Alan Whitney, Catherine Buck, Alan Large, Clive Hodgson, Derek Newbould, David Smoley, Keith King, Sara Riley, Lizzie Pope, Steve Barber, "Chick", David Bell, Alan Crabtree, Peter Smith, Phil Robbins, Janice Molloy, Iain Tullie, Martin Moore, Peter Booth, Mitch Fielding, Ian Buxton, Glynn Hayward, Graham Couser, Anthony Davies, Dave Middleditch, Gavin Rogers, Peter Robertson
 

Entered all four events - even more RC's than usual.

Most of RRR was unintelligible (no name given!)

No problem - just the usual lack of time!

No problem with the way the events were run, just a lack of time.

Not really, just don't have any time these days to devote to it.

Sorry Crow - I tackled none - Nothing to do with the way the Championship was run. I didn't even get a look at the questions. Just too busy with work, garden, family and home.

At first look at the last round I was completely stumped, much too cryptic for my liking. Managed to answer a few but never got round to marking the map on the computer. Lost interest when sitting for hours trying to figure out what the sections are about.

Just because no reminder was sent out for the closing date of the second rally when I'm fairly sure that all previous events have had such a reminder. I'm really annoyed by the plotting in the final event. Some of the plotting is a joke (using footbaths - rule 16?), having some grid squares in the plotting that mean 'visit this grid square' while other grid squares mean 'use the spot height number in this square only' surely breaks rule 13. I plotted route card 2A correctly, which then meant part 2B was impossible to plot, and as section start points were not given it was impossible to know whether I'd made a mistake or the route was wrong. Bring back link sections with definite start points for every section. Still don't understand what the T's in section 3 mean (although I plotted it OK), and think the decreasing base is ridiculous. I even managed to work out that the first clue could be 99 base 36, but then that didn't tie in with the next clue so rejected it. Base 36 is an obvious one to use (A to Z, 0 to 9), 35 etc are not. Section 7 was obscure (another case of an all or nothing stage). If you realized that the plotting was nothing to do with Rally Round it was easy. If not, you could spend hours trying to plot herring bones unnecessarily. Section 9 was misleading as usually the plotting from the first section follows on to the second section. This changed from herring bones to grid squares while disguising it to look like herring bones. Therefore more hours spent decoding herring bones that didn't work. As per my feedback from previous years, I'm not bad at this type of thing (I did come third or fourth in the first event and found several shortest routes that no-one else found), and I want this championship to be a continuation of real road rallying, not just a cryptic puzzle solving game. The hard part should be working out the correct route from the fairly easy to decode route instructions, not decoding the instructions in the first place. You can see from the results that almost exclusively everyone either got 10 or 0 for the stages in this rally, with many people not even bothering to enter because it was so obscure and unrelated to road rallying.

I nearly did not do this one at all because it looked impossibly hard, with 4 sections of 'Rally Round'. I only entered because I really appreciate the effort you put in, and it would not be appropriate to withdraw.

Fab idea. The lack of undo isn't too much of a problem - it gives another opportunity to recheck the route. Would it be possible to save a part marked up map - maybe useful for the Masters doing one section at a time?

Found no problems. As I marked the route on the map first, multiple undos didn't matter.

I like the idea despite being one of the competitors who experienced difficulties although these should not affect me in the future.

Major step forward - a few minor tweaks (as mentioned) needed. but big thumbs up.

Map marking was fine but I felt that a good part of the table top rally was missing. Plotting the route is not just what table top rally is about - bring back counting churches and finding the hidden spot height.

Yes I agree not being able to undo was a bit of a problem, a save facility would also have been helpful.

Would you be able to make the tool bar stay at the top of the page so when you're scrolling down to mark the map you don't have to scroll back up to change tools then scroll back down again? I hope that makes sense! And I don't quite understand how sections can be marked 0-5 out of 5. Surely with this system they're either right or wrong?

This was a good idea and was very good for the first time. It helped in some ways to define the area covered by the route so if you are unsure sometimes at the boundaries, you could look and see if it was possible to plot it at all.

Map marking was more enjoyable, one undo ok for me.

Still not sure about the map marking - personally found it fiddly and time consuming. Two big plusses were penalties limited to 1 for a simple plotting mistake instead of a possible 5 and the removal of nadgery routes around housing estates in the middle of built up areas.

Liked it very much, and would like to see it continued. More "undo's", at least one more pen thickness (or replace the thin one - which is useless - with one about half the thickness of the thick one), and translucent colours are all desirable features. I did have an idea about including a white colour to be used as an "erase", but I don't know if that was taken on board amongst my many rantings during the course of the event.

NO, go back to previous format. That way people like me can do the events without having to have a degree in computer sciences. (no name given!)

I have found the new map marking first class but maybe change thickness of line as I found it too thick for some of the more intricate parts.

Agreed about "undos", but otherwise a huge improvement for me.

Thought it was excellent - well done.

Map marking was better as it does take out any counting errors. What I found was the best solution, was to plot it onto a map and then transpose it onto the Route Crads on the computer when submit the answers. It was not a problem with dial up connection.

OK with it as long as you continue to allow maps to be saved on own PC and solutions to be emailed to you - if not prefer to go back to Route checks.

Liked the new map marking method.

Personally I didn't do the events that used map marking, but in my view I'd be against it. If I *do* get time to do the event it is on paper, the last thing I want to be doing after sitting in front of a screen all day is yet more time in front of a screen marking it out. It would also mean I can only do the route marking while at my PC, I can't just check all the route answers while coming home on the bus etc.

Having limited internet access only at work, I found I was at a disadvantage in getting the answers in early enough, as the online marking of the maps was very time consuming. It took me 3 hours to draw 9 route cards and send in, one small error and the need to start again. The concept is good though.

Yes. It worked well for me.

Not entering the rally round I still have not attempted this method. I personally think I would rather keep it to maps but if others who have tried this prefer it I will have to get used to it next year.

Yes worked very well.

I put off the map marking until the last minute, thus unfortunately delaying your marking, because using the computer is such a nerve wracking adventure. It also limits my access to put the odd result in away from home. If 1,2,and 3 when transferred to map could appear at the top right it would help. last time I lost all my 21 marks but one by bad counting of features, so rather like a treasure hunt with stolen code boards. Note that results are generally either 10 or 'not done'.

They certainly catch us out - there have been higher scores on the RR 2006 than others this year - unless, of course, we're all much better!!!

Agree, mix them up.

No problem with that.

...providing they are totally un-ambiguous.

Prefer no RCs - fun for me is solving the navigation not in counting churches!

Hooray (have I cheered too soon? 1 church 2 churches 3 churches 4....is that telephone 200m)

I think that a lot of mistakes are made counting items for the route checks so this sometimes sorted out a result.

mmm, is there such a competitor?

Are there any? If you do, please don't base it on dodgy counts - e.g.: the feature may be 195 or 205 metres away (in or out?); churches hidden in urban sprawls, and looking like the intersection of buildings; spot heights that are not quite in the centre of a junction - on the route or off it? and bridges where the fact of whether there is (part of) a bridge sign or not is a matter of opinion. And many other dodgy decisions which are probably designed to cause total confusion on this side of the fence! ;o)

I think that route checks should be dropped in favour of the new format. Years ago we would send the map in to be marked. The route check system was introduced by the old Nelly Table Top( remember that one?) I believe to try to reduce postage costs. That requirement is no longer valid so, for me, map marking it is.

Fine. I do hate counting YYYs, but did quite miss it in a masochistic sort of way this time.

I suppose the argument against them is that you could actually have the correct route plotted but still get some wrong. I think having the occasional rc section will be good.

I would rather just stick to map marking, however RC's are a good idea when map marking not available.

Gives an added element to the rally - (even though I seem to be crap at counting).

But not too many churches!

I don't mind route checks and like you say its an observational challenge, especially when you've stared at a map for several hours past midnight got the route correct and then miscount some churches. But that's where the results normally come from, as the Rally Round proved with most people scoring maximums for the majority of sections.

Not so keen on route checks but no major objection.

Yes please.

Map marking would seem to be a truer reflection of whether the competitor has solved the navigation or not.

Agree. Might make the scores closer.

Good idea. It would hopefully reduce the number of maximum scores per section.

No objections.

Sounds OK to me.

Good idea.

So long as each clue has the same number of points to score that is fine.

Sounds good.

Sounds like a good idea but only you can tell if the results just submitted mean that more PCs would separate the competitors.

OK.

Good idea. I don't have a problem with anything that is designed to check that the correct route has been followed, as long as the consequent decision is clear cut and not a matter of opinion. It shouldn't need a committee meeting to decide whether a criterion has been met or not.

Don't have a problem with this at all.

Seems logical.

Aim to have ten on every section at 0.5 marks each, that should be enough.

Yes - good idea.

Agree with 10 checks per section.

Good idea.

I agree for map marking a minimum of 10 PCs, and still 5 for route check events. Problem would be scoring them equally.

Seems sensible if the route is long to divide up further.

How about 9 PCs per section for 0.5 points and a bonus 0.5 point if the route is 100% correct.

Too many pcs not a good idea. If you go the wrong way with one error, then you miss several churches (pcs)and other features and lose a lot of marks. Other single errors may only lose one mark.

The big problem with first submission is that if there are any changes, the people to first submit can potentially be at a disadvantage as more information comes to light. Having said that, it it possibly worth the risk. Would fractional marks have made a difference on the RR?

Suggest using date of final answer. That way getting 1 answer in quick doesn't get anyone any advantages.

I agree. I definitely felt under pressure to submit Route Cards very quickly for the last round, anticipating that scoring would be close and a tie probable.

When I can get all the right routes I'll start worrying about tie deciders!!!

Worth the try.

Yes maybe also last received could be considered

Surely 'first submission' marks the faster player and therefore the most deserving?

Why not use RCs as tie deciders?

Yep - don't like the first submission. Final submission could be fairer and should also make your job easier. Could also use the the two missing sections ie count first 10 from 12 but submit all.

Agreed it may help, but there may still be a tie, and I could never see anything wrong with the furthest-cleanest principle to solve that one.

Perhaps the farthest cleanest system could be used. The organiser will know which order answers to sections have been submitted by each competitor so quite easy!! to do.

I'm a late submitter so probably doesn't affect me, but for those who submit early, updates on Route Cards must be galling. Perhaps second submissions allowed when there has been a change?

Is it currently first submission of just one route card or is it first submission of a full set of 10?

I believe that first submission is good for tie breaking. It stops people from submitting last minute, and helps the organiser to keep on top of the results. The "first submission" should be for the final completed 10 sections. This would stop someone submitting their first section early and then hoping to have time to submit the rest.

(Only realised it has changed from furthest cleanest when I got caught out earlier this year). Whatever method used, no point criticising, you play by the rules.

Think you must keep "first submission" method for the Masters category. Fractional marking will probably sort out the other categories.

furthest cleanest then earliest to submit would be the best tie decider I would have thought..?

Even though I missed out on this event, I still feel that the first submission method is best as it rewards the keenest; and as I found out to my cost on the previous round when I sent my answers in within a couple of days, the amendments come out and make plotting a lot easier. So you are also at a disadvantage for early submission.

1st submission works well for me but might be fairer to use furthest cleanest based on order of route card receipt and then 1st submission if there are ties.

The joy is in taking time to be accurate, but then again I don't enter with thoughts to win, just to solve the problems and have the answer confirmed by the route is a pleasure.

Would it be possible for the semi-experts to choose if they go for 10 part 1's or a combination of part 1's and part 2's. For example, as a Novice I was able (I think!) to work out 2 part 2's. However, I was totally stumped by 4 of the part 1's. So if I'd been a semi-expert I could have submitted 8 part 1's and 2 part 2's making a total of 10 submissions.

Agree. Who decides what class you should be in - E or SE?

OK provided you have sufficient competitors to provide enough competition within the classes.

The more levels the more different people can be catered for - if you have time to mark them that is!

Great idea.

I am rather concerned that I will not be a novice next year. I could only do 5 of the last two rallies and hadn't got a clue how to start the others. I don't think I could be classed an expert by any stretch of the imagination. Couldn't you have an intermediate class?

Interesting.

Okay if you think there is a demand but presumably current masters could not demote to the new experts class unless they perhaps had never scored above 35 on any masters event? Another idea might be for the new class to be 5 part 1's and 5 part 2's (more on a par with the current novice/expert situation and would provide an easier transition for current experts to move towards masters?

Yes. Such a system would smooth the transition from Expert to Master without making it more difficult for those moving from Novice to Expert. No effect on us Masters though, unless a Master was poor enough to score less than 75!. You would need to revise the qualification criteria for Expert and possibly Master to accommodate the new class.

Sounds good especially if it attracts more Novice entrants.

Very much still a novice. Oh, to be able to attempt 10 routes.

Seems reasonable.

I would find that difficult as have only managed to complete a few part 2's.

Good idea to have a semi expert class.

I think anything that encourages competitors in the lower classes to try the second part of a section is a good idea. The only problem is the return rate seems to be dropping off, so the not so confident may be put off submitting their answers.

Good idea - can you move down a division after a period of time as well if you really struggle!!

Agree.

Would those in the Experts class this year and who finished in the top three of their class be required to enter the "new" Experts class or Masters? It's quite a big jump from the current Experts class to Masters.

Found it hard to find time to solve more than 5 sections (work pressure). However do it for the mental challenge rather than "pot hunting" so don't really care what class I'm in.

Good thinking. I am entering the next class but perhaps a finish in the top three overall over the year could be a consideration and if the semi expert class is introduce how about 'relegation!!

Oh Dear! See above.

Yes, but may put some people off.

This would stop me from competing as I would be forced into the new experts class which would be too difficult for me as currently defined. However I do think the championship winner in a class should be made to "promote".

OK.

No problem. What about relegation for those who finish in the bottom three? Or do you think that might have an adverse effect on entries? Or would everybody be fighting for bottom place in order to have an easier ride next time?! ;-)

Yes all for that.

Top three of any event? Even if there were only three (or a small number of) entries in that class? Is this reason for Semi-Expert class? Dread being promoted from Novice.

Sorry, this would mean I probably wouldn't enter. I haven't the time to tackle the masters nav, but enjoy doing the experts. However I would have no problem being deemed ineligible for o/a positions or awards in the experts class.

The only concern is if someone finishes 3rd on one event and the rest of the events finishes, say 10th, then they may struggle on the next years events, at a higher level and not finish the following season. I personally only managed to work out the masters clues on one event this year. I would be daunted by having to do the masters championship next year.

Seems reasonable.

Think this should only apply to the top competitors overall. Maybe based on and average score to prevent missing the last event to avoid promotion.

Probably a good idea. I thought this would have been the case anyway!?

Perhaps the top 3 should be encouraged to give the next class a go rather than required to. We want to retain existing competitors so maybe be see how the 75 points for experts works out before changing this.

Liked this years format, 2 maps. As for the cost - what else could you do for the money that would give you so much fun or frustration! And help somebody else!

Sounds OK.

4 events for £20 plus 1 or 2 maps would be ok - above that would put me off.

My first year and I thought that it was extremely good value- discounted maps costs through Centre Maps - cheapest event I have entered - Yes to an increase entry fee.

It is quite good to get maps from different parts of the country to look at.

2 maps is fine, especially with the good deal you did for the 2006 season.

OK.

I would have thought it would be too difficult for you (& others) to set four events on one map? Cost not really an issue especially given the charity element.

Cost doesn't really come into it.

Several considerations here. First, you have to cover your costs, one of which is the licensing fee, so these have to be recovered from the entry fees. Secondly, I don't think "boring" comes into it, but you already use half of the map for each event in the Championship. Using only one map for the whole thing would severely restrict the amount of space available for each RC, so I think the use of two maps for the Championship has to be considered the optimum. The quality of the entry form map precludes its use as a draft for plotting - unless you are able to use something like Multimap's maps at the Landranger scale, and enable downloading for plotting purposes. And finally, the cost for Masters entry this year was £14, and for this one effectively gets 4 months entertainment (or mental torture depending on your point of view). This comes down to only £3.50 per event, which is very cheap. I really don't think that any of us who join in this game would object to a small increase in this, especially as any profits left at the end go to some deserving cause. I would suggest the following structure: Masters £5 per event, Novices and the new class of Semi-Experts £4 per event, and Experts £4.50 per event. All these with a 10% discount for entering all four events. Such a structure would reflect the differing amounts of work each class has to do to compete, and allow those who are a little tight for cash the ability to cut their cloth accordingly. (Special discount or even free entry to all events for those who organise an event and therefore can't compete in it).

Save us money! I think that for the amount of enjoyment?? that each table top provides then if the costs need to go up to pay for licensing fees then no problem.

Increase for licensing fees fine with me. One map seems a bit limiting for a total of 48 x 2-part routes. Don't mind paying for two. I love my maps.

Not bothered about one / two maps either way. Saving £6 over the year isn't too critical, but I suppose the simplicity of just one map may encourage a few more entries?

Using two maps over the year is not expensive - maximum £13/year = £1/month approx. The same maps could be used for every other year and therefore the costs is even less.

Stay with two maps for four rallies.

No problem to pay more and use 2 maps. Still very good entertainment(?) value.

Don't think using 2 maps is too much of an issue really.

I liked the 2 map format of this year, can we save costs by using the same maps again next year (same edition); then change to new maps the following year. I think an increase in the entry fee would be needed to cover licensing fees, then we could just down load the relevant map sections for plotting and wouldn't need to buy any maps, that would keep the sponsors happy.

Might be a bit boring to use only one map. Wouldn't object to slight increase to cover OS licensing.

More interesting using 2 maps.

Its the cheapest fun you can have with the lights on!

Nothing. Great fun.

The only other thing I would like to see is more competitors. I'm not sure of your views on this as obviously it would create more work in marking and handling queries. However I feel that the Championship should be attracting far more competitors. I would like to see a big push for more entries next year. I'm sure that many existing competitors could think of at least one of their friends who might be encouraged to enter. This approach for generating more entries could be worth trying provided you are comfortable with more competitors.

I've been toying with the idea of Virtual Navigating. Real-time plotting with simpler navigation, where time, as well as accuracy, plays an important part in the result.

Thoroughly enjoyed it - thanks to all the organisers for a great year.

Great event with an excellent format I wish I found you earlier.

With the map marking, sometimes found it difficult to create the 123 marker then drag it to the correct location which required scrolling the map until it was found. Sometimes found that while scrolling I had dropped the marker and it could not be moved further.

1. In relation to the last question (on Costs). If it were possible to download the map of the area to be plotted at a sufficiently high quality, there could be a saving to the competitor of the cost of the maps - which become pretty well useless after the event. The practice map that you showed when the idea was first mooted would have served this purpose. However, I understand this may not be possible within the terms of the licence.
2. It would be a huge advantage (to me at least) to be able to save the map and comments I am about to submit to a file in my own computer. Also the possibility to see what is about to go before it becomes irrevocable - you know what I'm like for the odd typo!
3. The "print" function on the entry maps didn't work (at least I couldn't do it), and it would have been useful to be able to print off comments made. Could this be sorted out?

This is an idea that I have been thinking of for a few weeks and now the chance to bounce it around. We always hear that people have not had the time to devote to table tops so why not make them shorter, say 6 sections over 2 weeks but then increase the number of round to say 8. Same amount of sections over the course of the championship but with say the best 6 out of 8 to count. As I said just a thought but I think well worth a topic on the TT forum to see what other people think of this or any other ideas that could be forth coming.

Found it increasingly hard through 4 events to find 5 routes I could attempt. Solutions have not always helped me to learn (haven't looked at RRR yet). I know there are many who have been doing it for years and need an increasing challenge, but I speak for the dunces here. Several HRCR pals have been completely put off. Depends how many new entrants there have been and whether the increase is enough to sustain the TT rallies.

Keep up the hard work! Perhaps you could put together a flier (electronic and paper) that Club members could put in their newsletters to encourage a few more entries?

Thoroughly enjoyed the events and look forward to next year. Thanks to Crow for organising the championship and the organisers of all the events.

Ready for the next one. All the hard work in preparation and marking is much appreciated.

Was not best pleased that the correct route was changed part way through the competition on the Rally Round. (i.e. Section 2). This could not happen on a real event so why on this? I suppose you could argue that if someone found a correct shorter route on a real event there could be a possibility of the section being scrubbed, but in general I would have thought that the organisers intended route should stand (right or wrong).

The problem you have appears to be that, even taking into account the different classes, there is a vast difference in the abilities of those taking part. As the novices have to attempt the same first sections that are also part of the Masters - it makes it hard to find the balance of difficulty for these sections. Whilst the masters will probably find most of them fairly straight forward, the novices will probably find most pretty daunting. Maybe worth having a couple of extra Route cards (of first section only) that can only be submitted by Novices (more work I know!)- after all these are the people you need to keep. If they're getting satisfaction they will continue - if put off at an early stage, probably won't come back. Only 9 returns out of 29, of which half appear to struggle indicates they need some assistance. Another option, is possibly novices could, say after two weeks request an aid that would help them solve a section (additional clues in route card or something) in return for a points penalty - which could mean instead of only being able to submit 2 or 3 sections, may be able to submit the required 5 - albeit only gain a few extra points, but also gain valuable practice. Also the move up from novices to experts is quite of a leap, but from experts to masters is massive - but this may not be such and issue, because hopefully they are hooked by then.

Need a 'purpose' statement to clarify whether the test is of 1)pin point navigation like 'Nellie'; 2)eyesight for churches, dodgy bridges, letters; or 3)solving of numeric, logical, alpha and spatial problems with an inbuilt parity check (i.e. the route). Certainly my stomach turns over with dread/nerves/excitement when a new one is issued. My pleasure comes from knowing that the more I recheck my month's work the better score I used to get, and it helps fill the long evenings. Now its all over in nanoseconds, I either 'get it' or not and its gone down the wires.