maptalk.co.nz Forum   |   Links    

  Forum

Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5  

Nationals Sprint Protest

Show Profile  Casser Posted: 12 April 2012, 10:21 AM  
To be honest I already lost time on the way from 21 to 22 - and what I lost on the 22 map/terrain interpretation was not as much as it could appear (not that I have told this to anyone before now) - still I still believe I would have beaten Greg and Jamie if control 22 had been fair;-) - On a bit of tangent I believe that the best time/athlete on course 1 should be the NZ open Men's champ - no matter what class they entered in (and the same should be the case in the Women's class). The W/M20 should be able to double dip - and of course then they should be part of the 21's start list as well.

This message was edited by Casser on 12 April 2012, 5:26 PM

Show Profile  addison Posted: 12 April 2012, 12:32 PM  
This is definitely a very interesting case, one which I won't discuss on the merits either way.

But there are learnings here to be had and this issue has highlighted a number of technical learnings for us as a sport. It is with great pride that we can announce the re-instatement of the Technical Committee who will in time get to the bottom of things such as this and also make commentry back to controllers re complaints and protests.

The next NZOF News will have details of the appointment(s).

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 12 April 2012, 1:24 PM  
It's an interesting point. But then the M35A, M40A and M45A Champ would be Peter Swanson, followed by Rob Collier in all three grades and then Hamish Goodwin would come third in those grades as well as winning M50A.

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 12 April 2012, 1:50 PM  
...I think the performances of the best M40s in the country may warrant a rethink as to what course those grades are run on...no elite I know would dream of running M35 and I suspect most may end up skipping M40 as well....

...re the protest, I am still uneasy how it appears all other issues apart from no22 were discounted before the assessment of "fairness/glory to the winner" was undertaken. The little things like 10-20 seconds lost on no 2 make a difference to a sprint race, particularly when considering "flow" and that lovely feeling of someone navigating in front of you....

Show Profile  Casser Posted: 12 April 2012, 3:26 PM  
great to see that you went for my bait Jamie;-)

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 12 April 2012, 4:40 PM  
Agree Jamie, #22 wasn't the only place where mapping led people astray but perhaps that was where the protest was targeted

Show Profile  Casser Posted: 13 April 2012, 4:19 AM  
It is hard to make a sprint map a 100%. Which is the case with any mapping, where the mapper need to generalise.
I enjoyed the race very much - even though it was not a fair race - and I do accept the judgement of the jury that it was fair enough. But I don't think one can say with much certainty that it did not effect the top 3 when taking into account the factors Jamie mentions above.
I will let it rest - and say that the main thing for me is that I enjoyed the race very much.

Show Profile  M.Beveridge Posted: 13 April 2012, 8:08 AM  
As the mapper I would just like to have my say. I mapped the area in question how I saw it at the time, as a impassable building outline, which is what it is. Obviously a far number of elite men saw it differently and in hindsight an impassable wall symbol is what you all think it should have been.
Mapping is not an exact science, at times very perplexing and we all see things in a different light.
If the courses had come from the opposite direction there probably wouldn't have been an issue, as was the case on a number of other grades.
I think the printed scale of the map caused a slight problem making the line look thinner than it was shown. When i visited the site with Rob C the IOF controller and Allan the event controller it looked to me as though I had drawn it as an edge of paving symbol, as the line looked quite thin but on checking the map file that night it was indeed a building outline, but not what you guys all wanted to see.
However at the end of the day both the event officials must have been happy with it's representation, as they still chose to use the sight and not change how it was drawn.

Show Profile  hughff Posted: 14 April 2012, 5:53 AM  
I don't want to get too far into this as I'm loath to cast doubt on the results except to ask a question for clarification. Jason seems to suggest that if the protest had come from an athlete whose position on the podium may have been affected (rather than one of the mid-table rank and file) then it's more likely that it would have been upheld. Is that true?

I sincerely hope not or the IOF needs to change its regulations immediately. I have no question that the protest committee acted correctly and I have no problem with their decision but the result of a protest must never be dependent on the name of the person making it. That is unjust in the extreme.

To Mike, Tom, Allan and the others involved in organising the sprint, I enjoyed it and you shouldn't let this matter get to you. Certainly take under consideration what you can learn from it but remember that there were 1001 things you did right for every thing you did that lead to a protest. Thanks for the race.

Show Profile  Taupoite Posted: 14 April 2012, 12:52 PM  
Hugh, I understand your concern but I think the IOF has thought it through. When one reads the clarification on rules 26.12 & 26.13 in the link that Keith provided, the guiding principle seems to be that the race shouldn't be voided if at all possible and should only be done if it is perceived as no longer reasonably fair. They admit that it is almost impossible not to have an element of luck in the results. I can understand the logic of IOF's reasoning.

In the factors for the jury to consider, two of the ten are whether it affected the potential winners / placings, but they are also to consider how many were affected and how large and serious was the problem. From reading Jason's account, there is a possibility that even if a lot of others had protested, they would not have been successful if it was perceived that there wasn't a significant time loss, especially by the favourites or the leaders. In one of their examples, they say a 30 second loss by some competitors from a map "mistake" in a middle distance final is just unfortunate.

It all comes down to that fairness principle. If a competition is voided, who benefits from that? Is a possibly tainted result worse than no result at all?

I think the NWOC did a very good job of the Nationals. I also believe that the comments by both Mikes added a lot to everyone's understanding. The problems with both the Sprint and M20A middle distance were unfortunate but the main thing to take from them are that they are good learning experiences for all organisers.

Show Profile  James Posted: 14 April 2012, 3:59 PM  
As the person who made the protest, I thought I would share my thoughts. And to the organizers (especially the setter) I thought that the course was brilliant, complex, challenging and heaps of fun (well, mostly).

Obviously control #22 on course 1, and control #18 on course 2 affected a large number of elites, due to the mapping. Unfortunately these occurances happen from time to time, and it is always a bit difficult how to resolve an issue like this. As a protest would effectively destroy many hours of hard work, and also take away a victory and good results from friends at the top end of the field.

I find it rather disappointing to read an earlier post from NW "A protest was received regarding mapping of impassable walls on course one.This related especially to control 22 of the elite course."
When the protest specified (and in greater length) that the protest was more geared towards the failure to map impassable walls affecting controls #2 and #3 on course 1.

There were 2 viable route choices for control #2, and control #3. However in both instances, I chose the route which had un-mapped massive impassable walls! So after already beginning these route choices I had to back track, and then proceed with the other route choice (loosing ~15 seconds on each leg, totaling 30secs, which is a hell of a lot in a sprint). One of these not mapped impassable walls also affected some of the W21E athletes. If there are viable route choices that are impeded by massive impassable walls, these need to be mapped!

From the IOF International Specification for Sprint Orienteering Maps (ISSOM) it states "Barriers, such as high walls, high fences and high rock faces, affect route choices and shall be represented UNAMBIGUOUSLY. Therefore, these features shall be represented with a prominent thick black line".
There was no prominent thick black line. From the map it showed that both of these routes were simply edges of canopy and were completely runnable. Yet the 3metre high walls I encountered would suggest otherwise. Jamie touched on the fact that such disruptions to "flow" can impact greatly on ones performance, which rings so true. But for me, I think that it is simply unfair that some athletes are affected are some are not.

Control #22, controversial. ISSOM states "the cartographic representation of more than one level is in general, impossible. Hence only the main 'running' level should be represented on the map."
Obviously the mapper has, in this instance, attempted to map 2 levels, which is impossible to read and has lead to the majority of the problem with this control. The ISSOM also states "Control points shall not be placed under or above the main 'running' level".

In an earlier post, it was mentioned that after visiting the site with the 2 controllers, then returning home on looking on the OCAD file that there was actually a 'thicker' black line used to distinguish the edge of the building. Yet no one could see this on the map with the naked eye, let alone running at 4min/km pace!

After the race I was feeling a little dissapointed, as there were a few places in the race where I lost time. I compared splits with a number of elites and soon realized that everyone I spoke to was affected (to differing degrees) by the ineffective mapping. After coaching many of the younger elites over the past 5 years, I found it quite aggravating that many of these athletes were drastically affected by the mapping (in some instances loosing over a minute on the one control). Personally I lost ~30secs on control #22, which when added to the ~30secs lost on #2 and #3, equates to around 1 minute in total.

Following my initial complaint about the course, the IOF controller mentioned to me that the mistakes at #22 did not affect the final outcome of the race at the top end of the field. I then mentioned to him that I was not only laying a complaint about #22, but also #2 and #3. So I carried on with the official protest in writing. Yet, after reading the comments from NW, looks like they simply skimmed over this part of the protest anyway (so what was the point of writing it?!?)

I initially lodged the protest because I was under the impression that Toby was in the lead prior to his mistake at #22, and this mistake cost him the race (however, it was later discovered that this was not the case). But at the time, I felt a huge injustice for Toby, and said "well if you're not going to protest, then I will" as I really wanted to see the rightful winner acknowledged.

Now the IOF controller for the event comments "blowed if I'm going to void a race just because athletes in midfield have their tits in a tangle over losing 20 or so seconds". Yet I know of 3 athletes that were trialing for World University Champs and WOC, each of them loosing up to 1 minute on the dodgy #22. Obviously 1 minute in a sprint is huge, resulting in placings of 9th - 16th, when they could easily have been in 3rd - 7th. Failure to acknowledge that the map was unfair, may be the difference between these guys making the NZ team or missing out. From a personal level, I was trialing for WOC and WC races, loosing ~1 minute from the poorly mapped areas saw me finish in 9th, instead of 3rd or 4th. So it's good to know that in the eyes of the IOF controller (and previous NZOF president and GM), athletes at a NZ representative level do not feature in his mind when a NZ trial is concerned (please note the sarcasm).

I do not want to take away from what was an amazing run by Tim (and even better run my Matt actually beating the entire M21E field!), but its quite clear rules were broken, the result was unfair.

These problems could have potentially been reduced if the map scale was 1:4000, instead of 1:5000. But I heard from a NW club member that they couldn't fit all of the sponsor's logo's on the A4 map if it was 1:4000! Seriously, the course gets compromised for this? Use a map size bigger than A4 then (although, i understand that A3 is not to ISSOM standards), but surely something in between would be the solution allowing people to read the thicker edge of building symbol.

I know these problem also affected many elite women, but everyone is scared (or cant be bothered) making a protest, and unfair courses will continue. In my opinion this sets a precedent for not up to standard mapping and further breaking of the rules, at some point we need to ask what is the point of these rules if they are not going to be adhered too?

This was our National Champs, a super series round, WOC trials, WUOC trials and also a WRE. Events do not get any bigger in NZ, so we need to make sure that these are done correctly, and produce a fair result.

P.S. "The jury acknowledges that the protest had validity and recommends the refund of the protest fee"
So NW, can I please have my $20 back?

Show Profile  NW Posted: 14 April 2012, 4:37 PM  
James the quotes were directly from the official written response to your protest, delivered to you by the protest panel and had nothing at all to do with NW, the setter or the controller.

You should also be careful about hearsay, the map was not 1:5000 to fit logos etc, it was 1:5000 to fit the map, as Tom has already said in hindsight, he could have used 1:4000 and a map flip, but the ISSOM states "The map scale shall be either 1:4 000 or 1:5 000. The scales 1:5 000 and 1:4 000 are suitable for the sprint
format." therefore 1:5000 was used right from the get go due to the size of the map, long before any logos and extras were even in the picture.

Show Profile  James Posted: 14 April 2012, 5:16 PM  
Yes I understand that the quotes are from the protest panel, I was just taking them from the 'NW' post as a reference. I wasn't intending that it was NW club's comments, sorry if this is the way it came across.

I am aware of the ISSOM standards (more so than the course setter and controller) that 1:5000 can be used, I just do not think that it showed the detail appropriately, therefore the 1:4000 should have been used.

Show Profile  AlisterM Posted: 14 April 2012, 7:24 PM  
As a member of the jury, I wish to inform everyone that the jury did give serious consideration to the effects of the level changes on possible routes between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3. To the north of control 1 there were stairs which were correctly mapped so the lack of an impassable wall along out of bounds garden should not have affected the route choice and was discounted. The lack of an impassable wall along the covered walkway between 2 and 3 was agreed to be a significant deficiency in the mapping which would have affected some route choices. Unfortunately these points were not recorded in the written jury decision.
The issues with the lack of an impassible wall at control #22 have been well covered, and the jury agreed that an impassable wall would have been appropriate to deliniate the 2 levels. This is not a case of 2 different running levels in a multilevel structure over the same position such as you might find in a carpark building, which are more problematic for mapping and where ambiguous should not be used for control sites. However some competitors would have lost time because the change in levels was not obvious.
Given the agreed deficiencies in the mapping and probable impacts on some competitors the jury then had to decide if the race was "significantly unfair". The IOF guidelines were very helpful in this regard. For me the statement "Orienteering is a complex sport to organise and there will sometimes be slight imperfections - for example with the map or the control descriptions. A race should not be voided just because of a minor technicality." was important and had to be weighed up against the ISSOM sprint mapping specifications "Barriers, such as high walls, high fences and high rock faces, affect route choices and shall be represented unambiguously." This was not an easy decision to make and the final decision was not made lightly. The potential placing of the protestor or anyone else was not a factor in my decision making.
Alister Metherell

Show Profile  rossmaxmo Posted: 22 April 2012, 12:23 AM  
I just had a spiel about this in another thread, and realised it should probably be in here, so for those of you who don't read the giant mapping thread any more (the first part might not make sense unless you have great deductive powers or go to the mapping thread):

Sound's like the course setter got the description for 104 right (you're not supposed to use building inside corner any-more, the control desc. should be describing where the control actually stands eg - see the WOC map from last year: http://live.woc2011.fr/data/uploads/maps/Sprintfinale.Men1.gif) Sounds like just a mapping issue.

The building outline symbol should definitely not be used to represent anything other than a building outline. Impassable wall or rock face (depending on what it looks like should've been used).

I haven't seen an actual map from nats sprint, only on Route Gadget so I don't know where 137 is, but as long as the olive meets the minimum width requirement, it should be OK??

Why was the map scale 1:5000? From what I can see the area used for the courses can easily fit on A4 at 1:4000 (I hope it wasn't just to fit on those fancy borders), it would have made the mapper's job a lot easier, and might have avoided a lot of this hoo-hah. Although ISSOM says you're allowed to use 1:4000 or 1:5000, you rarely see 1:5000 maps any-more, especially when the terrain is as detailed in places as at NZ champs.

I don't think the mapper can solely be blamed for these issues. The IOF controller is responsible for making sure everything is up to standard - has the IOF controller ever done a sprint course?? If not did they delegate someone with experience to field-check the map? From what I hear, the map was ready late last year?? That leaves plenty of time for revisions.

Also, from what I've heard and seen, the mapping issues make the courses more than unfair enough to invalidate. I looked at winsplits and there is a lot of time loss throughout most of the field in many grades on controls where mapping ambiguity played a part. The protest should have been upheld and the courses invalidated, especially since it was a WRE. It's nonsense to say that the first 3 weren't affected, when from looking at the splits, they were! This approach doesn't make sense anyway because the issues affect many runners and therefore everyone's world ranking points! Even if the winner lost time on the control in protest, it still affects world ranking points because their time changes in relation to other runners who get lucky or don't have a problem, and the points are based on time. I don't know what went wrong in that meeting... I hope that those in charge of making such decisions were impartial i.e. they won't be swayed by thoughts of the amount of money 'wasted' making the map, organising the event or paying to hold the WRE - or be in charge of making decisions on protests about issues that were their responsibility in the first place to avoid.

I just realised most of what I wrote belongs in another thread, but I already wrote it, so it's going here

I also read that the mapper says 'I think the printed scale of the map caused a slight problem making the line look thinner than it was shown. When i visited the site with Rob C the IOF controller and Allan the event controller it looked to me as though I had drawn it as an edge of paving symbol, as the line looked quite thin but on checking the map file that night it was indeed a building outline' This statement leads me to believe that there were some other problems, I'm only guessing here but:

1 - Sounds like the map was mapped at 1:4000 scale and then resized to 1:5000 for whatever reason without scaling the symbol sizes at the same time. The symbol sizes after printing should be the same size after printing regardless of the sprint scale - if you hold a 1:4000 scale map and a 1:5000 scale map next to each other the impassable wall symbol should be exactly the same thickness to the naked eye.

2 - The fact that upon checking the control site during the protest process, it appeared to look like an edge of paved area symbol rather than a building outline sound's a bit fishy - they should not appear to be any different at all, the symbols are basically the same, a black line 0.14mm in width (this is LESS THAN HALF the size of the minimum impassable feature size - 0.40mm). Perhaps the standard symbol set in OCAD was tampered with, to adjust symbol sizes in attempt to make things fit? - I don't know.

rossmaxmo Posted: 22 April 2012, 7:20 AM
I just saw that 5m contours were used, wtf - how is this possible?? That totally goes against ISSOM. I wanted to use them at Woodford Iona Nationals last year, we applied to IOF for an exemption from ISSOM for the WRE, but it was denied. I don't see any reason at all why you would need to use 5m contours on such a flat area.

Come on people.




1   2   3   4   5  


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz