Wicklow Round completions
|Paul O'Callaghan||May 30 2018, 11:09am||Given that IMRA have updated the list to include a recent completion, can my name be added for my 2016 Round now. (other completions are also missing.|
|Richard Nunan||May 30 2018, 11:16am||Hi Paul,|
Apologies for the delay - would you mind re-emailing me your splits and i will have them updated. I am looking to get Karina's Liam's winter and yourself updated today/tomorrow
|Gary Warnock||May 30 2018, 2:25pm||I see that the rules have also changed recently, notably GPS previously wasn't explicitly prohibited and restrictions on support. Is there a record of when this happened and which completions followed which rules? Is there any information on the review process?|
Can you clarify this for me:
"It is against the Rules of the event to have fuel or liquid stashed along the Round route or to access similar left in position or offered by others encountered along the route"
- what is meant here by liquid? Elsewhere it states food dumps are ok, surely I can stash water too?
Designated support point - "Road Crossing point between Tonduff North and Prince Williams Seat" where is this meant to be? This section has a few different route choices with a number of roads - does it apply to all? My planned route would involve a substantial road section, along which I had been planning to have two caches.
Lastly (for now!) the link to stringbean's gpx track seems to be broken.
|Gordon Place||May 30 2018, 2:45pm||If discouraging GPS, should anyone's GPX file be provided at all?|
|Richard Nunan||May 30 2018, 2:46pm||Hi Gary, we are updating the Rules at the moment and going through the updating of some of the elements of the webpage - there are links broken and 3 attempts unaccounted for. |
The purpose of the rule clarification is mainly so that people understand what was previously referred to as "the spirit" of the round
IMRA's only involvement is to agree to record attempts. But we have been asked to provide some clarifications in the form of Rules that will govern all future attempts on the website.
These Rules have been drafted by a sub committee(involving the original founders of the round) adn approved by the current IMRA executive Committee
The rules on the websitre will be for those attempts going forward. We will post an official communication on this tonight and get back to answering your queries.
|Paul O'Callaghan||May 30 2018, 3:32pm||Thanks Richard|
|Gary Warnock||May 30 2018, 3:39pm||Grand, seems fair - I hadn't been aware of the anti-GPS spirit of the Wicklow round until well after my first attempt (which was made with GPS)!|
|Jeff Swords||May 30 2018, 4:35pm||Good to see the 'spirit' put in writing.|
Richard, at this point how will the historic completions be recorded, i.e. a set for those that were done aided by GPS, pacers, guides at different legs etc.
And then a set to acknowledge those who abided by the spirit, and therefore an arguably (or rather unarguably) tougher round?
And by implication, 2 different records?
|Jeff Swords||May 30 2018, 4:38pm||And was meant to add to my previous post, or should the former be stricken from the records, based on |
"It is understood that some people may wish to attempt the Round route in the style of other "Rounds" by use of pacers, navigators, GPS, etc. There is no objection to that but such attempts should not be notified to IMRA nor should those doing such seek to be recognised or recorded as successful Round attempts."
|Richard Nunan||May 30 2018, 4:54pm||Hi Jeff, |
At this point i am working to have all attempts listed on the page - there will be no impact on historical previous attempts.
There was only "the spirit" existing,
There was also different answers provided to people on "The spirit" depending who may have been on the committee at the time.
Therefore it was deemed that there is nothing measurable to have an implication.
Which is why we need to rules to make it clear for everyone going forward
|Jeff Swords||May 30 2018, 6:15pm||Cheers Richard.|
|Brian Kitson||May 30 2018, 9:56pm||Richard,|
Well done for your work to provide clarity on the rules. In general, I think these clarifications are great.
Now that the rules are being clarified perhaps now is also a good time to offer those who have already attempted / completed the Round the opportunity to state, if they so wish, what form of navigation they used (GPS aided or just map and compass). The use of GPS provides a significant advantage and it doesn't seem right to list gps aided and non-GPS aided attempts side by side without offering those who involved the opportunity to clarify their approach.
Hope this helps,
|Richard Nunan||May 30 2018, 10:04pm||Gordon - yes only Splits will be included on the website. The broken link will be removed|
|Paul O'Callaghan||May 31 2018, 9:34am||Just a thought.... Any consideration of allowing clockwise attempts?|
|Jason Dowling||May 31 2018, 9:43am||Or even having the start/finish in Glenmalure so that you can have a pint after your attempt (If you make it back in time) but also gives people the option of accommodation at the start/end of the event.|
|Warren Swords||May 31 2018, 11:39am||So who has the record for the Wicklow Round.|
Joe is listed now as having the FKT on Wicklow Round.
For clarity, under what rules did he compete it?
Did he receive any help or phone calls advising him of his route during the attempt based on his tracker?
That would be clearly against the spirit no matter how you square it and the record should revert to Eoin Keith.
|Paul O'Callaghan||May 31 2018, 12:01pm||Is there an obligation to visit the specific landmarks/features which are commonly regarded as representing each individual summit (fence, cairn, rock), or is passing the grid reference enough? If not using features then a GPS would be needed to know your exact location on some not so obvious summits.|
|John J Barry||May 31 2018, 12:25pm||Can a person have company on part of the round as company (e.g. night section for a daytime start) that is NOT a pacer / navigator?|
|Richard Nunan||May 31 2018, 6:33pm||@ John J, no company on the attempt apart from support crew at support points.|
|Richard Nunan||May 31 2018, 6:40pm||@ Paul o C - the obligation is to summit - not to hit a feature. |
@ Warren - the Wicklow Way rules only come into affect today and for all future attempts.
Joe completed his attempt ahead of rules existing for the Wicklow round.
IMRA'S role is to record the attempts of the challenge.
|Conor O'Farrell||May 31 2018, 6:45pm||@Richard, does a dog count as company? Asking for a friend. ;-)|
|Richard Nunan||May 31 2018, 6:58pm||@ Gary - we will be tweaking the rules in terms of your clarification. |
"It is against the Rules of the event to have fuel or liquid stashed along the Round route or to access similar left in position or offered by others encountered along the route"
And not to include dog food Conor :-)
|Gary Warnock||May 31 2018, 7:56pm||As a non local, how would I know I'm at 'Oakwood' or 'Carrawaystick' to record my split time? From what I can see these are both just points along a ridge, not summits, is there any feature?|
Previously I'd been planning on relying on my GPS position. Oakwood isn't even on my map
Also just want to confirm that prior notice and split times is all that's needed? I can leave the GPS tracker at home and save 168g? :-)
|Paul O'Callaghan||May 31 2018, 9:07pm||Thanks Richard, but I'd agree with Gary. I'd also include Knocknagun with Oakwood and Carrawaystick. None of these actual summits are along the obvious trails close by, and none have a definite feature. In darkness, poor visibility or as a non local with limited recce's, it's impossible to know you're at these summits with a map and compass alone, as they will not give you the actual grid reference you are at. For future clarity it might make sense for a recognisable feature at the correct grid ref to be designated the appropriate summit. Then regardless of GPS or map/compass, a runner would be sure of having summited.|
|Liam Vines||May 31 2018, 9:14pm||Who hasn’t had a bit of company on there Round attempt.. what was wrong with always having to be in front on anybody that did want to run a few K with you?|
Not sure how booking out the whole Wicklow Mountains for yourself to have a go at the round is going to go down with all the other mountain users...
Any Round attempt always creates a buzz I do understand and agree that some things had to be tightened up but it’s now a bit like the list of rules you would get when starting school..
Be careful not to take all of the fun away..
|John J Barry||May 31 2018, 9:44pm||I agree with Liam, company should be allowed if for no other reason but health and safety. The commitee are making this challenge impossible for every body but the super fit / strong athletes.|
|Richard Nunan||May 31 2018, 10:07pm||Attempts for the Wicklow round can be Solo or Groups so that people can do it in Company if desired.|
|Noel Donohoe||May 31 2018, 10:13pm||But it is for the super fit John. And hats off to them. |
Let's be careful not to add a rule that disses previous rounds unless totally required.
|John J Barry||May 31 2018, 10:25pm||It's very unfair to change the rules after the season has started. These rules should have been announced at the AGM. I had people asked and brother flying in to keep me company in my attempt this month.|
|Gordon Place||May 31 2018, 10:28pm||Still be interesting to hear the answer to Warren's question|
|Jason Dowling||May 31 2018, 11:13pm||Given the new rules that are now being imposed on the round, how does this then affect the current fastest known time (FKT)? Is the current FKT now going to be consigned to the 'old' round and start with a clean slate for the 'new' round? Could you please clarify this please?|
I very much agree with some of the points raised earlier by Gary and Paul. Table mountain (T020 973) is very nondescript and is on top of a stump despite there being a cairn relatively close by. Carrawaystick is neither a peak or on a plateau. You actually have to descend a good 15 to 20 metres off the ridge to hit this point (T065 904). Also, with Carrawaystick, I know for definite that a number of people used the grid reference (T061 904) which at the fence nearly 400 metres before Carrawaystick. This opens up a number of routes at this point which will be closed off if the current Carrawaystick location is strictly enforced. This then begs the question, how far do you have to be away from the grid reference for it to be considered that you didn't pass over it (and hence your attempt is over)?
Given that the rules are being drafted up in the back-ground, if a motion is raised at this year's AGM to have the rules amended, will the members get to have an open vote of what they think the rules should be?
|Richard Nunan||Jun 1 2018, 10:18am||Hi Jason, what we have done is clarified the rules of the round as requested at the AGM - there is no appetite to go back and Micro analyse everyone's attempt (Adrian and Liams still need to be posted) at this time by the sub committee or the Executive Committee. So there isn't a new round, but some rules that have been introduced.|
For Oakwood and Carrawaystick and featureless peaks we will need to revisit in terms of features or see if we can add a small number of rocks or something. We are looking at this. So thanks to all on the feedback so far.
A motion can be raised at the AGM just like one was raised to clarify the Rules of the round. Which was the task taken on by the current committee. Our focus has been to clarify the rules and move forward.
As previously stated IMRA has no role in FKT - Warren has provided the link to where the FKT's are managed.
@ Warren, Gordon, Jason
Eoin Keith(the previous record holder) can answer better questions on Joe's attempt if required as he was there for all of it.
|John J Barry||Jun 1 2018, 12:47pm||Regarding the above comment: |
The 'round' should NOT be for the "super fit".
My mountain running career is very average and my ability is well below all the people that have previously attempted the round.
But I still went out and put the work in. I've been all over the route over the last eight months in preparation for my attempt this month.
Now IMRA in their wisdom have decided to move the goal posts after the round has been in place for a number of years.
Regarding the "no company" rule...
Who decided this?
What's the logic?
Were visitors from overseas considered?
Were Mountain Rescue contacted regarding the health and safety aspects?
Were there any ladies on the sub committee? If not, were any ladies asked for their opinion.
Lastly, why wasn't there a lead in time announced for these changes.
I know I could go out as a group member. But that was not an option since I knew of nobody of my modest ability attempting the round. My best option was a supported run like many previous attempts this year and previously.
|Val Jones||Jun 1 2018, 1:24pm||Best of luck, J.J., hope you complete it.|
I had notions of doing the round when it was first announced, but it's probably beyond me now.
I don't see what the issue with a GPS is, this is a running/endurance test. If a real navigation test is wanted do orienteering or the rogaine. Does any yacht race insist sextants must be used?
|Eoin Keith||Jun 1 2018, 1:45pm||On the whole FKT thing... read what Richard is saying. IMRA doesn't validate who has an FKT. It simply recognises individual round attempts. As to who has it... Joe has it quite clearly. I don't. End of story. Joe was careful to make sure that he completed his round fully within the rules, which he did.|
The original spirit of the round was to be unsupported. John, your case perfectly illustrates why it is a good thing to explicity lay out some rules to spell this out. Planning to have a supported round goes against the intended spirit of the round's creators.
Not requiring an army of supporters would make things better not worse for overseas visitors I would have thought.
Health and saftey is, and always has been, the responsibilty of the individual undertaking the round. In fact now that IMRA provides trackers for round attempts a huge saftey improvement has been added as a very benificial side effect.
|Warren Swords||Jun 1 2018, 2:03pm||"Fully within the rules" is a bit vague. |
There's fairly basis questions about the current record for anyone who wishes to try and best it.
Was GPS used to set the current FKT?
Did he receive any navigational assistance during the round?
It's all bit vague.
An FKT has been set for the Wicklow Round and we've absolutely no idea how it was set.
|Richard Nunan||Jun 1 2018, 2:19pm||From an IMRA perspective - |
Just for for anyone who wishes to try and best it - To beat the current record, you would need to attempt the Wicklow Way round in accordance with the new rules.
Its the only way the attempt would be recognised. We have set out the rules so that their wouldn't be any further vagueness.
|Mick Hanney||Jun 1 2018, 2:43pm||gpx link to recent Round.|
|Warren Swords||Jun 1 2018, 3:11pm||There's more questions than answers about the current record.|
Did he use GPS or not?
Did he receive any outside navigational support?
These are fairly basic questions and there's been zero information about it.
People are being asked to beat a current record that we have no idea how was set.
What happened when he came off Tonduff too early? How did he realise his mistake five minutes later?
|Paul O'Callaghan||Jun 1 2018, 9:35pm||The structure of mountain running in Ireland is unlike in other jurisdictions, whereby we have no club structure and IMRA not only acts as the governing body, but is effectively everyone’s club too. Due to this, and the relatively small area that most of IMRA’s activities take place within, IMRA can genuinely be regarded as a community, and part of the benefits of this is that there is a strong consensus ethos within the organisation. Fair play, camaraderie and honesty are part of this ethos, and I believe that if members are aware of clearly defined structures and rules, they will abide by them, not just on the grounds of official punishment but also because of the disapproval of their running peers.|
On GPS/Navigation Assistance
The Wicklow Round is unlike other Rounds in that navigation is a huge factor in an attempt, in my opinion a decent mountain runner can complete the round if they have good navigation and route choice. However, a great runner will not be successful if they have poor navigation and route choice. This makes the Wicklow Round a much purer test of mountain skills, and something that should be vigorously maintained. There are some areas that have unlimited route options and part of the challenge is choosing a route and executing it on the day. By insisting on no GPS/outside navigation support, IMRA is encouraging recceing, promoting better familiarity with the hills and routes. The knock on effect of this is that the attempt becomes a longer commitment, and the recces become an integral part of the overall undertaking, adding to and superseding the actual 1 day in the hills as an experience, and reducing the likelihood of the Round becoming a mere tick on peoples bucket list. (In the UK you can pay someone to take you round the BG!)
I’m opposed to pacing runners.
The role of pacing runners is not just to pull or push you to a certain pace. They also provide mental support at low points, they motivate you at hard sections. In effect a soloist becomes a team.
As soon as someone with fresher legs than you is running alongside you, they are effectively pacing you.
As soon as someone on the trail asks you if you need a drink or food, they are providing support, as a tired mind forgetting either will lead to a crash.
As soon as a person running with you moves in front of you, they are effectively navigating for you.
I lost concentration between Lugnaquilla and Corrigasleggaun, and missed a split in the trail. If anyone had been keeping me company, I guarantee this would not have happened. Would a friend, club mate or team mate let you make such a simple mistake, knowing how much you’d put into your preparation? Most definitely not.
From my recollection of reading reports almost every successful Rounder has had company at some point (I’m open to correction, but I think there might even be a photo of Eoin on a summit with one groups attempt). Liam Vines unexpectedly met and ran with me during mine.
So, in recognising the community spirit which usually surrounds any attempt, maybe allow runners to have company for up to a maximum of 10%, and never for an entire section.
On Summiting Correctly
Every mountain has only one summit. Although this is within a grid reference, it doesn’t mean that once you pass within that grid you have summited. I think a few words to describe the summit should be included with each reference, then if you haven’t visited the feature, you haven’t summited. No GPS required.
On Trail Support
I don’t think assistance outside of crew stops/road crossings should be allowed. Again, if someone is carrying anything for you, then you become a team.
However, again in the spirit of IMRA, I left a mars bar for Liam Vines during his winter Round. This would now be illegal, so again, maybe apart from strict rules, some “spirit” needs to be maintained.
Personally, I’m caught between wishing to see more and more people attempt the Wicklow Round, and steadfastly hoping it maintains its uniqueness in comparison to other rounds. Could a compromise be to allow a small spectrum of options to encourage a wider variety of preferences. Alongside their time, note whether they were solo/group, supported/unsupported, crewed/self sufficient, summer/winter, paced/unpaced.
There will always be ways to circumvent rules on navigation aids, support etc regardless of how strict they may be. The mountains are big and remote and there is no way to police people at all times, however if a rule is in place and vigorously repeated then there is the best chance that runners will embrace it. A mix of rules and spirit is required, neither on their own will work.
Also, in the spirit of IMRA as a community, maybe a transition period from the old system to the new would be fairer, to take account of situations like Johns.
|Paul O'Callaghan||Jun 1 2018, 9:39pm||I agree with Warren, the simplest way to move on is for simple answers to simple questions.|
Having looked at the track link above, I'd add the question of whether Knocknagun was missed by Joe, as his track doesnt show him passing anywhere near the summit?
|Liam Vines||Jun 1 2018, 11:04pm||I didn’t eat till I was finished Paul :-)|
The most amazing gesture ever..
But as PAUL says it’s now agenst the rules.
Well thought out and written piece Paul the “spirit “ is strong in you
|Richard Nunan||Jun 2 2018, 1:30pm||On GPS/Navigation Assistance - that is it summed up nicely for me Paul. Thanks. (I was planning a weekend off :-)) |
But we have potentially an international attempt Monday.
One of the reasosns to formalise the rules was that anyone planning an attempt should have clear guidelines going forward so that nobodys attempt can be questioned going forward. if you are going to make the long trip to Ireland this is the least we should offer.
It was a long process to get to here. But the rules are so that measuring, policing and any ambiguity in term of what happens during a Solo or Group attempt should be gone while at the same time bringing it back to what was originally planed.
The subcommittee - to come back to Johns point - Tanya was the female on the Sub-committe. The founders (Joe lalor and Brendan lalor) Paul Mahon, Eoin Keith, Richard Nunan. There was at least 4 other Rounders spoken to including Brian Bell (other Founder). It was then taken to the Committee for a final vote. That was the process which i resided over and like everyone else commenting i may be a little bit passionate about. The Rules while not accepted by everyone is our platform to provide clarity, ensure the round is preserved as it was designed to be.
Thanks for taking the time to put your post together.
To go back to John's query and the process -
|Stuart Scott||Jun 5 2018, 11:32am||I've been following this thread with great interest. The committee and sub-committee are to be commended for proposing the set of rules and I think they will be a major improvement.|
However, would a fairer solution not be to propose these rules for adoption at the next AGM?
Considering the amount of planning that obviously goes into these attempts, that we are now in peak 'Round season' and how much of an influence these changes will have, it would seem right to allow runners some notice and a lead-in period. As prior attempts will still be recognised and new attemptees could still comply with the new rules should they wish, this actually wouldn't have any knock-on effect in the long run.
|Stuart Scott||Jun 5 2018, 7:20pm||Also forgive me for turning into an old granny but I would strongly discourage any building of cairns on indistinct summits. While I can fully understand why, I don't think we as an organisation should be promoting what some might call vandalism. We could just go for a large metal IMRA sign and a bunch of yellow and red tape instead :-) Or maybe just 10-figure grid refs to points marked on a reputable map...|
|Liam Vines||Jun 7 2018, 6:07am||That would have been me who started that Stuart!! I have to admit that I hadn’t read the forum before last nights race where I heard about the fact that in some people’s thoughts this would be frowned upon. To be honest I wasn’t going to reply until I read the piece. “Vandalism” is a very strong word and one that in my 46 years has never been directed at me.|
If it is indeed felt that this is what I have done I will be revisiting the spot and removing all trace as I certainly did not do it with vandalism in mind..
|Richard Nunan||Jun 7 2018, 9:44am||From a personal perspective on Rockgate - I wouldn't like at this point to see Liam's Rock moved. It's certainly not Vandalism. I am thinking Stuart is asking not to go Cairn building - which is a fair point. |
I dont believe this was anyone's intention. There is a pic of it of FB. Its noticeable only if you were looking for it.. and even at that point its not that noticeable.
|Stuart Scott||Jun 7 2018, 10:29am||Hi Liam,|
My comment wasn't aimed at you directly and I certainly wouldn't call someone in their 46th year that :-) But I do feel the issue is something worth discussing.
As it stands, the only way to definitively know if an obscure point is reached is if a marker is placed there, or if one uses the sacriligous item whose name starts with 'G'. So I definitely see the need for something if the rules remain as they are. Cairn building would be strongly against the principles of Leave No Trace but even a single rock will be equally as hard to find in long grass and especially in mist.
Surely a better solution would be to either allow a 200m margin of error around obscure summits or else to move the checkpoints to a feature that's easily identifiable on a map? If someone has put the effort in to get around the Round, I wouldn't begrudge them a few metres! But more importantly, if we are emphasising the importance of the map and compass then we need to make sure the points can actually be found by someone using a map and compass alone - and not by having to rely on a prior recce using a GPS.
|Warren Swords||Jun 7 2018, 10:56am||Speaking of Record Gate. |
What is the current situation?
I've been contacted by lots of people who are concerned about the current record, the lack of scrutiny, and the integrity of the Wicklow Round.
Has there been any discussion at committee level about the valid concerns around the current record, how it was set, if there was outside assistance, and the complete lack of scrutiny of how it was set?
Is IMRA going to recognise the current record?
|Pat Barry||Jun 7 2018, 1:26pm||"complete lack of scrutiny"|
Odd term, I am based in the UK so the Bob Graham is the thing I am much more involved with. That whole thing is based on trust. A couple of blokes could meet up in the pub make up their splits and counter-sign each others sheets and they are in the club.
In Ireland it's even easier if it has to be done solo.
Is it compulsory to carry the tracker. OK, bit of work involved, then one of them does the first half hands the GPS over and the other does the second half. Hey presto two more members.
If somebody is so sad they want to kudos of having done something like this without doing it, let them live in their fantasy world.
|Eoin Keith||Jun 7 2018, 2:59pm||Warren, what in the name of god are you on about? |
What lack of scrutiny? Can you name any other round attempt that was more scrutinised, and how?
You do realise that it was totally open to you to scrutinise any round attempt. That's why the advanced forum notification is in place as a requirement. If you want to explain why you didn't go out and conduct such scrutiny then please explain it to yourself in clear detail so that you can understand why you didn't adequately scrutinise the round attempt.
Can you please explain what these "valid" (according to who?) concerns about the round attempt are. A little hint before you do so would be to check if these "valid" concerns would apply to most/all other round attempts to this point.
You also appear to be failing in some basic comprehension. As Richard has pointed out IMRA does not recognise records on the round. It recognises individual round attempts, not records for the round. To spell it out... no, IMRA is not going to recognise the record, since IMRA does not recognise ANY round records.
|Gordon Place||Jun 7 2018, 3:05pm||It seems every query has been responded to except simply whether it was a GPS assisted round, or not?|
|Eoin Keith||Jun 7 2018, 3:14pm||Gordon, whether it was GPS assisted or not would be irrelevant under the original rules (under which Joe's attempt took place), as the original rules did not rule out GPS assistance. Hence claification has been provided to make this explicit under the updated rules which are now in place (but were not in place for previous round attempts).|
|Warren Swords||Jun 7 2018, 3:23pm||Hi Eoin, see my questions from last week.|
Was GPS used to set the current FKT?
Did he receive any navigational assistance during the round?
|Gordon Place||Jun 7 2018, 3:51pm||Hi Eoin,|
I am not suggesting it is question of whether the round was valid or not, but I think it's a fair query and don't see why it can't be answered seeing as it doesn't affect the standing under the old rules. It would be relevant to anyone pitting themselves against the 'FKT'. Or will the first to complete have an 'FKT under 2018 rules'?
|Paul O'Callaghan||Jun 7 2018, 4:00pm||Two points worth noting. Firstly, the previous stipulations for a valid attempt included that navigation be done by the person doing the attempt. I think it's generally accepted that following a GPS signal and using this to correct a serious navigation error would not pass that criteria.|
Secondly, the assertion that IMRA have no role in the fkt is incorrect, as the conditions on the fkt site say that the completion must be IMRA ratified in order to be included.
Again a simple yes or no to simple questions would clear this all up. If IMRA won't answer, maybe Joe would?
|Jeff Swords||Jun 7 2018, 4:01pm||Unfortunately the answer does have a bearing on how the attempt is viewed under the light of the original rules/spirt, which were written as |
"It is against the spirit of the event to have a pacing runner or navigational support".
|John J Barry||Jun 7 2018, 4:07pm||That's what really annoys me..|
Joe does the 'round' in whatever way he did. Then wallop everybody else following him. The two lads yesterday were a prime example.
Since they were visitors they were unfamiliar with the mountains. As a result they suffered unfortunate errors especially coming off Carrawaystick.
From my own recces I know the round is very difficult without recces.
If IMRA want to continue this policy the slate should be wiped and started again.
|Robert Costello||Jun 7 2018, 5:00pm||As a committee member I have raised concerns in relation to the rule clarifications, the manner in which the rule clarifications have been communicated and the timing of the communications.|
There have been a lot of valid points made on this forum and clearly there are a lot of stakeholders amongst the IMRA membership, ones posting here but also ones communicating through other channels.
The main point I think that needs to be resolved though is the involvement of IMRA in the Wicklow Round now and going forward. As Richard pointed out, our current role is to record attempts of the challenge. As that role is limited, we, as an organisation and your committee, have limited influence on the setting of the rules. If this is the case now and into the future then should IMRA continue in this role or should it have a wider or lesser role? If it's wider then should we be able to consult our membership and set the rules going forward based on that consultation, addressing any issues or clarifications with previous attempts? If it is a lesser role then should the committee and the membership have any say in the Round and it's attempts at all?
Personally, I don't believe in this half in half out approach that currently exists and I find it hard as a member of the committee to stand over something that may or may not be representative of the views of the membership.
|Eoin Keith||Jun 7 2018, 5:10pm||Warren,|
The GPS question could hardly be considered a "valid" question, since use of a GPS was not ruled out by the previous rules. Hence the need for clarification in the updated rules.
For navigational assistance... He did his own navigation. He made a nav mistake at one point which resulted him missing a mandatory point. This was pointed out to him afterwards and as a result he had to backtrack and correct (doing his own navigation). At all times he was doing his own navigation.
Do you not think those two questions are kind of mutually incompatible in a nieve way? If someone was using a GPS for navigation why would they need navigational assistance? It's not a question pairing which a knowlegable navigator would ask.
Have you asked these questions of all the other round attempts? If you're mentally going to rule out one attempt then surely you need to back through all potential candidates until you find the one true pure round that satifies whatever ruleset you're making up in your own head (if they're on the list on the IMRA website then they're already recognised by IMRA, just like Joe's attempt already is).
|Pat Barry||Jun 7 2018, 5:12pm||It's amazing people are getting so tangled up in this. Here is a prediction, in the future people who have used GPS will submit their splits to IMRA, and not mention it.|
The MOST important part of a rule is that it must be enforceable.
As far as GPS being used in a fast round, some people have too much faith in GPS devices. They are great for telling you where you are but nowhere near as good for telling you where to go next. You would spend so much time traveling in circles, trying to work out the direction on the GPS. You just cannot afford to spend 30 seconds at every decision point doing this.
Unless you are a very quick runner, without intimate route knowledge you ain't going to set a sub 24 hour time, never mind a record time.
|Warren Swords||Jun 7 2018, 5:28pm||Cheers Eoin. |
I can't see how you can say he did his own navigation when people pointed out his nav mistake DURING the attempt.
To paraphrase yourself, if someone was was doing their own navigation why would they need navigational assistance?
Just felt that the type of help is not in the spirit of the old round or the new round.
Personally, I think all questions are valid if you're going to claim a record.
|Eoin Keith||Jun 7 2018, 5:33pm||Lads,|
Ye're looking for an idealistic form of purity that doen't exist in the real world. Trail running is a dynamic sport. Conditions change, rules change, routes change all the time. For example the UTMB course has changed multiple times over the years. Yet as far as FKTs on the UTMB are concerned everyone just deals with the time's run on the race day on the race day route and conditions. Not messing about with "FKT on the 2012 with bad weather". Just UTMB record.
Similarly for the Wicklow Way... its how the wicklow way was marked on the day. No worrying bout how the route has changed since the orginal record in 19xx, no worrying about whether any diversions are shorter or longer. Just as it is on the day.
Race rules get updated.. mandatory kit gets added or removed etc. Most people can cope with the reality that these things happen, and recognise that you can only compete under the rules/course as it exists on the day. People generally don't discount previous FKTs/records because of these changes. The IMRA records slate was not wiped clean just because now everyone has the burden of carrying a jacket on every race.
You can all drive yourelf mad worrying about details which differ on each individual round attempt. All that matters is whether the round was completed under the rules as existed at the time and recognised as such. I know of plenty of things that could be raised as potential "issues" with lots of round attempts if you wanted to start looking for flaws. But they were all completed under the rules as they existed at the time (or in one round case all the rules excepting those that a derrogation from one aspect of the rules was sought and recieved). They have all been recognised as such.
Now if you guys want to go and make up your own rules about what you personally recognise as an FKT, thats fine. It's irrelevant to IMRA as IMRA doesn't recognise FKTs at all. So knock yourselves out.
IMRA does not tell the FKT site how to operate. It's their decision to piggyback on IMRA recognised attempts (and it is a good one in my opinion). If you have an issue with that then take it up with the FKT site.
|Jeff Swords||Jun 7 2018, 5:52pm||The relevant issue to IMRA though is if it adheres to the rules at the time it was attempted, and therefore its recognition as a successful attempt or not.|
Part of the reason this particular attempt comes under scrutiny is that the live tracker is now available and people can view the run as it progressed, and the wrong track and correction was noticed at the time, plus the fact it was highlighted as a record attempt so it's only natural people's interest was piqued.
Take for example the recent round by the two lads. That had people live posting as the guys were on the course and their attempt was being followed real time.
|Eoin Keith||Jun 7 2018, 6:06pm||Indeed Jeff. It sounds to me like you're agreeing with me, unless I'm misreading.|
So Joe's attempt has been recognised by IMRA as successful under the rules. What more is needed?
Going forward all attemps are likely to have trackers. That's a big bonus from all sorts of points of view, including validation. That doesn't make past attempts without trackers any less valid though, does it? Things change. Rules change. Most people can cope with that and accept it. I certainly do (I try to embrace previous records rather than try to knock them).
|Jeff Swords||Jun 7 2018, 6:19pm||I'd never knock any attempt, it's a tough challenge and anyone even starting it has to be commended. Joe's record, had the rules not changed from this point on, would be out of the reach of the majority of mortals, nevermind the fact that the conditions are now going to be tougher.|
And of course there's a but coming, I do see the argument that the shout that he missed a point as falling under navigational support under the conditions in which his run was ran.
|Warren Swords||Jun 7 2018, 7:53pm||Even under the most generous reading of the spirit of the round, Joe didn't complete it. |
It's a farce if IMRA recognises it. He went wrong. Somehow, his support team realised his error and told him.
He actually had people tell him that he missed a CP.
Do the right thing folks.
|Paul O'Callaghan||Jun 7 2018, 10:21pm||The condition was that navigation be done by someone doing the attempt. Navigating is finding your way from one point to another. If you have made an error, are running away from your target, get a phone call telling you this, so that you change your course by 180 degrees, how can that not be seen as help in navigating by someone not doing the attempt?|
|Eoin Keith||Jun 8 2018, 2:44pm||I delayed responding here to see would time moderate my views a bit. Not really.|
I have to say I'm finding the fact free attitudes here to be frankly disgusting. About as far from the standard of ethics one normally associates with the ultra community as its possible to get.
As has been pointed out before it is open to anyone to validate a Wicklow round attempt by going out and observing for yourelf. This is why it is required to post on the forum in advance of an attempt.
Paul and Warren, neither of you bothered your arses going out to validate Joe's attempt. You have no first hand facts to hand, but here you are on a public forum calling for his round to be invalidated. I find this a nasty combination of bar-stool lazy commentary and disgusting behaviour.
I saw Joe's attempt. I was a first hand witness. I know what he did. I know the facts. I know that you two don't, and that your posting here has removed all doubt about that. The farce here ye're public display of ignorance.
"Do the right thing".... the right thing here would be to ignore you two with your lazy attitudes, poor understanding of facts and even worse understanding of ethics, but I just find it too disgusting to ignore.
What is your goal here lads? What are you trying to achieve? I genuinely idea have no idea why someone who is too uncaring or lazy to do the verification on the day is now motivated to make these disgusting calls in public despite not having a clue of the facts.
Are you going to conduct a similar level of analysis on all other Wicklow round attempts from the past, and if not why not?
|Warren Swords||Jun 8 2018, 3:40pm||Stand over what I posted.|
Disappointed to see the personal insults.
I'll leave it at that Eoin.
|Paul O'Callaghan||Jun 8 2018, 4:02pm||I asked a couple of simple questions. When you eventually gave an answer I both gave my short personal opinion based on the navigation issue.|
As for being too lazy, you don't know anything about me and those comments have no place on this forum. Are these your personal opinions? Are they the opinions of the IMRA committee? Or are they your opinion as an ambassador for columbia? To support Joe on the day, I planned my days run to coincide with my estimated time he would arrive at tonelagee summit. I missed him by ten minutes and shouted "good luck stringbean" as he crossed the saddle above Lough oiler.
|Eoin Keith||Jun 8 2018, 4:36pm||Those are my opinions, based on your call to have Joe's round disqualified. Tell me this Paul, who made the phone call that your basing your call to have Joe's round disqualified for? I presume your call to have someone's round dismissed is at least based on a firm knowledge of the facts.|
|Richard Nunan||Jun 8 2018, 4:42pm||Hi Folks, the opinions are that of Eoins and not of the Committee. |
IMRA committee have been kind of called out to give our status on the forum post .
Wicklow Way Round Rules
Please note from today the 31/05/2018 as per the request at the 2017 IMRA AGM we have put in place a set of Rules to governing all future the Wicklow Round attempts.
The purpose of these rules are to provide clarification and definition of what a Wicklow Round attempt is.
IMRA’s further role in this shall remain as it is now, and that is to record attempts. IMRA will only record attempts that have been carried out in accordance to these rules. All previous attempts that have been recorded will be deemed as Wicklow Round attempts as they are today listed on the IMRA website.
The juncture we have come to is that you are asking some questions in terms of Joe's attempt, that while it is not our role - we will clarify these for you.
Hopefully we can move on from there. Have a nice weekend and we will revert back on Wednesday at the latest.
|Paul O'Callaghan||Jun 8 2018, 7:38pm||Apologies if I’m wrong about the phone call, but when asked direct questions no direct answers were given, so I assumed when Eoin said Joe was told of his navigation error, that it was by phone.|
Looking back over this thread, apart from my genuine and positive comments about the Wicklow Round, here is the extent of my comments relating to Joes attempt.
*I agree with Warren, the simplest way to move on is for simple answers to simple questions. Having looked at the track link above, I’d add the question of whether Knocknagun was missed by Joe, as his track doesn’t show him passing anywhere near the summit?
*Two points worth noting. Firstly, the previous stipulations for a valid attempt included that navigation be done by the person doing the attempt. I think it's generally accepted that following a GPS signal and using this to correct a serious navigation error would not pass that criteria.
Secondly, the assertion that IMRA have no role in the fkt is incorrect, as the conditions on the fkt site say that the completion must be IMRA ratified in order to be included.
Again a simple yes or no to simple questions would clear this all up. If IMRA won't answer, maybe Joe would?
*The condition was that navigation be done by someone doing the attempt. Navigating is finding your way from one point to another. If you have made an error, are running away from your target, get a phone call telling you this, so that you change your course by 180 degrees, how can that not be seen as help in navigating by someone not doing the attempt?
For those three posts I have been labeled as “disgusting”, “lacking ethics”, “nasty”, “bar stool lazy”, “disgusting”, “ignorant”, “lazy”, of “poor understanding of facts”, of “poor understanding of ethics”, “disgusting”, “uncaring”, “lazy”, “disgusting”.
Questions asked of the committee regarding the attempt were directed to Eoin to be answered. Given that Eoin helped co-ordinate the attempt of a runner sponsored by the same company that sponsors himself, that Eoin helped organize this attempt whilst at the same time helping write new rules for attempts without ordinary members knowing, given that it appears Eoin has some say in the validation of attempts, it’s easy be confused which hat he is wearing at times.
Given that ordinary members who may have spent months planning attempts were not privy to the fore knowledge of impending rule changes (and thus allowed the option of running before the changes) unlike Joes team, and that the rules were changed almost immediately after the attempt, without even telling the members, I’m of course wrong for thinking there was a direct conflict for Eoin in his different roles.
I know nothing of commercial sponsorship deals, but would assume that they are linked to performance, profile and awards achieved. Given the investment of Eoin’s commercial partners in Joes attempt, and the investment of Eoin’s reputation with same, along with the tone of responses, evasion of basic questions and tirade of personal insults, it wouldn’t take much to persuade me that there was a conflict of interests.
Since I first became aware of Eoin as an athlete I’d held him in huge esteem, as the most outstanding ultra runner, endurance athlete and mountain man of our generation. I have been a huge fan, following his achievements wherever he went, reading his reports in the hope that I might pick up a snippet to help me in my running (trying cream cheese on brioche during my Round and puking my ring up for hours!). I know he ate fish and chips before the Mourne ultra. I’ve travelled to Belfast and sat through the night watching him set unbelievable mileage. I’ve passed him a number of times out on runs or walks and always given him a big hello (Hazel even knows it’s him by his run, from a distance). When he was doing the Spine Hazel would keep track while I was in work and give me updates.
He is still the most outstanding ultra runner, endurance athlete and mountain man of our generation, but my esteem for him is gone.
I love the Wicklow Round, it has changed how I relate to running and life in general. It needed to be re-introduced to the mountain running community in a way which would encourage them to go out and try it. My questions were simple and asked out of genuine concern for its integrity at the same time as it’s re-launch. The new rules are in place and everyone making an attempt should follow them.
|John J Barry||Jun 8 2018, 9:13pm||"please note from today the 31/05/2018 as per the request at the 2017 IMRA AGM we have put in place a set of Rules to governing all future the Wicklow Round attempts" |
I asked this before but I got no answer. So I try again. Way were the new rules implemented after Joe's attempt? For fairness the rules should have been across the whole season.
Also the rules are so dramatic, I think wider consultation across IMRA should have been made.
|Luke Rafferty||Jun 8 2018, 11:26pm||Hey All – I hope you are well?|
Luke Rafferty here, I am not a hugely active IMRA member. I do maybe 1 IMRA challenge a year but I do volunteer for 1 IMRA challenge a year. In 2016 I sat out as support crew for the 23 hours it took to complete the 1st ever Winter Round. In 2017 I attempted The Wicklow Round myself twice and failed both times L
Each time I used the live tracker that was publicly published here on the forum and on the Facebook page.
I failed the 1st attempt because I made a simple navigation error. I spent a lot of time in those mountains training for this day. It was the day I had full ability to finish it, I felt it in my bones.
In dense cloud I managed to come off Lug the wrong way. I basically could not see where I was going, slightly worried about my well being I followed the trail as best I could but went left instead of right. As one IMRA member later described “a simple error, easily made”
My support crew was top of the range J but, no “pointed out” to me that I had gone in the wrong direction, no made contact with me using any form of technology to let me know I had gone wrong so I could “backtrack” . The reason this did not happen was it was simply against the Spirit and honour associated with finding your own way on The Wicklow Round under 24hrs.
I think it’s a terrible shame that Joes attempt has a cloud over it and that the new rules seem to have been fast tracked through to publication leaving a bad taste in a lot of mouths.
Given that there has been a considerable back lash in relation to the new rules, can the current committee members and sub committee members arrange for a better consultation on all matters relating to The Wicklow Round?
Should the sub committee be broader to include other members who have completed The Round?
For me I think the original Spirit & Honour system needs to be protected. Everyone on this forum thread has shown true passion for this. Blurring of the lines has never been the style of the IMRA community.
|Jonathan McCloy||Jun 9 2018, 12:29am||This is hilarious. What have you done to the rules?! To be fair to new completions, you're going to have to put notes beside old completions to say how they were completed (paced, GPS, stashes...).|
There is a Wikipedia page for the round, I would suggest anyone completing the round outside of these rules post it up there and link their GPS trace there.
|Tanya Sheridan||Jun 13 2018, 9:32pm||Hi everyone,|
As promised, after our Committee meeting last night, we wanted to come back to you on the questions raised about the recent clarifications of the Round rules and also the decision to record as valid the attempts that are currently listed on the Round page.
To start with the questions raised about process. Richard has already dealt with many of these, but just to say again that the Committee had a mandate from the members to clarify the Round rules since the AGM 2017. The Round was discussed in detail at that AGM and the Committee and the Sub-Committee had regard to all of those views. On behalf of the Sub-Committee, Richard also consulted more widely with others who have done the Round – there’s more detail on that in Richard’s post from 2 June.
In terms of the Committee’s approach: our purpose has been since the start to try to preserve the legacy of the Round as a navigational challenge, while giving maximum clarity to people preparing for it. We discussed this again last night and remain of the view that the rule clarifications achieve this.
On timing: this issue has been on the Committee agenda since the AGM. I tried to accelerate the setting up of the Sub-Committee very shortly after I took on the president role. There was a delay of a couple of weeks due to the fact that people whose input we really needed were out of the country. Other than that, we acted as fast as we could, knowing that there would be Round attempts coming up soon and wanting to give people as much notice as possible of the necessary clarifications.
A last word on the Rules before going on to completions: of course we would have preferred to have been able to find a solution to the impasse we were in that everyone agreed with. But at least what we can take from the debate is that people really care about this challenge and are working towards trying it, which is very heartening for the future of the Round. I hope the work that the Committee and Sub-Committee has done puts a better framework on the Round than the old spirit language. But we know that is not the end of the conversation and it is welcomed that members plan to have the Round on the AGM agenda again this year. Part of the Committee’s work on this topic was also to clarify the Committee role (set out below) so members will have more clarity on what the process is for raising questions about the Round, revising the Rules and querying future attempts. So, all ongoing discussion is welcome, particularly at the AGM, which I think will be the most constructive forum for this at this point. The one thing I would ask everyone to accept is that each person on the Committee and the Sub-Committee acted in good faith towards trying to do the best to preserve the Round.
On to completions: The Committee does not record “records” for the Round so it was not open to us to bring special scrutiny to any one attempt. Either we investigate all or we investigate none. The Sub-Committee started the work of scoping how you would investigate all of the attempts and it generated a very long list of questions with no certainty about getting answers so far removed from the attempt. We discussed at length all the different route attempts, the vagueness of the old spirit language and the different information given by people on various committees over the years in relation to what was allowed on Round attempts. Based on all of that, we came to the view that it is better to draw a line in the sand, and continue to recognise the list of completions currently on the Round page.
That said, we did want to address members’ questions about Joe McConaughy’s attempt and we therefore requested further details about it. We are satisfied at this time that Joe did not have a phone on the day and therefore did not receive a phone call. He did come down off Tonduff, we believe, on the south peak. On the descent he had a conversation with a member of his team who, we understand ran up towards him, where he agreed that he needed to self check. He self-checked and wasn’t happy with it and he navigated himself back to Tonduff north peak. This was similar to various different attempts over the years where Tonduff has been contentious.
The role of IMRA in relation to the Round is as follows as and from the effective date of the Round rule clarifications:
1. To continue to provide a location to announce Round attempts and post outcomes.
2. To continue to maintain a page to detail the route for the Round.
3. To continue to maintain a page to detail the rules of the Round. To include in this a procedure should members wish to query the validity of a future Round attempt.
4. To convene a sub-committee where deemed necessary to perform some or all of the following functions:
A. Review the rules and route;
B. Review attempts where a challenge is made through the correct channels;
C: Such other functions as may become necessary in relation to the Round
5. To supply trackers for Round attempts, at no cost where funding allows or at a cost to person attempting the Round where required.
|Joe Lalor||Jun 13 2018, 11:36pm||The committee needs to be congratulated and thanked for the time and effort expended on this controversial issue. The more variety of views on an issue the greater the compromises needed to resolve it. The above proposals will not suit everyone in fact it would be impossible to do so but this is why we have an elected committee. We troop along to the AGM each year and voted in a committee to do the hard work for us. It is a difficult job and decisions taken don’t suit every one. Some like your favourite race being scrapped are easy to get over and can be reversed in the coming years. Decisions on the Round are likely to be more long lasting but an elected committee would seem to be the fairest way to go. |
Much of the problems rising from the Round have resulted from the looseness of the language used in the original setting up of the venture. Having been responsible my only excuse is that they were different times and language was’nt scrutinised as much as it is now. Another issues was that electronic aids and communication are at a completely different level then and will only increase rapidly in the future.
|Brian Kitson||Jun 14 2018, 6:27am||Warren and Paul should also be thanked for pushing for transparency despite being met with evasion and insults.|
That took guts, and its appreciated.
|Brendan Lawlor||Jun 14 2018, 7:31am||I agree with Joe Lalor in thanking the IMRA committee for trying to sort this out. As anyone reading through this thread can see the Wicklow Round generates great passion, debate and no little controversy. As Joe has acknowledged some of the language around the original ' rules' of the round was loose and this has caused issues down the years. |
Technology may force IMRA to revisit this issue again as GPS and tracking technology isn't going away. The same issues and debates are happening over in the UK on the Bob Graham and other rounds. But thats for another day.
I was on the sub committee who looked into this and I want to thank all the members of that sub committee for their time and efforts in examining the round rules. There was considerable debate amongst us all and as Joe said we tried to reach the best consensus for both the legacy issues and the Round into the future
Onwards and upwards now and lets all be pals again and wish the Barry brothers the very best of luck at the weekend !
|Pat Barry||Jun 14 2018, 9:15am||Brendan,|
To be clear the GPS discussion/argument is not to do with the three rounds,but a ban in races organised by a number of Fell running clubs in the lakes. The bob graham commity have no issue with GPS, because it is unenforcable and in a way it is good as people do not have to do as much "reccing", and therefore reduces footfall on the course
The sprit of the the three UK rounds could not be more different to the Wicklow Round. Helping each other out and creating a community of "Bob Grahamers" is part of it. I have ran every leg of the Bob both in training and supporting other peoples attempts. Then on my turn favours were returned. Just the knee injury that force retirement having done 39/42 summits, stopped it being a fanstastic day with many close friends.
Personally I think the "no support" is an appalling rule.
|Stuart Scott||Jun 14 2018, 10:34am||Hi all,|
Thanks Tanya for a well reasoned and thought out reply. It's clear that the committee and sub-committee have spent a massive amount of time on this and that's to be strongly commended. Well done on setting up the committee in the first place too, Tanya.
However, I still think the new rules should be put to the AGM for formal approval and only take effect on that date. As all previous attempts will still be recognised (and rightly so), what's the rush?! This gives the membership time to come to terms with the rules and is also fair on all competitors. If IMRA are going to retain 'ownership' of the Round, then it's important that the membership have a say in defining the rules. Like Joe says, the membership elect a committee to do the hard work for them (and voluntarily too!). But what happens if a new committee were to be elected next year that disagrees with the rules and changes them again? Surely it's better to take our time and do things right than rush into something that we later regret?
I must point out that I agree with nearly all the new rules, with one or two minor exceptions. But I just think this whole debate could have been avoided had the rules not been rushed in so quickly. Without coming to a reasoned consensus now, this whole issue will just start again next year!
|Paul Smyth||Jun 14 2018, 11:00am||I have to agree with Scott.|
If the intention was to overhaul the rules then either that fact could have been communicated in a forum post once the subcommittee had been formed, or the new rules could be announced with a reasonable date in the future when they would take effect. In the intervening interval, people would have the option to make their attempt under the old or new rules. After the effective start date only attempts under the new rules would be recognised.
I also think that attempts under the old and new rules should be clearly distinguished in the list of accepted completions.
BTW, where are the published minutes of the AGM? I can't seem to find them.
|Rachel Cinnsealach||Jun 14 2018, 10:35pm||The committee works tirelessly for IMRA and a huge amount of work is done behind the scenes. I have huge respect for all on the committee and for all they do. So thankyou to them and to the sub committee for the work put into “clarifying the round”. I also have huge respect for both Brendan and Joe, IMRA legends, and they are both friends of mine. It was Joe that first proposed the Wicklow round and brought it to the AGM and he did all the initial work on it. I do feel however Stuart has many some valid points. I think the new rules should not come into effect until the next year (or after the AGM). This would give people who have been training for the round all winter a chance to do it as those before them had. Personally if I’d put huge effort into training for months and months and the rules change a week or two before he event, I would be just gutted. If on the other hand the rules were tightened before I’d started the training, I would accept and embrace the new challenge.|
|Gary Warnock||Jun 20 2018, 1:17am||I was still hoping for some clarification of the rule changes, as above. Has there been any progress?|
In the interim I'm going to post my interpretation and hopefully someone will tell me if I'm wrong!
1 "Navigation should be by use of Map (Printed on paper) & Compass only"
- Barometric altimeter is also ok
2 "It is against the Rules of the event to have fuel or liquid stashed"
- the word liquid here does not include any form of drink, or else it means stashed away from designated support points. Either way I can stash drinks at designated support points.
3 "Designated / Permitted Logistical Support Points are to be at a single point"
- There are 8 listed support points; I am allowed 8 caches, one in the vicinity of each point listed
4 "Road Crossing point between Tonduff North and Prince Williams Seat"
- This is any tarmac road I happen to cross or run along between these two peaks. If my route between these points crosses the M50 I am allowed a cache on the M50.
5 The actual route:
- The grid reference for Moanbane is wrong, the others are roughly ok. However:
a - Oakwood does not appear to be a summit, but a point on a ridge. Harveys doesn't list it; EastWest has an unnamed point at 621; OSI has an unnamed point at 619. I will record my split when I get to 620m and am clearly on the top of the ridge.
b - Table mountain -apparently there's a cairn away from the actual summit. If I can't readily discern the summit I'll take my split from the cairn.
c - Carrawaystick is a long ridge, not a summit. There is no point at these coordinates on any of my maps. I will take my split on the ridge at 680m.
I am not allowed to use GPS for navigation and am under no obligation to carry a tracker either for my own safety or for route validation. If I inadvertently miss a peak but have a split recorded my attempt will be validated; if someone is present and tells me I missed the peak I will be disqualified. It is ok if a passer by tells me ‘You’re nearly there’ as I will know they’re almost certainly wrong.
|Richard Nunan||Jun 20 2018, 3:20pm||Hi Gary|
Providing clarifications where items relate to rule changes.
1.) Navigation should be by use of Map (Printed on paper) & Compass only. No altimeter.
2.) yes you can stash drinks at designated support points
4.) I cant see anything wrong here.
5.) the actual points you are proposing will be correct from my reading - if you hit those points.
6.) GPS is not allowed.
- If you miss a peak how would you have a split recorded -
|Gary Warnock||Jun 20 2018, 4:02pm||1: hmmm, without an altimeter I can't rely on my elevation to locate Oakwood and carrawaystick as in point 5. I genuinely don't know how to tell I'm at the right spot.|
6: I was thinking of Joe's round. If he hasn't been told he'd gone wrong and didn't have a GPS tracker nobody would know - including himself.
Really I'm just a bit uncomfortable at not having GPS to verify my round, but at the same time I don't want to carry unnecessary weight.
|Richard Nunan||Jun 21 2018, 10:33am||Morning Gary - If your uncomfortable the GPS tracker is pretty light. I really dint notice it on the WWR. Top of the shoulder job.|
But many of us have done it without a GPS tracker etc ... so just go for it !!
|Jason Dowling||Jun 24 2018, 10:32pm||Further to Gary's query, there are four checkpoints on the round that may cause issue due to there being no 'peak' per se. They are:|
1) Oakwood (White Hill)
2) Table mountain
4) Tonduff North
Table mountain has a decent enough cairn and has been updated.
Oakwood and Carrawaystick are fairly nondescript and could pose issues for some-one who is not able to recce the route beforehand. Has the committee considered any options on how a participant could confirm that they have passed over these points and are able to confirm this during their attempt? What would the case be if a participant 'missed' one of these points by (say) over 200 metres? With this in mind, has anyone considered what 'tolerance' is allowed for these points? By that I mean how far away could some-one be from these points but still considered to have crossed the points, e.g. if someone comes within a radius of (say) 300-400 metres of these points, they are considered to have crossed the point.
For Tonduff North, could the committee consider moving this point to Tonduff South? Tonduff South has an unmistakable rock at it's location but Tonduff North is a plateau which has numerous small cairns spread out all around the area. This would cause a lot of confusion to anyone attempting the round without reccing the course. The actual current GPS location for this is a small pile of rocks/cairn that is on top of a stack which has numerous piles of rocks doubling as small cairns located close by.
|Jonathan McCloy||Jun 25 2018, 4:20pm||Just to be clear, in my eyes, the latest completion is a completion. This is not some kind of objection.|
I seen a question mark over the latest round completion to which I look up the rules. It drew my eyes to this rule...
"It is against the Rules of the event to use a phone or similar device during the Round attempt to access the tracker data except at designated logistics /support/ refueling points which are located at tarmac road crossing points."
What is the point in this? For this rule to come into play, you are giving someone who has already made a major navigational mistake the choice of go back or drop out. If you want to encourage people to be responsible in the mountains, surely this should be removed.
|Stuart Scott||Jun 25 2018, 6:21pm||I must have overlooked that when I last read the "new rules". I guess that removes all question marks over Joe's attempt then which is fair enough. To get around the Round is an amazing achievement (and more recently well done Paul!).|
I would still like to see the new Rules formally presented to the AGM though.