9/7/96

GUIDELINES

For

PLANNING ADVANCED COURSES

 

  1. Responsibilities of the course-setter
    1. The course-setter is the key person in providing good orienteering courses on the ground.
    2. 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.
    3. The c-s is responsible for everything relating to the courses.
      1. Planning
      2. Preparation of maps and descriptions
      3. Hanging bags/other markings/water
      4. Procedures relating to the maps and courses on the day of the event
  2. Qualifications of the course-setter
    1. Familiarity with the rules of the sport
    2. Familiarity with advanced orienteering techniques
    3. Previous experience working with a qualified c-s as assistant, vetter, etc.
    4. Prior familiarity with the terrain and map desirable
    5. Personal interest, physical capacity and available time
  3. Basic requirements of an orienteering course
    1. All quality factors can be grouped into three categories (per IOF guidelines)
      1. Fairness. (The primary concern. Luck and inaccuracies with regard to controls, routes and the map are minimized.)
      2. Navigational challenge. (As difficult as the terrain permits.)
      3. Reach expected winning time. (According to standards.)
    2. USOF 1992 Rules exerpts (emphasis supplied)
      1. 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.
      2. 2.3) Orienteering competitions shall be held in primarily in forested terrain, which, ideally, is unfamiliar to the competitors.
      3. 2.4) It shall be possible to solve the orienteering problems with the map, aided by the control descriptions and a compass.
      4. 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)
    1. 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.
    2. Limitations to frequency of use
      1. size of the mapped area
      2. topography and detail of the area
      3. good vs. bad terrain
      4. number and location of parking/assembly areas
      5. Quality of the map
    3. 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
      1. Level 1- Totally distinct areas
      2. Level 2- Overlapping areas
      3. Level 2- Repeat areas with new legs crossing the old
      4. Level 3- New legs in opposite direction to old
      5. Level 4- Legs in the same direction parallel

      Repetition of controls delayed as long as possible.

    4. 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
    1. Advanced course standards- Standards are set forth in the USOF rules. Patterned after the IOF but condensed into color-coded scheme.
    2. Technical:
      1. 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."
      2. See good leg description in IOF Principles section 3.4
      3. See IOF Competition Rules section 16.2
    3. Physical:
      1. 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"
      2. Section 24.4 has Brown, Green at 50 min.; Red at 60 min.; and Blue at 60 - 80 min for "multi-day events".
      3. 24.7) "The winning time... in single-day individual events [shall be] 20% longer than the specified winning times (section 24.4)"
      4. 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)
    1. Rough-out general configurations of the advanced courses
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
      3. Measure distance and climb
        1. Check vs. "The Distance Table"
        2. Make any obvious adjustments
        3. 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.
    1. 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.
      1. 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%.
      2. 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.
      3. 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.)
    2. 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.
      1. Adjustment factors
        1. Technical difficulty (terrain type)
        2. Runnability
          1. Ruggedness (scramble slopes)
          2. Slash (brashings, down trees and limbs)
          3. Footing (loose, rocky, rough ground, wet)
          4. Vegetation (Run, walk, fight)
        3. Visibility (wide open, moderate, dense)
        4. Familiarity
      2. Use data specific to the terrain. Previous results are useful, particularly if data on the performances is available. Your own runs can be useful.
      3. Use pre-runners. Run the courses yourself or have the vetter do it (in addition to vetting.)
    3. 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:
      1. Ranking points
      2. Master map
      3. Errors
      4. Route choice
      5. Fitness, speed, injury
      6. Familiarity or other fairness factors

    The following example of an actual run by Joe Scarborough will cut and paste into a spreadsheet.

    Example: Estimating deviation from course standard

    Joe. S, (80.9 Green points in 1995)

    based on competitive or test run

     

     

    Sunol, 5/96

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Run Time

     

    01:26:33

     

    Adjust to bring running time in comparison with typical (ranking) run

    Adjustments

     

     

     

    Subtract items which add to typical time

     

    Master Map

    00:04:35

    01:21:58

     

    Subtract this time, which is not typical

     

     

    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

     

    Miss-mark error

    00:02:30

    01:20:28

     

    Subtract. I miss-marked the final control from the master map

    Map error

    00:03:00

    01:17:28

     

    The map had a significant area of unmapped fight after control number 1

    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 area at all

    Course fairness

    0

    01:17:28

     

    I did not look at these items closely but did not attribute any significant

    Fair Play

    0

    01:17:28

     

    effect on running time

     

     

    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 miss-mapping problems) is not fast.

     

     

     
  8. The purposes of a leg
    1. To test a competitor's skills
      1. fine map reading
      2. rough map reading
      3. fine compass
      4. rough compass
      5. distance judgement
      6. elevation judgement
      7. route choice selection
    2. Techniques using those skills:
      1. map simplification
      2. map memorization
      3. aiming off
      4. compass bearing
      5. change speed
      6. continuous change of direction at high speed
      7. 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.
    3. Terrain attributes for testing advanced skills
      1. Navigation
        1. Detailed
        2. Non-patterned
        3. Limited visibility
        4. Forested
        5. Few line features
        6. Few large features
        7. Accurately mapped
        8. Variety
      2. 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
      3. 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
    4. Purposes of a control
      1. To provide the running and navigational goal of a leg as outlined above
      2. To set up the next leg
      3. A change of pace control that may not meet the full standards but provides variety and interest
      4. As a turning control to avoid a dog leg
      5. To assure use of a road or fence crossing or of a required route or the avoidance of out-of-bounds
      6. As a spectator control
      7. To funnel all courses into the finish chute
      8. Water and card-check considerations are usually secondary.
  9. Site selection:
    1. Definitions (Distinctions between these three items are particularly relevant in discussing visibility.)
      1. Control feature: the mapped object
      2. Control point (aka the control): the defined point on the control feature.
      3. Control marker: the flag hung at the control point.
    2. Selecting control sites
      1. 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.
      2. 3.5.1) Not sited on small features visible only from short distances.
      3. 3.5.1) Not sited where visibility of the flag from different directions cannot be evaluated from the map or description.
      4. 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.)
    1. Vary leg attributes
      1. Terrain/vegetation
      2. Orienteering problems/technique requirements
      3. Direction
      4. Length
      5. Climb
    2. Vary control attributes
      1. Feature type
      2. Difficulty
  11. Step 3 Field work- the most important phase. See the attached Course-Setters Check List.
    1. Allow four days of field prep for standard 3-4 advanced courses
    2. Time requirement will vary depending on familiarity with the terrain, complexity of the courses, availability of fresh terrain, special constraints, control duplication, etc.
    3. Schedule vetting and advisory sessions
    4. Use the same scale map that the competitors will be using.
  12. Control fairness
    1. Map quality
      1. Accuracy
      2. Consistency
      3. Level of detail
    2. Description
      1. Size often overlooked
        1. Clearing (length and width)
        2. 2/3m boulder (both uphill and downhill heights, if different)
      2. What if map symbol inaccurate? How is this rectified?
    3. Flag placement (see also Common Errors.... below.)
      1. The flag must be clearly visible upon reaching the control site
      2. The flag must not be obscured by and unmapped feature once you are at the control site. (With in 5 meters?)
      3. 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.
      4. 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.
    4. 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.
    1. Similar or small features in a complex area are most technically challenging
    2. Limited (but fair) visibility in the area of the control will increase technical difficulty. 
    3. Overcoming problem sites:
      1. Don't use them
      2. Correct the map (not appropriate for master maps)
      3. Raising the flag to overcome the shortcomings of the control or the map is a tool of last resort.
      4. 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.)
    4. 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.
    5. Compromising- Not all sites are perfect.
  14. Avoiding or mitigating climb
    1. Remote start at higher elevation
    2. Gradual rather than steep legs
    3. Break up the climb with controls
    4. Always have a navigational objective to steep legs
    5. Alternate with less steep legs
    6. Provide an 'around' alternative
    7. 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*)
    1. *Hiding the bag to make the control more difficult
    2. Choosing a 'good' point with no purpose to the leg
    3. Bingo control (luck has too much influence)
    4. Dog-leg or effective dog-leg
    5. High bag placement
    6. Sharing controls with non advanced courses
    7. Excess climb
    8. *Hanging the bag against a tree trunk
    9. *Hanging the bag against an unmapped embankment
    10. *Hanging the bag in the bottom of an unmapped gully in the bottom of a re-entrant (description: re-entrant.)
    11. Handrails along the route or catching features in front of (or close behind) the control (lost distance.)
    12. Superior trail alternatives
    13. Overly steep legs with little navigational purpose.
    14. Steep up or downhill legs only to return down or up on the next leg
    15. *Using a large spur or valley (referred to euphemistically as a re-entrant) as a control where there is no distinct point.
    16. *Failure to use stands (the accepted method of presenting the marker and punch consistently and accurately) resulting in:
      1. Marker not placed at point described
      2. In foliage
      3. Against tree trunk
      4. To high, from a branch
      5. Marker not visible from all directions indicated by description
    17. *No final spectator/collecting control
    18. *Start of navigation direction visible from pre-start
  16. Sources of luck or unfairness
    1. Poor map
    2. Poor flag placement
    3. Poor description
    4. Influence of other runners
    5. A competitor's familiarity with the terrain, legs or controls from prior competition or course-setting
    6. Advance info not available to all competitors
    7. Courses not to technical or physical standard
    8. Courses favoring running over navigation
    9. 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.

Prepared with the assistance of the BAOC Technical Committee for a workshop held in 1996

Joe Scarborough, Technical Director

Comments, corrections, additions please to Joe Scarborough

9/7/96, rev. 11/5/99, 5/10/00, 6/30/01

Back to Orienteer.com