Discussion: Last control - CP 100

Can we make it more spectacular?

This is the question that it was in my mind after watching the thrilling W Relay. On TV I was noticed that they were having quite a big problem to fix the stand for the last CP-100. Apparently they use just one stand with only two SI units. It was good that there were no other runners from 2nd leg. CP 100 is decisive sometimes but it shouldn’t be. It could have too much influence on the final results and it is bad for TV image of the sport. I didn’t find any pcs so it would be great to see any pcs or replay of the relay.

“IOF news ---The Czech Republic got silver and was very satisfied with that. “Minna was first at the last control. I had to punch an extra time and had no chance to pass her, but silver is good”, smiles Dana Brozkova.«

I recall something even more spectacular at the 25manna 2007

If you can’t punch quickly enough or you are in line than you will probably lose the sprint. Last control in my opinion is more or less formality and it is there just because to make the start of the run-in and to bring spectators closer. In most cases control is placed in open parts where you could see the Finish and you don’t need to orient anymore.

I think that we could easily use the same approach as it is in cycling. Just put big fancy O commercial transparent there and all the runners must go under it. Something similar as it is Flame Rouge at Tour de France

I noticed that Dana B seemed to have to wait for Minna K to punch. I like the idea of a 'no punch' control at the far end of the finish chute. Especially when an advertiser has paid to have their logo on it ;)

In a local event a week ago we had a finish dead heat according to software. But we only had one finish box. Two runners in a sprint finish both had their stick in at the same time. Maybe Dana was too polite.

How do you prove runners presence in CP without punching in any competition?
It's part of the game. Dana faced this tens times before. Maybe Dana simply was to slow? To last CP and to finish? To be first to last CP means that you can choose which SI station to punch (if more than one present), how and where to position your body during punch, from which side to approach. And every runner knows this.
TheInvisibleLog> did you tried to had SI in control station when other stick present? At our local event somebody left tip of broken SI card inside control station. Nobody were able to punch until tip was removed, because SI station was busy communicating with left tip. But it could depend on hardware and software version.

Two punching units at the last control in a mass-start race seems like very poor planning. Imagine the additional complication if there had been a runner from Leg 2 there, fumbling the punch, when the Leg 3 pack arrived. I was also surprised to see people repairing the stand by wrapping tape* around it and piling rocks on the base. For something as high-profile as this, I think the controller should have called for maybe three stands with two punching units each.

*After this repair, I saw several runners seeming to have difficulty, perhaps because the punching unit that was taped on was somewhat loose?

The last CP for 3rd leg at 1:49:40. Replay WOC Women Relay Dana just spent more time to punch then Minna but would probably start finishing earlier if....she must go just thru the control.

@jjcote..More stands and SI units help but not always. Look at 25Manna, 2 stands and 4 units I suppose.

Runners are under a lot of stress in this kind of situations. Runners have to do only two task during the course, finding the controls and punch it. At last control they must usually also decide which stand and which SI unit and sometimes it is difficult to choose the best option. Spectators know that could something strange happen at the last control and that could spoil the whole entertaiment. Nobody want that. So I think that would be even more intense to watch that kind of finish with no punch of the last control. From TV perspective it would be also good to show only athletes physical abilites. It was so good to watch men running thru arena, especially I remembered Merz. We should show also this part of elite orienteering.

Ok, let's refuse SI cards, enough just to touch prism? Or let's do finish from second last control?
SI or EMIT is intended to prove runners presence in CP in correct order and provide split times. Punching system "TV broadcasting" isn't licensed by IOF.
You want different rules for events with TV coverage? I don's see sufficient reason even for starting this thread, not to mention changing something.

There is a basic flaw and that's why the conversation was started you fool. There simply needs to be more SI units, no need for a electronic gate.
Brozkova had to wait to punch behind Minna and therefore a 'headstart' was gained, in case you hadn't realised. More SI units would have made it fairer which is a prime reason something would need to be addressed such as this

If Brozkova ran a few XC races, she'd learn how to make use of her elbows at a control

...Punching system "TV broadcasting" isn't licensed by IOF...
Not yet but it will be one day. Till then we could use more open rules just for the last control. I am not talking about electronic gate or touching anything. Just pure running thru. Transperent with 5m in width. We have had a lot of marshals at the sprint events today and that is good but to have one marshal at the last control that would be outrageous. It is just like at the changeover. Someone must check that runners make a proper changeover. ...maybe not like I said but I don't see any real obstacle. Punching itself is not the ability we would like to show. It is just a compulsory task because we haven't had other electronic system yet. Split times from the last control, finish from second last control.....you are talking about forest and you just don't see the trees.

...You want different rules for events with TV coverage?...
You could have good or bad TV production. To be more exactly, you need to think about every aspect about how orienteering will look like on the screen. A lot of things are still to be done or should be improved for good TV production. It is not just the last CP, someone could bring other issues and they already did. We have seen that some of them were bad and some were good. I just pointed out the last control. I think it is worth to do something about it.

I like forum and this thread it is just for fun for people who like to discuss o-things. Nothing more. You could easily say that but I could also say, dream on.

The race starts at the start, you need to find controls and punch. The last control is no different, you still have to find and punch it, even if it is a spectator easy one. Minna worked hard to get the lead into the last, she was rewarded with a quick punch, Dana arrived a little later - 1 or 2 secs - she chose to use the same unit as Minna, she could have used the other one that was free. Annika used the other unit, she was fast through the control, so if Dana had used the unit that Annika had, would we have a different result.

BTW, how come Sweden is credited with a time only 1 sec behind Czech Republic, when the video shows she was about 8 secs behind the race for the line

The crucial moment is before the last punch - if Dana had really felt that she could outsprint Minna she would have made an effort to get to the last punch first. I suspect she knew Minna would be faster in the chute and resigned herself to holding onto 2nd.

My viewing of the punching from watching the replay is that Minna successfully blocked both punches, and the only reason the Swede was able to punch so fast is that Dana & Minna had already left. The punches weren't really side by side, they were slightly angled - from what I could see. So when Minna punched at the first punch it was not possible for Dana to go around to the second. It seems to me that Minna did a faster punch (two-handed) while Dana fumbled a bit (one handed). But overall this seems silly to decide a race like that - for one thing it makes the sport look a bit strange (kind of like dq'ing runners for stepping on the grass ;-).

The organizers of any mass start event have to realize that the final control is crucial and must be carefully set up with multiple punches, all equally accessible. Heck it is listed in the "Barebones - mistakes we have made" page - and if we can figure it out... ! But I still say even better is to have the no-punch start to the finish chute - then we would have seen a fantastic running race across the field. And it won't be that long, surely, before we have no-punch at all controls - just as soon as technology gets there (it is already almost there in ski-O)

@AZ: I'm guessing this is the link unless you say otherwise:

Barebones Mistakes (see 2004)

Writing down mistakes is a really good idea.

@AZ: But overall this seems silly to decide a race like that - for one thing it makes the sport look a bit strange (kind of like dq'ing runners for stepping on the grass ;-).

Excactly. But it could be much worse. Stand was not fixed very well. Just imagine if Minna would accidentally turned over the stand with the body or leg. What would then the whole world see; Dana and Anikka trying to catch the stand instead of punching the control.

@simmo: I don't think so. Why we have a finish chute in first place. She was probably concentrating on to the control itself and how she would punch it and she hasn't took a risk to run side by side or outsprint Minna as she could also lost 2nd position. No, Dana was fighting till the end and I think she was stronger. Nobody in elite orienteering resigned yourself to holding onto 2nd. She lost her chances at the last control. Bacause of the same reason we don't have the finish control.

It's not like the last control was a surprise. Even I've been in races where punching at the last control is that close. And you know that if you're not first to the last control then your gonna give your competitor a big lead in the finish sprint - so you sprint harder to get to the last control first and then try to hang on down the chute.

Yep, but in my opinion that is not okay, not even at Barebones let alone at WOC

@cedarcreek - yes, exactly. 2004 - a super exciting finish to the Barebones Chase (for 2nd, 3rd, 4th) ruined by having only one last punch available. It was agony to watch the runners waiting to punch as we immediately realized how we'd wrecked what should have been a great sprint finish - we had been lucky enough to have created a course that had the perfectly exciting finish that chases, mass starts, relays all hope for and then we had ruined it all by not thinking through that final race down the finish chute. Bummer.

Worse than the (sort of) block at the last control is the fact that the race could have been decided during the boringly long run in that had nothing to do with navigation. Fortunately in this case the first peron to the last control also won the race and the Swedish girl who was in third place coming to the last control sportingly let the other two fight it out.

Watching the video I don't think Minna blocked Dana but because Dana punched the same unit I think there was probably a delay with the beep (like often happens with SI) whereas Annika went for the other unit so was quicker.
Anyway anyone who saw Minna's face as she ran through the arena before the final loop had no doubt who was going to win that race!

There were 8 finish boxes at WMOC sprints this year. Somehow a few people were DQd for showing no punch at the last control at the head of the finish chute. At least one of them stuck an SI card in a finish box but it didn't register. Bad box? Too fast a punch? Who knows, but really unfortunate.

JennyJ - there isn't any significant difference whether you've followed someone into an SI box or not. It's a confidence thing, if you're not 100% sure the punch has worked you go back and make sure. There's a lot going on at control 100 in a WOC relay final leg when 3 are there at once fighting for the medals, and the noise of the arena won't have helped... Given the choice between 'oh crap did I punch that, am I going to get DQd, better make sure' and actually getting DQd I know what I'd go for...

Charlie - I see this all the time. 99+% of the time it's user error (predominantly punching too fast), and often it's when using an old card 5 which takes noticeably longer than a card 6/8/9, especially if someone next to you has punched faster. There's a solution: make 100% sure your punch has registered and you've seen the beep flash.

But I still say even better is to have the no-punch start to the finish chute - then we would have seen a fantastic running race across the field.

Doesn't that just move the issue back to the previous control? And if so, could you accomplish the same thing by making the finish chute longer?

(I have no problem, BTW, with your basic idea: for certain controls, instead of requiring punching, just require running through an arch, in view of video cameras and people taking note of numbers.)

andrewd are you sure there isn't a significant difference?

@andrewd: .....am I going to get DQd, better make sure'...

Take a look, Marianne did this. She had lucky that nobody was around her. Good for her and bad for TV and sport.

Someone will say that this mistake is like a navigational mistake in the forest and it is part of the sport; what are you doing, oh no.... The issue is not the same and especially not for the other controls. Last control is the most crucial control when it comes who will win. Also TV shows that part. I would say very similar to any athletics run, if you want to win you must show great sprint. Nobody at third or second last control is sprinting but if you are together at the last control anyone would make an additional effort. We must give them a chance when it comes to that kind of situations.

There's a solution: make 100% sure your punch has registered and you've seen the beep flash

ha ha...

We had strategy of making sure we see always two flashes. It did not work, two flashes and beeps were seen but still no puch registered. The guy remembers the punching and flashes very well, it was last leg of a 10 leg relay, no other runners (nearest rivals were 10 minutes ahead or behind) and no hurry at all, our team was over hour behind. What makes it special it was drinking control but it was all too early (4th control) so he did not drink. And while punching he was thinking this not drinking means he will not forget to punch like it sometimes happens. That made that punching sort of speciall and that's why he still remembers those two flashes so well. 4th control, 43relay 2010. Runner is quite experienced, used to be to 70 IOF WR ranked a decade ago.

and he's not the only one right?

@jj - I did wonder if a no-punch at the start of the finish chute would just move the problem back one control. But I don't think it does. I think the two differences are that with the no-punch, from the second last control (the last one to be punched) a) there is more time to make up for "being blocked", and b) there is more orienteering left to do. In other words, from the last control it is simply a sprint along the taped route, but from the second last control there is usually some orienteering to be done. So I don't think it just moves the problem back.

as far as I'm aware it's the same time to punch irrespective of a 'clean' control or one that's just been punched.

I guess random glitches in hardware can happen, but in my experience I haven't seen any.

I definitely 'feel' like it has happened to me but who knows if it is true - there must have been som testing.

How about replacing last control with "a mandatory crossing point". Discussed here not so long ago: http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me...

or just use a funnel finish line with last CP in the forest and then make them navigate into the funnel. This was done at WOC in 1978 because I believe Liisa V. of finland messed this up by running to the edge of the funner and not the optimal straight line route and therby opening the door for Anna Berit Eid to take the gold.

At WMOC there was no reasonable way a person could get to the finish without passing the last control. I may have forgotten, but I think one of the DQs might otherwise have been a medalist.

Makes one wonder what purpose that last control could possibly serve, then. Usually the point of the last control is to ensure that everyone is approaching the finish from the same direction. It's not useful to have a control that is just there to make people stop momentarily.

It is so good to read so many different thoughts and experiences with the last control.

Each control is somehow a mandatory crossing point. One of the reason why to use last CP should be also in promotion of orienteering. Spectators want to see runners and placing the last control in a close visual contact of a large group of spectators it is important. Yes and running through an arch will also promote the advertiser too. It is just need to be clear how big the arch could be (or what kind of stands are allowed) to form a place with a very clear idea where is course and where isn't. One of the requirements to use this kind of CP should be also a distinctive control description for this kind of CP. We could use the same analogy for CP in arena before the last loop.

JennyJ - yes I'm sure there was very extensive testing, but with any system such as this I'm sure there are tiny chances things will go wrong. Having sat in many a download tent using SI kit (and not just at O events) I've yet to see huge amounts of it happening. 18000+ runs at the 6 days, say 15 controls a course on average, that's a quarter of a million punches! I don't think there were more than 2 or 3 each day who came to our table, of which I'd have guessed most were user error as they were generally card 5's which take a bit longer... Not conclusive by any means but from my experience it's a very very occasional thing to go wrong.

@JennyJ (& others). Here is a picture of the critical moment in the relay. You can see that there is no way for Dana to get to either punch - Minna's arm is covering other punch. By going to the left of the control stand (as we look at it) Minna effectively won the race - mostly because of the strange angle of the control stand. Dana went to the right of the control stand, which made it much easier for the Swedish woman to punch. I have absolutely no problem with what Minna did and absolutely no idea if she even thought about this. But I do think it clearly shows the problem

2.5 m high, 2.5 m wide (minimum, perhaps bigger?)
Control markers on the posts on both sides (must run between markers)
Something horizontal across the top (could be blank cloth or netting, could be an advertising banner) so that the runners can easily see where the arch is. Sort of like a finish line. Easy to build out of a modified volleyball net for lower-level competitions.
"∩" symbol on control descriptions, I would say in column D, though others may say column H. I suppose the arch needs a control code, which should be prominent on the control markers at the sides (to distinguish it from any other such arch).
Some means of recording runners passing through -- two video cameras, minimum.
Should probably be used only in view of spectators.

I like the idea of the archway by why use two cameras JJ? Isn't the light-beam finish already incorporated into the SI system? Is using another light-beam to record the time at the go control cost-prohibitive?

why re inventing the weel? There already is mandatory crossing point and isom symbols and control description symbols for it.

That is great explanation JJ. I just think that arch shouldn't be filled with a hot air or any kind of balons which need a compressor to stand up. Arch or other equipment shouldn't produce any sound. Also height of the arch should be limited so the runners could't see from far away. Yes, arch should be treated like a every other CP with markers and control number. I don't think that additional cameras are needed as already camera from a TV production will record all runners. Marshals could be enough.

Two cameras so that in case one fails, you have a backup. (A video camera these days is a very small and cheap piece of equipment.) Also, by having the cameras at different angles, you increase the chances that you'll have a clear view of each runner, in case two come through at the same time, with one blocking the view of another. For smaller events, it's sufficient to have an official with a clipboard to check people off as they pass through, those who do not are DSQ, but that has to be checked against the video. Video can also be used to generate split times for that control if desired (reasonable to do for events without too many competitors).

I'm not making any assumptions about what other equipment would be in use at the event (e.g. SI light beams). Two $100 cameras is a minimum amount of equipment that could be arranged by any small club if it was used for a lesser event. For prestigious events like WOC, more sophisticated methods could certainly be used. TV production cameras are of course fine, although they are unlikely to be present at the national championships in my country! I think the technology is already readily available to have the runners use shoe-chips as are already common in road races, which would take care of the punching and splits for arch controls (which would then have to be merged with the epunch splits, but that's a simple matter). Having both epunch and a shoe-chip would work for WOC, not for some lesser events.

For the height of the arch, I think the only important thing is that it be high enough for biggins to get through while running without having to duck.

Mandatory crossings? Sure, just use a mandatory crossing instead of an arch control. Of course, there's no mechanism for ensuring that someone uses a mandatory crossing. You could have officials watching to make sure that they do... but that's starting to sound like an arch control.

Questions: Should an arch control have a different symbol on the map than the ordinary circle used for a normal control? Does an arch control need to be at a terrain feature, or can the arch itself be the feature (essentially a temporary man-made object)? I would tend to say that there does not need to be a feature, since I expect that arch controls would often be used in the middle of featureless open areas (although an arch control certainly could be placed next to a mapped feature if desired, which ensures getting it in the right place!).

This is a window onto a larger issue, which is that going to all of the specified locations is an inherent part of orienteering, but stopping at them is not, and neither is punching. It's "part of the game" only because we have been limited by the available equipment. An orienteering race where the runners could pass though all of the control points without slowing down would be "better" than one where they have to keep stopping. I think we will eventually see this, though maybe not at all levels. It will probably come first in ski-O and urban sprint races. I think it would be a simple matter already for the WOC sprint to use shoe chips instead of SI punches, and have no need for the competitors to stop, they just pass between two control posts, with an orange/white stripe on the ground.

How wide do you propose the arch to be?

I'm not convinced that there's a problem with the way it is - first one to the punch in this situation has earned whatever advantage they get. Introduce a mandatory crossing/arch/slalom poles and you still have the chance that people are elbowed out.

Minimum 2.5 m width was my suggestion. I'm picturing something wide enough that two can pass through simultaneously. If everyone is moving, small differences don't get magnified. Imagine a runner from an earlier leg causing interference at the punch in a relay. Less of an issue with an arch. (Ask me about the 1993 Billygoat someday.)

(The elbowing principle suggests that a finish line should be as wide as a doorway, and the winner is the one who gets through first, no photo finishes.)

Should an arch control have a different symbol on the map than the ordinary circle used for a normal control?

No, for all controls must be used the same symbol on the map. We use finish symbol but you also have stands and finish arch at the finish line today.

Arch control point and mandatory crossing point are two different things to me. We haven't used no punch control at any major event so far. Runners should know what to expect so control description should be different as it is now for mandatory crossing point. They should know the difference as it could happen that both symbols are used at one course. Also you could have more mandatory crossing points on the map for one leg. We must avoid possible confusion with a clear control description for an arch control. The arch width should be fixed, let say from minimum 3 to 5m but for mandatory crossing point you can't fix it. Mandatory crossing point should also be taped in the terrain compare to an arch control which I see it without any taped route to the arch and out of the arch control.

What I mean is, should there be an indication on the map (in addition to on the control description) that a control is an arch control? I'm thinking of something like a control circle, but also with a purple diameter line showing the direction of the arch. That way a runner will realize from looking at the map when to expect an arch control, without looking at the control descriptions.

A mandatory crossing doesn't have to be part of a taped route, but I agree with you that an arch control is a different sort of thing. I like the idea. Sometimes there might be arch controls in open areas that are not visible to the approaching runner because they are behind a thicket or boulder or something. Or even on a trail in the forest, in an area with a lot of similar trails. Navigation to the arch control is still required. TV cameras can show competitors running through without needing to stop.

Science fiction I'd say. And what you plan to do with camera's records? Recently you watched WOC where is limited number of runners and they are well known, but not all. This is one competition in year. But...
Every year thousands events is held without bibs, without numbers, some runners not local or unknown. Numbers and bibs often is lost. What to do? Check after event records for some hours and keep asking people maybe anybody knows this guy? Postpone prize giving to next week, maybe someone will come? Runner is identified by SI or EMIT, not bib or chest number. If you lost number, your result is still valid.
Oh no.... last control is still control and should be punched. If you want running competition, you can do longer finish. But this time it was long enough to change things if you are able. Finish time differences was quite significant.
And don't forget: rules stands for ALL events. More than 99% events is held without TV and without spectators.

I think by calling them mandatory crossing points (or funnel) you could have those ach controls in a WRE race like tomorow. If O community likes the idea it may later get the special arch symbol if it is needed. But by inventing special symbols and other new/confusing stuff you may just make it harder to get it accepted. As I can see it may not be that good idea to put thode in forest, but replacing last control with it doesn't sound that bad idea at all. As far as I know it is not said funnel/MCP can't have cameras and stuff.

@AZ That picture looks quite different to the video though as that is just a split second!
Andrewd I have never been disqualified for it though I've just had to leave the card in longer or go back to it (or at least I've felt like I have)

One thing I'd like to see tried is some sort of funnel on top of the SportIdent box.

Anyone who has paid close attention knows that the hole is the size it is to prevent debris from collecting and blocking the coil. Even blocking the bottom of the hole (by a base) has caused problems punching, especially in snow. The current design is actually pretty good in snow---You can usually clear the snow off the top with your hand and see the hole.

So---just for Go controls and finish boxes (when it's not a WOC with a run-through finish), I'd love to see an add-on attachment with a big lead-in funnel.

This isn't intended for most races, or for races with many participants. It's for high profile events that may be televised. I can imagine it also being used at our national championship, for only the H21 and D21 courses. We have special provision for radio controls as well, with a special symbol on the control descriptions, but 99% of races don't have them.

You can't have a mandatory crossing point that has any meaning unless you have a way to enforce it. So if you want an arch control in a field behind a thicket (one of several thickets), there would be nothing to stop runners from just bypassing the control, if it were just a mandatory crossing point. And unless a mandatory crossing point corresponds to something that exists in the terrain (like a gap in a fence, or a bridge), it's too vague to have meaning.

So---just for Go controls and finish boxes (when it's not a WOC with a run-through finish), I'd love to see an add-on attachment with a big lead-in funnel.

Well-intentioned, but that would be really annoying for me because of the way I carry my SI. Or maybe for somebody with big hands. Or who is short. (If there's one unit available with no funnel, then I'm fine)

It's not clear what the angle of the funnel would need to be. It's possible a very shallow angle might work, and still allow you to punch.

the H21 and D21 courses

There haven't been any in a long while... they are M21 and W21.

Sorry. I do stand corrected. But you know what I mean.

Hell, I've got an SI6*, Matt. I only have to get within a few meters of the control anyway. And it lets me walk on water and fly over olive green areas.

AndrewD - Electronic systems do fail. There have been a couple of extensive discussions about this and obviously people would prefer it if we all thought these systems work (almost) perfectly. They don't. See here and particularly here

Yeah, I'm envious of that SI6*. Very envious.

Another idea instead of a vertical funnel would be something horizontal, like an (inverted) NACA duct (1 direction of approach) or a Maltese Cross (4 directions), where the dibber would start in a wide spot, get funneled horizontally over the hole and then downward.

{Edit}

Or even maybe 8 radial "walls" like a hollow Maltese Cross to give 8 directions of approach, plus a gentle vertical funnel near the hole.

Please have these suggestions in production by the start of the summer season, April 1st.

Perhaps its time to change to modern technology and use the much faster Chinese electronic punching system. All that sunk capital. Sigh.

I'm in the process of designing courses for two orienteering events right now. I may have to put an arch control (the world's first?) into one of them.

I wonder how many people will stop after crossing under the arch thinking that it is the finish line.

I wonder how many people will stop after crossing under the arch thinking that it is the finish line.

Only the people who can't read their map or their control descriptions? But I bet they'll figure it out when others go flying past them...and when they realize there's none of the usual finish-line activity (water, snacks, download, other finishers milling around, etc.).

....or a Maltese Cross (4 directions)...

I was thinking about this too, especially as I saw arch control more like this in first place. Look at picture in the first post. Maybe for the last control this is not a problem to have only in and out - 2 directions. But you must be very sure that all the runners would approach the control from one direction. Using a Maltese Cross for other controls could be one of allowed designs for no punch control. But in this case it is also a problem how you enter and leave the Maltese Cross. Sometimes people step in and out in the same direction. Maybe we should have to put a control (stand and a flag) in the center or (lowered from the top on a 1,5m height from the ground) in the center of Maltese Cross and runners should have just to touch the flag.

I also like stands as they use it in Cross country skiing and Biathlon. Maybe 2 or 4 of them for control point.

@Jagge: I checked the above link. I didn't know that they use shoe chip (champion chip) at JWOC sprint. It seems also a good idea for no punch control. How it went, any problems?

I think I would still prefer arch control as it looks better and one of the reason to use arch should be also a good exposure of the advertiser.

Looks better, How? What I ment, is an arch as you describe, with ads and all. At the end of funnel/start of the chute or where MPC symbol is placed. The place we usually now have last contol. How having a special arch symbol at map/control description makes it any better exposure for the advertisers?

I don't see what it is a problem here. Yes, arch could be placed in the same place as it is now the last control, just before the start of the finish chute. But could be also a little bit earlier, it depends on course design which shouldn't be compromised by an arch control. Some advertiser arches could be also placed in the middle of the finish chute (as we saw at WOC) just because of the marketing reasons.

No, no, I mean arch itself. You have in most cases spectators at the last control and if people at the event and TV audience watch the arch for 2 hours that is exposure which is important. You don't have many places at orienteering course where you could do this compare to other more TV friendly sports. So why not use the last control to actually sell it to the advertisers. In cycling they sell start, finish, mountain finish, etc.

Special map symbol was proposed by JJ and I don't know what excactly he had in mind but he definetly wasn't thinking to make it to please the advertiser. I see this new map/control description symbol just in context of additional clarification how control looks and that runners can expect different design of CP in the terrain than they are used for other "normal controls".

But if we want to give also a space for an arch control advertiser on the control description sheet I would proposed to put advertiser logo instead of a number for arch CP. You actually don't need it.

The "Maltese Cross" that cedarcreek was talking about is something completely different than what you're talking about, kofols. (Your idea may be also good.) He's describing a small device (maybe 30 cm) that would fit on top of an SI punching station that would make it easier to get the punch into the hole quickly. I don't have time to draw a picture right now.

We have had O on TVand last control / intermediate control archs and ad banners are already sold to advertisers, for years. You dont need to have special arch controls description symbols to do it, you can use normal control, funnel finish or MCP just fine. Only if you like to have arch in middle of forest behind a bush without anymapped feture you may need to use something special.

Are you talking this for the Nordic countries as I don't remember to see any at WOC? I assume you are also not talking about banners which are also CP all together as one. So how close to the control is allowed to put the banner? Is this somehow prohibited at WOC? Who have rights to sell this things at WOC? Organizer or IOF? Do we have any kind of marketing guidelines? As I am aware only TV rights are under IOF for now but in other sports marketing issues are exactly defined by the International Sports Organization already for very obscure things. Just look at Olympics or FIFA world cup. If I remembered correctly at FIFA world cup 2010 they prohibited spectators outfit (I think that was for short skirts and colour design) just because it was sponsored by brewery which was not the official FIFA sponsor.

National TV events.

You dont need to have special arch controls description symbols to do it,....

Jagge, I think we misunderstood. I am talking this only when arch is in the same time also a CP. Runners must have some information about the control if you put it on a empty map place instead of using map feature. But as I understood your case, you put advertiser arches on course or near the control in area of cameras view. So how is this described in the controls description sheet? Do you use any map/control description symbols to represent arches? How big and wide could be the banner/arch that you could consider it as an object, feature? Is this required by FIN Rules?

JJ: I'm in the process of designing courses for two orienteering events right now. I may have to put an arch control (the world's first?) into one of them.

Let us know when you open the bidding for advertising on the "first arch." ;-)

fence (chute or fence for keeping spectators out of way), NE corner of a field or what ever. I guess it inherits from o ringen, at FIN5 and Kainuu the setup looks like this http://yle.fi/ecepic/archive/00327/Fin5_suunnistus...
5 last controls, 5 banners, 5 sponsors - one sponsor for each control. In elite only events you just have one instead of 5 and you can use the arch used in Xc skiining.I couldnt find any photos but I think Ihave seen them on TV.

At WMOC each race had the same last control feature. The code was X (man-made object). It was a wooden wishing well with a long tongue that supported 8 SI boxes, 4 on each side. It was positioned at the head of the chute, and the chute was taped so you couldn't get in there without passing the well.