2006 Australian Championships review

"The (technical) sub-committee shall conduct a review following each Australian Rogaining Championships, drawing on the experiences of the organiser and the participants, to examine issues arising related to the standard of the event with respect to the application of the Rules and Technical Regulations. The subcommittee, acting through the chair and relevant state representative, shall make contact with the organiser of the following Australian Rogaining Championships, to make the organiser aware of issues of concern regarding the application of the Rules and Technical Regulations."

Summary

The 2006 Australian Rogaine Championships, conducted by the Victorian Rogaining Association, was an excellent and well run event.

Course setting was excellent. An obviously unclearable but not outrageously large course is as valid as a “nearly clearable” course, and both are preferred to a smaller, clearable course. The course demanded technically challenging navigation and route planning. Terrain was a mix of farmland and undulating to steep open forest with complex contour detail.

Map size and scale was appropriate for clarity of complex detail, despite the larger than typical size of map (approx 54 x 67cm).

Map preparation standards could be improved. Too many features were shown in black or a near-black shade of blue (which was indistinguishable at night). Technical regulations do not cover this, however several states now regularly prepare custom maps electronically, so evolution towards shared “best practice” standards would be highly desirable, in the absence of detailed standards.

Control descriptions on the map (abbreviated but adequately clear) were very convenient to avoid unfolding. This should not be a substitute for a separate control description and course setter’s notes which were not provided.

Navlight electronic punching was generally agreed to be the future direction for ease of scoring, despite administrative difficulties reconciling with current “scorecard”-based technical regulations. Added value of having route and time splits for all teams, with the possibility of eliminating team splitting by scoring only controls visited by all team members. Technical regulations urgently require update to accommodate new technology providing these possibilities. Navlight has been used for two Australian Championships now, and has proved reliable and should be considered the preferred option for any future Australian Championship.

Control flag visibility was inadequate at a very small number of controls, mostly in open country where the effective choice when hanging the control was between “nearly invisible” and “visible for miles”. Lack of course-setter’s notes exacerbated the problem – it was apparently mentioned during verbal competitor briefing. Perhaps could have been avoided with different choice of control site.

Water drops were well provisioned and distributed, and additional fruit and refreshments were appreciated. Descriptions of some were not to standard of controls – missing (e.g. W4) or confusing (e.g. W5), not helped by lack of separate notes.

Under 23 categories are unfortunately still not shown in published website results (as at July 2006), and had a low level of participation, but nonetheless well above average compared to previous under 18 “junior” category. The technical regulations define this category as “under 23” and in no other terms (e.g. “youth” to which some took offence on behalf of others).

A standard first aid kit was demanded as mandatory equipment. Specifications were unclear prior to event, but kits were readily available at an affordable price at the HH prior to event. Consideration should be given to allowing organizers (with appropriate justification and approval process) to dictate mandatory equipment that may be required for valid risk management or insurance reasons. Current regulations dictate only that a whistle must be carried at all times.

Other non-technical issues were raised such as quality and quantity of prizes, provision of adequate catering services on Friday evening, and display of results after the event and on the web.

The issue was raised as to the “enforcement” of technical standards. At present only the Course Vetter role is defined and there is no formally defined independent event controller role, nor supplementary guidelines for conduct of ancillary activities.

 

David Baldwin

Chair, Technical Subcommittee

Australian Rogaining Association

23 July 2006

 

Submissions

Course Setting

Richard Robinson, Qld:

I actually quite liked the excessive course size. It really made you think about which part of the map you weren't going to visit. In 2005 we took a different tack and tried to make the strong teams think they could get the lot when in reality they couldn't. I think what Derek did has equal merit and should not be discouraged. I really liked the course setting overall. The complexity of the area within the forest helped, but as I said on the day, there were no free points. Concentration was a premium commodity. I thought the balance was good.

Darryl Erbacher, ACT:

The requirement for size is that the winners cannot be expected to get all the controls (that is, even the best have to make choices). This places an upper limit on the size one needs for a course. The difficulty of the terrain further puts an upper limit on it. One can use a smaller area by having more controls and no obvious loops to get them efficiently. However, one should not make legs unduly short in order to get the area down.

David Baldwin, ACT:

Course was large (approx 150km to complete). For W, NE and S ranges all to be included, it had to be that large. Required careful planning to choose controls that gave good return for effort – not necessarily the 100 pointers! Technical navigation required in many places – good balance of rewarding both fitness to cover distance and skill to find controls. Nigel would have loved it!

Glenn Bridgart, ACT:

I remain convinced that for a course to be really 'fair', then all the top teams should have had to do at least 85 / 90% "in common" - (i.e.) the course is not so big that random / unpredictable variations in runnability, etc between different parts of the map become a significant factor. I would go further, and say that the avoidance of the 'over-big' problem is more important than ensuring that no (or even a very small number of) teams do not clear the course - (i.e.) a little too small is better than much too big. How big the area needs to be to achieve this is not always easy to predict beforehand (always easy in hindsight), but I thought that the recent Aust Champs was (obviously) too big - by about 20 -> 25%.

Map

Size and scale

Richard Robinson, Qld:

The combination of the 1:30,000 scale and the size of the course made for a quite unwieldy thing to fold and carry in the hand. I guess the quid pro quo was that a team of five could shelter under one map! I can understand the organisers concerns that at 1:50,000 the 10 metre contours would have run together in places, but I suspect that these would have been places where it didn't really matter. Even at 1:40,000 the size would have been significantly reduced without adverse impact on the quality. Still it was nice to have the detail when your needed it.

Jon Potter, NT:

I had originally planned to field a 1:50000 map for next year and if it is at all legible, will still do so - however, whichever way the penny drops, it will be no larger than 1:40000 - there are many steep ridges (all with alternate routes) that may be close to a solid brown with 10 metre contours.

Derek Morris, Vic

The rules state that a map scale for a championship course can be between 1: 25,000 & 1: 50:000. Most Aus champs maps have been 1:50,000 a few 1:25,000 As far as I’m concerned the 1:30,000 scale was appropriate for what I wanted to achieve i.e. map clarity, readability & use of fine contour features as used in various check points. This I believe was achieved. In the past, course setters tended to use mainly major contour features when using the 1: 50,000 scale. I was not prepared to compromise. You do not have to reduce a course to 1: 50,000 to make it technical as some Aus champs in the past.

The map size is not an issue you just keep folding. All the competitors I spoke to not one mentioned the map size or the scale. I'm sure most competitors would have preferred the 1:30,000 & not be straining their eyesight to read the map. In the past the map size was always an issue with costs, and so maps were reduced to the 1:50,000 scale.

Rob Gardner, Vic:

I thought the size of the map was fine - one always has to fold it so it's just a case of how many times and the larger it is the easier to read (particularly at night).

Ainslie Cummins, Vic:

I don’t see large map size as a disadvantage I see small scale maps as more of a problem when you cannot see things clearly especially with failing eyesight Discriminating against the poor sighted You also then have space to mark on disused vineyards etc. If competitors are really troubled by the size they can get out some scissors and deposit unwanted bits of the map in their pack or the bin. Larger maps give better protection when placed over barbwire fences!!

Darryl Erbacher, ACT:

I see nothing wrong with whatever scale is used subject to size of map and clarity. The last Aust champs had a map that was large and had twice as many control points as the winners got. This meant carrying a large piece of paper. The scale was 1:30,000 and this was OK since it seemed to contain as much (and as accurate) detail as one finds on 1:25,000 just smaller. Going to larger scale and losing more navigation detail would be a loss for rogaine purposes.

Preparation standards

David Baldwin, ACT

I thought there were too many symbols in black (contours, grid lines, mag north lines, fences, old gold mine working boundaries, etc), and the blue was so dark as to be almost black and indistinguishable at night. The neighbourhood of #68 is a particularly confusing example, even in good light.

Out of bounds pink screens obliterated vegetation screen – suggest hatching as alternative.

Gary Carroll, WA

I thought there were way too many symbols in black (contours, grid lines, mag north lines, fences, old gold mine workings, etc), and the blue was so dark as to be almost black and indistinguishable at night, then the control circles were (almost?) black too! WARA has been dabbling with OCAD for about 9 years. We have a standard that we quite like... however the maps tend to be very plain, but then again so is the topography. We print them at 1:50,000 with 5m contour intervals. The event area and title and legend etcetera all fit very well on A3. I don't hear of problems with people having problems reading the map. Bitmaps or PDFs of out maps are available on the web with the winners routes.

Interesting that the VRA map had the yellow safety road. WARA came up with this idea independently and shade what we call patrolled roads in grey. WARA insists that water drops be at or within 150m of a control. Some of the water drops at the last event just added distance and climb for no point reward. I quite agree about the black and dark blue symbols. I know it troubled a lot of people including Jim Langford. Also - it was obviously a customised map so why the hell weren't the grid NS & EW lines removed. They just added to the clutter on the map. Why have the AMG/GDA references on the map?

Another thing that worries me (that we struggle with in WA as well) is that setters give out important information at the pre-event briefings. This is really dumb. People can't hear, aren't listening, are distracted. Everything that people need to know should be given out at registration in writing.

Richard Robinson, Qld:

I thought the black contours worked very poorly. With modern O-Cad produced maps it is easy to make brown contours sharp and easy to read. In particular the combination of the black contours and (nearly) black watercourses was quite poor. In flatter complex areas I couldn't distinguish contours from watercourses, particularly at night, and particularly when the circle and/or descriptions obscured relevant detail. It certainly cost us time. I would suggest that future ARC mandate brown contours. The other colours (pink for OOB etc) I thought worked well. It would have been nice to have uncrossable obstructions, like abandoned vineyards, marked. I don't know how many of these there were, maybe we found them both! The fact that many mapped watercourses were very faint on the ground and the forest contained many lumps and bumps the map neglected is part of the essence of rogaining and something I am very comfortable with.

Jon Potter, NT:

We also had difficulty distinguishing black contours from watercourses, particularly at night and found the on-map descriptions added to the confusion. My own belief is that a workable size map, control description sheets and final course notes are a must.

Derek Morris, Vic:

The black contours are good for night time navigation and I think this also was not an issue. I do agree the watercourses could have been a lighter blue. This was not my call, the mapper was running out of time and there were many other problems that needed attending to just before printing.

Rob Gardner, Vic:

I prefer light overall coloured sections, eg the green could have been lighter. Perhaps a few more height measures eg 400, would make the contours more obvious.

Ainslie Cummins, Vic:

I don’t see the colour of the contours as the problem, but the contrast of the tone and of the contours and watercourses have to be different. Too dark brown has the same problem as black, too light brown then you cannot see them. Perhaps a better solution is to look at the tone of the blue for the watercourses and leave the contours black.

Colin Mock, ACT:

I found the colour of the contour lines too close to that of water courses, and had difficulty distinguishing the two particularly in the dark.

Darryl Erbacher, ACT:

On a rogaine map one expects some roughness in terms of quality of contour lines etc. It is not possible nor should a competitor expect that the organisers have covered the whole area to find and correct map problems. However, some things need to be fixed such as detail around the control being right or else moving to another control site. The map for the Aust Champs had areas marked as gold mining and some (even in the open, perhaps especially in the open) did not exist. One should be able to expect that major features that a competitor might use for navigation are reasonably correct.

Map colours are green and white. These are fine. I would like to see some rough screen to indicate the more difficult areas as far as speed over the ground is concerned. Such screens would not have been necessary at the last Aust Champs as there were not (in the parts I went to) and areas that were at the obnoxious end of the scale.

Control descriptions give the competitor a mental image of the site. The control should be placed so as to agree with that mental image formed by the description. Or rather, a site should only be used if a description can be concocted that gives the right mental image.

Control Descriptions

Richard Robinson, Qld:

I found having them on the map to be very handy. However, I would not propose a groundsheet sized map just to permit this. If it is possible without obscuring detail them that is fine. However, in any event, it should not take the place of a separate sheet with the full descriptions. I thought the lack of a Checkpoint Description sheet and the lack of Course Notes was a problem and something I would not support in future.

Derek Morris, Vic:

The checkpoint description abbreviations on the map was used because the size of the map allowed me to do this without compromising the checkpoint locations. We took great care in placing them away from any map detail, but as mentioned above we were running out of time, I think we got it right. Maybe some people need glasses!! A 1:50,000 map will not allow checkpoint descriptions to be printed on the map. I also asked competitors what they thought and all replied what a great idea especially not having to turn their maps over.

I think it would be a good idea in the future if the ARC com could get together with the course setter, for a brief meeting while waiting for the results. We could have discussed most of these issues face to face and I would have clarified the reasons why I did things in more detail and in a better frame of mind.

Rob Gardner, Vic:

Thought the codes on the map was fine.

Ainslie Cummins, Vic:

I have mixed feelings about clues on map. The need to refer to a key for abbreviations may have been a problem. Maybe the W1 etc should also appear in the key as a water drop. Maybe there needs to be cluesheets as well as on the map instructions but I would not like to discourage on map clues and instructions as I find not having to refer to another piece of paper an advantage.

Colin Mock, ACT:

I liked the idea of having the control descriptions on the map close to the checkpoint. Saves having to keep turning pages to read descriptions. The particular coding system used was effective.

David Baldwin, ACT:

Control descriptions on map was appropriate given size and removed need to unfold to read information on the back. Course setter’s notes as an additional separate handout would have been appropriate to draw attention to specific issues.

Navlight

Richard Robinson, Qld:

This is a whole topic of its own. VRA seemed to have a different experience to what we (QRA) had in 2005 and what NZ had in February. I truly believe it is the future and by far the best way to eliminate team splitting. VRA used the NavLight system in a different way to QRA and NZ. In 2005, the scorecard was the primary record, but was only referred to if there was a discrepancy (and there were next to none) and this was advertised pre-event. In NZ NavLight was the primary record, contrary to ARA (and IRF) Regs. There were no manual punches (in NZ) and we choose not to record "punch" Nos.

Graham Anderson, Vic:

Firstly let me acknowledge the incredible work Paul did over the weekend. He not only ran the Navlight operation but effectively he planned and directed the operation of admin in the critical areas of map/Navlight distribution, the collection of control cards and preparation of the results.

So far as Victorian rogaining is concerned Navlight (or something similar) must be inevitable. The alternative of examining control cards with light boxes is not really an option. I checked a number of control cards on Sunday. A large percentage of the punching barely penetrates the card. After 24 hours some cards are in pretty poor condition. Navlight works. It provides a reliable check for the manual control card and makes the calculation of scores relatively easy.

The problems on Sunday were firstly, teams not adding up their control cards correctly and second, discrepancies between Navlight and the control card. The adding up of control cards, where the punching is barely legible and the competitors do it when usually very tired is not surprising. That competitors don't remember to punch and zap at each checkpoint is also understandable, particularly if they visit 30 or 40 controls. One system, and preferably an electronic system, would hopefully lead to fewer problems.

The points Phil raises are very valid. Before the event I believed that in the event of a discrepancy between the control card and Navlight, one or other should be accepted as proof of the team having visited the control. I consider the argument of preventing teams splitting up is a red herring. That rule should be policed for championship events by marshalls on the course. Rogaining has only ever had one control card, not one per competitor. Over the weekend we had 3 scoring methods - one control card and 2 Navlights. Does that mean that if only one Navlight was zapped that the control should not count even though it was recorded on the other Navlight and contol card?

I was also very concerned that the NO PUNCH, NO SCORE policy should be notified to competitors. We attempted to do that in the Final Instructions and the Navlight instructions. It is difficult to explain that Navlight is basically to assist Admin so that the results can be collated more easily and quickly. Competitors do seem to appreciate receiving their printout, although I was surprised at the relative indifference of many competitors. Paul will have the accurate figures of how many teams had discrepancies between Navlight and their control card. It seemed to be quite a number. Competitors begrudgingly accepted that NO PUNCH, NO SCORE operated and there were no nasty confrontations. We all know that even losing a 30 point checkpoint can critically affect placegettings. There is an inherent unfairness in teams being penalised because they are loaded up with 2 recording systems and because Navlight (usually twice-over) proves that the team visited the particular checkpoint.

Unless this communications issue can be overcome (and I doubt it can satisfactorily for the reasons Phil says) and unless NSW has a person as dedicated and efficient as Paul to run the system at the event, there will be problems. If Navlight is used at the World Champs (and overall it would be a backward step if it wasn't) then competitors must have explained to them in advance, as clearly as can be done, the reasons the systems are being used in tandem and the consequences of not punching the control card. The rule must then be rigorously enforced (as we did over the weekend). The remaining problem is that Navlight would have a doubtful status. Competitors would be perfectly entitled to refuse to wear the tags or to use them at checkpoints.

The other option for the World Champs is to introduce an element of discretion. If there is a discrepancy between Navlight and the control card score then Navlight could be used as proof of the team visiting the control. However, there is always the possibility of there being 2 errors that may or may not cancel each other out. I tried to discuss these problems in the paper I prepared earlier this year (attached).

Phil mentioned the saving of time in the writing out of control cards. It is not a real issue. It took one person not much more than an hour. I usually have it done after the rush of registrations on the morning has been completed and most team changes are known. Others do it in advance and amend the control cards if there are changes. Either way it is not particularly time consuming nor does it interfere with other admin activities.

Paul Cassidy, Vic

The time dedicated by Admin on Friday night related to setting up additional tags received from Peter Squires out of a batch for ACT and new tags for VRA. As these tags had not previously been used by VRA they were added to the RogainePoint software. Adding tags involved entering four character id on the software, assigning team number to this id and placing a team number label on the back of each tag. Each tag was then placed in storage for quick distribution on Saturday morning. One tag per team was fitted with a wrist strap by admin to save time explaining on Saturday.

Once set up on RogainePoint these tags IDs can be copied from one event to the next

In conjunction with receiving new tags a software upgrade was also loaded onto the VRA computer. As with all software upgrades there are the unexpected errors. In this case the event reference time would not verify on the test punches. This was overcome by resetting event start information several times. The second software issue encountered on Friday night was that the print Tags option did not print! Peter Squires was able to fix the print problem on Saturday morning prior to event start (he had disabled print option during testing!)

All of above could have been done earlier on Friday but unfortunately work and family commitments prevented me getting to site until after 9.00pm.

Post event the collection of Navlight tags was done as teams entered the hall. There was no significant delay in removing tags. There were however significant delays in printing the individual Tags. This was due to printing two tags per team and having to amend scores to reflect control cards. In all previous events except Vic Champs the VRA had used only one tag per team. During these events there was no delay caused by printing Navlight results. It was frustrating to see a print que fill the screen of the computer as navlight could read tags quicker than our printer could print. This was further complicated by paper feed problems and running out of ink!

Additional prints of results were required where scorecards did not match Navlight Print outs. In the last 1/2-hour of event and hours after last team returned all Navlight scores were amended to reflect that of control card as required by ARA rules. This added to the printing as each amended navlight result was printed again.

To overcome the printing problems there is an option of printing only the higher or lower score of a teams tag. The printer should also be replaced with a laser or faster bubblejet.

The Canon Bubblejet that runs off the MASS computer died one hour to from event finish time. It would appear that it ran out of ink but all 4 spare cartridges also failed.

The HP printer attached to Navlight also ran out of ink while printing the last results.

The MASS print out of the top 3 teams in each category produced a report that was not correct. This was then manually marked up with results from Navlight and then manually checked.

Further delays were caused calculating scores for State trophies.

There was confusion despite pre event information and Derek mentioning during his briefing that Control card was the official score system. Having three potential errors at each control (2 navlight one manual) should be avoided in the future by using one system or another. Two tags per team and no manual punching would work. If a punch did not indicate by flashing light there is a 3-character reference on the side of each punch that could be recorded as proof of having visited.

I believe that the ARA should bite the bullet and use Navlight minimum 2 tags per team at the world championships.

Ainslie Cummins, Vic:

There needs to be the option of using electronic recording in the ARA regulations and probably when some states have Navlight and some do not there has to be the option to use one or the other. At each event one system has to be used either all electronic or all punch card but not both at the same time The system being used has to be made clear before the event to the competitors. I cannot believe QLD had few discrepancies. (Note: Qld used only 1 tag/team in 2005 Aus champs).

Darryl Erbacher, ACT:

I thought the use of this was overly bureaucratic and inefficient. The reasons why one would use such a device are:

1. Give splits to competitors - not given 2. To avoid checking all the cards and therefore saving work unless a unit malfunctioned - not done 3. To get the presentation on earlier and get people on the road - not done.

I thought that having to carry the device as well as the card but if the device said you were there but the card didn't you didn't get the points, was officious to say the least. There was an additional imposition and the result was that if you forgot the card you lost points. I will not run in a rogaine again that specifies such rules.

It seems to me that Navlight is a good idea if it is accepted as the validation of controls visited and the punch card (boxes on the map would be better) resorted to if units fail or there is a dispute. This would save work, bring forward the presentation and give splits to competitors. Results calculated automatically by computer. Each team member punching within x seconds of each other means that the rule about visiting the control together (which can't be policed at present) is automatically policed.

Control flag visibility

Richard Robinson, Qld:

The 50m contained in the Tech Regs is about the brightness of the marker. The Regs require the placed marker to be 0.5 to 2.0 metres above the ground and visible from 25 metres in most directions. Whilst I accept that some did not meet this criteria, this was well explained at the briefing. It should have been in the Course Notes but there were none. I thought that in the circumstances the positioning of the markers was appropriate but it should have been in the Course Notes.

Ainslie Cummins, Vic:

Checkpoints should be hung as per regulations so this should not be an issue for event instructions.

Darryl Erbacher, ACT:

As stated above, the control description gives a mental image. One should expect that when one gets to the feature you will be able to see the flag. If there is an additional rule about visibility distance I don't care. But if it is on a feature and I am at the correct feature I expect to see it. There were a couple I visited at the Aust Champs that were visible from some directions but not others. This is unfair. The aim of rogaining design is to provide a navigational choices to the control - the control site of itself is unimportant. If the rogainer has done the right thing they should be able to see the flag.

Water drops

Richard Robinson, Qld:

We had no problem with these, but the lack of a Checkpoint Description sheet meant that their location could have been unclear. Again, having that sheet would fix any problem. Certainly from our perspective we found them easy to find and two of the three we visited were in the dark. I thought there were enough water drops and they were suitably spread across the course, but I know I tend to have a different view on this to some. I believe that water planning is a key part of route planning and that water should not necessarily be there because it suits your preferred route.

Darryl Erbacher, ACT:

The rule here should be along the lines that the best team should be able to reach a water drop within (specify time frame set by medical experts) no matter where they are on the course if they need to.

I thought that the innovation (at least for me) of the yellow-highlighted route taken by the car was excellent because:

1. You knew where to get to if you were in trouble and help was no more than two hours away - this was far better than I have seen on other rogaines 2. The quantity of water could not be got wrong as it was topped up every 2 hours - there is nothing worse than setting a course to take in water and finding it empty when you get there

I loved the fruit as well. A consequence of the car as well.

David Baldwin, ACT:

Standards not consistent with controls, for example some teams did not find W5 “A track” at night which was on unmarked side track adjacent to main track.

Placement well distributed and no problems with adequate supply reported.

Under 23 categories

Richard Robinson, Qld:

The low turnout is disappointing. The fact that the organisers did not recognise them in the published results is even more so. I still think that the Youth (U23) is the way to go and would like to see what happens over the coming years.

Paul Cassidy, Vic:

The under 23 Youth age group is just plain wrong. At 22 no one want to be referred to as a youth!

Ainslie Cummins, Vic:

The youth category should have been in the results. I think that must have been an oversight. This is a wider issue than the Aus Champs. It needs a culture change. I think if we look in our records there are few teams entered as junior in 24 hour events with many more in junior or family teams in shorter events It is probably connected to so many choices youth have to do with their time. Rogaining to many is hard and does not have the immediate adrenaline rush of some other adventure sports or is seen as too physically and mentally taxing for the lounge lizard or not cool enough for the party animal. This has to be promoted at a state level if it is to flow through to the AUS Champs. Rogaining is mainly spread by word of mouth and by running events that people want to do so they come back and be challenged again. Maybe what we offer is not what youth want. If you look at bushwalking club ages we are doing a lot better than they are.

Darryl Erbacher, ACT:

From my personal point of view, I am 63 and my son is 18 so we could form a family team if the ages were altered. My 18 year old is not enthused about competing against 30 year old long term endurance athletes so he would like an Under 23. However wherever you set the boundaries someone will feel put out. The more teams one gets to enter the finer the classification can be for awards. However, limits on the number of teams move against this.

In general, athletes loose their speed long before they use their endurance (super vets got 2/3 the points that elites got). If you accept that, then extra categories at the lower end of the age spectrum where the differences in endurance are more marked may be useful. I will be 65 next year so I would like an over 65 category but the trouble is there would be very few teams so I give up on that one.

First Aid kits/Compulsory Kit

Richard Robinson, Qld:

I am against compulsory gear (in this case a First Aid kit). I think that the organisers' obligation is to advise the participants of the range of conditions and let them make their own decisions. We all have different needs, likes and wants.

Paul Cassidy, Vic:

First aid kits, maybe we should specify minimum requirements in first aid kit. I am personally all for a first aid kit for snake bite, sprains and broken bones.

Ainslie Cummins, Vic:

I think first aid kit carrying is essential. People cannot choose when they are going to injure themselves and having a couple of pressure bandages and a triangular bandage as a minimum could get you out of a real problem of stopping blood flow or splinting a sprain so you could get out to help.

David Baldwin, ACT:

Information on standard contents was not readily available pre-event. Sale of conformant kits at cheap prices at HH was very positive. Minimum safety equipment is a risk management issue for organizers as much as for competitors.

Non-technical

Quality of Prizes for 2^nd and 3^rd places

(Di Young, Vic):

In retrospect something better than a chocolate bar should have been given. This had been discussed and Derek has investigated the possibility of obtaining prizes from local business. The cost of individual items from locals (ie wines, lavendar products etc) was $15 upwards. Greater that the cost of the glasses for first prize. . The association has never used sponsorship and the Aus champs committee agreed to that as well. We could have charged a greater entry fee but again the aim was to keep that as low as possibly for 2 reasons; A. People who travel from interstate and overseas already have significant expenses; B. To encourage Victorians to enter. Our normal cost for a 24hr event is $28 so the entry fee of $55 was already double that. We investigated medallions but had to order 144. We are now looking at some of the promotional items on the market. i.e. pens, mugs....as possibilities.

Ainslie Cummins, Vic:

I think the issue of trophies for 2nd and 3rd should also be raised.

Friday night services

(Di Young, Vic):

The feedback on the atmosphere and the opportunity to socialise on the Friday night was very positive. BUT we did not supply enough food.

Results Display at Event

(Di Young, Vic):

Besides the white board onto which results were written when they were obtained we did have a complete list of results up on another board. However this was not announced and it was not obvious to some. Hence some people who were not place getters left the event not knowing where they were placed. LESSON: Place overall results in a prominent place and announce it.

Results on Web

(Di Young, Vic):

Results were sent to our web master on the Sunday night. But due to the heavy work commitments of that person they were not placed on the web until the Wed night. We do have back up web person but again it involves volunteers having the time to communicate and activate a process.

LESSON. Cannot do any thing about this. We are all volunteers and sometimes delays have to be accepted. This produced a bit of disappointment but it must be balanced with the extra pressure that can be placed on volunteers.

Other Items:

Richard Robinson, Qld:

Map prep area and Hash House, including food, were excellent

Admin worked very efficiently

Area was an excellent mix of terrain and challenge

Overall, an excellent event, but some things we can learn from.

Ainslie Cummins, Vic:

I wonder how closely organisers of AUS Champs read the technical regulations or do they just do what their state does? Maybe the ARA have to have a more forceful role in seeing that organisers use the regulations.