Discussion: West Point Comments

I saw many of you at one point or another and got to talk to a few of you about the courses and the organization of the meet itself. Although the overarching comments seemed to be along the lines of: "This is one of the best meets that USMAOC has put on in years." those comments don't help us to improve for next year. I seriously appreciate any criticism and will put it to use. If anyone wants to email me instead, it is James.Perkins@usma.edu Thanks for any input, and I hope you all enjoyed this weekend. We expect to get results posted on the website within 24-48 hours.

As always, I was thoroughly impressed by the efforts of the West Point cadets. This year in particular though, it seemed like every effort was made to make the event first rate.

I really thought the two Green X courses were two of the best courses I've run in the Harriman terrain. Comparing legs with the Red course (not sure if there were two; if so, I only saw the one for M45) and the Green Y course, I think we got some of the very best designed legs. There was never a point on either day where I was thinking why the heck did they take us through this crap (and that's a thought that has crossed my mind frequently when running in Harriman). The Green X course both days was a bit on the long side probably, but not so long as to be really out of line, and most of the legs were really interesting with route choice problems and no gratuitous climb (except maybe 12 on day 1).

If I had to look for things to critque (and really, I'm having to look hard here), the only thing that comes to mind is the start boxes not with the maps on Day 1.

I was glad there was a clothing return both days; that worried me when I saw the comment in the event notes that there might not be.

I posted my routes and some comments, also the sprint map. A fine weekend.

Sorry Jim, but I really have to agree that it was one of the best West Point meets that I have ever been to. There are only two things that I can really think of.

The first was the start procedure on Day 1. Allowing competitors to take their maps and walk to the start punch fully in view of people who have already started, without being on the clock seemed a little weird. I am not a pro on start procedure, but it did seem strange. Couldn't you have just put the maps at the actual start punch so that people couldn't pick them up until they punched, or at least right before? It wasn't really a big deal, but it felt weird, so I thought I'd mention it.

The other thing was the overall climb on the courses. I know how difficult it is to design good courses in this area without having too much climb, but I did think that some of the climb was gratuitous. There weren't any controls that really stood out in terms of gratuitous climb, but there were several that were placed much higher on a lone hillside than they needed to be. When the courses start to creep over the 300m mark on less than 10k, it should start to become a priority to avoid any extra climb at all costs.

However, this wasn't such a big deal anyway as I didn't actually feel like I ran 405m of climb on Day 2 RedY. I really thought the courses were designed extremely well on both days.

As for the meet as a whole, I had a great time. Thanks to all the Cadets for putting on such a great event.

Results have been posted and they even display with Mozilla

Shweeeeeet.

A couple of quibbles:

1. The departure/travel times of the shuttles should have been posted on the website (in addition to the correct estimated times for getting to the starts from the dropoff). On the first day I jogged from the dropoff to the start area and got there just as my name was called.

2. From the IOF rules for Foot-O, appendix 2:

3.3.5 Proximity of controls

.... According to Rule 19.4, controls shall not be sited within 30m of each other. Further, 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.

A few times I ran across a control fairly close to mine. Most notably, Day 2 control 1, where the two boulders were not much more than 30m apart, certainly less than 60 m. I know this confused more than one orienteer.

Blue Day#1 (CP 10-11). After troubles on #3 (also a hillside control like #11) I elected to go to the left on the trail and climb back into #11. Unfortunately I twisted my ankle on the trail and wasn't able to run the entire route so I don't know if this route was good or not. I was wondering what routes people took on this leg. Time was 10:12.

To 11:

I went high up to top, contoured around just below peak of hill to trail. Where the big trail bend was is what I used to attack from. Came down a little early and traversed accross to the control (10:38). This route choice involved a lot of extra climbing but was the safest option for my weak O skills.

That's exactly the route I strongly considered but ruled it out at the last minute because it involved so much extra climb.

I somehow found that control with ~1:30 bobble, but it was partially luck.

I enjoyed it but if you could of done something about the rain and fog it would have helped...

A couple of things I noticed or heard from others:
1. Course notes w/distances should have been out early and X & Y courses should should have been indicated in the notes, not just at registration.
2. With several events going on during the weekend a master schedule that was more inclusive may have improved attendance - I didn't hear about the auction. Some may not have known about the Sprint and some were unaware what was going on with the Trail-O. The Sprint and Trail-O rubbed against each other.
3. I heard there was a problem on the Brown course on Day 2. People on Green had a common control. When they compared maps the controls were not on the same rock.
4. Undermapping of rock on Day 1 for Red Y affected legs 1 and 12. Some trails old and obvious trails were undermapped too.
5. The Award Ceremony on the water was pretty but on the cold & windy side of comfort after racing. Barth Hall was an option. I guess the pennisula is a tradition now.

Overall, these mostly small items are not unlike comments that are typical at other A-meets. Good job. The volunteers were all very friendly and helpful too.

In addition to Jim's queries, I am looking for any specific recommendations and comments on the design of the courses. I will most likely be the course setter for the next two years and I would greatly appreciate any comments you have that could make the courses better. Thanks.

I liked the blue courses both days, but significantly more on the 2nd.

I think part of the problem is that a combination of terrain/fieldchecking makes the map less reliable on the steep slopes on the Bull Pond Map (and Long Mountain for that matter). If controls are placed in such an area, I’d prefer there to be supporting features (contour, vegetation, etc.) because relying only on rock in areas where there is so much homogenous rock (some on the map, some not) is hit or miss.

The day 2 course was definitely better in this regard – and I thought the map was quite serviceable between and around controls.

But, blue on both days featured some really nice legs, changes in direction and tempo, and I thought appropriate levels of physical challenge. I got beat up a bit on Saturday due to sliding around on rocks but that’s par for the course.

If you’re going to be doing courses the next two years, I look forward to coming back (even more than I normally do.)

I'll send these comment to Mr. Perkins directly as well, but since one of them is an issue that I want to express to others who might want to try this trick at home, I'll post this here:

I thought Day 2 was great. It was basically Harriman orienteering at its best. Day 1 wasn't bad, although it had a couple of shortcomings.

I ran the Blue course. The weather (obviously beyond anyone's control) made the course a bit more challenging than it would have been otherwise, because the fog reduced the visibility. Nevertheless, the course was mostly pretty good. This is a challenge on Bull Pond, because it's probably the worst USMAOC map, in terms of both terrain and map quality. It's also overused, which I find perplexing. If I had my druthers, I'd take this map out of circulation completely. (Contrast with Long Mountain, which is excellent.) In particular, there were a few controls on the longer courses that were in terrain that has really never been fieldchecked. An experienced orienteer can realize this and compensate, but it's really a substandard experience. These hillsides must be avoided in course setting.

The other thing that I found annoying, and that I want a lot of people to be aware of, is the fact that the map was tilted on the paper. I understand that there were layout considerations that made this a useful move. While it's best to avoid this in general, sometimes it is called for. But if you're going to do this, you have to do it right. And that means that everything except the edges of the paper still needs to point the same way. So the map is tilted on the paper, and the marshes, point symbols, etc. are tilted as well. So far, so good -- this is how the Bull Pond map was. But in addition, all of the text, including the control numbers need to be tilted. Legend, titles, logos, all of it. Generally, you don't want to use a border in this case. I know of a couple of maps that are done correctly: OK's Rockcrusher Road, and the latest edition of Mt. Tom that was used for the 2004 Billygoat. With so many visual cues being oriented at 45 degrees to magnetic north on Bull Pond, I constantly found myself having to doublecheck that I wasn't heading off in a bogus direction. This is a subtle point, and one that I wouldn't expect everyone to be able to handle correctly without advice, but I consider it pretty important.

Also – and I’m sure you guys have thought about this repeatedly – succession planning seems so important to this meet. It would be great if the meet could continue to get inexorably better, cumulatively, over time, without any stumbles. With turnover, this is admittedly hard to do - but somehow codifying best practices and preserving courses along with annotations of those that are praised and panned as touchstones for the next meet directing cohort would seem to be invaluable. This meet has a tradition second to none in the US, and if annual feedback/debriefings can be referenced in future years you’ll have a tremendous resource.

On the route to blue #11: It looks like I was fastest on this (8:47), which surprises me. I pretty much contoured it, climbing a bit early in the leg. Couldn't read the rocks, but looked for the broad reentrant before the control as a catching feature, then the terraces on the slope beyond to guide into the control. Dropped down to one terrace, thinking it was the higher one, but saw it had a cliff beneath it, and had to climb 4 contours back to the flag.

In general: Very fun orienteering (especially day 2!).

The system that you're talking about is in place, and has become significantly better since MAJ Mark Read began working with the team 2 years ago. Andrew and I are both trying to build upon the current "How to Host an A-Meet" file and we are soliciting feedback to incorporate into it.

I second jj's comments on the angled printing and add a few more. Extend the north lines beyond the edge of the map so they are easier to locate and distinguish from map features. Put N indicators on each line, not just a few big 'N's and do not put North arrows on the South side of map. An upside down N is still an N.
The control descriptions were printed with a font that was to small. I thought it was just the pre-released ones but was unpleasantly surprised to find the 1:15 maps had a micro font as well. The cliff and boulder heights were nearly unreadable. Saw a Brown (I think) map after the run and it had a readable font.
The planned lack of a clothes drop off was a bad idea but was even more annoying when I found out that there was a drop off only I had not heard about it.

Green X on the long side (for the women)--typically the men have the longer course. I did enjoy the technicality of both days' courses. Please post start lists at the start for competitors to check, especially when using e-punch (where we don't have a time on a punch card to check). I concur with those who asked for course information and bus ride information on the web page before the event. The misplaced circle on the Brown course, Day 2, could have been avoided by using OCAD 8's course setting feature. All flags on my course were hung properly as far as I could tell. As an F50 I had a lot of trouble with the 1:15000 map even using a magnifier and especially on rainy Saturday. Finally, many thanks to the medics on duty on Saturday who cleaned up and bandaged my son's knee (he needed stitches) - the ER was impressed!

I just want to voice that I completely agree with what JJ has to say. Overall I had fun at west point but there were certainly things that I had issues with, almost all of which, JJ covered. I found an overwhelming amount of inconsistencies between map and reality on day one. Some could point out that I just lack the skills to compensate for a poor map, and they'd be right. However, my point is that I had a much more difficult time relating the map to the course than in other red/blue level courses that I've been on. This, I feel, was because the map was of sub standard quality - not because of the rain or the terrain being too hilly and rocky.

Day two I thought was much more interesting and from what I experienced was a better map. My only gripe would be that as far as I could tell C9 was not sitting in a reentrant ( just a very small, perhaps inconsequential comment).

Also, to further JJ's notes on symbols and text needing to be aligned/ turned with the north lines. Erin and I were talking about how uncomfortable it was that the lines were at an angle but the control numbers were not. I tend to use the numbers a lot to find north at a quick glance.

On Red Y Day 2, I believe control 11 was in an area inside or very near an area marked by signs as restricted. If it was okay to go in there, the meet notes could have covered it.

Nielsen thought that #9 wasn't in a reentrant. Hmm. Well, I didn't think that reentrant was so bad, but I sure didn't see any reentrant at #12. Yes, there's one on the map, but not on the ground. No big deal, because the control was quite easy to find. The Blue course had five reentrant controls, and all of them were described as "shallow". There's no need to be using vague features in nice rich terrain like this. It's not a crime to avoid subtle features, in my opinion. Orienteering is mainly about what happens between the controls, not at them. If you successfully get where you need to go, then you should be done with the leg. Leave the picky control placements to the trail-O crowd.

I completely agree with those reentrant comments - I certainly didn't see one at 12 and I didn't really notice one at 9.

But, the controls were definitely in the right place and not obfuscated in any way. 9 was definitely a more difficult control, but given the angle of approach, presented more "safe" attacks than analagous hillsidew controls the day before.

So, I agree that there is no real need to get cutesy with subtle control placements in terrain like this, but in these particular instances, I thought the locations were quite doable.

Overall a very nice weekend - well done to all. Definitely enjoyed the Green Y course both days which fortunately went thru well mapped sections.

For the future archives, assemble files of the courses and the times for the various courses. There are USOF guidelines for win times, climb, distance (which you may or may not want to use). With the maps, courses and now with split times, courses in the future can be built to accommodate any desired result on your various maps. I'm not suggesting re-using these courses, but use prior results on similar terrain/legs.

Blue Day 1, 11. I basically contoured it, in 11:02. Much of my contouring was on very steep stuff - slipping sideways on rocks to fall twice, though my hand hit first, and not too bad both times. I'm sure that finding the right elevation to run on, to get the best terraced running, was critical. Perhaps Andy's early climb put him on a better terrace path. (I know he's fast, but 8:47 - wow!)
Vadim - you've got the 2nd best split - what'd you do?

I definitely enjoyed my first West Point A-meet since I moved to the East coast. It wasn't my best performance, but it wasn't too bad. Very well organized A-meet.

Day 1. Start procedure wasn't correct: start punch suppose to be in maps distribution area.
My first trouble was #3. I approached it contouring hillside where there are a lot of rocky features and it's difficult to match "reality" against map. Got lost just few steps away from the right boulder cluster, relocated to the top-hill, and "attacked" from the trail. My opinion, #3 should be somewhere else...
Ok, back to #11, this was another bingo control. At #10 I was about 30 sec. behind Alexey. When I was leaving control, Alexey already disappeared. Tried to catch him, but fog didn't help to do so. Basically, I contoured all the way to #11, climbing at the beginning several contours and then dropping down, went through one of the Red controls on the stream. That helped me to make slight adjustment. At that point Alexey was in sight few contours higher than me.

Day 2. Noticeably better map, faster terrain, and better course itself. No comments. Well done.

All my thoughts about the courses and maps have already been said (could have happily run both days at Long Mountain!).
Posting the length of time on the bus to the start, the bus schedule, the walk to the start AND the time back from the finish IN ADVANCE is really important. It is impossible to plan your morning/travel/warm-up etc. without all that information. Remember that a lot of people don't arrive until Saturday morning.
Finally, I know this doesn't affect that many people, but really A meets are supposed to have child care (I am told it is actually a USOF requirement). It would have made a huge difference to my enjoyment of the weekend - though I did enjoy it.
Overall - very good job, and it is great that you want to do even better next time.

One more comment, about the control descriptions: the numbers for the sizes of boulders, cliffs, etc. was WAY too small for older eyes and I could not read them even with magnification. It looks like 4 pt type! (Was that the top of a 1.3m cliff, or a 13m cliff on GreenX/Day 1?!?!) A minimum of 7-8 pt, please.

Most of the organization on the race days was done very well. I liked the white board at the registration of day one with last minute information. The e-punch worked perfectly. A great thank you to Valerie who hopefully gave the cadets a good example how to run the system. The start on top of the hill on day 2 was fun, starting with a fast downhill run.

The real problems begin and end with West Point map 'system'. The maps are old. E.g. Bull Pond: 1990, 1996. If a root stock has disappeared, it is time to take it off the map. And to have a look at the rest of the map, too. Some rock/cliff areas are undermapped for today's standards. I told myself to consider the contours first and assume that the other features (except large roads) are relative, maybe mapped, maybe invisible because of the map printing.

The maps are not printed in standard format (except the sprint map, which was excellent). Many lines are too thin and/or fuzzy. The large boulders have the size of regular boulders, the regular bouldes have the size of stony ground. The colors are not saturated. If you check the outline of a building with a magnifier, you find it fuzzy on BP and sharp on the sprint map. Does this matter? Yes, even though we don't look at the map so close during the race, the sharp definition of each object allows the eye to read the symbols on the map much easier. Especially for older eyes (disclosure, I am 48 plus three days old), in bad weather, with fogged glasses.

The courses: Day 1 red used an undermapped hillside to #1 (also to #11/#12) plus what I call the WP route choice: Out to road and back in or go straight. The in/out pattern was repeated 3x, plus 7-8 was a road run. I suggest using the well mapped complex areas of the map for some interesting short legs and dump the road running passages. The winning time on red was clearly longer than the standard 60 min. on red. I don't mind longer courses, but for less train people the courses get awfully long.

Day 2 red used the map very well, the woods were fairly open and fast, the navigating was interesting, especially with the high running speed.

Overall I saw a great effort from all the meet workers, the course setter and those who are working to find a system that works with the always changing group of cadets. And I liked the peanut butter for the bagels at the finish, too.

I have not seen canted mag north lines in more than 20 years, possibly 25 (Bear Brook comes to mind) - they should not be on a contemporary O map

Looking back over my runs, I generally executed each leg pretty well, but had trouble reading the area near the control. I try to avoid 1:15000 maps whenever possible, but wouldn't let that keep me away from WP, which has such great terrain and great meets. I liked the courses a lot, but my enjoyment (as an old geezer) would have been greatly enhanced by 1:10000, or by use of more prominent features for controls. Someone mentioned updating the map to remove rotted rootstocks. I actually used a rotted rootstock as a navigational feature, recognizing that the little pile of debris was once a mappable feature. That was kind of fun.

This was the cadets second year using epunching, and they did an excellent job! I only provided minimal assistance this year, which was the plan. I like when a plan comes together.

The half of the one course I actually ran (before I had to go get my knee stitched up) was very well done. Could have done without the fog, though.

Having been on the other side of a West Point A meet as a cadet in the earlier days of orienteering at West Point ('76 - '80) - I am very impressed with the fine job this past weekend. Good organization, good enthusiasm and overall good courses.

Some comments, some more nitpicky than others:

Too much excess map case - just extra plastic to have to deal with as you fold and refold your map. You can seal down the side if the cases are too wide and trim off the extra.

Day 1, Red Y, control 1 - I should know better, there are no hillsides anywhere near West Point not covered with rock features. I didn't take the direct route to #1 so it didn't affect my time on that control (other things did), but you need to be aware of which parts of the map are incomplete and either get them field checked or avoid them.

control 4, the 13 m cliff control description - I second the comment that this needs to be in a larger font. My older eyes saw that as 1.3 m (again, other disconnects caused my longer time on this leg).

7-8 If at all possible avoid (or minimize the length of) the trail run as the only option.

Day 2 - Control 1 - it took me a bit to see the boulder in the middle of the control circle. It's OK (and recommended) to cut the contour so a feature such as this is more visible on the map. Also, the distance between the 2 controls both on boulders and with similar control codes (206 & 216) is not good practice.

Control 7 - even looking now, I can't see the small trickle on my map that the control was on - a function of the printing.

I was pleased with the lack of gratuitous climb - day 2 felt flatter than day 1. Very different from the days of a to-be-unnamed swampfox and the philosophy of "there's a nice hill, let's run them up it ... a couple of times"

Course lengths were a bit long - would have been more of a factor if it had been warmer.

Further comment on the common Day 2 control #210 on Green and Brown (mentioned earlier by Nadim) - It appears from examining the two courses that they were set up correctly for the intended rock feature on the respective clue descriptions: Brown - a NW boulder, Green - a W boulder. The boulders are mapped 75m apart, marginal but ok if different numbers had been used and the actual flag had been put on the Brown feature. I've presumed that the courses were set up using OCAD 8 course setting but two different files were created - one for the 1/10000 courses and one for the 1/15000. Thus a very tricky situation was created that needed careful review. Fortunately the Green bag was visible (almost) from the Brown rock and not too much extra climb should have ensued.

II think my first WP meet was in 1982.
The cadets are always helpful, but I must single out the woman running start on day 1. Her ability to keep everything running smoothly should get her a special award. I have seen very few people who did so well "under fire" . She called up competitors, sent them off and answered numerous repetitious questions without missing a beat. Along with the other cadet, they inserted missed start times with timing and speed that any start crew would envy. Very impressive.
Also the immediate printout of your splits sheet was the fastest I have ever experienced,.
The courses though need a bit of improvement.
Certainly, if one were trying to meet USOF guidlines, most courses were too long. I think red was probably the worst offender. On Red day 2, a 100 point male competitor would have had to run 7min/K to make the time criteria.
And there were several "not neccesary" controls. The
contour along unmapped hillside ones have been nentioned. Several Brown runners mentioned to me the second to last Day 2 control which was in a water filled pit. And it seemed to be of no real navigational challenge as it was very close to a trail junction. It was just grotty to get in and out of.
The thing with the control numbers on the map cetainly through off everyone I talked to.
There have been some fine courses set on these maps, I hope future course setters look the archives over, and do not be afraid to imitate success.

I just like to point out that the sprint maps were printed by Valerie. Not sure how she did it, but the quality was excellent.

The boulder control on Brown/Green didn't cause me too much trouble, as it was visible... though at the time I had the feeling it wasn't right, and later realized I was correct when comparing maps with others.

As far as start times being reassigned... several of us changed courses early in the morning (before any starts) on Day 1 and were given new start times. When one of my friends went up for her new start time, several hours later, she found that it had been reassigned to *another* person spur of the moment at the start line. She was then made to wait for over an hour until another time opened up. I know she wasn't the only one this happened to.

I wasn't there, but this thread seems to be extending to daunting proportions. This is a good thing. I'd love to see Attackpoint judge more A meets to these high standards. Many (most?) A meets would come off with just as many things to fix. (And that would be a good thing too.) So don't get disheartened, West Point!

Yeah, there were winners *and* losers with the efficient start reassignments. I believe Brad Whitmore had a similar experience with his regular start time. He was warming up along the trail when he was called. Got to the line half a minute after the call but found his start had just then been given away and was forced to wait for another open slot himself. I guess it is possible to be *too* efficient, especially with the long bus ride and jogs. I think its better to build slots scattered into your start list, making the entire window a little larger if necessary (which I'm sure WP/Valerie did), but ONLY assigning misses or course changes into those spots. When those spots are full, people who genuinely missed will just have to wait until the end. This also takes some time-pressure off of the caller's duties. The longer the travel time the more empty slots you need to build in. Of course Brad's case is in the gray area. Most people who miss the call miss it by more than a fraction of the whistle interval, so I'd say Brad's case is a rare one, and any start crew trying to be efficient would hate to see those useable slots wasted (not to mention people waiting for starts watching them go by - then the complaints would REALLY start to fly!). Reassignments of earlier reassignments sounds like a miscommunication of some type.

But yeah, the start is almost always a chaos of people changing this and that or being late or needing to shuffle kids or other unforeseen problems, and Start Crews who handle this smoothly without losing track of anyone (the very most important thing) are miracle workers.

The sprint maps were printed on a HP 9500 (BIG color laser).

As the Cadet in Charge of the USMA Orienteering Team, I would like to thank all of you for coming out to our meet last weekend and now giving us feedback. I hope you all had as good of time participating in the meet as we did hosting it. As mentioned before, one of the biggest challenges we, as cadets, face when putting on this meet is the rate of turn over we have within the club. Ben Shean and I have the most experience with hosting meets and this is only our 4th one. I want to thank all the outside help we receive so that our meets are as successful as they are. This year we worked extremely hard to ensure that the mistakes of the past were not made again. Hosting a meet at West Point can be very helpful on one hand but very challenging on the other. We have great land to run on and many resources that we can pull for our use but this can also present headaches. There are times when other West Point activities out rank us and take our land or our resources (like vehicles) without any warning and we have to scramble to fix the situation. In other words, sometimes when we think we are good to go, we are, in fact, not. Also, being a federal institution, we have to follow many government guidelines that other orienteering clubs do not have to worry about. For example, we are not able to provide childcare since we would have to have licensed sitters who are certified, and this is quite a hassle. Instead, we do all we can to help those who have such issues in terms of their start times and what not. All the cadets who were working the meet last weekend were out their on their own, volunteering their time. This meet is an extra duty that we all take on in addition to school work and military training. We try to make this event run as smoothly as possible but appreciate everyone being understanding when things don’t. Probably, the most enjoyable part of the meet for all of us is interacting and talking to all of you. Hopefully you all had an opportunity to talk to a cadet one on one about something, from the course you ran to life at the Academy to what we are up to in the future. We tried to add a few bonuses this year with the Pipe & Drums playing before dinner, the slide show of life here at the Academy and cadets wearing all our different uniforms during dinner, and finally LTC Hendricks’s talk after dinner. If you have any other comments or suggestions concerning the meet please continue to let us know. Both good and bad ones help make it a better event for all. I hope that you all will attend next year and let others know about it. Have a good one.

Great meet! One of the best i've been to in a while :) We New-Brunswicker's will definatly be there next year!