9/7/96
GUIDELINES
For
PLANNING ADVANCED COURSES
1.
Responsibilities of the course-setter
a.
The course-setter is the key person in providing good
orienteering courses on the ground.
b.
The c-s is usually the sole person on whose shoulders the
success of the courses rests. Any help, including assistants and vetters
usually must be recruited by the c-s.
c.
The c-s is responsible for everything relating to the
courses.
i.
Planning
ii.
Preparation of maps and descriptions
iii.
Hanging bags/other markings/water
iv.
Procedures relating to the maps and courses on the day of
the event
2.
Qualifications of the course-setter
a.
Familiarity with the rules of the sport
b.
Familiarity with advanced orienteering techniques
c.
Previous experience working with a qualified c-s as
assistant, vetter, etc.
d.
Prior familiarity with the terrain and map desirable
e.
Personal interest, physical capacity and available time
3.
Basic requirements of an orienteering course
a.
All quality factors can be grouped into three categories
(per IOF guidelines)
i.
Fairness. (The primary concern. Luck and inaccuracies with
regard to controls, routes and the map are minimized.)
ii.
Navigational challenge. (As difficult as the terrain
permits.)
iii.
Reach expected winning time. (According to standards.)
b.
USOF 1992 Rules exerpts (emphasis supplied)
i.
2.2) In orienteering both the running and navigating skill
of the competitor shall be tested, but in such a way that the navigating
skill is decisive.
ii.
2.3) Orienteering competitions shall be held in primarily in
forested terrain, which, ideally, is unfamiliar to the competitors.
iii.
2.4) It shall be possible to solve the orienteering problems
with the map, aided by the control descriptions and a compass.
iv.
2.5) Sporting fairness shall be the primary
consideration when organizing an event and when interpreting these Rules.
4.
Step 1 Long term planning: (Ideas for use of the map)
a.
Local limitations: As opposed to the European ideal where
local runners do not compete in important competitions, we are only one club
(locals are competing and organizing), limited areas, simple (large features,
bland) terrain that is easily remembered.
b.
Limitations to frequency of use
i.
size of the mapped area
ii.
topography and detail of the area
iii.
good vs. bad terrain
iv.
number and location of parking/assembly areas
v.
Quality of the map
c.
Minimize overuse through spreading use over time and area.
Look at long term (history and future) use. Example of long term rotation
technique: Cycle will depend on capacity of the area and level of events to be
held
i.
Level 1- Totally distinct areas
ii.
Level 2- Overlapping areas
iii.
Level 2- Repeat areas with new legs crossing the old
iv.
Level 3- New legs in opposite direction to old
v.
Level 4- Legs in the same direction parallel
Repetition of
controls delayed as long as possible.
d.
Familiarity, which is bad for competitors, is good for
course-setters and organization. Consistency in the long term involvement of
the same personnel eases the job and enhances quality. Knowledge regarding
idiosyncrasies of map, park staff, map corrections, history of use, etc.
5.
Standards
a.
Advanced course standards- Standards are set forth in the
USOF rules. Patterned after the IOF but condensed into color-coded scheme.
b.
Technical:
i.
23.2.1) "...the technical difficulty of Brown, Green,
Red, and Blue is to be equivalent, at the expert level, with only the length
increasing."
ii.
See good leg description in IOF Principles section 3.4
iii.
See IOF Competition Rules section 16.2
c.
Physical:
i.
24.3) "The closest possible approximation (based on an
orienteer with a ranking score of 100) to the expected winning times given
below shall be decisive in determining course lengths for these events"
ii.
Section 24.4 has Brown, Green at 50 min.; Red at 60 min.;
and Blue at 60 - 80 min for "multi-day events".
iii.
24.7) "The winning time... in single-day individual
events [shall be] 20% longer than the specified winning times (section
24.4)"
iv.
See Course Distance Table to help estimate distance and
climb. Definition of course length for IOF Competition section 16.3,
6.
Step 2 To the Drawing board (pre-field work)
a.
Rough-out general configurations of the advanced courses
i.
Implementing long term plan? Check previous master maps. No
previous training or C meets? Consider non-technical constraints. Coordinate
with meet director, park officials and recognize start/finish needs,
transportation, on-course water/first aid, restricted/sensitive areas, hazards,
and private property. Consider the relationship to non-advanced courses.
ii.
Rough out Blue loop first. Share legs with other courses as
consistent with fairness and capacity. Plan legs before looking at controls.
Sharing controls between advanced courses conserves terrain, facilitates runner
post-mortem comparison, and saves work for meet workers. Hazard is overcrowding
legs and controls. Plan for 4 minute intervals from 10 to 12:30 which allows
for 38 competitors per course. Advanced courses start at same time to different
first controls. These first controls should be an attempt to permanently
separate the co-starters. From there utilize forking to maintain fairness.
iii.
Measure distance and climb
1.
Check vs. "The Distance Table"
2.
Make any obvious adjustments
1.
Precise measurement (not covered in this workshop) should be
made in the final planning stages. See Measuring
.
7.
Applying Standards- USOF standards establish the basis for
the technical and physical requirements of the courses, the relationship
between the courses and with the ranking points of the competitors. The time
and distance specs from Rule 24.4 are shown on Table 1.
a.
Adjustments to the rules- While the rules are paramount it
may be impossible to follow them to the letter in certain circumstances. When
it is necessary to deviate from the official specs, fairness dictates that
inconsistencies be clearly spelled out to the competitors. The effects of the
variation from the rules should be evaluated to determine whether the course(s)
meet minimum requirements for fairness, challenge and effort.
i.
Bay Area terrain usually does not allow compliance with
24.7, that the optimum route be limited to 4% climb. A more realistic goal is
5-6% with a maximum of 7%.
ii.
The requirement that the 100 ranking point relationship be
decisive is not practical without a substantial number of consistent high
ranked participants. To maintain a consistent relationship between courses, the
Distance Table, relates all advanced courses to Blue, which tends to have the
more consistent performers. The percentage is based on the time and distances
contained in 24.4. Although not directly related to the points of competitors,
the specs for the other courses are consistent with top performances as well as
the time and distance specs of 24.4. While this is an adjustment of the rule,
in practice it should be a simplification with and similar result.
iii.
Where the rules provide a range for course length, the
median is utilized in calculating the Distance Table and where there is an
inconsistency in the indicated speeds between courses, an adjustment is made to
improve applicability. (Table 2.)
b.
Using the Distance Table- (Note: the distance table has some
inconsistencies that are being revised.) These figures are drawn from limited
data most applicable to the predominant Bay Area terrain type (Joe Grant,
Sunol, Calero) featuring steep terrain, good Runnability and visibility, not
too rugged and not too technical. It is meant and a guide primarily to show the
relationship of climb to distance and between courses. It should be a good
starting point but will not always be accurate without adjustment.
i.
Adjustment factors
1.
Technical difficulty (terrain type)
2.
Runnability
a.
Ruggedness (scramble slopes)
b.
Slash (brashings, down trees and limbs)
c.
Footing (loose, rocky, rough ground, wet)
d.
Vegetation (Run, walk, fight)
3.
Visibility (wide open, moderate, dense)
4.
Familiarity
ii.
Use data specific to the terrain. Previous results are
useful, particularly if data on the performances is available. Your own runs
can be useful.
iii.
Use pre-runners. Run the courses yourself or have the vetter
do it (in addition to vetting.)
c.
Evaluating adherence to course standards- The goal of IOF's
third quality category is to "reach the expected winning time." The
raw results do not necessarily provide a basis for evaluation. It is necessary
to know how the subject run compares with the average USOF ranking run for the
subject runner (usually from his or her top 4-6 "A" meet results.) Usually
that can only be done by the runner . Add or subtract minutes for:
i.
Ranking points
ii.
Master map
iii.
Errors
iv.
Route choice
v.
Fitness, speed, injury
vi.
Familiarity or other fairness factors
|
Estimating
deviation from course standard based on competitive or test run |
||||
|
Joe.
S, (80.9 Green points in 1995) |
|
|
||
|
Total
Time |
|
01:26:33 |
|
Adjust
to bring running time in comparison with typical (ranking) run. |
|
Adjustments |
|
|
|
|
|
Master
Map |
00:04:35 |
01:21:58 |
|
Subtract master map time, not part of running time. |
|
Typical
Error |
00:05:00 |
|
|
|
|
Actual
Error |
00:04:00 |
|
|
|
|
Difference |
00:01:00 |
01:22:58 |
|
Add
since this factor makes my time faster than typical |
|
Mismark
error |
00:02:30 |
01:20:28 |
|
Subtract.
I miss-marked the final control from the master map. Would not have occurred with pre-marked
map. |
|
Map
error |
00:03:00 |
01:17:28 |
|
The
map had a significant area of unmapped fight after control number 1 causing a
loss of three min. |
|
Running
Speed |
0 |
01:17:28 |
|
I
consider my physical speed as typical in effort and efficiency to typical
ranking event last year |
|
Familiarity |
0 |
01:17:28 |
|
Familiarity
with the general area and terrain type gave me an advantage over some of my
competitors but I had no recall of this specific area at all |
|
Course
fairness |
0 |
01:17:28 |
|
I
did not look at these items closely but do not attribute any significant
effect on running time |
|
Fair
Play |
0 |
01:17:28 |
|
|
|
Total
adjusted time |
|
01:17:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Course
Std. |
01:00:00 |
|
|
For
a 100 point runner |
|
My
Par time |
1.236093943 |
01:14:10 |
|
(100/
80.9pts x 60:00 min.) |
|
Difference |
|
00:03:18 |
|
|
|
|
|
4% |
|
Course
is indicated within 4% of standard- Very close |
Course distance
5.25Km/405m/6.43%
Speed-14:35min/Km
(disregarding master map and mismapping problems) is not fast.
8.
The purposes of a leg
a.
To test a competitor's skills
i.
fine map reading
ii.
rough map reading
iii.
fine compass
iv.
rough compass
v.
distance judgment
vi.
elevation judgment
vii.
route choice
selection
b.
Techniques using those skills:
i.
map simplification
ii.
map memorization
iii.
aiming off
iv.
compass bearing
v.
change speed
vi.
continuous change of direction at high speed
vii.
Route choice
1.
safe v risky
2.
slow v fast e.g. over/through or around: topography,
vegetation, water, rocky/disturbed ground, side hill or path v cross-country,
etc.
c.
Terrain attributes for testing advanced skills
i.
Navigation
1.
Detailed
2.
Non-patterned
3.
Limited visibility
4.
Forested
5.
Few line features
6.
Few large features
7.
Accurately mapped
8.
Variety
ii.
Running (should allow map reading on the run)
1.
Not too steep
2.
Limited undergrowth
3.
Good footing
4.
But variety important to test different running skills
5.
Lack of hazards
iii.
Course setting techniques for testing skills:
1.
Change in elevation between controls
2.
Navigation through featureless areas
3.
Use end of line feature head on
4.
Re-entrant from above
5.
Invite parallel errors
d.
Purposes of a control
i.
To provide the running and navigational goal of a leg as
outlined above
ii.
To set up the next leg
iii.
A change of pace control that may not meet the full
standards but provides variety and interest
iv.
As a turning control to avoid a dog leg
v.
To assure use of a road or fence crossing or of a required
route or the avoidance of out-of-bounds
vi.
As a spectator control
vii.
To funnel all
courses into the finish chute
viii.
Water and card-check considerations are usually secondary.
9.
Site selection:
a.
Definitions
i.
Control feature: the mapped object
ii.
Control point (aka the control): the defined point on the
control feature.
iii.
Control marker: the flag hung at the control point.
Distinctions
between the three are particularly relevant in discussing visibility.
b.
Selecting control sites
i.
From IOF Principles 3.5.1) map must portray the ground
accurately in the vicinity of the control and that the direction and distances
from all possible angles of approach must be correct.
ii.
3.5.1) Not sited on small features visible only from short
distances.
iii.
3.5.1) Not sited where visibility of the flag from different
directions cannot be evaluated from the map or description.
iv.
The smallest feature fairly represented on map is suitable
for an advanced control.
10.
Variety increases
course interest and tests different techniques. (Emphasized in IOF guidelines.)
a.
Vary leg attributes
i.
Terrain/vegetation
ii.
Orienteering problems/technique requirements
iii.
Direction
iv.
Length
v.
Climb
b.
Vary control attributes
i.
Feature type
ii.
Difficulty
11.
Step 3 Field work-
the most important phase. See the attached Course-Setters Check List.
a.
Allow four days of field prep for standard 3-4 advanced
courses
b.
Time requirement will vary depending on familiarity with the
terrain, complexity of the courses, availability of fresh terrain, special
constraints, control duplication, etc.
c.
Schedule vetting and advisory sessions
d.
Use the same scale map that the competitors will be using.
12.
Control fairness
a.
Map quality
i.
Accuracy
ii.
Consistency
iii.
Level of detail
b.
Description
i.
Size often overlooked
1.
Clearing (length and width)
2.
2/3m boulder (both uphill and downhill heights, if
different)
ii.
What if map symbol inaccurate? How is this rectified?
c.
Flag placement (see also Common Errors.... below.)
i.
The flag must be clearly visible upon reaching the control
site
ii.
The flag must not be obscured by and unmapped feature once
you are at the control site. (With in 5 meters?)
iii.
The less accurate navigator should not be aided by seeing
the flag first. On advanced controls on rock features, for example, the flag is
normally sited at the base of the feature opposite the optimum direction of
approach. The top of the flag should be below the top of the feature.
iv.
The presence of other orienteers should have minimal impact
on locating the control. This is largely a function of visibility rather than
the control type (depression, gully, etc.) The habits of the orienteers on the
course are also a major influence.
d.
The control feature should be visible from within 10% of the
distance to the closest mapped feature (possible attack point). This rule of
thumb is based on the reasonably accurate use of the compass by an expert
orienteer at running speed (+/- 3d.) Luck becomes more of a factor when map
information is inadequate hence the term "bingo" control.
13.
Control Challenge-
While the control is secondary to the leg, the advanced orienteer should
generally be required to navigate to the point before seeing the bag.
a.
Similar or small features in a complex area are most
technically challenging
b.
Visibility in the area of the control is also critical to
technical difficulty. Raising the flag to overcome the shortcomings of the
control or the map is a tool of last resort.
c.
Overcoming problem sites:
i.
Don't use them
ii.
Correct the map (not appropriate for master maps)
iii.
Raising the flag to overcome the shortcomings of the control
or the map is a tool of last resort.
iv.
Create and artificial control if necessary. Ideally, this
will function as a natural control feature being more visible than the bag.
1.
Common structures include the legendary fodder rack,
hunter's stand (boards nailed to a tree trunk), or tripod.
2.
A sample should be on display at the start area
3.
The map and description symbols should be provided in
advance
4.
This is also a good technique for utilizing bland areas.
(With foresight, semi-permanent features could be added before mapping.)
d.
The use of a pit or small boulder (or any small control
feature) in an open area can be undesirable if the feature is not visible from
a distance but other competitors are. This is not to say they are necessarily
unusable. Runners on an advanced course should not be expected to linger at a
control site.
e.
Compromising- Not all sites are perfect.
14.
Avoiding or
mitigating climb
a.
Remote start at higher elevation
b.
Gradual rather than steep legs
c.
Break up the climb with controls
d.
Always have a navigational objective to steep legs
e.
Alternate with less steep legs
f.
Provide an 'around' alternative
g.
Also reconsider steep down-hills if there is a better
alternative
15.
Common errors to
avoid. Not all of these errors are always fatal. Usually there will be an alternative.
That is almost always the case with those asterisked*)
a.
*Hiding the bag to make the control more difficult
b.
Choosing a 'good' point with no purpose to the leg
c.
Bingo control (luck has too much influence)
d.
Effective dog-leg
e.
High bag placement
f.
Sharing controls with non advanced courses
g.
Excess climb
h.
*Hanging the bag against a tree trunk
i.
*Hanging the bag against an unmapped embankment
j.
*Hanging the bag in the bottom of and unmapped gully in the
bottom of a re-entrant (description: re-entrant.)
k.
Handrails along the route or catching features in front of (or
close behind) the control (lost distance.)
l.
Superior trail alternatives
m.
Overly steep legs with little navigational purpose.
n.
Steep legs only to return downhill on the next leg
o.
*Using a large spur or valley (referred to as a re-entrant)
as a control when there is no distinct point.
16.
Sources of luck or
unfairness
a.
Poor map
b.
Poor flag placement
c.
Poor description
d.
Influence of other runners
e.
A competitor's familiarity with the terrain, course
f.
Advance info not available to all competitors
g.
Courses not to technical or physical standard
h.
Courses favoring running over navigation
i.
Violation of competition rules
17.
Some elements of
chance are beyond the control of the organizers or competitors but the primary
goal of fairness dictates that luck be minimized to the extent possible.
18.
Course design
exercise
The above outline was used for the presentation of the BAOC Advanced
Course Workshop held at the JMP ranger station in Oakland on September 7, 1996
presented by Joe and James Scarborough. Kent Ohlund conducted the course design
exercise.
After the workshop, an informal meet was held with the following
instructions. Just about every course-setting and rule principle was violated.
Number of protests: 0.
You may not have heard of the USOF
sanctioned event to be held this afternoon. All "A" meet rules will
apply. A special added rule will allow you to deduct 1 minute from your time
for every protest for a rule or course-setting violation that you file and that
is upheld. It will be a Motala format with a mass start at _______p.m. There
are three loops of about 1 Km each and ewt of 20-25 min.
Comments,
corrections, additions please to Joe Scarborough
Back to Orienteer.com