From: "webmarston" <webmarston@quista.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:55:09 +0100
Subject: Alternative Activity
Message-Id: <381b5fab_3@news1.vip.uk.com>
Check out
http://www.hmarston.freeserve.co.uk/rhac
for information about an 80 km trail race on paths, tracks, muddy fields,
canal towpaths and a few roads, navigating using a pictorial map
8 checkpoints with refreshments
11 December 1999 starts 06:00 (walkers) to 08:00 (fast runners)
Also an 8 stage relay (2 to 8 runners) start 08:30
We plan to use Electronic Timing (SportIdent system)
Henry Marston (SYO) hfmarston@aol.com
From: Alan.Wallis@btinternet.com (Alan Wallis)
Date: 30 Oct 1999 21:14:36 GMT
Subject: Re: BOF levy
Message-Id: <7vfn3s$kbb$1@plutonium.btinternet.com>
In article <7vdkku$oof$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, simonbeck6219@my-deja.com
says...
>
>..My club (SN) has now paid the outstanding levy from NE1 in Jan1999
>(which made a loss) as th follow-up badge event on the same area made
>a profit (which was only to be expected since the national event paid
>for the map.)..
>
Remarkable foresight by Simon, or someone, as the follow-up event is on
14 November! (Entries close Monday, no badge EOD)
From: "Evan Custer" <evancuster@home.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:07:54 -0700
Subject: RE: Copyright
Message-ID: <004201bf232b$990e99a0$94190118@wntck1.sfba.home.com>
Kinko's does have a policy about not copying maps or other copyrighted
material without written permission of the owner. Therefore, we developed a
copyright permission approval form which reads like this:
Bay Area Orienteering Club
Copyright Permission Approval Form
The Bay Area Orienteering Club, owner of the map described below, authorizes
to obtain copies of the map for use of an orienteering
event to be held on .
The President, Event Coordinator, Mapping Director, or Training Director are
authorized by the Bay Area Orienteering Club to grant this permission.
Signature Date
Name
Title
We then include a copy of our map photocopying policy:
Map Photocopying Policy
I. The purpose of this policy is to:
1. Protect the ownership rights of the maps that the Bay Area Orienteering
Club has produced.
2. Prevent the illegal copying of its maps with the subsequent loss of
revenue.
3. Satisfy the requirements of photocopy shops for the authorized
reproduction of copyrighted intellectual property.
II. All maps produced by the Bay Area Orienteering Club (BAOC) are
copyrighted by the Club and may not be reproduced or photocopied without
specific written permission by the Club. Any new map produced by BAOC shall
specifically state on the map: "Copyright by the Bay Area Orienteering Club
(BAOC). This map may not be reproduced or photocopied without the specific
written permission by the BAOC."
III. In general, BAOC maps should not be copied, because the Club has
already spent money to produce high quality printed maps, which are
significantly superior in quality and resolution to photocopied maps.
IV. Maps may be photocopied under the following circumstances:
1. The map is out of print.
2. The event requires pre-marked controls, and a course printer is not
available or practical.
3. There are extensive map corrections.
4. Course design and planning of an event require the reproduction of a map
containing courses.
5. The duties and responsibilities of the President or Mapping Director
require reproduction of a map.
6. Educational, training, or promotional purposes require the map to be
enlarged, reduced or transferred to another medium (e.g., a transparency).
V. A director of a BAOC event or practice session that meets either
criterion one, two, three, or four shall be granted permission to make
sufficient copies of the map for that event.
VI. Any person who is granted permission to reproduce or photocopy a BAOC
map must have the following items before going to a photocopy firm:
1. The Copyright Permission Approval form (see attachment) filled out by the
President, Event Coordinator, Mapping Director, or Training Director.
2. A copy of this policy.
3. A current copy of the BAOC Bulletin, which lists the current members of
the Board of Directors.
VII. If the event is not sponsored by the BAOC, e.g., Scouts, schools,
recreation districts, etc., then the following criteria must be met.
1. The sponsor of the event must request permission from the BAOC Board of
Directors to photocopy the map.
2. The purpose of the event shall be stated by the sponsoring organization.
The purpose of the event must be primarily to promote orienteering.
3. The permission must be requested at least one month prior to the event,
and preferably at least one week before the next scheduled Board of
Directors meeting. If there is insufficient time for the Board as a whole to
grant permission, then the unanimous consent by the President, Event
Coordinator, and Mapping Director must be obtained.
4. The Mapping Director or his or her designate will obtain the copies of
the map him or herself, and deliver them to the sponsor of the event.
5. A charge of up to $1.00 per map over and above the actual cost of the
reproduction or photocopying charges may be charged to the sponsoring
organization.
VIII. Bay Area Orienteering Club
Copyright Permission Approval Form
The Bay Area Orienteering Club, owner of the item(s) described below,
authorizes to obtain copies of the map for use of an
orienteering event to be held on .
The President, Event Coordinator, Mapping Director, or Training Director are
authorized by the Bay Area Orienteering Club to grant this permission.
Signature Date
Name
Title
We tell the person who is getting the copies and whose name is listed on the
approval form to take the form, the policy, and a copy of our newsletter
that lists the officers to Kinko's when they need to make copies. Since we
have instituted this, we have not had any hassles about getting copies.
One other thing. I once brought in a piece of USGS topographical map that I
wanted blown up but they would not make the copies for me until I showed
them the original map from which it was cut. USGS maps are not copyrighted
and are can be copied without problem by anyone, but I had to prove that it
came from a USGS map and not a copyrighted map.
However, we have had relatively little use of copying maps by photocopying
process in the last few years, since more and more of our maps are now on
OCAD, and we just print out an original for each competitor using an Epson
Stylus Ink Jet printer for all of our events that use OCAD maps.
Evan Custer
evancuster@home.com
Voice: 1-925-254-5628
Fax: 1-925-254-5961
18 Bobolink Road, Orinda, CA 94563-1706
Bay Area Orienteering Club
http://www.baoc.org
baoc@baoc.org or baoc@lists.stanford.edu
Information hot line: 408-255-8018
> -----Original Message-----
> From: orienteering-owner@Graphics.Cornell.EDU
> [mailto:orienteering-owner@Graphics.Cornell.EDU]On Behalf Of Carolyn
> Ortegon
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 11:33 AM
> To: orienteering@Graphics.Cornell.EDU
> Subject: Re: Copyright
>
>
> Could someone enlighten me about getting official copyright "papers"?
> When I took our Batrop S.P. O' map to the local copy shop
> (Kinko's), the manager
> refused to make the color copies we needed (extra's 2 hours
> before a meet!)
> because I did not have any proof "papers" of the copyright. [We
> had put the "c"
> circle symbol on the map.] She also couldn't connect me with the
> Houston O' Club.
> After a "scene" and then me finally remembing that I had the
> club checkbook, she
> relented. No one else in our club has had any trouble obtaining
> color copies at
> other copy shops. Do copy shops have official policies about
> this? I know there
> are laws...........
> Thanks, Carolyn Ortegon
>
> Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> > Rick Hood asked:
> >
> > > has any club actually given over the copyright to a map,
> > > save where the land owner/manager has paid ALL the cost?
> >
> > Jim Huggins confessed:
> >
> > > We have never considered "copyrights" to the maps. Guess we should!
> >
> > I always put a Copyright statement on the maps I draw. When I draw a
> > school I always put it in the form:
> >
> > "Copyright 1999 Auckland Orienteering Club and Whatever School"
> >
> > Whether the Copyright statement has any legal status doesn't
> really bother
> > me; it is just a way to remind people what is happening and who owns the
> > map and who is entitled to copy it.
> >
> > At a recent seminar for schoolteachers I talked about copyright of our
> > maps. I explained that they were not entitled to photocopy our park or
> > forest maps, that we invested an enormous amount of money and
> effort into
> > making them, and that we would happily licence the map for a modest fee
> > or sell them a couple of hundred for not very much money.
> >
> > They looked quite surprised that we were concerned about copyright.
> > Thereby confirming that it was something I should talk about!
> >
> > FWIW I don't really mind schools not paying a fee - the money isn't the
> > issue - it's the principle, and because I would much rather
> they used an up-
> > to-date map under our control instead of a blurry copy of
> something years
> > old.
> >
> > Once while orienteering in a local park I came across another orienteer
> > taking part in a completely different event! She was holding a
> dreadful copy
> > of a crappy map that must have been 15 or 20 years old. Some local
> > community group pirating our map - argh.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Mark Roberts Box 99612 Newmarket Auckland New Zealand
> > nmr@iprolink.co.nz markr@pictdata.co.nz
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
From: Tapio Leino <taleino@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:39:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Australian Championships results/O League standings updated
Message-Id: <381B1F32.85586EF9@hotmail.com>
simonbeck6219@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <199910210746.RAA26259@mullara.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au>,
> Blair Trewin <blair@met.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> > The first bit of drama in M21 occurred before the start,> courtesy of
> the bizarre (and probably illegal) Swedish> rule which forbids someone
> from running in any other> national championship if they have run in
> the Swedish > one.
I believe the Swedish rule is the same as the one in Finland, i.e., the
only those foreign orienteers who represent a Finnish club can participate
and win in the Finnish championships.
Another rule, commonly agreed by all the Nordic countries, says that during
one year an European or a Nordic orienteer can represent only one
orienteering club in any Nordic country.
So an orienteer cannot represent a club in Sweden and during the same year
represent another club in Finland. He/she can though represent one Nordic
club and another club elsewhere in Europe. For example, Vroni Koenig-Salmi,
representing a club called Turun Suunnistajat, won the Finnish championship
in D21 last year, while she probably also represented a club in Switzerland
and I think she also represented Switzerland in the World Cup.
Tapio Leino
From: Carolyn Ortegon <cortegon@airmail.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:33:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Copyright
Message-Id: <9D7229FF734792D0.86C3B6BE6914D594.53B5AC458E344F39@lp.airnews.net>
Could someone enlighten me about getting official copyright "papers"?
When I took our Batrop S.P. O' map to the local copy shop (Kinko's), the manager
refused to make the color copies we needed (extra's 2 hours before a meet!)
because I did not have any proof "papers" of the copyright. [We had put the "c"
circle symbol on the map.] She also couldn't connect me with the Houston O' Club.
After a "scene" and then me finally remembing that I had the club checkbook, she
relented. No one else in our club has had any trouble obtaining color copies at
other copy shops. Do copy shops have official policies about this? I know there
are laws...........
Thanks, Carolyn Ortegon
Mark Roberts wrote:
> Rick Hood asked:
>
> > has any club actually given over the copyright to a map,
> > save where the land owner/manager has paid ALL the cost?
>
> Jim Huggins confessed:
>
> > We have never considered "copyrights" to the maps. Guess we should!
>
> I always put a Copyright statement on the maps I draw. When I draw a
> school I always put it in the form:
>
> "Copyright 1999 Auckland Orienteering Club and Whatever School"
>
> Whether the Copyright statement has any legal status doesn't really bother
> me; it is just a way to remind people what is happening and who owns the
> map and who is entitled to copy it.
>
> At a recent seminar for schoolteachers I talked about copyright of our
> maps. I explained that they were not entitled to photocopy our park or
> forest maps, that we invested an enormous amount of money and effort into
> making them, and that we would happily licence the map for a modest fee
> or sell them a couple of hundred for not very much money.
>
> They looked quite surprised that we were concerned about copyright.
> Thereby confirming that it was something I should talk about!
>
> FWIW I don't really mind schools not paying a fee - the money isn't the
> issue - it's the principle, and because I would much rather they used an up-
> to-date map under our control instead of a blurry copy of something years
> old.
>
> Once while orienteering in a local park I came across another orienteer
> taking part in a completely different event! She was holding a dreadful copy
> of a crappy map that must have been 15 or 20 years old. Some local
> community group pirating our map - argh.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Roberts Box 99612 Newmarket Auckland New Zealand
> nmr@iprolink.co.nz markr@pictdata.co.nz
> ----------------------------------------------------------
From: "S. Donald" <s._donald@bc.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:06:10 -0700
Subject: Re: SOFT rules....
Message-ID: <001601bf22f1$41c8bac0$38c434d1@ga586vx>
----- Original Message -----
From: <simonbeck6219@my-deja.com>
To: <orienteering@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Australian Championships results/O League standings updated
>....
> But how should SOFT tackle its national champs problem? (Essentially,
> so far as I can see, the problem is that if SOFT allows all qualifying
> (in terms of O ability) entrants to enter the SOFT champs, the result
> is that so many Swedish runners get squeezed out that the validity of
> using the race for team selection comes into question.)
And this seems to be counter productive to me. After all, if the home
competitors can't win on local turf, what chance do they have as a stranger
in a strange land?
Most championship events are closed, so only nationals can 'win'.
The 'local' ranking system should be able to be modified so that only the
local person's times are taken into consideration.
Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDS Design
1145 Cedar Ave
Trail, BC V1R 4B8
(250)364-2332 work
(250)362-7768 home
s._donald@bc.sympatico.ca
Graphic Design
OCADing
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James Head" <jameshead@silent.swinternet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:46:54 +0100
Subject: Re: BOF levy
Message-Id: <7veb49$l7j$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
The new levy system and the charges proposed certainly penalise our Club,
Devon OC and I suspect other clubs out on the fringe.
Our club has calculated that based on the levels proposed, including the
first 25 pound off rule that in 1998 we would have had to pay BOF an extra
#233.53 and that so far this year we would have had to find an extra
#264.57. Our event fees are already #3 for seniors and #1 for juniors but
our attendence levels are low due to being on the fringe.
In addition to attract people down into Devon and Cornwall for our badge
events we already have to charge less then what other clubs are able to.
We have frozen our membership fees for several years now to prop up
membership levels.
This new system might be great for clubs in SE England and the Midlands who
can attract high numbers to thier colour coded events, but for us it is yet
another hurdle.
James
From: rosborn420@aol.com (ROsborn420)
Date: 30 Oct 1999 08:45:41 GMT
Subject: scottish night champs
Message-Id: <19991030044541.06223.00000269@ng-fa1.aol.com>
Full details of these events missing from Compass Sport, entry closing date
1/11/99.
For last minute entry details please contact:
Email: ROsborn420@aol.com
Scottish Night Champs Weekend
13th/14th November 1999
Saturday 13th Scottish Night Championships
Venue: Barr Wood, Stirling, just off jnc 9 of M9.
Parking at GR NS796866
Terrain: Fast & challenging mixed woodland & open heath with much
contour detail.
Starts: 6 - 7pm
Cost: Seniors #6 Juniors/Students #4.
Sunday 14th Chasing Sprint
Venue: Plean Country Park, near Stirling
Parking at GR NS 827868
Terrain: Fast runnable park & woodland, many paths & areas of
intricate contour detail.
Format: Two loops, the second one a chasing start.
Starts: 10.30 - 11.30 (for loop one)
Courses: Long (total length 7-8km) or Short (total length 4-5km)
Cost: Seniors #5 Juniors/Students #2.50
Sport Ident Punching will be used
From: "Andrew Kelly" <andrewk@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:38:53 +0100
Subject: Re: BOF levy
Message-ID: <007201bf22b2$6f793240$e485bc3e@jo93.dial.pipex.com>
Simon Beck wrote:
>My club (SN) has now paid the outstanding levy from NE1 in Jan1999
>(which made a loss) as th follow-up badge event on the same area made
>a profit (which was only to be expected since the national event paid
>for the map.)
Claro works out its finances based on its overall programme, not on an event
by event basis. We therefore schedule events where we know a surplus may not
be made, usually in areas where we wish to develop/promote the sport but are
unlikely to see a large turnout (5 of our 6 most revent grade 4 events have
attracted less than 150 competitors). Almost inevitably, if one costs an
entire map against a single event, particularly when that map is
professionally produced, then that event will make an apparent loss, which
in fact isn't a loss at all.
Personally, I feel this practice of costing single events in isolation does
not make financial or developmental sense. Events aren't just about making
a surplus (although maybe some people see them that way), although a club's
overall programme needs to be viable. Other factors need to be borne in mind
as well.
>But our cttee has decided not to hold any more national events until
>it's convinced BOF has come up with a better way to calculate the levy
>(meaning in this context one that does not impose additional financial
>risk on the club putting on the event in the first place.)
The proposed levy will heavily favour badge and national events, at the
expense of local events. Personally, I welcome this decision of your club -
there are too many badge/national events and too few good quality colour
codeds.
>I'm unsure as to whether my club is actually cutting off its nose to
>spite its face on this issue; but I hope they apply for some more
>national events once this new levy system comes into force and before
>the Andrew Kelly's of this world chance the system back again, however
>much Andrew may be right.
Why? (and I didn't say I wanted to change back, but that the current
proposals would have the effect outlined if implemented). One of the prime
reasons for the current decline in membership is over-concentration on
national/badge events. Where there is a good programme of local events,
where there are clubs with small catchments and strong local identities,
that is where we generally see steady, even increasing, membership. Where
we see the opposite, is generally where we see greatest decline.
>Actually I think the levy system should penalise the clubs that use the
>same areas over and over again. As it happens, I feel the system
>encourages clubs to do that, instead of spending more money on mapping,
>but then as a mapper I would say that.
Not everywhere has brand new areas to map every year. We use our areas over
and over again partly (a) because we have mapped almost all the currently
available areas in our catchment, (b) because we have realised that healthy
membership depends partly on a good local, accessible programme of events,
and that most people don't want or need to travel round the country chasing
events to enjoy orienteering, and (c) to use the maps before they become out
of date, at which point they are remapped. Don't re-use an area, and you
don't need to remap it.
Andrew Kelly
From: Martin Groth <martingr@fm.unit.no>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:06:39 +0200
Subject: Re: Australian Championships results/O League standings updated
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9910300558120.12138-100000@demokrit.fim.ntnu.no>
>
> What's going on here????????? Could it be the real aim of this SOFT
> rule to discourage foreigners from running in the Swedish champs? I
> wonder.... By the way, what was the outcome of Steve Hale taking SOFT
> to the 'diskriminasjonsombudsmann' or is that old hat now? (Or does
> nobody know what I'm referring to here?)
From what I heard the DO didn't take upp the case at all but I'm not
certain that was so. One thing i sfor sure and that is that the case was
not settled. But to be specific this had nothing to do
with the champs, it was a question about the test races that the swedish
captains used to see the form of the runners and selection trials.
For the champs, any runners representing a swedich club with good enought
results to qualify is permitted to run unless the runner participated in
any other national champinonship the same year.
I think the rule is there to ensure that the swedich champs doesn't turn
into an "open champs" with the best in the world which would certainly
lower the amount of swedich runners qualifying.
S. Hale has been participading many years in the SM with great results (
dubbel gold 1997 and silver 1999).
>
> But how should SOFT tackle its national champs problem? (Essentially,
> so far as I can see, the problem is that if SOFT allows all qualifying
> (in terms of O ability) entrants to enter the SOFT champs, the result
> is that so many Swedish runners get squeezed out that the validity of
> using the race for team selection comes into question.)
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
-------------------------
Martin Groth
Martingr@stud.fim.ntnu.no
From: simonbeck6219@my-deja.com
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:20:16 GMT
Subject: BOF levy
Message-Id: <7vdkku$oof$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <000601bf2119$ccb869c0$8a82bc3e@jo93.dial.pipex.com>,
"Andrew Kelly" <andrewk@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
> However, clubs have just received information about the new BOF levy
> structure. Based on the proposed figures (which I obviously hope
will be
> changed!), clubs who stage annual Badge/National events may benefit or
> remain unaffected, but as a club which focuses primarily on local
> development, our initial costings indicate a 300-400% increase in our
levy
My club (SN) has now paid the outstanding levy from NE1 in Jan1999
(which made a loss) as th follow-up badge event on the same area made
a profit (which was only to be expected since the national event paid
for the map.)
But our cttee has decided not to hold any more national events until
it's convinced BOF has come up with a better way to calculate the levy
(meaning in this context one that does not impose additional financial
risk on the club putting on the event in the first place.)
I'm unsure as to whether my club is actually cutting off its nose to
spite its face on this issue; but I hope they apply for some more
national events once this new levy system comes into force and before
the Andrew Kelly's of this world chance the system back again, however
much Andrew may be right.
Actually I think the levy system should penalise the clubs that use the
same areas over and over again. As it happens, I feel the system
encourages clubs to do that, instead of spending more money on mapping,
but then as a mapper I would say that, indeed, there were those at our
club AGM 4 years ago, when I was fulminating about BOF spending the VAT
refund on management consultants, who used this point as an excuse for
abstaining from voting on my motion of censure which was duly sent up
to BOF (and which received a predicatably limp wristed response from
whoever it was, democracy, the majority, and all that), but all the
same too true, the present financial bitchings are the result of the
apathy and laziness of too many people who didn't keep an eye on what
was going on when funds weren't so tight as they are now.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: simonbeck6219@my-deja.com
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 02:02:22 GMT
Subject: Re: New areas
Message-Id: <7vdjjd$o86$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <000601bf2119$ccb869c0$8a82bc3e@jo93.dial.pipex.com>,
"Andrew Kelly" <andrewk@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> As chairman of Claro ............our initial costings indicate a 300-
400% increase in our levy
> bill for next year, and serious consequences for our event programme
and
> mapping of new areas - far more so than the odd difficult landowner!
>
So the arguments over money continue.
I hope all those who stood by and did nothing when BOF received that
UKP27000 VAT refund and charged off and spent the "surplus money"
instead of keeping it for when it's needed are now ashamed of
themselves.
O seems to have a 10 year cycle. Once every 10 years there will be a
debate in compass sport about the date / format of the BOF champs, are
orienteers snobs, is trail-O a waste of manpower that could
alternatively be used for something more important eg making sure the
drinks controls are in the right place (if they're in any place at
all!) etc. Once every 10 years there will be an almighty cockup at
the JK (well, perhaps a bit more often than 10 years in the case of
the JK...) and once every 10 years those who control BOF's purse
strings will get just a bit too optimistic and go chucking money around
like there's no shortage.
But if one can keep these things in the limelight, and make it an 11
year cycle instead of a 10 year cycle, then 10 percent of the money
will have been saved, someone who lives 110 years will only experience
10 almighty cockups at the JK instead of 11, etc.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: simonbeck6219@my-deja.com
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:41:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Where did the VAT refund go?
Message-Id: <7vdic7$n8k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
I understand BOF is now facing having to make up the WOC99 deficit.
Never mind, it's only 4 years since BOF received a refund of UKP27000
in VAT refunds overpaid. Surely that would cover the loss? Or has
that money now been spent on more important things?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: simonbeck6219@my-deja.com
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:31:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Seeing Maps in Advance
Message-Id: <7vdhon$msm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article
<MAPI.Id.0016.00743434202020203345364330303139@MAPI.to.RFC822>,
Ned Paul <compass.sport@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> David May wrote:
>
> >
> > Secondly, I heard a Scandinavian National Coach, talking to the
> > Foot-O Committee a few months ago, report the results of
> experiments
> > where elite runners were divided into two balanced groups, both
> > running the same courses later on. One group was shown the courses
> > beforehand, the other was not. It turned out that no significant
> > difference was found between the two groups afterwards.
Hmmmm....... there was a JK cockup some years ago where the relay was
divided into 2 separate races starting half an hour apart and the
organisers claimed there would be no advantage is starting in the later
race.........
> Carried to extreme this means that WOC maps should be freely
> published in advance. None of this secrecy business we so much love
> in orienteering and that keeps our sport so completely out of the
> limelight. This is not an original thought - the IOF are working on
> their 'Olympic Product' on these lines.
Suggestion, how about devising some form of O referred to as
'synchronized O' - might stand a better chance of being included in the
olymipcs?
Some strange advantages
> would come off this for example spectators and journalists at the
> arenas could follow the commentary with a race map
why can't they do this already? assuming the competitors are all
closeted away somewhere they can't get the info?
> My guess is the same guys would win.
I've heard this argument used as an excuse for holding races on easy
terrain. Buw wasn't the inaugust UK classic distance park-O chumps
almost won by someone previously and hereafter unheard of in top class
O circles? (Or am I insulting the individual concerned here?)
>
> As for the original thread of whether you get a second overprinted
> map or even a clean second map for draw it yourself MMs John Kewley's
> point about marginal cost rings a bell. This false economy of
> saving maps is much loved by those organisers who won't print enough
> maps for the entry on the day demand
or simply won't print enough full stop.
On the
> question of entering on the day (at a premium) and expecting an
> overprinted map, I have asked BOF Technical Committee to collect and
> publish experience from different badge event so that an accurate
> guideline can be issued to organisers of how many extra maps for each
> class to preprint.
Like someone else pointed out the level of EOD would depend on the
weather, and technical cttee could probably ignore this point and then
when there was a later suggestion that the weather be recorded at each
event, the study would have to be done again and it would make a load
more work for people.
Why can't organisers simply sell the unused maps (possibly at a future
event?) at the marginal cost of producing them, poeple like me would
snap them up for swaps (if it's a half decent map), instead of trying
to sell them for 5 times the marginal cost then when nobody buys them
complaining they're left with unused maps and it's all the fault of the
people who insist on entering on the day? Because it's not the way
things are done, it would set a precedent and we couldn't possibly
allow that could we Beck you complete cretin. (and it would make more
work for someone)
PS I've got a fetish for licking stamps and sticking them on envelopes,
so I just love events where you have to pre-enter, give me more
puhlease!
Simon
> Be sure to visit the CompassSport Homepage at:
>
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/compass.sport
>
> -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: simonbeck6219@my-deja.com
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:34:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Australian Championships results/O League standings updated
Message-Id: <7vdhvq$n4c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <199910210746.RAA26259@mullara.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au>,
Blair Trewin <blair@met.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> The first bit of drama in M21 occurred before the start,> courtesy of
the bizarre (and probably illegal) Swedish> rule which forbids someone
from running in any other> national championship if they have run in
the Swedish > one.
What's going on here????????? Could it be the real aim of this SOFT
rule to discourage foreigners from running in the Swedish champs? I
wonder.... By the way, what was the outcome of Steve Hale taking SOFT
to the 'diskriminasjonsombudsmann' or is that old hat now? (Or does
nobody know what I'm referring to here?)
But how should SOFT tackle its national champs problem? (Essentially,
so far as I can see, the problem is that if SOFT allows all qualifying
(in terms of O ability) entrants to enter the SOFT champs, the result
is that so many Swedish runners get squeezed out that the validity of
using the race for team selection comes into question.)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.