Month: October 2017

I’ve had a recent exchange with an advocate for the use of GPS in ARDF. The reasons for it, and I am paraphrasing, are as follows:

1. GPS navigation doesn’t fundamentally change the sport.

2. Everyone in the world is using it.

3. We would compromise the competitiveness of Region 2 ARDFers if it were banned here.

From experience and long hours of testing, I can attest that unbridled utilization of accurate satellite-derived position data will remove much of the need for navigation skills from ARDF. If that isn’t the case today, then GPS-enhanced receiver makers are either using substandard hardware, or poor software. (There is also a third possibility.)

If you want to see the future of ARDF under current Region I rules then check out the iPhone app Map-n-Compass (available for free starting 30 Oct 2017). That app uses standard GPS position data and electronic compass information to simulate an ARDF course, complete with transmitters, and the app serving as a simulated receiver. If you don’t install a map of the course terrain, and you remove the SIM card, you’ve got an ARDF tool that meets all the current Region I rules.  In the beginner mode (default) the app allows you to see your position on the screen, record your track, see exclusion areas, record bearings, and calculate bearing crossing locations. And it will lead you almost inerrantly on a straight-line path to the transmitter of your choice.

If that doesn’t change the sport by diminishing the need for navigation skills, I don’t know what would.

While point #1 seems dubious at best, points 2 and 3 remain, and those final two points have some merit. Sadly, widespread use of GPS, and satellite navigation’s inevitable impact on the sport, means that everyone probably needs to have a GPS-assisted receiver (especially beginners in the sport) in order to be competitive with their peers so equipped.

The bar to entry into ARDF has just been raised. Or, maybe not. At least not by so much.

Rather than trying to slam the barn door shut after the satellite-following cow passed through, perhaps it is better to accept that GPS has given rise to a new event: an ARDF flavor that requires fewer navigation skills, but still uses receivers and hidden transmitters.

So a new sport is born, but what about the old one?

You know, the sport we used to call ARDF? Well that one doesn’t have to go away. Rules could allow those who prefer not to play the sat-nav version of the sport to instead elect to run as a classic competitor. Those choosing not to utilize GPS would be a different class of competitor, whose performance would be judged against others in their class, not against sat-navvers.

But it seems that the rules for Region 2 need to come into existence in order to make any of this a reality. Rules are needed in order to make it clear that traditional ARDF has a place, and so does the satellite-assisted version of the sport. The rules also need to provide for a mechanism to keep the sport affordable and accessible, by permitting approved apps to be used in competition.

It would be a shame for any IARU region to have its hands tied by blind adherence to Region I decisions. It is time for Region 2 ARDF leadership to engage, to move forward with new ideas, or explain why change is not needed, or to remove themselves as an impediment to the advancement of the sport.

Competitors purchasing ARDF receivers should be aware of a practice that has a long history in the sport: the sale of handicapped equipment. It has long been known, and openly acknowledged by some equipment sellers, that the receivers available for purchase don’t necessarily perform quite as well as the receivers the small manufacturer owns for personal use. It has long been accepted as a perk of being technologically savvy enough to design or build electronic equipment, that you may elect to keep something in reserve.

There is no reason to believe that the same practice is any less pervasive today. And with the use of proprietary software, the “kneecapping” can be done without any trace of visible hardware differences.

So if you own an ARDF receiver with built-in GPS, and the assistance it provides seems helpful, but not game-changing, don’t assume that all competitors are obtaining identical results.  Non-spectacular results might be by design, and not due to any limitation in the technology. You will probably never know all the differences between your equipment and the outwardly-identical equipment utilized by your competitors.

I would like to conclude this post with a “buyer beware” message. But the truth is, buyers cannot beware, because you can’t beware that which you have no knowledge. Only marketplace competition between receiver sellers can correct this problem – if one considers it a problem and not simply a perk. When receiver sellers must sell the best or lose your business to the competition, only then will buyers have some confidence that they’re getting the latest features and performance.

Since we can’t beware, let’s just not be naïve.

What’s going on may not be apparent to most users of “GPS-enhanced” ARDF receivers since simply listening to the audio doesn’t provide many clues as to what’s really happening under the hood. But devices that use satellite navigation signals to derive “continuous bearings” and cross track error indications, are making use of a continuous stream of GPS-derived position data that (typically) exhibits a position error of 10 meters or less. That degree of accuracy is easily on par with what expert orienteers can achieve using just a map and compass.

It also might not be obvious that a bearing consists of not just a direction, but also the position at which the direction was read. So accurate position information also enhances the accuracy of bearings.

With the use of GPS, accurate positions are derived and utilized regardless of where a competitor believes himself to be located on the map. GPS accuracy is undiminished when a competitor is tired, confused, or just a lousy orienteer. And because those positions are true and accurate, the bearings and crosstrack error indications provide highly accurate navigation guidance to the actual location of a signal source (fox), even if the competitor erroneously believes that he is headed in a totally different map direction from where his feet are actually taking him.

Most ARDF courses include some very runnable regions with little or no obstacles; though such regions might still be challenging to navigate, they can be traversed easily in a nearly straight line. A GPS device allows one to follow a straight line, accurately, and inerrantly. So on a course with no significant obstacles to movement, a map becomes an unnecessary accessory when GPS is being used. Hundreds of hours spent testing the iPhone app “Map-n-Compass” proved that to be true. The app uses GPS to provide guidance from GPS-derived position data, identical to the technology incorporated into ARDF receivers sporting GPS receivers. The more runnable the terrain, the more effectively GPS replaces the need for a map, and those skills required to read a map and locate one’s location on it.

But GPS also has an impact when courses cover difficult terrain. Consider a course with significant barriers to movement, such as dense forest, steep hills, and swift creeks. Such barriers will pose less of an obstacle to the strongest and fittest competitors, who will be better able to power over the hills, and through deep water, and more closely follow the shortest straight-line route between foxes provided by the GPS-derived crosstrack error. With two equally-skilled navigators, both using GPS, the advantage will swing decidedly in the direction of the one who can best follow the continuous GPS-derived audio-indicated straight-line path. So GPS swings the advantage to those who are most physically fit and powerful, over those with better navigation skills.

It remains true that GPS doesn’t help with pointing an antenna and reading signal strength. It also doesn’t help one recognize reflected signals, and doesn’t make one a good trail runner. And it supplements but doesn’t totally replace observing one’s progress and surroundings to estimate position on a map, and choosing a reasonable route to follow. GPS doesn’t eliminate the need for all skills. But in many situations it greatly reduces the importance of navigation skills.

If you don’t think that satellite position data currently reduces the importance of navigation skills, then just wait. Better algorithms and integration with additional sensor data will bring new features, making it unrealistic for anyone to be competitive without incorporating satellite navigation systems into their receivers.

The latest technology needs to be brought into ARDF equipment. But that doesn’t mean that all technology belongs in the sport. Let’s make the equipment lighter, more integrated, more rugged, less expensive, more available, and simpler to use. But let’s not diminish the fundamental skills required for the sport.

IARU Region I has already set its course toward transforming ARDF into an exercise in geocaching. That doesn’t mean that other regions must follow suit. If “AGPS” proves popular, then it can be added as a separate class of competitor, like the age and gender categories that exist today. But let’s keep traditional classic ARDF as an individual navigation sport: a sport of equal measures brains and brawn.

Satellite-based geolocation services introduce a completely new data source into the sport of ARDF. One can argue whether adding an external  navigation source is a good or a bad thing. But it will undoubted have profound effects on the sport – not all of those effects are immediately obvious.

Consider the case of taking bearings toward a transmitter signal. A bearing consists of two pieces of information: a direction and a location. Both of those information components are very important. Obviously the extent to which a bearing direction is inaccurate, the quality (usefulness) of the bearing is diminished. But the same is true if you draw that bearing as originating from the wrong location. If your position
estimation is wrong by 200 meters, your bearing might miss the fox by
200 meters even if your bearing direction is perfect.

Now consider when your bearing locations are determined by GPS: the error of the location component of your bearings will generally be less than 50 meters, and often 10m or less. You can pretty much bank on that degree of GPS position accuracy at most venues. That high degree of accuracy, derived from satellite signals emanating from far away, will be maintained consistently even if you are tired, confused, or just not very good at reading a map! Perhaps a practiced and skilled ARDF competitor can accomplish nearly the same degree of accuracy when manually drawing lines on a map using a grease pencil. But it is a near certainty that a newbie to the sport won’t be able to accomplish the same feat without GPS. But a newbie will quickly master the use of a GPS-assisted bearing-taking device, and will be taking bearings much like a pro in short order despite having mastered none of the navigation skills historically required for ARDF.

The previous paragraph illustrates two points:
1) Although technology does not eliminate all the advantage of practiced skills, it does diminish the need for orienteering skills.
2) The use of satellite navigation technology  will disproportionately improve the performance of lesser-skilled competitors; more so than skilled competitors.

That second point suggests that uneven availability of technology
amongst the lesser-skilled competitors will likely result in changes
to their finish order. That is, technology might not change who medals
in a competition, but it is likely to help those who finish farther down the finishers list move ahead of their peers who lack the technology.

If satellite-based geolocation data is to be allowed in the sport then fairness dictates that allowable technology be universally available, and that newbies and novices are not locked out of permitted technologies due to price or availability.