Guidelines for Course Planning

Transcription

1 Guidelines for Course Planning World Class Events First version, January 2014 Foot Orienteering Commission - Göran Andersson Contributions by David May, Radek Novotny, Björn Persson, Helena Jansson and Thierry Gueorgiou 1

2 Contents Foreword 1. Introduction to course planning 2. The orienteering course 3. The course planner 4. The Leibnitz Convention 5. The Four Formats -Sprint -Middle -Long -Relay 6. Thoughts from Helena Jansson, Sweden 7. Thoughts from Thierry Gueorgiou, France 8. Planning for TV 9. Quarantine area 10. Appendix 1; Just how good was that Sprint (or Urban) race? Foreword The main reason behind this guideline on course planning at World Class Events is to listen to our customers. The most important customers are athletes, coaches, spectators and media. One of the questions is, of course, if we as organisers and the IOF are doing what we should do, to produce a product we all are satisfied with. Hopefully the course planner can be standing behind the finish line and listening to the runners saying this is best course I ever have run. Or the mapper can be listening to somebody else - what a brilliant map. Or the spectator; what an entertainment, what an exciting competition. We are all looking for success and the goal for every organiser of a World Class Event should be to aim for the best game ever. If we take the knowledge from all events in the past with us into the future we can see improvement in all organisations and we can raise the profile of World Cup and World Championships all the time. One of the most important issues today and in the future is how we can produce a world class course together with an entertainment arena- and a TV-production. We need, as course planners, to compromise the final course with the arena and TV-producer very early in the work of course planning. In these guidelines we have put the IOF Rules together with the reality. The four formats plus course planning are strictly described in written form as you can read in the following sections adapted from Appendix 6 of the IOF Competition Rules. After each discipline there are some examples to show what we as organisers have produced so far and how we can improve the events in the future. 2

3 World Champion in Long Distance 2010 Olav Lundanes, Norway. What is the best course you have ever run? The Long distance 2008 in Ventspils, Latvia, I think. It had 90 minutes with constant challenges, and big variations in visibility and runnability. Maybe not so many traditional route choices, but lots of tactical. Olav s result: place 19, 6.29 minutes behind the winner. If we can produce a very interesting and challenging course for the athletes together with entertaining and exciting race for spectators, we have succeeded. This shall be our goal as an organiser for World Class Events. Photo: WOC2010 Long distance 2008 in Ventspils, Latvia. 3

4 1. Introduction to course planning These principles aim to establish a common standard for the planning of foot orienteering courses in order to ensure fairness in competition and to safeguard the unique character of the sport of orienteering. Courses in all international foot orienteering events must be planned in accordance with these principles. They should also serve as general guidelines for the planning of other competitive orienteering events. The term orienteering is used throughout to refer specifically to orienteering on foot. Orienteering is a sport in which competitors visit a number of points marked on the ground, controls, in the shortest possible time aided only by map and compass. Orienteering on foot may be characterised as running navigation. Aim of good course planning The aim of course planning is to offer competitors courses correctly designed for their expected abilities. Results must reflect the competitors technical and physical ability. Course planner s golden rules The course planner must keep the following principles in mind: the unique character of foot orienteering as running navigation the fairness of the competition competitor enjoyment the protection of wildlife and the environment the needs of the media and spectators Unique character Every sport has its own character. The unique character of orienteering is to find and follow the best route through unknown terrain against the clock. This demands orienteering skills: accurate map reading, route choice evaluation, compass handling, concentration under stress, quick decision making, running in natural terrain, etc. Fairness Fairness is a basic requirement in competitive sport. Unless the greatest care is taken at each step of course planning and course setting, luck can easily become significant in orienteering competitions. The course planner must consider all such factors to ensure that the contest is fair and that all competitors face the same conditions on every part of the course. Competitor enjoyment The popularity of orienteering can only be enhanced if competitors are satisfied with the courses they are given. Careful course planning is therefore necessary to ensure that courses are appropriate in terms of length, physical and technical difficulty, control siting, etc. In this respect it is particularly important that each course is suitable for the competitors doing that course. Wildlife and the environment The environment is sensitive: wildlife may be disturbed and the ground as well as the vegetation may suffer from overuse. The environment also includes people living in the competition area, walls, fences, cultivated land, buildings and other constructions, etc. It is usually possible to find ways to avoid interference with the most sensitive areas without damage. Experience and research have shown that even large events can be organised in sensitive areas without permanent damage if the correct precautions are taken and the courses are well planned. It is very important that the course planner ensures that there is access to the chosen terrain and that any sensitive areas in the terrain are discovered in advance. 4

5 Media and spectators The need to give a good public image of the sport of orienteering should be a permanent concern for a course planner. The course planner should endeavour to offer spectators and the press the possibility to follow as closely as possible the progress of a competition without compromising sporting fairness. 2. The orienteering course Terrain The terrain must be chosen so that it can offer fair competition to all competitors. To safeguard the character of the sport, the terrain should be runnable and suitable for testing the orienteering skills of the competitors. Definition of an orienteering course An orienteering course is defined by the start, the controls, and the finish. Between these points, which are given precise locations in the terrain and correspondingly on the map, are the course legs over which the competitor must orienteer. The start The start area should be so situated and organised that: there is a warm up area waiting competitors cannot see route choices made by those who have started The point from which orienteering on the first leg begins is marked in the terrain by a control flag with no marking device and on the map by a triangle. The competitors should be faced with orienteering problems right from the start. The course legs The course legs are the most important elements of an orienteering course and will largely determine its quality. Good legs offer competitors interesting map-reading problems and lead them through good terrain with possibilities for alternative individual routes. Within the same course different types of legs should be offered, some of them based on intense map-reading and others containing more easily run route choices. There should also be variations with regard to leg length and difficulty to force the competitor to use a range of orienteering techniques and running speeds. The course planner should also endeavour to give changes in general direction for consecutive legs as this forces the competitors to reorient themselves frequently. It is preferable for a course to have a few very good legs joined by short links designed to enhance the legs rather than a larger number of even but lesser quality legs. Fairness of legs No leg should contain route choices giving any advantage or disadvantage which cannot be foreseen from the map by a competitor under competitive conditions. Legs which encourage competitors to cross forbidden or dangerous areas must be avoided. The controls Controls are placed at features in the terrain that are marked on the map. These must be visited by the competitors in the given order, if the order is specified, but following their own route choices. This demands careful planning and checking to ensure fairness. It is particularly important that the map portrays the ground accurately in the vicinity of the controls, and that the direction and distances from all possible angles of approach are correct. Controls must not be sited on small features visible only from a short distance if there are no other supporting features on the map. Controls must not be sited where the visibility of the control flag for runners coming from different directions cannot be evaluated from the map or control description. 5

6 The main function of a control is to mark the beginning and end of an orienteering leg. Sometimes controls with other specific purposes need to be used as, for example, to funnel runners around dangerous or out of bounds areas. Controls can also serve as refreshment, press and spectator points. The control equipment must be in accordance with the rules for IOF events. As far as possible, a control flag should be placed in such a manner that competitors first see it only when they have reached the described control feature. For fairness, the visibility of the control should be the same whether or not there is a competitor at the control site. On no account should the control flag be hidden: when competitors reach the control they should not have to search for the flag. It is necessary to choose control sites with great care and notably to avoid the acute angle effect where incoming competitors can be led into the control by outgoing runners. Controls on different courses placed too close to one another can mislead runners who have navigated correctly to the control site. According to Rule 19.4, controls shall not be sited within 30 metres of each other (15 metres for map scales 1:5000 or 1:4000). Only when the control features are distinctly different in the terrain as well as on the map, should controls be placed closer than 60 metres (30 metres for map scales 1:5000 or 1:4000). The position of the control with respect to the feature shown on the map is defined by the control description. The exact control feature on the ground, and the point marked on the map, must be indisputable. Controls which cannot be clearly and easily defined by the IOF control symbols are usually not suitable and should be avoided. The finish At least the last part of the route to the finish line should be a compulsory marked route. The elements of map-reading On a good orienteering course, competitors are forced to concentrate on navigation throughout the race. Sections requiring no map-reading or attention to navigation should be avoided unless they result from particularly good route choices. Route choices Alternative routes force competitors to use the map to assess the terrain and to draw conclusions from it. Route choices make competitors think independently and will split up the field, thus minimising following. For any terrain and map, a course planner can plan courses with a wide range of difficulty. The degree of difficulty of the legs can be varied by making them follow line features more or less closely. Competitors should be able to assess the degree of difficulty of the approach to a control from the information available on the map, and so choose the appropriate technique. Attention should be paid to the competitors expected skill, experience and ability to read or understand the fine detail of the map. Competition types Course planning must account for specific requirements of the type of competition considered. For instance, course planning for Sprint and Middle distance orienteering must call on detailed map reading and on a high degree of concentration throughout the entire course. Course planning for relay competitions should consider the need for spectators to be able to follow closely the progress of the competition. Course planning for relays should incorporate a good and sufficient forking/splitting system. 6

7 3. The course planner The person responsible for course planning must have an understanding and appreciation of the qualities of a good course gained from personal experience. He or she must also be familiar with the theory of course planning and appreciate the special requirements of different classes and different types of competition. The course planner must be able to assess, on site, the various factors which can affect the competition, such as the conditions of the terrain, the quality of the map, the presence of participants and spectators, etc. The course planner is responsible for the courses and the running of the competition between the start and the finish line. The course planner s work must be checked by the controller. This is essential because of the numerous opportunities for error, which could have serious consequences. The course planner should be fully acquainted with the terrain before he or she plans to use any control or leg. The planner should also be aware that on the day of the competition the conditions regarding map and terrain could be different from those which exist at the time the courses are planned. The desire to make the best possible legs often leads a planner to use unsuitable control sites. Competitors seldom notice any difference between a good and a superb leg, but they will immediately notice if a control leads to unpredictable loss of time due to a hidden control site or flag, ambiguity, a misleading control description etc. Even though the controls have code numbers they should not be so close to each other as to mislead competitors who navigate correctly to the control site on their course. The planner may see route choices which will never be taken and thereby may waste time by constructing intricate problems, whereas the competitors may take a next best route, thus saving time on route planning. Courses should be set so that normally fit competitors can run over most of the course set for their level of ability. The total climb of a course should normally not exceed 4% of the length of the shortest sensible route. 4. The Leibnitz Convention We, the Members of the IOF, attending the 20th IOF General Assembly in Leibnitz, Austria, on the 4 August 2000, hereby declare that "It is of decisive importance to raise the profile of the sport to further the spread of orienteering to more people and new areas, and to get orienteering into the Olympic Games. The main vehicles to achieve this are: to organise attractive and exciting orienteering events which are of high quality for competitors, officials, media, spectators, sponsors, and external partners to make IOF events attractive for TV and Internet We shall aim to: increase the visibility of our sport by organising our events closer to where people are make our event centres more attractive by giving increased attention to the design and quality of installations improve the event centre atmosphere, and the excitement, by having both start and finish at the centre increase television and other media coverage by ensuring that our events provide more and better opportunities for producing thrilling sports programmes 7

8 improve media service by better catering for the needs of media representatives (in terms of communication facilities, access to runners at start/finish and in the forest, continuous intermediate time information, food and beverages, etc.) pay more attention to promoting our sponsors and external partners in connection with our IOF events We, the Members of the IOF, expect that these measures shall be considered by all future organisers of IOF events." 5. The Four Formats SPRINT The profile The Sprint profile is high speed. It tests the athletes ability to read and translate the map in complex environments, and to plan and carry out route choices running at high speed. The course must be planned so that the element of speed is maintained throughout the race. The course may require climbing but steepness forcing the competitors to walk should be avoided. Finding the controls should not be the challenge; rather the ability to choose and complete the best route to them. For example, the most obvious way out from a control should not necessarily be the most favourable one The course should be set to require the athletes full concentration throughout the race. An environment that cannot provide this challenge is not appropriate for the Sprint. Course planning considerations In Sprint spectators are allowed along the course. The course planning shall consider this, and all controls must be manned. It may also be necessary to have guards at critical passages alerting spectators of approaching competitors and making sure that competitors are not hindered. The start should be at the Arena and spectator sites may be arranged along the course. The spectator value could be enhanced by building temporary stands and by having an on-course announcer. Both spectator sites and sites for media/photographers shall be announced at the Arena. The course must be planned to avoid tempting competitors to take shortcuts through private property and other out-of-bound areas. If there is such a risk, a referee should be at such locations to prevent possible attempts. Areas so complex that it is doubtful whether a competitor can interpret the map at high speed should be avoided (e.g. when there are complex three-dimensional structures). The map The ISSOM specification shall be followed. The map scale is 1:4000 or 1:5000. It is crucial that the map is correct and possible to interpret at high speed, and that the mapping of features that affect route choice and speed are accurate. In non-urban areas, the correct mapping of conditions reducing running speed, both to degree and extent, is important. In urban areas, barriers hindering the passage must be correctly represented and drawn to size. Winning time, start interval and timing The winning time, for both women and men, shall be minutes, preferably in the lower part of the interval. In WOC and World Cup there is no difference between qualification and final races. The start interval is 1 minute and a time-trial, individual format is used. Timing is normally to 1 second accuracy, but in the WOC final, timing is to 0.1 second using electronic means of timing with start gates and a beam finish line. The competitor shall have passed the start gate before having access to the map. Keywords Sprint: Speed Route choices Stress 8

9 Simple conclusion of a World Class Event in Sprint: should be in the URBAN or PARK area (forest Sprint is simply not fair - with reference to how the terrain can be interpreted in the map; any forest orienteering also requires a "forest" navigation, which is different from the navigation at clearly defined or open areas) maximum SPEED (the runners should not be forced to walk; it should be possible to solve the problems while running fast) based on MANY ROUTE CHOICES, which are mostly elementary (right/left/straight; the long tricky complicated legs are often a matter of luck - can be on the course, but properly considered) CLEAR CONTROL SITES - the runners should not spend time in solving complicated control descriptions (like fence from north side or south side?) or be even trapped by that NO TRAPS by intention winning time of 13-14min Key moments Sprint: Fairness, fairness, fairness! - keep in mind, that it s tenths of seconds (at WOC Finals)! Readable map Runners not-navigational fault prevention - the Sprint course should be set the way that the runners are tested from navigation, not from e.g. not-entering the forbidden areas - the course setter should fix it (proper course setting + taping all risky places) Neither puzzle, nor a track running! Some good examples A good Sprint: proper terrain - you can run very fast, orienteering is demanding (also thanks to lowered visibility among the buildings), but the available routes are clearly defined and homogenous. World Cup Qualification race 2005 (GBR) University of Surrey (Guildford) The Appendix describes a recommended way for planners to judge the quality of their Sprint courses. 9

10 We can learn a lot from the Swiss! The World Cup Final 2010 in Geneva, men s course (above). Early examples: An early example of a Sprint course (WC Dresden 2004): the selected terrain would probably not be used today - you can see from one flag to another, here the game is mostly about pure running (right). Another example of an early Sprint course (WOC 2005 Japan): today s Sprint philosophy is that forest is not fair and such terrain would not be selected today. The leg shown makes a demanding Middle Distance leg (at 1:5.000); the runners have to evaluate the vegetation etc., a skill not required for Sprint races! (left). 10

11 Urban Sprint? This is the WC Sprint in Italy 2005 and the question is if this kind of Sprint is a proper World Class Event. The course planner is mixing forest terrain with complex urban terrain. What do you think? You will find more examples under Thoughts from Helena Jansson and Thierry Gueorgiou. MIDDLE DISTANCE The profile The Middle distance profile is technical. It takes place in a non-urban (mostly forested) environment with an emphasis on detailed navigation and where finding the controls constitute a challenge. It requires constant concentration on map reading with occasional shifts in running direction out from controls. The element of route choice is essential but should not be at the expense of technically demanding orienteering. The route in itself shall involve demanding navigation. The course shall require speed-shifts e.g. with legs through different types of vegetation. Course planning considerations The course should be set to allow competitors to be seen by spectators during the course of the race as well as when finishing. The start should be at the Arena and the course should preferably make runners pass the Arena during the competition. The demand on selection of Arena is subsequently high, providing both suitable terrain and good possibilities to make runners visible to spectators. Spectators are not allowed along the course except for parts passing the Arena (including controls at the Arena). The map The standard ISOM specification shall be followed. The map scale is 1: The terrain shall be mapped for 1: and then be strictly enlarged as specified by ISOM. Winning time, start interval and timing The winning time, for both women and men, shall be minutes. In WOC and World Cup the winning time in qualification races shall be 25 minutes. The start interval is 2 minutes and a time-trial, individual format is used. The competitor shall have passed the start gate before having access to the map. Keywords Middle: Technical Control point Simple conclusion of a World Class Event in Middle: Maximal technical challenge 11

12 Highly demanding navigation at most of the course Demanding leg implemetation Difficult control sites Key moments Middle: terrain choice race concept - the setting starts with exploration of most suitable areas of a map map quality (as we require detailed map reading and precise navigation) variety of problems testing the flexibility of the runner Some good examples WOC Middle Qualification in Norway, 2010 (above left) WOC Middle in Switzerland 2003, (above right, up) JWOC Middle in Sweden 2008 (above right, down) the control constitutes a challenge EOC Middle Final in Latvia 2008 (left) 12

13 the element of route choice is essential the route shall involve demanding navigation WOC 2006 in Denmark, Middle Final (above, left) WOC 2007 in Ukraine, Middle Final (above, right) 13

14 A compromised example: WOC Middle Final in Norway 2010 The Arena Granåsen, through the TV-coverage, decided the choice of terrain; the course suffered and many of the runners were disappointed due of lack of O-technical challenge. 14

15 LONG DISTANCE The profile The Long distance profile is physical endurance. It takes place in a non-urban (mostly forested) environment, and aims at testing the athletes ability to make efficient route choices, to read and interpret the map and plan the race for endurance during a long and physically demanding exercise. The format emphasises route choices and navigation in rough, demanding terrain, preferably hilly. The control is the end-point of a long leg with demanding route choice, and is not necessarily in itself difficult to find. The Long distance may in parts include elements characteristic of the Middle distance with the course suddenly breaking the pattern of route choice orienteering to introduce a section with more technically demanding legs. Course planning considerations The course should be set to allow competitors to be seen by spectators during the course of the race as well as when finishing. Preferably, the start should be at the Arena and the course should make runners pass the Arena during the competition. A special element of the Long distance is the long legs, considerably longer than the average leg length. These longer legs may be from 1.5 to 3.5 km depending on the terrain type. Two or more such long legs should form part of the course (still requiring full concentration on map reading along the route chosen). Another important element of the Long distance is to use course setting techniques to break up groups of runners. Butterfly loops are one such technique. The terrain itself should be used as a break-up method by putting the course through areas with limited visibility. Spectators are not allowed along the course except for parts passing the Arena (including controls at the Arena). The map The standard ISOM specification shall be followed. The map scale is 1: Winning time, start interval and timing The winning time shall be minutes for women and minutes for men. In WOC and World Cup the winning times in qualification races shall be 45 minutes for women and 60 minutes for men. The start interval is 3 minutes. A time-trial, individual format is used. The competitor shall have passed the start gate before having access to the map. Keywords Long: Physical Route choice Simple conclusion of a World Class Event in Long: Physically challenge, testing toughness Overcoming obstacles Frequent route choices Clear distinct control sites, which reflect the readability of a map at 1: Key moments Long: terrain choice map readability the main focus is the leg, not the control (says not that all the controls should be easy and visible) finding good legs and get MANY of them in your course knowledge about how the world class runners behave in the forest proper BALANCING of the key route-choice legs! women s course as challenging as the men s (quite often the women suffer from being too short and thus not fitting into the concept) 15

16 giving the time to the runners to be able to consider their choice (no first-sight fundamental decisions like at WOC 2008 in the Czech Republic) Some good examples WOC in Switzerland 2003: here the course-setter understood pretty well what the long distance is about - the control sites are extremely clear, the running time on such a leg is decided almost entirely by the routechoice and the physical capacity (right) WOC in Hungary 2009, the last part (left) plan the race for endurance during a long and physically demanding exercise the control is the end of a demanding leg, and not necessarily in itself difficult to find WOC in Czech Republic 2008 (above) 16

17 suddenly breaking the pattern of route choice orienteering WOC in Sweden, 2004 Long Final route choice on route choice WOC in Denmark 2006 Long Final Men (below) 17

18 Two main routes WOC in Czech Republic 2008 (below) Something to avoid A word of warning! It is not good practice to start a Long Distance course with a sequence of technical legs. It creates big risk for groupings and following! WOC in Japan 2005, long final men (right)) 18

19 This is much better! WOC in Sweden 2004, long final men (below). RELAY The profile The Relay profile is team competition. It takes place in a non-urban (mostly forested) environment. The format is built on a technically demanding concept, more similar to the concept of the Middle than the Long distance. Some elements characteristic of the Long distance, like longer, route-choice legs should occur, allowing competitors to pass each IOF Foot Orienteering Competition Rules 2011 Page 41 other without making contact. Good Relay terrain has characteristics that make runners lose eye contact with each other (such as denser vegetation, many hills/depressions etc.). Terrain with continuous good visibility is not suitable for the Relay. Course planning considerations The Relay is a spectator friendly event in offering a competition between teams, head-to-head, and with the first to finish being the winner. The Arena layout and the course setting must consider this (e.g. when forking is used, the time difference between alternatives should be small). The competitors should, on each leg, pass the Arena, and if possible runners should be visible from the Arena while approaching the last control. An appropriate number of intermediate times (possibly with in-forest commentators) should be provided (as well as TV-controls shown on screen in the Arena). The mass start format requires a course planning technique separating runners from each other (e.g. forking). The best teams should be carefully allocated to different forking combinations. For fairness reasons the very last part of the last leg shall be the same for all runners. Spectators are not allowed along the course except for parts passing the Arena (including controls at the Arena). The map The standard ISOM specification shall be followed. The map scale is 1: or 1: The decision on map scale shall be based on the complexity of the course design (e.g. short legs with controls close to 19

20 each other may require the larger map scale). When 1: is used the terrain shall be mapped for 1: and strictly enlarged as specified by the ISOM. Winning time, start interval and timing The winning time (the total time for the winning team) shall be minutes for both the women s relay and the men s relay. Within the total time, the time for different legs may vary. No leg should be longer than 40 minutes or shorter than 30 minutes. The Relay is a mass start format and consists of three legs for both women and men. In WOC timing shall preferably be made by electronic means, but manual systems may be used. At the finish line there shall be photo-finish equipment to assist in judging the correct placings. Keywords Relay: Running head to head, team competition. A mixture of technical difficulties. Small and medium scale route choice. Simple conclusion of a World Class Event in Relay: High speed, often close proximity to other runners who may, or may not, have the same controls in same order to visit. Some route choice possibilities and reasonably complex terrain. EQUAL FORKINGS; as the relay is a contact discipline, any unequality of forkings has a direct influence on race development. also an undesired impact on race development transparency for the audience. Key moments Relay: terrain choice map readability the main focus is the leg, not the control, and fair forking proper BALANCING of the key route-choice legs compared to the forking of courses! 6. Thoughts from Helena Jansson, Sweden I love the World Championships in orienteering because it is the ultimate challenge. The best runners are at the starting line, it is the main event. Furthermore: it is the most challenging courses in the toughest terrain. It is a contest where everything is one hundred percent; amazing maps of good terrain, with courses in which someone thought through every meter. What I like most about orienteering is that moment when you flip the map and finally get to see what task you face. Better yet, turn on the map and get really surprised (in spite of all the world's preparation), so you must pick up every single tool you possess as orienteer, it's cool. Arena I love to passing through the arena. I love the audience, when all people are cheering and shouting and that it is another thing I have to deal with. I think our sport deserves great arenas, theaters that are well thought out, which work for both spectators and runners. However, I think the courses at a World Championships is what must go in the first place, there are limits to how far compromises with the courses and terrain may be deducted. World Championships in France 2011 shows that it is possible to find an arena where the orienteering is coming right around the corner, and where the course is both difficult and challenging even closest to the arena. I also think that there are other ways to make guidance available than to believe that the arena must be close to or in such a city. There is much to do in terms of signage, information for contests, offering audience s bus and so on. Accessibility of our sport is about more than geography. To the World Championships in orienteering is an event worth visiting in the region as the World Cup goes, I think so on. 20

21 Sprint No more "allowed to be a tourist in the area" Sprinter! We can close a city/area for Sprint as we do for the other distances, and I think it should be so. It becomes difficult boundary issues, and preparations act suddenly unable to work out the Sprint but to walk round and round on the streets and tourists. Sprint is all about quick decisions in high-speed to get us as runners to get internal stress, making it difficult to solve the problems. A good Sprint for me contains both short tricky distances, and long stretches where the choices and implementation will be crucial. A good Sprint contains stretches where everyone feels uncomfortable choices. None of the options I see is good, but I have to choose one. Moreover, one can as course planners to Sprint to play with the runners' speed-the faster it goes the more tired we become, the worse decision we are taken. Making courses where speed is followed by difficult controls, where the focus shifts from implementation of choice to control shooting is really challenging (the start of the Sprint World Championships Czech Republic 2008). World Championships in France 2011 Sprint was too obvious. The first route-choice we saw were usually best (or good anyway), and then it is not difficult anymore. Good Sprint we ran in Geneva at the World Cup Final a course with an arena, varying orienteering, awkward route-choices, intensive orienteering, longer parts of running. 21

22 Middle Here I will have a real technical challenge! I want to feel that I can use my skills as orienteer; there I face controls and legs that really require that I intend to solve them. The Middle for me is the alternating short and half long legs, some long leg routing, changing of direction and speed. An optimal implementation of a middle distance course shall force me to both intense map reading and really hard to pick the control as well as legs with higher speed and decisions made early on the course for me to succeed. The Middle at the World Championships in the Czech Republic was incredibly challenging. It gave us surprises in the form of a terrain area that we have not met before, as well as high-speed orienteering and varying terrains. The beginning of the World Cup finals in St Cergue in Switzerland 2010 was good, at times physically, decision making, varying controls. NOM in Finland in 2009 was also a good Middle, perhaps a bit too monotonous (many short legs), but the end of course that forced the momentum just before the difficult last part was great. Otherwise, it can sometimes be the case that the passing through the arena can take much out of the course as short as a Middle (VM Trondheim, 2010). Long In the forest, no one can help you. In long distance you should be alone. The course should be long and tough. There shall be a challenge in physical endurance as well as mental. Important to use methods of dissemination are fair. At World Championships in France 2011 there was a big difference to get technical orienteering of the small loop early versus late. Emphasis on route-choice and longer legs, more recently, many long-distance course have got Middle character. Importantly, when the long leg actually is offered there shall also be route-choices. The longest 22

23 leg was not a route choice leg; there were no direct choices to do. You can make long distance course with long distance character even in areas that are very technical. Then it is up to me as a runner to simplify my choices, something that I am more than happy to do at a World Championships. I will not have any long leg without any thoughts. Bitwise long distance to be difficult. I'd rather run a track where I really have to exert myself over a path where each control is a easy to find. The final part of long event in France 2011 was a real challenge. Really fun!! In long distance there is also the possibility of having several different characters on the terrain, the more the bigger challenge for me to run. World Cup long in Hungary was one of the most fun orienteering race I ever have been running. Fantastic area (also varied), alternating orienteering, passing the arena without disturbing the skills of orienteering. The long distance in Ukraine 2007 I didn t run, but the leg that went through the neighborhoods was really good, partly because it was a surprise and something new, partly because it was a good routechoice wise. The leg to the first control in France 2011 was great-there was a simple solution but you have to discover it and dare to invest in it. A leg that demanded everything of me as an orienteer! The start of long distance in Trondheim 2010 was good, varying distances, many route-choices. However, fairly easy controls, and we can actually find more difficult checkpoints in the long. Relay The high point! Running with the team is simple the best. Important that forking is fair and WOC-relays should be tight. I have never in my entire life looking through a relay afterwards to determine whether it is fair or not, but I guess it is possible to adapt the course setting for that criterion. I think you should be rewarded for good orienteering. Relay is the orienteering in fast speed, high stress level and therefore I feel cold in the head should be rewarded. An extraordinary look at the map for an easier route choice for example. Moreover, such a course planning that it is not far until the first team cut the finish line. Daring to have a challenging final loop of the relay, a loop where we actually have to fight the whole way. I'm looking in the memory after the relays have been good. World Championships in the Czech Republic was too easy, the World Cup in France this year was perhaps too demanding. Relay in Trondheim in 2010 had a good section at the end of the first loop, but beginning with to much plastic tape and too easy finish was not a big shot. 7. Thoughts from Thierry Gueorgiou, France First, I am going to express my opinion in a sincere and hopefully constructive way, but I assume that it is not a universal conception among the elite orienteers. Course setting and race formats always make debate and no one share exactly the same opinion. Arena concept. I don t want to be seen as too conservative here. And I think there have been big improvements over those last years concerning the quality of the arena, but too many times it has really affected the quality of the course. The World Championships is supposed to be the ultimate challenge and test all the orienteer s skills. I agree that we have to make some compromise to make our sport more attractive, but those compromises has always been against the quality of the courses. Compromise should not be in a unique direction I think. I hate when everyone knows that few kilometres from the arena there are much better terrains, and we don t use them. I have also thought about creating fake route choice as in WOC 2010 middle and Sprint distance. It took me a while to make my mind concerning this issue, but I can t find any argument to not do it, as long as it is clearly marked on the map and on the terrain (which was obviously the case that year). But it 23

24 should be the very last possibility to make a terrain more interesting. I tell it again but the first decision should be to not make compromise with course quality and use the best terrains of the area. Sprint As you all know, I am not a big fan of Sprint event, but I have been preparing seriously for it. A good course, in my opinion, is a course where the first obvious route you see is not the fastest one. I think it is a challenge to set a good Sprint course, because not all the terrain/city makes it possible. I didn t like so much WOC2011 course as you could see the right answer too quickly. The decision process was too easy. I think a good Sprint course have to include some variation in length and difficulty: short legs in complex areas where the runnability is still really good (you got stressed by the lack of time) and also longer legs where the route selection is crucial. I also think that the area has to be strictly forbidden before the event. In 2008, the Czech organizers showed it was possible to do it in an urban environment. It is also a question of fairness here as not every team has the same possibility to visit carefully the Sprint area. Example: Now looking back at some Sprints of WOC history: I think 2008 course in Olomouc was a good Sprint course with lot of variations. 24

25 2003 was also a good Sprint course with a tricky start and a great route to control 11: I am not sure if the course in 2005 (Japan) was a great one (I didn t run it). I think you have to make sure that the course is fair all the way and there is a minimum of luck factors (that year the penetrability of green). Middle Clearly the best area have to be selected for this event, there should be no compromise. You have to create legs which give very little possibility to find a simple solution. I think the course have to include different leg lengths. These varieties have to stress the runner all the way. I also think it has to include one longer leg (about 1 km) with different routes. The visibility is important as well. You have to put some control where the visibility is much lower (if the map is good of course!). But also use the part of the terrains where the runnability is so good that you ll be only limited by your capacity to treat the information. I don t think it is a necessary to have a spectator control (better a TV camera in forest) because quite often it has made the last loop boring: 25

26 Examples: WOC 2007 in Ukraine WOC 2009 in Hungary 26

27 WOC 2011 in France: The course could have been much more challenging with that kind of legs for example, perpendicular to the main forms of the terrains. Good runnability but super challenging orienteering. You also have to use the terrain to create speed (technical control attacked in downhill, which is hard if the start is 200 metres lower than finish): 27

28 But sometimes, it has made it also more challenging (to refocus): WOC 2004 in Sweden: WOC 2006 in Denmark 28

29 WOC 2008 in Czech Republic I really liked the course from WOC 2004 in Vasteras, maybe one of the best. Those semi-long legs are more challenging than short ones which we see quite much in middle distance. 29

30 2006 was also a good one I think a good mix of leg and the best areas visited: 30

31 2009 was too monotone and without big technical challenges. Long The first point is that as a course setter you have to absolutely fit to the expected winning time. That s a crucial issue. When top orienteers choose the races they want to run at WOC, they first estimate the time they need to recover between the races to still have a chance for a top result. If you have to run 15 minutes more than planned, you ll need more time to recover and therefore you might not be ready for the next race you have on your program. It is your responsibility as a runner to evaluate it, but it is the responsibility of the course setters to respect the rule. Another important issue is to try to avoid the following. It is possible with good course and forking method. WOC 2005 in Japan and WOC 2006 in Denmark were a bad example, too short and technical legs at the beginning. I think top orienteers are more or less equal in running capacity but not in technical skills. Therefore, the relative time you might lose per kilometres is higher when the legs are shorter. Those kinds of legs have to come later on. 31

32 Long distance, WOC 2005 in Japan Long distance, WOC 2006 in Denmark 32

33 No forking system is perfect, but the one they used during WOC 2011 was particularly unfair. To get the short legs after 1h15 or 1h37 isn t really the same. 33

34 Most of long distance courses have been too easy technically in my opinion. We have to remember that top orienteers are preparing the whole year and can find difficult controls as well Example: WOC 2009 I Hungary was a good course on this type of terrain: 34

35 In 2010, the control locations were too simple and the last loop/arena destroyed the overall quality, but some route choices were interesting: 35

36 Relay Too many times, during the last years, the forking has been unfair. I think one of the crucial thing is to make very equal in time forking. The controls don t have to be so close that you can see all the time the runners you are running with. But you have to make sure, especially for the first leg, that a runner with a slower forking doesn t get benefit to run behind the pack later on. But the race have to include as many forking as possible in my opinion, because the racing time is so short that the best orienteer should get the possibility to make the difference somewhere. Example: The relay at WOC 2011, the 3th and 5 th control is quite unfair in time. 36

37 Same at WOC 2010 with 77 and 84 (extreme west where the race was decided): 37

38 8. Planning for TV World Cup 2011, Middle distance, in Liberec, Czech Republic. The course planner Michal Horacek: With course setting we started already in May 2010 so it means 15 months prior to W-cup. We had first terrain inspection with TV guys at this time. At this time we agreed on rough TV schedule, middle was clear Karel Jonak (TV-producer) required two TV legs (not only controls) where can be seen how runners are coming to the control and then whole way to the next control which will be also official split time. These two legs should be spread on course so that first is app. after minutes of running and the second after app. 25 minutes. Other requirements were on intermediate time controls. Both should be maximally different in visual sense so TV spectator can be easily guided which part of course is shown. Surprisingly there was no interest to place cameras in to the climb towards arena, the idea was to show orienteers in action which is orienteering not only running. At the same time the basic limitations for TV production was also mentioned. That time we already knew we will have one main OB van in arena with max 15 cameras and also one small satellite van with 8 cameras. The other limit was the camera distance from van which cannot be further then 1000m. The next visit was planned in the autumn. In mean time we checked where the small van can be located (access and satellite visibility) and we end with two locations see picture. Satellite van final possition Satellite van other possition 38

39 Before meeting we have already two areas where the TV legs can be realized. We did also amateur TV record of runners. See the concept of the course from October TV leg 2 TV leg 1 During autumn meeting we went through the legs and discuss the camera position and exact location of the controls. Since that time the legs were more or less frozen and we just work on how to get runners at the certain time to certain leg. On final course the only second intermediate control was adjusted. Next meeting was app. two months prior to the competition. The final GPS positions of controls were taken. EOC 2012, Sprint distance, in Falun, Sweden. During EOC 2012 Karel Jonak again was the TV-producer. Together with the course planner he decided to use four places to use cameras, at start, after 1/3, after 2/3 and at finish. They also took the choice to have the start in another place instead of at the arena, due to use more TV-time to follow the runners during the race. The example on next page shows the Sprint Final. At the Start, one camera follows the runner from the Start line to the first control. Three cameras are placed at TV-control 1, TV-control 2 and at the Finish. The last camera in each of these TV-controls showed the split time. Two pre-warning controls informed the producer when runners were coming. The TV-production is also used for the arena production. To make it easy for the spectators to follow the race from start-tv1-tv2-finish we have to find visually interesting parts and unique places like touristic monuments in urban terrain. We need to find different locations for different TV-coverage segments and we have to attempt to describe the terrain correctly through attractive locations. Together with 10 cameras, one head camera to pre-record the terrain by an athlete running the different route choices and GPS-tracking the TV-producer can show orienteering in a brilliant way! After the TV-coverage plan is done the real course planning can start. 39

40 40

41 9. Quarantine area To show a World Class Event in orienteering through TV we also need to have the maps and courses secret to the runners. Therefore it is necessary to use a good environment for the runners during the quarantine time e.g. indoor hall with refreshment (coffee, tea, drinks and light food) and enough toilets. Below a diagrammatic sketch of the quarantine zone is showed. Warm-up and warm-down map During all World Class Events warm-up and warm-down maps shall be handed out to all runners showing where the runners are allowed to run without any rule conflicts. It will be excellent service if the warm-up map can be part of the competition map and printed in the same way. The warm-down map is very important to show the runners after arrival to finish where they can warm down. The maps can be printed by ink or laser. The next page shows the Start area from the WOC 2010 Long Final 41

42 Long distance final, WOC

43 10. Appendix 1 Just how good was that Sprint (or Urban) race? By David May (IOF Foot Orienteering Commission) Whether you re the planner, controller or a humble competitor, your enjoyment of any Sprint or Urban race depends more upon its quality than on anything else; but what do we mean by quality? I think the answer lies in two factors terrain and planning. The IOF Competition Rules (Appendix 6) tell us something about what terrain to use Predominantly in very runnable park or urban (streets/buildings) terrain. Some fast runnable forest may be included.. However, the focus of this appendix is on planning quality and we should therefore assume that the selected terrain is of appropriate standard. The British Federation s Sprint Guideline gives good advice about planning which is appropriate for Sprint planners from all other Federations also: Average leg lengths must be short, 120m to 180m being typical. Have frequent changes of direction (small crossover loops are good). Long legs may be set, as long as their execution involves a high rate of decision making along the way. Dog legs can provide good challenges too; but avoid the possibility that they may cause clashes between incoming and outgoing runners if space is restricted. Aim to make every leg pose a route choice challenge, especially in urban terrain. Control sites will often have to be positioned with great care in order to achieve this. But how easy is it for planners and controllers to check whether these aims are achieved? Some sort of quality measure would be helpful so the following scale was then devised: Points Urban Non Urban 0 Little or no route choice Simple leg with minimal navigation needed 1 Two similar routes, easy to identify Easy route choice leg with little technical detail 2 Several possible routes, or one longer route which is complex to execute thinking needed 3 Complex route choice/detailed navigation needed many decision points Route choices not immediately obvious and/or some technical challenge Complex route choice/detailed navigation needed The table describes how the technical challenge of each leg can be quantified on a four point scale (0 to 3). Urban and non-urban have different types of challenge so the table is divided into two columns accordingly. Examples of each quality are given next (for Urban only):- 43

44 Quality 0 example (12 13) Quality 2 examples (13 14 and 14 15) Little or no route choice Quality 1 example (9 10 Several possible routes, or one longer route which is complex to execute thinking needed Quality 3 example (Start 1) Two similar routes, easy to identify (left or right of the building just south of 10) Complex route choice/detailed navigation needed many decision points 44

45 The next step is to sum the marks for each leg to arrive at a grand total for the course. The bigger the sum, the better the course a rash statement possibly, but one with a good deal of truth in it as a large sum comes from both leg quantity and leg quality. A good Sprint course should have a large number of legs ( average leg lengths must be short ) and it will have much route choice and change of direction too, so both leg quantity and leg quality are involved thus the total mark for a course gives a good measure of its overall quality. A total score of over 20 correlates well with courses which are rated as enjoyable and challenging. Under 15 and the course will probably not be. So, how can this tool be used? Firstly, planners can rate each course they produce to maximise their scores (obviously, where a suite of courses of different lengths is being planned, scores must be adjusted pro rata by length before comparing them). And of course, controllers can use the tool to judge courses for quality, armed with a quantitative way of advising planners on possible improvements. Try this for yourselves! Rate course 1 at the 2008 JK Sprint (on the next page) according to the criteria above. Five legs have been done for you already in the examples above! Answers given at the bottom of this page 1 to be continued Please send me more maps and comments to complete the guidelines Course planning, World Class Events to [email protected] Answers: 1 (3); 2 (2); 3 (2); 4 (0); 5 (1); 6 (1), 7 (2); 8 (1); 9 (3); 10 (1); 11 (2); 12 (1); 13 (0); 14 (2); 15 (2); 16 (1); 17 (2); 18 (1); 19 (1): 20 (0); Total score = 28 points. If you divide the total score with 20 legs: 28/20 = you will get a score of 1.4 points. A result of between 1.2 and 1.5 is an indicator of good quality legs on average, provided the points total exceeds the 20 value mentioned earlier also. 45

46 46