It is traditional to thanks everyone, but this time first and foremost, a big thanks to Martin Bagness for the map. It has evolved from the JK in 2004. Martin updated it for this event, and for the first time mapped in detail the green jungle in the centre of the area. How is it possible to map in that vegetation with such accuracy? As a controller, being able to rely on the map is always important, but without the confidence I was able to place in it I would have been reluctant to have agreed to the use of the jungle. I only needed one foray into it check control sites. Looking at Route Gadget it seems that the faster competitors managed to navigate with great accuracy. This is a reflection of the quality of Martin’s mapping.

 

Some areas suffered from recent forestry work – selective felling in the runnable area to the East of the Start and heavy traffic on and widening of rides further South and East. The Start nearly got overwhelmed by felled trees a week before the event.

 

I don’t think any of this affected the fairness of the competition.

 

The only complaint I heard about the map or alleged wrong location of a control was about control 195 – the wall end in the jungle. I have not been back to check but if there is a problem then it is that there are bits of ruined wall to the west of the wall end and these have not been mapped, possibly on grounds of not being significant. However it is interesting that Route Gadget shows competitors going cleanly through here.

 

Thanks also to everyone from LOC who helped put on the event – in particular the organiser Roger Smith and his team who made everything go like clockwork, and the planners Iain Smith Ward and Nick Howlett for putting in a lot of time and real physical effort into producing some fine courses.

 

The Courses

 

Course distances were based on the 2006 event but times on most courses turned out significantly longer. I had expected that winning times on the shorter technical courses would be a bit long but surprised that the winning times were long on the longer technical courses. The 2006 event must have been less physical with the jungle not used and quite a bit of felling having taken place since, e.g. winning times on the Black, Brown and Short Brown were respectively 14%, 24% and 20% longer than in 2006. I hope that long times and wet miserable weather did not take away the enjoyment. I spoke to a lot of competitors at the finish and most seemed to have appreciated the tough technical and physical challenge and really enjoyed the event. However, apologies to those who found that extra distance outbalanced the pleasure.

 

Graythwaite is a tough technical and physical challenge for  a controller too, but it is a great pleasure to be able to go out alone in a forest like this - in nice weather every time except the day of the event. To me, events like this are what orienteering is all about. Congratulations to LOC for putting them on year after year.

 

Brian Jackson SROC

 

 

LOC Spring Double

 

 

 

 

 

Assessors Report

 

Ian Watson (MDOC)

 

This report is based on the views of 46 competitors who responded by email together with a number of verbal comments made at the event.

 

 

The opinions expressed were overwhelmingly positive. Of the 46 email responses, 23 contained the word ‘excellent’ and 11 contained the phrase ‘very good’. None of the responses were negative overall. As this was a two day event, many of the comments apply to both days although there some which are day specific.

 

The following comments occurred in many of the responses about both days of competition:

 

1. Excellent terrain

 

2. Excellent planning

 

3. Excellent organisation

 

4. Good Maps

 

5. Good car park and assembly (particularly the vehicle mats)

 

 

Several competitors with children commented on the high quality of the string courses and were highly appreciative of the efforts made to provide junior courses on day 1 close to assembly.

 

 

The following is a summary of comments that were made concerning aspects of the events that competitors thought could have been improved. These have been included only if they were mentioned by a number of respondents. There were several individual points of detail which have been omitted in the interests of brevity. These comments should be read bearing in mind the highly positive factors presented above.

 

 

SI Boxes on Stakes

 

Some suggested that, for an event of this quality, it would be better if the control boxes were not placed on the ground. This interrupts the flow of high speed competitors.

 

 

Day 1 – The Walk to the Start

 

A number of competitors commented that, although they appreciated that a long walk was necessary, the information concerning the walk could have been improved. There were two aspects to this:

 

 

1. It would have been better if the length and climb had been specified as well as a time estimate as people walk at very different rates.

 

 

2. Assuming that the approximate length of the walk would have been known a long time

 

in advance, information concerning this in the preliminary details would have been helpful. This is particularly relevant for parents with young children who require split starts. They need to know if they can cope with the overheads before entering.

 

 

Day 2 – Differing Map Scales on the Same Course

 

The provision of 1:7500 maps for older competitors was highly appreciated. However, it appears that the larger scale maps ran out towards the end of the start interval. There is some belief that this was due to younger competitors taking larger scale maps when they should have been using 1:10000. It was suggested that either courses on differing scales should vary slightly or that the start should be such that it is made more difficult to obtain the ‘wrong’ map by using a more structured lane organisation.

 

 

Day 2 – Running the Wrong Course

 

Several competitors reported that they had picked up the wrong map. Running Blue rather than Short Blue seemed to be the most common mistake. Competitors felt that they had been confused and again suggested that a better defined lane structure might have avoided this.

 

 

Day 2 – Course Lengths

 

It is clear from the results that a large number of competitors took significantly longer than usual to complete their course. In addition there were a relatively large number who retired. This was inevitably reflected in the comments received. However, it should be mentioned that several competitors stated that they relished the challenge and were very happy to spend longer in such excellent terrain. This raises the issue of how courses are planned to the guidelines. These state, for Level B events, that the length of the Black course should be fixed and all other course lengths determined by a defined factor. They state that the Black course length should be such that the winning time, by a top elite competitor, should be 67 minutes. However, they also state that the Black course should be a minimum of 10k. In this case, the course was 9.9k and was won, by a top elite competitor, in 82 mins.. So, by one measure it was correct and by the other it was over 20% too long.

 

 

It is fairly clear, from the comments in the final details, that the planners had adhered to the length guidelines but, due to the physical and technical nature of the terrain, expected the times to be long. Such a situation does not often occur in UK terrain but, if it does, should one of the guidelines take precedence? There is little doubt that lesser competitors are more affected by physical and technical challenges and some at the lower end of the results were a lot more than 20% slower than they expected. From the comments it is clear that, for such competitors, it is the time element which is important and they would have preferred a shorter course. Conversely, the courses were an excellent Classic Distance challenge for those who were able to cope with them and it would have been a great pity to deny this experience when the terrain made it possible to provide.

 

 

The solution, suggested by several respondents, is the provision of more information earlier.

 

 

Warnings about the potential challenge of the event were only available in the final details when most competitors had already entered and many were probably reluctant to change course later. Several said that, had they known earlier, they would have entered a shorter course. Warnings in preliminary details and maybe even a rough guide to course lengths and climb would enable competitors to select a course within the limits of their abilities. Another suggestion was that, in these circumstances, it might be appropriate to reduce the factors used for those shorter courses likely to be entered by less able competitors.

 

 

Summary

 

 

This event was perceived by competitors to be of a very high standard. Particular mention was made of the terrain, the planning and the organisation. Although there were some issues where competitors raised concerns, the provision of a little more information in the preliminary details of the event would have helped to solve these. The club is to be congratulated on holding a very successful event which gave a lot of pleasure to a large number of people.