LOBET to Evaluate Terrain

[Cgkdisc]

A while back I had been working on a method to evaluate the potential of a site for producing a quality course based on the terrain available. The factors involved: Length, OB/hazards, Elevation, Trees produce the acronym LOBET. At the time, we were working with the PDGA Course Evaluation system which had Design as one of the three elements in the rating. I used the detailed Design scores for eleven of the courses I had designed as a reference benchmark to see how closely I could develop the values and weighting factors for terrain factors to match those scores.

The first attachment shows the correlation of my LOBET formula with the PDGA Evaluation Design scores on the bottom row of the Actual column with a value of 0.93 (very good). The current DGCR ratings for those courses and the # of Reviews are in the last columns. The DGCR correlation is lower at 0.81 which still is pretty good.

The Wgt factors at the bottom for each LOBET element are what I determined produced the best correlation with the PDGA Design Eval scores which are done hole by hole. In the second attachment, I tweaked these LOBET weighting factors to produce the highest correlation with the DGCR ratings and was able to get it to a very good value of 0.94.

If you compare the weight factors for the PDGA Eval table versus the DGCR table at the bottom, you can see how well the DGCR factors reflect the results from the How Wooded Do We Like It thread here:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81274 DGCR reviewers like elevation more than trees and OB/hazards not as much as designers.

Recognize that LOBET was intended to simply determine how good your course DESIGN could be for a given site. A course as rated by DGCR or anyone for that matter takes other elements in consideration so trying to correlate with DGCR ratings has somewhat less value. However, if a designer wants to cater to the DGCR audience, having a site with lots of elevation, not too wooded and not many OB hazards probably helps.

For those who would like to try the LOBET system, the Length factor is the potential design length you think you can get or plan to get on the site divided by 9000. A course can be longer than 9000 feet. The other three factors work as follows: Determine what percentage of the holes will be significantly impacted by elevation, OB/hazards and trees. For example, if half (50%) of the holes will be impacted by elevation that really affects the hole (not just 5-10 feet) then your elevation value in the table is 0.5.

You multiply your LOBET values either by the designer Wgt factors used for the PDGA Evals or the ones for DGCR ratings to get your raw value shown in the LOBET column of the tables like say 1.6 for Woodland Greens. The LOBET value is multiplied by 25 and then added to 65 to get the PDGA Design Eval value of 105. The 25 slope & 65 constant were the linear regression factors I determined to get the numbers adjusted to the PDGA Eval scale). Scores in the 90-100 range are Average, over 105 is Goood and over 115 Very Good.

 

[Sadjo]

Is the hope of this sytem to better judge what a potential property can offer as far as design goes? I'd be interested to plug some numbers in (or better yet send them to you to plug in, in case I'm missing something) and see if the numbers reflect the quality of the course I think a particular piece of property would produce.

There's one piece we've been working on for several years that I think, if we ever get it done, could end up being a top 10 course...it would be interesting to see if this formula backs up my assessment.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Yes, it's simply a guide for what might be possible on a site. When a designer or anyone for that matter is asked by the Park Dept or property owner what might be possible for disc golf on the site, the LOBET method could help provide an indication. Another interesting aspect might be to evaluate how well the designer and site owner developed the course that's there versus what could have been possible. The LOBET score might help sell improvements to the owners.

 

[Sadjo]

Yes, it's simply a guide for what might be possible on a site. When a designer or anyone for that matter is asked by the Park Dept or property owner what might be possible for disc golf on the site, the LOBET method could help provide an indication. Another interesting aspect might be to evaluate how well the designer and site owner developed the course that's there versus what could have been possible. The LOBET score might help sell improvements to the owners.

One of the private pay to play courses in my area could be so much more than it is. The owner just doesn't want to because he doesnt think that doing any more course improvements will improve traffic to the course.

 

[roclover]

I find this very interesting and potentially useful. Is there any chance that I could get you to send me a copy of that excel template?

 

[Cgkdisc]

There's not really an Excel template. I used Excel to display the results. The one cell has the LOBET formula in it that I indicated.

 

[Sadjo]

What numbers or how do you determine the numbers when using this formula to pitch a course? A lot of mayors/park directors/county commissions have egos and showing how other courses in the area rate versus how one in their parks would rate could help tip the balance in your favor when doing a proposal.

When in the propsal stage you don't always have a design in mind as much as you know the area you want to use for a course.

 

[Cgkdisc]

You have to determine the boundaries of the area where you would do the design. The acreage chart on the PDGA site can give you an idea how long a course you might be able to get based on the terrain: Course Design Acreage Guide If you see a pond and figure you could use it for 2 holes out of 18, that's 1/9 or about 0.1 you add to that factor along with other OB/hazard elements like holes near OB fences let's say. If the relevant property is about half wooded, then 0.5 is probably your woods factor.

 

[Sadjo]

Is this something that we might see adopted by the PDGA or the Disc Golf Designers Group in the future? I'd like to run numbers for the existing courses in Oconee County, SC and compare them to the two pieces of property we already have agreement from local government to use and where we already have baskets purchased to show the potential. If we can show concrete data that we have the potential to have one of the best courses in the county, which I believe to be true, then this will be great data to have.

I think I can play to egos and get them to give funding for the clearing.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I've placed the info for doing LOBET in the DGCD group files area similar to what I've posted several years ago but no one has jumped on it yet. No plans to bring it to the PDGA until they are able to apply more resources towards the Directory, Apps and course development.

 

[Peterb]

Next course I design, I'm going to do a LIDAR flight and be able to objectively determine LOBET. That would be awesome...

 

[Sadjo]

I've placed the info for doing LOBET in the DGCD group files area similar to what I've posted several years ago but no one has jumped on it yet. No plans to bring it to the PDGA until they are able to apply more resources towards the Directory, Apps and course development.

Are you interested in helping put this in to practical use in helping either sell a course to a community or in helping increase some funding to finish a course project?

I'm not a math person...so crunching the numbers won't be my strong point. Making the presentation and closing the deal is what I bring to the table.

 

[Cgkdisc]

You'll need to have someone do the legwork on the site to determine the Length, OB/hazards, elevation and tree factors. I can do the math part or make sure it's done properly.

 

[Peterb]

You'll need to have someone do the legwork on the site to determine the Length, OB/hazards, elevation and tree factors. I can do the math part or make sure it's done properly.

That's why GPS and LIDAR are the ultimate tools for this type of analysis. You can objectively measure the data and create accurate results. Surveying is another way, but very time consuming.

 

[Sadjo]

You'll need to have someone do the legwork on the site to determine the Length, OB/hazards, elevation and tree factors. I can do the math part or make sure it's done properly.

Would you count a shallow but defined creek water hazard the same as a pond? A pond makes retrieving a disc difficult while a shallow creek doesn't. Do you count the same?

I'll get info together and see what I come up with.

 

[Cgkdisc]

It depends on whether you'll mark the creek or any other feature for that matter OB or not, not whether players can retrieve their discs.

 

[Sadjo]

I ask because of players not liking water OB and think part of that being how easy it is to retrieve discs that end up wet.