Latest News: Read more



Discussion Forum - Hundreds - Non-LDWA Entry Qualification Criteria


Author: David Morgan
Posted: Sat 14th Dec 2019, 22:02
Joined: 1994
Local Group: South Wales
Hi Yumi - I have emailed you in relation to this enquiry.
Regards,
David
Author: Yumi Bagge
Posted: Sat 14th Dec 2019, 20:44
Joined: 2019
Local Group: Thames Valley
Hello I recently tried Tour de Trigs as a qualification for this event, and unfortunately because of two other team members decided to retire at the last cp (44 miles/21hr), as a team leader, I decided to retire as well (I could have done it - I've done two 100km continuous events past two years - no listed events for 100 miles challenge, unfortunately). Could I be possibly qualified as 35+ finisher.
Author: Dave Clifton
Posted: Mon 28th Jan 2019, 8:04
Joined: 2011
Local Group: Northumbria
Not trying to impinge on this topic about non LDWA qualification I could not however miss this opportunity to mention the Hadrian hundred. There will be a couple of places on the 100 route where either a GPS or a compass will be required to navigate as the track on the map is not be seen.
Author: Henry Marston
Posted: Sun 27th Jan 2019, 15:27
Joined: 1989
Local Group: Vermuyden (South Yorks)
The first posting did include a thought about navigation, and there doesn't seem to be an alternative general post about GPS, so, a possible summary about GPS applicability:
I suggest that GPS navigation should be permitted in events where:
a) the same route (with minor adjustments) is used year on year
b) the route is published in advance, allowing the possibility of recce walks
This puts the newcomer to an event on more level terms with the regular or local who can familiarise him/her self with the route
GPS navigation can be banned, effectively banning participants from carrying mobile phones, where the route is only revealed on the day, as for the OOM or orienteering events.
The 'hundreds' route is published, and used by the marshals; most LDWA event routes are known in advance, so it is difficult to ban GPS navigation.
But consider:
a) if participants are carrying mobile phones, help can (possibly) be summoned in emergency, if a life-threatening situation occurs. One person coming across the sticken participant may have to go to the top of a nearby hill to get a signal, but without a phone there may be no possibility of saving life.
b) a GPS route can help guide participants through out-of-bounds areas or permissive route sections, reducing the risk of intruding on private land and jeopardising future events
c) GPS navigation is a skill, best considered as an extension of map and compass navigation. The GPS simplifies relocation, but you still have to work out where to go from the point shown.
d) LDWA events are not races, so saving of time by using GPS is immaterial. However, any assistance to keep participants on route is to the advantage of organisers. I recall an instance in the remote Highlands where, if I hadn't checked my GPS location, I would have ended up in the wrong valley. Better to allow equipment that may avoid people getting lost than have to send out a search party! At the basic level, a lost soul can at least report where they are.
I recall being caught up at night by someone using GPS navigation - it can very effective in the right hands. But without experience it is as likely to get the participant lost as traditional methods.
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Fri 25th Jan 2019, 14:51
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
Hi Don

Thanks for your input and valid comments.

To be honest I don’t know why GPS has crept into this original topic relating to Non LDWA Entry Qualification criteria. Use or not, is not one of the criteria items right at the beginning.

Regards

Alan Warrington
100s Coordinator
Author: Don Arthurs
Posted: Fri 25th Jan 2019, 12:49
Joined: 2017
Local Group: Kent
I use GPS, and whilst I can see why that might seem unfair to some we need to focus on what the challenge of the 100 (as the prime example) is supposed to be . For me it's the physical act of completing a continuous walk of 100 miles.

Whenever having completed a 100 has come up in conversation with a non long distance walker (which is rare as for most non long distance walker's, beyond an initial 'wow, did you', it is of little interest) their burning question has not been 'goodness, how on earth did you navigate?'

We are after all the long distance walking association not the long distance navigating association.

Personally I follow the RD, rarely checking the GPS, mainly because it keeps my mind occupied but the GPS does prove invaluable if I think I'm going / have gone off piste.

Whether we like it or not, the GPS is here to stay and the current situation mirrors the transition from horse to car. Generations that grew up with one or the other as the norm are now rubbing along together. Trying to stem the flow of progress is going to make us seem like an outdated, backward looking organisation - the very image I think the current leadership is keen to distance us from.

If you really want to 'make it as tough as it was in my day, these young'uns have no idea' then perhaps reduce the time limit for GPS users or impose a time penalty. Doing either, or attempting to ban GPS totally, would IMHO just seem ridiculously petty though.
Author: Laura Turner
Posted: Thu 24th Jan 2019, 20:23
Joined: 2012
Local Group: South Wales
Using a GPS device to get a grid ref is no different to asking someone to show you where you are on the map.
Author: Henry Marston
Posted: Thu 24th Jan 2019, 17:48
Joined: 1989
Local Group: Vermuyden (South Yorks)
I am somewhat bemused by the arbitary but universal limit of 500 entrants to LDWA events, and the propogation of this limit through to acceptablity of qualifying events. I can see the limit as a guideline, but not mandatory. The limit, I submit, should be decided by the individual event organiser, taking into account the nature of the route and organisational logistics. The organiser needs to consider the number of entrants that can be processed at the event centre, and at checkpoints, without excessive congestion on the route. Multiple start times can ease congestion, but this is something that can be determined by the event organiser. The limit is also ascribed to The Environment; but why is this seen to be universal rather than based on the event characteristics? Clearly, a route over rough country, especially over moorland or wetlands, needs a restriction in numbers, to limit damage to a sensitive environment, and can be agreed between the event organiser and the landowner or other authority. But the engineered paths commonly followed are well able to accommodate large fields without problem. Thus, it seems inappropriate to reject a non-LDWA event as qualifier merely because its organiser is prepared to cope with a field larger than 500, unless there is evidence that the event is acting irresponsibly due to the numbers.
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Sat 15th Dec 2018, 15:47
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
For those interested in the finer points of GPS devices Dave Morgan and Adam Dawson are holding workshops on the Friday evening of the AGM weekend in Gloucester.
Author: Deirdre Flegg
Posted: Sat 15th Dec 2018, 10:03
Joined: 1993
Local Group: Dorset
Ah, thanks, Alan. I always used these intials interchangeably-now I know the difference... Not that it will affect me in any practical way, you understand!
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Fri 14th Dec 2018, 22:45
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
John
The GPX file loaded on a GPS device merely gives the user the route to be taken. The GPS device itself gives the user their specific location.
Author: John Walker
Posted: Fri 14th Dec 2018, 16:50
Joined: 1989
Local Group: Wiltshire
I fully agree with you, Graham.
How can anyone truly believe that GPX is merely the equivalent of a paper map with the route marked on it?
Anyone making such a statement is clearly speaking from the depths of their ignorance (bless them!).
Navigation has been revolutionised by GPX.
Author: Graham James
Posted: Fri 14th Dec 2018, 14:43
Joined: 2013
Local Group: Wessex
"GPX files merely provide the electronic equivalent of someone highlighting an event route on a local hard copy map as many of us have done in the past and will no doubt continue to do so in the future."

I would suggest they provide far more. The highlighted route on my map is only of any use if I know where I currently am on the map, whereas a GPS allows me to relocate immediately if I go astray. There has been much debate in the FRA recently on the use of GPS, with the result that most fell races will from next year ban their use.
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Thu 13th Dec 2018, 19:21
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
In response to Tony and Nigel

There is no ‘official’ line on this and I am really not going to get involved in any discussion regarding the use of GPS devices as primary sources of navigation or otherwise.

The use of GPS devices and files is NOT unique to the Hundred and arguably covers any challenge event by the LDWA and other external organisations.

The LDWA event organisers usually provide an abbreviated route description that ALL entrants are required to use in conjunction with a compass and local map. Some Kanter events supply just grid references whereby compass and map reading skills are used to progress via these grid references.

Modern day electronic devices (smart phones, gps) have the ability to store the equivalent local mapping and this can be provided by numerous companies.

GPX files merely provide the electronic equivalent of someone highlighting an event route on a local hard copy map as many of us have done in the past and will no doubt continue to do so in the future.

External events that sign the entire route using a variety of methods (arrows, tape, etc) do not give an entrant any navigational experience that is comparable with LDWA organised challenge events and they will not be allowed as Hundred qualifiers.

The Hundred qualification exists in order that an individual has some proven experience with the physical and mental demands of an endurance event and that they are not a liability or danger to themselves, organisers and emergency services.

Alan Warrington
100s Coordinator.
Author: Tony Deall
Posted: Thu 13th Dec 2018, 10:06
Joined: 1985
Local Group: Cumbria
Nigel makes a very valid point about the use of GPS files as an electronic equivalent to route marking.
It will be interesting to see the official line on this.

There is planned to be a small amount of route marking on the Hadrian Hundred to assist over some of the more difficult terrain especially at night.

With regards to Tony's post about the eligibility of the Hadrian Hundred as a qualifier for future events, at present active entrant levels fall some way below the magic 500 (or even 550) figure.

Of the 500+ pre selection entrants who were invited to pay and become active at the beginning of this month only 374 have currently done so. I'm sure more will do so before the 28th December which is the due date for paying.
As previously mentioned the figure of 550 is set to allow for a 10% drop out rate on the day of the Event.
Author: Nigel Coates
Posted: Sat 8th Dec 2018, 21:10
Joined: 1984
Local Group: North Yorkshire
Whilst I can understand the need to clarify the qualifying criteria for the Hundred, I'm not convinced that what is now proposed is any more logical than what we had previously.

Firstly, the length of the qualifying period - from 1st January for the Hundred the following year. In effect (asuming I can find a suitable event), I can qualify 17 months in advance of the Hundred. For those people in their 30's, 40's and 50's there is a good likelihood that what they can do now, they will still be able to do in 17 months time. For the older generation (and I speak as a 70 year old), there is no certainty whatsoever that they will be able to do in 17 months time what they can do now. Years ago it was generally accepted, though perhaps not formally stated, that the first qualifying event for next years Hundred was this years Hundred. Surely 12 months is long enough.

Secondly, the cut-off time for the qualifying event. Surely this shouldn't matter - the criteion is for the individual - can you complete 50 miles in 20 hours or less? If 'yes' then you qualify, if 'no' then sorry, but you don't qualify. Limiting qualifying events to only those with a cut-off time of 20 hours or more seems to me to be an example of the LDWA looking inwards, rather than embracing the wide variety of events out there.

Thirdly, the issue of qualifying events that have route marking. This rather suggests that the LDWA still regards map and compass skills as highly necessary. BUT, over the years the route descriptions for the Hundred (and for many other LDWA events) have become so detailed that they render the map and compass irrelevant. It is now perfectly possible to complete an entire Hundred without ever taking the map and compass out of of your rucksack (except perhaps for the kit check). In a similar vien, many events (and certainly the Hundred) now supply a GPX file to download to a GPS device or a smartphone. Hence the walker can now be guided round the route, being told to 'turn left' 'right' or 'straight on' at every gate or stile. Surely, this is the ultimate in route marking! It seems hypocritical to exclude qualifying events which use route marking when we are doing practically the same thing ourselves.
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Wed 5th Dec 2018, 16:57
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
Thank you for your enquiry Graham

To answer your question and in the example given, absolutely no difference. Both will have successfully completed and proven their ability within the latest finish time of the event. In this case an event with a 20 hours completion deadline (plus any other check point times en-route).

Existing LDWA events allow runners and walkers of all abilities to enter and complete as fast or as slow as their capabilities allow and within checkpoint and overall completion times. Generally speaking, those more capable will not be worried in the slightest if a completion deadline of 20 or up to 24 hours exist. Indeed the really fast members, majority of these being runners, are more than capable of getting around much faster than LDWA time constraints allow and would not be discouraged in entering external events with 15 hour deadlines. Unfortunately many of these events do not include walkers of any ability and therefore will never meet our basic qualification criteria.

The time bands mentioned are in relation to the latest at which an entrant is expected to successfully complete an event. They are not the quickest which will be dictated by organisational constraints of checkpoint times and other variables including individuals capabilities.

A 50 mile event that has a completion deadline between 20-24 hours and satisfies the other constraints is comparable with existing LDWA organised events. Entrants can still finish as fast as they can within their abilities and operational constraints of the event such as check point opening times.
Author: Graham James
Posted: Wed 5th Dec 2018, 12:52
Joined: 2013
Local Group: Wessex
I feel that the logic behind the '20 hour' rule is questionable. Assuming that the purpose of a qualifier is to demonstrate to the organiser that an entrant has the navigational skills and fitness required to complete the 100, then if someone can complete a 50 mile event in say 15 hours, what difference does it make whether that was 5 minutes or 5 hours inside the time limit for that event?
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Mon 3rd Dec 2018, 14:01
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
Thank you for your input Tony. I very much welcome questions and constructive ideas that will enhance the Hundred event and reputation of the LDWA as a whole.

I can see why you think this as exactly I did when enquiring amongst some past and present NEC members and other experienced long term members helping me with an initial review of the Hundred.

The background to this limit goes back a while and historical evidence suggested that larger numbers than this limit walking on paths in a short space of time may have a damaging impact of the landscape. The association environmental policy reflects this and thus supporting larger events would be contradictory.

The reason 550 is currently used (and has been for a number of years) is that traditionally about 10% do not start for any number of reasons. So this simple over booking approach goes some way to ensure that we can get 500 on the start line. I am very pleased for the Hadrian Hundred organising team that the event has proved so popular. Should we actually exceed this 500 starting figure on a more frequent basis then I in conjunction with the NEC Member responsible for Environment will review and recommend an appropriate course of action.

Other issues with larger numbers is that groups throughout the country who are hosting or thinking about hosting the event may have problems. Logistically and operationally it becomes more challenging for organisers to find suitable premises for HQ, Breakfast stop and other Checkpoints and off course continue to provide the wonderful experience the LDWA has a reputation for on this unique event.
Author: Antony Blatchford
Posted: Mon 3rd Dec 2018, 12:23
Joined: 2019
Local Group: Lakeland
According to the criteria set out below, no event with more than 500 entrants will be considered as a qualifying event due to the environmental policy of the LDWA.

Presumably then the Hadrian's Hundred will not count as a qualifying event next year, as the number of entrants is 550, and therefore does not met the LDWA's environmental policies?
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Thu 29th Nov 2018, 14:37
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
Peter

Thank you for your input and highlighting how attractive the flagship event is, even for those living and or working overseas who less able to use a UK qualification event.

My answer is simply - Absolutely not. There will always be exceptional circumstances that will be considered jointly by the 100s Coordinator and Event Organiser on a case by case basis.

I’m proud to say that The LDWA organisers have always been a compassionate bunch and long may this continue. Encouraging participation by both entrants and volunteers is essential for the long term future of the associations flagship event.

Kind regards

Alan
Author: Peter Jull
Posted: Thu 29th Nov 2018, 13:50
Joined: 2011
Local Group: Kent
On the Cinque Ports 100 there were overseas entrants from Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and Hong Kong who added some colour to the event. Is it the intention to exclude such people in the future unless they have a UK qualifier?
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Thu 29th Nov 2018, 11:22
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
Edward

Thank you for your support and comment. You also raise a very valid question. In an ideal world it would be fantastic if all qualifying events were identical and on a level playing field so to speak.

The reality is that event mileage, completion time available, terrain, ascent, location, operational and organisational constraints vary so much. Furthermore it could be suggested that that those less or indeed more capable individuals are naturally deterred, discouraged (intentionally or otherwise) and prevented from entering some events because of the items mentioned above and their own capabilities.

Acknowledging that we will never get to the situation whereby all runners, fast walkers and walkers can enter all events, what can we achieve that will be beneficial to all?

Rather than shutting our doors to externally organised potential Hundred qualifiers a mutual compromise would be better. It means that we as an association can identify a selection of appropriate external events that are comparable with those organised by the LDWA. Providing choice that at least will enable individuals to plan in advance with what I hope will in the longer term be a ‘consistent year-on-year choice’ published before or at the beginning of each Hundred qualifying period. Individuals will have choice and can plan ahead within their capabilities and the constraints faced by event organisers.

This will only truly work if LDWA groups also continue to provide a variety of longer distance challenge events.

kind regards

Alan
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Thu 29th Nov 2018, 10:25
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
Matt.
Yes, technically you are correct under the current conditions of entry to the Hadrians Hundred. However, the organisers are using discretion and will shortly be advising pre selection entrants who have been accepted and inviting them to formally enter. Part of these conditions is that entrant(s) confirm that.........They have sufficient knowledge, experience, equipment and navigational skills to take part in this long distance walk in all conditions.

An initial review of all things Hundred has been carried out, which while not a full blown total membership consultation, did involve many past, present and future organisers plus very experienced individuals. It was crystal clear that amongst other things qualification criteria was vague, inconsistent and loosely based on what the LDWA Challenge Event Secretary uses to decide if an event is suitable for inclusion in Strider and in the on line events listing. As a result the criteria has been significantly reduced and simplified and shown at the beginning of this original forum subject. Item 4 is under review as I wish to find a suitable compromise that will enable a slightly wider choice, albeit still limited by event organisational and operational constraints and individuals ability. We will still have a limited number of external qualifiers consistent year on year.

The reality is that entrants using the previous official LDWA Hundred (Marshals’ or Main event) as a qualifier may have completed 50 miles in daylight. Some externally organised qualifying events mandate the grouping of individuals in periods of darkness. Participants in LDWA challenge events and Qualifiers often naturally gravitate and walk together in both day and night, others merely choose to follow shortly behind (tail gate) and thus this element of 'self navigation in both daylight and periods of darkness' is impossible to validate overall. As a result this specific item has been removed from the criteria for qualifying entries starting in January 2019 for any Hundred from 2020 and beyond.
Author: Matt Clarke
Posted: Wed 28th Nov 2018, 9:46
Joined: 1973
Local Group: Mid Wales
Alan, please could you clarify something. For next year's 100 it states for a qualifying 50: "They must involve night navigation". Does this mean that if you completed a qualifying 50 in the daylight then it would not count? Many thanks: Matt Clarke - 513
Author: Edward Short
Posted: Sat 24th Nov 2018, 6:41
Joined: 2013
Local Group: Essex & Herts
Surely if a non LDWA event which precludes a large number of walkers of completing it in the time limits, say 16 hours, then the NEC are correct in precluding it as a qualifier. A walker could choose a different event to qualify, say 20 hours to qualify, but why, shouldn't all qualifiers be a level playing field for all entrants to qualify for the walking flagship event.
Author: Stuart Lamb
Posted: Wed 21st Nov 2018, 15:11
Joined: 1982
Local Group: Heart of England
Alan, regarding your statement: "However, we are mindful that these must allow our slower walking members a chance to complete within a time consistent with LDWA events and thereby be inclusive of both runners and walkers".

I fail to see the logic behind this: why *must* a non-LDWA have the same minimum duration as an LDWA event? Surely it is up to the organiser of the non-LDWA event to specify the time limit and for entrants to be cognisant of those limits prior to enrolment. If an entrant believes they cannot achieve the necessary pace to complete fifty miles in less than 20 hours then it's simple: they should use a fifty mile event with a 20 hour time limit for the purposes of qualification. But completing fifty miles within a shorter time limit is clearly wholly effective as a means of determining an entrant's suitability to attempt a hundred, namely to qualify for the longer distance.

Please can I request that the committee reconsider the fourth clause as it clearly restricts the number of opportunities available for qualification and therefore, in my opinion, does not serve the wider LDWA membership.


Stuart Lamb 4809
Across Wales Walk Association
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Fri 9th Nov 2018, 12:17
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
Item 4 has generated some interesting discussion in social media and I fear that by trying to be helpful it has merely added some confusion and the message is being lost in translation.

‘The whole concept is to ensure that rather than restrict future qualification to only LDWA events we include other externally (non-LDWA) organised events. However, we are mindful that these must allow our slower walking members a chance to complete within a time consistent with LDWA events and thereby be inclusive of both runners and walkers’.

‘The 50 miles completion within 20 hours is a minimum we will accept. However, if the event allows up to a maximum 24 hours this is also perfectly acceptable, for example Shropshire Way (80km)’
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Thu 8th Nov 2018, 15:02
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
Hi David.
The 'quickest' should perhaps read 'tightest constraint'.
The LDWA challenge event - The Woldsman Returns is a 50 mile event that has a maximum elapsed cut-off time of 20 hours. This is the most demanding from a time perspective as other events allow even more time to complete.
Alternatively just ignore the comment in brackets. Unfortunately I can't edit the original entry to remove them.
Author: John Barry
Posted: Thu 8th Nov 2018, 9:37
Joined: 2018
Local Group: Anytime Anywhere
2.5 miles per hour i.e.
10 miles in four hours.
50 miles in 20 hours

So he means a 50 mile event must be a minimum of 20 hours. The MAX below is a typo.

I was looking at an event "wicklow-way-50-mile"
But the rules states:

CUT OFFS

Runners must finish within the 15 hour time limit...

That doesn't meet the criteria listed (Even if it was 20 hours, it would not anyway since its a way marked route)
Author: David Le Hunte
Posted: Thu 8th Nov 2018, 8:19
Joined: 2013
Local Group: Bristol & West
Confused by item 4. It starts by saying 20 hours is the max for 50 miles, but finishes the item saying 20 hours is the fastest for 50 miles. Which is correct?
Author: Alan Warrington
Posted: Wed 7th Nov 2018, 12:32
Joined: 1979
Local Group: Thames Valley
In order to provide as sufficient notice period as practicable and possible the following information is being published initially in the Hundreds Forum and will appear as part of a more detailed article in April 2019 Strider.

Previously entry criteria for non-LDWA events was very unclear and inconsistent year on year.

Limiting qualification to just future LDWA events is unrealistic so the non-LDWA event qualifying criteria for future Hundreds has been critically reviewed and simplified. The revised criteria below is both approved and supported by the National Executive Committee as a whole.

Revised Non-LDWA entry qualification criteria.

1. Organisers do not exceed 500 entrants (due to the LDWA Environment policy).
2. Event allows both walkers and runners to enter (LDWA Hundred is a walking event that allows runners).
3. Distance to be covered on foot is at least 50 miles or further.
4. Duration time allows completion at a legitimate continuous walking pace of 2.5 mph (4 kph) or quicker; for example 50 miles, completed within a maximum of 20 hours elapsed time. (20 hours is the quickest time for an LDWA 50 mile qualifier)
5. Route is non-repeating multi terrain.
6. Route is not significantly way marked (with signage, tape etc).

Alan Warrington
100s Coordinator

This website uses cookies

To comply with EU Directives we are informing you that our website uses cookies for services such as memberships and Google Analytics.

Your data is completely safe and we do not record any personally identifiable information.

Please click the button to acknowledge and approve our use of cookies during your visit.

Learn more about the Cookie Law