Open ARDF

ARDF has a number of problems that keep it from being more popular: cost, complexity, and (sadly) cheating – particularly following. But a few changes to the way the sport is conducted might go a long way toward removing the advantage to be gained by following one’s competitors.

Unless things have changed significantly since 2008, IARU World Championship events are rife with followers. In fact, sometimes the Championships have resembled a herd sport, with groups of a dozen or more migrating about the course. Following wasn’t and still isn’t allowed under the official rules, so participating in it could have resulted in disqualification. But rules against following were almost never enforced – in fact, if they had been, a large minority of competitors might have received DQs at some championships.

The root of the problem isn’t a lack of rules, or even a lack of rules enforcement, but rather a fundamental defect in the design of events. Consider: what if competitors had no way of knowing if other competitors were visiting the same transmitters they are seeking? There would be no point in following since doing so might result in not completing the proper course.

How then to remove the common transmitter assignment without introducing the unfairness of imposing different route requirements on competitors in the same age/gender category? The answer: Let the competitors choose!

An event that includes a greater number of foxes than any competitor is required to locate, would allow each competitor to choose which subset of transmitters to find. Provided that competitors don’t know which subset of transmitters the competition has chosen, they would be ill-advised to follow others who might have chosen other transmitters to find.

The next problems then are when a competitor must commit to their subset selection, and how to record the selection. If competitors were required to select and submit their subset selections shortly after starting a competitive run, say before they locate their first “fox” transmitter, then the advantage of following would be largely obviated. An example of how this might work will help illustrate the concept.

Example Event: Select Four of Six

The course:

• One Start
• One Finish
• Six Foxes: three on two different frequencies, each transmitting for 1 minute on a 3-minute cycle.

The Instructions:

• Each competitor must find four foxes, with the winner decided by the most foxes found and ties settled by shortest time on the course.
• Each competitor must select which four foxes to find, and make that selection before arriving at the first fox
• Each competitor must record their fox choices and submit them to organizers using a private, verifiable, time-stamped method
• Locating foxes that are not among one’s selected subset will not count toward one’s total fox count

Example Benefits

The above rules preserve an emphasis on competitor skill since those who are able to choose and locate the most optimal fox subset in a short period of time will have an advantage. The event is fair because all competitors have exactly the same selection options on the identical course. Following is discouraged because, if the course designers did a good job, there is the likelihood that another competitor has selected a different subset of foxes. The example above provides 15 different combinations of fox selections!

Skilled course designers would need to carefully design such courses so as to prevent the winners from being determined by chance. It must be possible for a sufficiently-skilled competitor to determine the best subset of transmitters to visit by the time the decision point is reached. Only one subset should be best, and no others equally good. Yet, it should not be obvious which is the best subset to choose.

Another tricky part of implementing the above event is the private, verifiable, time-stamped method for competitors to submit their subset selections. This could be implemented using pure technology (e.g., a “personal electronic selection-recording device”), or by the addition of course-selection submission station(s) marked on competitors’ maps (e.g., drop an envelope in one of several boxes shown on the map), or by some other method.

A cleverly-crafted event might even allow for mass starts, or at least for more competitors to start together, thus resolving another headache associated with the status quo: long drawn-out starting sequences that aren’t always fair and can take hours to complete.

An OTFOP navigation system is any technology that supplies navigation information derived from sources outside the competition boundaries. They include navigation beacons someone might erect outside a competition venue, or teammates radioing their fox bearings taken from outside the course to those in competition, and of course they include multi-billion dollar satellite systems such as GPS and GLONASS that provide satellite-based signals for precise geographical locating and progression tracking. IARU rules allow the use of satellite systems for navigation in ARDF.

Practical reasons to oppose OTFOP navigation as permitted under current IARU rules:

1. OTFOP systems are banned for any navigation purpose in orienteering; and the more ARDF diverges from the sport of orienteering, the less support and participation ARDF should rightly expect to receive from the orienteering community.

2. The inclusion of OTFOP technology adds cost to the equipment used by those participating in the sport, raising the cost barrier to newcomers’ participation in ARDF.

3. Having OTFOP users compete against those without is not fair play, but there is no distinction made in the rules allowing segregation of OTFOP navigation users from competitors relying solely on their own navigation skills.

Philosophical reasons to oppose OTFOP navigation as permitted under current IARU rules:

1. OTFOP navigation systems significantly diminish the need for some navigation skills that make ARDF unique from geocaching and similar satellite-based navigation sports.

2. Allowing OTFOP navigation opens the door to all forms of supplemental navigation technology that might be argued as no more detrimental to the sport: drone guidance, on-foot guidance by Google/Apple maps, etc.

3. Although fairness dictates that those who choose to utilize OTFOP technologies compete in a separate category from those who don’t, currently there is no effective way to influence the rules applying to Region 2 (much less inter-regionally) in order to correct that unfairness.

There are currently three major projects underway, and six separate printed circuit boards supporting them. All projects are experimental at this time, meaning that the designs have not been fully implemented or tested to confirm that they sufficiently meet design goals. But progress continues steadily, and prototype designs are likely to be achieved in one or more projects in 2018. Here is how things stand in each project and subproject at this time:

Dual-band ARDF Transmitter

Digital Interface Board: Ver X2 has been fully built and tested, and was found to meet all design goals. The software was developed sufficiently to test hardware and to confirm product concept. Needed X2 rework has been implemented in the design for the next schematic and PCB versions. Next version: X2A or P1

Transmitter Board: Ver X2 has been built to ~80%. The need to redesign both 2m and 80m transmitter blocks was identified and Ver X2A board respin was required to proceed. Ver X2A redesign was completed and new PCB boards ordered and should arrive early Mar 2018, with assembly to commence immediately thereafter. Next version: X2B or P1

Transmitter Power Supply: Ver X2 has been built to 95%. Ver X2 was found to work well enough to support transmitter development, but needed a redesign to achieve zero-voltage power-off state, requiring a board respin. Version X2A redesign was completed, and new boards will be ordered once Version X2A Transmitter Board build and test is complete. Next version: X2A or P1

Antenna Matching Board: Ver X2 has been designed, but no boards are yet on order. The Antenna Matching board will be built and tested after there are working transmitters. No current activity.

Dual-Band ARDF Receiver

Digital Interface Board: This board is identical to that used for the Dual-band Transmitter. See above.

Receiver Board: Ver X1 has been fully built at NC location, but not fully tested. The same version has been 50% built at the NM location, and build-out continues as testing confirms adequate performance. The 2m receiver has achieved sufficient sensitivity for ARDF use, and testing continues to confirm other performance goals are met. The 80m receiver has achieved basic functionality, and testing will continue after 2m receiver work is complete. Next version: X2 or P1

80m ARDF Antenna

80m ARDF Antenna Board: Ver X1 has been fully built and tested at OR location. Numerous design changes were identified, implemented, and tested to confirm that it will function as a stand-alone 80m DF antenna. Design changes have been incorporated into the schematic and PCB design. Next version: X2

ARDF has been practiced, historically, as Orienteering with the addition of radio direction-finding receivers, and transmitters placed at the control points. It is natural and proper then that we should look to Orienteering for guidance on the appropriate application of GPS in our sport.

The International Orienteering Federation (IOF) is the international governing body of the sport of orienteering. Founded in 1961, the IOF governs four orienteering disciplines: foot orienteering, mountain bike orienteering, ski orienteering, and trail orienteering. The IOF was recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1977.

The IOF defines Orienteering as “a sport in which the competitors navigate independently through the terrain. Competitors must visit a number of control points marked on the ground in the shortest possible time aided only by map and compass”.

About Orienteering

Beginning in January 2017 new Orienteering rules came into effect allowing  GPS devices to be worn with the condition that they will be of no help during the competition: “GPS-enabled devices (watches etc.) can be carried provided that they have no map display and are not used for navigation purposes.”

IOF’s orienteering rules are in stark contrast to the IARU Region I ARDF rules which leave out the final seven words: “…and are not used for navigation purposes.” Clearly, ARDF as defined by IARU’s Region I ARDF Working Group has diverged significantly from IOF’s definition of an Orienteering sport.

There are no formal agreements in place between the IARU and the IOF, and nothing prevents the IARU (or its regional ARDF working groups) from redefining the sport. But there has been considerable collaboration at the community level over the years between Orienteers and the ARDF community. Almost every USA and Region II sanctioned ARDF championships competition has had an OUSA-affiliated orienteering club (OUSA, formerly USOF, is a USA partner organization of the IOF) providing maps, insurance, volunteers and other support to the effort. Several OUSA-affiliated orienteering clubs have members active in ARDF, many of whom support the sport by organizing practices, and participating in competitions. Without the resources and support of the Orienteering community as organized and promoted under IOF, it would be very difficult for ARDF to exist in the USA.

IARU Region I’s ARDF rules changes, permitting broad use of satellite systems for navigation in competition, has taken ARDF down a path that diverges sharply from Orienteering. Given ARDF’s dependence on the orienteering community, that divergence will only hinder progress towards ARDF’s recognition and acceptance worldwide.

The addition of navigation-by-$20B+ satellite system to a map-and-compass sport is literally a game changer. There is no avoiding that fact. If the sport of ARDF continues down the trail toward becoming a satellite navigation sport, it will lose all semblance of an orienteering sport. Along with that it will lose its support among the orienteering community, and perhaps its future as a sport.

The Dual-Band ARDF Transmitter design Rev X2 is in its final stages. A last-minute feature update has been added: remote control. Support for experimenting with wireless remote control of the the transmitters has been added. The concept: attach a Dual-Band ARDF Receiver to a Dual-Band ARDF transmitter via their Cloning ports to create a Dual-Band ARDF Transceiver.

A Dual-Band ARDF Transceiver will be capable of receiving remote commands using the same antenna being used for fox transmissions. A Dual-Band ARDF Transceiver will be capable of serving as the remote control station used to send commands to the foxes in the field.

The remote-control concept is experimental at this time. But the Rev X2 hardware will provide support for developing and testing this remote control concept to make it mature and usable.

Atmel code for the OpenARDF hardware project has been written in and for Atmel Studio 7. This video shows just how simple it is to port Arduino sketches to Studio 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WnOe00dVu0

The advantage of using Studio 7, along with the Atmel ICE, is that it allows for a much more sophisticated development and debugging approach, using the full capabilities of C or C++ to control the processor, and in-circuit debugging.

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.