Discussion: Scratched to hell...

As good as me?

"I don't care where they put them and how they map it...."

Controls such as you describe do piss off those who believe in/want to see good, accurate maps with cp's at sufficiently well-defined places (defensible) etc. My increasing "roil" at any such potentially lame choice would likely lead to my having "cloudy vision".

I get angry more easily than you about controls such as this, and have reminded myself to have your attitude more often.
If you are complaining, it was probably poor mapping and control location.

You and Wyatt seem to have identical sentiments about that control.

First: I hope that Gail and house get electric back sooner than expected. That was quite a hit for October.

Since you asked. :) Yes, I 'heard' that Wyatt agreed with your assessment.

My goal of the 'tree in field' control was to provide a physical and mental 'change of pace' late in a Blue course that had featured high visibility, mostly good running oak forest (despite blackberries and rose grabbing you). The leg required distinct planning and execution compared to the rest of the course.

As a mediocre orienteer, I'd like to think I would have approached this control cautiously from 11 in this manner: rough bearing across road to stream; check off stream junction; rough bearing out of woods into yellow and foot of shallow reentrant; accurate bearing to tree - yes, there's the tree on right side of upper part of reentrant. I felt that I provided readable features to get you there.

Should this "distinct tree" have been mapped? I'm not certain, but it was the only tree in the control circle. Its mapped location was accurate.

By RG, 4 of the top 10 runners on Blue (this tree was only on Blue course), lost 1-3 minutes on this 3 minute leg. Does that make it "challenging" or "unfair"? Your call.

With a small field, I was pleased that 4 runners broke 7 min/K on a course with no trail running until the last half K.

Rick--I enjoyed the course a lot. Thanks.

I can appreciate the logic behind that control, and it was correctly placed, which is always much appreciated.

I do think that the mapper's interpretation in that area may not be to everyone's liking. It was one control that might have been better to have "dumbed down" a bit, by keeping it out of the dubious vegetation.

I also think that the map might benefit from some form lines in certain areas. The area around that contol was one.

But, in any case, those are quibbles. The whole weekend, and every course I did, were a lot of fun. Much appreciated!

Not to quarrel, but to clarify, the vegetation has changed dramatically in the last 18 months at CR. I would not have mapped that field (and certianly not the area around the finish of the Night) the same today as I did then. I tried to get back out as much as I could this fall to update things, and for the most part was successful, but not everything got hit. I think this one was OK, though less than perfect. The finish of the Night was terrible - it's the first time I've really felt that I put a substandard map in the hands of A-meet competitors.

CR is a very large area (25Km^2) and one that is currently changing rather quickly. I plan to spend a significant (several weeks) amount of time out there between now and our next A-meet to address the issues. Unfortunately, with only 100 or so people showing up at our meets, it's very hard to fund mapping efforts properly. We do the best we can and I really do appreciate the feedback as it helps direct the efforts. I'm hoping that St. Louis A-meets remain viable, but the market is speaking pretty clearly here. We've tried every format we can think of and folks just don't come.

I liked the relay map--I thought it was quite good.

And CR is fine, but I don't know how to put this delicately--OK for a 1980's map. I imagine it is changing, but it isn't changing that much. If you invested in a quality map you could host a US Champs out there, and use the map for years. Sometimes you need to tear down and put in a better foundation if you are hoping to be on the parade of homes.

In any case, I look forward to coming back whenever you do another event.

I enjoyed the meet, but the race selection at St. Louis events has discouraged me from attending in the past. I certainly wouldn't have attended if the event hadn't been the relay champs, and if CSU hadn't made a concerted effort to field teams.

I can't speak for the O-community broadly, but one thing I look for in an A-meet is nationally ranked races. The Corn Maze and sprint are nice add-ons, but since the Night-O doesn't count for the team trials (something only M/F-21 would care about), the meet had only one A-meet race - the Middle. In my view, relay, night, and ultralong events are novelties that are fun from time to time, but the real draw are sprint, middle, classic, and long ranked races. I don't recall far enough back in time to know if SLOC has been more successful with standard SML or 2x classic formats, but that would certainly have more appeal for me.

That noted, I did enjoy the weekend - I had never been to Missouri, and trying new terrain is always exciting. To really attract competitors, I think you need more A-meet races. Of course, it may be that SLOC is too remote from other clubs to draw the numbers that you see in the northeast and western A-meets.

We've done the 2-day classic and SML formats with only slightly higher attendance. The one exception was the Al Smith meet when we got 200. I think that was largely the O community responding to Al's passing.

While the 98 we got this weekend was painfully low, I don't mind holding A-meets with 150 or so competitors. From a meet director's standpoint, it's a very workable scale. We don't have the manpower for 300-400. However, to do the type of "do-over" on a map the size of CR that j-man suggests is simply beyond the budget with those numbers. Just doing the update from the 1988 map (updating vegetation and fixing the really big issues with contours) was a 2-month fieldwork effort. We are eagerly awaiting the LIDAR data, which might help the contours considerably, but the hyper-detailed, WOC-style mapping is just not going to happen out there (nor, frankly, do I think it's appropriate for that type of terrain).

Hopefully, the storms we saw earlier this year were something of a fluke, because 4 of our best maps have been ruined by them. None of that crap at the finish of the night was there 9 months ago.

Should everything be put at the feet of the mapping? Time constraints and co-ordination of the team surely play as great a role in the final result. After all, courses are pre-run, controls are vetted. Given enough time and communication,
courses can be moved off rough parts of the map, and rough parts of the map can be smoothed.

State of the art mapping is not going to produce a map that looks like a WOC map if that map is of terrain that bears no resemblance to WOC areas. There aren't a lot of details at CR, or at least not as many as at Harriman or WOC. Is it still good terrain? I think so, and I think it is enjoyable enough to consider a high-profile event, compensating for reduced technical difficulty with other attributes.

I have only been to CR once (past weekend), and in a limited fashion. My comments may be off base, but I think you could consider a US Champs there and could expect to get 400 people if you did it right. I think you would only need 10 square K to do it.

Again, just playing fast and loose... I think $700/K is a reasonable (maybe low rate) for that mapping (but that mapping would be easy, and go fast.)

$7,000 vs. revenues of $20,000? I think it is possible. The manpower issue is a different one, but what if you called upon some friends from Kansas or Chicago?

Anyway, this is of course unsolicited advice, and sort of self-indulgent. Just trying to get more people to enjoy what St. Louis can offer. :)

I wonder if this year was particularly hard on numbers despite relay/night-o champs because SML champs the exact week before? Say you had to pick one or the other to travel to, because time/money constrains, I'd guess most would choose SML over relay+night-o champs, and maybe did...

Well, let me go ahead And solicit the advice. It's only through frank feedback that one improves. I think the big problem with CR is the contours and that will largely be fixed when LIDAR becomes available. I spent a ton of time mapping vegetation (which was the big problem with the old map) but the areas we used last weekend were all white woods prior to the summer storms.

The area is worth more effort. I do believe I'm up to the task (people have generally liked my work at Hawn and S-F, which are much harder to map). We just got caught flat-footed by the storm damage. I hope you (and lots of others) will return when we get it sorted out.

The vrey first A-meet I went to was at CR and I'm pretty sure it was a US champs. I think the year was around 1980. I don't know how many people were there but there seemed like quite a few (100's). I do remember some short guy with a shaggy beard that I later learned was Peter.

Since you asked...

Eric, one thing I noticed when I quick-routed the middle distance was that the large trail, just east of #6 on the red course, seemed a lot further in reality than it was shown on the map. That may be worth looking in to, or maybe it's just a GPS blip. That trail is probably large enough to show up on an aerial photo.

Also, on the night-o, my track shows me leaving #3 and going north through open woods - I was definitely in rough open, with tall grasses. That's probably also something that an aerial photo could pick up.

I enjoyed the courses, though, and thought that the map was just fine for a regular A meet, aside from that nasty stuff to the last control on the night-o =).

Thanks Alex. We've probably taken up enough of Peter's log on this topic, but if anybody else has specific issues, feel free to email me. I've heard the LIDAR data will be available early next year. After overlaying that, I'm going to head back out for more field checking.

My two cents -- I thought the contours were plenty good enough. Certainly were the couple of controls I screwed up in the middle that were in the woods. Perhaps others have a much more discriminating eye? I remember in 1980 people thought the contours were excellent, and I still think so.

The much harder thing to map is the vegetation, plus it changes. I wasn't happy with the open area mapping (or the reentrant of doom at the end of the night O), but I also wasn't handling it well. So I'm not sure how much might need to be changed.

The one place I noticed that I thought was wrong was actually in the sprint -- I think it was #3 on the middle sprint, southeast corner of an open area. Seemed to me the control (and therefore the southern border of the open area) was further south than mapped.

If I remember I'll post my old courses next week.

Actually, just reread Alex's note. I had a couple of times on trails that things just didn't feel right. But this was during the night O, so who knows.

Add I'm absolutely glad I went last week.

I thought the old contours were good enough, too... until I started mapping. Then it became obvious that there was just an awful lot that had been generalized away. I did some touch up work, but I was really holding out hope we'd get the LIDAR data last year as originally planned (budget cuts delayed the progress of getting the whole state done). I don't think contours werre the issue last weekend, but they could be better.

The open fields are a real quandary. So much depends on how long the grass/undergrowth is. In the spring, I'm sure you'd be a lot happier with the representation. Those trees really are very distinct when all the surface clutter is down. Frankly, I don't know why a course setter would even go there in the fall. They're not much fun with the high stuff and there's so much good wooded terrain nearby.

Anyway, I'm absolutely glad you came, too.

Just my 2 cents.

I really feel the Cuivre River terrain has a lot of promise. My biggest issue with the map was the mapping of the reentrant details. It's largely a question of mapper preference, but I had a lot of trouble with the various ways the upper parts of reentrants were depicted. Some of the detail was dry ditch, but a lot of it was tiny squiggles in the contours, and I have trouble reading the map when it's like that. I'm not sure this is what Eric means when he says, "...an awful lot ... had been generalized away". I prefer it when the drainage network is very clearly depicted, even if the details are exaggerated somewhat. I'm not sure my opinion is defensible, though---The map might really get cluttered. Hopefully Lidar will help to tighten-up the contour-only areas.

I really had a good time, though. Enjoyed every race.

I agree with cedarcreek. But, I will add--there were lots of good maps before LIDAR came around, and conversely--LIDAR doesn't guarantee a good map.

Cuivre River does have a lot of promise. Why short-change it?

With much less undergrowth -- like the area you go through just after turning off MO-147 -- CR would be awesome.

With much less undergrowth...CR would be awesome.

One of the principal problems about vanishing white woods in the midwest has been caused by man. It has taken many years for these invasives to spread. But in the twenty years I've been orienteering, I've noticed a definite increase.

The degrading of our midwestern forests over the past 100 -150 years continues, principally as a result of suppressed burning and disappearance of prairie fires that would burn across the landscape and through the forests, clearing out the understory. Our oak forests are an endangered ecosystem just as imperiled as any other, as woody shrubs and vines invade more and more of our clear and open forest:

Four main threats to the survival of this ecosystem have been identified: 1) loss of recovery opportunities as second home and residential development spread into more natural areas, 2) lack of general awareness of the globally threatened status of oak-savanna vegetation, 3) fire suppression and misunderstanding about the importance of burning in maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem, and 4) invasion by exotic plants such as honeysuckle...The need to protect these areas from logging is paramount.

If carefully managed, portions have good potential for recovery. It is estimated that within a few decades thousands of hectares of overgrown oak savannas on public and private lands could be recovered. Restoration techniques involve thinning, removing brush, and burning...

In CR Park, my perspective is that the increasing undergrowth is DUE TO the park's decision to restore oak savannas and praires. According to current ecological perspective, in days of yore before pioneers forested and farmed Missouri, Missouri was a blend of mature forests, savannas, glades, and praires. In the past 80 years in the Ozarks, as trees have regrown and hard-scrabble farms & grazing have disappeared, southern Missouri & CR park has matured into a 'magnificent' mono-culture: mature oak forests with little natural undergrowth due to shade and to poor soil conditions - not the ecology of yore - not great for varied fauna - but great for orienteering! The current direction being promoted in MO state parks, conservation areas, and to land-owners who 'listen' is restoration of glades, oak savannnas, and praire. Currently that means that young and medium oaks are thinned (hence the deadfall) which allows the desired undergrowth - thin but often prickly - in the progression towards 'oak savannas'. The undergrowth is thus a primary desired goal. Over a fairly short time period, the number of birds (woodpeckers, hawks, owls, & others) in CR seemed to have increased significantly. I suspect that rodents and snakes like the variety as well. Praire restoration currently yields fields with tall, spindly, grasses and weeds. I am not sure if the current 'praire' in CR represents the goal or is in transition towards natural grasses/grains. Controlled burns will be part of the ongoing restoration and maintenance, but to promote & 'guide' the undergrowth, not to eliminate it. I suspect that original praires were not "amber waves of grain".

The very open areas near the entrance to the park could be due to any combination of: controlled burn in past 1.5 years; area too steep for oak savanna and better suited to mature oak forest; or less likely - just later in the restoration schedule.

I started this strand on PG's log. I respectfully request that we end this strand except for continued discussion of MO's ecological philosophies. :)

Well I can't comment on MO and Cuiver River. But here in Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota invasives introduced by the white man are the principal problem in degrading our runnable woods. Take Buckthorn for instance:



Similar to many other invasives, it was brought to the midwest from Europe as a very popular hedging plant. It is still sold by some IL nurseries for that purpose. But it has invaded our forests, and continues to spread and thrive...does the picture above of formerly clean, white woods seem familiar? Orienteering hasn't been possible here for several years. And it is only getting worse because Buckthorn:

* Out-competes native plants for nutrients, light, and moisture
* Degrades wildlife habitat
* Threatens the future of forests, wetlands, prairies, and other natural habitats
* Contributes to erosion by shading out other plants that grow on the forest floor
* Forms an impenetrable barrier of vegetation
* Lacks "natural controls" like insects or disease that would curb its growth

Missouri has plenty of invasive species as well, especially honey suckle. In STL, Forest Park's aggressive by-hand elimination of honey suckle really opened up their woods - leaving bare ground until the undercover could begin to recover. It is just not the issue at CR, probably because in the 20th century MO Conservation Dept has led the nation in demonstrating the positive effects of aggressive controlled burning. Controlled burning continues to be a tool - with a different 'vision'.