X RATED ROGAINING
Donna Fluegel, editor of ONA, was wondering how I could possibly make an
article on pace counting interesting. Obviously, all it needs is to be titled as
something that just has to be read. Referring in the title to the Babylonian
mathematical discovery of X as a useful symbol standing for an unknown quantity
(i.e., how far you have walked, or how many paces would be needed to cover a
specific map distance) is sure to arouse prurient interest in every rogainer, and
even some orienteers competing in venues with complex parallel features like the
Anza Borrego or Panoche Hills areas in California. With the World Rogaining
Championships (WRC) in August of this year, thinking about navigational
techniques now and practicing a bit might be a good idea.
Pace counting is another tool in the kit for successful rogaining, although it is
admittedly not quite as captivating as map analysis. Having a good idea of how far
you have gone can be a key factor in avoiding errors such as miscounting
reentrants or other repetitive topographical features. If you have accurate map
contact at all times this may not be so important, but at map scales typical of
rogaining, constant map contact can often be more of an art than a science. So,
let’s take a look at what pace counting is, and what it is not.
If done in an appropriate manner (no X rated foolin’ around out there), pace
counting will confirm nearness to significant mapped features. It will assist you in
knowing when to slow down (unless you are with me, we are always going
slowly), so that you can focus on the attack point area or control area. It will give
you a pretty close approximation to the correct distance that you computed for the
distance, which will be close to the aforementioned attack point/control area if you
were attentive to mapped features and/or following bearings correctly.
Pace counting will not bring you dead bang onto the control. It will not correct for
failures to pay attention to the map. It will not cook you breakfast.
That said, here are some thoughts about, and description of a technique for using
pace counting in typical rogaining situations. As always, I need to preface this
with the disclaimer that this is just a technique that I have found useful – other
techniques may be much better for other folks, and there is no hard and fast data on
what is the “best” method. I am taking for granted that people interested in this
will actually practice pace counting on their usual walks/workout runs, and will
find out how many paces equal a fixed distance (100 meters is a good one), so that
they have a practiced skill before trying it out under field/mountain/swamp
conditions.
First - some math, ala Babylonians and their successors. The traveled distance in
paces from a known reference point (aka attack point or waypoint) to a target point
on the map or in the environment can be represent by the simple equation x = n(u)
where x is the distance in paces, n is the number of paces per unit distance
measured on the map, and u is the unit used in the measurement. In plain text
using a unit of 32 paces per 100 meters (counting every fourth step as a pace) and a
map scale of 1 to 10,000, that would be the number of paces equals 32 paces per
centimeter times the number of centimeters between here and there as measured on
the map. For a measured map distance of 9 and ½ centimeters at 1 to 10,000 scale
on an O style map, that would work out to 304 paces (9 and a half times 32).
A comment: for those of you who have a little bit of mental challenge on doing
fractional multiplication in your head while swatting at bees and avoiding poison
oak as you sidehill a 40 degree slope, it may be easier to redefine the problem by
subtraction of the fraction from the next highest integer – thinking of it as 10 times
32 minus one half of 32 is a heck of a lot easier on your brain and may help you
avoid sliding down the slope after stepping on that cow patty. Look for these
shortcuts in math, they are common.
So easy, ah but we are not quite done. If we were rogaining around Fresno,
California, this would work great. It’s flat. It Is Really Flat. Route planning in
Fresno consists of standing on a brick so that you can see every control within 30
miles. No such luck in the Black Hills of South Dakota or upstate New York –
there are hills and trees in the way.
Length of stride changes as you go up and down hills, whether you are on a road or
going through dense brush/swamp, and of course it is better to go around a massive
oak tree rather than through it. All these things introduce variability into the length
of an individual pace. To be more mathematically accurate, the individual lengths
for each pace need to be summed and the average computed for each unit of
measured map distance, which would be impractical unless you are in the habit of
carrying a quantum computer in your pack, along with your smart phone, spot
tracker, heart rate monitor, head cam and iPad. Too much technology and too
much OCD are paralyzing, so let’s keep it simple and workable. To compensate
for this variability, some rogainers and orienteers “field test” their pacing, finding
out what the number of paces per hundred meters are in different conditions – trail,
open meadow, upslope, downslope, open road, thick brush, avoiding landowner
while crossing private property (never happens, of course), etc. They apply these
figures to the predominant conditions expected on a leg, to achieve a more accurate
result. I am not convinced that this really adds to the mix, since we are looking at
a tool that is an approximation rather than a surveyor’s result, but here is one neat
trick that helps a lot:
GOING UPHILL - CORRECTIONAL FACTOR (k) FOR PACE COUNTING
Since one of the biggest (and most predictably present) variables affecting pace
counting is going up slopes/hills/steep hills, you can compensate for that fairly
easily. Simply count the number of uphill contours you will be crossing, and apply
a correctional factor that is a set number of paces per contour. This will, of course,
be affected by the scale of the contour, and you need to find out what that factor is
for your particular stride and style. During the first couple of legs, you can test the
correction factor by pace counting and comparing actual count from here to there,
finding the difference from what is predicted by “flat map” calculation (in our
example, 32 paces per 100 meters), and dividing that by the number of uphill
contours encountered. A couple of distances of several hundred meters will yield a
pretty good correctional factor.
Does it matter how closely the contours are spaced (i.e., how steep it really is)? In
practice it works out that you lose about the same number of paces going a long
distance over a gradual climb as you do in a short distance with steeper climb.
This was a surprise to me when my Over Yawnder team mate, Jeff Brucker,
pointed this out. Surely, you lose more paces as things get progressively steeper,
but is it in linear proportion to the number of contours, independent of their
spacing? It turns out, yes – pretty darn close. I had to do this several times before
I begrudgingly admitted that Jeff was correct (as usual). One correction factor will
work for one contour interval vertical distance, independent of grade. Never
would have guessed that. It does fall apart when the slope is ridiculously steep, in
which case it is better to focus on not falling off the cliff rather than counting
paces. So, with a little homework in advance and some practice at keeping the
pace count going on in your head, you have a useful tool that can save you from
some significant errors. The area that will be used for the upcoming WRC has a
lot of climb and descent in the very hilly areas, so having a correction factor will
be quite important.
The final equation (where k is the correction factor and C is the number of uphill
contours on route), is x = n(u) + k(C). For math phobics, that is “the number of
paces from here to there is paces per centimeter map distance times the number of
centimeters between here and there as measured on the map, plus the number of
uphill contours en route multiplied by the correction factor. This may sound more
difficult than it is – on this past weekend’s event in Panoche Hills, my Buzzards
Follow Us team mate Peter Graube watched me pace count two distances on a
1/30K map with 40 foot contours. The first distance, I was off by 4 pace count per
contour. Adjusting the correction factor by that amount brought us to within two
paces on the next distance, and that correction factor worked throughout the next 4
hours of the event. At that point, I noted underestimating, so I added another 2 to
the correction factor to account for it (it was likely due to fatigue and stiffness of
67 year old joints and tendons shortening my stride after 5 hrs. of work).
Here is a not very hypothetical example (although not our actual route), using the
2008 US Rogaining Champs map excerpt in Figure 1:
The scale is 1/30K, and the contour interval is 20 feet. 100 paces per map
distance centimeter (300 meters) is a close estimate for my walking. A correction
factor of +6 paces for each 20 foot contour is what we will use, based on the
accuracy/error noted throughout the later part of the event (started at +5, but we are
tired and stiff = shorter strides).
Coming in to the finish walking on the road southwest of the lake we have about
38 minutes to spare. We decide to go for control 504 as an “add on” to our plan.
We will leave the road once we are in sight of the junction (south end of the lake),
and angle a bit across the nose into the reentrant complex, following that up to the
control. It looks a bit steep. Measured map distance is about 2 cm from the attack
point and there are thirteen contours of climb. Here is the calculation:
2 cm times 100 count per cm = 200
13 contours times 6 count = 96
Total paces should equal 296, call it 300.
So, we should expect to be in the near vicinity of the control at about 275 paces,
and really near it at 300.
Now, why should we do all this effort, especially near the end of an event? Here’s
why – we have 38 minutes, we are tired, the terrain is steep, heavily wooded, and
we are going up a reentrant that may have rocks, brush, and other obstacles. The
clock is running out and we will have about a ten minute run into the finish once
we get back to the road. As we work our way up the reentrant, we need to know
how our progress is going, so we can abandon the attempt if it becomes clear that
we are getting uncomfortably close to the cut off time. If it gets dicey, it would be
very, very nice to know whether we are 10 paces or 80 paces away from the
control before we make the decision to continue/abandon. Using a corrected factor
pace count can give good information to use in that decision. I find it more useful
than “I think we climbed about 12 contours, it must be close” kind of logic. The
ability to judge vertical climb is also a useful tool, if you can do it (I can’t).
WHEN SHOULD YOU PACE COUNT?
I tend to pace count most of the time, certainly whenever the map indicates the
chance of undershooting/overshooting the control due to lack of good attack point,
local features, or the existence of parallel error possibilities. Here is an unfortunate
example of not pace counting on the 2012 Dakota Championships that ended up
with losing the last hour of daylight, and cutting out three high pointer controls
from the plan as a result.
Nailing control 72, we are pretty confident of our skills, just ask us. So, off we go
towards control 87, a literal walk in the park. We choose to take the high ground
to the northwest, and go north on the trail that wanders down the reentrant. Then
northeast at the second trail junction. Follow that trail back to one of several good
attack points, take a bearing and a terrain feature to follow, and go a mere 100
meters or so to the control location. Easy as pie - until you fall into a false sense of
security and count intersections without estimating distances.
There was (and probably still is) an unmapped trail junction between the first and
second junction shown on the map. It paralleled the desired trail, but led into a
reentrant/ridgeline complex to the south of the actual control location. After
spending quite a bit of time trying to make a southeasterly trending large reentrant
to the east look like the southerly reentrant on the map, it was clear that we were
not in the right place despite our confidence in our skills, just ask us.
Unfortunately, the terrain between there and where we wanted to be (87) was not
passable, so it was a trek back down to the major trail and then head out again. By
that time, it was dark, and the control feature was referenced as a “red rock
feature”.
In my experience, at night all rock features are grey.
Between an unusual control feature description and a failure to estimate traveled
distance correctly, we missed control 87 and had to drop three high pointer
controls from the planned route due to lost time/daylight. Pace counting would
have alerted us to the situation quite easily.
In summary, with a little bit of practice and some homework, you can develop a
useful tool to help you get into the vicinity of controls. And getting into the
vicinity is the whole point. X is not only the distance you try to compute between
here and there, but X marks the spot (or maybe a 5 cm purple/red little circle).
Rogaine organizers are encouraged to place controls in a manner that the
bag/reflector is visible from about 75 feet for any reasonable route of approach.
This is not rocket science, it is approximation, so with just a little practice, you can
be an X rated rogainer in no time. For those that need even more precision, I
would suggest coming up with some method of approach such as VIA Ground
Reconnaissance Approximation, or some such thing. I am sure there is an
appropriate acronym for that. Happy Pace Counting!!!