Results for Bottom Moor, Bottom Moor, 28/09/2003

Result set created on 29/09/03 at 19:40

Select results or splits
SPORTIdent CSV file of splits, suitable for import into WinSplits

Back to DVO homepage


Organiser's Comments for Bottom Moor 28 9 03

  After being downgraded from C4 to C5 with some concerns about the area, Bottom Moor turned out to be very successful.  Many new and unfamiliar faces were welcomed to the event, along with  some of the usual suspects.  We were rewarded with some lovely autumn sunshine, good going underfoot and a thoroughly enjoyable few hours.  

Organisation was made rather more difficult by having separate areas for Assembly and car parking, but a willing band of helpers kept things running smoothly. 
Many thanks to you all.  

Ian and Tracey Grant

Planner's Comments

This event started out as a colour-coded at Cromford Moor but felling has now devastated the areas normally traversed by Green and up, so I had the bright idea of combining the best of Farley and Bottom Moor as an alternative C4. Unfortunately the interlinking moorland is beset with six foot high bracken, a barbed wire fence and inhospitable terrain. I abandoned the idea of a C4 and restricted the event to a Bottom Moor C5. Ironically Cromford would have been fine for C5 in the first place.

Bottom Moor is a challenging area - challenging to a planner who wants to extract anything more technical than a Yellow and challenging to a competitor who foolishly strays more than 10 metres from the path. Many of the Orange and Light Green controls were undemanding but nobody would have thanked me for anything more ambitious.

There was only one major hiccup. There were 24 controls on the area but the Challenge used only 22 of them. I cut out two Yellow course controls where the circles would have intersected. The idea was to avoid confusion but the opposite effect was achieved. Some, assuming that the Challenge used all controls, dibbed at the Yellow controls 103 and 106 before moving quickly on. Whilst they broke the golden rule of not checking code and control descriptions, I would, in hindsight, have made the omission of the two controls clear at the beginning. I'm sorry if anyone's run was spoilt.

Thanks to Ted Smith for his controlling, to control collectors and to Mike Godfree for supervising the e-punching. Although this provides further potential for things to go wrong, it didn't and the extra effort is worth it even at a C5.

Graham Johnson

Any queries, errors, or omissions should in the first instance be addressed to

Results software provided by Michael Napier, e-mail