Discussion: Meet Quality
in: Orienteering; General
Oct 28, 2005 1:03 AM
#
I thought I would share what we did in Oregon for the US Champs, to reveal the behind the scenes activites that went into it. When we started we certainly didn't know what you guys do when you prepare for your meets, so maybe some newbies will find this useful. We certainly aren't experts, but the meet was well received, so it is a starting point.
Control placement. Every control site was visited at least 7 times by at least 4 different people--1. Initial marking (1 year before the meet), 2. vetting (10 months), 3. control stand placement (2 months, done by the course setters only), 4. control flag placement (5 days), 5. e-punch placement (2 days), 6. e-punch placement vetting (2 days, after we put out the e-punches everyone switched areas and went back out to make sure the control numbers were correct), and 7-e-punch turn-on checking (morning of the meet, area check not pre-running). We had inexpensive control stands, less than $2 apiece, so we could afford to fill the forest with them well in advance of the meet. We also had 2 test runs by club members, one last fall and one this summer. Experienced orienteers took on steps 1-3, because once the controls stands were precisely placed less experienced people could put out the rest of the equipment in steps 4-7. Because step 7 was time critical, the orienteers who did step 5 or 6 revisited the same area so that it would go quicker. Our morning-of-the-event checkers carried a spare e-punch with them, so that they could do replacements immediately. We did find a dead e-punch on day 2 *before* the meet started, so it was good that we double-checked things.
Control visibility. Our initial site markers were 8cm x 8cm pieces of red fabric nailed flat to the ground. We figured if we could back up 10 or 20 meters and still see them, a control flag should be easy to see. We didn't have much vegetation to deal with, so this worked for us. We were often adjusting control flag position by a meter or two to improve the visibility because a tree or log was too close.
Course objectives: We wanted the meet to be fun, fair, and challenging. We avoided controls in junky (no fun), bland (no fair), or poorly mapped areas. The challenge, to us, came from picking and executing good routes on the long legs, quickly navigating through the complicated areas, and having good control flow in the short legs with direction change. Our courses evolved over time based on our own reviews and feedback from the vetters, course consultants and pre-runners. This was either from direct comments like, "This site sucks!" or it may be more subtle as in the test-runners were having a hard time in certain areas.
Things weren't perfect. The courses were a little on the long side, which we didn't catch despite the test runs. Also, at least one of the control sites was incompletely described. In general though, I think that the process worked. I could go into more specifics into what the vetters checked, or what was wrong with the initial map, but I'm more interested in what you guys do to put on good meets. Maybe we can avoid more infamous meets in the future.
Control placement. Every control site was visited at least 7 times by at least 4 different people--1. Initial marking (1 year before the meet), 2. vetting (10 months), 3. control stand placement (2 months, done by the course setters only), 4. control flag placement (5 days), 5. e-punch placement (2 days), 6. e-punch placement vetting (2 days, after we put out the e-punches everyone switched areas and went back out to make sure the control numbers were correct), and 7-e-punch turn-on checking (morning of the meet, area check not pre-running). We had inexpensive control stands, less than $2 apiece, so we could afford to fill the forest with them well in advance of the meet. We also had 2 test runs by club members, one last fall and one this summer. Experienced orienteers took on steps 1-3, because once the controls stands were precisely placed less experienced people could put out the rest of the equipment in steps 4-7. Because step 7 was time critical, the orienteers who did step 5 or 6 revisited the same area so that it would go quicker. Our morning-of-the-event checkers carried a spare e-punch with them, so that they could do replacements immediately. We did find a dead e-punch on day 2 *before* the meet started, so it was good that we double-checked things.
Control visibility. Our initial site markers were 8cm x 8cm pieces of red fabric nailed flat to the ground. We figured if we could back up 10 or 20 meters and still see them, a control flag should be easy to see. We didn't have much vegetation to deal with, so this worked for us. We were often adjusting control flag position by a meter or two to improve the visibility because a tree or log was too close.
Course objectives: We wanted the meet to be fun, fair, and challenging. We avoided controls in junky (no fun), bland (no fair), or poorly mapped areas. The challenge, to us, came from picking and executing good routes on the long legs, quickly navigating through the complicated areas, and having good control flow in the short legs with direction change. Our courses evolved over time based on our own reviews and feedback from the vetters, course consultants and pre-runners. This was either from direct comments like, "This site sucks!" or it may be more subtle as in the test-runners were having a hard time in certain areas.
Things weren't perfect. The courses were a little on the long side, which we didn't catch despite the test runs. Also, at least one of the control sites was incompletely described. In general though, I think that the process worked. I could go into more specifics into what the vetters checked, or what was wrong with the initial map, but I'm more interested in what you guys do to put on good meets. Maybe we can avoid more infamous meets in the future.
Oct 28, 2005 3:06 AM
#
Very nice. You guys got things right in your debut that some people who have been around almost forever haven't figured out.
Seriously, this is the right mentality to produce a championship-level orienteering event.
Seriously, this is the right mentality to produce a championship-level orienteering event.
Oct 28, 2005 4:00 AM
#
To an organizer I would suggest: solicit as much input as you are comfortable with, but in the end make the decisions yourself, not by committee. Over years I have been very fortunate to have, as consultants/advisors, Eric Weyman, Mike Minium, Brian Parker, and Jan Lien. The events that turned out the best incorporated a lot of their opinions, positive, negative, constructive or not.
A sure way to ruin an event is to have a closed organization with no feedback. On the other hand, a consultant/advisor meddling in things at the last moment usually doesn't make them better, as the FLL example showed. That event seems to has suffered from lack of critical attention at the phases of: terrain selection; control site selection; and test runs. But, there was certainly no lack of pre-event concern over the mapping, and there was some advance input into the courses and control placement. So, it seems that (an) event consultant/advisor (consultants/advisors) is/are needed at all phases of event planning and execution, not just for approval of the courses on paper (the only thing that the USOF Course Consultant usually (sometimes) does).
A sure way to ruin an event is to have a closed organization with no feedback. On the other hand, a consultant/advisor meddling in things at the last moment usually doesn't make them better, as the FLL example showed. That event seems to has suffered from lack of critical attention at the phases of: terrain selection; control site selection; and test runs. But, there was certainly no lack of pre-event concern over the mapping, and there was some advance input into the courses and control placement. So, it seems that (an) event consultant/advisor (consultants/advisors) is/are needed at all phases of event planning and execution, not just for approval of the courses on paper (the only thing that the USOF Course Consultant usually (sometimes) does).
This discussion thread is closed.