help for DIY

[frankly frankie]

Created an 11.1MB GPX file for a 206km route though. 

Don't tell FF, he'll melt !   

[/quote]

 

Too much loose talk of 'routes' on here though - if you are submitting a GPX file in stage one of the Mandatory process, it must be a Track file and not a Route file.  It's rather too easy when exporting from RWGPS (or other planners) to pick the wrong type.  In some ways TCX is safer because that should always work.  Unfortunately the uploader on the AUK site won't reject a Route if it is submitted in error - the first you'll know about it is when the DIY Org starts spitting feathers.

[jayteezim]

hiya
i did my route on ridegps then downloaded it and zipped it and sent it in with the online entry.
how do i know if it is a route or a track?

[GPS]

If you look at it in a text editor, you'll see times if it's a track.

This is an extract from a track:
      <trkpt lat="51.378529" lon="-2.326143">
        <ele>206.39999999999998</ele>
        <time>2017-03-30T14:26:48Z</time>
      </trkpt>

This is from a route:
      <trkpt lat="51.366354" lon="-2.319103">
        <ele>159.3</ele>
      </trkpt>

There are probably other ways to tell the difference however ...

[Cyclops]

If you look at it in a text editor, you'll see times if it's a track.

This is an extract from a track:
      <trkpt lat="51.378529" lon="-2.326143">
        <ele>206.39999999999998</ele>
        <time>2017-03-30T14:26:48Z</time>
      </trkpt>

This is from a route:
      <trkpt lat="51.366354" lon="-2.319103">
        <ele>159.3</ele>
      </trkpt>

There are probably other ways to tell the difference however ...

Those are both gpx tracks as they've got the trackpoint<trkpt> tag. .gpx routes will have routepoint <rtept> tags instead.

[GPS]

Interesting ... never seen those tags before

Yet again - someone else on yacf demonstrates how little I know !

[Wycombewheeler]

Interesting ... never seen those tags before

Yet again - someone else on yacf demonstrates how little I know !

neither have I, but I will say that every route I have used on my garmin and submitted to DIY organiser has used the trkpt tags and not the rtept tags. It has never caused me an issue.

[Greenbank]

For the organiser to know where you are going to go then a route or a track makes no difference.

But for a log of where you have been only a track will contain timestamp information against the trackpoints.

[citoyen]

For the organiser to know where you are going to go then a route or a track makes no difference.

That goes against frankly frankie's advice - "if you are submitting a GPX file in stage one of the Mandatory process, it must be a Track file and not a Route file"

i did my route on ridegps then downloaded it and zipped it and sent it in with the online entry.
how do i know if it is a route or a track?

Note that frankly frankie's advice about routes only applies to the first stage of the process - submitting your proposed route before the ride.

Presumably the timestamp information is a somewhat vital part of getting your ride validated afterwards!

[Greenbank]

For the organiser to know where you are going to go then a route or a track makes no difference.

That goes against frankly frankie's advice - "if you are submitting a GPX file in stage one of the Mandatory process, it must be a Track file and not a Route file"

True, I forgot it was a question about the mandatory route submission thing where you're dealing with a machine rather than a human.

It'd be nicer if the system did accept such routes and/or .fit files, but I can see why accommodating those is extra work for the volunteers who maintain the systems.

[wajcgac]

hiya
i did my route on ridegps then downloaded it and zipped it and sent it in with the online entry.
how do i know if it is a route or a track?

I plan my route on www.ridewithgps.com and then press save. A box appears where you can give the planned route a name and description. I always leave the 'Record as a Trip' option to the default 'No'. Then press Save again.

I then go to my routes and select export the GPX file for the route I have planned.

That gets zipped and sent with my online entry.

It looks like you have done this also,  enjoy your ride tomorrow and try not to worry about the finer points of routes and tracks.

[citoyen]

True, I forgot it was a question about the mandatory route submission thing where you're dealing with a machine rather than a human.

It'd be nicer if the system did accept such routes and/or .fit files, but I can see why accommodating those is extra work for the volunteers who maintain the systems.

Tbh, the subtle distinctions are lost on me, but I'm happy to follow instructions if it makes the organiser's life easier.

I've only entered two DIY by GPS to date and not yet had the org spitting feathers at me, so either I'm doing it right or he's very forgiving...

[jayteezim]

Thanks guys. To be honest I'm gonna do it anyway.  Just thought it would be nice to have it validated as it will be my first AUK 300 if  I finish. Last time I did a 300 was in Ireland 2007 qualifying for the PBP. Either way miles in the legs is needed....

[jayteezim]

310km completed as planned. as was warned above about mandatory routes, i ended up going down a dirt track across a field with water filled potholes mud. as i understand you have to stick to the route so i carried the bike and walked through.
any advice how to avoid this in future and was there anything else i could do if the situation arises again

[Manotea]

Whilst some route planners are better than others they all have their own foibles, so it's best to regard them as aides rather than oracles, i.e., its down to you to review the route and adjust it according to your own preferences. If nothing else this will ensure you have a better understanding of where you are going and what landmarks to look out for on the day.

Most planners will allow you to switch between "map" and "satellite" views, the satellite view providing a real-world view of the terrain you'll be passing through, often showing the roads and road numbers as overlays. If anything looks suspect you can zoom in for a closer view and see if the route is actually a road or simply a farm path. If the planner is based on Google services - as is RWGPS - then you can usually drop into streetview to get an eye-level view of the road, and if the Streetview is supported and you cannot access the path then you probably don't want to be there.

Basically, if the route appears to be going 'cross-country' or is rather 'wiggly' (indicative of a steep gradient) then it's worth a look. I also use Streetview to check out larger roads to make an assessment of whether the Axx is a road I'll feel comfortable riding on or even crossing, and if not, then look for an alternative route.

Hope this helps, Paul

[citoyen]

I often use Streetview to check out larger roads to make an assessment of whether the Axxx is  a road I'd feel comfortable riding on, and if not, then look for an alternative route.

I find Street View an invaluable resource for route planning - it has its limitations, like everything else, but it has certainly helped me on a few occasions to avoid not only busy A-roads but also farm tracks and other unrideable sections when planning routes in an area I don't know well.

[Bikeabilityman]

I've yet to do a mandatory route. I have two 200km routes, which I vary slightly as I ride them, the minimum cycling distance being around 205km. One day I'll devise a 300km diy.

[bhoot]

310km completed as planned. as was warned above about mandatory routes, i ended up going down a dirt track across a field with water filled potholes mud. as i understand you have to stick to the route so i carried the bike and walked through.
any advice how to avoid this in future and was there anything else i could do if the situation arises again

If you are comfortable with reading OS 1:50000 maps then you could try uploading your route in Bikehike which allows you to view it in that mode. You can "zoom in" slightly on areas of concern so you can clearly see the line and what the route behind it is. In general I work on the principle that rural yellow roads are minor (and there are major-minors and minor-minors depending on width of the line) but are hard surfaced and therefore passable. The narrow ones may have grass growing up the middle and may have potholes but they will not be dirt tracks. Unfortunately the converse is not always true - something may be hard surfaced and OK for cycling but be shown as a "track" and not as a road of any type, for example some NCN routes.
At the other end of the scale, I generally avoid the green trunk roads, and weigh up the pros and cons of the red A roads (so often use for short sections where direct links, or where I know them to be relatively quiet).

[jayteezim]

Thanks for the help 

[andyoxon]

I use ridewithgps most often to create routes (i.e. tracks), and you do have to be careful with the algorithm's selection of bridleways/larger off-road tracks - in avoidance of more major roads.  As others have said zooming in, close inspection using different map types/satellite images, and also I hover the streetview icon over the map and it highlights all the roads in blue* - so that one can then spot if the created route is not highlighted at any point.

With a recent Mandatory DIY 200km route I went round the whole thing in detail to make sure.  It doesn't take long to double-check, and the added benefit being that one is more familiar with the route.  A few weeks ago I was caught out, by not double checking the route on a ~100km (non-audax) ride, when ridewithgps had selected a bridleway in preference to a short section of A-road.  I had to back-track a bit, fortunately not too bad.

* though some popular off-road trails are also in blue on streetview, so take care.