win, but happens to orienteer near the same level. If that schmo cheats with a GPS and moves up in the local results, it may matter a great deal to someone. Your argument smacks of elitism.

You wrote: "But who are you depriving of anything by doing this? Well, people making at least 5 min of mistakes themselves. But people making that many mistakes shouldn't be winning races anyway, so who cares?"

They may care very much. Battling it out for 8th place on a Green is the height of achievement for many competitive orienteers.

If GPS cheating matters at all, it matters to everyone, not just elites.

I understand that people *can* cheat by using a wrist GPS, and I understand that it would help *some* people, but there are an unlimited number of ways that people could cheat. Unless it's actually considered a problem, I don't see why we should get in a huff about it, especially at local and regular A meets. I've never seen anyone staring at their watch on the course, nor have I ever heard of anyone bragging about using one. Maybe it's happening, but I doubt it is significant.

Orienteering is a combination of three key eleemnt, route selection, navigation and running. GPS is only really going to assist with one of those. If I use the iphone example and have a prescanned map on my iphone, which I run with it will still only help with one aspect, where I am. The orienteer still has to decide optimal route choice, the GPS won't do that, and they still have to run.

But that's the thing. No, you wouldn't, not in that terrain

My comment was not referring specifically to Umstead terrain. I still think that there are situations in which having a map with a flashing dot at your location could be useful, even for a top orienteer. Fortunately all the top orienteers seem to be too honorable or too infatuated with real orienteering to give it a try, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

And yes, I agree that the best strategy to avoid being beaten by a gps cheater is to train harder rather than throw a fit. Nevertheless, I think the notion that gps cannot be faster than map and compass is naive.

Nevertheless, I think the notion that gps cannot be faster than map and compass is naive
I don't think anybody said "cannot". I think the key word is "is". Not one person in any of these discussions has produced an example of use of a GPS that is faster than using a map and compass.

In your example how do you get the competition map onto your GPS after the start whistle blows? Any old map is just not going to cut it - there would be far too much toing and froing. And in any case if you did that would be a clear breach of the fair play rules and is cheating. We don't need special rules for GPS, without someone providing a practical example.

Well, you could just pull up a map of the area from WorldOfO on your phone, assuming it's been run on before. I haven't seen anyone with a phone out on the course, but soon there will probably be small, wrist-top devices that can do this. I still won't be worried, because you'd have to be stupid to be seen staring at a screen in the woods.

Well, you have a map in your hand already, right? The one with the controls marked on.

What we need is a race or series of races between two teams: one trying their best to use a GPS to aid them, the others not. If after a practical trial of this sort the GPSers are shown to have a measurable advantage then maybe we should think about introducing new rules and procedures.

I'm kind of surprised that people who have orienteered for many years and knowing what concentration it takes to build up a mental connection between map and terrain, while traveling at speed, can think that breaking that to look at a gadget will help.

I'm actually with you as far as the rules go, but I do think it is possible that someone with a blue dot on an O map could be at an advantage. Perhaps not in simple terrain, or on a short course, but think about a >1km leg in flattish but technical terrain (Scandiland) - you just want to run straight as fast as you can. The little blue dot will show you when you are close enough to focus on the paper map and get to the control. Maybe the best orienteers in the world would get no advantage, but most people would.

And again, I don't think anyone is doing this, so I'm not worried about it. Yet.

Not one person in any of these discussions has produced an example of use of a GPS that is faster than using a map and compass.

Well, if you think you are getting lost or believe you are making mistake you can take a look at your track and see have you drifted left or right and what is your approiximate location compared to two previous controls. This helps you to relocate and minimize time loss, and may turn some big 3+ min errors into 2 min ones. That may make difference, just think of mistakes elite orienteers did at 2009 NOC, Salo.
http://news.worldofo.com/2009/06/07/gps-tracks-noc...

Just imagine martin johanson seeing from forerunner he is close to #1 and #2 (taking splits at every control would make it really easy), that would have helped him to avout the big parallel error.

Also, he could have noticed the control 9 is exactly halfway between #1 and #6, so by looking at map he could have easily noticed that too and this huge error would have turned into 1 min one. All it need is to get used to use these previous controls as waypoints when mistake comes.

Taking risks, making mistakes and recovering from mistakes - thats essential part of orienteering too. Also the value of solid clean run isn't that great any more if there is aids to minimize those big errors.

My biggest mistake during 2009 day O race season was less than one minute, but I believe I could find gps usefull the day the next 3+ min mistakes comes. That mistake will come for sure, sooner or later.

Like Cristina said, I don't think there is moch people who does this yet. But the method I described here is kind of allowed now in Sweden. And can be done elsewhere too, cheating outside Sweden for sure. It's about like asking someone - you should never need to do it if you do well, but when the mistake comes asking someone is quite handy.

Yeah, I am sure I am going to be able to read the prelaoded map and the moving dot on my forerunner screen.

No, you can't get the map to forerunner. You get only previous controls, dot and your track. Works pretty well.

Of course it' is possible to digitize subset of the map, like like trails and all big stones and upload those to forerunner as backround map. But very difficult to see anyone actually doing it.

Yeah, a device with a quality color screen (e.g. an expensive phone) is one thing, but I'm having a hard time seeing how anybody is going to use a GPS watch to significant advantage.

But gps ARE banned at WOC, so Johanson would never get that help. And hand held gps and ANY type of phone are banned at major events by IOF and most federations.

We're talking about using a wrist gps during a non-WRE event, and by non-elite classes even at a WRE.

Is this event (Sycamore Scramble) important enough to warrant banning/covering a wrist gps? We're talking about a US 'A meet' - I assume 3rd level down after national, and state championships. Maybe there are elite ranking points at stake, and maybe these might have some effect on selection in US WOC team, but very unlikely. Assume a gps 'cheater' somehow ultimately gets selected for WOC based on using a gps at this event. When they get to WOC, gps is banned, so what will they do? Probably come last.

It's only a matter of time before technology makes navigating on an O map feasible. Might as well ban them now rather than later.
As for the fact it was only and A meet, what is the point of allowing this at one level but not another? If you allow someone to navigate using devices other than the map and compass, you might as well call it another sport. Maybe sport Geo-caching.

The iPhone has a camera, a GPS, a compass, a touch screen, and the ability for anyone to write an app for it and distribute widely.

How to get a competition map onto the iPhone? Take a photo of it at the start.

How to get your competition map georeferenced? Touch the start triangle on the screen. Use a few more screen touches to get the north orientation and scale just right. With practice, this should take just seconds.

Also, once the map is georeferenced, you can put your paper map and compass in your pocket. You won't need them.

The iPhone will give you the exact location on a map, a map that you don't need to fold, a map that will auto-orient itself as you're running (since it has a compass). And, with the touch-screen, you can touch the location of the next control (or next attackpoint, or whatever) and you can have a directional arrow point you the right way. And this is technology that is available today.

The iPhone won't help with the running, or the route choice. But it could very well be an advantage in navigating. And if you have a machine that helps with the navigating, then that frees your brain to focus more on route-choice and running. It'll be more efficient.

As feet said earlier, the 30 seconds needed to set this up aren't going to be enough to beat the elites. But then again, feet hasn't tried the handheld, GPS-assisted, electronic map. I wish we could clone him, have one of him stay status quo, and another train with the new device. And see how they perform head-to-head in 2-3 years.

It's only a matter of time before technology makes navigating on an O map feasible. Might as well ban them now rather than later.

As far as I know, nobody has come up with any feasible way to use the existing GPS watches to get around a course faster, but there is desire to wear them (as watches, and to examine routes later). Why make people do this stupid taping crap, which makes it a pain in the ass to use the watch and wastes everybody's time? This is the kind of thing that makes my interest in participating in the more organized versions of this sport plummet.

So the iphone with camera, gps, compass and an app has possibilities. Agree they should be banned. But wrist gps, with no camera, no uplaod capability and a pissy little screen is a different matter. Can't be used in the same way, so why the ban?

Let's not clone feet. One is plenty.

Many people prefer being bipedal to being a monopod.

Good point. Let me revise that: Let's not clone feet. One is too many.
:)

Nice.

I love that we can have a conversation and even think in terms of ∀s, but the propositions can exclude feet. Balter can't even do that.

I see taping a GPS screen as a misguided attempt to help you resist the temptation to cheat... like putting the cookies on the top shelf. If you can't reach them without a step ladder then maybe you will be able to keep your diet after all.

Maybe you don't mean to "cheat", you just happen to look down at your watch and see that you've already gone 800 meters since your last control. Now you know you've overshot, so you're going to turn around and relocate a lot faster.

Of course you're not supposed to ask someone for help in the forest either....I therefore propose a rule whereby the organizers will tape over each competitor's mouth so they don't try to cheat out there on the course. We all know that asking for help happens out there on the course, we've seen it. Now let's do something about it!

Or we can just say that cheating is already explicitly prohibited, and if someone is caught cheating using a GPS then we can avail ourselves to the various punishments that go along with that. I guess I just don't see why we need a GPS specific rule to maintain our sport the way it is.

don't see why we need a GPS specific rule to maintain our sport the way it is

I would like to have gps rule like I wrote above. Something like "at level X (A?) events and below carrying any gadget is allowed, but using them for navigation is not allowed".

That would stop organizers from making they own taping rules and gps logging use would go on and all new gadgets could be used for logging. If someone starts using backround map gadget regularly someone would notice it sooner or later. Some could still use gps for minimizing errors, well, that just happens like asking. Some may even use waypoints made by brevious runners, but that's just one way to cheat among many others and those are not championship races anyway.

@kupuckman (and brendan) - on the iPhone app of the possibly-near future, the one step you missed is for the app to send your image & current GPS position to a server, and have the server match up the contours with the known contours of the world in that area, and thus the georeferencing is done for you with no user input needed. This reduces the setup time for this device to about 5 seconds, e.g. "drop map on ground, take photo with the magic iPhone app", or less if you can take a clear enough (or software-rectifyable) photo on the run. Then by the time you've run to the tapes at the end of the start chute, your dot shows up on the map, with course, already geo-referenced.

On other non-GPS nav. aids - An example of a stopwatch to estimate distance was given - and I know of WOC competitors who've used this technique for years, and they aren't banned from that still. And as Jagge mentioned, even the ruler on the baseplate compass is technically a banned navigational aid. A vast number of orienteers have been cheating on these aids for years, so I think what would help here is not only a clearer official ruling on GPS usage, but rather a clearer ruling on these other items too - e.g. IOF could explicitly allow a time keeping device and a ruler on the compass, and ban a GPS. The fact that current wording the written rule is regularly violated today, doesn't help in decisions of just how that the rule should apply to the subcategory of GPS...

BTW, wasn't there another thread on the long history of the needs of sports to limit the technological improvements that impact it? (of which orienteering is bug one example?) I've yet to see the cross-link to that which normally shows up faster in these threads ;)

even the ruler on the baseplate compass is technically a banned navigational aid

I think this is a canard, along with bogosity like glasses technically being banned. I think that "compass" can reasonably be interpreted as any compass that is readily commercially available and in common use. If people started using compasses that included e.g. optical rangefinders, that issue would be addressed specifically. There is a graphic scale on the map, so that information is supposed to be available to the competitor.

Communication with an outside entity, like the scenario described in Wyatt's post, is very clearly a different matter.

Or a red herring?

I didn't want to do it, but here is a link to an earlier thread, which itself provides links to earlier ones. But, why bother? It is much more productive to debate this stuff with a tabula rasa, no?