Course Setter's Analysis:
One of my goals was to make route choice not obvious. Judging by two things, I think I succeeded. 1) Looking at the participant's routes in RouteGadget, even the two people who came closest to clearing the course had significantly different routes. 2) Beginning and ending controls were very different. With only 33 teams, eight different controls were the first ones visited. Some of these were also last controls - these were the controls near the start/finish; some teams got them on the way out and some on the way back; this was to be expected. However in addition to those, there were eight other controls that were also last controls for some teams. A few of these clearly reflected running out of time or weak planning (for example when #86 or #75 or #38 or #64 were last controls); but the others I think were route choice decisions.
I also did a frequency count of control visits. Naturally, the controls closest to the start/finish were among the most visited. However, I was kind of amazed to see that control #64 was the most visited of all (24 teams visited it). The least visited control was not a surprise - #34 with only 2 teams visiting. Most teams probably regarded it as too far out of the way for the point value. I struggled with deciding where to place that control. I probably should have used a feature about 500 m NW of where I did put it. That would have made it more attractive to people visiting #85 and/or #86. I didn't do that because of the large boulder fields between those two controls; but judging by the routes people actually used, I should have moved it. Other controls with relatively low numbers of visits were #39, #43, #44. and #55 (each with 8 or 9 visits). I regarded controls #85 and #86 among the most difficult (the reason for their high point values); but I was pleased to see that each of these had 13 teams visit.
If you are curious about other controls, go to Control Visits