Discussion: 20 seconds?

It takes about 5 if you arrive at the start box with your device already unsnapped (if you have one of those that snaps). Place sheet, snap holder, done. You can use the remaining :55 or 1:55 to read your descriptions.

I was being very generous.

Lots of people were taking more than a minute, and still didn't have it right.

Some were fiddling with their gadgets after the Go signal. Figure that! Some pretty sloppy stuff. Guess it was a good exercise for those that might be considering a Europe trip.

I suppose this is one place where orienteers could really learn from triathletes, who practice their transitions as if it were a 4th discipline in their sport. I guess it is, but you know what I mean.

And speaking of the importance of fundamentals, sounds like the ten minutes you spent with the pro, working on fundamentals last week really paid off. Seven hours of rogaine practice today? That D1 must be humming....

It was only after I got the fundamentals drilled into my head that this whole weird thing about handing out clues during the callup process started (with the one exception that I experienced in Sweden back in 1991). And there, you walked up to a table that had your clues sitting on it. As opposed to getting called up with four or five other people and waiting while a start worker sorts through a handful of paper slips to figure out who gets which one, and finally gets to yours just before the next whistle (I'll note that one of the days was better than the other in this regard). I very much enjoyed the WCOC meet, but the one puzzling thing to me was that the starts seemed to be designed with maximum complexity in mind. Three callup lines, and then a remote start triangle as well. But maybe having a WRE necessitates this extra bother for some reason.

The WRE added extras to the normal process, including the remote start triangle. All was approved by the consultant. Handing out of the clues became necessary with the darkness that ensued during the rain shower making finding the proper clue difficult under the covering.

Do WREs actually require a remote start triangle? If so, that's really stupid.

Why is it stupid?

I prefer remote start triangles.

WRE Guidelines (17 pages, not bad)

A quick glance doesn't reveal any requirement, although the consultant may have required it. I didn't say remote start triangles are stupid, I said that requiring them is stupid. That said, I do think they're stupid. It's a control without a control. If you want people to go there, put a control there. The triangle should be the place where you start, that is, the place where you turn over your map and the clock starts ticking. Having this other phantom location is bizarre and has no benefit. But if people want to use them, hey, go right ahead.

I've always assumed the reason for remote start triangles, especially in a short race where seconds count, is that they mostly eliminate the luck factor of "who can find the start triangle first on their map". With an obvious, streamered route from the time clock to the remote start triangle, presumably even the most challenged of us at that skill can manage to find the start triangle on the map before actually arriving there.

I can't tell you how many times at US A-meets I have watched my competitors heading out on their courses, while I am still standing there saying "Where the *%$&#@ is the start triangle on this map?" That should not be an orienteering fundamental IMHO.

For me the most important issue is you can't see the route choice of the previous starter if there is remote triangle. But I guess there is other ways to do the same.

I have done it several times myself, if someone respectable starts before me I might just run same direction and take map contact on the fly. It may save some seconds.

yeah, but I saw Boris's route choice anyway because the woods were wide open and he came back towards the start a little...

you can't see the route choice of the previous starter if there is remote triangle

Frequently one can see the obvious route from the last control to the finish and the route is generally trivial, if not patently obvious. But the finish is where the clock stops, not at the last control or even the penultimate control. Sure, the leg from the start to the first control may be a gimme, but if the clock starts when you get the map, that should be the start. Like J-J says, if you want folks to go to a particular spot from there - essentially a streamered route - put a control flag there - the first leg doesn't have to be a major challenge.

Good start design would eliminate the "I can see my competitor" factor by having start lines far enough apart or around a hill, etc. There are probably a few situations where this is impossible, but it's part of course design, isn't it?

FWIW, I also think remote start triangles are silly, but only if you're required to go there. I remember an Ohio meet where I figured out where I was in relation to the start triangle but never visited it because it was out of the way to the first control on my course!

@stevegregg -- there have been mentions here on AP about practicing flipping maps over and finding the start triangle (as another O fundamental). I don't practice, but I also don't sweat the seconds it takes me to find the triangle. If competition increased on the US women's side, I probably would practice to increase my speed.

We complied with the instructions from the WRE consultant who used logic similar to Steve's.

one fundamental ought to be that you have your shit together at the start

Since I am undoubtedly one of the individuals you observed with disdain, let me clarify that actually I didn't have my shit together when I left home. Specifically, I didn't have my control description holder, so I borrowed Ian's, which turns out to be essentially impossible to slide a piece of paper into.

the luck factor of "who can find the start triangle first on their map"
...
That should not be an orienteering fundamental

Finding the start quickly when you flip your map over is always going to be a fundamental skill, so you might as well practice it. It helps to take note of what direction north is and of what region of the park you're starting in, etc, before you ever get the map.

"yeah, but I saw Boris's route choice anyway because the woods were wide open and he came back towards the start a little..."

my original call up lines were a bit different from what was actually built, but I don't think it mattered much if you saw the route of the runner.

I'm with J-J. It's just as simple to have the start where you actually start and then a trivial first control than it is to have a remote start. The only difference is that start really means start. Also, having to punch means that people really will go to the remote 'start'.

It seems that most agree that the start should be remote, so that later starters can not draw conclusions about the route choice to the first control. That's good, because I think that is important for serious races.

I completely disagree, however, with the simple-first-control solution, for the same reason as stevegregg mentions (and the WRE adviser used as well). Having athletes stand still on the start line in search for the start triangle on the map is frustrating and unsatisfying, both for the athletes and spectators. Imagine Hubmann standing still on the start ramp at a WOC final, in front of hundreds of spectators in the arena and thousands of spectators on the live feed. No, the international standard is to have a flagged mandatory route from map pickup to the remote start triangle. The athlete can start running immediately as the clock starts, and can find the triangle on the map (and fold it), while running. This has been, and I boldly predict will always be, the standard at IOF sanctioned events.

To say that this procedure is "bizarre" seems very odd to me. Using that language, I must say that it feels bizarre that elite athletes should stand still on the start line, then navigate to a children's control, punch that, and then start their "real" course. In my 25 years of orienteering, I have only ever seen this at a few races in the US, and boy does it make me feel like I'm in the backwaters of the orienteering world...

Why can't you just have a mandatory, flagged route to the first control?

Cristina, I don't think that's what J-J is saying, and when I did experience this at US races, it was not a mandatory flagged route to the first control. It was "normal" orienteering to a very easy first control.

If you do have a mandatory, flagged route to the first control, which is actually control 1 (that you have to punch), then you would have this silly first leg printed on all maps that's completely pointless.

PG: I've enjoyed reading about the fundamentals. I was lucky to have a coach (Ron Lowry) that believed very much in checking those fundamentals and he had his athletes practice practice practice everything in non race situations so it would be automatic come race day.

Regarding remote starts. Not only do I prefer these from a racing perspective but also from an organizational one. All the organizers can be close together in the call up and then the racer runs off to a remote location making things organizationally simpler. Having organizers spread out just adds situations where a mistake may happen.

The procedures I find 'bizarre' are:
1) handing out description sheets in race kits
2) using a start SI unit.

You should not see those 2 procedures at IOF sanctioned events either...

pi, here are some questions I have always wondered about when running to a remote mandatory start triangle. How close must a competitor get to the mandatory start triangle? 10m? 20M? 50m?. Who monitors which competitors visit this triangle? Has anyone ever been disqualified for not visiting the mandatory start triangle?

A trivial or flagged first leg may be silly to some but I think it is fairer. It also can be quite useful for a course planner in instances when he needs to be certain where competitors begin their leg 2 navigation.

When I set courses, there is no hesitation at the start, because the first control is straight ahead on a trail, but out of sight. It's the first control for the White course, and for all other courses as well. No need to look for the triangle before moving, no route choice at the very beginning, and no worries about seeing which way the earlier starters went, because they all went straight down the trail. But instead of an unenforceable mandatory flagged route, everyone goes to that spot because they have to punch there.

Feel free to do it any other way you want, even if it's weird. And don't worry about my nonstandard method showing up at a major international race, because I don't plan on setting any more of those. (The ones I set in 1993 didn't have trivial first controls, although the competitors were pointed in the proper direction at the start.)

From the IOF Foot Orienteering Competition Rules 2010:

17.3 Compulsory routes, crossing points and passages shall be marked clearly on the map and on the ground. Competitors shall follow the entire length of any marked section of their course.

22.6 The start shall be organised so that later competitors and other persons cannot see the map, courses, route choices or the direction to the first control. If necessary, there shall be a marked route from the time start to the point where orienteering begins.

22.8 The point where orienteering begins shall be shown on the map with the start triangle and, if it is not at the time start, marked in the terrain by a control flag but no marking device.

(I think "marking device" is a typo and should actually be "punching device")

So, the flagged/marked route goes all the way to "where the orienteering begins", not 10 meters away from it. If an athlete does not go to the start triangle, he/she is therefore breaking rule 17.3. Is this rule hard to enforce? At smaller meets (like all meets in North America) it probably is. But there are plenty of other rules that are equally hard to enforce (probably harder), like the rule that you should not run through out-of-bounds areas or that you should not follow other runners. These are in practice based on an honor system, so the same would apply to the rule to follow the marked route. With only some half-intelligent course planning, the angle out of the start triangle will not be such that cutting the tape will be a huge temptation. This is working perfectly well in the rest of the world and I have very rarely heard of any reported break of the rule to go to start triangle, much less than I hear of runners going through out-of-bounds for example.

Of course, you can do whatever you want at your local races, the IOF couldn't care less. I don't do remote start myself at local races, but I never do the easy-first-control. However, if you put on a WRE, you will obviously be asked to follow IOF standards. And maybe you want to consider giving your elite athletes the same conditions they will experience at all other international events, at least at important races like Team Trials and US Champs (if they are not WRE events).

> When I set courses, there is no hesitation at the start, because the first control is straight ahead on a trail, but out of sight.

Really? Competitors can't know that, so they will have to search for triangle and see the first leg before they can start moving. At least first starters. But the rest can. That's not not fair.

>It's the first control for the White course, and for all other courses as well.

We have typically about dozen runners starting at each minute. If everyone has same #1 and it's near, there should be several punch units at #1. More equipment needed.

Also, a path is't usually the best start point for a nice leg. Its lot easier to set up nice first leg if you can plan start point where you want, not just at paths / path crossings. I see having short streamered section to start triangle much better, simpler and fairer approach than having a bizarre short first leg to a path crossing, then often/sometimes having low key leg to #2 - together with all those issues with searching triangle, hesitations, seeing previous competitors, need for extra equipment. With remote start triangle you just have to make sure competitor can't win anything by skipping triangle. I don't see that as a big problem, since I see it's not recommended to have the big route choice leg as leg #1 (before competitors see what the woods and trails are like). Or if there has to be such leg we can have someone watching possible short cuttings.

This thread somehow reminds me of the "following" discussions that ensued around WOC 93, again showcasing the different sensibilities of Americans and Europeans.

i understand the IOF rules and followed them in my only WRE course setting experience. In the cases where visiting the start triangle is the best way to go anyway this works. But it has been my experience especially in European events that many competitors do not run to the start triangle thus giving them an advantage. Yes, many O rules seem to be made to be broken, but my American obsession with following the rules says that putting a punching unit at that triangle is not silly but instead would solve this one unfairness issue.

Looks like Finnish national spesifications are diffrent from IOF ones. Triangle isn't the symbol we use for symbol for start. We use a line, start line. Tringle is called here K-piste ("kolmiopiste") = "triangle point".

This is how it is supposed to draw it if we do it by the book:
http://jatko.vpalvelin.com/~pekvari/smkeski09/mapH...
Finnish middle champs 2009

According to our rules if triangle and start are close together and it is impossible to draw them both, we don't draw start line at all. It has been like that for ages.

I guess this is why remote triangle is natural for me and I can understand the concept of remote triangles may feel silly if triangle is used to be the symbol for start.

"Lots of people were taking more than a minute, and still didn't have it right".

Where this thread started - I spent a few seconds acknowledging to PG the many observations he must be recording from his "privileged" vantage - and had my particular solution completed in some 40" (tape + safety pin). We are a curious lot in our differing ways.

...my particular solution completed in some 40" (tape + safety pin). We are a curious lot...

Sounds like a "belt and suspenders" solution here Bob... Would you care to elaborate about the forty seconds of construction work you require...particularly in contrast to Cristina's 5?

Here.

Had to reconstruct, borrow a clue sheet. It takes a bit of time to get tape off spool - occ I have some on my shirt etc if I don't think there'll be any available which happens. Have about one chance to get it right with the tape & then have to put the safety pin thru. I have the SP (opened) in my mouth as I come up, saves seconds/obviates commentary:-). And don't get flustered. Readily available/easy to read. Quirky, but I don't like "stuff" on my arms. I have a "speedy, handy carrier", unused.

Some of those seconds were spent getting to clue sheets & to table - say 8"?