Talk:Course (orienteering)

Shoulditis

Being an encyclopedia, not a manual, the "should"s have to go. Otherwise, good start. --Una Smith (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Have changed the words and done some reworking and expansion. Thanks for the advice. The article needs more content, so I plan to gradually expand it. Oceanh (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

Here, or in Orienteering, is needed a discussion of the relationship of orienteering to point to point racing. If the first courses were from church to church, and the churches were prominent, tall landmarks, early orienteering was not so map-based as it is now. It may have employed far more dead reckoning. --Una Smith (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think churches as control points were an exception. But in the early days, they typically used large features as controls (farms, small lakes, peaks, etc.), mainly due to the standard of the maps those days. I think you are correct in pointing out that early orienteering was not so map-based as it is now (this is supported by sources, or "expert" comments). Not so sure about "dead reckoning" though, an 1898 orienteering contest (10 kilometers, organized by Tyrving) turned out not so successful, as none of the starters reached the finish before the five-and-a-half hour deadline. In the history sections we should only include documented (and preferably referenced) published facts, or comments by experts or researchers, but should avoid "own speculations" which may be regarded as "original research". Oceanh (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

Oceanh, you have a source for this 1898 course? Let's put it in the article. --Una Smith (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The information about the 1898 competition organised by Tjalve can be found in one the books in my bookshelf (Berglia et. al., 1987, 360 pp.). Tjalve organised a second competition two weeks later, this time a shorter and simpler course, and mandatory five minutes rest and map reading at each control. I have also found an online source(!) which shows the course from the 1897 competition, drawn on two of the four available maps at the time, and parts also drawn on more recent maps.110 let (included as reference in Control point (orienteering)) Oceanh (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Nice find! --Una Smith (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Control points

I suggest confining the description of control points to Control point (orienteering). In some parts of the world, control point flags are red and white; elsewhere they are orange and white. --Una Smith (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Colors

I think it is important to explain the color coding of courses, reflecting technical difficulty, that is used by the USOF and BOF. This is something that needs explanation, in part because the BOF and USOF systems have some differences, and because it is important information for new orienteers and new course designers, and I think it is appropriate information also for an encyclopedia. It makes the results of local orienteering clubs much more intelligible. What do other national organizations do to identify technical difficulty of courses? --Una Smith (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the references to colours out of the article principally because BOF has just changed to a new system (from 1.1.2009) which no longer uses the colours. I intend looking up the new table and possibly adding that to the article. Also, I removed it as the reader needs to know that there is an organised progression through technical and physical difficulty according to their needs and abilities. It is irrelevant to the reader that the courses haves names, and that BOF/USOF use differing names. Having said that, I can see a need (having stated the principles) for a simple example - I will try and add something this week.. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then that paragraph needs a rewrite. Twiceuponatime, can you provide a reliable source about the BOF change? BOF still has those color course planning PDFs on their website. The color coding remains very relevant in the US. How about a table? Here is a sketch, with just the USOF courses. There probably should be a footnote about the BOF scheme ending in 2009. And references, of course. --Una Smith (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Foot orienteering courses by level of physical and technical challenge
		Technical challenge
		Beginner	Intermediate	Advanced
Physical challenge (length)
	Low	BOF White, Yellow, and Orange USOF White and Yellow
	Medium		BOF Light Green USOF Orange	USOF Brown
	High			USOF Red, Blue, Green

I think many people, even many orienteers, have the idea you just go out and run, and the sport is all about the physical aspect (running on trails, running off trails without tripping). They overlook the technical aspects, in particular that the technical skills necessarily are progressive. Someone who cannot orient the map to the terrain in effect cannot use the map, etc. --Una Smith (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have added the latest BOF Guideline See here, which took effect 1/1/2009. What I wanted to do was inform the reader that there is a structure to events without getting involved in the detail, which could change over time. Also, I did not want to frighten people with the complexity of course structures – see the table in the latest guideline (which now has 12 colours). Also, the differences between BOF and USOF are irrelevant - what matters that each has a formal structure. So, I would not include a table.
  

You miss the point about the guidelines for orange courses. BOF considers that course to be critical in the development of juniors from novice to competent - it is not just another easy course. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I assure you I do not miss that point. Yellow also is not just another easy course. The skills employed are progressive. --Una Smith (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)