[ARDF] Testing opportunities at large events...

[Jay Hennigan]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Matthew Robbins wrote:

> One thing I was thinking about as I was doing this testing was how
> important it is to have the opportunity to test your equipment against
> the competition transmitters.
>
> I thought Marvin's test day at Hungry Valley was a perfect test day

Interesting that you would think so.  The actual transmitters and antennas
used on the courses were deployed, but the terrain wasn't much like that
at either the 2m or 80m competitions, and there was no orienteering map of
the practice area.  I was the one who set the transmitters out.  I used GPS
to locate them at known distances and bearings fron the start point as a
calibration aid.

I intended to place stakes with calibrated distances at intervals from
the transmitters, but ran out of time to do so.

> (and the tri-tip barbeque was awesome, too).

I can't take any credit there, that was all Marvin.

> I was really disappointed at the test day in Brno.
>
> I've been meaning to ask several things:
>
> What other people thought about the test day in Brno?

Other than being given the wrong frequency for the 2m model event, I
was pleased with it.  There was a map, and the terrain was similar to
that of the competition.  They also had the E-punch controls for those
unfamiliar with its use.  The wrong published frequency on 2m was kind
of a double-whammy for me as I had zero prior experience with the sound
of AM foxes.  The Aussie Blue Wonder, being synthesized, made it hard
to tell what was happening other than, "Really weak and distorted, can't
get a decent bearing, what the heck is going on here?!?!"  Those with
tunable DF sets probably didn't even notice.

> How that test day compared to other large international events?

The only other event I've participated in approaching that scale was
the one in Indiana, which was also quite good in my opinion.  The model
venue in Indiana was somewhat small, and thus the map scale was zoomed
in to around 1:5000 or so, which was kind of tricky in terms of mental
calibration.  Running through the marching band was a nice added touch. :-)

> Whether it would be appropriate for someone like Dale or Joe to bring
> up the topic at some large ARDF rules meeting so future large events
> will allow competitors to have some specific expectations about what
> to expect.

It is covered in the R1 rules briefly but succinctly.

http://www.ardf-r1.org/html/ardfrules26b_rev1.htm#B15

Marvin explained that the event shouldn't be regarded as a "practice"
but rather as a "model" event to get a feel for anything unusual about
the equipment, marking devices, map style, etc. unique to that particular
organization and/or competition.

> Personally, I'd like several transmitters of each band in
> representative settings, *plus* one transmitter of each band in a
> flat, range-like location with about 1km of line-of-sight.  Markings
> every 100m would be nice for people without GPS receivers, or if the
> location is forested and GPS performance is degraded by the canopy.

The homing beacon on a different frequency, marked on the map, could be
your range-finder.

> If I had to pick between "representative settings" and a 1km range,
> I'd pick the range.  (Although for events like the US Champs, where
> beginners are expected, the representative settings are certainly more
> important.)

A good orienteering map of the practice area should help in this regard.
You can mark the transmitters on the map as you find them, become familiar
with any non-standard map markings used by the organizers, and use the map
to calibrate your rig's sensitivity as to distance, hopefully in similar
conditions to those of the upcoming competition venue.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay at west.net
WestNet:  Connecting you to the planet.  805 884-6323      WB6RDV
NetLojix Communications, Inc.  -  http://www.netlojix.com/