Too clever for our own good

Orienteering seems to attract the sort of person who enjoys solving crossword puzzles.

Take a look at the results list from any race in the UK - say this year's British Championships:

M21E
  1  Oliver Johnson           SYO     81:54   
  2  Mark Nixon               EUOC    84:18 
  3  Julian Simpson           OD      86:24 
  4  Alastair Buckley         SYO     86:47 
  5  Duncan Archer            CLOK    86:59 
  6  Clive Parry              EPOC    87:57 
  7  Stewart Fishwick         LOC     90:01 
  8  Andrew Middleditch       SHUOC   90:13 
  9  Chris Sellens            SOS     91:07 
 10  Neil Northrop            WAOC    91:26

If you're not acquainted with British orienteering club names, those acronyms will certainly have you stumped.

A minor detail maybe, but this is the sort of thing that makes orienteering seem cliquey to the outsider. Which newspaper would publish these results? How many of their readers would understand them?

Writing ...

M21E
  1  Oliver Johnson           South Yorks         81:54   
  2  Mark Nixon               Edinburgh Uni       84:18   
  3  Julian Simpson           Coventry            86:24   
  4  Alastair Buckley         South Yorks         86:47   
  5  Duncan Archer            Cleveland           86:59   
  6  Clive Parry              East Pennine        87:57   
  7  Stewart Fishwick         Lakeland            90:01   
  8  Andrew Middleditch       Sheffield Uni       90:13   
  9  Chris Sellens            Essex               91:07   
 10  Neil Northrop            West Anglia         91:26

... would mean a small loss of brevity but a giant leap in clarity.

I know this would spoil the fun for the crossword solvers amongst us (I'm one myself) who are amused that a competitor from Coventry runs for OD, or an Essex runner represents SOS.

But presenting orienteering to the uninitiated is hard enough as it is, without making it unnecessarily cryptic.