 Martin
|
Posted: 12 July 2011, 11:42 AM
Sportident has a fatal (for some) flaw in recording punches to the box before recording to the SI-card
This message was edited by Martin on 12 July 2011, 6:50 PM
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 13 July 2011, 4:15 AM
Tell us more. For easier finding in the future you could use the "Sport Ident Organisational Matters" topic, currently on p10 of the index.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 22 April 2012, 12:05 PM
In another thread, Ross says that we're not supposed to use "inside a building corner" as a control description any more. He compliments the sprint planner for using "inside the corner of a paved area". Planners and controllers would probably like to know where this advice came from and if there are any other subtleties like this that they should know. Does this mean we can no longer use "at the foot of a cliff" but instead "on the edge of a relatively flatter area"?
|
|
rossmaxmo
|
Posted: 22 April 2012, 3:27 PM
Tom actually asked me about the control descriptions, I don't think enough people know about these changes, and I've never seen it written - which is definitely a bad thing - it just seemed to happen one year! I can't tell you where the advice originally came from, but it's been that way for at least 5 or 6 years. The reason was for ambiguity, that the 'inside corner' of a building could be taken to mean inside the actual building. I think it came about when that description was used to describe canopied areas. Either way makes sense to me, because technically you're not allowed to have a control inside a building, but I've run sprints where areas such as malls have been mapped and you actually run inside, then there is the potential to have the inside corner of the building, but yet the paved area inside corner symbol is still used.
To tell the truth all I really look at it the position symbol when I'm running i.e. the inside corner part, that's what's important, and it's the same either way.
|
|
onemanfanclub
|
Posted: 23 April 2012, 1:37 AM
It seems an odd decision - yes, the ambiguity about "inside building corner" looks obvious when you see it WRITTEN like that, but if you're running towards an indented corner of a building in the middle of the circle then the PICTORIAL control description seems completely intuitive to me.
|
|
Bryan
|
Posted: 23 April 2012, 3:31 AM
Inside corner of a building when the control is on the outside of the building is wrong and should never have been used anytime.
I think the inside corner of a paved area seems warped to me when
the edge of the paved area is a building edge so the main feature to my mind should be a building.
I think I would have just used the edge or side or outside corner of a building. Many ways of describing a control side which is unambiguous - also control could be moved a metre or two to change from corner to side or edge.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 23 April 2012, 3:43 AM
I'm with oneman. A building is something you can't go in. So an inside corner is an indentation on the outside of a building. Moving a control from a definite feature (like a corner) to an indefinite feature (like an edge) is ridiculous.
|
|
Bryan
|
Posted: 23 April 2012, 4:26 AM
Not so ridiculous when the edge is not long (10-20m) meaning that if you can sight any of the edge you should be able to see the control - almost the same as a definite feature. An alternative (less desirable) way of sighting a control when the definite feature is ambiguous or not quite right. A side of a spur may be a better description than a reentrant when the spur is more definite but the control sites could be almost in the same place.
Inside to my mind means inside a feature and a building (non-canopy)
does not have an inside. More correct in my mind to say outside.
We are talking semantics here - does the 'inside' or 'outside' refer to the feature or to the location type (corner)? I think it refers to the feature.
|
|
rob.g
|
Posted: 23 April 2012, 4:37 AM
Controller training day in Auckland this Sunday will be interesting with a walk over the sprint map on the agenda. Anyone else keen to come along?
|
|
Dwayne
|
Posted: 23 April 2012, 9:22 AM
Would this be solved by changing the wording from "inside corner' to 'inwards corner' or something similar? Or describe the angle as acute - probably not. Also above, the word indentation has been used which is unambiguous.
|
|
onemanfanclub
|
Posted: 23 April 2012, 11:00 AM
Seems some of us are still hung up on words when I thought we were talking about pictorial descriptions. My point was the description only implies the control is inside the building when you translate it into words. Instead picture in your mind what to expect when you see in one cell of the control descriptions a black square and a few cells over a right angle with a dot sitting in the corner?
|
|
Dwayne
|
Posted: 23 April 2012, 11:19 AM
I am agreeing with you oneman. I was thinking of the word description because the pictorial description is completely unambiguous to me. I would never consider the control to be actually inside a building. Might be an interesting exercise to generate the control descriptions for some of the UltraSprint controls on Wednesday - especially the labyrinth which I expect will be some kind of virtual building with lots of interior walls
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 23 April 2012, 2:26 PM
Interesting to see what the controller trainees make of the sprint map.
Better make sure they take along the map as used for Nationals...or ideally that and a 1:4000 version as well.
|
|
SteveO
|
Posted: 24 April 2012, 4:07 AM
Dwayne, we'll know for sure tomorrow but the rules as written by Martin on the UltraSprint website state "You will not have any descriptions on your map and no loose descriptions will be provided". No doubt we'll have plenty of things to discuss afterwards but it looks like the intricacies of control descriptions won't be amongst them.
I agree with those who don't have a problem with "building inside corner". When running, I always visualise the building as a line feature rather than an area feature so inside corner makes perfect sense.
|
|
rossmaxmo
|
Posted: 24 April 2012, 4:18 AM
Personally I wouldn't mind if they still used the 'building inside corner' description - it made more sense to me when it used to be that way, but I think the big issue is that small rules or norms like this are changed but not everyone is made aware of it. I think it would have made more sense to use the 'building inside corner' description, and if the control somehow happens to be inside the building, like in a grey/canopied area then you can simply add the 'building pass through' feature to the description for the extra information. Unfortunately that's just the way things are done now, I didn't chose it, but it's pretty easy to go along with, and it still makes sense once you wrap your head around it.
|
© Ruffneck Productions