Discussion: Multiple maps

APer iansmith commented to untamedadventure regarding the Dover Raid that he liked having multiple map sets per team.
http://ar.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/mes...

I thought this was an interesting topic and although there are certainly hurdles I think it would be a truer test of a team. Teams that can navigate better (i.e., more teammates who understand maps) will benefit.

Ian makes an interesting observation that alludes to the fact that sometimes ARers don't navigate yet it is an aspect of the sport as much as MTB, Running, Paddling, etc. Teammates can share the responsibility of navigating but sharing would be more "accurate" if they all were given the opportunity to use a map.

My two suggestions were:
Supply optional supplementary maps or photo copies of technical orienteering areas/legs copied on regular paper. These are the times when this would be most useful. Long road biking legs tend not to need more than one person on the maps, especially considering it is hard enough for one person to ride and read maps let alone the whole team.

Maybe allow teams to specify during registration how many maps they want and they can pay an extra fee for each set.

$50 per set of maps OK by you?

$50 seems trivial by the time you add up the entry fees, gas, lodging, race specific gear, etc.

OK, we'll try adding this into our registration process for our 2013 one-day race . . . and assuming it's popular we can include it for our next expedition too.

Watch this starting at 9:34 and then decide if everybody on a team should nav. https://vimeo.com/channels/247022/31339078

Personally I think this was really cool.

FYI, Bash hates it when I tell people to watch episode 1.

Our team loved the orienteering relay! As for Episode 1, well, it was how our brains and social skills worked on Day 4 of a race. What can we say? :)

I agree that extra map copies for certain technical trekking sections could be very useful. It is also important for more than one person to be able to navigate on a team, the most the better, never know when it could crucial.

But a full extra set of map for an expedition race or even a 24h sounds over the top. There is no way a serious team would not buy an extra set if given the option, just in case of course, but most of the time it would just stay unused in the gear bin. 50$ does not seem that much but costs in AR add up exponentially.

Maps management is part of AR, keeping them safe and dry. The official race map set is usually mandatory gear, so there would need to be clear guidelines about loosing maps, etc.

Extra maps not only means more potential accuracy but also extra team management/discipline. As much as navigation is a team task (pace, time, bearing, direction, communication, etc.) any 3+ persons teams in AR or even rogaine (bit different) has to have a clear head navigator otherwise it's easy to become inefficient in many ways, either while preparation or while racing. I guess it all comes down to clear role definition and adequate preparation.

Re Ep. 1, aw man my imaginary Bash voice has been all wrong.

Untamed: $50 is expensive but I would definitely consider it, likely do it. I think it would be an interesting test and would be interested to hear if people take advantage and if it was worth it. In certain races, depending on route and terrain, an extra map could be trivial, but you don't know that until you see the map and decide.

Jackson: I would not expect a team to particularly carry a full extra set. I figure we'd cut out a few key sections and carry those extras (like I alluded to before). This of course would be dependent on the rules. My thought is it would not be mandatory gear. If you want to carry it your penalty is the extra weight and less space. No safety reasons to require carrying it since you have another.

I have found having 2 maps has been super productive on technical orienteering sections. Communication is usually high, but that is the case with one map too. I am already used to working together with someone else navigating on one map but this way you don't have to worry about communicating what is on the map to another person, instead you can discuss where you are and where you are going.

Certainly if two people have two different ideas and neither budge you would have a problem but that could occur with one map.

Never have used more than two maps. That could potentially slow things down. I would expect decisions would be made by the team captain.

Mr. W, by Day 4 of an AR, I'm not sure that's my real voice either!

why not consider allowing "outside" maps (not provided by RD)? This could include, subsidiary park maps, photocopies of race maps, hand-drawn trail systems, and any form of non-interactive satellite (not gps). This would put the responsibility on teams to do as much or as little recon of the area as they like...also with regard to photocopies/2nd sets, it becomes part of the pre-race prep of an individual teams' time, not coffers.

Aye, allowing outside maps is a mess -- huge disadvantage to those coming from a long way, it's a flat out disincentive for an intl team to do a race (who wants to spend time canvassing for every map of an area of a foreign place, and then bring a folder of them to a race in case they're useful?) -- who wants to lose a race because they didn't have THAT ONE outside map that all the locals knew to bring? Maybe for a small local race it could add some spice, but even then it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Agreed. You can't stop teams from doing research before a race but they should be limited to carrying the official maps. Our philosophy at Wilderness Traverse is that if we are aware of a road or trail that may significantly help teams who know about it or stumble upon it, we mark it on our map. Similarly, if we know of a local map that provides a significant advantage, we either provide it or post it on the wall so that people can copy any info they want. Racers are not permitted to carry outside maps. Naturally, people may have info we don't know about, and they may discover useful trails that we didn't find, but we share what we know.

I did a race in the U.S. a couple of summers ago where I was blown away at the unfair advantage to local teams and return racers. My team captain guessed the race course fairly accurately several weeks in advance because it has been similar in other years - even some of the same checkpoints. I still enjoyed the event and terrain but the playing field was far from level, which would deter people who care about meaningful results.

A local maps is usually useful if it shows detail of a specific smaller area - more than a topo shows. Ideally, racers won't know where they're going in advance so they can't do much preparation - although I know that some races in more populated areas are confined within boundaries known to the racers beforehand.

As a navigator who also does rogaines and adventure running events where I definitely want individual maps, I am strangely conflicted about whether I personally would like multiple map copies in AR even though I've been thinking about this for Wilderness Traverse. (We do not provide huge numbers of maps.)

I like the idea of multiple team members participating in navigation, and I try to find ways to do that whenever possible, e.g. asking a teammate to carry a supplementary map with a different view of the same area, getting teammates to lead on bearings or measure time, etc.

If there were no "cost" associated with it (and I don't mean money), I'd be completely onboard. But in AR, there *is* a cost. For example, the navigator needs extra time in TAs to get the right maps folded in the right way in the right type of map case (bike, watertight for paddling, etc.) Some top navigators get their teammates to focus on different roles, e.g. helping weaker team members, carrying a heavier load, filling hydration bladders for everyone at the TA. If multiple people have maps and map cases to fuss with, it will cost the team some extra work and time. On some teams, this would be worth it because of the improved navigation; on others, it wouldn't.

So maybe it should be an individual choice for each team. Having said that, if an extra set of maps were available, I think most of us would feel obligated to buy them - even just to have a spare map in case of disaster. And even though our current system works just fine, our team would probably feel obligated to get two of us set up as navigators and provide us with appropriate gear and support (e.g. doing other tasks while we get maps set up at TAs). Just because we can.

I like the compromise suggestion to provide double copies of maps of technical orienteering areas - maybe complex trail networks too, i.e. places where teams are navigating pretty much constantly and could probably benefit from two minds.

I also agree that allowing outside maps during an AR is unnecessary and not a true aspect of AR. I am not interested in testing someone’s research skills. With that said when the goal is to win, sometimes doing that research has significant benefit so I do what I can (sometimes putting together a folder like untamed mentioned). But I am confident that I am a strong navigator so I prefer when the field is leveled in this area. But like Bash said not allowing outside maps doesn't mean that a team can't study maps beforehand to gain knowledge. I think it is the smart thing to do. As a comparison, most orienteers spend time studying the terrain and maps of areas they will be in and even have sample courses set up for championship meets.

I very much like Bash's philosophy for WT and know other RDs that subscribe to similar standards. It also eliminates cases where teams are lucky and stumble across an unmapped trail (maybe even b/c they are lost) which in turn saves them time. No reason to add more luck into the sport. Map quality and race quality are directly proportional. (Untamed, I expect Orienteering level maps for the whole UNE course this year.)

I think we kind of veered into a discussion on "home field advantage." Unfortunately there really isn't anything you can do about this. There are always going to be teams with different levels of knowledge about an area. When racing in new areas if you don't accept that fact you are only upsetting yourself and ruining your experience. Other teams do it when they race on your “home field.” Do the best with what you got. If that means getting to a race early to get a feel for things than great. I know several competitive teams that do this to different extents for major races. If you don’t you only have yourself to blame.

Bash, I have a feeling I know what race you are referencing. That RD has a slightly different philosophy about racing, as does every RD, you included. As long as you know that going in you know what you are getting into and have accepted that. That RD sees the race as more of a physical challenge and less of a navigational challenge. He tries to put on physically taxing races, with other mental aspects still involved (teamwork, AR experience, risk assessment, etc). I for one enjoy the pure physical pedal to the metal challenge sometimes. Sometimes I think RDs make races too gimmicky where the better team doesn’t win. Like I said each RD has a different flavor. Unfortunately, because his races take place in the same area local knowledge plays a bigger role, but because the navigation is less technical I think it lessens the impact a bit.

I also believe I have "intimate" knowledge of the team with the "unfair advantage." In that specific instance, fortunately (I guess), I don’t think the knowledge had an effect on the results. When I began doing these races I actually lost races (to the teammate I believe you reference) because of the knowledge I lacked. I now know the area much better and benefit from that knowledge. I know I am not the only one with knowledge of the area. And because the RD allows outside maps I have done the work to find useful maps. This is certainly something any team could have done and I had no advantage in doing so just the time that I spent to do it. In the same sense I understand your thoughts and also prefer the level field. (If I am totally off with my assumptions then disregard, but I have a feeling I am not.)

Back on topic:
Bash: I don't think the burden of extra maps has to be as severe as you suggest. Consider the second set as supplemental. You work with them when you can. Obviously if something else needs attention more you will switch your focus. It would be silly not to. You focus your energy on the most important thing. But from my experience (and what others have told me) teams with more than one strong navigator can significantly benefit on technical orienteering sections. Let the team make the decision. If they feel obligated but really shouldn't that is their loss. I would compare this to the debate between kayak paddles and canoe paddles. We often forego the option to carry kayak paddles for the ease and simplicity of using the provided canoe paddles. This decision usually benefits our team but I am sure that is not always the case.

It might be worthwhile to distinguish a difference between “navigation” and “orienteering”. Or “big N” and “little n”. Navigation (big N) would be going from one town to another on major roads, or paddling down a river. There is little advantage to two maps. There just isn’t that much information to process. Orienteering (little n) would be orienteering a tight trail network or traveling off trail. There is a lot more information to try and process here. You are also typically travelling at a more calculated pace. A second map would be useful for primarily “little n.”

I don’t think I would carry a whole map set in my backpack just as a back-up. I’d rather spend less energy protecting/securing the primary map set. I don’t think losing maps is that big of an issue but it does happen (I can verify). If I could leave the maps in a gear bin I would consider it.
In other words if I felt:
-The team only had one strong navigator
-One navigator was significantly better than the rest of the team, or
-The course was mostly “Big N”
I probably wouldn’t bother with a second set.

It is exciting to hear that two RDs are considering incorporating the use of multi map options! I will start spreading the word down here in the mid-atlantic.

Wow, that was a lot.

On a somewhat related topic:
http://ar.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/mes...

To clarify, I don't know that Getawaystix is considering multi-map for WT. It's an idea that I've tossed around myself as another way to brand our event as a race for teams that enjoy navigation but he and I are a long way from planning that kind of detail for next August!

I don't know if we're talking about the same event but I wasn't talking about any one team having an unfair advantage. It seemed that anyone who had done events in that same area in the past had an advantage, given that the race course didn't change as much in different editions as the races we have up here. And because the race course isn't that variable, people familiar with the area knew which detailed maps were available and worth obtaining, and also sometimes knew which route between two checkpoints was the better one because some of the CPs were quite similar. It's a valid philosophy - perhaps one that should be publicized so that teams accustomed to less predictable race courses would understand that they need to prepare differently.

Agreed, that level of preparation is "something that any team could have done" but only if they knew to do so. In fact, if I see a recent race course for an event I'm planning to do, the first thing I do is rule out the possibility that this year's race course will be like the old one. It's just a different AR culture, and it's good that we have these forums so we can learn and understand different expectations of racers and RDs around North America.

Re the multiple maps for AR, as I said, I'm torn. Sharing a map would feel like a major compromise in a rogaine or adventure run where I expect individual maps and where navigation on foot is the only activity. In adventure racing, there are so many team roles and so many ways for good navigators to participate in the process that I'm not sold on the idea of having to mark up and manage multiple sets - except, as we both agree, in areas where the nav gets more intense.

Wasn't assuming multi maps would be included in WT just nice to hear that it is on your mind.

"I wasn't talking about any one team having an unfair advantage. It seemed that anyone who had done events in that same area in the past had an advantage" Understood and agree.

"people familiar with the area knew which detailed maps were available and worth obtaining" Don't know that I entirely agree. I bet locals sometimes have no idea the maps I find for an area new to myself are available.

"sometimes knew which route between two checkpoints was the better one" Agree this is sometimes the case and can be the biggest factor. But in the same sense I do races in that one area a lot and still come across areas and routes that are new to me. This sometimes means learning the hard way one route is bad.

"the first thing I do is rule out the possibility that this year's race course will be like the old one" I personally would never rule ANYTHING out.

"It's just a different AR culture" Again I would call it a style. I believe there are several different AR styles. When I prepare for a race I try and get a feel or prep for an RD's style beforehand. I may study old races or ask some questions.

"one that should be publicized so that teams accustomed to less predictable race courses would understand that they need to prepare differently" Probably a good rule no matter what your style. Give people a better idea of what they are in for.

Sorry, I didn't intend for this tangent to distract from the main discussion about multiple maps when I responded to F-Torti's suggestion of allowing outside maps on the race course. There's room for all kinds of adventure and multi-sport events, including ones where the element of surprise and unpredictability are less important and advance study of past courses is more important. All of us enjoy different types of challenges, and different types of competition test different things. [Edit: I should add that my use earlier in the thread of the term '"unfair" advantage' reflects my culture and was inappropriate in the wider context of adventure-type events.] I've grown up in the central Canada AR culture where the ideal is to have secret, unpredictable race courses. Of course we learn and study each RD's style, and of course we sometimes end up in the same areas but the good RDs here aim not to be too repetitive over a short period, so my assumption above is fairly safe here.

Back to multiple maps though... any others have thoughts on Grant's suggestion that he could consider offering extra sets of maps for $50?

I'd agree, "RD style" has a lot to do with it. Unless AR ever gets to a point where there are standardized rules, this will always be the case (And I'm not saying that having standardized rules is the best way forward for the sport). In addition to RD style, the local terrain available for racing probably also has a big impact on how an RD's style gets developed.

I'm pretty sure you guys have been referring to Equinox Traverse in the discussion above. I attended last year and was extremely lucky that my team-mate Tico had done all the homework in finding the supplemental maps and had also raced in the area before (hence knew some of the optimal routes) (he was also calling someone before the race for intel, was that you mayer22?). Because of this, we had a massive advantage over the other CDN team Salomon/Running Free. If there had been enough time before the race started I would have tried to give them this info. to level the playing field. Ultimately, I came away feeling it wasn't a fair event, since not everyone could make decisions based on the availability of the same information. I don't know that I'd agree with the argument that those who've done the best homework prior to a race should have an advantage. This also refers to training, or scouting the area out ahead of time. For me it comes back to what constitutes a fair competition. There are many examples of this occurring in adventure races in the past, and not just in North America. One of the better examples was from the AR World Champs hosted in New Zealand in 2005 when the RD, Geoff Hunt told everyone in the briefing that he'd run into teams training for the race while he was out scouting/testing sections of the course! Not exactly fair in my opinion. The following year Explore Sweden hosted the World Champs and implemented an embargo on the area where the event was to be hosted (similar to how things operate in orienteering).

With respect to receiving two sets of maps, as a racer, I'm also on the fence about whether I'd want two. Obviously, this would be great if at least two members of the team can navigate well, and to have for back-up in case a set gets lost, or damaged. I'd mainly not want two sets due to the added time required to prepare them before the race and the potential for added discussions while racing with two people trying to follow along.

My favorite system for receiving maps in AR (regardless of how many sets are received, and this is off topic again, sorry) is how they do it in Orienteering, i.e. receiving them on the start line, or as the event unfolds at various TA's, so your map prep time is "on-the-clock" so to speak. This was how they did things at the AR World Champs in France this year, and the method has been used sporadically by events in the past including Eco-Fiji. As an RD, I've been hesitant to try this method, since it would probably benefit experienced racers and good navigators at the expense of newer/less experienced teams. I would be curious to know if teams would prefer receiving maps at the start-line of the event for 24hr, or expedition races?

If you want me to have even the slightest chance of showing up by the finish cut off time, please give me maps in advance, unless you have already given us suggested cut off times for each leg. I do like getting orienteering maps on the clock, but that's different since I'm going to run the course no matter what, and I have no concerns about how many CPs I should skip in order to have enough time for the final bike ride.

If all other things were equal, I would pay $50 extra to do a 30 hour race where I could get a second set of maps for my teammate.

Note: I am not a front-runner.

Interesting you say that Mr. W because that highlights another difference in style that seems to be partly regional. Like Getawaystix, I prefer getting my maps on the clock except for stand-alone rogaines. In over 10 years of adventure racing and volunteering, I think I've only been at one race with the format you describe, i.e. multiple sections with optional checkpoints where we weren't given the maps until we arrived at each section and thus didn't know how to budget our time. That introduced a huge element of luck into the results so I found it quite surprising. It sounds like it is a common format in some parts of the world though. I agree with you - racers should receive all the maps ahead of time when an event has that format.

Having an extra set of maps at the Adidas Terrex Sting in Stirling this summer was really great for our team. What was interesting was how the RD had come to the conclusion a while ago that he wanted to do this as he saw so many times where maps were destroyed in the field, causing teams to drop out or waste valuable time trying to put them back together. For us, it meant that we had two of us on the maps on the bike and trek sections, which I've learned from rogaining is a huge help. As a result, I think we ran a pretty clean race as one of us would catch a mistake as it was happening rather than hours later. All maps were pre-plotted, too, which was awesome!