The membership seems more interested in 'I want to run X minutes or X k' rather than 'I want the course for my age class to be set to IOF norms'. This at least seems true of "recreational" orienteers, who I define as anyone other than "elite". I think people want 5 year age groups. Canada uses 10 year groups for runners older than the elite class. This allows more opportunity to earn medals. The membership is concerned with medals (or being listed in the results with their age peers, which amounts to the same thing -- recognition and comparison amongst their peers). Otherwise, there seems no reason to care if F50 is on brown or green. One can always "run up" and compare themselves against others in their age group who have also "run up". I do this by running M21 in order to run the course I feel is the proper one for my age, I just don't get a medal if I finish among the top 3 M35s on blue who are doing the same thing. The only difference is medals. If M35 were placed on blue, I would win some medals, but nothing else would change. Is it possible I am wrong here? Could people just want things one way or another because it "feels right", or because of a general feeling of "I want it that way" without thinking it thru like this? If this is true, I'm not sure it is a valid or compelling thing to influence the course/class mappings. I'll file this to think about it. I think the "proper" course for F50 is a longish brown, but voted for green because I feel that is what a majority of the women who shell out for airfare to go to an A meet want. I think some people don't like the idea of running brown for psychological reasons, such as a stigma about it being an "old person's course" or perceptions about "lame course setting". I think a long and short option (like the BOF does) is something to consider. I wish this would allow eliminating the "open" classes, but I don't think it would (e.g., an M21 adult beginner may want to run green). I also think it could mushroom the number of medals at a meet, so everyone walks out with one. Again, I think that is what some want, but it is something I do not particularity think is good. Perhaps medals for first 3 on the long class, and a medal for first on the short course, and keeping the no medals policy (at least in championships, and ideally for all A meets) for open courses. Medals on open courses seem weird. It seems odd I could run 8min/k on M21 and not win a medal, while someone my age runs 12min/k on green open and takes a medal. I don't care about medals, but it makes the sport seem weird, arbitrary, and illogical, and the sport is not those things. I do not know about about other running sports, but I wonder if they do this or have open classes. I think setting the courses to winning times based on the expected field is something to look at (as opposed to setting for expected winning times in order to normalize for terrain differences, which is necessary). By field I mean US, as opposed to European runners. Courses should be set to absolute standards. If the classic length M21 course in Europe is 14k for example, then our blue should be 14k (in the same terrain). Better wording would be that our blue should be set so that runner with, say, 5000 WRE points runs our course in the same time as they run it in Europe (in the same terrain). This would lengthen the courses (and I think in some sense make some problems go away). The positives are that it would prepare our runners for Europe better. It would allow M35s to run the M35 course, not the M21 course as they are forced to now if they wish to compete in Europe. It would allow F50s to run the F50 course, rather than wanting to run the F35 course, as a majority wish to now. The big negative is that some clubs would have trouble finding parks and maps to put on A meets due to the extra real estate needed. Moreover, given the trend to 1:10 maps at A meets, runners would need a wheelbarrow to carry the map around. I'm leaning towards 8 courses as in Canada (as many people want) and the Sharon Crawford suggestion. I am also leaning towards an M21E course, per above (F21E would run "blue"). This might mean 9 courses, which feels right to me, except for the burden on the host clubs. Many meets have 9 courses (red/green x/y). A 9 course structure that eliminates x/y would be a wash at larger meets. I think the "F" classes should change to the "W" classes to be consistent with IOF standards. Obviously not a big deal, but it would be nice. I think F18 should be on green (or short green), and M35 should be on blue. These are the two biggest things that I think are "wrong" with the current setup. But they are not a big deal, because the affected do not seem to be complaining about it. I guess the next step is to come up with what you want in a world of infinite time, money, volunteers and competetors, and then stare at it. Here goes, based on what we associate today's courses as being, in terms of lengths and winning times (i.e., a green below is today's usof green). Purple would be between brown and green in time. LONG BLUE (new): M21L (E) BLUE: M21S, M35L, M20L, W21L (E) RED: M40L, M45L, M50L, M35S, MRed, M20S, M18L, W21S, W20L, W35L GREEN: M40S, M45S, M50S, M55L, M60L, MGreen, M18S, PURPLE (new, or green y): WPurple, W20S, W35S, W18L, W40L, W45L, W50L, M55S, M60S BROWN: M65-M90 (no L or S), MBrown, WBrown, W18S, W40S-W50S, W55-W90 (no L or S) ORANGE: M16, W16, MOrange, WOrange (eliminate group classes on WYO) YELLOW: M14, W14, MYellow, WYellow ORANGE: M8, M10, W8, W10, M/WWhite The biggest problems seem to be that the junior men jump from orange to red, and the whole thing seems too overblown with having an open class as well. It seems you still have to sort out the "correct" course for the "L" or "A" course; the "S" course seems an excuse for more medals and nothing more (since the open classes must remain). I wonder what happens if things condense into 10 year groups for those over 34 -- I think it leads to something pretty much like the day 1 Canadian system with the exception that the canadian system groups the 17-19 year olds together, and starts the elite class at 20. I would keep the two year divisions, as there are plenty of courses. It also retains my problem of the 17 year old men jumping from orange (course 3) to red (course 6) (the Canadian system is online at http://www.orienteering.ca/coursestd.htm) The Canadian system only has 8 courses, as opposed to my 9. Based on the winning times, it looks like they have eliminated the purple, as the elite men's winning course, with a winning time of 90 min, really is a long usof blue; my new blue (the current usof blue generally comes in at a WT around 70-75 min, based on meet results published in the last 3 ONAs (and based on my experience in running M21 this year -- I didn't feel like doing the math for the whole year)). The women's elite course, with a winning time of 70 min, would be closer to a usof blue (perhaps a bit short). An adjustment to the WT to 75 for this course may make sense. (other mappings look like 1=white, 2=yellow, 3=orange, 4=brown, 5=green, 6=red, 7=shortish blue, 8= long blue, if the courses are really set to these winning times). So lets make the following adjustments to the Canadian system - a) wt on course 7 goes to 75 min b) elite classes start at 21, not 20 c) create a M19-20 on course 7, change M17-19 to M17-18 on course 6 d) create a W19-20 on course 6, change W17-19 to W17-18 on course 5 and stick to the recommended COF winning times.