I don't normally get involved with USOF issues. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've never been involved before, but I decided to look into the new night-o rules a bit. There is someone drawing up a draft of new rules. I wasn't impressed. Talking with Spike suggests to me that Spike wasn't impressed either. Anyway I think someone should take action lest things get really out of hand. I sent off the following letter to Scott Donald (who I don't know). Apparently he is soliciting opinions on the draft rules now until April 25. See what you think of what I said. I suspect that a comprimise will have to be reached ultimately between the reasonable and unreasonable people, so I tried to "tone down" my language a bit and sound conciliatory, but hopefully not suck-up-ish. I can only hope this won't blow up in our faces. I don't want to see night o ruined in any way. I'm a night o fan. Of course a few years ago there was a USOF rule forbidding competitors from wearing red clothing in the woods, so there is precedent for bad rules.

Anyway here goes...

Dear Scott Donald:

I read over the proposed USOF night o course rules that I found on an advertised web site http://orienteer.com/technical/nighto.txt. I appreciate the need to have a small set of USOF rules and standards (especially for championship events), but found myself somewhat puzzled by several things in the draft.

Is there a need to specify course distances in addition to expected winning times? Although I think it is a minor point, I hope coursetters will aim to achieve certain winning times rather than distances. By the way, I suspect that often enough night course distances that are 50-75% of the daytime distances will produce winning times about 50-75% of the daytime winning times.

I suspect that many of the requirements on lighting suggested are not enforceable or measurable. Be that as it may, I found it quite confusing to read that "if the light source is an incandescent bulb ... the volt/amperes consumed by the bulb at its maximum power shall not exceed 20 VA" but that "any other electrically powered light source, carried by the competitor, shall not consume more than 15 VA at its maximum power". By VA do you simply mean Watts or something else? Why should different types of light sources be limited to different (power?) levels. Orienteering headlamps are commonly sold with 20 Watt halogen bulbs. I'm unfamiliar with rules overseas, but I would assume these bulbs are legal in such places as Sweden or they wouldn't be sold. Why should rules be different here (if 15 VA is 15 Watts, correct me if I'm wrong)?

I was surprised to read that "a competitor in a NIGHT ORIENTEERING event shall carry no more than 1 active light source" The wording here is confusing but my interpretation is that only one light bulb should be illuminated at a time. Is that what it is saying? That seems quite limiting. For example, people would find good use for a low-powered map-reading light as well as a headlamp. To be forced to turn one off in order to legally use the other seems to be a nuisance (and potentially hazardous).

For the record I see no reason to have lighting rules for night o', but if they are doomed to go into effect I think they should be made simple and should accept the variety of equipment people are already using in the US and internationally.

Sincerely,
Mark Everett

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), April 18, 2000

Answers

Simplify, simplify. . . Why do the rules have to be different from what's been practiced and accepted in the Scandinavian countries - the homeland of night O? Do the Japanese tinker with baseball rules in order to be different from US baseball? Any good reasons for tyring to restrict the wattage level? yes, I'd like one of those Swedish halogen lamps, but I think I'd still run with any headlamp from REI or Campmoor.

Also, having a spare lamp for emergencies might be more prudent, especially in this country where we are heavy into risk management.

-- Mean Gene (gmw@ukans.edu), April 18, 2000.

What's particularly intriguing is that the author of these proposed USOF night-O rules (Scott Donald) isn't even an American -- he's a Canadian in every sense of the word (lives in B.C.). Isn't there enough to do making useless rules up north? His definition of "dark" is good for a fine belly laugh.

-- J-J (jjcote@juno.com), April 19, 2000.

At first I supposed Mook was just joking about this. After all, why in the world would we have a Canadian involved in writing US O' Rules? Nothing at all against Canadians, but why not have an American taking hand with this? Especially when in the past we have proven more than equal to the task of coming up with absurd requirements. What in the world can be the point in specifying course lengths when winning times are what must govern? Is there some risk that human legs will fall apart if they run more than 75% of the distance of a day course? And rules specifying what can't be thrown away at a race? That's a new twist! What does that have to do with orienteering, I wonder? Finally, if someone wants to carry around an artificial sun on their shoulders or several suns at once, more power to them. Does anyone seriously think we're going to be able to get organizers to go around checking what sort of power people's head lamps are drawing??? Who in the world would care, anyhow?

You just have to laugh!

-- Swampfox (wmikell@earthlink.net), April 19, 2000.

14.3.3.1 The control features selected for a NIGHT ORIENTEERING event shall be visible to a normal sighted competitor under the unassisted lighting conditions expected during the event.

What does this mean?

-- Michael (mike_eglinski@kcmo.org), April 19, 2000.

The rule that Spike questions is strangely worded. My take on what it means is that the coursetter is permitted to include control features that are not normally visible to blind orienteers. What I don't understand is whether this means blind orienteers during the daytime or at night. I think unassisted means that any blind orienteer called apon to judge a control's validity as part of a protest comittee is expected to reach the control site in question through his own power.

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), April 19, 2000.

I got this response back from Scott Donald. Since it wasn't really a personal letter to me, but his response as a USOF(?) official or delegate, I think it's alright to post it here (one ought to be reasonably discrete). Text from my letter to him is prefixed by '>' and my words are in square brackets '[ ]'. I think it clears a few things up, but I can't say I agree any more now than I did in the past. There are apparently some new rules (my intention was not to create new rules!). Oh well. Obviously if you are a person who volunteers to write USOF rules then you are the type of person who thrives on thinking about new and awkward rules. There are some pretty funny things here too, so I hope you enjoy it...

----------------------------------------------------

The [course] lengths are put in as a guide only. Whenever rule book have been created in the past, there has always been a lot of pressure, in North America, to include a section on lengths, to help the planner through the first draft of the courses. Many designers either don't bother to remember, or haven't designed a particular level of course, before.

The actual winning time of a course 50% of the length of a daytime course will depend in the ambient light, vegetation type and density, footing visibility, and many other parameters which don't present, in the daylight, the same problem they do at night.

At night, the illumination of a forest edge allows the competitor to see the lit edge, but very little for the material beyond the edge. This is partly due to the shadows cast by the trees in the light, and partly due to the fact that the eye pupil closes slightly due to the bright objects in the light. This effect is well known and used in the theatre. You divide the stage in two with a sheet of cheese cloth, light the front part with overhead lighting, and keep the area behind the cheese cloth dark. Form the audience, it looks solid. If you then light a scene or actor behind the cloth, dimly, they appear as a ghost.

Any way....

> I suspect that many of the requirements on lighting suggested
> are not enforceable or measurable.  Be that as it may, I found it
> quite confusing to read that "if the light source is an incandescent
> bulb ... the volt/amperes consumed by the bulb at its maximum power
shall
> not exceed 20 VA" but that "any other electrically powered light
source,
> carried by the competitor, shall not consume more than 15 VA at its
> maximum power".  By VA do you simply mean Watts or something else?

[The units VA are] essentially watts. It is the voltage across the bulb multiplied by the current flowing through it. This type of specification prevents some one from using a bulb specified (in little printing on the bulb base) as 1.5 volt, .1 amps (.15 VA or .15 watts) and running it at 3.0 volts when it will consume 0.2 amps and be roughly 4 times brighter. Its much shorter life time at the higher power isn't important in this application.

> Why  should different types of light sources be limited to different
(power?)
> levels.  Orienteering headlamps are commonly sold with 20 Watt
halogen
> bulbs.  I'm unfamiliar with rules overseas, but I would assume these
> bulbs are legal in such places as Sweden or they wouldn't be sold.
> Why should rules be different here (if 15 VA is 15 Watts, correct me
> if I'm wrong)?

This is a first pass at the specification. If what you say is true, then the spec should read 25/20 VA and not 20/15. The intent was to limit the amount of light available to the competitor to a reasonable level to reduce the problems for other orienteers.

I wasn't able to find a power rating for bulbs. The only data I had access to gave battery type (and the number of cells), and the expected lifetime.

One note I have received claimed that people often substitute bulbs of lower voltage (see above), of higher power at the same voltage rating.

In North America, the primary market for headlamps is not competitive sport. As a consequence, there is no specification about what is "legal". I suspect the same is true in Europe.

> I was surprised to read that "a competitor in a NIGHT
> ORIENTEERING event shall carry no more than 1 active light source"
The
> wording here is confusing but my interpretation is that only one
light
> bulb should be illuminated at a time.  Is that what it is saying?
> That seems quite limiting.  For example, people would find good use
> for a low-powered map-reading light as well as a headlamp.  To be
> forced to turn one off in order to legally use the other seems to be
a
> nuisance (and potentially hazardous).

It prevents the competitor from bypassing the power limitation rule by carrying multiple active sources.

The current version of the draft permits a much lower power light source for map reading to be active simultaneously.

The new version of this section is:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"14.5.2 Light source number, type, and power.
In a NIGHT ORIENTEERING event, artificial illumination carried by the
competitor shall be subject to the following limitations.

14.5.2.1 Number of light sources.
A competitor in a NIGHT ORIENTEERING event shall carry no more than 1
active
primary light source, and no more than 1 active secondary light
source.

14.5.2.2 Primary light source type 1.
If the primary light source is an incandescent bulb, with an inert
filler
atmosphere, the VA consumed by the bulb at its maximum power shall not
exceed 20 VA.

Comment ***** Light brightness is tough to determine easily. Some
manufacturers don't specify the power consumed, or the light intensity
put
out, by their equipment. However, determining the power consumed by a
bulb,
in the field, is relatively easy with a volt/ammeter, and correlates
well to
the brightness put out by equipment of the same basic type. *****

14.5.2.3 Primary light source type 2.
Any other electrically powered light source, carried by the
competitor,
shall not consume more than 15 VA at its maximum power.

14.5.2.4 Primary light source type 3.
A chemiluminescent light source of any brightness may be carried by
the
competitor.

14.5.2.5 Secondary light source.
An electrically powered secondary light source of any type shall not
consume
electric power greater than 1.0 volt-amperes (VA), and may be used as
needed
to read the map and other associated materials and devices. A  second
chemiluminescent source may be used for this function.

14.5.2.6 Flames.
No open or contained flame shall be carried or used by a competitor
once
past the call up line, and before the finish line, except in the case
of
emergency."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> For the record I see no reason to have lighting rules for
> night o', but if they are doomed to go into effect I think they
should
> be made simple and should accept the variety of equipment people are
> already using in the US and internationally.

I agree that the rule should encompass current practices. I have not been able to find an IOF rule on lamp powers, but general opinion is that one exists. If you know of a source, would you give me its WWW address?

One of the problems with "rules" is they must encompass the extremes of what is allowed, while allowing the competitor the greatest freedom possible, and still fall within the "fairness" range expected in the particular sport.

A problem which has been commented on is the effect of blinding other competitors. This is going to be impossible to eliminate, but I hope these rules will be seen as reasonable, practical, and enforceable.

One of my friends in orienteering (6+ feet high, 200+ pounds, and who is into body building) has told me he was thinking of using a motor cycle battery and head lamp. Such an option wouldn't be open to me (at 5' 9", 160 pounds, and a desk jockey). And as weight lifting is not part of this particular sport, I feel it reasonable to limit the light "brightness" available to the competitor.

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), April 19, 2000.

For the sake of one more addendum I looked into the possibility that other orienteering federations might have silly night-o rules. I didn't see anything that matched what might be proposed to USOF. There didn't seem to be much of anything at all, in English at least. The BOF has some guidelines for night-o that seem more or less reasonable (if anyone checks these out scroll down to the middle of this web page and look for a section titled "Guideline 9"). The BOF doesn't use lighting standards. I doubt that any federation has lighting standards. Of course this web site is just full of rules I don't think Scott should know about so I won't tell him about this! I just hope that USOF comes through with some review of any rules before they are adopted so that they may be rejected out of hand.

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), April 19, 2000.

"I have not been able to find an IOF rule on lamp powers, but general opinion is that one exists."

Uh....what? This makes no sense at all. Fuzzy thinking leads to fuzzy rules.

I have to agree with Mean Gene and Thoreau -- "simplify, simplify."

-- Michael (mike_eglinski@kcmo.org), April 19, 2000.