Discussion: Finally...

RouteGadget is up for RGB. Enter away!

Pete

did you have some problems loading it up on the website.

T. Keys had some fun at #7 on red......... interesting parallel error

I was looking for the spot where you were injured ... it didn't seem to show up as a long pause or you running round in small circles .. which leg was it ?

6-7: 45 second pause. Whacked my head on a branch and sat on the ground until my eyes stopped watering. I still have a scab on my scalp.

No problems with the course file, main issue was getting the splits off the Toughbook. I have a memory stick now that works fine with all the computers.

given the fact that you have 2 or 3 times shed lots of blood on O courses maybe we should request that RG have a feature (like the 3 second pause) showing where folks (like you) leave pools of blood/get injured on the course . It's open source code so why not? : - )

Ok, I am working on it. This is what I have so far:

+3 blood

Whataya think?

What was the story with TK and AK? They both MSPed at Afton I am curious as how it happened, and what might have contributed to it.

By the looks of TK route, he came over the hill to #7 (red) and made a classic parallel error , tried to figure it out for quite while circling around and finally bailed out for lcak of time

AK punched the wrong control (2 controls 203 and 204 were about 40 meters apart one on a spur and one on a reentrant top of).

203 and 204 were on different features to be sure, but quite close to one another. Does that make the courses unfair?

I think its unfair only if I screw up.....if Ian screws up it was totally fair.... : )

I think controls are required to a certain amount of meters apart but I dont remember how many.........

USOF rules say: There shall not be two control flags within 100m of each other on similar features.

MNOC course design guidance is not to put 2 controls within 75 meters on different features.

Measuring in OCAD: 203 and 204 were 45 meters apart on very different features (spur and reentrant).

My comment: always check the control code and your clue sheet

Always.

Compared to the effort it takes to find a control, the time is takes to verify the control number is insignificant. And if you happened to have navigated to the wrong control, that moment where you check the number or choose not to, could suddenly become the most pivotal moment of the entire race.

A couple of years ago at Afton I found the control I was supposed to--according to the map--but the control code and the feature were wrong on the clue sheet. I wasted 20 minutes or more, thinking I was messing up, only to find out it was a typo. Ouch.

Todd, also checking the control code isn't completely insignificant. In some situations it can cost time and concentration (but it has to be done). Ian and I both mispunched at an event in Kansas. Ian, I think because a number of other people were there and rushing him. But I think mainly because he was afraaid I was going to beat him :)I read the code and realized it was the wrong control. Reattacked and came right back to the same control. The actual control was on a very similar feature (a dry stream crossing the same trail) about 40-60 meters away.

Checking numbers does break the concentration to be sure... I try to read the control description just before I reach the control circle so that I can check it from memory as I punch. My memory isn't so good when my pulse is high, so try to run into the control chanting the number "203, 203, 203...", That seems to help keep my speed up and my eyes on the terrain for the next leg.

What do you guys do to speed this process up?

I've integrated code checking as part of the routine, so it doesn't cause a problem with concentration. But yes, it takes time (a little.) It was actually the opposite for this last race - forgetting the clue sheet had more effect on my run since it made things different. But generally, I'll do something similar to Todd - on the way into the control, take a last look at the code (and also verify what direction to leave the control.)

I don't have an issue with 203/204 in this last event. They were two clearly different features.

Ian, why do you think we have that more restrictive guideline in the MNOC setter's guide?

Jerritt, I hope that wasn't the time I wrote up clue sheets in MS Word and then inserted a row for the Start clue. It thought I was building a numbered list (201. blah blah), so when I inserted a row at the beginning it incremented all the control codes by one, and I didn't notice.

I think that was on Orange, so it probably wasn't - the clue descriptions were still correct, although it still confused a few Orange runners. No thanks Clippy, don't try to help me.

Actually, while writing this up, I remembered it was at Telemark last fall.

(yes, I've said that.)

Nice Pete, your button actually does something useful. I nominate you as the lead developer on the RG enhancement project.

Obviously, we need a new RG control with more flexibility:


+10 barbed wire
+3 blood
+5 buckthorn
+10 where am I?
+50 I want my mommy!
+50000 forgot to check control number

I think the more restrictive guideline in MNOC setters guide (i.e no 2 controls within 75 meters ) is to make things a little softer on beginners / intermediates and help them not make mistakes.

That's what I expected, but wouldn't that imply relevance only to WYO? I actually don't mind close-together controls in advanced courses, so long as the USOF rules are satisfied. (And for purely selfish reasons here, it makes setting easier as well.)

What is "WYO"?

It makes sense for us to cater to the less experienced orienteers. May I point out that the orienteer that MSPed the 203/204 placements was young?

I know that this is getting into the details a bit much here but I think on the 203/204 terrain, re-entrants and spurs are quite "similar" features in the map. Different land forms to be sure, but symbols are just reversed, like d and b. This surely can be confusing to some.

WYO=White,Yellow,Orange courses...

Todd, the main reason he mispunched was that he drew the circle rather sloppily in an area with a lot of features. I checked his map and the actual control he was going for was about 0.5mm outside of the very roughly circular shape he drew. The "wrong" control was dead on the center of the shape he drew on his map. So he actually made 3 mistakes: 1) circle drawn in wrong spot, 2) wrong feature 3) wrong control number. (Note: the master map was preprinted with oCAD)

Cascading errors... a problem I know well. It is rarely a single thing that puts you in the dog house.