My first thought is that the shortest distance between controls needn't apply, as the route ridden will be clear to see. How to might I be reasonably confident that the rider rode the route? I don't think there will be issues with forged tracklogs, but how might I guard against such nefarious deeds?
I can't imagine it would be much effort to completely fabricate a gpx in much less time it takes to go out and gather receipts using some other means than human muscular effort.My first thought is that the shortest distance between controls needn't apply, as the route ridden will be clear to see. How to might I be reasonably confident that the rider rode the route? I don't think there will be issues with forged tracklogs, but how might I guard against such nefarious deeds?
As a computery guy rather than someone who knows about Audax: It'd be pretty trivial for anyone competent to forge a single gpx file.
I know there's no reason for tough security, but maybe asking just a couple of receipts for the whole ride (which match up with the tracklog) might be cautious? Just a single something/anything more than the tracklog alone.
Then it's surely worth the fairer distance/easier planning benefits.
It's a good point you two make. I did wonder if there was potential to use, say MS Excel to check two ostensibly identical tracklogs to make sure they were sufficiently different in terms of geolocation, gaps bewtween points, etc.
I can't imagine it would be much effort to completely fabricate a gpx in much less time it takes to go out and gather receipts using some other means than human muscular effort.
If the 'shortest route' concept is ditched, will you still have controls?
Will riders still submit their route in advance? How closely will you check that the route they ride is the same that they submitted?
If they go off route, do they have to return to their first deviation? Or just ride far enough to make up the distance? What about road closures?
Being able to use normal controls (Putney, Epsom, Dorking, Epsom, Putney or Waterloo) with the GPX file for Ewhurst would solve this problem.
If the 'shortest route' concept is ditched, will you still have controls?
Actually, I'm struggling to think of a way of cheating that's less detectable using a GPS than with the current system.
If the 'shortest route' concept is ditched, will you still have controls?
Theoretically, no. The route is the route. The downside would be a lack of freedom to improvise as you go along, which a control-based system affords you.
Personally, I favour a control-based system, but I'm willing to have my head turned.
I'm with jwo. It's highly unlikely that someone would go to all that effort to fake it, so why bother worrying about it. And if they do then more fool them.
As a computery guy rather than someone who knows about Audax[...]
so the entry form would simply say "on Monday 28th I'm going to ride 207km " ?
As for Matt's point about controls, you could still keep the same rules about controls (max distance between them, nominal min and max times to arrive at them etc.). It's just that proof that you get to those controls at a given time would be via the tracklog, not a receipt. Nothing to stop you going off route, following road diversions etc. just like we do at the moment, as long as you do arrive at the pre-agreed controls within time.But that doesn't tally with what Danial just said. No pre agreed controls, just a route. I am warming to the idea of not having to ride roughly 10% more to satisfy the agreed route. All I need now is someone to make a GPS that is tiny and will record my path without having to sit on my handle bars and get in the way. Don't need it to tell me where to go.
As for Matt's point about controls, you could still keep the same rules about controls (max distance between them, nominal min and max times to arrive at them etc.). It's just that proof that you get to those controls at a given time would be via the tracklog, not a receipt. Nothing to stop you going off route, following road diversions etc. just like we do at the moment, as long as you do arrive at the pre-agreed controls within time.But that doesn't tally with what Danial just said.
As for Matt's point about controls, you could still keep the same rules about controls (max distance between them, nominal min and max times to arrive at them etc.). It's just that proof that you get to those controls at a given time would be via the tracklog, not a receipt. Nothing to stop you going off route, following road diversions etc. just like we do at the moment, as long as you do arrive at the pre-agreed controls within time.But that doesn't tally with what Danial just said.
FranklyFrankie made the point that wireless GPS units may be able to send tracks to each other in the future, which may make the vlidation of gpx files during events a bit trickier.
From Mseries
All I need now is someone to make a GPS that is tiny and will record my path without having to sit on my handle bars and get in the way. Don't need it to tell me where to go
... I have absolutely no desire or reason to forge a DIY route. There is no point. My inner geek has no trouble in seeing that such a thing could be forged, but that doesn't mean anyone would actually do so.
QuoteFrom Mseries
All I need now is someone to make a GPS that is tiny and will record my path without having to sit on my handle bars and get in the way. Don't need it to tell me where to go
There's a number of applications for the iPhone and Blackberry that will do that. I assume there's something similar for other GPS equipped phones
All I need now is someone to make a GPS that is tiny and will record my path without having to sit on my handle bars and get in the way.
Tracklogs for PoP? Gets my vote.:thumbsup:
How long before we start to see retro audaxes? Fixed gear, no gps allowed - printed routesheet only, no computerised PoPs. There could be an award - in a retro 1930s styling.
All I need now is someone to make a GPS that is tiny and will record my path without having to sit on my handle bars and get in the way. Don't need it to tell me where to go.Tiny GPS data loggers exist: I-GotU (http://www.easydevices.co.uk/pp/GPS_Receivers/GPS_Tracker/I-GotU_USB_GPS_TRAVEL_DATA_LOGGER.html). I've not used one so I can't say how well it works.
Sure - but as a regulatory body, AUK are obliged to concern themselves with these kind of possibilities.[...]
How long before we start to see retro audaxes?
Tiny GPS data loggers exist: I-GotU (http://www.easydevices.co.uk/pp/GPS_Receivers/GPS_Tracker/I-GotU_USB_GPS_TRAVEL_DATA_LOGGER.html). I've not used one so I can't say how well it works.
Would validation via gpx file mean that a pre-authorised 'Frome - Amesbury via the Wylye Valley' be possible?
If a system doesn't allow me to check a route and bang out an email in 2-3 minutes, I'm not going to use it.
Would this eliminate the need for physical brevet cards, enabling me to submit everthing electronically?I presume one would still need to send off an entry form.
Sounds like a win to me!
Why not submit entry form by email?I'd love to. DOn't really know the answer to your question. I'm just another punter.
I submit my DIY entry forms electronically as a PDF with a scanned copy of my signature.I knew they'd be differences amongst the different DIY organisers. Hence my earlier comment.
Why not submit entry form by email?I'd love to. DOn't really know the answer to your question. I'm just another punter.
Just struck me that this mechanism has a bunch of benefits - reduces chances of stuff getting lost in the post, could get a "proof of receipt" from the organiser for a submission, means you can still submit even if you've run out of envelopes or stamps (is that just me?), and I wondered just how electronic it could be?
So question for Danial - is this part of your thinking in your proposal to AUK committee?
Just struck me that this mechanism has a bunch of benefits - reduces chances of stuff getting lost in the post, could get a "proof of receipt" from the organiser for a submission, means you can still submit even if you've run out of envelopes or stamps (is that just me?), and I wondered just how electronic it could be?
So question for Danial - is this part of your thinking in your proposal to AUK committee?
No, because it happens already. I'm always happy to take an entry form by email. Indeed, if you pay by Paypal for an AUK event, you won't fill out a standard application form.
so how does/can the rider get his brevet card without submitting an sae? Apologies if this is old hat to you all, feel free to simply point me to a relevant info point !
Much discussion here, just FYI:No, because it happens already. I'm always happy to take an entry form by email. Indeed, if you pay by Paypal for an AUK event, you won't fill out a standard application form.
<trying to keep up>
so how does/can the rider get his brevet card without submitting an sae? Apologies if this is old hat to you all, feel free to simply point me to a relevant info point !
I've forgotten how much they are but its something like 5 for £10.
If a system doesn't allow me to check a route and bang out an email in 2-3 minutes, I'm not going to use it.
I think that's a good point. It would be quite easy for us to use or write a simple bit of free software that given a GPX file would display its total distance, time taken etc. If that software was made available to everyone, riders could check it themselves before sending to to validators for er... validation. In theory it should be quicker than checking the times and locations of a set of soggy receipts.
As to falsifying, IF anyone cares, I think it would be a good deal more trouble to make a file up with realistically varying speeds along the way, than to fake up receipts. if someone goes round the whole route at exactly 22.5kph, then I think we might smell a rodent.The issue is that once someone works out how to do it, it will be automated, and the floodgates may open.
Someone will take pride in 'hacking the system', even if they give not a sod about SRs, championships etc. The classic "spoiling it for everyone"
Someone will take pride in 'hacking the system', even if they give not a sod about SRs, championships etc. The classic "spoiling it for everyone"
On what basis do you think it more likely that people will hack a false GPX file than, say, write a program to print out realistic looking cashpoint receipts? Why this sudden fear about cheating?
Excellent Danial. Good luck with the proposal.
The whole system is built on trust anyway. For example, use of Info controls on perms, manual annotation of receipts where the till time is wrong or has no indication of the location, using postmarks on postcards, the fact I can get Fixed Wheel Points for a perm that no-one else witnesses etc. etc.
Long may we continue to rely on trust, and lets not put new methods of route identification under greater scrutiny than older ones.
PS, do I ride DIYs? yes I do. do I sometimes find myself well over distance because of the difficulty getting controls? yes I do. do I spend a chunk a time researching potential controls for rides? yes I do. Its all part of the fun...
PS, do I ride DIYs? yes I do. do I sometimes find myself well over distance because of the difficulty getting controls? yes I do. do I spend a chunk a time researching potential controls for rides? yes I do. Its all part of the fun...
But it's not very "self sufficient" though is it, to rely on others to stamp our cards or provide receipts for us?Sounds like an arguement against organised controls....
One of the big advantages of allowing GPS (or timestamped photos for that matter) would be to allow us to ride some of the calendar or perm routes without the need to resort perm organisers constructing info controls, or replacing infos with diversions to settlements that have cashpoints etc.As you say, allowing timestamped photos would solve the problem.
I have a favourite DIY perm that I can do from home that takes me through rural Essex. Except I can't currently do it on a Sunday because it relies upon a post office that closes for the weekend on Saturday afternoon. I have another 200 that I have to do in less than 10 hours with a 6am start because the garage at the end of the ride closes at 4pm. A more flexible attitude to proof-of-passage would open up new opportunities for DIY Audaxes currently denied us.It cannot be denied. Except does it matter? Does every outing have to be accounted for in AUK ledgers? I passed the rubicon this year when I rode round the little willy and nyctophobic (calendar 100km routes) 'just for fun', though I suspect I'll find a way to claim for extracurricular circuits of 200km+ routes like Anfractuous and Willy Warmer.
another factor to consider is organiser time. The current DIY regs are designed to avoid organisers getting tied in checking and debating routes. If a system doesn't allow me to check a route and bang out an email in 2-3 minutes, I'm not going to use it.
I like cycling "over" distance
But it's not very "self sufficient" though is it, to rely on others to stamp our cards or provide receipts for us?
I'm not convinced you know. Yes tracklogs support continuous riding with no stopping at controls but I like controls. The fact that every few hours you need to take moment or several to get a control and take a break is a good thing. Its what makes audax what it is, and is a large part of teh difference between audax and racing, if you like.I would not want to see calendar events change, for all the reasons Paul gives (to say nothing of forcing calendar organisers, some of whom are still delightfully operating in the late 19th C, to use computer-based mapping). But once the genie is out of the bottle will it be possible to limit the scope?
But it's not very "self sufficient" though is it, to rely on others to stamp our cards or provide receipts for us?... or launch a few satellites to save us the trouble ... ;)
LOL.But it's not very "self sufficient" though is it, to rely on others to stamp our cards or provide receipts for us?... or launch a few satellites to save us the trouble ... ;)
... (to say nothing of forcing calendar organisers, some of whom are still delightfully operating in the late 19th C, to use computer-based mapping).
I'm not convinced you know. Yes tracklogs support continuous riding with no stopping at controls but I like controls. The fact that every few hours you need to take moment or several to get a control and take a break is a good thing. Its what makes audax what it is, and is a large part of teh difference between audax and racing, if you like.
I could easily have driven round the route with the aircon on collecting receipts from the various shops so the whole thing of collecting proof of passage is bollocks anyway.
I'll be a guinea pig!
Danial, say I wanted to ride this route that I've just invented and put on Bikely:
Bicycle Path - Tintern Abbey 200 at Bikely.com (http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/Tintern-Abbey-200)
Can I email you an entry form, pay by paypal, attach the .gpx of the proposed route for your approval and then go and ride it? Afterwards I'll mail the actual gpx of what I did. No brevet card required, as far as I can see.
I won't be after official validation, but you could use it as an example to put to the committee perhaps?
Next thursday if anyone's interested in joining me! :)
I'll be a guinea pig!
Danial, say I wanted to ride this route that I've just invented and put on Bikely:
Bicycle Path - Tintern Abbey 200 at Bikely.com (http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/Tintern-Abbey-200)
Can I email you an entry form, pay by paypal, attach the .gpx of the proposed route for your approval and then go and ride it? Afterwards I'll mail the actual gpx of what I did. No brevet card required, as far as I can see.
I won't be after official validation, but you could use it as an example to put to the committee perhaps?
Next thursday if anyone's interested in joining me! :)
I rode this Cambrian Series route a week ago today. And guess what, I thought, "what is the point of collecting receipts when I could simply provide proof via GPS". Inspiration!
By the way, you will enjoy the route.
I'm taking a proposal to the next commitee meeting, to allow me to test using tracklogs and GPX files to check and validate DIY perms on my patch. I hope that the commitee will allow me a temporary waiver to validate rides without the normal proof of passage, such as stamps and receipts.Not sure if it's already been mentioned but look for some evidence of speed variation, such as when going down/up hill, and due to wind. If someone cheats by driving, then these tell tale signs of a typical cycle ride may not be present.
If the committee are amenable, how do you see such a system developing?
My first thought is that the shortest distance between controls needn't apply, as the route ridden will be clear to see. How to might I be reasonably confident that the rider rode the route? I don't think there will be issues with forged tracklogs, but how might I guard against such nefarious deeds?
Any thoughts gratefully welcome. Any volunteers to experiment on also happily considered.
Not sure if it's already been mentioned but look for some evidence of speed variation, such as when going down/up hill, and due to wind. If someone cheats by driving, then these tell tale signs of a typical cycle ride may not be present.
Not sure if it's already been mentioned but look for some evidence of speed variation, such as when going down/up hill, and due to wind. If someone cheats by driving, then these tell tale signs of a typical cycle ride may not be present.
If the answer to that is "all DIY audaxes have to be pre-planned", then what is the reason WHY they should have to be preplanned?
One other point, completely aside from cheating, is this: could it not give rise to *any* ride on which you had your GPS on, being able to be converted into an Audax? e.g. i did a 200 mile ride over the weekend, could I not *retrospectively* say that that was DIY audax?
An interesting point is how would you check that the ride has followed the planned route?
If you submitted your route as a GPX, I guess you could write a script to compare the original route and the generated track, and allowing for a generous error in the GPS, list any point where the route wasn't followed, or the track when too far off the route. I guess then it would be up to the DIY organiser to decide on how much variation between the two was acceptable.
(Although a route with just a few points, and then a track with a lot more points would be interesting to compare, you would probably have to interpolate points and compare to that, or compare the track points to a line between route points...)
One other point, completely aside from cheating, is this: could it not give rise to *any* ride on which you had your GPS on, being able to be converted into an Audax? e.g. i did a 200 mile ride over the weekend, could I not *retrospectively* say that that was DIY audax?You can't get validation for a ride you haven't entered.
If the answer to that is "all DIY audaxes have to be pre-planned", then what is the reason WHY they should have to be preplanned?
Expanding the topic slightly - is there any way a mobile 'phone can be persuaded to record where it is and when?Dunno. You raise a good point though, this seems to me about proof of passage where there are not any shops or anywhere else to get a receipt from. A digital photo has been accepted by my local DIY organiser this year. Perhaps simply a picture of a verifiable road junction or other landmark is all that is really needed, we just need to prove we were there at a certain time after all, the route we took is not important.
So when I send a text (or make a call) the service provider knows which service point I am using and hence broadly where I am, and knows exactly the time - is this information a) available & b) useful for providing a proof of passage (ignoring for a moment areas with no service)
Expanding the topic slightly - is there any way a mobile 'phone can be persuaded to record where it is and when?
So when I send a text (or make a call) the service provider knows which service point I am using and hence broadly where I am, and knows exactly the time - is this information a) available & b) useful for providing a proof of passage (ignoring for a moment areas with no service)
One other point, completely aside from cheating, is this: could it not give rise to *any* ride on which you had your GPS on, being able to be converted into an Audax? e.g. i did a 200 mile ride over the weekend, could I not *retrospectively* say that that was DIY audax?
An interesting point is how would you check that the ride has followed the planned route?
If you submitted your route as a GPX, I guess you could write a script to compare the original route and the generated track, and allowing for a generous error in the GPS, list any point where the route wasn't followed, or the track when too far off the route. I guess then it would be up to the DIY organiser to decide on how much variation between the two was acceptable.Hmm, an interesting consequence of this would be that it may make them MORE strict than calendar events.
I know I'm sort of being deliberately obtuse but it sort of highlights that deviating from a 'controls' based approach might be a bit of a slippery slope to go down. The bottom of which could be an audax on a turbo ;) ::-)
Well, my question was why does there have to have even BEEN a planned route - why can a completely impromptu, unplanned ride just following your nose not be an audax.
But Greenbank has sort of answered that by saying the spirit of audax is "Completing what you set out to do". I presume 'set out to do' means having actually planned a route and THEN followed, rather than just 'ride a loop of x miles' but doing it ad-hoc and choosing where to go on the fly and following your nose.
If this is not the case, is there anything stopping the pre-planned route being "8,670 laps of manchester velodrome" ? ;)
I think that Greenbank's view that you should finish what you set out to achieve has a lot of merit. You set yourself a personal challenge and go out to achieve it.i think any rider who agrees to follow a set route on a DIY perm is increasing his chances of failure. It doesn't allow for local conditions on the day and the choice of a different route. It'll be their call of course. There is a thread on here today talking about avoiding the wind on the banks of the Trent, that would cause failure if the wrong bank is on the track.
It's right that you can't, for example, claim 2 points for packing half way round a 400 perm.
I don't see the need for controls on DIY perms if a pre-agreed route is followed. Provided that the GPS track of the actual ride completed substantially matches a route agreed in advance and is up to distance then that's surely OK? All correspondence can be elctronic, no brevet card is required and it would make life easier for all concerned, once bedded in.
I know I'm sort of being deliberately obtuse but it sort of highlights that deviating from a 'controls' based approach might be a bit of a slippery slope to go down. The bottom of which could be an audax on a turbo ;) ::-)
I know I'm sort of being deliberately obtuse but it sort of highlights that deviating from a 'controls' based approach might be a bit of a slippery slope to go down. The bottom of which could be an audax on a turbo ;) ::-)
Howzabout 18 laps of Richmond Park plus there and back from home?
I didn't say any of that
i think any rider who agrees to follow a set route on a DIY perm is increasing his chances of failure. It doesn't allow for local conditions on the day and the choice of a different route. It'll be their call of course. There is a thread on here today talking about avoiding the wind on the banks of the Trent, that would cause failure if the wrong bank is on the track.
It's an unwritten rule that one can't ride more than one event at once. So one could not claim for the first 200km of a DNF 400km, that's not just Greenbanks view. You can't claim for events not entered. You enter the 400, not the 200. By the same token then, you can't submit a track for a ride you did two years ago. you didn't enter it.
Howzabout 18 laps of Richmond Park plus there and back from home?
If this is not the case, is there anything stopping the pre-planned route being "8,670 laps of manchester velodrome" ? ;)
I know I'm sort of being deliberately obtuse but it sort of highlights that deviating from a 'controls' based approach might be a bit of a slippery slope to go down. The bottom of which could be an audax on a turbo ;) ::-)
"set out to do" doesn't mean having a planned route. It means visiting all of the listed controls, in the expected order.
i think any rider who agrees to follow a set route on a DIY perm is increasing his chances of failure. It doesn't allow for local conditions on the day and the choice of a different route. It'll be their call of course. There is a thread on here today talking about avoiding the wind on the banks of the Trent, that would cause failure if the wrong bank is on the track.And I presume that, tied to that, you can't *enter* two events that occur at the same time - so therefore you can't enter the 400 but also enter the 200 just in case you DNF the 400? ;)
It's an unwritten rule that one can't ride more than one event at once. So one could not claim for the first 200km of a DNF 400km, that's not just Greenbanks view. You can't claim for events not entered. You enter the 400, not the 200. By the same token then, you can't submit a track for a ride you did two years ago. you didn't enter it.
Well, where do you draw the line?QuoteI know I'm sort of being deliberately obtuse but it sort of highlights that deviating from a 'controls' based approach might be a bit of a slippery slope to go down. The bottom of which could be an audax on a turbo ;) ::-)
Howzabout 18 laps of Richmond Park plus there and back from home?
I'm sure one of the controls on the cambrian was not a specific place but "anywhere in church stretton" - some people went to a chip shop but others went to a caff.
hmm... fair enough - but if you can use a GPS tracklog as validation, then that would mean you don't need to have controls,
And I presume that, tied to that, you can't *enter* two events that occur at the same time - so therefore you can't enter the 400 but also enter the 200 just in case you DNF the 400? ;)
So therefore there can't be a strict definition as to what constitutes "laps of the same circuit", and is presumably down to the organisers/validator's discretion.
One, proof-of-passage through a certain place where there is no other way of getting a stamp or a receipt. Such as the Ewhurst example I gave earlier in the thread. I'd continue to use the other conventional receipts/stamps on the rest of the route and just rely on the GPX file for that one single control. This retains the idea of controls, but just allows you to create one or two extra GPX controls.
The second is rob's complete route idea. Submit a route (done on bikely, bikehike, gmap-pedometer, etc) to the DIY validator. Validation consists of submitting the generated GPX tracklog and the DIY organiser/validator making sure that it mainly sticks to the proposed route and applies common sense.
Why is the concept of controls relevant now that a whole route can be validated?
Going by this idea, could a *sportive* actually ALSO be ridden as an audax?
The second is rob's complete route idea. Submit a route (done on bikely, bikehike, gmap-pedometer, etc) to the DIY organiser. Validation consists of submitting the generated GPX tracklog and the DIY organiser/validator making sure that it mainly sticks to the proposed route and applies common sense.
Going by this idea, could a *sportive* actually ALSO be ridden as an audax?
Winter York arrow anyone?
Winter York arrow anyone?Dinner Dart / After Dinner Dart.
Winter York arrow anyone?
Dinner Dart / After Dinner Dart.
Hmmm. Unfortunately a change in the regulations would probably be required as 5.8 insists on the use of a brevet card as the sole proof of passage. It needs to have something like "unless, in the case of a permanent ride, verification of completion of the ride is accomplished electronically. This must be agreed in advance with the organiser." added.
* One or 2 people have mentioned in passing, the use of a photo as proof of passage. Well, if the system is so relaxed is to allow this (ridiculously easy to falsify the timestamp), then really to worry about the possibility of forging a gpx seems like a non-issue.
(A photo would IMO have to include the bike, village sign, a news hoarding with todays headline, and the church clock, all in one pic. ;- )
(Sounds like a job for Photoshop)
Too specific:-
"unless, in the case of a permanent ride, verification of completion of the ride is accomplished by some other method. This must be agreed in advance with the organiser."
Unfortunately a change in the regulations would probably be required as 5.8 insists on the use of a brevet card as the sole proof of passage.
...a web-based application ... During the ride, the GPS device on the riders bike communicates with the application server and automatically validates it when it's completed satisfactorily.
The regs talk about arriving early and late at controls, but don't seem to insist that a ride actually has controls,
Two DIY perm organisers have told me that a digital photo is acceptable. I am sure I read a few years ago on a web forum that it needn't include the rider nor a clock since the timestamp on the file is sufficient.
Yebbut who would ride a 1-way 50km or 100km?
Somewhere in older versions of the regs it used to say something about controls being spaced not more than 80km apart. This must have got downgraded into the guidelines somewhere - positively prescient!
Quote from: MseriesTwo DIY perm organisers have told me that a digital photo is acceptable. I am sure I read a few years ago on a web forum that it needn't include the rider nor a clock since the timestamp on the file is sufficient.
Well what the Orgs find acceptable, in a given set of circumstances, is entirely up to their own discretion, and I'm all in favour of that. The thing about DIYs is the Org builds up a relationship of trust with the rider.
There are many examples where the distance between controls is >80km, including this year's LEL :)
I also accepted a photo of George Hanna, grinning like a naught schoolboy, at some suburban train station at the end of a ride. I wouldn't do that for everyone, but know George well enough to know he's not going to cheat on a 200km ride.
Not sure about this statement. I'm not sure why one individual should be treated differently to anyone else, it all seems a bit arbitary to me.
Danial when are you planning to accept logs. I might be tempted to do a 200 between Christmas and new year. If I can avoid beer for long enough!
....... so if anyone else wants to have a go at a gpx DIY, and you already know the drill with DIYs, then get in touch.Sorry if this is a dumb question, but are you offering this (test?) service for only your own area of responsibility or can anyone have a go? I've just done a DIY 320k in Essex/Suffolk/Cambridgeshire region which I'd normally snail mail to Andy U. but I'd happily send you the tracklog .gpx file if you're willing to validate the ride - ?
If this works ok and takes off. It'll make diy rides a lot easier to organise/route and ride. .......Very heartily seconded.
Big :thumbsup: :thumbsup: to Danial, Steve and Pete for the work you've put into this.
Edit: Even as I typed that I realised - I don't need a start control - Home will do, is that right?
Edit: Even as I typed that I realised - I don't need a start control - Home will do, is that right?
What I did was send Danial an email last night with a scanned entry form and an autoroute file of the route I intended to ride, he has autoroute so it was easy to check.
The ride I did today started and ended at home so I didn't need to stop at the garage to get a start time, I rode straight through 3 out of the 4 controls and stopped wherever I wanted.
The gpx file was sent to Danial when I got back. He's said it's ok and is on the way for validation.
Awesome :thumbsup:Absolutely. My 300k turned out to be 320k and due to a variety of reasons, including the usual lack of riding ability(!) I made it back only 15 minutes inside the time limit. A great deal of time was lost faffing around at "controls". If we can get to a system where you can literally just ride from your door, take as scenic and quiet a route as you like, avoiding busy roads without complex calculations involving comparisons with theoretical shortest routes, and just do the distance and get the ride validated it would be truely brilliant!
Yeah, if this works, it is going to be an absolutely fantastic thing.
I've been getting increasingly pissed off with DIYs due to them always being over-distance and the real sense of being under time pressure all the time. In reality, the minimum speed for a DIY is more like 16kph to 17kph, rather than 14.3kph, especially in the South East where it just isn't sensible to take the "shortest route" due to traffic volumes.
This will restore balance to the force :)
If this works ok and takes off. It'll make diy rides a lot easier to organise/route and ride.
Yeah, if this works, it is going to be an absolutely fantastic thing.
But for the moment, the shortest distance rule still applies. Sorry.
....... Ermm, I hate to piss on your chips, but for the moment, the shortest distance rule still applies. Sorry.Yeah, but..................at least this way I can work out the route I actually want to ride, as opposed to something I have to compromise by ghosting it against a theoretical route, even if it means nominating thirty controls to create a "shortest possible". Then just ride straight through all the "controls" and stop at the really good cafe that otherwise wouldn't have worked as a control. I've "visited" all the requisite controls, in the necessary sequence; I just haven't stopped at all of them. The .gps track proves my ridden distance, job done.
Yeah, if this works, it is going to be an absolutely fantastic thing.
But for the moment, the shortest distance rule still applies. Sorry.
Illogical, but if them's the rules, so be it.
Yeah, if this works, it is going to be an absolutely fantastic thing.
But for the moment, the shortest distance rule still applies. Sorry.
Illogical, but if them's the rules, so be it.
I'm taking a proposal to the next commitee meeting, to allow me to test using tracklogs and GPX files to check and validate DIY perms on my patch. I hope that the commitee will allow me a temporary waiver to validate rides without the normal proof of passage, such as stamps and receipts.This is long thread and I haven't made the effort to read it all in detail so apologies if I've missed the plot, but it seems to me the whole point of validating a ride with a .gpx tracklog file is to replace the paper receipts/stamps from controls method. If the validity of the .gpx track is accepted, it seems to me to open up a whole new flexibility for DIY rides, which I would expect could lead to a lot more participation in such rides. I've lost count of the number of people I've met and with whom I've discussed the RRTY for example but whose eyes glaze over when I rabbit on about how useful it is to throw in some DIY rides and then go on to explain how it's done - admittedly they tend to be the non GPS users, but still .....
It's not a question of logic, more of ease of checking. And consistency acorss DIYs, and about easing ourselves into a new way of validation.That's exactly where my thoughts were heading. This sort of mirrors my current practice, insofar as I compose the route on Autoroute, as recommended in the AUK guide and submit it for preapproval (or I would if Andy had the same version of Autoroute as me - as it is, I just send a list of postcodes, etc and he has to plug them into his version).
That's not to say actual route submission won't ever happen, but not just now.
And no Matt, you're spot on. if you don't have to stop at controls anymore, you can be a bit more liberal with them.
However, if riders start to send 30-control DIY entries, then I'll have insist on an autoroute file.
.... It's a level of hoop jumping that just gets in the way.It's just this sort of faff it would be great to lose.
I think it gives a potential advantage to owners of GPS devices over and above the navigation side. Maybe that's unfair?
I think "the same price as a basic wheel" is still an unfair barrier to this form of validation (which could easily save an hour on a 200k); don't forget it also assumes ownership of a modern computer, plus having the 'Ologys to know how to integrate all the bits.I think it gives a potential advantage to owners of GPS devices over and above the navigation side. Maybe that's unfair?
It does indeed give an advantage to GPS owners, as the developing system appears to be a lot less admin-heavy. However I wouldn't say it was unfair. You can get a basic GPS unit these days for the same price as a basic wheel, and a large enough proportion of riders now use them instead of/along with routesheets.
I'm a tincy wincy bit confused.The rules still say we need to enter with a list of controls and the shortest route between then must be at least the proposed distance for the event.
Do I:
(a) Enter a ride, specifying key points ("controls"), then submit my gpx as proof that I visited those places and it added up to the minimum distance?
or
(b) Enter a ride, not specifying where I'm going - just call it a DIY 200 - and then ride my bike until 200 comes up on the odometer, and submit this gpx as proof of distance ("passage" is meaningless in this context as no intended destinations were previously stated).
You can get a basic GPS unit these days for the same price as a basic wheel,
You can get a basic GPS unit these days for the same price as a basic wheel,
Example ? Something to record my journey would suit me fine. I don't need a device to tell me where to go.
Step 7: why bother drafting an intended route to submit beforehand? Why not just go for a ride (at the requisite speed), record your track, get home after [230]k, send in the tracklog and claim a 200k DIY? I've been a "long distance cyclist" for the duration of the ride, which what it's all about, no?
Firstly, we need to have all DIY organisers following the same system so that all riders can. Then let it develop.
A bit of Googling suggests logging-only devices can be had for ~UKP50.Paging Bridget ... !
To make it inclusive, not exclusive.Firstly, we need to have all DIY organisers following the same system so that all riders can. Then let it develop.
Why?
Surely it is better to have one or two doing it and ironing out any unforeseen issues before putting it across the whole country.
What you are proposing would in all likelihood, mean it was never introduced.
But we don't have a level playing field at present - different validators have different attitudes/procedures.To make it inclusive, not exclusive.Firstly, we need to have all DIY organisers following the same system so that all riders can. Then let it develop.
Why?
Surely it is better to have one or two doing it and ironing out any unforeseen issues before putting it across the whole country.
What you are proposing would in all likelihood, mean it was never introduced.
That's what I am referring to first and foremost.But we don't have a level playing field at present - different validators have different attitudes/procedures.To make it inclusive, not exclusive.Firstly, we need to have all DIY organisers following the same system so that all riders can. Then let it develop.
Why?
Surely it is better to have one or two doing it and ironing out any unforeseen issues before putting it across the whole country.
What you are proposing would in all likelihood, mean it was never introduced.
To make it inclusive, not exclusive.Firstly, we need to have all DIY organisers following the same system so that all riders can. Then let it develop.
Why?
Surely it is better to have one or two doing it and ironing out any unforeseen issues before putting it across the whole country.
What you are proposing would in all likelihood, mean it was never introduced.
A bit of Googling suggests logging-only devices can be had for ~UKP50.Paging Bridget ... !
I can't remember exactly how these work (clearly I wasn't listening to Simon for the whole 500k together) - can the admin be done purely on the Web with these? So you wouldn't even need your own PC? Just check/renew the batteries from time-to-time.
A bit of Googling suggests logging-only devices can be had for ~UKP50.Paging Bridget ... !
I can't remember exactly how these work (clearly I wasn't listening to Simon for the whole 500k together) - can the admin be done purely on the Web with these? So you wouldn't even need your own PC? Just check/renew the batteries from time-to-time.
Step 7: why bother drafting an intended route to submit beforehand? Why not just go for a ride (at the requisite speed), record your track, get home after [230]k, send in the tracklog and claim a 200k DIY? I've been a "long distance cyclist" for the duration of the ride, which what it's all about, no?
The existing rules are built around describing your intentions and then doing the ride. With the current rules, if you pack at 630km into a 1000km ride you get nothing. With the rule proposed above you'd be able to claim for 600km (as long as you were within time). 630km is still a long distance cycle ride, but it's not what you set out to do.
A multi-tier system based on where someone lives is wrong in a national organisation.
there is perhaps an evolution in progress here.
Step 5: why bother with Autoroute? Why can't I generate a route/track in say Mapsource instead, submit it in advance for clearance, then ride it and send in the tracklog. the validator throws both up on screen; they match; bingo, validation OK. Admitted, the validator has to have Mapsource, etc. himself, but that's doable.
You sound like you are getting agitated Ja. I have done many DIY perms with three different organisers in the last four years and for some, especially in the 2008/09 season had to worry about making the distance and finding controls etc like you did. A GPS track would have made it much easier for me to get the proof of passage. I'd like to do that. But I can't.To make it inclusive, not exclusive.Firstly, we need to have all DIY organisers following the same system so that all riders can. Then let it develop.
Why?
Surely it is better to have one or two doing it and ironing out any unforeseen issues before putting it across the whole country.
What you are proposing would in all likelihood, mean it was never introduced.
Ah. I get it. You want everyone to be excluded.
I did a DIY this year - in the year I first did a points carrying Audax. Unlike some people my life cannot revolve around calendar events and whilst I found the planning of the DIY interesting it was also a worry to find an appropriate checkpoint for each of the controls I did. A GPS track accreditation would in all probability get me out doing more Audax. I don't see how forcing a delay until everyone does it benefits anyone.
Maybe you don't think someone like me should be doing Audaxes?
Maybe you don't think someone like me should be doing Audaxes?A negative question is hard to answer. It's not about you, it's about allowing everyone to take advantage of a better system not just those who live in a particular part of the country.
The other problem is that it, and other tracking devices, are quite easy to turn off and there's no warning that they have been turned off. I've also had times where the GPS that's mounted infront of me has turned itself off (vibration or dud batteries) and I haven't noticed for a period of time
it's about allowing everyone to take advantage of a better system not just those who live in a particular part of the country.
You can get a basic GPS unit these days for the same price as a basic wheel,Example ? Something to record my journey would suit me fine. I don't need a device to tell me where to go.
Don't worry - personal tracking will be mandatory for all, within the cycling lifetime of most people here.
Example ? Something to record my journey would suit me fine. I don't need a device to tell me where to go.
I can't find one quite that cheap at the moment, but I wonder if you could use the GPS units that an increasing number of phones use now. As long as you can output the data as GPX, and it's got adequate time resolution I don't see why that shouldn't be useful.
Step 7: why bother drafting an intended route to submit beforehand? Why not just go for a ride (at the requisite speed), record your track, get home after [230]k, send in the tracklog and claim a 200k DIY? I've been a "long distance cyclist" for the duration of the ride, which what it's all about, no?
The existing rules are built around describing your intentions and then doing the ride. With the current rules, if you pack at 630km into a 1000km ride you get nothing. With the rule proposed above you'd be able to claim for 600km (as long as you were within time). 630km is still a long distance cycle ride, but it's not what you set out to do.
Possible, but the battery life on most mobile 'phones isn't great and powering up the GPS chipset will eat even more power. ...
Did Daniel say anything about sampling rate? (I don't recall anything being said). Obviously you need to be running it fast enough that it's clear that you went through the control, so once every fifteen minutes (mentioned earlier) probably isn't going to be good enough. In low power mode, my Active 10 samples approximately once every 4 seconds, which is probably higher than needed. I'd guess that 30 seconds or a minute would be sufficient.
The sampling rate doesn't have to be fantastic. For AAA calculation, which we hope to build into this, we'd only need a sample every hundred metres. Even for a speed demon, this is only going to be once every six seconds or so.
Given that, when AUK organisers first set up a few Permanents nearly 30 years ago, sufficient proof of passage was a postcard posted within 5 miles of the control town (following the French requirements which were similar) - I really don't think accuracy is an issue.Sadly things have moved on. DIYs of 199.9km are not being accepted at the moment. A town name isn't sufficient unless we plan routes to be 'way over distance'
NB this worked bacause the first Perms were all linear routes (such as LE-JoG).
GPS can have coverage issues, either due to particularly bad satellite configurations, high cloud cover, tree cover, and others reasons, all of which can occur simultaneously, and could cause poor coverage (and missing data points) for periods.
I guess this is the sort of things which will need to be sorted out with testing and a bit of experimentation.
Yes, OK point taken. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate really and trying to think how it might be done if there wasn't a system at all at present, we wanted "to encourage long distance cycling" and we were just concocting a procedure from a clean sheet in order to do simply that.Step 7: why bother drafting an intended route to submit beforehand? Why not just go for a ride (at the requisite speed), record your track, get home after [230]k, send in the tracklog and claim a 200k DIY? I've been a "long distance cyclist" for the duration of the ride, which what it's all about, no?The existing rules are built around describing your intentions and then doing the ride. With the current rules, if you pack at 630km into a 1000km ride you get nothing. With the rule proposed above you'd be able to claim for 600km (as long as you were within time). 630km is still a long distance cycle ride, but it's not what you set out to do.
I think that's several steps too far. If you want to just ride your bike, there's the mileater diary. If you want to do an event, there should be formalities to go through.
I like the discipline of naming your route in advance.
...just rambling out loud!!! :)
The validation using GPX will really really help with this assuming I could use my postcode as the start and finish. Giving my postcode is more accurate that the name of my town and will fix the 100m problem. Stopping me at present is the fact there is no means of getting a Proof of passage in my street. On the flip side though I;ll probably ride less as I'll be able to stop doing rides that are 'way over distance'.
The shortest distance rule is to make it easy for organisers, and to ensure consistency. On that matter, no organiser accepts any DIY that is even 100m under distance. That rule comes from the top.
Sadly things have moved on. DIYs of 199.9km are not being accepted at the moment. A town name isn't sufficient unless we plan routes to be 'way over distance'
The shortest distance rule is to make it easy for organisers, and to ensure consistency. On that matter, no organiser accepts any DIY that is even 100m under distance. That rule comes from the top.This is one of the aspects of the present system that I hope Danial's initiative will address. We all know how difficult it can be to have a really nice route ruled out by the fact that there is a highly theoretical shorter alternative if you race up a lunatic-driver-infested dual carriageway for 80k. To have my "nice" route barred because Autoroute can cut off 100m this way is frankly absurd, but I do appreciate that you have to have a subjective cut-off point otherwise where do you decide, so them's the rules and at least it's the same for everyone.
It's a requirement of your third-party insurance, as is the application form and the ride date.Again, accepted, if the answer is that the insurance is required here to protect the "organiser/organisation". And it's not a lot more hassle to scan in a form and send it with your notice of intended route, so I guess it's a non-point really, except that I'm not clear why the ride date has to be specified for insurance purposes. It might be that this is mentioned in the governing documentation that AUK presumably has somewhere but if so I suspect it's just there because it's just been that way rather than anyone having sat down when the contract was first negotiated and said "we must know the dates on which we are going to be at risk". My car insurance company doesn't ask for this!
.... On the flip side though I;ll probably ride less as I'll be able to stop doing rides that are 'way over distance'.I'm the opposite. I may do less "over-distance" mileage on top of my [200]k but I'll get out on more rides and do more X [200]k rides, so my distance ridden will definitely increase.
Ouch! ;D...just rambling out loud!!! :)
Janet Street-Porter.
We all know how difficult it can be to have a really nice route ruled out by the fact that there is a highly theoretical shorter alternative if you race up a lunatic-driver-infested dual carriageway for 80k. To have my "nice" route barred because Autoroute can cut off 100m this way is frankly absurd, but I do appreciate that you have to have a subjective cut-off point otherwise where do you decide, so them's the rules and at least it's the same for everyone.Don't forget there is always some loon prepared to use any A-road on an Audax. Plus some horrendous roads become beautiful at 0300h.
...Your car insurance covers you every day of the year.[and they expect you to drive most days]
rather than anyone having sat down when the contract was first negotiated and said "we must know the dates on which we are going to be at risk". My car insurance company doesn't ask for this!
We all know how difficult it can be to have a really nice route ruled out by the fact that there is a highly theoretical shorter alternative if you race up a lunatic-driver-infested dual carriageway for 80k. To have my "nice" route barred because Autoroute can cut off 100m this way is frankly absurd, but I do appreciate that you have to have a subjective cut-off point otherwise where do you decide, so them's the rules and at least it's the same for everyone.Don't forget there is always some loon prepared to use any A-road on an Audax. Plus some horrendous roads become beautiful at 0300h.Quote...Your car insurance covers you every day of the year.[and they expect you to drive most days]
rather than anyone having sat down when the contract was first negotiated and said "we must know the dates on which we are going to be at risk". My car insurance company doesn't ask for this!
(not saying you're wrong, just making observations!)
[I'm not clear why the ride date has to be specified for insurance purposes. It might be that this is mentioned in the governing documentation that AUK presumably has somewhere but if so I suspect it's just there because it's just been that way rather than anyone having sat down when the contract was first negotiated and said "we must know the dates on which we are going to be at risk". My car insurance company doesn't ask for this!
This is one of the aspects of the present system that I hope Danial's initiative will address. We all know how difficult it can be to have a really nice route ruled out by the fact that there is a highly theoretical shorter alternative if you race up a lunatic-driver-infested dual carriageway for 80k. To have my "nice" route barred because Autoroute can cut off 100m this way is frankly absurd, but I do appreciate that you have to have a subjective cut-off point otherwise where do you decide, so them's the rules and at least it's the same for everyone.
Step 7: why bother drafting an intended route to submit beforehand? Why not just go for a ride (at the requisite speed), record your track, get home after [230]k, send in the tracklog and claim a 200k DIY? I've been a "long distance cyclist" for the duration of the ride, which what it's all about, no?
The existing rules are built around describing your intentions and then doing the ride. With the current rules, if you pack at 630km into a 1000km ride you get nothing. With the rule proposed above you'd be able to claim for 600km (as long as you were within time). 630km is still a long distance cycle ride, but it's not what you set out to do.
I think that's several steps too far. If you want to just ride your bike, there's the mileater diary. If you want to do an event, there should be formalities to go through.
Excellent Danial - well done. I will no longer have to do that ride to Tesco and back on the A140 to get an ATM receipt - and can start from home -- now for me that is all good.But does that presuppose our area rep will join in the scheme? Or if he doesn't, that Danial, Ian or someone else will validate our rides?
But does that presuppose our area rep will join in the scheme? Or if he doesn't, that Danial, Ian or someone else will validate our rides?
I think he means: no one will be disadvantaged.
I'm going to have to work out how to get tracklogs on my GPS...If someone will validated ones from me, I'll have to work out how to get the money together for a GPS and associated software. Once the instructions for 'validation by tracklogs' is available, it would be really great if an savvy user produced a paper entitled 'what you need and how to do DIY by tracklogs'
I'm going to have to work out how to get tracklogs on my GPS...If someone will validated ones from me, I'll have to work out how to get the money together for a GPS and associated software. Once the instructions for 'validation by tracklogs' is available, it would be really great if an savvy user produced a paper entitled 'what you need and how to do DIY by tracklogs'
There is lots and lots of information about on using GPS for audaxes. Too much for a novice such as me to digest which is why one paper focused on this will be preferred by me.I'm going to have to work out how to get tracklogs on my GPS...If someone will validated ones from me, I'll have to work out how to get the money together for a GPS and associated software. Once the instructions for 'validation by tracklogs' is available, it would be really great if an savvy user produced a paper entitled 'what you need and how to do DIY by tracklogs'
I have one drafted, which will need a spot of editing. That's quite process-oriented though.
FranklyFrankie has written a lot on the technical side of this, so I'll ask him if he'd like to lend his considerable expertise to that side of things.
There is lots and lots of information about on using GPS for audaxes. Too much for a novice such as me to digest which is why one paper focused on this will be preferred by me.
There is tendency for most information out there to be focused on the bestest latest gadgets. This won't be helpful for the impecunious, non-techie AUK.The paper needs to be general enough to be useful for different models of device. I'd write one if I knew what the process was. I'm not a professional writer but quite good at How To Guides.
Trouble is, GPS units vary widely in how they operate.
Sure, there are some general guidelines (Always start with an empty tracklog, When on a very long ride, save your tracklog to card if you have one to avoid tracklog wrapping and truncation... etc etc) but the ways in which you achieve these will vary with each type of unit.
But with a bit of work you can cover off 80% of the common GPS models.
Trouble is, GPS units vary widely in how they operate.
Sure, there are some general guidelines (Always start with an empty tracklog, When on a very long ride, save your tracklog to card if you have one to avoid tracklog wrapping and truncation... etc etc) but the ways in which you achieve these will vary with each type of unit.
But with a bit of work you can cover off 80% of the common GPS models.
I'll write a guide for the bog standard yellow eTrex (the one with no memory card and no mapping).
jwo can adapt it for the Geko since he's used to using them on an Audax.
You can write one for the HCx Vista/Legend/Venture models that are all pretty similar and you're used to them.
Someone else can do an Edge 305.
Someone else an Edge 605/705 (if they're vastly different).
[EDIT] As an aside. An eTrex H can be found for about £65. Handlebar mount for £10. A cable for £15 delivered from eBay. The software I use to do it all is free. So that's £90 (or cheaper if you find a good deal on eBay). That (with a bit more work) will also allow provide navigation functionality on an Audax if you take the time to plot the route on one of various free websites, download it, massage the data slightly and then upload it to the GPS. This is exactly the setup I use on Audaxes (including LEL).
Trouble is, GPS units vary widely in how they operate.
Sure, there are some general guidelines (Always start with an empty tracklog, When on a very long ride, save your tracklog to card if you have one to avoid tracklog wrapping and truncation... etc etc) but the ways in which you achieve these will vary with each type of unit.
But with a bit of work you can cover off 80% of the common GPS models.
I'll write a guide for the bog standard yellow eTrex (the one with no memory card and no mapping).
jwo can adapt it for the Geko since he's used to using them on an Audax.
You can write one for the HCx Vista/Legend/Venture models that are all pretty similar and you're used to them.
Someone else can do an Edge 305.
Someone else an Edge 605/705 (if they're vastly different).
[EDIT] As an aside. An eTrex H can be found for about £65. Handlebar mount for £10. A cable for £15 delivered from eBay. The software I use to do it all is free. So that's £90 (or cheaper if you find a good deal on eBay). That (with a bit more work) will also allow provide navigation functionality on an Audax if you take the time to plot the route on one of various free websites, download it, massage the data slightly and then upload it to the GPS. This is exactly the setup I use on Audaxes (including LEL).
am I the only person who got an instruction manual with their GPS? ;)
I am sure I can get a device to record a track, but it's the linking it with the DIY entry so my track goes through the places I said it would. Some of these places will be postcodes and unnamed places at a junction. At least that's my understanding of the benefits of such a scheme.
I am sure I can get a device to record a track, but it's the linking it with the DIY entry so my track goes through the places I said it would.
No Mal that one won't work - not with gpx validation.I am sure I can get a device to record a track, but it's the linking it with the DIY entry so my track goes through the places I said it would.
Hmm. A tracklog goes where it goes, end of.
So as I see it, all you need to do is
1. Clear the 'current' or 'active' track in the GPS immediately before you start your ride.
2. Carry spare batteries in case of need.
3. Switch the GPS off at the end of your ride, to put a break in the track.
4. Extract the 'current' or 'active' track from the GPS and save to disk in GPX form, as soon as possible after the end of your ride. Just submit this gpx.
For rides longer than 400km you may need to take more precautions, but those are relatively rare.
Danial's software (I should say Peter C's, he wrote it) or the prototype version I've had sight of, can display the track on a map to give a quick visual route check, and more usefully can also display it in summary form (distance, start and finish times, max/min/average speeds, total climb) which is a very quick way to check it's valid, the software can also do more detailed analysis (speed vs gradient) if needed but usually it wouldn't be.
Wow! All good stuff! Keep it coming!But saying 'you can now submit a GPX track to validate a DIYPerm' is surely not all you want us to do ? I eagerly await the documents that you are prepared to produce to tell us how to do this.
If it's OK with those who have offered to help, I'll be in touch as and when I'll need help with my process redraft. We have until May, so no huge rush.
I don't see it as AUK's role to show people how to use their GPS units. As Chris S points out, GPS units differ widely in their buttons and menus, but work in similar ways. What we can do is outline the concept of how they work, how that allows you track your ride, and what you need to do to have that ride validated as a DIY perm.
So as I see it, all you need to do is
1. Clear the 'current' or 'active' track ...
etc
Bit late to this but can I add my thanks to Danial for running the trial and taking the results to the AUK committee. I contributed several rides to the trial and it really is remarkably easy. You don't need to be a GPS whiz. I'm looking forward to it being rolled out in May.
You can see when people stop, and how long for, with profiles for speed and altitude. We can also see the file on a google map. It makes it a lot more interesting to do.
You can see when people stop, and how long for, with profiles for speed and altitude. We can also see the file on a google map. It makes it a lot more interesting to do.
<fboab>
And when they pack at 194km
</fboab>
Dammit, I'm in trouble now... :-\
Whenever I pack I don't submit my card. Just a waste of time for me and the organiser
You can see when people stop, and how long for, with profiles for speed and altitude. We can also see the file on a google map. It makes it a lot more interesting to do.
<fboab>
And when they pack at 194km
</fboab>
Dammit, I'm in trouble now... :-\
194km=You can see when people stop, and how long for, with profiles for speed and altitude. We can also see the file on a google map. It makes it a lot more interesting to do.
<fboab>
And when they pack at 194km
</fboab>
Dammit, I'm in trouble now... :-\
One thing I'm not sure about - is there a limit on the number of checkpoints?
Also, what's the preferred way of identifying a checkpoint? Lat/Long, OS coord's, text description, or does it depend on the DIY Perm organiser?
For me it arises from a combination of wanting to ride exclusively quiet lanes and 200km being about the limit of my ability. I was up to about 10 checkpoints plus the start/finish and I thought that might be burdensome to validate - it would be the equivalent of about 7 info controls on a 200 calendar event which I think would be unusual.It depends on the nature of the route. I have a 200 out and back which is actually about 16 km ovr distance, only needs 5 controls. The most direct route is the one I would want to ride and the auto routing algorithms generate the same thing. It's as flat as a pancake and the turn around place is a cafe so I would want to go there. The first and last control (not start and finish) are needed to avoid it routing me up the A1 which is motorway in all but name (the A1(M) changes into the A1 without any real change in the road). This is where the tracklogs is invaluable, it allows controls to be added in places where no physical control can be had so I can ride the route I want without having to go well over distance to make up for the un ridable and on distance but shorter direct route.
Village centres makes good sense.
and you do wonder why someone would spend an hour in front of their PC to save thirty minutes of cycling.
If two people are riding a DIY together, would a single tracklog (submitted separately by each rider) be acceptable? Or does every rider need his own GPS unit?
Would riding a tandem (which is the scenario I have in mind -- we probably could find and mount a suitable secondary GPS, but it seems like a slightly odd thing to be doing!) make a difference?
One thing I'm not sure about - is there a limit on the number of checkpoints?
Not really. Just don't take the mickey. If I got 20 checkpoints for a 200km without good reason, or regularly, I'd probably decline to validate.
Is this acceptable or does it have to be a complete unadulterated track? Thinking about it, it must be permissible to join tracks in case batteries have to be changed - yes?
It is. But, if you end up with, say, four tracks, I'd prefer to receive four tracks than something that someone you've joined together.
But why not just leave it on? Even if it's in your pocket, it'll keep ticking over even if it has no satellite locks. That way, you keep a single track and it'll start tracking quicker once you set off again.
For longer rides, you can set a different sample rate (either based on time between samples or distance).
If you used something like a Satmap Active 10, I think the slowest rate you can use is one sample every 4 seconds! It doesn't seem to care how long the route gets, and the internal storage can certainly store days of data (probably months!) before it runs out.Care here - I haven't tested it recently, with the latest firmware release, but previously my Satmap ran out of track after about 240km, even using the "coarse" recording option. A particular pain as I was doing a 300km DIY. Had I been trying to validate it by GPS, I'd have been well annoyed, since there was no visible way of knowing it had given up the ghost since the Trip Log (but not the recorded track) was still accruing.
I set the intervals to 140m. This was only just about good enough for the AAA man, though 100m intervals (or shorter) would have been better.
In other words, in theory, a gps track log could just have a record of being in the control towns (as the file will show location and time, the two vital bits of info for validation).
The validator needs to see indications that the file was generated by cycling - so the track log between the controls is needed (though any gaps due to battery failure etc needn't be a problem).
The validator needs to see indications that the file was generated by cycling - so the track log between the controls is needed (though any gaps due to battery failure etc needn't be a problem).This is a stronger burden of proof than non-GPS forms of control. After all, an ATM receipt doesn't tell whether I cycled, walked or drove to the town. Still, if those are the rules...
The validator needs to see indications that the file was generated by cycling - so the track log between the controls is needed (though any gaps due to battery failure etc needn't be a problem).
This is a stronger burden of proof than non-GPS forms of control. After all, an ATM receipt doesn't tell whether I cycled, walked or drove to the town. Still, if those are the rules...
A till receipt is physical evidence that someone went somewhere to get it printed off at a certain time and date.
The validator needs to see indications that the file was generated by cycling - so the track log between the controls is needed (though any gaps due to battery failure etc needn't be a problem).
This is a stronger burden of proof than non-GPS forms of control. After all, an ATM receipt doesn't tell whether I cycled, walked or drove to the town. Still, if those are the rules...
No it isn't, it's weaker. A till receipt is physical evidence that someone went somewhere to get it printed off at a certain time and date. A gpx file with one point per control is nothing more than proof that someone produced a gpx file. You can do this sitting at your computer. I have queried elsewhere whether even a full track is really evidence but at least it can be audited to see if it looks like a typical cycling track. Effective cheating would have to be fairly sophisticated.
A till receipt is physical evidence that someone went somewhere to get it printed off at a certain time and date.
Yes, but not necessarily the time and date the cyclist was there. When I did my first DIY last year I was explaining to one shop keeper what I needed ( the location of the store on the receipt) and he just gave me one that was lying on the counter. It was a good 40 minutes before the time I was in the shop. I said no, I needed one now, if that was OK.
The validator needs to see indications that the file was generated by cycling - so the track log between the controls is needed (though any gaps due to battery failure etc needn't be a problem).
This is a stronger burden of proof than non-GPS forms of control. After all, an ATM receipt doesn't tell whether I cycled, walked or drove to the town. Still, if those are the rules...
No it isn't, it's weaker. A till receipt is physical evidence that someone went somewhere to get it printed off at a certain time and date. A gpx file with one point per control is nothing more than proof that someone produced a gpx file. You can do this sitting at your computer. I have queried elsewhere whether even a full track is really evidence but at least it can be audited to see if it looks like a typical cycling track. Effective cheating would have to be fairly sophisticated.
1. open one of my old tracklogs from a previous ride, say a 600km from 2009-09-15
2. <Find and Replace> 2009-09-15 <replace with> date of my choice <enter>
3. BINGO!
The validator needs to see indications that the file was generated by cycling - so the track log between the controls is needed (though any gaps due to battery failure etc needn't be a problem).
This is a stronger burden of proof than non-GPS forms of control. After all, an ATM receipt doesn't tell whether I cycled, walked or drove to the town. Still, if those are the rules...
No it isn't, it's weaker. A till receipt is physical evidence that someone went somewhere to get it printed off at a certain time and date. A gpx file with one point per control is nothing more than proof that someone produced a gpx file. You can do this sitting at your computer. I have queried elsewhere whether even a full track is really evidence but at least it can be audited to see if it looks like a typical cycling track. Effective cheating would have to be fairly sophisticated.
1. open one of my old tracklogs from a previous ride, say a 600km from 2009-09-15
2. <Find and Replace> 2009-09-15 <replace with> date of my choice <enter>
3. BINGO!
SOunds like a challenge. A program to examine some genuine logs to determine a particular riders and devices 'characteristics' then synthesise a log using those characteristics.
1. open one of my old tracklogs from a previous ride, say a 600km from 2009-09-15
2. <Find and Replace> 2009-09-15 <replace with> date of my choice <enter>
3. BINGO!
The problem is someone might just be nerdy enough to write the software just for the challenge without any specific intention of actually using it. Then they would have to share it around a bit for the kudos. Then it's in the wild.
No it isn't, it's weaker. A till receipt is physical evidence that someone went somewhere to get it printed off at a certain time and date. A gpx file with one point per control is nothing more than proof that someone produced a gpx file. You can do this sitting at your computer. I have queried elsewhere whether even a full track is really evidence but at least it can be audited to see if it looks like a typical cycling track. Effective cheating would have to be fairly sophisticated.
Haven't we covered this ground already? My recollection is that it was generally accepted that the traditional paper method was open to forgery if someone was determined enough to do so, but that the rewards are so meagre that no one in their right mind would bother. (Digress here to discuss elsewhere whether riding a bike for X00km classifies you as out of your mind to start with.) Also, forgers and cheats with their eyes on any kind of "champion" status would soon be rumbled by the riding community. The "validation by GPS" system is roughly speaking no more, nor no less vulnerable to cheating but the same arguments for accepting this imperfect but generally very workable system apply, don't they?No it isn't, it's weaker. A till receipt is physical evidence that someone went somewhere to get it printed off at a certain time and date. A gpx file with one point per control is nothing more than proof that someone produced a gpx file. You can do this sitting at your computer. I have queried elsewhere whether even a full track is really evidence but at least it can be audited to see if it looks like a typical cycling track. Effective cheating would have to be fairly sophisticated.
Of course, that person needn't be the 'rider'. I could, for example, phone a chum in Harrogate and ask them to get an atm receipt one afternoon. Then I could stroll over the road to the shop and get a till receipt one morning, and again at teatime. I could kill two birds with one stone and take the dog out. Voila, proof of a 100km perm.
Absolutely. That would scuttle GPS tracking until a way was found to spot forged files. What a horrible thing to do. You'd have to question why someone with that amount of spare time and expertise, didn't offer to help with this project rather than look to spoil it.
The problem is someone might just be nerdy enough to write the software just for the challenge without any specific intention of actually using it. Then they would have to share it around a bit for the kudos. Then it's in the wild.
If GPX get recycled by changing the date, all the latitude longitude of the 2 tracks would be identical. Solution: write a script that compares tracks.
If people use info from google map or OSM, same as above but against tracks created by google/OSM
People driving around and changing the GPS timestamps: It is easier to drive around and get receipts.
People generating trackpoints manually point by point: get a life it is easier to forge receipts.
Danial, I'll gladly put some effort towards this, I've had a number of ideas about what I'd do if I were trying to both fake the tracks and spot the fakes, and I have a fair understanding of GPS, GPX and the underlying maths/physics and programming required, plus I've got a bunch of example GPX files I can use (including my DIY rides up to Cambridge which I could use to splice together to create a whole bunch of permutations of rides).
Writing software to spot a forged track is quite hard, writing some software to do some analysis, present some graphs and summary data that a human can interpret and look for telltale signs is much easier, and is all that is needed for this job. This is much easier than writing software to convincingly fake the track in the first place (let alone fake it manually) as you have to do a pretty damn good job of that otherwise you're screwed.
Having a few bits of paper evidence are also key as they should do enough to deter the opportunist. As I understand it, DIY by GPX was designed to allow otherwise unavailable places to be used as controls to keep the route to a minimum, given this there should be no problem still stopping at 3 or 4 places on the route to gather a quick receipt.
I have to say I'm surprised the GPS validation doesn't require, say, 1 piece of "paper" brevidence so that you at least have to leave the room your computer is in.
Cadence, for example, would be tricky to fake. You'd have to make sure that the resulting scatterplot of speed vs cadence made sense. I plotted this for the my ride of the Snowdon and Coast 400 and from the graph you can have a good guess at the gearing setup of my bike. There are two distinct areas of points relating to the two chainrings, and several straightish lines (there's quite a bit of noise but it is based on 25000 points) that hint at the underlying linear nature of the commonly used gear ratios. It's not enough to pick out the cassette/sprocket sizes but with some clearing up you might be able to. Try faking that over a whole ride, or even sections of ride, the faking program would have to consider what gear would be sensible for the current speed and not change up/down oddly).
Having a few bits of paper evidence are also key as they should do enough to deter the opportunist. As I understand it, DIY by GPX was designed to allow otherwise unavailable places to be used as controls to keep the route to a minimum, given this there should be no problem still stopping at 3 or 4 places on the route to gather a quick receipt.I've had an idea about this. Came to me this afternoon...
Absolutely. That would scuttle GPS tracking until a way was found to spot forged files. What a horrible thing to do. You'd have to question why someone with that amount of spare time and expertise, didn't offer to help with this project rather than look to spoil it.
The problem is someone might just be nerdy enough to write the software just for the challenge without any specific intention of actually using it. Then they would have to share it around a bit for the kudos. Then it's in the wild.
I've had a good long think about this (400s are good for that).
I think that it is an order of magnitude easier to write some software to help spot a forged track than it is to write some software to forge a track that will pass such an inspection. Also, the software can be improved, and previous tracks can be re-analysed. Given this, it's very very risky for someone to submit a forged track as it would be the end of their AUK membership.
For me, the totally paperless, completely till receipt/stamp/tangible evidence free system offered by GPS validation is a huge benefit.
For me, the totally paperless, completely till receipt/stamp/tangible evidence free system offered by GPS validation is a huge benefit.
True, but at the moment it doesn't exist, the trial is over.
For me, the totally paperless, completely till receipt/stamp/tangible evidence free system offered by GPS validation is a huge benefit.
True, but at the moment it doesn't exist, the trial is over.
Huh? I thought the trial was over and the live paperless system had been launched. Have I missed something?
There are two types of DIY by GPS being discussed in this thread:Sorry? This is the first I've heard of two sub-types. As I tried to express in an earlier post, a half-and-half system can often suffer from the same problems as the purely paper system. Option (2) is what's required and I've already started using it, thanks and it's great!
1) The use of a GPX tracklog as proof-of-passage for places where normal controls are not available, but normal receipts/ATM stamps are still required along the way for other controls. This makes it much easier to plan rides that go where you want and are not massively overdistance. But you'll still need to stop for food at some point on the ride and it's unlikely that you won't go through at least a few places where it's possible to spend a couple of minutes stopped to collect an ATM or shop receipt. Not every control can be a GPS control and, ideally, the entire GPX tracklog should be submitted, not just little snippets around the various GPS controls.
2) Full proof-of-passage by GPX tracklog alone, no other 'brevidence' required.
"If at all possible" is the key phrase, that's what I want too, but only if it's workable.
Is audaxing such a major issue that people will go to such lengths to get rides validated when they have not done them. I would hope that AUK members were above this sort of behaviour.
Is audaxing such a major issue that people will go to such lengths to get rides validated when they have not done them. I would hope that AUK members were above this sort of behaviour.
I believe it was in the past :-\
If people use info from google map or OSM, same as above but against tracks created by google/OSM
QuoteIf people use info from google map or OSM, same as above but against tracks created by google/OSM
The current software as written by Pete and used by Danial already spots that type of thing, and very impressive it is too.
While it was being trialled, I did this - drew a track in Google Earth (this creates a track without any timestamps) and then substituted in timestamps from an actual ridden event to simulate a cycled track. The problems showed up instantly in the software. It wasn't so much the mismatch between gradients and speeds which was what I expected to see - it was the occasional very high speed spikes caused by dead straight sections of road (trackpoints placed impossibly far apart).
I also think it's important to explore potential approaches to cheating in order to be confident of producing a system that precludes it. In particular discussing such strategies openly is a Good Thing (TM) as security by obscurity is inherently flawed. I'm impressed in particular by Greenbank's arguments and am now officially changing my position from skeptic to supporter of validation by tracklog. No system is perfect but the tracklog system now appears to me much more robust than the current one, particularly with the amount of effort being proposed.
I also think it's important to explore potential approaches to cheating in order to be confident of producing a system that precludes it. In particular discussing such strategies openly is a Good Thing (TM) as security by obscurity is inherently flawed. I'm impressed in particular by Greenbank's arguments and am now officially changing my position from skeptic to supporter of validation by tracklog. No system is perfect but the tracklog system now appears to me much more robust than the current one, particularly with the amount of effort being proposed.
Did you not know that we already analysed the correlation between change in elevation and speed of submitted tracks?
I also think it's important to explore potential approaches to cheating in order to be confident of producing a system that precludes it. In particular discussing such strategies openly is a Good Thing (TM) as security by obscurity is inherently flawed. I'm impressed in particular by Greenbank's arguments and am now officially changing my position from skeptic to supporter of validation by tracklog. No system is perfect but the tracklog system now appears to me much more robust than the current one, particularly with the amount of effort being proposed.
Did you not know that we already analysed the correlation between change in elevation and speed of submitted tracks?
That's precisely the sort of thing that tracklog spoofing software would, er, spoof.
Care here - I haven't tested it recently, with the latest firmware release, but previously my Satmap ran out of track after about 240km, even using the "coarse" recording option. A particular pain as I was doing a 300km DIY. Had I been trying to validate it by GPS, I'd have been well annoyed, since there was no visible way of knowing it had given up the ghost since the Trip Log (but not the recorded track) was still accruing.
Fair enough. Perhaps the truncation of my 300km ride track was caused by something other than pure memory. I did say it wasn't on the latest firmware when it happened. The point I was making was not to take it for granted; like many aspects of cycling, it pays to test your kit thoroughly in real life situations before using it in mission critical situations!Care here - I haven't tested it recently, with the latest firmware release, but previously my Satmap ran out of track after about 240km, even using the "coarse" recording option. A particular pain as I was doing a 300km DIY. Had I been trying to validate it by GPS, I'd have been well annoyed, since there was no visible way of knowing it had given up the ghost since the Trip Log (but not the recorded track) was still accruing.
I just dumped and inspected the log on my Satmap Active 10, which has just been sat plugged into the PC. It's been recording for ten days, and has just under 32500 track points using the power saving 4s/sample mode. Clearly that isn't the correct number of data points, it should be over 200000. That's simply because coverage in my living room is a bit indifferent, and requires a relatively unusual configuration of the satellites to provide a good fix, so there are big blanks in it.
Even assuming it's being limited by the number of data points (which isn't necessarily the case, the last data point was at the point that I dumped the track), that still represents over 1½ days of recording.
It clearly isn't limited by memory, since the memory status screen says that I've used less than 1% of the capacity of Internal Flash Storage (actually it says I've used 0%, but that's clearly not true!). That makes sense, since even if you assumed 32 bytes used per sample, that would only be 1M of storage used, and since these days gigabytes of flash are common (I don't know how much internal flash it has, but I'd assume 1G or more), then you wouldn't have even started to make a dent.
...The point I was making was not to take it for granted; like many aspects of cycling, it pays to test your kit thoroughly in real life situations before using it in mission critical situations!
Well, quite. But did you know that that's one of the things we checked?
I don't see why it should change. If the shortest distance between controls, agreed up front, is 201km, then that's all you get time for, no matter how far you end up riding.
I don't see why it should change. If the shortest distance between controls, agreed up front, is 201km, then that's all you get time for, no matter how far you end up riding.
I don't see why it should change. If the shortest distance between controls, agreed up front, is 201km, then that's all you get time for, no matter how far you end up riding.
That's my thinking too. GPS validation is merely an alternative to the current (working) system.
I don't see why it should change. If the shortest distance between controls, agreed up front, is 201km, then that's all you get time for, no matter how far you end up riding.
yes but under the paper system you could only guarantee that the minimum distance had been ridden whereas with a gpx it's proven that they rode the extra distance. I have a tracklog from yesterday that shows just this anomaly.
I'll raise it with The Management tonight...
I don't see why it should change. If the shortest distance between controls, agreed up front, is 201km, then that's all you get time for, no matter how far you end up riding.
That's my thinking too. GPS validation is merely an alternative to the current (working) system.
Except GPS validation allows you to claim those extra KMs by adding additional waypoints, hence this thread (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=34447.0).
I don't see why it should change. If the shortest distance between controls, agreed up front, is 201km, then that's all you get time for, no matter how far you end up riding.
That's my thinking too. GPS validation is merely an alternative to the current (working) system.
Except GPS validation allows you to claim those extra KMs by adding additional waypoints, hence this thread (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=34447.0).
I don't see why it should change. If the shortest distance between controls, agreed up front, is 201km, then that's all you get time for, no matter how far you end up riding.
That's my thinking too. GPS validation is merely an alternative to the current (working) system.
Except GPS validation allows you to claim those extra KMs by adding additional waypoints, hence this thread (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=34447.0).
Well. It might allow it - but I don't think it's right. It's all after the fact, and not in the spirit of the occasion.
Are you saying, if I were to deviate from an agreed route by (say) 30km on a traditional non-GPS validated event, providing I got PoP for that extension, I'd be allowed extra time? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.
DIY with GPS controls should allow you to place a control where there's no chance of getting a normal proof-of-passage, which should mean you can keep your intended route down to 201km.
I don't suppose this matters a jot, since I don't think the "Total distance" figure counts for anything (does it?) but it's perhaps another quirk, arising presumably from the way the system has evolved.I believe so - total distance counts for nothing. It was probably something that our esteemed web team realised was quite easy to add in there without breaking anything else. (I'm sure they'll be along to correct me if I'm wrong!)
DIYs are presumably standard "events" which are always x00km. Calendar events have their own distance calculated for each event.
Separately, can someone - Danial or Martin perhaps - confirm that DIYs whether evidenced by paper or GPS get [actual agreed minimum distance between nominated "Controls"]km divided by 14.3 (for up to 699km) = time; so if you submitted a route/controls which couldn't be covered in less than 222km it would be 222km/14.3 = 15hrs 30mins for two points (and 200km onto your "Total distance", as above!)
I see. So does that mean that if I set up a proper Permanent rather than a DIY and have it published and open to all and it were say, minimum 210km around the controls, it would accrue 207km on their "Total Distance" for anyone who rode it?DIYs are presumably standard "events" which are always x00km. Calendar events have their own distance calculated for each event.
exactly right; each DIY perm (and also ECE perm) has to be set up in its own right on the website (and one for each DIY organiser) so they are standardised in round 50 /100s of km
Thanks Martin for the confirmation.Separately, can someone - Danial or Martin perhaps - confirm that DIYs whether evidenced by paper or GPS get [actual agreed minimum distance between nominated "Controls"]km divided by 14.3 (for up to 699km) = time; so if you submitted a route/controls which couldn't be covered in less than 222km it would be 222km/14.3 = 15hrs 30mins for two points (and 200km onto your "Total distance", as above!)
yes; DIY's are BR not BRM so any overdistance is allowed pro-rata;
the same applies to ECE's but the calendar event must be completed within the minimum time for the event not the total ECE time if this is slower; as it is eligible for calendar points if over 200km, whereas the ECE bit is eligible for perm points (if the calendar event is less than 200 all points are perm)
So does that mean that if I set up a proper Permanent rather than a DIY and have it published and open to all and it were say, minimum 210km around the controls, it would accrue 207km on their "Total Distance" for anyone who rode it?
I see. So does that mean that if I set up a proper Permanent rather than a DIY and have it published and open to all and it were say, minimum 210km around the controls, it would accrue 207km on their "Total Distance" for anyone who rode it?
Given that I don't recall noticing differences between the brevet card distances and the routesheet distances on other events I've ridden, I would guess that I'm not alone with this error.
Oops, a typo - yes, that's what I meant.So does that mean that if I set up a proper Permanent rather than a DIY and have it published and open to all and it were say, minimum 210km around the controls, it would accrue 207km on their "Total Distance" for anyone who rode it?
yes; just checked my results for this year and the total includes the extra 5km I did on the Pulborough -Reading 205 perm, but a flat 100 and 200 for the ECE and DIY.
but yours would accrue 210 Shirley? ;)
Secondly, I have just posted the following in another thread : "This is probably a stupid question, but if you can prove a DIY with GPS, why not a perm ?
Finally I think that what you need is an unadulterated GPX file. I have a Garmin 305 that records in a different format. I have to export to GPX. Is this acceptable ?
Secondly, I have just posted the following in another thread : "This is probably a stupid question, but if you can prove a DIY with GPS, why not a perm ?
We could validate any sort of ride this way, in theory. This is quite new territory for AUK though, so I suspect this is as far as we'll go for now.
Just remember though that Calendar events (and perms) have 3 distances associated with them:-
Nominal distance for awards (i.e. 50km, 100km, 150km, 200km, 300km, 400km, etc)
Minimum distance between controls (for the Brevet card timings)
Route distance according to routesheet
I can see a possible niche market in "classic routes" as pre-planned GPS perms, with routesheets, eatery tips etc. And it could save all that info checking.
I can see a possible niche market in "classic routes" as pre-planned GPS perms, with routesheets, eatery tips etc. And it could save all that info checking.
Fred Whitton route, old calendar events with tricky controls (Daylihgt 600)?. Continental classics (P-Roubaix etc).
What hoops would an organiser have to jump through? Do they just need the Wand of Tracklog Verification?
If the Wand of Tracklog Verification is to be made available to Organisers who volunteer, then please can I have it? It will rejuvenate the Badby permanents that I organise which are rather lame now that even the pub in Badby has closed. And it'd be nice to offer GPS validation on the Middle Road perms too.
Danial, my offer to help with LEL and other stuff extends to this.
I can see a possible niche market in "classic routes" as pre-planned GPS perms, with routesheets, eatery tips etc. And it could save all that info checking.Sounds like you just talked yourself into a job.
Fred Whitton route, old calendar events with tricky controls (Daylihgt 600)?. Continental classics (P-Roubaix etc).
What hoops would an organiser have to jump through? Do they just need the Wand of Tracklog Verification?
Neither type (Etrex, or touchscreen) will lose any tracklog data, they both archive stuff to SD card before it gets lost. Retrieving it is another matter.
I can see a possible niche market in "classic routes" as pre-planned GPS perms, with routesheets, eatery tips etc. And it could save all that info checking.
Fred Whitton route, old calendar events with tricky controls (Daylihgt 600)?. Continental classics (P-Roubaix etc).
I got an interesting gpx yesterday; it simply ran out of memory to store the track points (1 every second) on a 300;
something that hadn't occurred to me before. In light of this it's probably a good idea to get (or keep) a receipt at a few points just in case :)
I got an interesting gpx yesterday; it simply ran out of memory to store the track points (1 every second) on a 300
Sounds like a setting needs changing perhaps?
the track in question came from a SatMap (never heard of it but the screen shot looked pretty natty)
Sounds like a setting needs changing perhaps?
the track in question came from a SatMap (never heard of it but the screen shot looked pretty natty)
new system for online entry here
Audax UK DIY Events (http://www.aukweb.net/events/diy/index.htm)
new system for online entry here
Audax UK DIY Events (http://www.aukweb.net/events/diy/index.htm)
1. Two questions - reading the notes it says not to save the track to the GPS unit. That would be OK for anything up to 300k, but when I do multi-day rides I save the track in the Vista HCx at the end of each day, so ending up with multiple files. They seem very detailed and not over-compressed (i.e. they show 20-yard deviations from taking a wrong turn!). Is it still the case that these would not be valid?
2. Also, if the tracklog is interrupted for any reason (changing batteries, losing signal) then the tracklog is divided into segments (denoted by the prefix "seg"). At the moment I open the tracklog with a text editor and remove these bits, thus making a single track. This is much better for loading into Ascent or other readers. What would AUK's view be on this sort of manipulation?
1. Yes import the whole track from the device and send it to a participating DIY org; not entirely sure what not saving it on the unit means.
Do not save your tracklog on the gps unit at the end of your ride. This compresses the tracklog and could make validating your ride more difficult. Instead, upload the tracklog from your GPS unit straight to your computer when you get chance.
Or the best option, if you have a Garmin with a memory card, is to set it to log the track to the card. Then it will store it in full detail, with timestamps, as one GPX file per day, and you don't have to worry about running out of memory.
if you are a regular user of this scheme it's also very useful to name each tracklog you submit with an easily recognisable name for future reference.Perhaps a convention agreed between the GPS validators would be a good idea. I would certainly be perfectly happy to rename the files to a name convention that suits you. At the moment the name is merely the date I rode as created by the GPS.
I name every ride/gps file I do with what it was, usually the same as I've put on the entry form. e.g. Spalding Mildenhall or East Anglian 300 ect
I don't think the name matters as long as the information needed is in the file.