Discussion: Grievances

Is it just this sport?

No -it's just people.

Surely the whole idea of M/W10's is participation?

Was the font size complaint specific? They may be saying it was too big.

See you in M40A in October?

I am happy to take responsibility for M/W10 awards. The idea was to reward all participation, irrespective of whether they ran 10A or 10N and is consistent with what we did at Oceania 2011. This is common place in many other sports for those age groups, such as cricket (where you can't get out) and soccer and football where scores and competitions points are not kept.
At this age, the competition should not be important. Forming orienteering friends and developing a love for the sport in what it should be all about.
Sure it is great to win, but more important is that all of these kids have a positive experience and want to come back again next time.

I didn't hear any complaints from any of the kids when they were all eating their easter eggs.

Maybe 1,2,3 for the parents then - after all, they're the ones vicariously competing through their uncorrupted kids! :-)

I wonder if the people who complain about the eventor font size complain about the font size on all websites they visit?

I did enjoy the article in the AO explaining how to use eventor. Was there a mention of how to change font sizes in your browser? Perhaps this is a necessary errata for next edition. You may just rock someone's world with that information.

@Tooms. That is why we took our family out of figure skating and into orienteering. When the parents compete they have less time to live vicariously through their children. My funniest memories of the ice rink were of the generally rotund mums on the seats wrapped in lots of layers of clothing spending all afternoon noting the errors in the routines of the non-rotund children of the parents sitting around them.

Ev did figure skating? Please tell me that's true.

Not to derail the main discussion, so +1 on participation awards for U10s. One of the reasons the program I run over here has been so successful is the participation/non-competitive focus.

It was more Ilka. She was jumping and spinning and skating backwards. Ev was just a little too young (5 or 6?) so he and I generally got on the ice together and went hooning. But he could certainly skate competently. You know, skidding stops to cover the old man in ice crystals.

I'm in two minds about the U10 issue. I can certainly see where Pat and Bruce (among others) are coming from, but at the same time I can remember what a thrill I got as an eight-year-old when I got my name in the small print of the Canberra Times for winning the novice course (to say nothing of the block of chocolate that went to age-group winners in the ACT Schools when Cadbury sponsored us), and experiencing success after having failed dismally at every other sport I'd tried was certainly a major factor in maintaining my interest.

That said, it was a decision for the Easter organisers and not something I think an OA president should be involving themselves in (unless the organisers were proposing to give the U10 winners a slab of beer).

You just hadn't tried figure skating :)

I'm all for acknowledging participation, especially if, as we hope, it encourages kids to develop confidence to have a try at new activities. I also recognise that there are various views on how kids sports should be managed, and there is not yet one evidenced based perfect approach, and that organisers must make their own decisions, and that the intent here was undoubtably good.

However to give this discussion another perspective, the experience of my M10 was that he was a bit surprised and disappointed that all the other place getters were acknowledged, just not his age group. He had been told by someone that morning ( mistakenly as it was) that he might get a little badge, and he was pretty excited about this. ( So maybe the decision to not give an acknowledgement could've been more explicit, eg not advertising M/W 10 as a 'championship class'). I was impressed that he went out each day on his own, which is quite brave in a new place, running as hard as he could, correcting himself when he made errors, and punching the correct controls. He has never thought of himself as good at orienteering nor liked it much, and actually is often pretty anti going. This weekend was a bit of a turning point, in that he decided he liked it, particularly when he realised he was doing ok, and that the italics writing on some of his splits was when he had done the fastest one for that control. Logically you tend to enjoy what you feel you have some level of mastery of.

The socialising that occurred for him with the other M10s were conversations at this stage all around comparing splits. (Just like the grown ups.)

So I hope he takes away all these good experiences and beginning friendships, which are irrespective of a bit of paper, but I do know he was disappointed at the time, and tried hard not to show it. So often he has seen others acknowledged within other sports, he thought it might be his turn this time.

Also, I really don't think that we can assume that whoever made known their disappointment on their child's behalf is ' living vicariously through their children'. Is this really such a common phenomenon? Certainly not in my experience of raising 3 children- most parents I've met just want their kids to be happy and have a sense of self worth.

And no matter how hard we try to just emphasise participation not outcome, the children are observing several hundred role models of older orienteers at such an event, intently scrutinising their results, elated, satisfied, frustrated , devastated as the case may be. The saying it takes a village to raise a child has relevance here! (Whether others are aware of their contribution or not).

Apologies for the essay, just wanted to contribute!

Orienteering has nothing on ice-skating in the vicarious-living stakes.

The solution could lie in a combination of both place getters and participation. Perhaps every child gets a certificate with the place getters being acknowledged with one that has 1st, 2nd or 3rd on it - or everyone gets the same certificate and the place getters receive badges like all other classes? I don't think there's an answer that will suit everyone.

I didn't start orienteering until M13, but success was never a driver for me to enjoy orienteering as a junior. With the likes of Karl Kullmann, Shayne Hill and Craig as my competition, getting a badge wasn't ever all that likely to happen. Still, I enjoyed the sport for what it was, so I didn't need to win anything to keep coming back.

Kids should be having fun and learning skills. At the M/W10 age you cannot truly assess ability or performance due to vastly differing levels of development and growth. What we as a sport need to do is to nurture all the kids who participate in the hope that some/all will enjoy the sport enough to keep doing it.

Let's leave the dog-eat-dog "Winner takes all" attitude till they are a bit older and have a better capability to deal with disappointment. And it is more disappointing to be off the podium than not getting a badge as a "Winner". So let's give all participants in M/W10 a prize of some sort.

I'm for rewarding the place getters with badge etc then also giving everyone a certificate, Easter egg etc for participation.

What's wrong with a bit if competition? As mentioned kids are very proud of getting a top 3 and may be disappointed to hear 'oh you're only 10 so it doesn't matter'

I still remember the kick I got from occasionally beating jules, prong etc :)

What's wrong at that age? Most kids lose, there is only one winner and lots of losers. The "winner" is up there on completely false pretences because at that age the competition is meaningless. So not a good outcome for either the "winner" or all the "losers".

There was nothing wrong with it when I was that age - what's changed?

Competition is clearly meaningless and has no bearing on the future: Easter 1997 W10 first place. Easter 2013 W21E last place.

From several years teaching orienteeing at primary schools, from Yr 3s up to final year primary I can clearly remember an interesting phenomenon... at schools which were full-on flag-waving PC-oriented along the lines of "reward everyone, protect their fragile self-esteem, you're all amazing" there was an amazing change in effort between their first lesson with me and their second lesson.

Lesson 1: they all went through the motions, all expecting a sticker or similar trinket, fairly disinterested (despite it being cool orienteering) and then they had the jaw-dropping moment where I handed out better prizes to the first 3 boys and girls and for "awesome effort" or something and just the usual stickers etc pap to the rest.

Lesson 2: vast majority of the classes put in massive effort, running hard, enjoying striving, challening themselves as there was a Purpose to their lesson, not the continued incidental rewarding of Mediocrity which the education system over here seemed to excel at.

I share lazydave's and GB's thoughts. As for "learning skills" O-ing, yes, that'd be lovely, but it's not mutually exclusive with rewarding the kids who are actually really enjoying friendly competition. Some kids, like some adults, don't give a hoot about improving their skills and will just do what they're always done, best intentions or not, and thoroughly enjoy it.

Rewarding excellence at any age is worthwhile and learning to lose graciously needs to be learnt early, this way a child learns to have intrinsic motivation and judge their own performance and be pleased or displeased with it. The external recognition in the form of a badge is then just a bonus, but nevertheless valued. As for the competition being meaningless, it is not to the child/children competing.

Really interesting discussion. It has reminded me of some research, who/when I can't recall and it feels too much like school work on a weekend to go looking, that there is a strong correlation between a process focus when young and persisting with sport as compared to an outcomes focus when young and higher drop out rates. I think it was research accompanying concerns over increasing childhood obesity levels - might even have been the SPANS survey and research in NSW public schools?
I did like the approach Bruce took at the presentation.

Ah... perhaps some evidence. Never goes astray.

reminds me of this: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

That sounds like event organisation to me.

So that's socialism? Obviously we need to apply capitalism to 10 year olds quick smart. Or maybe we could just let them be kids and enjoy themselves??

Who's to say they don't enjoy themselves through competing?

The winner certainly does..... Until the next time. Meanwhile there is a strong correlation between a process focus when young and persisting with sport as compared to an outcomes focus when young and higher drop out rates

Are 11 and 12 year olds suddenly all thinking differently? How quaint.

Perhaps it's time to take a poll with the kids/age classes in question. It could be useful to find out the opinions of the youngsters in question. It's possible there's a discrepancy between what the youngsters want, and what the grown-ups think that the youngsters want/need.

Either way, I can say from my own recollections of my W10 & W12 experiences that young minds are impressionable. I don't recall being overly disappointed when I failed to place 1st/2nd/3rd. It just meant there were better people, who took those spots. I'm pretty sure it didn't give me a poor impression of the sport, just because I wasn't acknowledged for my participation. On the other hand, I do recall being ecstatic/delighted/surprised/astonished when I did manage to get a 1st/2nd or 3rd place. I carried those moments around with me for years, and would get out the badge and play with it or look at it to remind me about how lovely it was to be awarded it. I treasured the fact that I had been acknowledged specially, on those occasions.

I like having 1,2,3 for M/W10. Hasn't little athletics been doing that for years while also rewarding participation for other place getters?


for a new complaint. how about sealed map bags for Easter? fairly sure that's a rule

I have no problem with there being a little more emphasis on competition and achievement in M/W10 at major events compared to other events, in fact I think this somewhat inevitable given these events are so obviously different, i.e., even a 10 year old will notice that they are not any old club event. I would have an issue if competition and winning was the focus for these classes the rest of the year.

If you consider all the time an M/W10 spends on orienteering activities each year, what percentage does Easter, Aus champs, etc represent? Which is going to be the most influential: the lesser length of time at championships or greater time at local and state events where focus on competition is (I hope) more or less absent. I think the most important thing is the culture and attitude promoted by parents and others the juniors interact with at these myriad other events.

If you only knew how close you came to not getting maps...
At this point my attitude to rules is somewhat complacent. I am seeing them more as guidelines and I will be arguing that approach in 2015. If anyone in OA doesn't like that attitude, they can always reallocate a major carnival to the next state on the waiting list.

Sealed bags are not a rule. OA rule 15 says maps should be prtected from moisture. The only mention of sealing bags is in the WRE GUIDELINES.
I would like to see all maps printed on waterprrof paper and get rid of bags.

Well I actually had no issue myself with the map bags I just heard directly that someone managed to accidently pour a cup of water into their map bag at a water control and then destroyed is map

Where to draw the line of consumer responsibility?

We can account for most things, but not competitor stupidity

Where is the camera man when you need him. We need names. ;-)

The whole elite maps issue is a bit of a laugh. They are meant to be offset print for detailed areas, but the printers won't even quote for the small jobs we have. They say the price would be exhorbitant. And i suspect they don't want the hassle of breaking their normal business runs. Its a rule that has been overun by progress.

I suspect you're right; this is an issue which I think is well worth pursuing through the IOF Map Commission (conservative as that body is); it will be hard for them to insist on offset printing when the technology is no longer effectively available. (That said, offset printing certainly gave a much more legible map for the 1:15000 version of Golden Fleece at last year's Australian Long, but at a price).

While on the subject of technologies/products changing, I understand that map bags of the weight/durability we're used to are no longer commercially available (although I believe NSW still have a stock).

Comparing the print quality of the day 1 maps it didn't look like the offset print was sufficiently better to be worth it, although there seemed to be some differences in the map files with vegetation on the waterproof maps - major differences with open and semi open areas.
Not sure how the 1:15000 map would have gone on water proof paper though, certainly appreciated the good quality print. I think a similar result could have been achieved with good quality paper and digital print.

Hi Neil, I agree that the maps for elite is getting silly.

There are two issues -- one is that elite long distance WREs must have 1:15,000, meaning that they almost certainly require offset printing at huge cost, along with bags, etc. My personal view is that we should thumb our nose at IOF and ignore this rule. Secondly, both at last years oz champs and last weeks races elites were given offset printed maps even when they had the same scale as other classes (at least, that was my understanding). If true, that seems crazily expensive. It certainly isn't an OA or IOF requirement.

We believe that we've found a way to print the Australian champs maps on durapaper with offset printing. It will be tested at the WOC trials in May, so I will be interested in feedback.

What invis was fessing up to was that at Easter the maps didn't get to be printed offset. We asked for a quote, but they refused to provide it. They were done on a HP Indigo machine. We didn't find out that that was the case until too late and we were basically locked in. This technology has a lot of potential though. The printer can also print on "wtaerproof" paper, so bagging would become obsolete as well.
As for the map files, and differences in vegitation, that is a long story. It was the same map file, just exported va two different methods and then printed on different machines, ending up with those differences. The Sunday maps were done exactly the same way and ended up the same. Would really like some one to explain it.

What he said.
I will never implicitly trust pdf conversions again.
And HP Indigo is impressive and a bit. You thought you had offset...

A map in an open plastic bag is not protected from moisture. Heat-sealing is a right pain, I'll grant you - so for a NOL race-sized field I've used A4 ziplock bags.

Also, none of the synthetic products which I've been shown are quite white enough to give the same colour quality as printing on white paper (so I prefer to use paper and bags); although some of the products are fairly close it depends on how much green vs how much yellow there is on the map - and if the background map is already yellowish then the purple controls don't show up so well.

But this can be negotiated on a case by case basis with the controller and planner looking at test prints. Regarding digital vs offset, even for a WRE the IOF event adviser could potentially agree in association with the mapping chair, when shown a digital print, that it is of good enough quality - this is what happened in 2010 for the Aust long champs at Tanunda Creek.

I do, however, feel quite strongly that the 'classic-length' races should be printed at 1:15000 for elite classes, whatever the method and materials. They're intended to have comparatively more long route-choice legs where the detail can be ignored and the major features used for navigation. It's not the same to get a bedsheet at 1:10 000 where everything stands out at you and it's much more difficult to simplify.

Aah, OK. Well, I never thought I had offset, because I didn't run elites -- I just saw they had plastic bags and figured they must have been offset.

As for the slightly non-white appearance of products like durapaper or the large size of a 1:10 map -- I don't think that matters a jot. Organisers have enough on their plate. They need to be able to select the cheapest and easiest option that makes a fair race. Paying an extra $1000 to print elite maps via a different process is just asking for trouble.

The summary of the situation is:
Offset is becoming commercially unavailable (but top end digital quality is getting close)
Only the thinner plastic bags now commercially available (not sure how these would take to heat seal or whether ziplock is sturdy enough)
Waterproof paper is still yellowish.

Standards compromise is unavoidable.

There is perhaps one way to make offset feasible and eliminate the large subsidy currently provided for elite map print runs. That would be by printing all maps for a carnival using offset CMYK and then overprinting all courses with Pantone purple Everyone would get the benefit of the offset print run and it would reduce the per map printing cost. But this would only work with all courses on 1:10k maps. And you are then left with the massive job of bagging and sealing. I was on the team that did this job for the 2002 WMOC. I learnt that a sensible organiser will try and eliminate this task.

From my perspective, Waterproof paper printed with the HP Indigo (with 7 colour ink mix) will become the best compromise.

The people who have the HP Indigo also have a whiter waterproof paper (or so htey claim). I am going to ask for a sample map to get printed.

OT: congratulations on having the current noisiest log.

Is Blair going to be able to solve all of these problems by himself?

@Louise... yep, I managed to get there for one day after Easter. By comparison Blair is proving himself a stayer.

It seems that the current best option is to use a digital print on waterproof paper with the exception of limited run 1:15000 maps (and possibly only for detailed areas) where a digital print on paper (bagged) is required due to the bleed on water proof paper reducing print resolution.
As mentioned above file conversion can cause some awful problems that good printing can't fix.

Not sure if that was the cause of the map printing problem at the belangelo woc trial a few years ago, but that map was terrible.

An addendum to Anna's prescription - best quality digital printing such as HP Indigo. It will be interesting to get the test results of the Indigo on waterproof paper.

Don't suppose you would be ble to send me a few samples of indigo on waterproof at 1:15 if you can get them?

Chris works next door so he is the man for test copies. There are two issues. One is resolution and one is spot colour simulation. For the moment any test will be a CMYK colour mix. But in the medium term the hope would be to get a 7 or 11 ink colour match. And according to HP the machine does have access to some of the Pantone ink mixes. This is a good read.
http://h10088.www1.hp.com/gap/download/US_IMS_BRO_...

What is the advantage of waterproof paper? There is stuff all apart from saving a bag (which are available in all sizes and thickness if you actually look past the end of your nose) Waterproof paper tears and deforms (without the protection of a bag, and more often in comparison to a paper map and bag in my experience) it stains with mud and blood (both quite common in oing) and it cant be used to protect yourself when crossing an electric fence - unlike a bagged map. Not to mention the printing hassle, the poor colour quality and marker soak through (for names on maps)

Does it matter what you give your 10 year olds, what ever it has been in the last 15 years hasn't been working as NZ has completely destroyed your Juniors in every competition home and away, but I suppose as long as the 16-20's are trying they should get a chocolate

free you mind from the constraints of an old technology.

Don't mind Greg, he's just a naturally grumpy type. But I actually agree about the waterproof paper. I've had a situation where I've slipped on a ramp in a sprint race and the map surface (not sure which synthetic material it was) abraded so that important parts of the map and course were scoured right off!

(It's so generous of Blair to let us all hijack his log so that we can rant to our heart's content...)

Yeh, I didn't understand Greg. We don't have mud or electric fences on our terrain around Bendigo. I express my sympathies for those who have to put up with these inconveniences. ;-)

I had a similar rant once
http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me...

At Easter 2011 Frazzle Rock all maps were digital printed on paper and bagged, We used what was then the latest and greatest digital machine available in Perth and did lots of checking of the print quality as it was variable from run to run. A proof was not enough to ensure the final print was the same as the proof it just proved what was possible. Bagging was not a huge deal but it did take a while, all easily washed down with a glass of wine and the team of non-runners.

It saved several $1000s which when the carnival is smaller is a good thing in keeping the costs down.

I did not hear any comment positive or negative from the competitors. There were some comments from IOF mapping specialists who we sent them to afterwards that we did not get the transparency right? Maybe an arm chair comment over a runners view?

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over that - if you're thinking of the IOF mapping report I am, their saying something positive about a map occurs about as frequently as a sighting of Halley's Comet.