Fell Relays

[Mark Two]

Yes a great event again, and very many thanks to Eryri Harriers for working so hard to put it on - I wonder how long it took to cut down all the vegetation on the car parking and race arena areas ?

A bit of shame that there were issues with the navigation leg – most significantly many teams – including some of the leading ones - taking a contouring route around Moel Eilio, saving up to 170m climb but crossing walls/fences in doing so.

I don’t know what the guidelines for the relays already say, but is there any scope for improving them, which without being overly prescriptive or bureaucratic, might help future organisers avoid similar issues?

For example in this case simply including the summit of Moel Eilio as a CP ( there was already one up there for leg 1) would have avoided the issue.

Might having an experienced course vetter for the nav’ leg ( or “controller” in orienteering speak) help ? A second pair of eyes often helps trap these types of problem.

[fozzy]

Very disappointed that all the teams who accidentally crossed the walls/fences weren't simply DQ'd. Some of the leading teams had orienteers on leg 3 who should have known better.

If too many teams did it (which seemed to be the reason on the grapevine), then the whole nav leg should have been voided (that would have been my decision as BOF Level C controller). Having "experienced" Leg 3 yesterday, you couldn't have just voided CP2-CP3 as the climb was so strength sapping (soft tussocks) that it had a material impact on the rest of the leg. Certainly for me!! (I bonked between CP4 and CP5).

I notice a few teams also cut the corner from the start to the bottom of the lane (i.e. the taped run out).

I do appreciate all the hard work and planning by the organisers - it was a good event, but as Mark says above, I'm not sure why a controller isn't looking at the nav leg courses to spot such problems. The obvious one is definitely to have a control at the summit of Moel Ellio between #2 and #3 as that's the only legal route choice anyway. (My planning choice would have been to give a route choice up and down and one down and up with 2 extra lower crossing points)

I still don't understand the reluctance/refusal to use orienteering maps for this leg at the relays anyway. It would solve most of the problems because you could quite easily purple overprint walls that were not to be crossed, making it crystal clear. Also if presented at 1:15k scale (very adequate for this event), it would allow the extra detail to be shown such as the crags to the E side of Moel Ellio and Foel Gron - it was difficult to know the best line down (even for two orienteers) because the OS map shows no detail!!

I've heard the arguments about (non-orienteering) fell runners not being able to read the maps, and I'm sorry that's a poor excuse! Learn!

Anyway, as I said, a good (if hard) event, just sadly spoiled a bit by an avoidable problem.

Yes a great event again, and very many thanks to Eryri Harriers for working so hard to put it on - I wonder how long it took to cut down all the vegetation on the car parking and race arena areas ?

A bit of shame that there were issues with the navigation leg – most significantly many teams – including some of the leading ones - taking a contouring route around Moel Eilio, saving up to 170m climb but crossing walls/fences in doing so.

I donÂ’t know what the guidelines for the relays already say, but is there any scope for improving them, which without being overly prescriptive or bureaucratic, might help future organisers avoid similar issues?

For example in this case simply including the summit of Moel Eilio as a CP ( there was already one up there for leg 1) would have avoided the issue.

Might having an experienced course vetter for the nav’ leg ( or “controller” in orienteering speak) help ? A second pair of eyes often helps trap these types of problem.

[ba-ba]

Here's a few thoughts. I contoured. I am a fell runner who orienteers so I can switch between both modes, this is a fell race so I activated fell runner mode.
- no red lines on the maps.
- no definitive word in final details or map about crossing points being compulsory. I read the final details the night before specifically checking for this. Crossing points were mentioned but not stated as compulsory (as far as I interpreted).
- other people were/would be doing so. At the front of the race this is probably the most relevant point.
- the clincher for me - the line was bent to CP1 and from CP5 suggesting a certain route must be taken. It was not at CP2-3.
- technically the white strip leaving CP1 was also out of bounds but even more ran across that!

The FRA nav leg has many times over the last few years been needlessly ambiguous and lacking in continuity with regards hard and fast 'rules' as to what the runners can and can't do. What is on the ground often does not match the map, and vis versa. This opens it up to interpretation of the runners, which in a race (especially at the front end) will lead to differing view points. This will inherently make it an unfair race. It is this fairness that a 'controller'/checker is there to ensure

As Mark has said, getting it checked over by someone used to the 'fairness' arrived for in orienteering will sort this out without having to put in loads of rules. Basically, here are a few catch-all solutions:
- If you don't want something to be crossed, put a dirty great red line on it. You can even write 'DO NOT CROSS" along it to make really sure people don't think it's a ski run.
- Break/bend the lines between controls to mandatory crossing points.
- Even put a control at the mandatory crossing points!

In general: Cut out all ambiguity. Cut out all inconsistency.

In general non-anotated OS maps are dodgy for nav events (especially in Eng/Wales with open access markings) as they leave a lot of accessibility (especially walls/fences) open to interpretation. I don't think full O maps are the way to go (the Wrekin/Mercia 1:25k MM-style map for the 2012 relays would be a good model)

I've heard next year's relays have a young orienteer on the organisation committee. Hopefully a set of guidelines will be come up with for fairness of the nav leg that can be used in future. I shall also offer my thoughts/services to the FRA championship committee going forward.

In general the control placings of the nav leg was a good test of mountain navigation without being too technical - the balance you need for a fell running nav event.

[noel]

PS. What's up with Eryri's time on leg 2?

PPS. Nice pici on Twitter BTW, Russell. I'm the Pennine runner behind you.

[anonymouse]

I must admit I think I went wrong on checkpoint one. I thought the line on the map was an encouragement to go in that direction rather than straight up (which would have involved wall crossing). I didn’t realise it was mandatorily tapes all the way to the bottom - I certainly didn’t see tape on the ground - and used the footpaths cutting the very bottom corner. There were quite a lot of teams doing that. Sorry if I erred, but no walls were crossed.

[GrahamPilling]

Here's a few thoughts......

Totally fair points and good to read some reasonable justification for the other side of the contouring issue. Thanks for posting that Nic.

First time doing the nav leg for me and enjoyed it despite it being a shock just how bad my 'on the fly' map reading skills are, an issue compounded by finding the map ambiguous/confusing.

Hopefully the nav section of the event can be improved for future relays.

[gazb]

They came past us strongly Noel, but while we weren't that quick, 61 min for 9.5m with 3000ft ascent is a tad on the quick side!!

[ba-ba]

I've been informed that the word 'cheat' is being bandied about on the FRA faceache page. I can't defend myself there as I refuse to use it.

Throwing around words like cheat is dangerous and borderline slanderous. It implies intentional duplicity, intentional breaking of the rules, pulling of the will over eyes and deception. Everyone I know is honest about which route they took, taking them in good faith and - importantly - based upon the map we were provided with. When navigation is involved, everything you need to get around the course legally should be on the map beyond the benefit of the doubt.

That there were questions in runners' heads implies rules were not made clear enough. It is, i believe up, to the organisers (in this case, the UKA/FRA, not the 'contractors' of Eryri, who did a good job) to ensure no doubt is in the racers' minds as to what is and isn't allowed.

If a couple of competitors out of a field of 200 do something, it can be considered their fault. If a lot of teams do the same thing independently, it points towards a bigger issue outside of the competitors' control.

Yesterday I spoke to orienteers and fell runners (and have read posts of others) I respect and got a wide range ranges of annoyance and acceptance. All were frustrated that this kind of thing has happened at this level, as it has been in the offing for some time (similar but less impactful at Pendle 2015 where I actually lost out running to the map; misplaced controls etc.).

Anyway, I'm waffling a bit. Basically I'm feeling pretty anxious and stressed, not because of what I did (in the same situation I'd do the same), but because I think others may think I'm a cheat or sly, or questioning my moral integrity (which is basically the only thing I feel I have going for me!).

[Rob Furness]

I've been informed that the word 'cheat' is being bandied about on the FRA faceache page. I can't defend myself there as I refuse to use it.

Throwing around words like cheat is dangerous and borderline slanderous. It implies intentional duplicity, intentional breaking of the rules, pulling of the will over eyes and deception. Everyone I know is honest about which route they took, taking them in good faith and - importantly - based upon the map we were provided with. When navigation is involved, everything you need to get around the course legally should be on the map beyond the benefit of the doubt.

That there were questions in runners' heads implies rules were not made clear enough. It is, i believe up, to the organisers (in this case, the UKA/FRA, not the 'contractors' of Eryri, who did a good job) to ensure no doubt is in the racers' minds as to what is and isn't allowed.

If a couple of competitors out of a field of 200 do something, it can be considered their fault. If a lot of teams do the same thing independently, it points towards a bigger issue outside of the competitors' control.

Yesterday I spoke to orienteers and fell runners (and have read posts of others) I respect and got a wide range ranges of annoyance and acceptance. All were frustrated that this kind of thing has happened at this level, as it has been in the offing for some time (similar but less impactful at Pendle 2015 where I actually lost out running to the map; misplaced controls etc.).

Anyway, I'm waffling a bit. Basically I'm feeling pretty anxious and stressed, not because of what I did (in the same situation I'd do the same), but because I think others may think I'm a cheat or sly, or questioning my moral integrity (which is basically the only thing I feel I have going for me!).

Nick - this is exactly how I feel about it. We also contoured because we saw a team in front do it, and it seemed a better route. There was no intention to cheat (it looks longer but with less climb, which seems exactly what a route choice is all about). I’ve felt a bit anxious about the whole thing since, especially as it’s the first time I’ve ever done a nav leg (albeit not as a primary navigator) and I wanted to achieve two things. 1 - To do the team proud and perform well, 2 - To not get lost and screw it up. We both ran really hard, and I felt terrible afterwards as a result of pushing so much. To then be labelled as a cheat is unfair I think. I’m happy to learn from the experience and be corrected by those that are more proficient navigators than myself, but constructive criticism is best.

Regardless of all that, I enjoyed the event, and it was a great challenge, irrespective of the route chosen. Hopefully next year it will be clearer so we can all feel we have done ourselves proud without any of this bad blood.

[fozzy]

I've been informed that the word 'cheat' is being bandied about on the FRA faceache page. I can't defend myself there as I refuse to use it.

Throwing around words like cheat is dangerous and borderline slanderous. It implies intentional duplicity, intentional breaking of the rules, pulling of the will over eyes and deception. Everyone I know is honest about which route they took, taking them in good faith and - importantly - based upon the map we were provided with. When navigation is involved, everything you need to get around the course legally should be on the map beyond the benefit of the doubt.

That there were questions in runners' heads implies rules were not made clear enough. It is, i believe up, to the organisers (in this case, the UKA/FRA, not the 'contractors' of Eryri, who did a good job) to ensure no doubt is in the racers' minds as to what is and isn't allowed.

If a couple of competitors out of a field of 200 do something, it can be considered their fault. If a lot of teams do the same thing independently, it points towards a bigger issue outside of the competitors' control.

Yesterday I spoke to orienteers and fell runners (and have read posts of others) I respect and got a wide range ranges of annoyance and acceptance. All were frustrated that this kind of thing has happened at this level, as it has been in the offing for some time (similar but less impactful at Pendle 2015 where I actually lost out running to the map; misplaced controls etc.).

Anyway, I'm waffling a bit. Basically I'm feeling pretty anxious and stressed, not because of what I did (in the same situation I'd do the same), but because I think others may think I'm a cheat or sly, or questioning my moral integrity (which is basically the only thing I feel I have going for me!).

I think you've made some very fair points - I want to withdraw my use of the word "cheated" earlier. It was wrong in this context.

I agree with you - the rules and regulations need making clearer (in the interests of fairness) and the mapping needs significant improvement to convey the correct information to competitors. There was too much ambiguity as to what was and wasn't a fair route.