2007 Australian Championships review
"The (technical)
sub-committee shall conduct a review following each Australian Rogaining
Championships, drawing on the experiences of the organiser and the
participants, to examine issues arising related to the standard of the event
with respect to the application of the Rules and Technical Regulations. The
subcommittee, acting through the chair and relevant state representative, shall
make contact with the organiser of the following Australian Rogaining
Championships, to make the organiser aware of issues of concern regarding the
application of the Rules and Technical Regulations."
Summary
The 2007 Australian Rogaine Championships, conducted by the
Northern Territory Rogaining Association with the assistance of volunteers from
a number of other states including South Australia, Victoria and Queensland,
was an excellent and well-run event. The trophies constructed to a very high
standard from distinctive local rock samples are a unique memento to be
treasured by their recipients.
Course setting
was excellent. The course demanded technically challenging navigation and route
planning. Terrain was a mix of flat plains, dissected hills with complex
contour detail and high ridges with impassable cliff lines. The course was well
set to use saddles or drainage corridors to avoid the need to negotiate
dangerous features or make the course unnecessarily physically demanding.
Course vetting
was mostly accurate however the checking and hanging of several controls was
apparently done by the same people who taped the sites, with the result that
flags were misplaced by up to 200m on parallel spurs or gullies. Logistical constraints
and/or pressures of time may have precipitated this, however it is a basic
principle of course vetting that errors are significantly reduced when one or
more different people check, ideally approaching from different directions.
Map size and scale
was appropriate for clarity of complex detail (1:33 000 and approx 59 x 48cm).
Map preparation
standard was excellent. There was variation in quality and detail of
photogrammetry and drainage between the east and west halves of the map,
however this was clearly stated in the course setter’s notes. The symbols
and colours used for contours, drainage and other features were clearly
distinguishable under all conditions. There was no height information included
such as spot heights on hilltops or major index contours. This did not present
a major problem for this event, since the level of the river plain did not vary
by more than 50m from the centre to the extremes of the map and most other
features rose from this plain to a height of less than 200m. Technical
regulations do not cover this, however several states
now regularly prepare custom maps electronically, so evolution towards shared
“best practice” standards would be highly desirable, in the absence
of detailed standards.
Navlight electronic
punching was used for the third year and allowed efficient processing of
scores at the finish. There were some administrative difficulties unfortunately
manifesting themselves in determining the winner of the open women’s
category, relating to the configuration of scoring of multiple tags. ARA and
member states as a major user of Navlight need to provide feedback on software
design and operational procedures to eliminate such problems in new versions.
Technical regulations were updated at the ARA AGM at this event to allow for
electronic punching, including multiple tags attached to separate team members
to require all members to visit each control scored.
Water drops were
well provisioned and distributed, and additional fruit and refreshments were
appreciated.
Under 23 categories had an excellent level
of participation, due for the most part to the sponsorship of the Australian
University Rogaine Championships by the Nigel Aylott Memorial Sporting
Foundation.
A standard first aid
kit was demanded as mandatory equipment. Specifications were unclear prior
to event, but kits were readily available at an affordable price at the HH
prior to event. Consideration should be given to allowing organizers (with
appropriate justification and approval process) to dictate mandatory equipment
that may be required for valid risk management or insurance reasons. Current
regulations dictate only that a whistle must be carried at all times.
Other non-technical
issues were raised such as display of results after the event and on the
web.
The issue was raised as to the “enforcement” of
technical standards. At present only the Course Vetter role is defined and
there is no formally defined independent event controller role, nor
supplementary guidelines for conduct of ancillary activities.
David Baldwin
Chair, Technical Subcommittee
Australian Rogaining Association
March 2008
Submissions
Extract from Australian Orienteer, September 2007 issue (Mike Hubbert -
editor)
On the flip side, Rogaining suffers from two problems which
limit its attraction and potential to grow. They are the maps with poorly drawn
detail; and misplaced controls on features which are either dubiously drawn on
the map or just plain wrong. There were examples of both at the Yeperenye Yaw
event. Problems like this limit the enjoyment factor, which is a real pity.
Rogaining also suffers from an inflexible administrative
hierarchy similar to the difficulties seen in Athletics and Swimming in the 60s
and 70s. They need to recognise that they are there to help competitors (their
customers) rather than bind them with red tape. Athletics and Swimming have
moved on. Rogaining needs to catch up.
General
(Richard Robinson, Qld)
Overall: A fantastic event in an excellent area unfortunately
impacted by some checkpoint selection and vetting errors, and some map
problems, that we have not seen in an ARC to this extent for many years.
Area: Absolutely superb! It was magnificent scenery, and
offered in parts some of the most technically challenging rogaining I have ever
done. However, I do not consider that the North-West part of the map (NW of the
major watercourse running from CP25 to CP94) should have been used. It was very
steep and slippery, to the point of being dangerous in parts, had very thick
spiky spinifex (the only part of the map we visited that did), had major map
problems which I will return to and was not actually required. Teams that went
to this part of the map early were severely disadvantaged and there was not
sufficient data on the map or the Course Notes to tell participants this.
(Mike Hotchkis, NSW)
Congratulations are due to the organisers for their commitment
and hard work, taking ARC to central Australia for the first time, clearly an
enjoyable and memorable event. I'm
sorry I couldn't make it!
The key issues, it seems to me, are the 2 misplaced
checkpoints, the questions raised about map consistency, and some doubts about
suitability/fairness of certain checkpoint locations. Dianne and Richard have already said
what needs to be said regarding the need for independent vetting especially for
championship events. I would add
that the course is the result of a team effort, and we should encourage
setters, checkers, vetters and flag hangers to follow a process that minimises
the chance of errors getting through.
When I started course setting, my mentors impressed upon me
the need to err on side of caution. Having selected a feature from the armchair, if it is found to be
poorly-defined, or if there are any doubts about map quality in the vicinity,
or visibility, then re-locate the checkpoint. Also, if any doubt is expressed on the
part of checker who visits after you, re-locate it and have the new location
checked again. All this before the
vetter goes near it. Ideally, the
course is 95% right before the vetter goes in -- if there's more than a few checkpoints
needing re-setting after first round vetting, then problems are going to multiply.
Okay, you committee members don't need to be told this. But we do need to be sure that we set a
good example and pass on the message to up and coming course setters. It's a continuous process to maintain
good practices. And then there are
always other factors that come into play. In this case, the remote location and the creation of a new map would
have played a role.
Course Setting
(Eric Andrews, Qld)
The W half of the map was the existing topo of the area which
JP thought was quite good until he walked around on the photogrammetry. The
original map was quite larger particularly in the SW where it was also very
steep. Eventually I was able to talk JP out of using the area.
When I drew the W part of the map I deliberately took off the
top parts of many watercourses because it has been my experience that the
various state mapping authorities do a poor job with watercourses.
I emphasised to JP that there were to be no controls along the
line of the map join, which I believe is what happened.
Once I had finished the whole map I sent it back with a long
list of queries as I could not tell from the photogrammetry what some of the
lines represented.
I also sent him a proposed course that I believed was quite
sufficient that was primarily on the better part of the map. However, JP was
very keen on the NW section. I tried everything I could to get him to explain
the vegetation changes because I could see this as an unfair aspect of the
event. Part of the problem was that JP was taking advice from too many people.
JP eventually sent me a map with the proposed control sites
on, as well as the descriptions. I put the circles on, printed the map and sent
it back. JP then changed some of the control circles.
When it came time to hang the controls, Martina hung 63 and 58
where she and John had originally taped. She did not read the map. I do not
know if she even had a copy of the map. I suspect that she did. Two other tapes
out to the E were also found to be different to the map. These were visited by
Di Young and her rogaine partner. They were using the map. They shifted the two
tapes to the correct spot on the map and on their return,
the two vetters went out and confirmed the placing as now correct. There were
two other controls that were wrong in the SW. JP announced on the Sat morning
that he was worried about a certain control, so he sent the vetters out to
check. It was wrong and they fixed it. The second control in that area was not
fixed.
Part of this came about because the vetters wanted to go and
check the control sites before I had finished the final map, because it suited
their lifestyles. I can sympathise with this, but I believe that a couple of
the errors were caused by their not being careful enough.
(Dianne Young, Vic)
As I was part of the admin team for the 2007 Aus champs I
would like to make a couple of points. I have not seen the feedback from other
councillors so my apologies if some of the points I mention have already been
covered.
Misplaced Controls #63 and #58.
Basically the misplaced controlled resulted from an error in
transcribing the location of these checkpoints from the original map to the
final map and the vetter for this area was familiar with these checkpoint
locations having been involved in the setting process as well. Although the vetter
had the final map, the error was made because the vetter knew the locations of
these checkpoints. They were on similar features and similar locations. Hence
the appropriate setting/vetting process was not followed but this was due to
the shortage of people and the short time frame to get the checkpoints out on
the field. The mistake was unfortunate, the person who was involved was deeply
upset by the error and all the associated problems, anxiety and frustration it
caused the competitors. However rogaining is run by volunteers with time
restraints. We are only human and mistakes have to be taken in this context.
Once the mistake was discovered a solutions were discussed and set by the jury.
These were then acted upon when competitors returned to the admin tent.
SOLUTION - Vetters should always use the final map and vetters
for a given area should be different from the setters and checkers for that
area.
THINGS THAT I FELT WERE DONE CORRECTLY AND EFFICIENTLY
1. When the
mistake was discovered a meeting of the jury members took place, rules and
regulations were referred to and solutions immediately determined.
2. The
solutions were then applied uniformly for all competitors.
3. Before the
results were read out an announcement was made re the decision of the jury and
the process followed.
4. the process was open and appropriate announcement made.
(David Baldwin, ACT)
- misplaced controls - #63 and #58 that I know of -
coincidentally adjacent on the course? Were setting/vetting processes
uniformly applied across the course? For this event there were significant
resource constraints on setting/vetting with much
done by flying in from Darwin, Adelaide, etc so possibly very cost and
tight time constraints on getting the job done?
- inaccurate features for control sites - Julie and I had
trouble finding the feature for #59 approaching along track from W
(watercourse junction, W side of map just N of main riverbed). The creek
bed crossing the track to the N did not run continuously to the control
site - it disappeared once it broke onto flood terrace. Location was
accurate but feature was not well defined. Very flat vague area.
(Richard Robinson, Qld)
The Setter used the area
brilliantly! It would have been very easy to make the event very physical but
this temptation was well avoided. This added greatly to the enjoyment of the
event for all concerned and the challenge of route planning. I have stated a
number of times that the leg CP82 to CP53 was one of the most technically
challenging rogaining legs I have ever completed. Using the CPs in the saddles
that took people from one part of the course to another was an excellent plan
as it made people feel they earned something for their climb.
Only suggested key improvement
would be that the triangle between CPs; 81, 24 & 102 could have had another
2-3 CPs in it the tempt more people into CP81 and
allow the dropping of the NW section. However, it may have been too scungy and
thus not used for that reason.
Checkpoint Selection: Of the CPs
I visited there were a number that I felt were simply unsuitable and a number
of others that were marginal. The unsuitable ones included:
CP55: This was on an unmapped
feature in an area of low visibility. We found it by a resection from an
adjacent hilltop. Many people had problems with it walking straight past it up
the main watercourse. Unmapped features are fine if they are obvious on the
ground and have nearby solid attack points. CP55 did not meet this criteria.
CP59: The watercourse coming in
from the north simply didn't exist to any practical extent within 200 metres of
the East-West watercourse. We walked straight through it and I understand
others did the same. We had to take a resection off the gap to the NW and then
come back to where the track crossed the watercourse from the north and follow
it in from there. Features that don't exist should not be used as CP sites
albeit I expect that one was probably easy in the daylight.
CP80: The feature didn't look a
lot like the map, the general area had extremely low visibility (albeit the
marker was in a clear area) and the marker was not in the centre of the circle
so far as we could tell. We took a bearing from the marker and finished up in a
very strange place. The feature simply wasn't strong enough for the visibility
and was not well mapped.
Marginal ones included:
CP72: The feature was strong and
in the right place, but the mapping in the area was very poor. I think this was
probably the 10 Vs 20 metre contour issue. In
particular the saddle to the SE which the map shows and very broad but was in
fact a razorback meant that it was very hard to determine where one was when
approaching from this direction.
CP102: This was a weak feature
and whilst all my problems were my own there were stronger features in the area
that would have been fairer.
Vetting: Di Young has already
covered CPs 63 and 58. Her recommendations are, in my view, already standard
requirements and ones that I would have expected to have been followed for this
event. However, there were other vetting concerns I feel. The issue of map
consistency mentioned above is a fundamental one. The Vetter is the
participant's watchdog and ensuring fairness is their key objective. Similarly the issue of less than ideal (or fair) CP sites.
Finally on vetting I believe that
CP70 was also misplaced. We certainly didn't find it in the dark but confirmed
many times were in the right place and a number of people I regard as very
competent navigators including; Rod Gray, Geoff Lawford, John Toomey and Terri
McComb all advised me that they did find it but it was misplaced being on the
right spur but near the NW edge of the circle and down off the top of the spur.
Rod and Geoff actually missed it on their first pass in daylight.
(John McGrath, ACT)
controls need to be exactly where
they are on the map, but if within 100m then I think that is OK. Humans are not
100% error proof, and close enough should be good enough. These competitors
need reminding that rogaining is fun for most competitors, they are there by
choice!
(Tom Landon-Smith, ACT)
With the 2 misplaced CPs was that somehow someone had a brain
fart. I think it had something to
do with someone drawing the circle in the wrong spot at some stage...very
specific I know but Jon told me the story when I was tired. The wrong CPs didn't bother us because
everyone told us they were wrong. If you weren't told and it was daytime you should have realized pretty
quickly that something wasn't right. At night it could have been a bit trickier but it does happen sometimes
and like you said especially when none of the organisers lived within 1500km of
the hash house. I reckon that the
thing is they did set and vet every site.
(Louis Elson, Tas)
It was very unfortunate that some
of the controls were in the wrong place. There is no fair way of altering
scores to represent the time lost in searching for a control in the wrong spot.
It is particularly bad when visiting a misplaced control at night because it is
very difficult to be certain you are in the right spot and you are much more
likely to keep looking. We recognise it was very difficult to check all the
controls due to the location of the event but for an Australian Championships
there should have been at least two people checking every control before the
event and both of these people should have had no doubt as to its correct
positioning.
(Daniel James, ACT)
I found the map to be excellent.
Even though parts of the map varied in detail, we had no problems. Watercourses
should always be interpreted with caution. I found no features on the map that
were plain wrong. This may be the lack of features which is what I assume the
authors may be on about with respect to poor quality!
The misplaced controls were not a terrible issue. Although it
should not have happened, they were quick to realise their mistakes and
organise a meeting to allow dispensation to be given out to teams who did not
find the controls.
Greg and I found #59 without issue. We came from the south,
found the watercourse and turned left and continued until we came across it.
(Phil Whitten, NSW)
I thought that the event was very good. With mapping, the rule
of thumb with rogaining is that you position checkpoints with respect to the
quality of the map. For the Aus
Champs this meant that checkpoints on the western half were placed on major
"handline" type features, whilst on the Eastern half they were on
much more subtle features. The
reason for the discrepancy was that the western half was prepared form a NT map
(Trephina Gorge) and the Eastern half was prepared by
Chris Wilmott using Photogrammetry.
The biggest positive was the terrain - it was both scenic and
different to what entrants were used to. This meant that the features were at times tricky to read because of a
lack of familiarity, which is a great thing for a rogaine - especially the Eastern
side. It would be great to see another Australian championships near Alice Springs. Some of the Granite country north of the
Larapinta trail (near Old Hamilton Downs Homestead) looked very challenging for
navigation and might be good for a rogaine.
* the density of the Spinifex was
variable and had a big impact on progress. In particular the north
west section deserved mention as progress was consistently slow, and
often restricted to watercourses whilst the north east was relatively faster
and often confined to ridges. I could appreciate that teams could have been "burnt" in the north west section and not have done as well as if they
chose another part of the map to visit. Remember our decision to run north
along the river from 94 to 110 in an effort to avoid the Spinifex?
* the two controls that were on the
wrong features were disappointing. Both features were very distinct and the visibility excellent. It is hard to comprehend the setter, vetter
and flag hanger getting it consistently wrong - or - was it set and vetted
properly but hung in the wrong spot?
(Graeme Cooper, NSW)
Vicki and I really enjoyed the Yeperenye Yaw. It certainly took someone with the
enthusiasm of Jon Potter to stage such an event. The effort that went in to it must have been
enormous. Unfortunately there were problems and I feel
the ARA should be looking at what can be done to avoid them happening
again. I'd better be careful here
of course as it is my turn next year.
The map. We only saw a small
part. We went to 52, 35, then the
area to the south and west of the Hash House. The differences between the two
halves didn't affect us other than it did influence my planning before the
start in that the western side was easier to read. The detail on the eastern side was too much
for the scale of the map. The
controls were miles apart. I feel
the cost and effort of producing the map was to a large extent wasted. You
could fit at least two 24 hour events in the area covered by the map. I went away with the thought that I would
like to go back and have a go at setting a much more "compact"
course.
Misplaced Controls. With the
technology that has been available now since mid 2000, it is totally
unacceptable that any controls be seriously misplaced. The ARA should reinstate the "second"
step of "check" in the "set, check, vet" procedure. It should be a requirement that all
controls are checked by GPS.
Inaccurate Features. I can't say that
the "feature" of any of the controls we went to were
inaccurate but one, 102, "the spur", was certainly very poorly
defined. There were watercourses either side to define the area but it was
almost flat between them. I did get
straight on to it but this was because it was night and I could see other teams
leaving it. Another spur, 70, was
very well defined. I suspect that
the control was much higher up than the map showed but had no way of confirming
this. The big problem was the way
the flag was hung. It was almost
hidden in a bush quite a significant distance off the centre line of the spur. I'm sure I would have walked straight
past it if a bloke in another team who was just a few metres ahead of me hadn't
spotted it.
(Mike Hotchkis, NSW)
I don't necessarily agree with Graeme's suggestion of checking
with GPS. Checking needs to be done with reference to the
actual map, not with reference to some arbitrary coordinate system.
(Joel Mackay, NSW)
I didn't actually mind that 58 and 63 were in the wrong place
- it was a nice extra challenge to find them, and a good look at the map made
it fairly obvious where they were likely to be (parallel features). It adds a
bit of extra spice to the event, but obviously gets some people's knickers in a
twist (eg orienteers!). Perhaps the organizers could
have mentioned that there was quite a difference in speed possible in NW vs SE parts of the course.
Map
Size and scale
Preparation standards
(David Baldwin, ACT)
differing representations between
left and right halves of the map with drainage (blue lines) particularly. Did
this affect competitor's ability to interpret underlying topography?
(John McGrath, ACT)
the maps of the Ross River course
were much better than I thought they could be, especially considering the
remote location and the long travel for organisers.
(Louis Elson, Tas)
Regarding the detail of the map and slight
variations to the different halves. Ryan Smyth and I are both keen
Orienteers and as such are used to more detailed maps. However, we both
recognise that rogaining is a different sport to orienteering and much detail
must be lost in order to produce such a large map at a larger scale. We firmly
believe that a large part of rogaining is being able to adjust to the map and
how things have been represented. We believe being flexible enough to adjust to
slightly different mapping techniques is a necessary skill in rogaining and
those who don't posses that skill are those that become upset when things are
not represented how they would have expected.
(Tom Landon-Smith, ACT)
I thought the map at the rogaine was fine. I didn't actually notice any difference
in accuracy between the 2 map halves. Am I getting doughy? It is unbelievable the work that Jon did on the
map.
(Richard Robinson, Qld)
The map was a delight in terms of
readability and aesthetics. A real work of art. The right scale and contour interval for the area. The
eastern half was brilliant, accurate, consistent and easy to read. The western
half however was quite different. It was neither accurate nor consistent!
Whilst I cannot prove it one way or the other, I would not be surprised if much
of the western half of the map actually had 20-metre contours rather than the
10-metre ones stated and on the eastern half. Certainly our
"25-metre" climb up to CP44 was well more than twice that as were a
number of other climbs we had to do in the western half. This issue contributed
significantly to my earlier comment about the suitability of the NW portion of
the map as it was much steeper that the map showed.
I climbed a ~25-metre high hill
near CP37 just after dawn to relocate as everything looked screwy and
eventually made stuff fit except that the hill I stood on was not on the map
(the map showed a flat plain). Just to the east and SE of CP91 there was a huge
jumble of ravines and hills that simply don't show. One team of very competent
navigators I spoke to who approached CP91 from the SE (in the daylight)
couldn't find it because of this (it was correctly located and a snack from the
west). The watercourse upon which CP41 is located is shown flowing to the east
but in fact flows to the NW! These major inconsistencies would, or should, have
been obvious to the setters, checkers and vetter and should have been dealt
with. The note in the data provided that the western half was from older and
less reliable mapping information is not, in my opinion, sufficient.
(Phil Whitten, NSW)
There were definitely large features (eg. 30m tall crumbling
rock mounds) that were not marked on the map. There were also several tracks that were
marked but did not really exist, as well ones that were not marked but did
exist. Some of the tracks followed
different paths to those indicated and did confuse teams (we met several
dumfounded teams between 41 and 64). However, these types of discrepancies are
expected in all rogaines and are likely to continue. It was odd that the fence
going to W4 was marked on the map, but not described on the legend.
Control Descriptions
Course-setter’s Notes
(David Baldwin, ACT)
lack of detailed advice on varying vegetation conditions
across course (e.g. SE corner burnt out - no spinifex/scrub, other areas with
high densities of spinifex and significantly slower - around 15 controls in the
burnt out area) - would there have been an unfair advantage to teams,
especially in categories where winners cover less of the course, who fortuitously
chose this area as part of their route?
(John McGrath, ACT)
the maps of the Ross River course
were much better than I thought they could be, especially considering the
remote location and the long travel for organisers.
- my
only correction on course notes was that 120 (in spur in gorge) would have
been easy to reach from above and no problems at night - so what if the
vegetation may have been incorrectly described in parts
- you take what you are given in the bush!!! How accurate
do they want maps to be? There needs to be some element of discovery and
adventure and vegetation is one such a thing. We were well and truly
prewarned about the spinifex before the event.
(Louis Elson, Tas)
In our opinion there is a very blurry line as to what the
course setters are expected to say in their notes. I agree that if there is a
large burnt out area that is known of, the competitors should be informed. But
a lot of it comes down to opinion also. Ryan and I went through some very dense
spinifex but it never really bothered us and didn't slow us down much either.
(Daniel James, ACT)
Course Setters notes was an area
they could have improved in. However, I do not believe that the SE was
necessarily faster. In the south west and north east, where we also went, we
found many paths that were much faster than taking the non existent paths in
the south east. I do not think that the doing the SE was a lucky advantage.
(Graeme Cooper, NSW)
I found it odd that there were no notes given out.
Navlight
(David Baldwin, ACT)
Some punches did not have correct point value programmed at
time of tag reading - may have been corrected before final results determined?
(Peter Squires, NZ)
With respect to the Women's results being wrong on the day, I
think I can shed some light. It came from using (or mis-using) Navlight.
Somehow, the spreadsheet file the organisers were using got corrupted, and had
three teams with the wrong tag numbers, and one team with three tags; another
with one. The spreadsheet itself refused to open (with a fatal error) when we
tried to fix it properly. Attempts were made to hand-edit the text files but
spaces and tabs look the same in notepad and are different when machine-read.
However the main source of the Women’s error was in setting up the course
data. "Use minimum score" was chosen instead of "Use maximum
score". This is the default, and when the "Aus Champs" course
was created, it assumed this value, even though the previous (Course 0) course
had the max score chosen. I got about 2 pages of notes of user-assumptions and
bugs from the event, and have been incorporating all the suggestions in the
next version of Navlight. One of the changes is in these default values, so
that each added course assumes the settings of the previous one until altered.
Obviously the eventual winning women's team did not have the same scores on
their Tags, and no-one picked this up until after the prize giving.
(Dianne Young, Vic)
Ken (my rogaining partner) and I administrated Navlight. We
were familiar with the system having administrated Navlight for 2-3 Victorian
events. There was one punch which was programmed as a finish punch instead of a
value of 20 points. No explanation except human error. The punches were checked
twice. However in the 'punch value' screen of Navlight one has to be very
careful where the cursor is as a change can easily be made accidentally.
We used the facility in Navlight of changing the value of this
checkpoint before score recording and giving the score to competitors. The
system worked very efficiently.
Once we were up to printing out the results there was a
problem with the system where more tags were allocated to some teams and some
teams' tags were swapped. With Peter Squire's help results were obtained but
the problem was not solved. This took considerable time and we were very aware
that we were running out of time as buses were due to leave at 2pm.
Re: The winners of the women's open was
incorrectly presented on the day.
This occurred for the following reason. Navlight was set so
that if the 2 tags from a given team recorded different values the lower value
would be recorded. It was planned to then check the scores from such teams
against the manual score card and the score would be adjusted to reflect the
manual score card. Because of the problems outlined above and the short
timeline for the departure of the buses we could not do this. The true winners
of the women's section did have different tag values and when these were
checked against the manual score card the higher value was given. The announced
winners had the same score on their tags and hence their score remained the
same.
This error was revealed on the Monday after the event. The
real winners were given rock trophies but were not concerned about the boot
trophy. Engraving of the boot trophy???
RECOMMENDATIONS.
1. Before any
punches are placed out into the field punch a tag with all punches. Read this
tag and check that all punches are programmed with the correct value. An
incorrectly programmed punch should then be detected.
2. Allow as
much time as possible for bus departure times.
Possible questions.
Will results always able to be obtained from the electronic
system? Unless the tags are deliberated erased, (this can only be done with a
special punch connected to a computer) all recorded data remains in them. So
even if all punches, punch readers and the entire computer system failed, the
results can still be obtained at a later date.
In the worst case scenario this may be several days post
event. If we do not run a manual system we have to accept this delay with
results and the subsequent consequences. If tags scores from a team are
different should Navlight be programmed to accept the lower of the 2 scores or
the higher? Splitting up can still occur and not be detected even with a manual
and an electronic system running in parallel.
Control flag visibility
Water drops
(David Baldwin, ACT)
Water drops were well distributed and accurately located. No
reports of any drops running out.
(John McGrath, ACT)
all water drops we visited were ample
and exactly where they were meant to be. Bonus was lollies and fruit - a nice
touch.
(Louis Elson, Tas)
We were both extremely impressed with the location and number
of water drops as well as the fact that snacks were available.
(Phil Whitten, NSW)
I thought that there were enough water drops.
Under 23 categories and University Championships
(Daniel James, ACT)
The university champs was a great
addition. I know Greg and I had a lot of fun talking to the other students
about the event and our studies. I would also suggest that ACTRA should
introduce a university category in an attempt to encourage uni students to
participate and also to make selection of future sponsored teams easier.
First Aid kits/Compulsory Kit
Non-technical
Quality of Prizes for 2nd and 3rd places
Administration
(John McGrath, ACT)
I cannot see any red tape at any event I have been to or
assisted in. I will note the cost of the Ross River event was a little high
considering the travel needed to get there. Then again that should not limit a
person from doing what they love and discovering new landscapes.
(Daniel James, ACT)
The event organization was great.
I have nothing but compliments for that!
(Richard Robinson, Qld)
Protests: Per Di's previous
submission, the issues around CPs 63 and 58 were handled extremely well and
professionally by the organising team. I lodged a written protest about the
placement of CP70 pursuant to Tech Reg R26. To date I have heard nothing
further on this which is a clear breach of Tech Reg T18 which requires such
protests to be considered and determined before announcement of the results and
which also requires that the team making the protest be permitted a fair
hearing (i.e. given the opportunity to address the jury) Again, it would
normally be considered the Vetter's responsibility to ensure this happens.
Certainly as Vetter for the 2005 ARC I ensured that this occurred when we
received a protest at that event.
Administration: Absolutely
superb. In particular the transport arrangements and the trophies were
substantially above the standard that we can reasonably expect. A brilliant job
Hash House: Again brilliant. Both the food and the facilities. Being able to choose the
type to accommodation up to and including resort style was great and the food
at the end was great. The tables and shelters for visitors to use for course
planning that have now become the standard really are a fantastic thing.
(Jon Potter, NT)
I reject a large percentage of Richard's comments - am amazed
at some of them - however, agree with him re his written protest - not the
content, but the fact that Admin failed to pass it directly to the jury. Was unaware until reading his comments that it had not occurred.
I believe that Di has contacted him on this matter.
(Phil Whitten, NSW)
buses to the event were poorly
run. Some people waited more than 5
hours longer than their scheduled pickup time. What was most disappointing was that
there appeared to be an empty bus sitting as Ross River Resort that was not
being used.
(Joel Mackay, NSW)
The buses were a bit imperfect, but as you say, given the
remoteness of the event and the general logistical difficulties associated with
setting the event, I certainly wouldn't complain too much...
Results Display at Event
(David Baldwin, ACT)
the winners of women's open was incorrectly
presented on the day. How did that come about?
(Graeme Cooper, NSW)
On the matter of the mistake in the Women's Open, my comment
here is that if the results were displayed as soon as they became available an
error like this would very likely be picked up before the presentation. I don't like the "wait till
the presentation" method but that of course is a personal preference no
doubt influenced by early experience. It also raises in my mind the ARA rule of not allowing any scores to be
displayed before the finishing time. I have yet to find anyone who can give me a good reason why this rule
exists. I would like to see it
removed. Having a running score
board during the last hour of an event would raise a much higher level of
excitement and interest than the "wait till the presentation"
method. When the wait stretches to
over an hour, the fizz has all gone out of it.
Results on Web
Other Items:
(Dianne Young, Vic)
Overall the feedback to us has been extremely positive and
many people suggested that the site would be great for a Worlds Championship
event. I think this could only be possible with many states involved in the
organisation but it could be done and I think would attract large overseas
numbers.
(Richard Robinson, Qld)
Weather: It was the right time of
year. The 10 Deg above normal was unfortunate, even more so as we had the same
thing at last year's WRC!
Summary: I know that the above
sounds like a bit of a whinge, but that is not the intent. It was a magnificent
event. Only lessons from my viewpoint were all around vetting. The Vetter for
any event, and particularly the ARC, has an enormous weight of responsibility.
Certainly I felt that in 2005. I sense, but do not know, that the vetting tasks
may have been spread amongst more than one individual. If that was the case
then I suspect that this was the key lesson as suddenly we lost the sole source
of accountability and thus gave an opportunity for things to "fall through
the cracks". In 2005, I visited every CP site, many several times and made
many changes to both the setter's original course and the map in the region of
the CP's. The Vetter must ensure that they take this accountability and we all
make errors, I had a misplaced CP at a recent local event I organised and my
Vetter did not pick up the error. And finally, I am not trying to denigrate the
work, dedication, competence or commitment of the Vetter(s) for this event. The
entire team deserves very high praise for providing such a brilliantly unique
event in such a difficult location. We just need to ensure that we learn and
get better.
