Is autoroute accurate?

[Martin]

Sounds like this needs to be taken to a new thread, as there is clearly some view-airing required on the subject of DIY organiser workload. I had no idea it was that onerous.

it's not  

I generally do the paper bits once a week; the GPS ones as I get them; usually a half dozen a week. I rarely get NGR's as controls (benefits of living in the populated South). The ones that take the time are the ones where the route is just a little bit short or when there is a gert 3 lane A road parallel to the proposed route that is often shorter; especially as both AR and VM by bike generally try to route down these.

[Panoramix]

If via michelin is acceptable, there seem to be an automated way of doing a distance table:

ViaMichelin - JavaScript API V1 - Examples

The place to place distance approach certainly addresses the issue.

Except for people who have reservations about precisely where a place is located.
'Cambridge'
for example.

But all this is data that is in the public domain and easily accessible - type 'Cambridge' into Gmaps and you get 52.202544, 0.131237.  
If we were to agree do do it this way, there has to be some wiggle room on actual distance ridden.  It's nearly 5km from here to Cherry Hinton which is one popular Cambridge control location.

So that wiggle room agreement isn't there - and then figures of 100m (in how far?) have been mentioned - even on a 100km that would be 0.1%, ridiculous.

That is only an issue for big cities which could be excluded from the mesh. You can always add places in the suburb, for instance Bristol could be covered with say Fishponds, Portishead and Almondsbury.

[Bairn Again]

I've just spent half an hour plotting an entry for DIY by GPS, giving OS grid references for controls, to transfer to Autoroute so I can check it for distance.

As one of the rural idle rich, I am in the fortunate position of having the time, and I'm certainly not complaining. But I do agree with Francis that it can be very labour intensive, especially when proposed routes come up just a wee bit short: although I think organisers technically have the right simply to reject a too-short route, I've always tried to suggest ways of bringing a short route up to distance. But I also don't think that expecting organisers always to have the time "to thrash out any distance issues" is realistic. I had only about 90 DIYs to validate last year, and my AUK DIY mailbox had 1194 emails in the season just finished, but I know some organisers had a lot more than that.

I'm ok to do another year, until hopefully all these debate about AAA points, GPS validation, Autoroute etc are resolved, but I don't know if I'll be looking to do it for much longer than that.

And it's a great displacement activity, when I really should be decorating the bathroom.

EDIT: What Zoom has just said: John's recent improvements to the recording and validation are a huge improvement on the earlier version.

A lot of effort would be removed if DIY organisers verified distance only after an event has been ridden.

Riders would have the best incentive possible to ensure that their event was long enough.   

[eck]

Sounds like this needs to be taken to a new thread, as there is clearly some view-airing required on the subject of DIY organiser workload. I had no idea it was that onerous.

it's not  

I generally do the paper bits once a week; the GPS ones as I get them; usually a half dozen a week. I rarely get NGR's as controls (benefits of living in the populated South). The ones that take the time are the ones where the route is just a little bit short or when there is a gert 3 lane A road parallel to the proposed route that is often shorter; especially as both AR and VM by bike generally try to route down these.

Zoom is right, it's not usually that onerous, and to be fair, I've had very few entries giving NGRs as controls. The ones I struggle with are where, as Zoom says, the proposed route is shorter than it needs to be or the "shortest" is a Motorway. It's usually easy to suggest slight tweaks to bring it up to distance, especially if I know the area.
phil d asks what would make life easier for organisers? I can't speak for my colleagues but my biggest bugbear has been getting entries for new routes to be ridden at very short notice. I don't mind a bit of discussion about controls etc if I have time, I do get a bit stressed when I'm asked to verify a route that you are planning to ride tomorrow morning.

A lot of effort would be removed if DIY organisers verified distance only after an event has been ridden.
Riders would have the best incentive possible to ensure that their event was long enough.   

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.  
 

[Chris S]

I do get a bit stressed when I'm asked to verify a route that you are planning to ride tomorrow morning.

That's really unreasonable - for someone to expect that kind of turnaround.

It's not happened often, but on the odd occasion I've ridden a route that was not previously OK'd, it was very much on the basis that the risk of non-validation was entirely mine.

Normally, I ask for an OK on a route without any kind of date mentioned. If I ride it before the OK - again, it's my risk.

I thought this was basic DIY stuff that folks understood. Obviously not!

[Ian H]

[...I do get a bit stressed when I'm asked to verify a route that you are planning to ride tomorrow morning.

I make it quite clear, in those cases, that I won't be able to verify it and that it's the rider's responsibility to ensure it's up to scratch.  In fact my blurb says

If you want me to check your route, send an email well in advance. I will endeavour to check it, but it remains your responsibility to ensure your route meets the criteria.

Rich and Martin have the same form of words as they're using my forms.

[The Seldom Killer]

I wouldn't say that Autoroute is inaccurate but would seem to be the most miserly of the systems available. I think it might be a bit tight over certain types of terrain and in areas with a lot of junctions. Unfortuntely over long distances this will all add up, meaning a 205k in ViaMichelin can easily fall underdistance in Autoroute.

This does remind me of a conversation I had on a DIY once when I was explaining audaxing to someone. He asked if it's a long distance cycling thing, why do we always take the shortest route?

[Martin]

Rich and Martin have the same form of words as they're using my forms.

I've started pointing DIY entrants towards the AUK entry form (because it saves a bit of manual typing, and is then held on the AUK server) but still point them towards your site for buying cards and for ECE's  

on the subject of the online entry form; one rider has suggested he would like to keep his controls for a regular DIY somewhere and copy / paste them in as required; something for the future?

and for now; we no longer sell Virtual Brevet Cards as they no longer exist; it needs to say "buy validation for GPS DIY rides" 

[Billy Weir]

A lot of effort would be removed if DIY organisers verified distance only after an event has been ridden.

Riders would have the best incentive possible to ensure that their event was long enough.    

This seems entirely sensible to me, provided I know the software being used and how it is being applied.  Alas, from what I can tell, there is no consistency with a single organiser, let alone across different organisers.  It does not inspire me with confidence when an organiser says I look at this bit of software, then I might look at that bit of software, then I might take into account something else.

Which is why, as I've said before, a dash of pragmatism wouldn't go amiss and it is a shame this appears to have vanished in recent years with the illusion that because there is a piece of software, absolute adherence to the regulations can be justified.

I mean, is it really so important if a ride is 195km rather than 200km?  Can anyone hand on heart say 5km fundamentally changes the achievement of doing such a distance.  All this palaver, when in reality it is fretting over whether someone might gain an extra 20 minutes or so on the bike.

[frankly frankie]

I'm sorry Chris I shouldn't have come across so blunt.

He hasn't complained so far! 

Maybe because

we thrash out any distance issues (not that there have been any).

I think Organiser workload is a different point though. By its very nature, a DIY route will always have to be checked and verified by the organiser. This doesn't have anything to do with accuracy of software.

Plenty of people have already indicated that they find Autoroute accurate.  Consistency is the issue,  Autoroute seems particularly lacking in it.

[DanialW]

+1 about what a time vampire administering DIY is. It only takes a couple of slightly needy riders too, to soak up your entire evening. Most riders just get on with it, but a handful want to check and ask about everything.

There is nothing more galling too, than to find yourself trying to refine a route with a rider, who thinks nothing of spending an hour of your time on admin, to save themselves half an hour riding their bike.

[Manotea]

The ones I struggle with are where, as Zoom says, the proposed route is shorter than it needs to be or the "shortest" is a Motorway.

For those that don't know, Autoroute has an 'Avoid Area' function. If AR is insisting on showing the shortest route as via a motorway (for example) zoom into the map to to show the joining junction, right click and 'select' an area including the junction, then right click on the framed area to get a submenu, select 'avoid area' then refresh the route directions.

HTH

[eck]

  Manotea, I have the 2007 version, and I can't find that feature, which would indeed be useful. Do you have a later edition, or am I missing something? I have to do a "join the dots" plot along what looks like the shortest non M'way route.
If I take it to the Route - More Options - Segments - Preferred Roads, and tell it I don't like motorways, it seems to go in a huff and propose totally absurd alternatives.

And Danial, thank you for saying much more succinctly what I was trying to express earlier:

+1 about what a time vampire administering DIY is. It only takes a couple of slightly needy riders too, to soak up your entire evening. Most riders just get on with it, but a handful want to check and ask about everything.

[phil d]

It's certainly in AR05.  On the map, create an area by holding down L button on the mouse and dragging, then R click within the box to see "avoid area" option

[Manotea]

I've got AR2010 and Mappoint2004 which has the same UI as AR2004. The UI changed somewhere between.

In AR04 make sure you have selected the 'select' tool on the menu buttonbar (not the 'pan' tool) then left click/hold left button down to select the area, and then right click to get the sub menu. [AR10 doesnt have separate tools, just Left click for 'pan', right click 'for select'.]

If all else fails, try Help, "Avoid".

In AR4 we would set driving speeds for motorways to 0mph, other classes of road to 20mph and then set route options/segments to 'quickest'. That doesnt seem to work since the UI changed (where driving speeds for different road cats are set by sliders). Specifying quickest route seems to ignore the road speeds?!?  You can acheive the desired effect in AR10 by setting segments to preferred roads and setting the road speeds for different types of preferred roads to knockout the motorways but I think it gives slightly different results to earlier versions of AR. The sliders make the whole process less precise. Anyways, approved practice seems to be to select shortest distance and knock out the motorways manually. A bit crap really. Or maybe its me doing it wrong.

[PloddinPedro]

This whole GPS thingy is very new and it bears repeating that I for one, and I'm sure many others, are extremely grateful for the time and effort that Danial and the various ride controllers have and continue to put into making it work.

I know that I have been among the culprits plaguing my local Controller with questions about this and that while it all beds down but I think I've now got a fairly good understanding of how it works (for me at least) with my particular Controller. At least he hasn't ceased diplomatic relations yet.

But one thing that strikes me from this and other associated threads here is that there is some distance to go before everyone "gets it" and I wonder if it would pay dividends for them in the long run if the various Controllers got together and agreed a common modus operandi and then published a collective FAQ, with do's and don't, as comprehensive as possible, on the AUK website, here and Yahoo chat group. It might at least cut down the number of times they have to explain the same things again and again to newbies, of which I confidently predict there will be a steady supply! Once some equilibrium has been established it will also be easier to recruit and train additional ride validators, so as to spread the no doubt increasing workload amongst more shoulders.

I would also say that fussing over exactitudes about various  Autoroute versions and other minutiae is counter-productive and simply confuses the issue. The objective is to facilitate people getting out and riding long distances and it really is lunacy to get sniffy about whether or not a journey path falls 500m short of nominal on paper, especially given the (theoretical) shortfalls various well established calendar rides have "got away with" over the years.

[DanialW]

...it really is lunacy to get sniffy about whether or not a journey path falls 500m short of nominal on paper, especially given the (theoretical) shortfalls various well established calendar rides have "got away with" over the years.

I take it you're referring to sniffy riders here?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

...it really is lunacy to get sniffy about whether or not a journey path falls 500m short of nominal on paper, especially given the (theoretical) shortfalls various well established calendar rides have "got away with" over the years.

I take it you're referring to sniffy riders here?

I take to mean both riders and organisers.  I agree with PP on this issue.

[PloddinPedro]

...it really is lunacy to get sniffy about whether or not a journey path falls 500m short of nominal on paper, especially given the (theoretical) shortfalls various well established calendar rides have "got away with" over the years.

I take it you're referring to sniffy riders here?

I'm thinking of various contributors who have expressed the view that if a proposed route falls short of nominal by x00 metres it's unconditionally ruled out; i.e. the rules are absolute, are sacrosanct and are more important than the ride. All I'm saying is that ride controllers should have the latitude to employ a bit of discretion. Be clear here; I'm not saying that if it's straightforward to tweak the controls a tad to get the distance up it shouldn't be done, even if it results in a slight overdistance. What I'm saying is that if a situation should arise for a rider where a safe and workable route comes out at 199.5km and the next best alternative is at least say, 220km, then allowing the ride is a lesser evil than prohibiting it and causing the rider not to ride at all.

In practice, I wonder if this is really an issue anyway, since with GPS it's pretty easy to fine tune the distance quite precisely. I'd expect it to be a possible problem only in remote areas which have very few roads to choose from.

And to return to the main thrust of my post, if there was a comprehensive "how-to" available, it could be explained with a bit more emphasis that riders are expected to submit routes that equal or exceed the minimum nominal, even if it means a degree of overdistance.

[Panoramix]

I did ask people to behave at the beginning... Please don't force me to delete the thread, there is useful stuff at the beginning!

[Ian H]

...What I'm saying is that if a situation should arise for a rider where a safe and workable route comes out at 199.5km and the next best alternative is at least say, 220km, then allowing the ride is a lesser evil than prohibiting it and causing the rider not to ride at all...

No one's prohibiting anything.  We're saying you'll earn points if you ride 200+km.

Might I squeeze in a quick plug for my Jan 29 event: 157km with no AAA points. The Glastonbury 100 miler.

[DanialW]

No Ian, you may not squeeze in a quick plug for you Jan 29 event: 157km with no AAA points. The Glastonbury 100 miler. Nor will it go on Twitter already.

(Glad someone else picked up on using the word 'prohibit'.)

[Martin]

one thing that is absolutely true is that Autoroute has some wild errors;

I know this from having had my calendar event kicked out because AR thinks that private roads with footpaths (yes footpaths) are public roads. This is where dialogue between organiers and their Event Secs irons out these problems and compromise on shortest routes / info controls is arrived at.

[MSeries]

I don't know if Autoroute is accurate. Well it will be but to what degree ? +-1% , +-2% ? I don't know. I do know that a route it planned, my version is 2005 IIRC, is within 0.5% of what my GPS recorded when I rode it.   How accurate it all is in real lilfe I don't know, I haven't measured the route using a standardised measuring tool, and then it'll depend on my exact track

[Ian H]

one thing that is absolutely true is that Autoroute has some wild errors;

I know this from having had my calendar event kicked out because AR thinks that private roads with footpaths (yes footpaths) are public roads. This is where dialogue between organiers and their Event Secs irons out these problems and compromise on shortest routes / info controls is arrived at.

Yes, but routing errors rather than measurement of distance errors. Which is why, as I said earlier, I always do a visual check.