Discussion: Thoughts from actually running a Micr-O course

Our club organized a Micr-O event last weekend and having had a couple of days to reflect I have the following observations: (I should state that I was extremely anti Micr-O before taking part)

Organizing the event must be extremely time consuming, both in terms of planning and putting out the controls. Therefore I suspect that opportunities to practice will be limited.

The penalty loop part of the concept is irrelevant, since getting all 5 controls wrong should result in a loss of one minute, simply add 12 second to the total time for each control missed.

We had four ‘normal’ controls. The first was knoll SE foot, on arriving at the circle there was a knoll with four or five controls around it. It was obvious which was the SE one, so I punched it and moved on. The experience felt no different to normal orienteering when you tune out controls that obviously aren’t yours. The second control was at the top of a middle re-entrant, again on approaching the circle there were three reentrants, the middle one had two or three flags in it, so I punched the top one and moved on. The third control was similar to the first except that it was a small depression rather than a knoll, again the correct one was obvious. The only ‘skill’ tested here appeared to be whether you could read the control description. The fourth control was at the top of a re-entrant, the planner put two controls in a parallel re-entrant, but this was much too close to the previous control.

The fifth control was a ‘flag in the forest’. This was quite easy to get by running to the attackpoint and navigating a short way in on a compass bearing. I think that this is where the ‘Great TV’ will come in. Some people got this one wrong as the attackpoint was an overgrown ruin that was hard to find, but a more detailed map would have solved this.

The final control was a linear feature, in this case a stream. I actually got this one wrong, mainly due to the fact that I thought that the penalty would take less time than running to an attackpoint and then running up the hill that the stream came down. I just punched the lowest control and ran to the finish.

It seems to me that if the course is planned fairly, Micr-O is very easy, most competitors will only get one or two wrong (unless they are incapable of reading control descriptions) and many will make no mistakes. The navigation is easy, and the ‘dummy’ controls can actually aid your navigation by highlighting other features, i.e. the parallel re-entrant which I might have missed if it hadn’t had a control in it. Obviously there is tremendous scope for ‘unfair’ planning, such as dummy controls too close to the real flag, inaccurate maps, etc, but you have to think that if it is in the WOCs the planners will bend over backwards to be as fair as possible.

As a competitor you should aim to move through the Micr-O as fast as possible, punch one control and move on. If you stand around to work out if you got the correct one, you have effectively run the penalty loop. You actually save a few nano-seconds by not having to check the number of the control!

After running the event, I have to say that I quite like it. I’m not saying it should be in the WOCs or that it will make great TV, but if it is there, I don’t think that it will have a major impact on the results.

Although I wasn't at this, I wish that I would have been. I would have to disagree with the penalty loop part of it being irrelvant. In addition to the time penalty from having to run an extra loop, you also have the "energy" penalty. Having to run hard for an extra minute (for 5 penalty loops) may make the difference in having the physical reserves to run faster in the last (non micro-o) part of the race and not having them. This could make the difference between 1st and 2nd (or whatever positions you might be fighting for) in some cases.

Regardless, it is an additional thing to think about with respect to strategy. Which is one reason why the "skip all the micro controls and run the penalty loops" strategy (which I am personally ok with) could back fire. Sure, you might gain time at first, but you have to run hard for that extra time, which could make you lose even more time later if you are more physically depleted. All the more strategic decisions that the orienteer has to make.

As a person who is relatively new to orienteering, I don't really see the problem with this. The rules really aren't that hard to understand, and it seems to me to be a logical extension of the skills that you are already developing. Maybe somebody can explain to me exactly and logically what their problem with this is?

I must say that this is rather similar to some of the things that have happened recently in nordic skiing (e.g. addition of sprints, addition of sprint relays, the invention of the "double pursuit or skiathlon" or whatever, where you change techniques from classic to skating halfway through with the clock running, and (heaven forbid) making the 50 kilometer a mass start rather than a time trial start, in addition to the total elimation of the 30 km distance, which was essentially the only distance to have been run in every winter olympics until now). For most of these changes, there was very little consultation with the racers themselves either.

My own (non-scientific) observation was that there was a strong correlation between age and the degree to which you were against these changes - younger people didn't have that much of a problem with them, older people did. In my own case, the last year during which I tried to seriously ski race was before a lot of these format became accepted. So, that year 90% of the race weekends that I went to were 10km on Saturday, 15km on Sunday, time trial starts in both cases (the techniques would occasionally be switched around, and you might have a standard pursuit thrown in every now and then). After a while, it got to be pretty boring, so I would have welcomed a few different formats!

Also, I got the sense that once people had tried these race formats, they liked them for the most part. Although, admittedly, a lot of them are much more demanding for race organizers to put on, and don't really work that well at levels below the elite. So, some of the problems are the same.

It's true that it would be time consuming to set a rigorously fair micro-O, but for training purposes, I don't think that's necessary. The runner needs to practice the extra focus, and the discipline to go with a gut instinct then move on. Whether the control is perfectly conceived is maybe not too important if nothing is riding on it. We had a training event on Saturday, and I put three micro-O controls in there - just for fun and to be topical. I remain a micro-O skeptic! I'd not decided where to put the spoofs until I got there, so sprinkled them around nearby similar features, and wrong locations on the right feature. It didn't take long to set up. Maybe they were all a bit easy. I have to say that I actually would like to run a micro-O for training. I have this bad habit of just running for the flag and ignoring the detail ...... it works well *most* of the time :).

My comments on the penalty loops were aimed at people who want to put on an event. It is much easier just to add time on, especially if using SportIdent where the download time is a problem if done in the middle of a race. (In our race there would have been a long back up of compeitors at the download station) jmm's comments are probably valid when applied to a real competition.

It does seem from the proposed rule changes that skipping all the Micr-O controls isn't going to be a valid option, since you will be required to punch at least one control in each 'cluster'. I don't think that SI has software to support this yet.

As one of the people opposed to the Micro-O concept, I will restate what I don’t like about it.

Basically, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I did not see any problem with Orienteering being about efficiently moving between discrete locations on a map. Simple concept, hard to execute.

I don’t remember seeing anyone clamoring for Micro-O before this TV thing materializing, suggesting that no one thought O was broken.

But maybe it was, because it obviously isn’t in the Olympics? Why not? Well, it isn’t on TV, so that must be the problem. Well, heck – we can fix that! We can either pay someone to put us on TV (the economics don’t really work for that) or we can find someone who wants to put us on TV. OK, some Norwegians will do it. But wait – regular O isn’t that interesting to the TV audience. No problem, their crack producers, or God forbid, a focus group says that if we do A,B,C they will be interested, and ergo, MICRO-O. We’ll change Orienteering at its highest level to be congruent with this.

To me, the logic and execution of this is really flawed. The logic (if I understand it is TV->O in Olympics->Good.)

I agree Olympics->Good, but even that isn’t unequivocal. It is the other premis I find flawed. I still don’t think this Micro-o concept is good for TV; in fact, I think it just makes Orienteering more bizarre, esoteric, and less cool – at least to the unwashed, whom I presume are who we care about.

Bowderlizing the sport at the behest of TV guys in one country, in accordance to their idiosynchratic preferences makes no sense. Would people want to watch micro-o in the US? I doubt it. I think other more conventional forms of Orienteering, if properly produced, would be more intelligible and more fun – to O aficionados, but more importantly to those who aren’t. I see the TV appeal of micro-o to be akin to watching people debate the impact of Carnap vs. Neurath in shaping the Vienna school. Whereas, we could be watching Sports Center – a la, people running fast through the forest, etc...

Anyway, I just regard this a Pyrrhic victory. We’ve changed something we didn’t need to change, not making it better, to achieve something that what we are doing is not going to achieve anyway.

A few comments on why MicrO was time consuming to organize:

1) a lot of controls, all of which need punches (SI or pin) and precise placement...42 total in my case
2) more demand on the map detail...even more than a normal course, it matters whether that knoll or reentrant looks precisely right on the map. So you need to scout for perfectly mapped bits beforehand, or adjust on-the-spot if the course was armchair-set.
3) fussier results. I used OE2003, but had to think through exactly how to make it work, and do a bunch of post-processing, plus dismiss a zillion dialogs that warned me that something was wrong.

But still worth doing. Lots of positive feedback (younger=more positive, as suggested by Juha). I'd suggest smaller MicrOs as part of another course or training...3 MicrO controls would be easier.

To reiterate what Clem said, orienteering has traditionally been about getting from here to there as fast as possible. It's route choice, and successfully executing the route. Just because something involves a map and a compass, that doesn't mean that it has the appeal of normal orienteering.

It's a frowned upon practice to "hide" controls where I come from, because once you've arrived at the destination, you've accomplished your objective. Thus the 1000-Day slogan of "Hang 'em high". This results in a sport that, I freely admit, is not particularly photogenic, but that doesn't bother me. In order to create something for the TV people to show, however, Micr-O was dreamed up. But putting intentionally deceptive controls in the vicinity of the correct one is, in my opinion, akin to hiding the control. The "flag in the forest" concept seems to me to be getting dangerously close to something that is anathema to orienteers, the dreaded "compass and pace" exercise that many people think of when they hear the word "orienteering".

Just from the fact that the rules aren't nailed down yet, it's obvious to me that this is an immature concept, and it doesn't make sense to be putting it in the world championships at this point.

I predict that if the elite guys practice it once or twice Micr-O will be a damp squib. 99% of people will punch all the controls correctly and virtually no one will run the penalty loops.

Like others I am a MicrO skeptic. But in the efforts of constructive critisim, I'll share my thoughts from doing Andy's 3 micro controls last weekend.

Positive:
I enjoyed it a bit more than I anticipated. It tests confidence, preparation, quick descion making, and accurate map reading (on the micro scale). The directions that Jim posted even describe how to create these challenges. Had Micro not been clumsily imposed by The Man, I suspect many would be excited about it's possibility as a fun training excerise. Darn the Man.

Possible Confusion:
I don't feel like Micro and TrailO are that similar, and the expected synergies are probably smaller than some people think. The challenges simply feel different. (not that I've done much of either)

Possible Pitfall:
In my opionion, orienteering is about map reading and not control description reading. Poorly set MicrO may emphasize the control description too much.
(I also don't like fumbling with extra pieces of paper, and would consider putting descriptions directly on the map next to the control circle - a map exchange is enough fumbling in itself)

I agree with Benn's possible pitfall...the control description reading bit isn't the interesting bit.

I'm a bit baffled as to why JJ doesn't think that MicrO is about getting from here to there as fast as possible, and successfully executing the route. (Granted, it's not much about route choice.) Seeing people navigate the course this weekend convinced me that it is. (The top two in the MicrO Sunday were two of the top four in the Sprint last night. Similar skills.) I think that there's a big misperception in the discussions about what the event's like.

How can there be big misperceptions about an event that doesn't even exist? It's been totally drawn up out of thin air for TV. Nobody knows what it is. And for anyone who thinks they *do* know, I'll bet that 10 years from now--assuming there is still something called micro-O then--it will be a fair amount different than whatever it is which will greet the runners next year in Denmark.

Sure, it could be different 10 years from now. (Middle has changed a bit in about that long...a bit different winning time, and a different name, at least.) MicrO will likely even change between now and when the MicrO rules for WOC 2006 ae published (must punch at each cluster, perhaps).

But the event does exist...it was run in the Nordic O Champs, with published rules, description, and course setting guidelines. And it sounds like there have been at least two put on here in North America so far. There really wasn't any ambiguity about what the format was and what we needed to do...the rules and guidelines gave a nicely comprehensive description, including a clear picture of the intent, clear limits on what's allowed, what constitutes good course setting versus bad, and several specific illustrated examples. So I don't agree with that objection.

Do you change map scale and contour interval (and mapping standards) for the micro-O segemnt as the Norwegians have been doing?

Compare the map used for the micro-O' segment, 1:4,000, 2.5 meters, with the map used for the rest of the middle distance course, 1:10,000. 5 meters, at the recent Norwegian Champs. Note that, for example, none of the dot knolls used at #16 are on the 1:10,000 map.

One of the key points has been the change of scale and contour interval for the micro-O segment. And apparently also the mapping standards, since the two maps show the same terrain quite differently. That was also true at the Nordic Champs last May.

We used an enlarged but not refieldchecked map Sunday.

There has been discussion of mapping a small area of highly detailed terrain in the inner city to MicrO standards. (Not a huge amount of terrain, but good practice.) We have a map in the southern part of the city mapped to high detail (by the fieldchecker of the WMG/WMOC Final) last year, which I think could be adequate. (Its level of detail is higher than a normal O map, and I've noticed that smaller than normal features are mapped.)

Having run on our highly detailed Fish Creek map this year, I think that the amount of detail mapped changes the orienteering to a degree, but it's a matter of degree not type. (I do a bit more simplification for much of the leg, and then read (and expect) more detail on the approach, compared to orienteering on a map fieldchecked to a normal level of detail. I still orienteer much as I would on a more typical map.) I actually find it a pleasure to orienteer on this level of detail. But I admit that it is a bit of a difference, worth practicing.

For elite runners, I can appreciate that the 12-second penalty is significant. But for me, 12 seconds isn't even a 'bobble'. But I have done few Sprint events. For me, pausing 12 seconds to glance at the map and study the terrain is good technique. Hence, I guess my optimal strategy for Micro O' would be: read the map, enter control circle, punch 'most likely' and move on. (Perhaps punching closest would be 12-seconds faster than punching correct - another strategy) I'd hope to get a couple easy ones correct. This strategy of 'guess and go on' is disconcerting - but is this 'mind-game' also part of the intent/appeal of Micro O'?

Now if the penalty is a loop, not a fixed time, the loop would take me longer than 12 seconds and would drain energy - perhaps there would be a reason to orienteer better. For non-elite categories, it seems that a slightly longer penalty might make more sense - but the logistics???

As Rick points out, a time penalty works differently for different level orienteers. Maybe penalty controls work better for this. (More tentative orienteers will also be more tentative doing the penalty controls. Slower moving orienteers will be slower moving through the penalty controls.)

A recollection from long ago...

One autumn foliage season a long time ago in Cable, Wisconsin, I remember participating in a US Championship (not the most recent one there) where every leaf in the forest was orienteering-control orange. Literally, seriously. I found it easier to see the red pin punch on the stand than the (much larger) orange and white flag. But, although it certainly made the conditions a bit different, I didn't find that it changed my orienteering. I still navigated to a specific place...the feature circled on my map and described in the descriptions...and punched the control there. In some ways, it concentrated me on the map more, because I knew that swinging my head around looking for orange as I got close wasn't going to help.

It seems to me that MicrO is like this. Lots of orange things in the vicinity of the destination. But if I'm orienteering to a feature, then they're just an orange part of the terrain. Ignoring the false controls ought to be a lot like ignoring the orange foliage...I ought to be able to orienteer to the correct knoll and punch there, without worrying about other controls or orange leaves. I see and ignore other controls pretty routinely when orienteering. (If I were running toward the circle hoping to see orange, then yes, other orange things nearby (leaves or controls) would make a big difference. But that's the skill that MicrO is testing...navigation within the circle. And that skill is important even in normal O (like a classic distance 2-day champs).)

Just thought of that event and the similarity to MicrO, so I thought I'd mention the analogy. Maybe it's because I saw the yellowish-orange leaves out my window.

JimBaker wrote: "normal O (like a classic distance 2-day champs)". I think we're hoping that stops being normal fairly soon...

Agreed. Unfortunately, this weeken'd Alberta Champs were two-day Classic. Since it was a rerun of World Masters courses on the Final map (using excess maps), that meant that they had to spend effort to find similar length courses that didn't share too many controls. Couldn't get them to do a Middle and Long instead though.

Now there's a novel use of the apostrophe!

Perhaps he meant weakened?