Discussion: Simple Description of Orienteering?

A well-known description of golf is that you 'hit the ball, find it and hit it again'.
I'm trying to use that example to first come up with a simple description of orienteering and then show how it is much more complex. Here is what I have now. Can you offer improvements to the description? (Yes this is for an area where e-punch is not yet used)

On the surface orienteering is a simple sport:
• Pick up a map
• See a location marked on the map
• Go find it
• Punch your card
• Find the next location
• and so on until you get to the finish.

Hold on. How you get to the location is not always easy:
• Can you interpret the detail on the map?
• Can you pick the fastest route?
• Can you ‘stay in contact with the map’?
• Can you re-locate yourself if you make a wrong turn?
• Can you make your own route choice when others are going differently?

The second list has some orienteering lingo that I would change: "stay in contact" and "re-locate".

Can you ‘stay in contact with the map’?
Can you determine your current location along the route?

Can you re-locate yourself if you make a wrong turn?
Can you correct yourself if you make a wrong turn?

I'd also move "Can you pick the fastest route?" to the top of the list. It sounds more fun and race-like than interpreting details of things.

It sounds like you are trying to combine a simple description with simple instruction.

For a simple description, here is the standard I use:

It's a race.
It's through the woods.
There is no marked route.
You go any way you want, you just have to find a series of points marked on a map that you carry.
The fastest person wins.

Go somewhere, then go somewhere else.

It's a sport.
You find a series of control points on a detailed topographical map of a park in the prescribed order.
You choose your own route.
You can run or walk, but the fastest person is the winner.

Somehow you should get the idea across that it isn't necessarily the fastest person, but the one who does it in the shortest time.

I like the idea, but to make an impact, the simple portion needs to be simpler. In your sample you had more bullet points for the simple explanation than for the complex one. Perhaps something like:
"Look at a spot on a map. Go find it. Do it again."

See the spot marked on this map? Get there as quickly as you can, the route is up to you. Once you get there, do it for each of these other spots as well.

Its a running race. And you can take shortcuts.

"See circle on map. Go there. Repeat."

Ok. We have the simplicity down pretty well as far as it can go. How about the complexities?
Anything to change about this?
How you get to the location is not always easy:
• Can you interpret the detail on the map?
• Can you pick the fastest route?
• Can you ‘stay in contact' with the map?
• Can you re-locate (correct) yourself if you make a wrong turn?
• Can you make your own route choice when others are going differently?
Can you take and follow a compass bearing/ ( an azimuth)

Orienteering is simply, get a little bit lost then find yourself and then get a little bit lost again.

See Spot run? Run Spot run!

running with rests ... where no one can see you resting

I'm not sure what's wrong with the description we've been using for years: "Navigating through unfamiliar terrain with a map and compass." All that other stuff is meaningless to someone who hasn't done it.

If I want to emphasize the competitive aspect (as opposed to just decribing the activity), I'll tell people it's like cross country running, but you choose your own route. People seem to get that easy enough though the first description is far more accurate.

I often summarize by saying, "Running around with a map", which gets the most important points across.

I often say: "it's a cross country race, only you don't know the course til you have the map".

An unmarked cross country race, using a map, usually time trial based

We're off course here.
The exercise is first to give the simplest description of what you do when orienteering similar to the golf 'hit a ball, find it, hit it again'
P Stromme has it best so far "Look at a spot on a map. Go find it. Do it again"
Second is to describe in a few bullets how the act of orienteering is not that simple.

Run, find the flag, repeat.

'hit a ball, find it, hit it again'
But that doesn't really describe golf, because it omits the crucial detail of the hole that is your target. You can do a lot of hitting and finding and not really be golfing.

'hit a ball, find it, hit it again'
That sounds like a description of my (imaginary) cat's afternoon...

Whether or not orienteering could possibly be described analogously to 'hit the ball, find it and hit it again', do we have to describe it that way? This definition strikes me as both stultifying, unsatisfying, and evocative of an ultimately pointless exercise.

After all, Sisyphus, cursed by Zeus, got to 'roll the ball to the top of the hill, have it roll down and roll it up again.'

Thanks but no thanks.

In a world that is lost, these people have found a way. They like to lead, but shun being followed. And they won't follow directions. The map tells them all they need to know. It's not reaching the endpoint that matters to them - it's how they got there. Because they are typically not seen, they must become legends in their own minds. And with electronic timing, one can take pride in having the fastest time on one of the legs of a course. Despite finishing in the middle of the pack. Orienteering. Eventually coming to your neck of the woods. When they run out of other places to map.

Beautiful! :)

It's a treasure hunt.

X marks the spot (actually O)

Arrgh. I'm a pirate.

Okay, let's just assume that you are lucky enough to be on the evening sports broadcast and the first question the interviewer asks is " What is orienteering?"

What are you going to say? Bear in mind that the viewing public will consider your description as absolutely correct and it will most likely influence their opinion of the sport ---or even if it is a "sport"!

Keeping this in mind, I would not start out saying it is a treasure hunt. Also, I think long and detailed descriptions may loose people. The details are important but should be reserved for follow-up questions.

"It's an old school mix of rallying and obstacle racing, pitting brain power against speed. Though the event is timed, go too fast and you'll make navigation errors, losing precious time trying to relocate. Move slow, navigate accurately and you'll count the seconds tick by. Can you find the right balance?"

Perhaps this isn't the best answer to either gordhun's or carlch's specific questions but I think it does a good job of summing up the essence of orienteering in an attractive way.

For Carl's I say, "A cross-country race through the woods with a map and compass", and could add on, "You choose your own route between checkpoints on the map".

JJ, I'd leave out mentioning the compass. The compass has certain preformed connotations in peoples mind which link to precise compass bearings no matter the terrain.

How about "A cross-country race through the woods where you run with a map to choose your own fastest route between checkpoints."?

When asked, I say "Running in the woods." If there is still interest, then further descriptions can be provided about details, process. Most don't want much more.

I dislike the word "find" in many of the above posts. To me this implies hunting around for something hidden - which hopefully isn't what we do. I prefer something like "pass through the checkpoint" to "find the checkpoint".

I also shudder at the comparison to cross country running. In every CC race I've seen on tv or run in myself - pretty tame stuff compared to what we do.

PI once put it elegantly - and I can't hope to duplicate what he said. Something like: "It is a running race from the start line to the finish line. - pause to allow the familiarity to sink in -. Along the way you must pass through a number of checkpoints. The route between checkpoints is not marked, instead you use a map of the race course to choose what you think is the best/fastest way." (pi said it much better)

I like AZ's description. It works for beginner through advanced courses. It is also simple and to the point. I might add that it is a "detailed" map but other than that,it is good.

navigate to checkpoints

@carlch: I can still remember the first three words out of Ethan's mouth when he (and Andrew?) was in the exact situation you described: "It's a race."

Yes, the boys have been fortunate enough to be on two TV segments and the one question we knew they would ask is--"what is orienteering?" So, they were ready with a response.

I took your advice and the promotional piece for an upcoming orienteering event has been posted on a Facebook page here and elsewhere. Thank you for all the help and advice.

I typically just say this:
Someone puts a bunch of checkpoints in the woods* (Optional addition: and marks them on a map). Whoever finds them all fastest wins.

*or mountains, or desert, or other appropriate descriptor, depending on the event I am describing.

This starts the conversation. All other questions...i.e. going off trail, picking your own route, planning your route, type of map, what's a flag look like, are they hidden, run vs walk, sport vs game, can you use GPS, teams vs solo, can you follow others, time trials, sequence vs score-o. All these details can be answered as the person asks questions.

Alternatively, I may say "It's a cross country race, but instead of flagging the whole route, there are just 10 or 15 checkpoints, and you have to pick your own route between them."

Again, this does a good job of starting the discussion. All extra details are answered in follow-up discussion. The first thing they ask is "how do you know where the checkpoints are?" Then you get to say, "oh, they are marked on a a topo map..." Then they say, "can you go any way you want?", and you get to say, "yep, any way you want... through creeks, jumping over logs... it's pretty gnarly..."