AAA Century, for obtaining 1000 AAA points in one season
OT EPE stuff:(click to show/hide)
...It has!!! :thumbsup:
The increasing lack of 24hr available cash machines due to bank closures is another threat to perms unless GPS only validation becomes an option for organizers.
...It has!!! :thumbsup:
The increasing lack of 24hr available cash machines due to bank closures is another threat to perms unless GPS only validation becomes an option for organizers.
Quite a recent thing, and so far only adopted by a few [most of whom were let into the secret early - so it's not 100% down to the rest being dinosaurs :P
Someone else can find a link for you to read on this one :)
In most countries, signatures from the public are accepted as proof of passage. Not every country requires a receipt.
Reference to ‘Points’ for championship trophies has been dropped and those awards are now based on distance. References to ‘Points’ have long been a cause of consternation for many because of the immediate connotation of ‘competition’. Whilst basing such awards on distance might seem a semantic difference, such is far more in keeping with ‘the spirit of audax’.
Agreed it's a fine point, but at least awards for riding the furthest are based on, er, riding the furthest.
Some might even say that such battles are the true 'Spirit of Audax'
Thank you for your feedback on my redraft of the AUK regulations, the current draft of which can be found at regs.paudax.com.
What do you think?
Thank you for your feedback on my redraft of the AUK regulations, the current draft of which can be found at regs.paudax.com.
What do you think?
I wonder whether the very small number of forum posts on here reflects the lack of interest in the minutiae of the Regulations. I'm sure (because you've told me) that there might be a strong case for a fundamental revision, but personally I'm not interested in reading through and interpreting the significance of what you're proposing - it just goes over my head.
A topic only for those who love committees, I fear.
FE, of course not for AUK perms as AUK seems fixated on receipts. Other countries accept signatures for perms and calendar brevets. AUK recognise overseas BRMs even if signatures are used for proof of passage.I thought not
[My bold] that is probably my category! I'm not uninterested in the issues.Thank you for your feedback on my redraft of the AUK regulations, the current draft of which can be found at regs.paudax.com.
What do you think?
I wonder whether the very small number of forum posts on here reflects the lack of interest in the minutiae of the Regulations. I'm sure (because you've told me) that there might be a strong case for a fundamental revision, but personally I'm not interested in reading through and interpreting the significance of what you're proposing - it just goes over my head.
A topic only for those who love committees, I fear.
Agreed it's a fine point, but at least awards for riding the furthest are based on, er, riding the furthest.So someone with copious free time and no other interests (and how else would anyone become AUK champion?) could theoretically ride two 100km events every day. At the end of the year they'd have not a single point but would have ridden 73,000km and quite possibly be distance champion. I'd really love it if someone did this first under the present regulations and then under these new proposed regs. :thumbsup:
AAA and FWC remain points based, as the former reflects AUKs measure of climb tather than the actual, and the latter is a hybrid award, distance plus climb.
Not sure I understand this. GPS tracks are accepted with no other proof of passage for DIYs so why not for Perms? What does a receipt add to a GPS track, and what does it add on a Perm that it does not add on a DIY?...It has!!! :thumbsup:
The increasing lack of 24hr available cash machines due to bank closures is another threat to perms unless GPS only validation becomes an option for organizers.
Quite a recent thing, and so far only adopted by a few [most of whom were let into the secret early - so it's not 100% down to the rest being dinosaurs :P
Someone else can find a link for you to read on this one :)
I know GPS validation is available, but not GPS only.
As in to allow the 24hr controls requirement I've read exists, it's near impossible to define a route with that limitation for paper based validation.
[My bold] that is probably my category! I'm not uninterested in the issues.Thank you for your feedback on my redraft of the AUK regulations, the current draft of which can be found at regs.paudax.com.
What do you think?
I wonder whether the very small number of forum posts on here reflects the lack of interest in the minutiae of the Regulations. I'm sure (because you've told me) that there might be a strong case for a fundamental revision, but personally I'm not interested in reading through and interpreting the significance of what you're proposing - it just goes over my head.
A topic only for those who love committees, I fear.
Not SO sure about "those who love committees"; I love the people part of committes. Sharing ideas, getting useful stuff done, the smug feeling that all the moaners out there couldn't get off THEIR arses to actually sort things out ... ;)
But I don't really have a head for legalese and minutae - give me a graph or a spreadsheet and I'm happy. Hats off to the "Paudax"es of this world who save the rest of us from this stuff :-*
Many if not most will feel this is simply not something they want to or feel qualified to get involved with, and many of those that are interested will simply not want to comment publically for fear of being seen to "take a position" or risk upsetting somebody. Fact is that even on the AUK forum, the number of people commenting on 'official' stuff - or anything for that matter ( :) ) seldom reaches double digits.
However one way or another the AUK Regulations are set to be redrafted, so this issue isn't going to go away.
Not sure I understand this. GPS tracks are accepted with no other proof of passage for DIYs so why not for Perms? What does a receipt add to a GPS track, and what does it add on a Perm that it does not add on a DIY?...It has!!! :thumbsup:
The increasing lack of 24hr available cash machines due to bank closures is another threat to perms unless GPS only validation becomes an option for organizers.
Quite a recent thing, and so far only adopted by a few [most of whom were let into the secret early - so it's not 100% down to the rest being dinosaurs :P
Someone else can find a link for you to read on this one :)
I know GPS validation is available, but not GPS only.
As in to allow the 24hr controls requirement I've read exists, it's near impossible to define a route with that limitation for paper based validation.
Likewise a blast up the spine of the Western IslesOT
A route that would be a prime challenge for an Audaxer, and it's got ferries.
Can't be defined as a Perm as there's nothing to validate you at Vatersay or the Butt of Lewis.
This ride claims GPS-only-validation quite clearly:
http://www.aukweb.net/perms/detail/PL01/
(Maybe there's more to it - don't shoot the messenger ... )
Yes, I clearly am/was. Sorry.
I think you're missunderstanding what I mean by GPS only validation... I'm meaning no paper validation, because paper proof of passage outwith normal shop hours is increasingly impossible in more pleasant to ride parts of the world...
this is rather OT now though and there's almost certainly an existing thread it would belong on.Agreed :)
Matt's not the only one misunderstanding. It was not entirely clear, but I've deduced you mean that at the moment Perm orgs are required to offer validation by paper (receipts etc) and this restricts their freedom to make routes in less populated places. Put like that, I can see the point. What about infos? Or photos of rider+bike at indicated places? Are these not available to Perm orgs, with a receipt as proof of time only required at start and finish, for instance?This ride claims GPS-only-validation quite clearly:
http://www.aukweb.net/perms/detail/PL01/
(Maybe there's more to it - don't shoot the messenger ... )
I see the words "can be" and "option" but not "MUST"
The perm description even talks about traditional card based validation.
I think you're missunderstanding what I mean by GPS only validation... I'm meaning no paper validation, because paper proof of passage outwith normal shop hours is increasingly impossible in more pleasant to ride parts of the world...
- "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?Using that definition, CTC rides and YACF camping weekends. :thumbsup:
Appendix 2 point 2.7 doesn't quite read how it's intended...>>Done
Thus, a 200km event might be listed or recognised as an Audax UK Brevet Randonneur AND (for example) as a ACP/Brevet Randonneur Mondiale or UAF Brevet, i.e., the organiser has elected to apply the additional ACP/UAF regulations which would make AUK event eligible for validation by ACP/UAF, which defacto is what happens now.Has precisely the opposite effect to the stated aims:
...bringing together the regulations for all of the various Audax UK events and activities in a single cohesive document.and
Improves the completeness and clarity of the AUK Regulations, removing points of ambiguity and confusion
As I've said elsewhere trying to shoehorn the wide diversity of AUK events into just two categories (BP & BRM) is operationally unworkable.
And thisQuoteThus, a 200km event might be listed or recognised as an Audax UK Brevet Randonneur AND (for example) as a ACP/Brevet Randonneur Mondiale or UAF Brevet, i.e., the organiser has elected to apply the additional ACP/UAF regulations which would make AUK event eligible for validation by ACP/UAF, which defacto is what happens now.Has precisely the opposite effect to the stated aims:Quote...bringing together the regulations for all of the various Audax UK events and activities in a single cohesive document.andQuoteImproves the completeness and clarity of the AUK Regulations, removing points of ambiguity and confusion
Not to mention that a "single cohesive document" whilst perhaps well suited to the paper handbooks of yesteryear, when presented on-screen is likely to be (for the majority) TL:DR
Can you list all of the functional rule changes from the current regulations to this one? That's probably better than expecting everyone to spot them.
As I've also said elsewhere, you are confusing regulation and presentation. It's not expected thatridersregs will be a primary reference for riders. In the main they will refer to extracts with additional narratives published through the website pages, as now. However a central source document which underpins such materials is required and this is it.
You've previously suggested that webpages might be automatically generated/collated from some form of backing database, but again, that database needs to be populated from some form of reference documentation and that documentation needs to be available in a format that can be easily understood and managed/updated over time, and again, 'this is it'.
10.2.3 For BR events, the minimum average speeds are:
200 to 600 km – 14.3 or 15 km/hr
700 to 1200 km – 13⅓ km/hr
1300 to 1800 km - 12 km/hr
1900 to 2400 km - 10 km/hr
2500 km and over - 8⅓ km/hr
10.2.4 The maximum speed for BP and BR Events is 30 km/hr.
a) the revised regulations are fully compatable with current operationsFrom the point of view of rider and organiser, yes. Not so for the central part of the organisation.
b) the wide diversity of audax uk events are demonstrably accommodated by just two categories of (BP and BR);The failings of the current structure where everything is compressed uncomfortably into four categories is already very difficult to manage from a regulatory language point of view (viz. your own arguments about the inclusion of links to other organisations rules & regulations) compressing them into two and essentially having two sets of not-quite-compatible regulations applying to many rides?
however there is no reason why additional categories of events/awards might not introduced but the reality is that to-date there simply has been no reason to.so why not go the whole way and have a category and set of distinct rules for each type of event?
As I've also said elsewhere, you are confusing regulation and presentation.I beg to differ. The content of the regulation is always, has to be, the most important. The way they are presented makes them more or less comprehensible to the rider.
In the main they will refer to extracts with additional narratives published through the website pages, as now. However a central source document which underpins such materials is requiredAbsolutely agree ! but you appear to have pushed some of what should be 'additional narratives' into the main document and left others out
You've previously suggested that webpages might be automatically generated/collated from some form of backing database, but again, that database needs to be populated from some form of reference documentation and that documentation needs to be available in a format that can be easily understood and managed/updated over time,Actually, no I never suggested such a thing, that was someone else. It's an interesting concept though, one that needs further exploration.
Yes, this does make the Audax UK Regulations a rather long document. That's that's because it provides a consolidated view of all the AUK events and awards.
In terms of document length it is comparable to the ACP affiliate agreement which includes the full BRM\RM regulations in far more detail than published to riders through the ACP website.
What we have now, is "TL: Cannot be Read" because the various event and award regulations are scattered all over the place. My concern is that relying on the approach you advocate, of proceeding to revise the regulations without a central reference, would only make that worse.I'm not disputing the first sentence, but for the record I did propose for discussion in part of the AUK forum a somewhat different structure based on a much more concise "central document" which captured the rules that pertain to all AUK events, and that it be complemented by additional documents (or web pages, or 'extracts with additional narratives'), one for each kind of event. A structure that that enables the subtleties of each kind of ride to be made clear without a confusing morass of detail about other kinds.
... but the 'up to' in the phrase 'maximum speed up to 30km/ph is redundant.
OK, here is the final draft for comment before it is submitted into the formal review process. Different file but same place - see regs.paudax.com (http://regs.paudax.com) for details.As a newbie among the great and good who've commented, here are my minutia.
Its [sic] formatted as a single resolution with four parts to be voted on seperately [sic], Part 1 being the main body of the regulations plus three points worthy of individual consideration.
As usual, all feedback welcome!
@Somnolent
I’d summarise all of our discussions on this subject by saying that we are remarkably close but differ on the key and central issue as to the need for a central and authoritative document detailing Audax UK regulations.
My impression is that all you see is the complexity of all the different event forms that AUK is involved in and would see them all documented out separately with all the appropriate rider notes. Nominally that would be quite straightforward, deceptively so.
The problem I perceive with that approach is that without first drawing up a consolidated regulatory document that you will very quickly generate a large number of different event regulation documents, all subtly different which will be impossible to maintain consistently over time. Anybody who has tried to work their way through the Audax Australia regs will understand what I mean.
So yes, there is a need to document individual event forms with appropriate guidance for Orgs and Riders but there needs to be – and the task will be greatly facilitated by – such a central document.
The other point of misunderstanding relates to there being currently two main classes of event/award (BR and BP).
What it comes down to is that right now, for AUK awards purposes, an event is either recognised as BR – the primary standard on which the majority of audax events and awards are based – or not, in which case they are BP. If there was a desire or need to introduce other classes of mutually exclusive Audax UK awards then such additional categories might be defined and we would need to address that but no so desire or need has been demonstrated. Whilst LWaB has pointed out many times that such is the way things are done in France, that, for example, ACP offers several mutually exclusive awards schemes, but for better or worse, Audax UK events and awards schemes have evolved in a different direction.
your different event regulation documents, all subtly different which will be impossible to maintain consistently over time.They would actually be very easy to maintain because each document, apart from the central one, would refer only to a single type of event, and any changes would affect only that one type and not (inadvertently) other kinds of events, something which is a danger under the present structure.
Newer members will not appreciate that the last time the Audax UK regulations were revised, the proposed revision was not published to members until 2-3 three weeks before the AGM, that there was no opportunity to review them and it was very much a case of ‘take it or leave it’ at the AGM. I remember one prominent AUK commenting on this ‘quite vocally’, pointing out various changes that had been introduced without consultation.