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 2^nd and 3^rd 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.