2.8 There's no explicit explanantion that SR stands for Super Randonneur (add to glossary?)
>> Done as its a commonly used term, but you can only put so much in the glossary.
8.7 Is "proof of progress" (not capitalised and not in glossary) different to "Proof of Passage" (capitalised and in glossary)? Add to glossary or change to Proof of Passage
>>Done (Proof of Passage)
8.8 The list of route types is not a complete list (unlike the other 8.x lists) as it includes only two exceptional route types and does not have a "normal" entry. Consider describing it as a list of additional route characteristics.
>>I looked at this long and hard. Done but note weasel word, ‘may’, i.e., allows for Route Type to be left unspecified, i.e., default to ‘on-road’
11.1 proof of passage is not capitalised, for consistency with other sections it should be. (Although whether it really
should be capitalised is another question)
>>It should. Done
11.5.6 "beyond their Control" No need to capitalise Control in this instance
>> Done (typo)
11.5.7 "complaints process" Isn't it called grievance process? Or is that something else?
>> Done. Grievance (I prefer ‘Complaints’ but ‘Grievance’ is far more ‘in the spirit of audax’. 😊
Appendix 2. 4 "Randonnee Round The Year" Is that the correct name. Is it not "Randonneur Round The Year"? (cf aukweb.net)
>> Done (typo)
Appendix 3. Consider renaming appendix to "Additional Event Types"
>> Originally was... makes sense now to revert. Done
Firstly, can you reformat the document so the line length is sensible? The denser sections of text are close to unreadable (in read-only mode, maybe the editor you can see is better).
>>Soz. Done. Reverted to Portrait which also helps. Only so much I can do in google docs. Works much better in Word
What's the functional effect of a route being considered "off-road"? There's no point defining it if it doesn't change the rules. (upon checking, this seems to also be a problem in the current regulations)
>> Whilst there is minimal impact on the primary event regs, its nominally useful to have the option to tag events as having specific route types* included in the calendar listing, i.e., events 'badged' as off route, OCD, etc. searchable as such, With that in mind I’ve added OCD to the list. *These are really Route Attributes, i.e., a route may be Off-Road, AAA and OCD but I’ll leave it as Route Type for now, as it reads better.
>> The minimum speed of 8 km/h for grimpeurs doesn't seem to exist in current regs. Couldn't it be equally covered by the "as specified by organiser" provision?
- "The standard minimum speed is 15 km/ph" (kms per public house?) - which events does this apply to, given the rules immediately override it for basically all types of event?
>> tend to agree. Done. FWIW I'd be inclined to drop the 14.3km/ph option for BR events and standardise on 15km/ph. I also dont buy in to the 'perms are harder' view, but don't want that to be a distraction here.
For the Brevet 250 at least you've removed the option to substitute 100s. Is this section supposed to be exhaustive or an overview?
>> exhaustive. Done
- RRTY is "Randon
neur Round The Year". The wordplay doesn't work if it's Randonnee.
>> Dunno about wordplay.... was a typo on my part. Done.
- The event type summary table seems to define all BRMs as mandatory route.
>> Well, as far as ACP is concerned they are
. The summary table referenced is there for general guidance only and does not form part of the AUK regulations.
I’m happy to leave it to the ACP and UAF Secretaries to explain exactly which BRM/LRM/UAF regs AUK is obliged to comply with and to document them for adoption by event organisers looking for their events to be validated by those bodies. That is rather the point. The AUK Regs are the AUK regs. The ACP Regs are the ACP Regs, etc. and simply don't belong in the AUK regs. The other side of the coin is that the AUK regs allow that rides validated by affiliated organisations and compliant/compatible with AUK regulations are eligible/may contribute towards AUK awards.
Appendix 2 point 2.7 doesn't quite read how it's intended...
>>Done
Thanks for the feedback. Its fair to say that this redraft has already had a far wider general review than the last redraft ever had. Last time round the redrafted regs were posted about two weeks before the AGM with no opportunity for general review, and on the day it was very much a case of, "take it or leave it".