Free routes and distances between controls

[Ivo]

If a ride is under distance, sometimes all it needs is a town you pass through anyway to be added to the control list for it to come out over. Usually this is because when you ride you don't pass right through the centre of the town, you just nip in and get a receipt at the earliest opportunity.
Non gps users do have an advantage here 

Which reminds me of a BRM I once rode in France. I had the chance to ride in the grouplet with the organiser. At a certain moment he deviated from the main road which would lead us down to the valley into the centre of town. After a bit of a round circuit he called a halt and we all stopped at a café-tabac, located well above the valley. This café-tabac proved to be just within citylimits. We got our cards marked and continued. Those who followed the main road to the town's centre had a very nasty climb to leave the town. We neither lost nor gained altitude. (Probably the centre of town version was 1 km shorter.)

[Manotea]

This is not an issue just for perms. It affects all routes including calendars.

The issue is the apparent instance on enforcing mininum route distance measured strictly as 'distance by controls' when there is no clear and standard mechanism for defining where the controls actually are let alone the minimum distance between them, and that the vast majority of routes will be significantly over distance 'on the road' anyway.

That individual experienced auks (myself included) are happy to ride routes which are significantly overdistance is irrelevant.

I have been advised that the GPS Validation tool does NOT verify that the track has visited the route controls and that the tracks are not generally checked manually either, that in most cases track 'validation' consists of checking the track distance as reported by the GPS validation tool report.

The whole situation is a farce.

[frankly frankie]

True.

This interesting thread is linked in the FAQs index.  Please can someone remove the words 'Allure Libre' from the title as it just renders the whole discussion off-topic.

[RichForrest]

This is not an issue just for perms. It affects all routes including calendars.

The issue is the apparent instance on enforcing mininum rout distance measured strictly as 'distance by controls' when there is no clear and standard mechanism for defining where the controls actually are let alone the minimum distance between them, and that the vast majority of routes will be significantly over distance 'on the road' anyway.

That individual experienced auks (myself included) are happy to ride routes which are significantly overdistance  is irrelevant.

I have been advised that the GPS Validation tool does NOT verify that the track has visited the route controls and that the tracks are not generally checked manually either. In most cases track 'validation' consists of checking the track distance as reported by the GPS validation tool report.

The whole situation is a farce.

When someone sends in a track the distance is checked and the software has a tab with a map on it. The track appears on the map allowing me/others to see if the controls have been visited.
There is also a way to see if a track has been used before and the date changed etc, but I'm not going to say how that's done for obvious reasons 

Rich

[frankly frankie]

I have been advised that the GPS Validation tool does NOT verify that the track has visited the route controls and that the tracks are not generally checked manually either

How many advisors have you got?  AIUI, the main purpose of the validation tool is not to check the route, but to check the validity of the track overall, including several factors.  Of course tracks are not checked manually, that would be a retrograde step.  If one person mis-uses or mis-understands the tool, that's neither here nor there.

[RichForrest]

The controls will be checked that the track goes through the point stated on the entry form.

[Panoramix]

The controls will be checked that the track goes through the point stated on the entry form.

This looks like a very polished software!!!

[Manotea]

I dont doubt the capability exists to manually verify the route controls have been visited , the question is are they?

The validation tool does not do it automatically and FF (not a DIY org but closer to these things than I ) thinks it a nonsense to do this manually, so what is the situation?

If the tracks are not being validated for controls then it makes DIY GPS perms purely a distance exercise and makes having controls irrelevant, which is not what its supposed to be about, is it?

My main point is that even with gps diy system there is (currently) no clear and consistent method for defining where a control is in the first place. For example the graphic below from Autoroute10 shows the 'by controls' path used for a calendar event that visits Winnersh. However the actual control is on the junction. The path stub to the waypoint is worth 500m. The same situation can exist in reverse. All of these errors add up. It gets more interesting when different mapping systems are used to design and validate routes, adding error on error, and make a nonsense of any claim to precision relating to 'minimum distance'.



p.s. That looks like a great route, by the way, Rich!  The current version is ~202km 'by controls', ~217 'on the road'. So those riding  the route in say, January, will enjoy a hour of after dark winter riding gratis.

[Greenbank]

My main point is that even with gps diy system there is (currently) no clear and consistent method for defining where a control is in the first place. For example the graphic below from Autoroute10 shows the 'by controls' path used for a calendar event that visits Winnersh. However the actual control is on the junction. The path stub to the waypoint is worth 500m. The same situation can exist in reverse. All of these errors add up. It gets more interesting when different mapping systems are used to design and validate routes, adding error on error, and make a nonsense of any claim to precision relating to 'minimum distance'.

When I created my previous DIY routes I'd often see things like the above, but I'd drag the box to where I knew the actual control was to correct them, rather than it being in the backstreets (Autoroute puts 'Broxbourne' in a really odd place for example which adds 1km, so 2km for an out and back route). I'd then send the resulting .axe file to the DIY organiser (since I knew he used Autoroute).

I dont doubt the capability exists to manually verify the route controls have been visited , the question is are they?

The validation tool does not do it automatically and FF (not a DIY org but closer to these things than I ) thinks it a nonsense to do this manually, so what is the situation?

The validation tool can't check them automatically since they're not available to the tool in electronic form, but it does allow for someone to quickly zoom in the on the locations to make a visual check that it matches what is on the entry form. It's quicker doing this than typing them in order for the tool to do it itself (and probably fail to understand that there are several places of the same name in the country).

I think FF was referring to a 'manual check' as an manual inspection of the GPX file itself (as a text file) rather than using the tool to provide the map view for a visual check.

[MSeries]

By not being too explicit with the controls one can take advantage of the features that Manotea and Rich F point out above. Even GPS users just say they are going to pass through a town. Only the electronic entry form allows grid reference and that isn't mandatory. It's up to the organiser to accept or deny control locations and then validate that the rider passed through.  Entry just requires a list of control places and always should remain so. Thus there is some leeway and vagueness with regards distance calculations already. Similarly since elevation measurement isn't very accurate at all, not even contour counts are 100% accurate the application of the 125m rounding for AAA points is to me a most sensible idea.

[Ivo]

On the road I usually use the classic medieval way of determining the centre of the control, the highest tower. So i just cycle to it, at the foot of it make sure that I'm not too fast and continue my ride. Of course the highest tower is not marked on the GPS software but it usually works.

[mattc]

True.

This interesting thread is linked in the FAQs index.  Please can someone remove the words 'Allure Libre' from the title as it just renders the whole discussion off-topic.

Is there a correct term for the UK's "Route Libre" approach?

Am I right in remembering that only the UK does this?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Only AUK does it explicitly. Other countries' agreements with the ACP implicitly require fixed routes.

[Ivo]

Only AUK does it explicitly. Other countries' agreements with the ACP implicitly require fixed routes.

There's a phrase in the original rule text along the line of 'for reasons of security riders are expected to respect the route'. Which isn't 100% strict. Only the German Translation stipulates 100% adherance to the route. Mostly it's an expectation where minor deviations are accepted.

[Manotea]

When I created my previous DIY routes I'd often see things like the above, but I'd drag the box to where I knew the actual control was to correct them, rather than it being in the backstreets (Autoroute puts 'Broxbourne' in a really odd place for example which adds 1km, so 2km for an out and back route). I'd then send the resulting .axe file to the DIY organiser (since I knew he used Autoroute).

Most people with access to some form of software based planning tools do similar 'tidying up' of routes but that is in fact on the one hand entirely irrelevant to the point and is in fact against both the letter and the spirit of the rules which require 'minumum distance by controls', as defined by whatever mapping tool the org happens to be using.

As noted, in practice nobody really knows where those controls actually are and there is no method for confirming the controls are actually visited. Meanwhile routes which are significantly overdistance 'on the road' are being rejected for  being underdistance 'by controls' by 500m.

The current situation is a farce.

 

[mattc]

Which isn't 100% strict. ...  Mostly it's an expectation where minor deviations are accepted.

Nice to see a completely unambiguous set of rules with no wiggle room.

[MSeries]

As noted, in practice nobody really knows where those controls actually are and there is no method for confirming the controls are actually visited. Meanwhile routes which are significantly overdistance 'on the road' are being rejected for  being underdistance 'by controls' by 500m.

Which is why I don't think permitting some tolerance AGAIN (like we used to have) is  a bad idea. The rounding for AAA points is very very sensible, contour counts are not accurate nor are GPS elevations or satelite measuring. All use interpolatons and approximations.

[Panoramix]

Only AUK does it explicitly. Other countries' agreements with the ACP implicitly require fixed routes.

There's a phrase in the original rule text along the line of 'for reasons of security riders are expected to respect the route'. Which isn't 100% strict. Only the German Translation stipulates 100% adherance to the route. Mostly it's an expectation where minor deviations are accepted.

My understanding is that in France your brevet can in theory be invalidated if you don't follow the route. I haven't done a Brevet in France yet but from reading the French forum it seems to be a big no no.

[Ian H]

My understanding is that in France your brevet can in theory be invalidated if you don't follow the route. I haven't done a Brevet in France yet but from reading the French forum it seems to be a big no no.

Yes...in theory. In practice honest mistakes are generally treated leniently. A GB rider who failed to register at one control on PBP was given a small time penalty.

[SandyV]

In Australia you are required to follow the route

[mrcharly-YHT]

I'm not surprised. Australia has very few roads by comparison, and deviating from the route is possibly only going to be possible by taking strange bushtracks.

[Ivo]

Only AUK does it explicitly. Other countries' agreements with the ACP implicitly require fixed routes.

There's a phrase in the original rule text along the line of 'for reasons of security riders are expected to respect the route'. Which isn't 100% strict. Only the German Translation stipulates 100% adherance to the route. Mostly it's an expectation where minor deviations are accepted.

My understanding is that in France your brevet can in theory be invalidated if you don't follow the route. I haven't done a Brevet in France yet but from reading the French forum it seems to be a big no no.

In theorie yes. My experience of the northern French brevets is that hardly anyone follows the route 100%. Within towns there isn't even a route specified. More like Dxxx town yyy Dzzz so only the roads by which you enter and leave the town are specified. Nothing else.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Not in all areas, Victoria has a good secondary road network. In Queensland, the shortest routes between checkpoints are usually highways but there are often longer secondary roads that also connect.

The USA explicitly has mandatory routes.

[SandyV]

Quite so. Sometimes we can even find one or two that are sealed. And where there's more than one we have to put in a secret control to make sure. Usually only an issue on 400+ rides though.

[RichForrest]

When I created my previous DIY routes I'd often see things like the above, but I'd drag the box to where I knew the actual control was to correct them, rather than it being in the backstreets (Autoroute puts 'Broxbourne' in a really odd place for example which adds 1km, so 2km for an out and back route). I'd then send the resulting .axe file to the DIY organiser (since I knew he used Autoroute).

Most people with access to some form of software based planning tools do similar 'tidying up' of routes but that is in fact on the one hand entirely irrelevant to the point and is in fact against both the letter and the spirit of the rules which require 'minumum distance by controls', as defined by whatever mapping tool the org happens to be using.

As noted, in practice nobody really knows where those controls actually are and there is no method for confirming the controls are actually visited. Meanwhile routes which are significantly overdistance 'on the road' are being rejected for  being underdistance 'by controls' by 500m.

The current situation is a farce.

 

I do know where the controls are, the rider has to tell me when they enter.
It can be a town as has always been the case. Hence on some calendar rides being X rated events excepting a receipt for the town instead of a stamp at a cafe because the cafe may be busy.

You have a choice when entering, use a town in general or use a specific point to bring it spot on the number. The former may need to be jogged about a bit to be allowed validation though but if you choose that one allow time for it to be ok'd before riding it
And the control locations are checked as visited when the tracks are opened, if you don't pass through the place nominated you may not get the points.
I say may not as there is always a chance of road closures etc that make a difference. These will be taken into account when the track is submitted and I'll always pass it on the the perms man for the final answer.

Rich