Discussion: must climb be 4% or less always ?

Saw the IOF rule about climb not to exceed 4% of course length.

So, how strictly enforceable should this rule be? here in hilly Pittsburgh, with steep ravines, and majestic bridges in hilly and 3-dimensional urban park, that is hard to do when designing an advanced course.

To keep it under 4%, one would have to follow the main footpaths that contour around hills, not much fun for someone expecting an advanced course.

Here are the GPS coordinates of the park, in case if you're interested in seeing the terrain I am talking about... 40.4340, -79.9023

Unless you're hosting a WRE, World Cup race, WOC or other event that requires IOF sanctioning, why let an IOF rule prevent you from making the best possible use of the terrain?

And didn't the Japanese WOC courses have more like 8%?

John, I like your answer. Goats out there, the Pittsburgh grass is open for foraging...

Basically every single WOC and WC race I've run has a statement in the bulletin that they will not be observing the 4% climb rule.

The Long Blue at NAOC was 600m over 13.2km, which is 4.5%.

The 2009 US Middle Distance Champs at Salmon La Sac (which was a WRE, I believe) was 260m over 4.8km, which is 5.4%. Having consulted on course design there since, I feel that the course designer in 2009 did a considerable job in keeping the climb as small as he did.

Observe it on Brown courses as close as possible; don't worry as much about the rest of the courses.

If we followed this rule at BAOC we would end up having very few events. Many of our course setters have learned how to minimize the climb.

For those course setters that realize orienteering is a running sport, 4% climb should be a guideline, not a rule

majestic bridges in hilly and 3-dimensional urban park

A hilly 2-D park could be a problem.

>>majestic bridges in hilly and 3-dimensional urban park

>A hilly 2-D park could be a problem.

what I meant is that there are some really interesting route choices when the already-hilly park has, in addition, several bridges and viaducts that connect two hillsides soaring 30 m above from the creek below. Many people will not think about using such a bridge to save climb and time.

Keep in mind the 4% applies to optimum route, while course distance is computed in straight line. So a course listed as 8.5 km could have 400 m of climb, but if the optimum route is 10 km or longer, then the course technically does comply with the 4% rule.

I've always found climb measurements to be pretty arbitrary anyway - some course setters are know for greatly underestimating; other for consistently overestimating. Some are strict contour counters; others try to add a "fudge factor" for uneven terrain even when mapped contours or form lines are not crossed.

The bottom line I guess is you don't want a championship course to be so excessive that the physical ability over-weights the mental and navigational aspect. But orienteering has room for all kinds, just as goat events typically emphasize their high amounts of climb.

I think Jukola back in 2006 had 5% climb on most courses, but it had more to do with the steep terrain not allowing it for more flatter courses.

If you are organizing a local event, i dont think it should matter too much, but it is generally regarded as a douche move to send people up and down a hill if it weren't necessary. Sure, if it there were an epic viewpoint the coursesetter wants me to see, fine, ill bite, but other than that, lets not pretend it is a fun thing to do.

" Keep in mind the 4% applies to optimum route, while course distance is computed in straight line " so says the IOF.
Optimum route??? Which one is that? The one with the least climb?

"optimum route" is another thing that comes down to a lot of guesswork. What will be optimum for a top orienteer trying to complete the course in minimum time? You don't want to count every contour straight across a large hill that nobody will realistically go over, but you don't want to add a kilometer just to avoid counting a 20 meter deep gully. I kind of go by how I would run the course, but we are not all the same - some of us have a higher tolerance for climb than others. With so many judgement factors, the idea of 4% being any kind of exact, enforceable number is pretty vague. But if you measure climb at say 8% of course length that's clearly beyond the spirit of the rule.

You guys should all try reading the rules before commenting here. The 4% reference is not a rule as such - it is in the appendix about course setting and reads:

3.11.6 Courses that are not too physically demanding.
Courses should be set so that normally fit competitors can run over most of
the course set for their level of ability.
The total climb of a course should normally not exceed 4% of the length of
the shortest sensible route.

2 things
it says 'should' not 'shall'
it is not 'optimum route' - it's 'shortest sensible route' -still open to interpretation but less so than optimum route.

Actually 4% is a very low figure and almost impossible to achieve in even moderately hilly terrain (unless you set really silly courses with lots of contouring around steep hills and no route choice).

Try looking back over recent WOC's and measuring the climb (do it yourself - the officially listed climb is often wishful thinking) and you will probably see that not many achieve the 4%.

tRicky, come on, say something funny in this thread too!

An orienteer walks into a bar and orders a drink. He gives the barman a 4% tip, stating that any more would be breaking IOF rules.

Ah, but it's not a rule that you should tip, only a guideline :)
(and yes, robplow saved me the trouble of explaining that...)

Hey if I wanted the optimum route I think the shortest sensible route would be a good place to start. Then again, I know that Swedes like to find long track routes avoiding forest, detail and contours. And I'm sure that some quoted "climbs" have been measured on those kind of options.
It is interesting that the guideline currently says "4% of the length of the shortest sensible route" i.e. that they recommend measuring climb and distance along the same line. However the distance of the "shortest sensible route" is never given; setters are asked to quote straight line distance and climb measured somewhere else.
To me it would make a lot more sense to just state the climb along the straight line; it should be fairly easily understood that in many cases you can save climbing by going around.

I recall running 10% at the Swiss Champs once, H21E mind you. Actually, two consecutive legs in particular were mostly walking punctuated with short-lived attempts to run!

Climb along the straight line will very, very often be a completely meaningless number.

Highest I can remember seeing was 11.8% (7.2km/850m) in M21 at the infamous 1987 Australia-New Zealand Challenge at Kapamahunga. Winning time, if I recall correctly, was something like 2.19. (In M16 we had 'only' 10%).

Oh. Some Aussies have survived Kapamahanga. Better try harder, NZ.

For IOF (and countries like Australia which basically use the IOF rules word for word) the length and climb of courses is determined by winning times. Therefore if the terrain is steep and climb likely to be on the high side the planner should make the courses shorter.

As far as I know there isn't a definition of 'winning time', but I've always planned on the basis of the best orienteer who might turn up to the event running a perfect course with no time loss. Of course you have to test this by running the course yourself, or preferably asking an elite who won't be competing to run it.

Alternatively you could ask me to complete it because I wouldn't remember it the second time around anyway.

A(ag)h Hungary.

The shortest sensible route isnt the same as the optimal route, which might be much longer. But its what you use to measure climb for the course. To me that means if theres a 50:50 to go over or round, then you count the climb for the over. If its obvious that noone would actually go over, then you use the round.

You guys should all try reading the rules before commenting here.

Sorry robplow, but that would violate an AP rule that fact checking not exceed 4% of your optimal typing time. Cute idea though ;-)

I get all my facts from AP.

AFAIR, the first WOC to take place under that 4% rule was in Denmark in 1974, and even then the rule simply said something like "if the total climb is more than 4%, then you have to tell the competitors about it", i.e. as long as it is in the event bulletin and the recommended winning times are observed (more climb => less distance), then everything is fine.

I seem to remember that Bernt Frilen of Sweden won, and that a very young Jan Fjærestad from Norway came second. Jan was angry when he finished because "he had read the bulletin and started extra slow to make sure he didn't burn out, eventually finishing far too fresh."

There was a course with >4% climb in Denmark?

When most people calculate the percent-climb for races for which we have not been the course planner, we tend NOT to look at "shortest sensible route" (which is hard to measure) but instead the direct line distance that is given to us on the control description.

So what's a quick and dirty rule of thumb to estimate shortest sensible route from straight line distance? Perhaps multiply by 1.1 would give something close - I don't know.

When course planning, I just keep an eye on the "simple" calculation and try to make sure its reasonable. Here for comparison are some <(climb over optimal route) / (straight line distance)> from some recent World Champs Long Distance Qualifiers and Finals
2006 Q 10.7km 490m (4.6%) Denmark
2007 F 18.2km 550m (3.0%) Ukraine
2008 F 17.3km 750m (4.3%) Czech Rep.
2009 Q 10.4km 420m (4.0%) Hungary
2010 F 15.1km 770m (5.1%) Norway
2011 Q 9.2km 415m (4.5%) France

AZ, Hungary had 4.0% published climb, because the reality was inappropriate.

Well, there's no saying that the published climb (420m) was accurately measured ;-) An old course planners' trick ;-(

I was at a meet in Scotland once where I swear they didn't just count the climb, but subtracted the amount you dropped from the amount you climbed and still came up with 300m. One of the most miserable days of my life!

Here is an example of a very well planned course where the setter got the winning time spot on - World Championships 1981, winner Oyvind Thon 90:05.
I measure Oyvinds route at 16.2km with 675m climb (4.1%). The course is stated as 14.1km and 560m (3.97%). So both quoted and optimum (winner, leaving out a little wobble at 6) route are bang on the 4% guideline.

But... The climb on the straight line is actually 645m (4.6%). The setter has set the course basically around the 2 major hills and there are no large obstacles that hinder a straight line approach. In fact between Thon, Sagvolden and Berglia most of the straight line options are taken. So "shortest sensible route" in this case, despite the hilly terrain, should be straight or almost straight. I looked pretty hard but I couldn't find a route that climbed less than 600m. I think this is an early case of a setter understating the climb (but not by much and a great achievement to get the winning time to within 5 seconds).

The issue is the one Jan Fjaerestad was right to question in the example above - its about the competitor's expectations in respect of what effort to put in on the race, and what training to do prior. In this case its clear that Thon was ready for a little bit more distance and a little bit more climb.

Regarding Jan Fjaerestad, surely when he picked up his map at the start (or at the latest after travelling a few hundred metres in the forest) he could have seen that the course might not be as tough as expected, and then changed his tactics accordingly. From what I've heard though, JF put more hours into running training than orienteering training and it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that he didn't win an orienteering world championship.

Crybaby.

Thon and Kringstad and some real orienteering. Thanks for posting that!

I remember my coach at the time asking me to analyze Thon's splits of his win and to figure out where he won the race. He won the race on the short legs. That is where he gained the seconds to win the race. I've always wondered how dominant Thon would have been in middle distance. Indeed thanks for posting. That is a great course.