Discussion: Control Height/placement

One thing I would really like to commend OCIN on from the Team Trials was the placement and height of the controls. I thought they did a perfect job with that, and it was probably the closest to the WOC standard that I have seen in the US. Too many competitions in the US that should have been great races have been ruined by either hiding the controls and/or putting controls on features that were inadequately supported by the map or else all but fictional.

Big Pig cheers to the OCIN crew for getting it right!!!!!!

I'm sorry but I can only partially agree here. I agree that controls should not be hidden behind trees or pushed into the ground too much to make it harder. But controls should be in places where you can't just see them if you're running in the right direction which happened a couple of times last weekend.
Here are some examples: First the good example: #14 (242) on the blue course at the US champs. From most directions easy to find accurately because it stands in relation to many obvious object. The control itself was set right behind the rootstock if you ran blue. That's how it should be.
Worst example: #10 (224) same course, same day. The control was visible from 200 meters. Why do I even bother reading the map in this case? I know it's not easy to find an object near this place which isn't so obvious, but then you can just as well leave this control away, even though #11 (225) isn't much more difficult.
And since we're there already, have a look at #12 (240). On the map it appears as a typical lucky control and if you come from #11, you actually realize that the map is kind of weird in this area, I couldn't match up the ditches at all and green wasn't there either (wasn't the only place where it was missing...). So you cruise in slowly from the attack point, until you realize that this control can be seen from a 100m as well and you just lost 30 seconds. That's not really fair either.

But I agree that OCIN did a good job setting courses with the maps they had.

I agree controls should not be evident from a long distance, but neither should you have to stop and hunt around once on the correct side of the feature. On my pet peeves is to approach a control only to find an unmapped tangle of garbage that i have to pick through. I think that control sites should be chosen so that once you successfully navigate to the control, you shouldn't have to figure out how to get to the bag, or hunt for it, you should be able to run in, punch and continue in a smooth fashion. If theres too much crap around the control, then choose another feature (if the crap is mapped though, then it becomes a route choice issue). I also hate having to dig around in the leaf litter to find the punch - at least with e-punching the control is at a consistent height.

Well, the most blatant offender control of the week end has to be #8 on the sprint. Description was end of nose (of the island). Took me about 10 seconds to think of looking behind the tree!
The too visible control is annoying when you realize you could not have been so careful approaching, but in that type of terrain in Ohio, with the 100+ visibility, and few point features, it's hard to keep a control out of view.

With good visibility and broad topography, controls were often visible from a long way away. That's the nature of the terrain.

The control I noticed most was the pit (#9 on blue on Sunday). Being typically pretty scared of pits, I carefully orienteered my way in from the reentrant to the west, on a bearing from the garbage piles. But, the control was out of the pit and easily visible as soon as I punched my way through the green

Control placement philosophies clearly differ - I can't see anything wrong with the placement of #8 on the sprint. I'd say it was hung with the apparently fairly widely appreciated goal of the control not being too visible from the expected (in this case, mandatory) direction of approach in mind. If the tree was blocking anyone's view of the control then they clearly hadn't yet reached the southern end of the island.

The problem was that the description didn't agree with where it was hanging. I was expecting it to be on the reeds. I agree it's not a big deal though.

For me the biggest annoyance in a well-organized and well-set meet (thanks OCIN!) was the vegetation mapping being frustratingly inconsistent even in the area mapping by Mr Zherdev. In some places dark green was as fast as white (I have the fastest split from 15-16 on Saturday blue by choosing a route straight through the thickest dark green out to the trail). At other times medium green had to be avoided. I realize this is a very hard thing to get right, particularly when the map has to be used in other seasons than when the fieldwork was done, but it was still slightly irritating.

Sprint #8: Well, the S part of the spur was behind that tree. If one looked at the island from the previous control, the flag was clearly visible. The leg was technically quite easy, so it seems not unreasonable to challenge the competitors to be exactly, completely sure of what they are doing.

This idea of making an easy control tougher by hanging the flag behind something not described on the map or clues is at the very least, a dangerous rational. Even if this doesn't violate a written rule, I think most people would agree that it is unfair and unsportsmanlike.

I think the fair, common sense principle is-"nothing should hide the flag except features shown on the map". I have never seen this in writing, but I think it is long overdue. This principle still allows well concealed, but fair controls hung behind the control feature. Controls hung near fallen trees, thick tree trunks, and unmapped vegetation invariably create contoversial, problematic controls.

Furthermore, the idea that the orienteer must navigate to the exact spot described in the clues also creates problems. I'd be very surprised if any rule language says/implies this. The rules certainly do not say the control shall *be visible from* the place described. The rules say the control shall *be* at the exact place described. If the orienteer can see the precisely described location from any distance, common sense says (to me anyway) that the control should be visible. To do otherwise, the course setter is asking for trouble, even if covered by the rules. This "navigate to location" rational is used to justify almost every problem control site not involving misplaced controls. This rational allows flags to be tucked into unmapped cracks in cliffs and boulders, and hung behind vegetation clumps, all of which are situations most people would agree are undesirable.

The terrain and course design should determine the technical difficulty, not undisclosed games with the hanging of controls. Far better that a course be too easy than contoversial. Concealed controls can work, and many people want this, but this means the course setter must be ever more vigilant of unfair situations.

The big bright orange control markers kind of hint that they are supposed to be seen.

I'll certainly agree that going out of one's way to hide controls in cracks and under bushes, etc. is undesirable. However, I wouldn't say sprint control 8 was hidden in this style or even that it was obscured by an unmapped feature - the vegetation on the island was clearly mapped in a mixture of white and green. We should all be able to deduce from an area being mapped as forest that that there will be trees which will inevitably screen controls from view from some angles.

Nope, I'm not buying that. There was one obvious approach direction and the control was hidden from that direction. And it wasn't on the end of the island; it was a little back from the end of the island.

I'm sure nobody lost more than 3 seconds here, but it is the moral victory that counts.

Yeah, the one reason I am grumpy about the controls behind the tree scenario is that the first time this happenned to me I was coming down the re-entrant which was the feature decribed. The control was hung on the back side of a tree. Not until I got to the bottom scratched my head a bit, and turned around to relocate at the head of the re-entrant did I see the flag waving in the breeze....
Kinda annoying.
So Vlad, next time you have a "water" control, let's have it clearly visible IN the water!

I agree with William about #8 in the sprint. The control looks really simple on the map and it's not as if you could really tell where the spur ends. You could place the control just as well 3 feet to the right or the left. To find this control you more or less pass it, which I usually don't try to do...

As for me it didn't really matter anymore. My moral was gone way before this control...

coach said he lost 10 seconds. Regarding the accuracy of the control description, I didn't stop and use a tape measure but I'm pretty sure I could have touched the control bag and dipped a toe in the water at the same time. How much closer to the water line would the control stand have to have been to make people happy on that score?

All this discussion about what was really a rather easy control--I mean, how much easier could #8 have been?--goes direct to my original point about fair control placement. A control simply can't be too visible. But it sure can be too hidden. Read and re-read what Eric--someone who knows more than a little about orienteering--wrote above.

Obviously not everyone agrees with this fundamental asymmetry (in fair control placement), and so it goes--I just sure hope they're not setting any courses I'm going to be running!

The description said "spur, S part". Not "end of island". Not "off spur in water". The control was on the S part of the spur. There were some trees on the spur. I put the control behind a large tree. On a non-Sprint course, I would not; I would have moved the control a bit for more visibility. I think most controls on the Short and the Classic were completely compliant with Swampfox's and EricW's philosophy.

For the placement of this particular control on a Sprint course, I was guided by what I have seen at Sprint and PWT events at which I have been a spectator. The following are extracts from the IOF Guidelines for the Sprint format:

"Controls: Technically easy."

"The course should be set to require the athletes’ full concentration throughout the race."

There is one factor at non-North American Sprint events that makes EricW's desire for a lack of concealment by unmapped features quite hard to realize, and that is groups of spectators. They quite often alter the visibility of control sites, and would be a bit hard to map.

I agree that the placement of Control 8 at the Pig Sprint introduced a challenge that would be unwelcome at any event in a different format. I was fully aware of that, and the placement was intentional. I think that the different challenge is quite in line with the expectations for a Sprint.

The legs on the course were designed to present the competitors with several distinct types of problems. Lacking this challenge on Leg 7–8, the leg would have none. And this particular problem did not appear elsewhere on the course. I think it is within the realm of the course setter to test this particular ability if the challenge is fair, given the map and the control descriptions. I am pretty sure it was.

Hey Vlad,
I think you might be opening a can of worms with this one. Why move the control on a non-sprint course? If I had to choose when to move a control, I'd have a bias in the other direction. Of course, I'd rather have good visibility on both.

I think that citing those rules doesn't necessarily help your case. Certainly, the second doesn't imply difficult placements. I'd think that the spirit of that rule speaks more to eliminating wasted distance, etc. When in a control circle and without additional features or more information in the descriptions, I don't think the athlete's concentration should be diverted to second guess where the control is if he/she has already exhausted the information on the map and clues - in any O discipline.

So, here's more on why I think the Control 8 problem was fair, how it differed from the undesired cases that Jeff S and Eric W mentioned, and why the conditions that make the problem fair only seem to arise in a Sprint context. For bags placed in, say, a crack in the cliff, or behind a tree inside a reentrant, there is inherent unfairness that stems from the multiple possible directions of approach. One competitor will approach the cliff from below and see the inside of the crack whereas another will come from the side of the cliff, and see the space described as "cliff, at the bottom", but not the control. This may lead the latter to conclude that s/he was in the wrong place, and to lose time.

There was no such variation possible at the Pig Sprint event. The control was described as "spur, S part". It was placed about 1 m N of the southernmost dry point of an island. The part of the island that was inside the control circle was the "spur" in the descriptions. There was only one possible or allowed way to pass on the island, and it was a bridge at the NW part of the island. Once a competitor entered the island across the bridge, s/he could see clear along a (mapped) gap in the vegetation atop the island towards the SSE part of said island. The southernmost tip of the island was not visible from the bridge (and was not a part of the mapped gap). However, from the bridge one could clearly see that the S part of the island was occupied by a very large tree. A common-sense evaluation should have led the competitor to conclude that the only possible place for the control to be was behind the tree. I posed the problem in order to test the degree of confidence of the competitors. Someone capable of a high degree of confidence (and who read and interpreted the description correctly) would have proceeded to the tree without hesitation. Once at the tree, the competitor was indeed at the point described as "spur, S part", and the control was visible.

The factors that further make the problem fair were both specific to the Sprint:

1. Control 8 was visible from Control 7, and for about the initial 20% of the leg 7–8. Such visibility ahead is only typical of Sprint events.It is not unreasonable to expect competitors to look ahead.

2. Although Control 8 was not visible at some points from which the "spur" in the control description was indeed visible, such poor visibility condition was exactly the same for all competitors for the whole Leg 7–8. For there was one and only one reasonable route one could take from 7 to 8, almost like having a streamered route. Such lack of not only route choice, but route variation, period, only normally happens at Sprints.

Finally, the proof is in the experiment. Competitors have reported to have lost between 3 and 10 seconds on the leg, attributed either to the unfairness of the control site or to a normal separation in time according to the degree of success in solving the course setter's problem. With a heated discussion resulting, I find it curious that there seems to be a near-complete lack of inquiry into the problems on the course that seemed far more decisive in the competitors' placing, such as route choice on Leg 8–9.

Oh, and to exhaust the topic even more...

Although I am convinced that the problem I posed at Sprint Control 8 was fair (and split analysis shows that even if it wasn't, it alone did not affect competitor placing), it does not mean that I am certain that it was proper to set the control the way I did. Because things that are fair and proper from the competitive aspect can certainly subtract from the participant-enjoyment factor (most blatantly items like Cassie Trewin's gym mat jump... it doesn't, of course, have to be that atrocious).

So, it's nice that we are having this discussion. The Sprint format is evolving, and its North American interpretation certainly the more so. If it turns out that the prevailing public opinion suggests against doing things in a certain way, it perhaps means that future course setters should not, even though "that's the way they do it in Europe".

I like the control, for the initial reason Vlad stated - despite the single route choice, and darn obvious location, you had to have some accurate memory of either where the bag was (if you looked for it coming out of 7), or have clearly read the map and/or control description, in order to run hard all the way to the end of the island without hesitating. Vlad has certainly added more backup for those who weren't there, and it's certainly not a 'general' rule, but a good choice in this case.

Another imporant angle is that anyone who ran hard to the S-tip of the island and/or the center of the circle would not have lost _any_ time. Only if you stopped early because you weren't sure where on the island the bag was would you have had trouble.

One possible way to look at this is "if you navigate as well as the map reasonably allows, will you see the control in time to ensure you lose less than 1 second to a competitor who does the same?" Basically, if the map or distance of compass-work required or vagueness of the feature means that there is some uncertainty in the exact location of the bag, then the bag should be visible from far enough away that someone approaching it from any reasonable angle and/or distance off from perfect could see it in time to turn toward it, and not lose any significant time vs. someone who luckily was coming straight at it.

By this definition, I think Sprint # 8 was about as fair as you can get, and most of the controls at the pig lived up to this requirement.

On a related note, # 8 was also extremely simple leg at an excellent time - right before # 9 which posed a critical route choice problem (which I failed due to underestimating how much cheaper 'around' is to up/down on a 1:5000 map.)
My concentration on the 8-9 route choice problem (and I expect others as well) had to be quickly and smoothly shifted back to going toward # 8, when, upon entering the island, the bag was not yet visible.

BTW, what did Cassie Trewin do?

Oh. Yahoo'ing: "Cassie Trewin orienteering mat" found this.

Sprint #8 was not described to be on a point feature ("part of spur") vs "tip", "corner", "side of point feature", etc.). IMHO, not on point feature hangs create risk of unfairness when placed behind unmapped vegatation, regardless of the discipline, and especially in a discipline that is timed elsewhere to 100ms. I think if you can see any part of the feature as described, you need to be able to see the bag (but I don't know what the rules say, to me that is just common sense). I guess that is why I prefer point features.

I followed Wyatt to this control, saw him go behind the tree, and emerge, and I didn't lose time, but I remember thinking there is luck here, even if you know the control is behind a tree. I've been to a handful of European sprints (but no PWT), and don't recall seeing this situation before.

That said, Vlad has a point that this was possibly the most uninteresting control of the course, and therefore probably merits the least discussion. I actually think the most interesting aspect of this leg was the other control on the island -- a completly fair, and common situation elsewhere, that caused some people to lose a few milliseconds, and therefore was good training for a real world situation.

I personally feel the most unfair control was #1, of all things.

But it was a good course, and the unfairnesses cited here are trivial, and I think only interesting from an
o-geek (that'e me) point of view and the interesting goal of the perfectly fair course.

Randy's got the best split to #1... The only 10 second split in the whole field...

While anyone who didn't have a starter 1 minute before them would be potentially disadvantaged, isn't this the 'trivial first control' before the start of navigation that has been discussed before on this very dicussion board?

There was 2 things that the trivial first control was supposed to do--make people go there *and* be out of sight of the rest of starters.

The first control also gave you an immediate chance to adapt to the map scale. You stood at the map box and saw how far away the control was. Then when you first looked at the map you saw what that distance looked like on the map.

Being from Russia, I think control placement is part of the mind game - setter vs. orienteer, and on this one (#8) I won, and # 7 - placement and # 9 - rout, Vlad won.
Yes courses are to be set fair, but in orienteering case it is very subjective to someone's view and experience. I, personally, challenge myself to understand what led course setter to pick next control placement and if I guess it right I usually do very well (rout and attack). It only works with good course setters; no one can understand bad course setting. I think, Vlad wanted to create a feeling of chase, and it worked: with dog legs and good visibility you could see your competition a lot. I personally liked the course and challenges it provided.

Adapting to the map scale assumed you found the start triangle and the control on the map before you got there. It did not help me much since I only found the start triangle after I had completed the course.

spiked it!

I didn't care if Control 1, and people going to it, were within sight of the starters, because the control was trivial and the presence or absence of sight of earlier starters did not affect the problem. But I wanted the rest of the course (the non-trivial part) to not be within sight. I could not see a good placement for a non-trivial first control in that high, generally open, area, that would not create a situation in which the starteds provide an indication to the not-yet-starteds as to where to go.

There was indeed a bit of a route choice on 1–2, and it was unfortunate that it was visible to the people who had not yet started. I was hoping that the straight, better route on 1–2 would appear clearly beneficial on the map, so people would disappear out of sight right after they punched Control 1, to never be seen again unless caught.

Assuming Joe's talking about #1. Joe 'spiked' it at a pace 70% behind the leg winner: 17 seconds, and then went on to post a great course time... I guess you didn't want to burn yourself out on the first leg? (Compared that with Randy who was leading the course on the first leg, but apparently started too fast...)

spiked number 8. I don't know what all the talk is about. Yes wyatt, I did miss number 1, but not due to the placement. It took me that long to find the start.

Why you need to find the start if you are staying at #1? You need to find circle with #1 by it.

With pre-view map posted by start list it is shameful that so many people had problems locating start triangle. I guess they didn't do their homework. It is part of the game.

I liked the course that Vlad designed. Almost each leg put different type of the problem. #8 was fair to anyone just required not loosing concentration and going exactly where the center of the circle was.

A less expert look at the Sprint course. Even as my orienteering skill gradually improves, I am impressed by the leaders' ability to see many more route choices in competition. When I finished this Sprint, I felt, "Sure not many route choices on that course!" Well, I differed significantly from Ken on 1-2 (influenced by two previous starters, I took the field on the left - easy attack point); from 6-7, the trail on spur to 7 caught my attention, missing the more direct 'beach' route); from 8-9, I stayed further right on trail and field - didn't consider 'short' hop across green re-entrant. Also, I've seen others who went right of red line on 4-5 (I took Ken's route, but hesitated on spur above control - not confident which spur I was on) and some left 10 straight east to building. So, there were route choices out there! It is not so much taht my route choices bother me that much - but that I didn't see the other options out there.

However, on the last part of one leg (7-8), it seems that I did gain 3-5 seconds on a couple guys! Trusting Vlad I guess, I thought, "It's got to be here pretty soon!"

This actually was my best (of only a few) Sprint runs so far - but Sprint sure makes us Green runners appreciate that 30-40 second errors do count and add up. On the Classics, I tend to 'brush over" 30 second errors - hey, that's a good leg!

I appreciate both the course comments and the route maps. On the routes, I am becoming aware of some of the 'little' things that are done on medium and long legs to stay in contact with the map - eg "veer right just a bit to check off top of re-entrant" and reading vegetation more often than I do.

Also, I was a bit surprised to learn how often an orienteer's best route not only depends on that orienteer, but also is based on that person's success or errors earlier in the race. I know that I don't conciously consider that as a factor in my choices.