Discussion: vetting?

What is "vetting"?

I am sure that there is a formal, orienteering definition - or maybe not, given who asked - but dictionary.com says (third option):

to appraise, verify, or check for accuracy, authenticity, validity, etc.: An expert vetted the manuscript before publication.

At the risk of rushing in where more experienced folks have yet to tread... I have always thought that vetting was the job(s) done by the vetter. Less circularly, I would say that that involved "appraising" courses and "checking for authenticity and validity" during the course design phase. At the time of the meet, I would have said that it involved "verifying" and "checking for accuracy", i.e. of the controls themselves rather than the course.

On the other hand, having been a vetter for several A meets, I agree with Eric's intimation that the job is ill-defined - which raises two questions really:

1) Is there a consensus about what vetting really is? and
2) Is there a need to write this down in some formal document?

In Ottawa we divide the tasks described by dlevine into two distinct jobs. A controller has the job of appraising courses and helping out and providing a sanity check for the course designer / setter. One or more people then take on the job of vetting on the morning of the meet which involves setting out SI units / controls as necessary and confirming that those that have been set out are still there and checking for any thing that might compromise the course such as weather caused issues. One important job for the vetter at more important meets is to actually turn on all of the SI units. Units that don't get turned on in advance take an extra couple of seconds to turn on when the first runner punches them. The units turn off after 4 hours (if my memory serves correctly) if unused so this needs to be done shortly before the race starts.
A full pre-running of the course can be incorporated with many parts of that job.

I would add "checking for fairness". I would add "map" and "control descriptions" to courses as things being checked for accuracy and fairness.

Good point Randy...too often little thought is given to making control descriptions as accurate as possible.

US Rules for Competition contain specific Vetter duties in Sec 45 which include:
.
45.3 The duties of the Vetter are to check all aspects of the course setting, including:
a) ...the quality of the map in relation to the specific courses and control locations and assisting with any over printing which may be required.
b) ...the correct position of the start, map issue point, control flags and finish location.
c) ...correct codes on the control flags against the codes on the control description cards...
d) Making sure that the control descriptions are appropriate and that they correctly describe the positions of the controls flags....

Another Vetter duty that I wasn't aware of: The Vetter should be present during competition, and sit in with the Jury during any protest review to provide helpful information, but refrain from voting.

What is "vetting"?

Why do you ask, Grasshopper?

I'm pretty sure that EricW has "vetted" WOC controls.

@gordun: So we would have this conversation? :)

@EricW: good topic for me personally this year. My #2 O' goal is to hone my vetting skills till they're sharp. Significantly sharper? ;)

While it's great if the vetter sets out the controls, SI units, etc., I don't believe it's a part of the job definition (at least here in US) -- it's just often convenient to combine the two jobs, since the vetter is visiting all controls already. As the "Rules" say, in the US the job of the vetter is essentially to double-check all aspects of the course setter's job (45.3).

DVOA has a nice distillation of the OUSA guidelines/rules for the course setter:

http://www.dvoa.org/events/evdir/forms/setter.php

As a vetter I see my primary responsibility as vetting (validating, double-checking, appraising) everything on that page in a timely manner, and (most importantly) communicating any issues with the course setter in a timely manner.

A bit more info here, which gets one thinking a bit more about how and when it's done (not just what is done):

http://orienteeringusa.org/sites/default/files/vet...

I think that page could use some flesh, particularly with a bit of pre-meet time-line. The vetter should be vetting as soon as the course setter starts to get firm courses on paper. A second (or third) set of eyes early in the process ... priceless!

To vet is to make sure things are correct. There are different stages to this before competitors run the course. The course setter (and course consultant if there is one) work out the general details of the course. Once that is done, the course setter generally puts ribbons in the woods where controls are to be placed. After that, the vetter needs to verify that the control is where it is placed on the map and that the control description is correct. Mistakes happen. There may be problems with the map that cause the course setter to put the ribbon in the wrong place or it may just be that it was late in the day. The vetter doesn't just "find" the ribbon, the vetter should verify that it is in the right place, the map reads correctly in that area and that the clue is correct. There is risk if the course setter and vetter approach the control site from the same direction because they may both see the same things which are wrong. Competitors may arrive at a control from any direction. Vetting is not just finding ribbons, it is making sure that they are correctly placed and described. Because the vetter generally visits all controls in an area, the vetter should also verify that the controls are separated by appropriate distances with different distances involved with controls on the same type of feature and controls on different features.
On the day of the event, vetters or forerunners or whoever, must make sure that all the control numbers are correct. In the rush to get things done, the person who sets out the controls may place control 451 where 457 should be, etc.

As PGoodwin hinted, the "vetter" can be more than one person.

A preeminent issue is finding willing & able vetters for events. Most orienteers want to compete in their local events, so the pool of available and qualified vetters is usually small for any given race. It is common that local races have not been properly vetted, which usually translates into problems with the courses. Once again a volunteer issue in this labor intensive sport.

I did an adventure race once where the organizers had hired some orienteers to 'vet' the course a week before. And they advertised this too. Since one of the orienteers was a former National team member for Canada I was excited about doing an adventure race where all the CP's would be in the right spot and on 'real features'.

On race day I could not find CP8. My team was in the lead at that point. I re-checked three times then more and more teams arrived. I decided it must have been stolen since the vetting had been done by such a good orienteer and other teams had arrived at the same spot. So I continued on. Then some teams found the checkpoint over 500m away in the wrong spot. But we did not. The result? Despite losing 40 minutes checking and ending up 2nd our team was given a time penalty because we didn't find the CP (despite being in the wrong spot). The organizers argued that they had 'vetted the course' and we were wrong.

On getting home I joked with the vetter (the orienteer) about the mistake they had made at CP8. His response?.... "CP 8, there were only 7 CPs on the course we vetted". Upon sending him the map it turns out the organizers decided to change 50% of the course two days before the race. To this day the organizers still think the course was 'vetted properly' even though only half the CP's had been checked and one was very wrongly placed (and not vetted).

Moral of the story? How one defines vetting clearly varies. ;-)

Vetters can still run courses. If they have visited all the controls, there is still the issue of navigating between the controls on a particular course. Also, if the map has been used before, many people know the area so knowledge of where the controls are is not such an issue. For local meets, the vetter can just say, I am not really in the competition or not post his/her time. They can have fun at the meet and enjoy talking with those who ran the courses. If it is an A-meet, the vetter should be able to run courses with no charge and enjoy the day of the event.

Mike that is one sad, scary story!

If it is an A-meet, the vetter should be able to run courses with no charge and enjoy the day of the event.

So long as they don't do so during the normal competition window.

Now that this has gone on for a while, let me add a question that came up once when I was a vetter... If the vetter and the course setter disagree regarding the appropriateness of an aspect of the course, e.g., overall difficulty/course design, fairness of a control site, or clue description, then what is the vetter's duty? (Note that I am presuming that a conversation has already taken place, but that the disagreement has not been resolved in this manner.)

The vetter's, course desginer's, course setter, and course consultant should all be together in the process of determining overall difficulty/course design, etc.

When it is a local meet, bring in a third party with a little experience.

Both the vetter and setter should be open to opinions for everything to work well.

hammer: in AR, vetting is a relative term. At the USARA finals last October, some CP locations were changed 24 hours before race start. This is possible because in AR, the CP locations are not printed on the map given to racers, but are drawn on the map by the racers themselves an hour before start time when the UTM coordinates are handed out. The fact that the map does not come with the control locations pre-printed is a huge flexibility in deciding up to the last minute whether a CP is to be used or not. So, if one wants to add a CP8, all he has to do is add it to the sheet of paper listing all the UTM coordinates, and have a person drive to nearby the location, hike a bit (not much), and place the control, even on start day. On the other hand, AR racers are a very social and collaborative bunch, and if a CP is misplaced, a competitor of yours that did find it (most likely accidentally), will tell you where it is (at least in those races that there isn't much prize at stake...)

Much as I have suspected. AR is really about getting some exercise, socializing and eating. Not really a serious sport :-)

PGoodwin wrote: Vetters can still run courses. If they have visited all the controls, there is still the issue of navigating between the controls on a particular course.

I consider vetting as also checking the map accuracy between controls. Usually, I want either the course setter or the vetter to have completed all obvious route choice options. (Where there are infinite options, then it's a whole other category of checking / vetting --- more like general map correctness.)

Usually as setter I visit the control sites enough that I can take each route choice that I care about, but sometimes I can't.

To clarify---I'm talking about legs where the map shows some obvious advantageous routes, such as gullies, spurs, or trails, and if those have deadfall or are flooded it could really affect the runners who chose that route. Some places here in Cincinnati, such as East Fork, if you commit to a gully and there is a tree across it, you can't climb out of the gully sometimes because of mud, so you have to backtrack. I look for "chokepoint" features like that and make sure either they are clear or the map shows you the problem.

PGoodwin also wrote: Competitors may arrive at a control from any direction.

Another thing I always try to do is to check the map correctness for each obvious attackpoint around the control. Even though you expect most people to use the one or two from the obvious approach directions, runners are sometimes correcting from an error and need all the nearby possible attackpoints to be in correct alignment with the control feature.

The control I screwed up at last year's Flying Pig was one for which I had checked extensively (3 different approach directions as well as a really complete check of about 270 degrees of "inside the circle". It was that last 90 degree quadrant that I didn't check that would have pointed out my error---literally, if I had walked 50m to the North I would have figured it out. (I was on a little, unmapped feature that very much looked like the map---If I had gone 50m to the N, I would have found a bigger feature that *exactly* matched the map. What I assumed was "mapper exaggeration" wasn't.)

At an A meet, the vetter should not eligible for official results. they can run a course but if they have done the vetters job properly they would have a clear advantage over others so should not count.
In terms of who has authority during disagreement: In matters of technical aspects (improper control location, bad control description, bad map areas, unfair legs...) What the vetter says goes. The course setter has final say on the courses (length, difficulty...). Obviously everyone should work towards a common agreement and respect the opinions of others.

I know it sucks to sacrifice your chance to run a course due to volunteer obligations, but I believe that the vetting and running are both likely to be better if they aren't done at the same event. There is something to be said for immersion and singular purpose.

Totally agree with J-Man.

It's interesting that the US has 3 people to perform the job(s) that the IOF and COF seem to do with one person:
1. IOF = Event Adviser
2. COF = Controller
3. USOF = Event Consultant, Course Consultant, Course Vetter

In cross country skiing, it's the "Technical Delegate" (TD) who is responsible for ensuring the rules are followed and everything is done as it should be. Note that the TD is always external to the local organizing committee, which ensures that everything really is being checked by a "second set of eyes".

For WOC93, in addition to the IOF controller (and his two deputies who showed up from time to time), we also had a National Controller, two extra sets of eyes looking at each course (the other two course setters), a vetter for each event, and one more extra technical person from the US looking at everything.

At the A-meet level, I prefer not to have the vetter feeling that he is done by the day of the event and therefore free to go run a course unofficially, because it's useful to have him on hand in case something unexpected comes up that needs to be dealt with by a technically competent person.

There have been plenty of useful points made here.

One point that I think has been understated is the importance of vetting which is unrelated to the terrain. I have always referred to this as "paper vetting". I believe my club mates are tired of hearing me talk about this, but it has been, and continues to be my observation, that the majority of critical mistakes that get through to the point that I see or hear about them, are not related to the course in the forest, but rather simple mistakes on paper. These include things like incorect codes, printed map not matching control descriptions, map in wrong pile at Start....

Some of this is helped by having unified systems (Condes, OCAD...) for course printing and control descriptions, but often events are still done with mixed systems, which opens up additional error pathways. There are plenty of ways that clerical problems can occur, usually late in the process, in hectic pre-meet crunch time. To me this is especially frustrating, not that the mistakes occur, (we're human), but that they are not caught, and frequently (usually?) not even checked for. This is additionally aggravating, because this type of vetting does not require any O skill, just the patience to sift through a pile of maps to see that "x" = "x"

The other point that I'd like to make is the importance of having perfectly complete and updated master maps and control descriptions as the basis for all checking. This is central to both forest and paper vetting, and it sounds obvious, but I think there is a strong tendency, to use imperfect masters, thinking "I can remember the inevitable last minute change". The problem is there are usually multiple last minute changes, and multiple people involved with the process. Aother simple concept related to master info is the importance of direct copying, rather that transcribing information.

Eric, I never tire of hearing about or helping with "paper vetting" :)

Agree with bmay, the US system does seem full of holes compared to IOF and many national associations. Here is the Australian situation (from our Competition Rules:

As a minimum, the following tasks shall be carried out under the authority of the Orienteering Australia Controller:
• to approve the venue and the terrain for the event
• to investigate the event organisation and assess the suitability of the proposed accommodation, food, transport, program, budget and training possibilities
• to check that land access has been granted
• to check that the map conforms with the IOF standards
• to approve the courses after assessing their quality, including degree of difficulty, control siting and equipment, control descriptions, chance factors and map correctness
• to check any course splitting method and course combinations
• to approve the organisation and layout of start, finish and changeover areas
• to assess the reliability and accuracy of the time-keeping and results producing systems
• to assess arrangements and facilities for the media
• to assess any planned ceremonies
• to assess, where necessary, arrangements and facilities for doping tests
• to ensure that control markers, equipment and officials are suitably positioned
• to be present during the event
• to ensure that results and reports are distributed promptly

Of course, not all these points are required at a club, or even regional event, but they are at a national event.

As with IOF, there is a controller accreditation system in Australia with 3 levels, level 3 is required for a national event.

As someone with many years of mapping, course-setting and controlling experience, I was concerned about PGoodwin's first post "The course setter (and course consultant if there is one) work out the general details of the course. Once that is done, the course setter generally puts ribbons in the woods where controls are to be placed." I was surprised that noone else took him up on this. In my experience, of all the control locations you plan at home, less than 50% will be useful control sites once you are out in the forest, so just going out and putting ribbons on them doubles the workload for everyone. The vetter/controller then comes along and realises the sites are no good - that means they all have to get together another time and find more suitable locations that they can agree on.

The setter (or at least one person on the setting team) needs to be experienced enough to reject armchaired control sites once they get out in the field. If another, more suitable site nearby can't be found, then sometimes a leg (and even a whole course) has to be changed. I find that a very rough armchair plan of the course flow, followed by a run or walk around the area is useful BEFORE you start armchairing courses. Even then, some control sites will not work when you go out to tape them, and will have to be changed. This should not be left for the vetter/controller to put right at a later stage.

In my small world, the word Vetting has two meanings. The first has almost nothing to do with orienteering except that it is what FWOC star Marion Owen does when she goes to work each day at the local pet clinic. The second is more relevant to this thread.

When I use it, and I think this applies across Canada, a vettor is an on-the-day volunteer that goes out immediately before an event begins to check that all the controls are properly set up, that the correct control number has been place, to take a record of the pin punch or SI number, and to turn on the SI units (ie: if an animal has knocked one down the vettor will put it back up. If someone has stolen a control the vettor will rush back to inform the course planner. Etc).

If using SI, the vettor punches at each control, then we can check that each control site he/she visited is programmed with the correct code. (if, as sometimes happens, the number on the stand does not match the number coded into the SI unit we can either replace the control or adjust the results software).

The vettor does not have any responsibility to influence the course planning. It is far too late to do anything about it.

In dirt-bag events (ie: almost every single event in NA) these tasks can actually be done by someone that runs the course early. But personally I prefer block vetting to course vetting, since it is way faster and it is easier to create a plan to deal with controls that have gone missing.

In super-dirt bag events I just ask one of my good-orienteer friends to be the first starter and give them 15-30 minutes head start on the others and hope nothing goes wrong ;-)

@AZ: For a vetter to visit every control... how many controls we talking? 20? 60?

That would be multiple people doing the vetting ;-)
But the answer is "it depends"
If it is Magnus or Ted - then we give them zillions
If it is Charm's mum, then we give her the kids course and cross our fingers ;-)

@AZ. I'm sure that you're not implying that the only vetting done for Canadian O is that done by the "on-the-day" vettor.

He does not call the other stuff "vetting"...

@EricW
If I remember correctly.

When you do it...
coming to the setters house,
telling him whats wrong with the map (without even visiting the terrain, and STILL being right - this I will never forget...).
telling him the courses look great ... then how to make them better
eating dinner
passing on your cold.

When I do it...
cadging a ride to the area
finding every possible site taped, even those underwater in a new beaver pond
spotting that two controls have the same code, but not doing anything about it.

:)

EricW has succeeded in demonstrating that the term vetter or the job of vetting is so ill-defined that use of it should cease. Was that your aim, Eric?

The bottom line is that there must be someone who takes responsibility for all aspects of an event, including suitability, technical correctness and safety. Some parts may of course be delegated in larger events. I think the term controller as used in a number of countries better sums up this "the buck stops here" principle.

"Event Advisor" is the IOF term. Almost the same thing as "controller" in practice, with a greater emphasis on team work rather than controlling. Its already a well defined role.

http://www.orienteering.asn.au/technical/controlle...

I thought "vetter" was a term used only in rogaining where issues such as suitability, technical correctness and fairness seem to me to be less emphasised. In this country at least.

Our club recently had an issue where the vetter and the course setter expected different things from the vetter. I think "controller" is probably a better term, since it seems to imply more than just checking that circle on map = flag in terrain.

I think a lot of countries adopted the word "Controller" from earlier IOF rules, before the IOF changed the term to "Event Advisor". Perhaps in the context of IOF events where you have a national controller and an international person as well.

The change is not appropriate lower down IMO because it blurs the clarity of who is in charge. In the event of a disagreement, a controller controls. An adviser, well, does anyone need to act on the advice? In an emergency, I don't want to consider advice, I want someone to decisively take control.

That might sound useful in theory. But a controller only has controlling power if that is assented to by the other parties (setter and organiser in particular) and the sanctioning body has teeth. In practice where there is an intractable disagreement about issues of course design or fairness between course setter or organiser and 'controller', the usual outcome is that the controller resigns quietly or sometimes noisily. Again, in theory, that should result in withdrawal of event sanction by the sanctioning body, but most parties have invested too much to contemplate cancellation. Organisers in particular are a relatively rare beast so you don't burn them. And the sanctioning body normally still wants its fee. And the controller isn't going to step in and organise. I think that is why the IOF guidelines talk about team work and emphasise that the adviser advises. The only situation where the controlling concept works reliably is in matters of safety where no-one with a brain wants to be the one on record dissenting with a safety proposal from the controller.

My experience is different. In my club, as I see it, a vetter is one of three things.

First definition: An inexperienced course setter who provides comments and questions about the courses and who, hopefully, becomes a course setter in the future.

Second definition: An experienced course setter who provides comments and questions about the courses, usually because there is no one of the first variety available.

Third definition: A day-of-event volunteer who checks that flags haven't been vandalized or moved, and possibly turns on SportIdent controls. A block vetter or prerunner.

I'm a little confused by some of the other countries' terminology, and actually a little confused by OUSA (nee USOF) terminology.

The problem I have with simmo's list is that it has items that should not be assigned to the course setter, such as media, ceremony, and doping arrangements. To my understanding, many of simmo's list are Event Director responsibilities, and actually the list isn't even that---It appears to be a list of approvals, checks, assessments, and assurances that an overseer uses so the event meets established Orienteering Australia expectations.

Perhaps the confusion is in the ways events are organized and how higher organizations impose their rules on the event organizers. To me the questions are: "Who is responsible for the event?", "Who is responsible for the courses?", and "How does a sanctioning organization (either national or IOF) impose its standards on the event organizers?"

As a serious student of course setting, and an occasional course setter, I believe there should be one person responsible for a set of courses, and I believe that person should be advertised and publicized using simple and understandable terms. The US seems to use "Course Setter", which is my preference, but if other countries like "Controller" and find that terminology clear, then fine. One reason I like having a person called the course setter is that it recognizes that course setting is a creative process, and it recognizes the one person most responsible for protecting the quality of the courses.

It seems to me that a Controller or Event Advisor is not the course setter, unless he or she actually designed the courses. The term "Controller" to me, sounds like a sanctioning organization person, rather than an organizer. (I'll admit the 3-tier Canadian system seems to contradict that. In the US, the event organizers are invariably a club---Is that also true internationally for national championships and for things like World Cups and WOCs?)

Here in the US, a Course Consultant is not the course setter, and usually doesn't vet anything in the woods anyway, but is just one valuable way OUSA tries to ensure event quality.

I take offense at the notion that anyone but the Course Setter is responsible when there is a problem with a "course". I have some flexibility for inexperienced course setters---The Event Director in particular should exercise authority in that case. And the IOF might blame their Event Advisor for failing to ensure course quality at a WRE, but I'm not so sure the competitors should---I think they should blame the person listed as "course setter".

It seems to me the Course Setter works for the Event Director. The ED should probably be the authority for resolving Setter / Vetter disputes. At a championship or national event, certainly the Event Director has obligations to the national body or even IOF, one of which is review and control by appointed controllers or advisors.

The real issues about "Who is responsible?" are most blurred at the lines dividing the responsibility. Can you blame the course setter when the start and finish locations suck? Or when the sanctioning organization allows bad terrain and long marked routes on a middle (!!) to have a better event center? (I'm not sure of the exact story there---I'm not sure if the course setters proposed a bad solution or if they made the best of a bad situation.)

In my experience, when there is a dispute we always try to reach consensus. If we can't then we discuss "who has what authority" and try to understand the hierarchy and obligations. I've had one dispute (not too serious, thankfully), where I considered the question, "At what point do I have my name removed from the courses?" Movie directors have the Alan Smithee option. It would have to be a disaster or some serious personal incompatibilities to go that far.

The Australian use of the term 'controller' has no US equivalent. In Australia, the controller is a member of a different club from the one organizing the event, but is still expected to visit all control sites as well as overseeing all the other aspects of event quality that were already mentioned. In practice in the US input from outside the club is usually provided only by a course consultant who doesn't visit the event site. In theory the rules provide for an event consultant also, who would similarly advise from afar on the other aspects of event quality, but these consultants are only just starting to be allocated again so few recent events are familiar with them. In both cases in theory sanctioning is to be revoked if the controller / consultant(s) are unhappy. In practice this would happen only very rarely under either system.

@cedarcreek - Wow.

@gruver "...demonstrating that the term vetter or the job of vetting is so ill-defined that use of it should cease. Was that your aim, Eric?"

I had no concise objective, nor do I have an issue with the term "vetter" or the other terms mentioned. If anything I would simply like to see vetting or double checking done more consistently, by routine, rather than requirement, regardless of the title of the person or team doing the work. In part I was wondering if I was out of touch with this notion.

I think vetting is essential to orienteering's quest to be a serious sport, and is sometimes an overlooked weakness, but not necessarily the greatest weakness.

I thought this was an important fundamental topic, worthy of discussion, in the winter off season (at least for the northern hemisphere), and the thread has at least lived up to expectations.

I understand that countries have differing environments, legal, banking, views on land ownership, topography, density of forest, etc etc, and they all manage to provide wonderful orienteering experiences. It seems there are various roles or positions to discover errors of course design and implementation (from "suitability" down to "wrong code" and "wrong place"). These are minor compared to matters of life and limb. It would be good to know that, in the US, everyone knows (without looking up any documents) who takes charge when there is an emergency.

Certainly, call it what you will, double checking should be done. I'm rather sure I've never vetted (controlled) an event where I thought all the controls or courses were as good as they could be. I've always thought it worth the effort.

I am really glad that the one significant US event I was involved in organizing was a WRE. As course setter, I benefitted significantly from having an IOF Event Adviser involved. That person was i) external to the local organizing committee and did the job of ii) double-checking that everything we did (i.e., start, finish, maps, control descriptions, courses, etc) was up to snuff. The Course Consultant was helpful (as helpful as a person can be remotely via email) particularly with designing the easier courses, but nowhere near as helpful as the Event Adviser who visited the terrain in advance of the event and was on-site during the event.

Looking at OUSA's rules, it's not really clear to me at all who fills the role of "Controller" (COF, Aussie wording) or "Event Adviser" (IOF wording). Who (outside of the local organizing committee) is responsible for double-checking everything and ensuring rules are being followed, courses are sensible, maps are printed properly, safety is considered, etc. The way those duties are split between the Vetter, Event Consultant, Course Consultant, it's not really apparent who ultimately has that responsibility.