Talk:Control point (orienteering)

Details wanted

Below are some details wanted for this article. Please supply them if you can (and please include sources). -Una Smith (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• When did white/orange come into use?
• When did "windsock" come into use?

Never heard this before Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Twiceuponatime, what do you call the 3-sided hanging thing? --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Only ever heard it referred to as 'kite' or 'flag' (UK) Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• History: what did earliest control points look like?
• When did the clue card come into use?
• Details of punch mechanisms: history, variants

 Done Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close up photo of a clue card in a holder on someone's arm
• Color, pattern of control flags

From the ARDF article, needs sourcing, detail: the color of control flag is orange/white because this combination is not present in the forest. --Una Smith (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Major rewrite, which accidently covers some of the above. Note that I have changed 'punch' from its physical form to its 'functional' form. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool! --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I quibble with the change to 'Control card received at the start'. Cards are issued at registration, or you bring your own ecard. Easier to leave it out. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that. I have changed received to presented at the start. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion is due to parties to the receiving/presenting being implicit. I have tried wording it a 3rd way. Better? --Una Smith (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It is not as easy as I thought to be unambigous. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

holing pincers. Useful addition but we (UK) call them ticket punches. Leave as it is? Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has 'hole punch' so it will have to be that term. Link added, and image. Probably overkill; but we do need an image of a dibber. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The job of an encyclopedia is to describe, not prescribe, so the article should give variant names in English for the object. --Una Smith (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, and good pictures! Oceanh (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

I see hole punch gives all the synonyms, so I suppose they can be left out of this article. On the other hand, ticket punch would be more precise, as the purpose of a ticket punch is marking, not preparing paper to go in a ring binder. An ordinary hole punch won't work on many control cards because the jaw is too short to reach inside the outside rows of cells on a control card. --Una Smith (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to use ticket punch as that seems to be better understood BUT wikipedia redirects to hole punch. I assumed we have to use that term (it wasn't my choice). Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia lacks an article about ticket punches, that's all. Care to stub one out? --Una Smith (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Una Smith (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Passports and related activities

Passports. I have deleted this new paragraph - it has nothing to do with Orienteering. And removed the reference to Safety Log - this should be about concepts not about variable details. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph came from Adventure racing. The terms are not IOF-style orienteering terms but they do have to do with orienteering (lower case). --Una Smith (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is about orienteering. Information about related sports should be in that sport's article. Nothing wrong with a link in related activities, but where does it stop? Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is about control points, as used in orienteering sports. IOF sanctioned sports are a subset of those orienteering sports. --Una Smith (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We disagree on this. I see the main article as orienteering (foot-o) with stubs restricted to the lead article. I agree that there are related activities (including IOF approved) but differences in details should be in their articles not here. This stub should be a tight description of the (foot-o) control point but worded sufficiently generally to cover other variations. I don't think the details added help the general reader. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an important point, because it affects the scope of many articles related to orienteering. Does anyone else have an opinion? --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the text about Trail-O; and then checked the main page. We now have details about Trail-O in 'O', control point and Trail-O. There seems to be more detail in the first two (when it should be in Trail-O). I would prefer their detail to be elsewhere but would accept a heading at the end 'differences in related activities'. I don't agree with the detail being at the top of the stub. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the paragraph to the end. Better? The explanations of each exception could be tighter. Orienteering could be a lot tighter too. But I think it is far better to put a lot of stuff into the article and later take out the extraneous bits, than to never put stuff in there. The result tends to be a far better article: more complete in scope, deeper, more global, more neutral. --Una Smith (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with it as it now is. I would prefer to keep information to a minimum - I worry about overwhelming the reader. Too much can be as bad as too little. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Norway first course map?

The first O course, in Norway, involved farms (farmhouses?). Are their locations known? Are they still extant (probably)? A map might make a nice addition to the History section. --Una Smith (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The competitors in 1897 could choose between four different maps that covered the relevant area. Most competitors probably used a ski map, "Kart over Nordmarken og Sørkedalen for skiløbere og turister", 1:30000, 20m ekv. Samples of this map are rare today. Two books from my bookshelf have reprints of part of this map with the course from 1897 drawn on the reprint. I have included a reference showing sketches of the farms used as control point number 2 (Bjørnholt) and number 3 (Slakteren) (see pages 22 and 23). The sketches are drawn by the same person that produced the ski map. According to another article in the cited reference, the same map was also the world's first ski map(!). On page 14 in the reference is pictured the title section of the ski map, where the farm Grøttum (start and finish in the O competition) is sketched. Oceanh (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

Oceanh, can you reconstruct the course on a map yourself? Or find an OCAD user to do it? Also, on a map at 1:30000 scale, how did the competitors know exactly where to go? Did they have a "clue sheet"? Or were the farmhouses the control points? Some farms are many km on a side. --Una Smith (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the farm houses were the control points. I guess that when the runners reached the farm houses they found the staff there, either outside/between the buildings, or possibly inside the main house. I think the sketches of Bjørnholt and Slakteren, although drawn in the winter with snow, are interesting because they also show the character of the terrain.

Not sure if OCAD is the right tool for reproducing the map and course. There already exists modern O-maps, I think "Kobberhaugen" by OSI covers the area, although I have not seen that particular map. Today this is a recreational area, combined with modern forestry, and associated forest roads. The old map may be in public domain because of its age, or maybe not. The later book reprints (map + course overlay) are probably copyrighted. Agree that we should try to show the course in some way or another, though. Need some time to figure it out. Oceanh (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Would OSI help, if asked? A photo of an original map of this course, side by side with a modern O map showing the same course, would be a wonderful illustration of "then" vs "now". --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to have both the old map and a new version! We could contact OSI and ask if they are willing to release the relevant portion of their new map with a suitable license (GNU Free Documentaion License / Creative Commons). Oceanh (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

I found an online source with the course from the 1897 competition, drawn on original maps, and parts also on later maps of the same area. Added this as a reference in the article. Oceanh (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Relation to route choice

In an inline comment (diff), Twiceuponatime wrote the route to the control has nothing to do with the control. That is an interesting comment, because instructions for course setters stress the importance of considering route choice when placing control points. --Una Smith (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I meant that in the context of this stub (control point) the route choice to the control is irrelevant and a link to that topic is not needed. I agree that planning needs to consider route choice, and that the end point (the control) can have an affect on that. There are three topics planning/route choice/control and they are related but (my view) this stub should have a very precise (limited?) remit. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that any discussion of route choice is outside the scope of this article, but I do think the article needs to refer in passing to related articles such as Route choice (orienteering), to help the reader navigate to those articles. There are two methods: a list in a "See also" section, or a wikilink inline. I tend to favor the inline method. --Una Smith (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

electronic vs paper punches

The "similar principle" of operation I had in mind was the marking of a card carried by the orienteer. I had in mind electronic and paper are similar, not SPORTIdent and EMIT are similar. --Una Smith (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that the first paragraph covered the similarities of all methods which left me wondering which it referred to (preceding or following). I have rearranged paragraph. I don't have any strong views either way. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Control point (orienteering). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002091244/http://www.orienteering.ca/about_orienteering.htm to http://www.orienteering.ca/about_orienteering.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327053910/http://www.orientering.se/Historia/Historiskamilstolpar/ to http://www.orientering.se/Historia/Historiskamilstolpar/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)