Discussion: Control description: saddle or reentrant?

When placing a control on the low side of an elevated saddle between two round hills, should I describe it as "...side of saddle" or "upper part of reentrant"?

I tend to think of a saddle as being a "point feature" as the very apex between the hills and the reentrants dropping off to either side as "linear features". I don't call it a "saddle" unless I place right at the apex. Am I on the right track?

I would agree. If it's not in the center of the saddle, I'd call it upper part of reentrant (or lower part of spur, depending whether it is biased in the downhill direction or uphill direction from the center of the saddle).

Are there any official rules defining boundaries of a "saddle" control description?

It's your call. I've used "side of" and "part of" for saddles when not placing the bag at the normal spot you'd call the center of the saddle. Earlier this year I had a saddle that I wanted to use (because "saddle" is cooler than "reentrant"), but it was visible from too far off if I had used the center. So I displaced it sort of 45 degrees off the hilltop-to-hilltop line, and I think I used "Saddle , West Side." I could also have used "SW Hilltop, North Side".

Usually my goal is just to keep it out of view until the runner is close. In my case, the saddle location would have been too visible, and also had little grabby briars. But the flag was plainly visible once you were close.

The 2004 Control Description document says that if you don't use a modifier (like N-side of, or Western part of), the default location is the center of the feature. So, "Depression" means the flag is in the center of the depression. I don't always use a modifier for small depressions if I place the flag at the edge of the depression in plain sight. But I always use it if the flag is in a larger depression and the modifier would give you a time benefit by making a correct approach, or to let you know the flag is on the far side of the center as you approach, so you can expect to see it as you run up from many meters away, as opposed to having to break stride and peer down inside the thing to see the flag.

My concern is almost never to hide the bag. For medium or big depressions, my primary goal is to get runners in and out quickly. I don't want people having to collide as they jump down in and then claw back out of a depression. Ideally, I want them seeing the depression from say 10-20m away, seeing the flag at say 5 or 10m, and quickly picking right or left so they have a smooth approach and exit.

The whole "point feature" thing is often applied too strictly. In my experience, adventure race course setters without orienteering experience need to learn about point features way more than most orienteering course setters. Using your example, "Reentrant Upper Part"---That's not a point feature. So if you use it, make sure if you're in the upper part of that reentrant, you can see the flag.

If I'm using a "West Side of", I'll attempt to place the flag on the line that is exactly west of the point feature. If someone checks their compass, I want it to be near perfect. I'm limited to that line, but where along that line is my choice, within reason. (And realistically, if there is stuff in the way, since I've only got 8 directions to choose from, I could place it anywhere in a 45deg wedge to the west of the point feature---I use that more than you'd think to get the flag in the open.) I want the flag tucked away from appoaching runners, but once they're close, I want it in plain sight. Usually.

One point that should be emphasized is that the center of the circle should coinside with the exact placement of the flag, not the feature. We had an incident where the course setter thought that putting the circle on a spur and using the directional modifier made it ok to put the flag on the side of the spur where it would be on the edge of the circle. Granted this was an inexperienced course setter but just demonstrates that if there is an unlikely mistake to be made, someone will make it. A good reason to have course consultants and vetters.

The control description should match the feature on the map.

An open question is whether there is a reentrant actually shown on the map. If there is a rentrant on the map, then you can use upper part of reentrant. But, if there isn't a reentrant on the map, then I think you should use saddle (indicate western part, or whatever).

if the control description is without a modifier, you are saying that it should be at the center of the mapped feature, right ? but in the case of a long reentrant, that could be, plus or minus, 100 meters off. What to do then ? even with a modifier such as "upper part", if the reentrant is tapering off slowly instead to a sudden edge of a plateau, is quite ambiguous on the exact location where the flag is.

> In my experience, adventure race course setters without orienteering
> experience need to learn about point features way more

just did my first AR, and had the same experience. At the apres party, the folks knew I was more of an orienteerer and they all asked me about the course. I said "CP6 was off by 50 meters", and the gang all replied in unison "that ain't bad". Apparently, they had alot worse.

The best thing to do is look at the examples in the 2004 IOF Control Description Specification (pdf) (and it's really good to review this before you set big events anyway).

The examples show that if the feature is linear or an area, you put the circle where the flag is. However, if the feature is a point feature (like a boulder, a U-depression, or an X), you center the circle on that symbol and rely completely on the control description.

And where are all the trail O' types? I thought you lived for questions like this!

sherpes wrote: but in the case of a long reentrant, that could be, plus or minus, 100 meters off.

My answer to that is you never use just "reentrant" for a long feature. You must use one of the valid modifiers (upper part, lower part, East End, etc.). I'm pretty sure there is no "middle". I use just "reentrant" or "gully" only when both sides are easily visible (say 20 or 30m long *at the most*). Relying on the "center rule" of the specification for a long linear or large area feature is asking for trouble.

And yes, there is a "middle" symbol, but it's for Column C, not for Column G. As in, the middle of the 3 features, not the middle of a feature.

I agree with cedarcreek, again. And this isn't his rule, but I throw it out there for clarification... a point feature on a 1:4 map covers much more map space than a 1:15 map. While centering your circle on the point feature in the latter case seems not so problematic, in thee former case may well misrepresent where the flag actually is. Is that what we want?

No.

I have been on some good maps lately where controls circles for controls placed on point features are skewed (against the rules), ever so slightly to show the actual location, i.e. "west side". So you can find the control absolutely without looking at the control description. That works really well at 1:4000. Seems like a good idea to enable the runners to complete the course by simply reading the map.

This idea of the "normal control position" in a feature is new to me. In the past, whenever I have placed a control on top of a hill, I specified "on top of hill" in the control descriptions in order to be more precise. Apparently, I should leave the "on top of" off the description and call it simply "hill", because the top of the hill is the normal control position within the boundaries of the feature. Is that correct?

I just read through the IOF document and did not see anything regarding the these "normal positions". Is there some documentation for this rule somewhere?

A hill isn't a point feature, so I think generally you need to specify exact position of the flag on the hill. If it's not specified I would assume "top of."

Both the Swedish trail-O guidelines and the IOF Technical Guidelines for Elite Trail Orienteering have illustrations for the "normal" positions and what the various qualifiers mean for trail-O. I assume it is the same for foot-O.

toddp wrote: I just read through the IOF document and did not see anything regarding the these "normal positions". Is there some documentation for this rule somewhere?

In the pdf link I posted above it has this on page 13:

Column G - Location of the control flag

Note: No symbol is required to describe the location of the control flag in relation to the feature if the control flag is positioned at, or as near as possible to, the centre of the feature (or the centre of the foot in the case of the cliff).

The IOF Technical Guidelines for Elite Trail Orienteering document is pretty crazy. I had no idea some of those combinations were possible. (And I'm not saying I'll use all of those.)

"IOF Technical Guidelines for Elite Trail Orienteering ...I assume it is the same for foot-O."
Can anyone document this?

This was my introduction to this document. Thanks arthurd. I had a quick scan and some reading of details. "Pretty crazy" is rather close to my reaction as well. This document goes into details even more than I care to, which rarely happens with me and orienteering. To have a sport or exercise based on these delicate distinctions continues to strike me as bizarre, but to each his own.

On the positive side, I noticed plenty of useful details that ought to be spelled out somewhere in "real" orienteering guidelines, but to my knowledge, are not. On the other hand, I noticed a couple things that seemed completely disconnected from "real" orienteering.

The one example I'll site is the contention that the "foot" symbol should not be used for cliffs, since this is considered the normal or default position, not to be used in Column G for cliffs. This is new to me, so I checked my 2010 WOC control descriptions just to be sure that I hadn't fallen asleep for 10 years, and indeed the WOC descriptions used "foot" (simple or modified) in every case I saw, just like every other event I ever paid attention to.

So again, can anyone document the IOF-intended connection of the Trail O guidelines to mainstream orienteering?

The one example I'll site is the contention that the "foot" symbol should not be used for cliffs, since this is considered the normal or default position, not to be used in Column G for cliffs.

Interestingly, the IOF Control Description Specification referenced by cedarcreek mentions that example, saying (at the start of the "Column G" section) "No symbol is required to describe the location of the control flag in relation to the feature if the control flag is positioned at, or as near as possible to, the centre of the feature (or the centre of the foot in the case of the cliff)." So that would suggest that using the foot symbol for cliffs is (technically) redundant.

As far as I can tell, the IOF Control Description Specification applies to all forms of orienteering - but I don't see that it is forbidden to use a redundant specifier in column G. Personally I think it is a good idea to do so rather than relying on everyone knowing the finer points of symbol interpretation - my one brush with trail-O last summer was quite an eye-opener in that regard! I think the only describable placement that wouldn't have a column G specifier is "middle" (as in "middle of", not "middle feature") - and that seems like a reasonable default "normal" placement.

My other feeling about control descriptions is that the foot-O competitor is not going to be nearly as picky about exact placements as a trail-O competitor, so as long as the course setter gets the control in the general neighborhood of the precise trail-O interpretation of the clue, everyone will be happy.

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of or claim to anything official, so don't assume I know what I'm talking about. :)

in the IOF trail-O document mentioned above, it states that if the circle is at the center of the hill symbol mapped feature, then the flag is placed accordingly, but it may not necessarily be the highest point of the hill. Is that true also on Foot-O ?

Sherpes, you hit the next issue I noticed, which to me is out of touch with reality, even if there is control description language to support it. Having a high point that is not in the center of the top contour, is so rare, and peculiar (strong indication of mis-mapping), that I don't think it is worth talking about. It is certainly contrary to my idea of common sense, and I have never seen this in 35 years of paying pretty good attention. It strikes me as another example of this document being over-the-top nutty.

On the positive side, I'll thank the Trail-O authors for their definition and control placement in a reentrant, with which I agree. A contrary point of view was coincidentally presented to me in a Trondheim cafe, by the controller of the Norwegian Ultra Long 2010.

over-the-top nutty

I can easily imagine a Trail-O problem where one of the controls is centered on the oval of the top contour of a hill, while another is at the highest point (offset to one side, a meter higher or so), and the correct answer depends on whether the control descriptions have the "on top" symbol or not. (Or maybe that should be the "over the top" symbol.)

over-the-top nutty

I'll be glad to amend my comment with:
"...as applied to conventional orienteering"
and let Trail O-ers decide what is appropriate for their own activity.

The middle of the depression example is the same way. I would never have thought the middle was other than the middle of the lowest contour line. But it says that you must "tak[e] note of the full extent of the feature on the map and in the terrain...".

Then it adds, "Similar convention applies to hills with several contour rings."

I've always thought the little elongated "O" clue was "Hilltop", when in fact it is "Hill". I've seen some big, big hills with more than "several" contour lines. I'd interpret this as saying I can't put a flag just below the top of a hill (opposite the approaching runners), because Hill - East Part or - East Side is out-of-sight and possibly hundreds of meters away.

EricW: What about the reentrant language did you like? The "extent" language seemed like a necessary rule for Trail-O, but the wide reentrants with placements off the centerline really surprised me. And what was the contrary view from Trondheim?

"...as applied to conventional orienteering"

In the particular case of a hill, it really doesn't matter, because the control marker would almost surely still be in plain sight a few steps away, unless the top contour were so broad as to make it an unsuitable location anyway. So I basically agree with what you said in the first place.

jj- no disagreement sensed or intended,

cedarcreek, mostly I appreciate having the definition and illustration, which like most (not all) of the Trail O guidelines, I agree with (perhaps 80-90%), and despite the comments above, I believe are worthwhile as mainstream O reference. This one happened to support my opinion on a personally coincidental issue.

The question posed to me was, in a single contour reentrant, without using any modifiers, where should the control go. My answer was it should be placed in the center of the area covered by the drawn contour line, which is the roughly triangular (or slightly oval or umbrella shaped) shape, covering the area between the tips of the spurs back to the tip of the reentrant.

The other opinion was that the control should be placed (by default or normal position) at the tip of the reentrant, because this is the most precise location, virtually a point feature. My response was that I can agree that the point of the reentrant is the most precise location, and is often the preferred control location for this reason (and because it often provides the best "fair hide"), but when it is used it, should be described as "upper part" (or perhaps "directional part" in a flat reentrant), not simply "reentrant".

"placements off the centerline"
Yeah this is a tricky issue, usually not advisable for reasions of imprecision, and simply by being unconventional, although I have seen cases where this was done appropriately, (first on a PG course in the early 80's, Mt Hermon?). I guess we need to keep in mind that the Trail O guidelines are not advisory, but merely technical- "if you decide to place it here, this is the proper description".

The problem I see it is that without IOF claification, these Trail O guidelines will be taken as mainstream gospel O rules, which I am guessing they are not intended to be, nor should be. I think there are too many debatable issues. I think they are fine as rules for a specialized activity, for which they are written.