Discussion: World Cup 3 - Norway coverage

Good GPS and audio coverage at:
http://app.o-festivalen.com/dp6/en/live

I can't get the Web TV to work yet - maybe later in the race?

Hanny Allston ran strongly with a good early time, but it seems she missed the last control. She must have run within 10m of it (from GPS track), but not close enough!

Has anyone else noticed that most runners do not pass through the start triangle in the GPS tracking. Is that not essential in Norway? Some are, and are being disadvantaged.

Hi Anne :-)

Hanny is the only runner (time 1523) so far to go through the start, there is a track obscured by the triangle that all the other runners are using

SHIT HANNY!!!

according to the commentary she punched the wrong last control.

If the start triangle is a place where runners are required to go, there's are two easy ways to make that happen:
1) Have them start where the triangle is
b) Have them punch there
although in the case of choice b), you could also put a control there and put the triangle where the runners start. I continue to be appalled by course setters who put the start triangle in a place that isn't where the race starts. As far as I'm concerned, that's just plain wrong.

Though isn't the idea of a start triangle that you're not making your first route choice decision where those waiting to start can see you? I continue to be appalled by course setters who DO put the start triangle where the race starts. Although putting it somewhere where it can be easily and advantageously missed is also a lazy course setting crime.

So what you need is a facile short first leg with a control at the end of it?

So what you need is a facile short first leg with a control at the end of it?

Precisely. I often do that, and in fact when I set courses, it's typically the case that all of the courses (including the beginner's course) have the same first control, 100-200 m down the obvious trail, out of sight of the start. Solves all problems. The triangle means YOU ARE HERE.

Mostly you will follow a tape to the start kite thats out of sight.

What they did at CISM last year was have the start kite about 200m up the track out of view from those waiting to start. Saves a pointless leg as jjcote suggested

It might be just plain wrong, but it's actually the rule:

22.6 The start shall be organised so that later competitors and other persons cannot see the map, courses, route choices or the direction to the first control. If necessary, there shall be a marked route from the time start to the point where orienteering begins.
...
22.8 The point where orienteering begins shall be shown on the map with the start triangle and, if it is not at the time start, marked in the terrain by a control flag but no marking device.

Saves a pointless leg as jjcote suggested

No it doesn't. It just makes it unenforceable if it's intended for people to go there, and they don't. It is common practice, and it's stupid.

It might be just plain wrong, but it's actually the rule:

Yep. And a dumb rule it is.

Should, or do, the same principles apply to a mid-course marked route?

Should all marked routes end with a punched control to insure people go there?

Should it make a legal difference whether the marked route is in full view of spectators or officials. As a practical matter, based on some first hand experiences, I think it makes a huge difference. (Same principle as drinking from the jug)

Also, how about some informed follow up to zootrio's initial question "Has anyone else noticed that most runners do not pass through the start triangle in the GPS tracking. Is that not essential in Norway?"

What was the on-site situation? streamering, monitors, and the accuracy of the GPS? I think I observed that at numerous control locations, none of the GPS tracks went to the feature in the center of the circle, but that all tracks seemed to go to the same displaced location. I'd be willing to accept that the Start triangle was another systematically dispaced location, except for Hanny's track. What's the rest of the story?

And how about the WC format that disqualified Hanny and others(?) from competing in the next WC(Long) because of a mispunch in the Middle? Or am I missing something?

Also, how about the amount of mistakes made by the athletes in the Long (I only saw the women, men's tracks were not available when I looked). It seemed like a ton of mistakes compared to the Middle. It seemed that some of these mistakes were induced (ironically) by pack running, inevitable in the format, given the chase start format, coupled with an abundance of short legs. Legs that were in my opinion, very uninteresting, in fact quite antithetical to the IOF's stated objectives for the Long discipline.

It also seemed like some of the mistakes may have been induced by bingoish control locations. Can't judge for sure without being on site, but some controls looked borderline, and the GPS tracks of highly skilled orienteers seemd to confirm. One example was the hub of the butterfly, on a clearing within green without obvious supporting features. It seemed like an inordinate number of mistakes made here, even on return trips.

I will admit that this "fun and games" orienteering was entertaining to watch at home, at least this time, but how about the long term? Do the athletes want a steady diet of this? Is this desirable for the sport? Does this sell to non orienteers or prospective orienteers? Is a traditional Classic Long course considered too boring? They seem very endangered in the WC series. Ironically some of the better Long-style legs were in one of the butterfly wings, and actually seemed to provide real separation.

I obviously ranted off the "start triangle" sub thread, but returned to the initial event thread, where I thought there were many things at the Long (not Middle) event that deserved questioning, for those who can tolerate a lowly American questioning the vaunted Norwegians.

Snakker dere Engelsk?

Should, or do, the same principles apply to a mid-course marked route?
Should all marked routes end with a punched control to insure people go there?

Depends on why the route is marked. If, for example, it's to keep runners out of a specific area (private property, dangerous, etc) and there is an attractive shortcut, I'd say yes, and you might even need a control along the marked route. If it's to guide the runners through an area than cannot be adequately represented on the map (the only non dead-end path through an intricate thicket), then it's not necessary. Each situation would have to be considered specifically, though I'll note that I'm not fond of mid-course marked routes in general.

Don't blame the course-setter for not breaking the rule!

There are actually a number of cases where the rule is the most practical solution. I think it originates from relays, where you have the exchange area in an open field and a marked route to the forest. Today you get your map in or soon after the exchange, but back then you could actually have the maps at the start triangel (or start circle marked S or K). I remember one tiomila where there was a punch at the triangle but I think they would have had to disqualify about every team if they had sticked to that. I.e. you can have it but in the big relays you would need a hell of a lot of punches....

Check out Martin Johansson's getaway route choice late in the race. He puts 100m or more on the lead pack on a short leg and goes on to win.

Great questions raised by Eric. I kinda prefer to watch the mass/chase start races.

It may be the future and we really could use more of them in North America. Mass starts to some have ruined cross country skiing but I like the head to head action.

I saw the men's action after my previous post, and my comments about the men's course would be less critical, but it is all too common that the women's course gets short changed, more than can be explained away by having less distance to work with.

Yeah, Martin J's escape was THE highlight, and it happened on a very basic, rather continental leg late in the race, BUT it had route choice, the frequently missing element, and he took advantage. I believe Martin had already made up the greatest deficit among the lead pack. His wide trail route, also selected my a few others, proved to be more advantageous than I would have guessed looking at the map, perhaps due to slower than expected runnability in the direct line logged area, but hey, that should be no surprise in Norway.

"Don't blame the course-setter for not breaking the rule! "

I think this is an incredible misstatement of the situation. A course setter following jj's suggestions of using a control, or putting the triangle at the actual start is is not only within the rules, but indeed following the primary intent of the rules. The rules provide a narrow exception "If necessary" to use the marked route option. The relay application seems appropriate to me.

I think it is more than fair to blame the course setters who have exploited the narrow exception into a norn, which is often problematic, as I think has been demonstated in this instance (no contrary explanation yet). I agree that this route- to-triangle solution often reflects laziness in design, while creating unnecessary complications for competitors and organizers.

One solution to the triangle problem is to have the maps at the triangle. Runners leave the start, follow a marked route to a point that is out of sight but less than a minute away where they pick up their map. This system was used at WOC in Australia in 1985.

And this solution is often used and doesn't require convolutions. You just separate the start lines judiciously, providing a bit of distance and take advantage of terrain convexity or vegetation, etc.

I've been to a lot of events recently with one or two call up lines right on top of one another. This allowed people to easily see where competitors went. I personally didn't think it was a terribly big deal. But, to obviate that you can add a third (where you get the maps and where the start punch is) if you like.

However, I hear the argument that the streamered route to the start triangle after you get the map is a courtesy to the runners to allow them to ease into the map. This explanation seems kind of bogus to me, but maybe it is becoming more prevalent.

Has anyone else noticed that most runners do not pass through the start triangle in the GPS tracking. Is that not essential in Norway? Some are, and are being disadvantaged.

Here is a wild guess - I think the GPS tracking has the start triangle in the wrong spot. This guess is based on the RouteGadget of the course which shows the start triangle in a much different location, a spot that all runners passed through according to both TG's RouteGadget route and also the GPS tracking.

(I noted one woman that went to the "GPS Track start triangle" and suspect she made a mistake)

Here are three reasons why it might be good to have a mandatory marked route from the map pickup to the start of orienteering:
a) for spectating. For example, the WOC Sprint final in Czech Republic was absolutely awesome arena, with both start & finish along marked routes through massive crowds. Without marked route runners would not have been able to get through the crowds!
b) for convenience of organizing. I recommend course planners set good courses without worrying too much about call up areas, and then used marked route to get from callup area to start of orienteering. Call up area needs: access for organizers & their equipment, room for stretching & warming up, shade / shelter from weather, washrooms ideally, etc
c) because it is very common internationally. I saw tons of confusion last weekend at PNWOF events when there was a remote start - but this is so common in the rest of the world. Why not just do it the same so when people travel internationally they will be familiar with the remote start concept.

To me this just doesn't seem like a big deal. I can't think of a time where a bit of careful thought on my part as course planner didn't provide a remote start with no reason to leave the marked route before the start triangle.

Which PNWOF events had a remote start? I thought everything happened at the start, and then you ran to an easy first control?

From the Idaho City meet notes:
"The Start Triangle is at the Start line, and indicated by a control flag. This is NOT a control. The Start triangle Sunday will be a little ways up a trail, competitors must pass through the triangle but there will not be a punch."

The only events with the trivial first control were the Cle Elum races.Of the others, I think all had start triangle at the map pickup/start line except for the Sunday event which had a remote start (a poorly designed remote start location, by the way since Red Courses runners (at least) gained an advantage by not running to it, evidenced by the number of red runners that ran to it and then ran back through the start area - and those that didn't run back through the start often ran through the finish instead which was on the route from the start triangle to the first control).

I guess a lot of the confusion may also be from the punching start, but regardless it would be nice if start procedures were consistent and universal.

One solution to the triangle problem is to have the maps at the triangle.

I suppose if each course had their own separate lane to the triangle this might work, otherwise I don't recommend it. I don't think that people should pick up their maps in a frenzy while they are on the clock. They might grab the wrong map and get DQ'd. Or they might realize they grabbed the wrong map, put it back in the wrong bin, and get someone else DQ'd. Heard it happened with a club who used this procedure.

AZ >> c) because it is very common internationally

I don´t know if this is the standard everywhere else, but this is more or less THE standard in Sweden. We almost exclusively have a marked route to the start triangle to get away from the starting grid so later starters won´t see where earlier starters go. This marked route varies in distance of course depending on local conditions - it could be 50M or up to 200M (which I think is too much...) - I don´t think there are actual rules regulating this - it´s just the way it´s done and everyone is comfortable with it.

Your explanation as to why only Hanny ran to the start triangle and not the others seems to be correct (she made a lot of small mistakes on the course as well). I second the thought that the RG start triangle probably was in the correct place.

*** About Martin J´s get-away route: In the live Web-TV coverage on NRK there was quite a bit of confusion up to that point. The TV control at #23 (which was the control before the get-away) showed two Swedes in the lead and Peter Ö arriving as the third Swede a bit behind while the GPS tracking showed Daniel Hubmann as one of the two runners up front.
Just about the same time as Martin got away they showed Hubmann "again" this time live from the TV control - several minutes later. Up to that point noone had noticed that Martin and Daniel had actually switched their GPS units and that it was Martin and not Daniel that had caught up to the leading pack...

AZ and bubo, I accept the misplaced triangle explanation in this case, and thanks for convenient evidence.

And I agree that the Czech Sprint final was a worthwhile exception.

However, I am very reluctant to accept Swedish standards as an example for the world. ;- ) It took Sweden about a decade longer than the rest of the O world, including USA, to simply get good mapping standards. Remember the Norwegian slogan before Sweden's WOC 89, "Full fart pa darlig kart" (keyboard missing Norsk letters) which translates to "top/full speed on bad maps", only it rhymes better in Norwegian. In all fairness, those WOC 89 maps by Kjell M were just fine, but he had quite a national legacy to overcome.

perhaps a decade is/was being kind...

:-) :-) :-) Thank you hammer.

OK - I won´t argue about mapping, you´re certainly more of an expert than I am when it comes to that - and maps in Sweden had a bad reputation in those days (Hopefully they are better now).

When it comes to Swedish standards for other details in organizing O-meets I think they work out quite well. Not all meets are well organized, of course, but certain standards are a necessity since our meets usually draw a lot of people that require a well organized event centre and all the details that come with that.

I guess I haven´t really thought this start triangle issue over before, i.e. if there are alternative solutions that would be better. They way we do it is 'the way it´s done' and everybody knows that so it works here. Other alternatives may work better in other places since people are likewise used to them...

Fair enough.

Here's the extreme (I would hope!) --


Day 3 of the French 5 Day in 1994, over near the Swiss border. The actual start was down in the field marked by the little red triangle. 11 lines up to the map boxes (a note on my map says - took 2:30 to get to start!), another 11 up to the first control.

It's a more interesting leg from the little red triangle.

It is common to have a marked route from the start to the triangle in Finland too, so it is not correlating with mapping standards ;-) It might, however, be correlating with the number of runners in an event. In a "small" national event we have 600-1000 runners and and this (i.e. the short bubo verson not hte long PG version)is the easiest way to arrange the start so that eventual route choices are not revealed to later starters.

I've never heard of this discussion on "principle" before, as the procedure to my understanding is common, understood and accepted. The only controversy was teh said tiomila experience where we were expected to punch at the start triangle. But then again, I learned this when I was about 10 and have been accustomed to it since.

another thing is that the starting point and the route to the triangle actually should be marked on the map. But it rarely is.