First European Rogaining Championships: A Report to the IRF

Dear Mr. Phillips:

Following is a report on the 1st European Rogaining Championships. I took
part in the event, which was held to quite different standards compared to
rogaines in North America and Czech Republic. I thought that my impressions
would be worth sharing with the IRF.

I have been rogaining since 1995 and have completed 12 24-hour rogaines.
My best result, together with partner Vytenis Benetis, was 5th place in
the 5th WRC. I was born in Russia and speak Russian and English fluently.
I moved to the USA in 1993. I also do some orienteering, and worked for the
US Orienteering Federation as the national O-Team Administrator between
1996--1999 and 2002--2003. In my other life I am an electrical engineer. I
live in Sunnyvale, California.

Of the other team who sent you their comments, Serguei Iachtchenko is
my old schoolmate. He and rogaine partner Konstantin Volodin live in
Moscow. They are accomplished orienteers and road racers. Along with my
team partner for the ERC, Nick Tikhonov, they are members of SK (sport
klub) Luchik.

I. Pre-Event Communications

The 2003 ERC were added to the IRF schedule quite early; my recollection is
well before the 5th WRC in 2002. For a very long time, the only info available
was a short text summary on the IRF webpage, which, however, had the most
important items: the dates and the approximate location.

At the 5th WRC, Mr. Shestakov (the leader of the club) and other Perm
rogainers did quite a bit of person-to-person publicity. They showed a map
of a location where they had held a rogaine previously, and just from the map
it appeared to me that the event must have been interesting, and quite close
to the rogaining standard in North America. Luchik runners, however, were not
so convinced. They mentioned a number of issues with previous Perm rogaines,
such as no point values for controls. Those, I thought, were typical for 
beginning rogaine organizers. I was willing to give the Perm group the
benefit of the doubt and hope for a 2003 event held close to international
standards. Even if that were not to be so, I reasoned, the event would be a
great excuse to go to a part of Russia I had never visited before.

At some point in Spring, 2003, a website came up for the Perm group and
for the ERC. The online registration was a part of the website; however,
it was not functional. My e-mails to Olga Makhovik, the event secretary,
bounced. On 03 July 2003 I finally found a working e-mail address for
Olga and sent a team entry. I subsequently received replies from Ms.
Makhovik, the main text in which was in a coding that was not readable
by any standard e-mail software (I have full Russian/Cyrillic language
support for the major encodings). 

On 13 July 2003 I phoned Serguei and asked if SK Luchik had any success 
communicating with the event organizers. To my surprise, he replied that the
event's web page indicated that the event was cancelled. He said that his
group was still in the process of trying to re-establish communications with
the Perm club. On 23 July I received an e-mail from Serguei, in which he
said that the event was on. I relied on Luchik to finalize the details of
the entry. No new information appeared on the event website since some time
in Spring, 2003. Thus we did not have the technical information on the
map scale, total mapped area, the number of controls, the scoring/point
method, and specific event rules until the day of the event.

At the event, Mr. Shestakov stated that the main reason the event experienced
difficulties was the lower-than-expected flow of entries and fees. I believe
Serguei mentioned that SK Luchik tried to pay for their entries quite early
in Spring, 2003, and asked one of the Perm club members for directions on
how to send money. That effort received no response. It is quite unreasonable
to expect participants to commit to travelling to a far-away land very early
in the process. For this reason, major North American orienteering and
rogaine events establish a seed-money fund, usually with borrowed money,
which is later repaid with event proceeds. It appears that the lack of
funds yielded the less-than-prompt operation of the event website and
publicity. But it becomes significantly unreasonable to expect good event
participation if there is no publicity. Again, this was not a language-barrier
issue. The publicity was inadequate in any language.

Major orienteering events in Russia commonly draw over 1,500 people. In this
climate, it would be reasonable to expect 150--200 people at a rogaine, given
enough publicity, and given the novelty of the event. There were few obstacles
posed to someone travelling to the event from within Russia; the conditions
for someone from outside Russia, not accustomed to the post-Soviet reality,
would appear quite different, but nevertheless workable. I found out that
transportation to Perm from Moscow and back worked well both by train and
by air. Public transit worked in Perm but taxis are also very inexpensive in
Russia. We did not manage to find adequate accommodations near the event
location, largely due to a lack of info about such; I do not know if
adequate accommodation existed at all in the area. Camping, however,
was available. Restaurant food was hard to find in Perm but was quite
good; groceries were available at near-Western standards. The Russian
banking system is well-equipped to accept wires from anywhere in the
world, and internal transfers are slow but do make it. Given all this,
I stand by my 150--200 potential participant estimate, for a rogaine held
in Russia. The 1st ERC drew 40 teams, a total of 84 participants.

II. Course Details

The event was held just outside of the metropolitan area of Perm. The terrain
differed surprisingly little from that of most in Russia; the soil was mostly
clay, the vegetation, mixed forest with mostly firs but many lighter deciduous
trees (beech and birch). There was significant undergrowth in the form of
young trees, saplings, and abundant nettle plants. There were also many downed
trees. The total relief was unremarkable by North American standards, and did
not present many distinct features apart from stream valleys; the place was
essentially flat. Most of it was forest, about 15% were fields, some were
cultivated. There were several villages and dacha (summer-house) developments.
There were two major highways, some forest roads (mostly abandoned), and a
regular 1-km grid of overgrown rides/cuts. There were military installations
(see below). Looking east, one could just make out the slowly-rising slopes of
the Urals beyond the horizon; Perm is at the very foot of the range, at
approximately 200 m elevation above sea level. Looking west one could witness
the enormous chains of power lines marching towards the military-industrial
complex enterprises in the city. Distant smokestacks complemented the view.

The total area used for the rogaine, i.e. the envelope of where teams would
reasonably go (less than the total map area), was about 212 km^2. Almost all
of the 45 controls were on the junctions of the rides/cuts with other rides,
power lines, or with forest roads; some were on field corners. I.e. relief
features were not used. Although this exclusive choice of features would never
be encountered at a North American rogaine, I believe it was the only fair
approach in this terrain. Most forest was not traversable at speeds above
15% of the unimpeded paved-road speed. Therefore, the technical problems
posed for the participants were not very hard by North American rogaining
standards, and were pitifully easy by orienteering standards. The event was
mainly a foot race and a test of proper planning. The fact that all 45
controls (~120 km) were within 24-hour capability of several teams only 
emphasized the foot-race aspect. Again, there is not much the organizers
could or should have done otherwise, given this terrain, to make the event
more technical while preserving some fairness.

The map was a Russian topo surveyed in 1985. Although Serguei commented in
his report that the quality of the map was below their team's expected
standards, maps of much earlier vintage are a common product of the U. S.
Geological Survey. It is quite usual in North America to use the USGS
topos "as they are" for rogaines. I have participated in rogaines where the
last fieldchecking on a map was in the 1930s, and did not find that the ERC
map presented a significant element of unfairness compared to what commonly
happens in North America. The map used the same symbols that are used in 
North America and was legible. The usual surprises of a rogaine map were
present, such as roads that are now overgrown, new roads and developments,
and missing side reentrants; all of this is common in North America up to
North American Championships events. However, at the two WRCs I participated
in, the map quality was markedly above that of an undisturbed topo.

The one significant exception to my comment on map quality was presented by
the military installation Serguei mentions in his report. As one could
expect, any objects of military significance are intentionally omitted 
from Russian topo maps; where such omission cannot be made, the objects
are intentionally distorted or disguised. The organizers showed one such
area on the map as a manual addition although the exact boundaries of such
were not surveyed. The other area was not indicated at all. I view this
as a serious omission not simply because it would take one a longer time
to go around some barbed wire where one expected a field, but because of
safety issues---Russian military installations may lack clear boundaries,
and one's rogaine may end up in being shot, or worse, hauled to the police
with an espionage accusation if one happens to be foreign (and with a map
to boot).

The control (checkpoint) setup was indeed quite different. Controls were
painted around trees with white and yellow. Contrary to what Serguei states,
I did not find these any more of a challenge to locate than the non-
reflective controls at the 5th WRC. I understand why these were chosen as
controls, given the apparently small helper pool available to place
nylon controls out shortly before the event and the overall thrift level.

The control descriptions were non-standard, but I actually thought those
would be in some cases easier to explain to a non-orienteer than the
standard IOF symbols. Certainly those were preferred to a Russian-language
written control sheet, and gave in some cases more information than written
instructions or IOF symbols; in other cases this info was a bit misleading.

The punching system was quite ingenious. It worked in the same way as Emit
but without the electronics. The punch card was a plastic pickle-jar lid
with a thick paper lining. The lid mated with a round piece of cork with
a single protruding needle. The needle punches formed a pattern in the
paper. It could not have saved the organizers any effort or money to
make the custom punch station vs. buying a set of 45 punches. Clearly the
organizers were worried about theft, but a single needle punch would have
been just as inconspicuous as one of the custom stations.

There were no intention sheets, again apparently due to fears of theft
and little help available to place and remove those. This was a notable
safety-related issue.

The 45 controls all had the same value. This is one course-related decision
by the organizers that is hard to justify for me. Not only is it hard to
justify, but it seemed from the map that someone from the course crew 
already had made an attempt to give appropriate point values: the close
controls were numbered 20--29, the farther ones had increasing numbers,
and the most challenging ones had numbers in the 90's. 

The hash house was located in the corner of the map. Actually there was
no hash house in the established meaning of the world, just the competitors'
and officials' tents (see below). I have been to rogaines in which the
HH was in a corner; this location makes a team think really hard whether
it wants to ever come back to the HH in the course of a race. Given that
the organizers provided no support or services at the HH, this was an
easy decision for some teams. It should be noted, however, that the
winning team did come to the HH after about 8 hours, and finished almost
3 hours early.

In all, I think the course presented an adequate and fair rogaining
challenge. I cannot comment on Serguei's complaints of terrain familiarity
for some teams. It may have saved my team about 50 minutes on one
route choice if we knew exactly what kind of terrain to expect, not just
from the map but from prior being there. But I do not know the amount of
prior terrain exposure other teams had. Mr. Shestakov and Mr. Gilman (the
"Head of Competition Jury") stated that a wholly different location
was planned for the ERC, away from the city, but had to be cancelled due
to a lack of funds.

III. At the Event

The most disappointing aspects of the event were the lack of food at the
HH and treated drinking water anywhere on the course. This was, however, 
something I had expected all along. Catering is somewhat new to Russia
and may be completely new in a place like Perm. And, it may not have
been possible for the organizers to have any kind of food service with
the available people-power. The absence of food service was not mentioned
in any pre-event information (but neither was there any promise of
such). As we had to be ready for this most likely possibility, on the
night before the event our two teams prepared some chicken which we
stashed into several thermoses. Volodin/Iachtchenko ended up foregoing
the chicken altogether and survived on several kilograms of PowerBars.
My team picked a location some 4 km from the HH and set up a mini-base
camp there. We enjoyed the warm chicken at 3 am. To the organizers'
credit, they reduced the entry fee to a very minimal amount (about US
$6 per team, down from the original US $30).

The water situation was very disappointing and unsafe. We encountered
one location in which bottles were set up, apparently filled at periodic
intervals with water from a nearby stream. Although we carried about
5 liters of water with us originally and transported another 10 to the
base camp we set up, this was not enough. We ended up consuming some of
the stream water; to date no adverse effects have been noted. Although
the organizers may have been correct in their estimate that no disease-
causing microorganisms were present in the streams, Serguei is rightly
pointing out that there may have been industrial pollutants in the water
given the character of the area. Of course, carrying filters would have
remedied the situation. However, no prior information about the water
situation was available from the organizers, and I haphazardly assumed
that unlike food, this would have been taken care of. I assumed wrong.
The hash house did not provide a reliable source of potable water either.

Yet another safety problem was the original decision by the organizers
to only provide one map per team. The maps were printed well on good
paper and sealed in cases. However, at the map handout time, teams were
only given one map. All of the uncommon items that I pointed out were
deviations from the Technical Standards, and this one was as well. 
However, it was this item that had the greatest potential to jeopardize
the safety of the participants. As soon as the process started, I made
a comment that I would protest. Strangely, the organizers seemed prepared
for such a development! With few extra deliberations they gave a second
map to any team that asked for it; they appeared to have enough, or
nearly enough, for all 84 participants. The protest was never filed.
Unfortunately, several junior teams, eager to get the map first, already
left the area and were not aware of the decision. These teams may have
ended up completing the event with just one map.

I cannot think of any substance to Serguei's comment that "Only teams
consisting of two persons were admitted to participate". I do not recall
the organizers ever making this claim, on the website or at the event,
and the final results list indicated 4 teams of 3 that were given a score
a and a place.

On the morning of the second day of the race, we witnessed one (non-
local) team separated by much more than unaided verbal contact distance.
The separation was about 7 minutes in time. They may have maintained 
visual contact at times, but were clearly searching for one another at
the time we encountered them. We helped them rejoin and considered
protesting a violation of R10. However, several factors convinced us
against doing so: (1) It was not clear that the organizers had a jury
in place that would be able to process this claim; (2) It was quite
obvious to us that at the time we met the team, they were not deriving
any unfair advantage from their separation; (3) Our team wasn't doing
that well to be concerned about others' results; and (4) We didn't
want to form a negative image, I especially, being a guest from the
USA. We did lose to this team in the overall standings.

The T shirts and prizes given by the organizers were of the highest
quality. It is curious that careful attention was given to these items
whereas others, arguably much more important, venues were neglected.
The opening ceremony was somewhat dignified; I skipped the closing
ceremony as I raced to catch my train.

IV. Rules and Technical Standards

I think the organizers knew the Rules quite well. The text of the actual
Rules, i.e. R1 through R30, was available in Russian on the event website,
although R10 (of all, of course) was mistranslated to imply visual, not
verbal, contact. I think the competitors were also familiar with the
Rules, with the one exception mentioned above. I do not think that the
organizers broke any of the Rules, i.e. R1 through R30.

The Technical Standards did not fare that well. It seemed to me that the
organizers either were not aware of such, viewed them merely as guidelines,
or did not think these applied. A a matter of fact, Mr. Gilman commented
that the requirement of one map per person was not a part of the Rules,
and I knew he was correct and indicated that the requirement was a part
of the Standards, but the issue weighed heavily on the safety and
therefore was protestable under the common sense clause. Luckily the
situation has already been resolved.

I believe that the following Technical Standards were violated: T2, T4, T5,
T6, T7, T8, T9, T13, T14, T17. Given this count it is hard to believe
that the organizers made any conscious efforts to enforce any of the T.
So, this brings me to the main purpose of writing the report. Here in my
opinion was an event at which all of the main Rules were met, but the
Technical Standards were largely ignored. The point of whether the event
was worth the status of an ERC aside (I think it was), I would like the
IRF to consider whether the Technical Standards should be a required part
of the Regulations for any major rogaine, or whether the Rules should suffice.
I think the competition was sufficiently fair with the Rules alone. 
However, it was not nearly as enjoyable as it would have been with the
full set of Regulations honored by the organizers, and quite outside of
the boundaries of what "rogaining culture" would consider acceptable.

V. Conclusions

I would like to thank Mrs. Shestakov, Gilman, and the rest of the Perm 
club for organizing the ERC. I hope that the future will see many more
rogaines in Russia, held close to the full specifications of the IRF.
I would also like to hope that eventually there will be a competent
organization entrusted with supervising the development of rogaining in
Russia.

	Vladimir

-----
The opinions expressed in this message are those of Vladimir only.
These opinions do not represent the official position of the
U. S. Orienteering Team or the U. S. Orienteering Federation.

-----
Created: 11 September 2003
Last updated: Only version
vladimir@us-o-team.us.orienteering.org