Discussion: Scramble

What turned out to be the most efficient route? Can we get split times on the scramble? I picked ACEG since they were near main arteries that allowed for easy movement. I certainly wasnt sprinting since I was in it for the long haul, but I wonder what the best combination would be.

There's some discussion here.

I'm so pleased with how this turned out. I was afraid that everyone would take the same route, and the Scramble would be pointless, but in fact there were 11 different sequences that got used:
CDEF, 3.94 km (17)
ACDG, 3.80 km (14)
CDEG, 4.29 km (12)
ACEG, 4.17 km (9)
DCEG, 4.48 km (6)
ABEF, 3.93 km (5)
ABCG, 4.68 km (4)
CBEF, 4.27 km (4)
ABEG, 4.23 km (3)
ACDE, 4.17 km (3)
DCBE, 4.78 km (3)

The most popular control was C, which was visited by 72 of the 80 runners, and the least popular was B, visited by only 19. G was much more popular than F, despite that fact that I wondered if anybody would go to G at all. Shows how much I know...

I really can't see why anyone would go to G from E; it is clearly farther from E and then farther from #8.

[edited typo F -> E]

Going from F to 8 involves going around a marsh and crossing a pretty substantial ridge, offsetting some distance advantage.

I found it hard to formulate a strategy because the circles were so hard to see (faint purple) and I couldn't focus on more than one at a time. I came up with CDEF, which seems good and was most popular, but did it mostly on the theory that the most important thing was to get the decision made and keep moving.

Going from F to G? Huh? Nobody did that, or considered it, did they? Do you mean from E to G, Guy? That's a matter of having more trail running.

The scramble made this fun and challenging. It's the only Highlander of the ten I've done in which I was alone for the first map.

I think it's great the Scramble came back, but I am poor at these Score O things.
On the way to 1, Joe was indicating he thought D was a good one to go to 1st, as it was just off the trail, that then pretty mush made it DCEG. But as we (Hill and I) went up the road toward D (and C) PG and JJ seemed to be discussing C or D 1st. I had been thinking of coming into C from above, but silly me, JJ and PG cut off onto the trail below. DUH!
I will note on my map E was not labeled, so when talking to Hill, I was confused when she kept referring to E, and I couldn't find it on my map.

The 'scramble' is something we use in all of our THOMASS races but the number of checkpoints you have to visit varies depending on your age and gender (your handicap). What we have found that makes this the best is that there is a checkpoint in the middle of the scramble that must be visited before AND after the scramble. This makes for more options on the order the checkpoints are taken. It also makes for interesting strategy.

Added lengths to the list of options above. Note that although three previous Highlanders had scramble sections, none of those scrambles covered anywhere near the area that this one did, they were much more compact.

I get 62 visits to control E from Scramble runners.

An interesting statistic would be to estimate the climb on the options, as well. I was alone in the scramble and chose to run further, perhaps more difficult physically, legs, that were navigationally easier or less risky.

You're right, it's C that had 72 visits. E had only 62. Corrected above.

Guy O-

Logic to go from E to G then to 8 was contours. I could run NW toward the trail fast and then shoot off to attack G from above, then handrail the cliff line as I sped south to 8. The climb and indirect route choices of F made me think G was going to be easier and thus faster.

Has anyone yet counted the climb on any of the various routes?

I'm sure PG could tell you off the top of his head how much climb there was on CDEF.

JJ is just testing me, but I'll give it a try (without looking at the map) --

From 3 to C, on the road maybe 16 lines, just a guess, wasn't looking at the map much, trail was pretty flat, through the woods maybe 2, total 18.
From C to D, up the hillside not quite to the top, maybe 10, then out the flat hilltop, past the small knoll but not over it, down the hill, over the little knoll right at the end, 1 more, total 11.
From D to E, due south, up out of the first reentrant is 2, at some point turned to get on higher ground, 1 more, plus 1 more over the ridge, then down to the trail. Up the trail maybe 2. Then south into the woods, maybe 3 right away, then another 1 skirting a reentrant, that's about it, total 10.
From E to F, down, cross the stream, climb a little heading mostly south, 2, around the spur, heading west, maybe 1 more, then angle down to the marsh and around it, up to the point, 2 more, total 5.
From F to 8, through the green with a bit of a white gap, maybe 2 getting there, then up the long hillside, maybe 14, down to the point, total 16.
Overall total-- 18+11+10+5+16 = 60 lines = 300 meters.

Now time to look at the map to see how far I'm off, which shows I climbed 16 +12 + 10 + 4 + 12 = 54 lines = 270 meters. Not so bad, main error was the hill up to 8, felt worse than it was, I guess.

I wish I could remember more useful stuff.

Perhaps we could get this Highlander on Routegadget...

Jackie Jones: Scan with course, treat as score-O.
Rockhouse & Lake Welch Beach: standard RG setups.

I can provide the graphic materials if someone wants to handle the rest. I could probably even make one big Frankenstein map out of it. But first I need to get the splits posted.

If I counted correctly I only get about 34 or so lines going DCEG8, most (19) early on the way to D. = 170m

Yeah, that was the right way for me, though .20km longer than CDEG and .5km longer than CDEF.

@J-J: Doesn't the trail run pretty much nix the one-map objective?

The Frankenstein map could be fun, but it might not fit into RG. If it did, one might not be able to zoom in close enough to see small route details, or even enter one's route with some degree of accuracy.

I guess the problem, though, with separate maps is splitting up the splits. Not sure there is a way to do that with relative ease.

I have untold Frankenstein powers when it comes to using 0CAD and GIMP, Guy. I could definitely combine them all at unified scales if called upon to do so. I don't think the file size would necessarily be too bad.

As I said, it might be doable, but not desirable.

I don't know why it wouldn't be possible to zoom in. It wouldn't be much larger than (if even as large as) a map like SIlvermine or Surebridge, I don't think. On the other hand, I have limited experience with RouteGadget, so maybe I'm wrong. And I see your point about the two different formats, though maybe it would work to just treat the whole thing as a score-O?