DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances

[MSeries]

Can we enter lat/lon ? Where ? Some places I use are just points on the planet, no address since there is nothing there but the road, it's just a top of a hill or some random place on a road to force the shortest distance calculater to use a longer twisty road rather than the straight, busy major A road. (This where DIY by GPS wins out for me, makes it easy to submit routes where the shortest distance is the one you'll ride)

[Fidgetbuzz]

I think this is a matter for some discussion - but let me make quite clear - i am very happy to ride my quoted ride at 322 ish probably having to put 2 or 3 more controls in to satisfy a (new to me) measuring system-even tho it was historically approved on a different system - but the potential problem hit me - when I realised that my new controller might reject my controls as falling short of the "shortest distance " between controls rule, even tho I was never going to ride this route - and I would be using my country lane 322 ish route always. I must have ridden this route for 4 or 5 years - maybe 3 or 4 times a year.

Although there is reference to using Autoroute and Viamichelin - I suspect that this is custom and practice not an AUK rule  - and when i first had a GPS I used Mapsource -  supported by Sheila - who advised me to use delivery van direct route - this comes up at 307 using my 6 controls. AR and VM may be used by some / all now - but this was not the case in the past.

Having seen the potential snag - I was then intrigued by the fact that the shortest route between controls - which HAD to be used in the past - was seen as applying to NOW. Clearly it is while the rules remain the same - but should the rules be the same, when I can prove my distance was 322.

I dont see the absolute  need for my controller to be satisfied in advance of any ride for which I nominate my controls to satisfy him / herself that the shortest possible route that I could ride would be xxx kms. To me it is my responsibility to ensure that a) I visit the controls  and b) have ridden more than xxx kms - if I choose to ride overdistance because it is a nice day - and I fancy going to a village over there - so be it -- if I choose to ride dual carriageways between my controls -- BUT the distance is under XXXkms - then I would not submit the tracklog and even if I did it should not be validated.

Not trying to be a stirrer -- just curious about carrying an old rule that was absolutely needed in the past  into the future.

[MSeries]

It's not an old rule.
It's the current rule.

It's been like that since 2006 at least when I did my first DIY. Shortest distance between controls.

"I dont see the absolute  need for my controller to be satisfied in advance of any ride for which I nominate my controls to satisfy him / herself that the shortest possible route that I could ride would be xxx kms"
^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is required, it's how it is.

[Fidgetbuzz]

Ok - carrying an existing rule that was absolutely needed when a rider could not prove where they had been - into the future when they are able to do this

[MSeries]

Ok - carrying an existing rule that was absolutely needed when a rider could not prove where they had been - into the future when they are able to do this

Propose a change to the system. The existing system is needed for riders who don't use GPS though and for organisers who don't do DIY by GPS.

I don't think there was a different system before, I think your other organiser probably realised that you would not ride on the A1(M) (for example)even though AR used it as the shortest and permitted you to do something different.  My current Org doesn't permit such 'understandings', consistency for all riders is a 'must' IMO.

All you have to prove once your route has been approved is that you pass through the controls in the right order and within the time limits. The first and last control prove you rode at least the minimum distance. It's simple and  it works. Your actual rotue as planned or as executed is immaterial  to the orgs.

[Martin]

Can we enter lat/lon ? Where ? Some places I use are just points on the planet, no address since there is nothing there but the road, it's just a top of a hill or some random place on a road to force the shortest distance calculater to use a longer twisty road rather than the straight, busy major A road. (This where DIY by GPS wins out for me, makes it easy to submit routes where the shortest distance is the one you'll ride)

you can use whatever you like if AR can find it; if not you'll have to send a Streetmap location with a little arrow...

[Fidgetbuzz]

Absolutely true that system is needed for those without GPS etc and I can not imagine 2 different rules for GPS riders and non GPS riders - so as i think about it - there can not be any rule change in the foreseeable future, and heaven help anyone trying to draft a new rule too!

However I still have the niggle - how can this ride approved for several years going through 5 or 6 controls - potentially be rejected because a different controller uses a different system ( that I did not have ) to measure a route that I will not ride. 
Why can I not inform my controller that Mapsource thru these controls comes in at xxx kms - and I will ride more than that anyway?

Anyway - enough of this I am riding a 200 tomorrow - approved by my new controller on his measuring system.

[RichForrest]

Just a question, How do you do a route in mapsource?
I have that from having a Garmin gps, but as it doesn't seem to have every road in it surely it can't do the shortest route?

[simonp]

Just a question, How do you do a route in mapsource?
I have that from having a Garmin gps, but as it doesn't seem to have every road in it surely it can't do the shortest route?

Which map do you have?  I rarely see missing roads in the uk with the 2008 version.

If you have the basemap that came with the gps that's main roads only.

[BlackSheep]

Just a question, How do you do a route in mapsource?
I have that from having a Garmin gps, but as it doesn't seem to have every road in it surely it can't do the shortest route?

That's a very good point Rich.

And just as a matter of interest. How do we know that any other mapping software is also telling the truth?

I know we have to start somewhere, and I (like many) start by using MS AR, but it's a long way short of the mark when it comes to planning routes for bicycle. I always have to cross refer to some other s/w, such as that offered by Bikehike.

I don't see how AUK can validate rides for bicycle using car mapping s/w, when then the item isn't really fit for purpose.

[Martin]

Just a question, How do you do a route in mapsource?

much the same as Bikely; select the route tool and click around the route, it will auto-follow the road; but it has several senior moments when it sends you all round the houses, the advantage of mapsource over Bikely is that if it does this you delete the last waypoint and it deletes the route back to the last good waypoint, you can then go back and add a few more waypoints to force it on route (Bikely requires you to delete dozens of little trackpoints back individually until you are back to the last waypoint)

FB; this is why we cannot confirm shortest routes by Mapsource

Simonp; my mapsource has a few missing roads; and others that it thinks are bridleways after a while so won't send you down them even though they are a road throughout; it also thinks that some byways and RUPPs are roads.

[Manotea]

I don't believe any s/w based routing sytem will ever be 100% applicable to Audax purposes. How many show the 'hole in the hedge' shortcut a.k.a., the Maidenhead Manouvre on the Upper Thames/Willy Warmer, for example? Don't look, its just an example.

Now, as a Garmin user, I do all my base mapping in Mapsource. This is because apart from the fact that the S/W is on my PC it enables me to have several versions of a route in the same file, so I can play around with options. I usually end up with two routes, 'on the road' and 'controls only'.

For route validation purposes I used to load the control only route into Autoroute and submit the .axe file and a printed report as pdf which includes a summary report detailing the distance between controls, which lends the route application a certain authority. Ususally this goes through without an issue.

I do find that Mapsource and AR generally disagree on the shortest distance. It's generally not significant but can be a royal pain if AR shows mapsource underdistance by a couple of KM as I then have to go hunting for them, playing around with the controls, whatever. Its generally best all round to do this rather than raise an issue with the Org. I try and use the same version of AR as my local DIY org and as Martin has Mapsource he can view .GDB files natively. I agree that Mapsource throws in an occasional 'long cut' but these are immediately obvious from a cursory scrutiny and can be corrected by including an addition waypoint (note, not control) on the 'Controls' route,  so I really do not see that as a problem.

Historically a small amount of flexibility was offered to allow for this imprecision - well a couple of km - as DIY riders would generally clock up a few extra KM finding controls, riding to/from the start point (pre-GPS). That seems to have been lost in the search for the holy grail of the perfect solution.

To restate my opening comment I simply do not believe that any s/w routing system can ever be 100%. One does get the impression that the effort expended in searching for it is counter productive as stress testing reveals problems/inconsistencies and the route planning process more complicated, as evidenced by the endless questioning on the matter.

So what to do? I'd like to see clearer guidelines on route planning and (regardless of which tools are used) the Orgs empowered to apply some discretion. That seems to inline with the spirit of Audax.

[FWIW I'd have turned down FBs route. It's inappropriate to assume trunk roads are de-facto motorways - many scheduled routes have long distances of trunk roads albeit on overnight/sunday morning sections. Best to simply plot Controls that keep you away from them. GPS users can place controls where they chose so that isn't a problem, and the more controls one has the fewer 'extra' km one has to ride. This must be traded against flexibility for the 'on the road' route. YPYPATYC.]

[Greenbank]

However I still have the niggle - how can this ride approved for several years going through 5 or 6 controls - potentially be rejected because a different controller uses a different system ( that I did not have ) to measure a route that I will not ride. 

Because things are being tightened up and allowances that were made in the past are no longer being made. It's biting calendar events too, many have had to wiggle controls around to make it stand up to greater scrutiny. I'm guessing my DIY 200 up to Cambridge and back wouldn't stand up any more, despite me never riding it in less than 216km.

If anything it goes to show just how much time and effort has gone in to the calendar rides that are only a few km over distance.

[vorsprung]

If anything it goes to show just how much time and effort has gone in to the calendar rides that are only a few km over distance.

I used the on line ViaMichelin: Maps, route planner, route finder, UK maps, European maps, hotel booking, travel guides to work out how appropriate my 400km route was
This is suggested as a way of doing DIY perm distances so I figured it has the "official" magic sauce

I found that some legs of the 400 were over the minimum distance but this didn't matter as others were, somehow, under the minimum distance.  On paper the "control" distance was 418km but the actual distance 413.5km

I seemed to gain the most where I was using laney shortcuts which is unfortunate as these are usually bloody awful roads. 

And of course viamichelin doesn't know about the Severn Bridge.  If I just told it to use options cycle and go to Chepstow, quite a long detour happens.

[frankly frankie]

Several years ago Sheila and I agreed using mapsource delivery van direct that this was over 300. In fact most often the ride is about 322kms.

When i switched to Danial we probably never checked the route as it had been previously OKd.

I am now switching to Rich who uses Autoroute - so to make his life easier I thought that I would get a copy of Autoroute - and thx to the forum ( many thx Tatanab)I now have an old copy.

Referring back to the OP I'd like to raise some points.

If the project is regularly ridden, and has already been validated - why would a new DIY Org see a need to re-invent the wheel?  Sounds to me as though Danial had the right approach here.

Regarding Mapsource in 'Delivery' mode - this almost by definition will NOT generate a shortest route - even when set to 'shortest'.  'Delivery' mode will seek to take you round the houses in towns and over longer distances will seek to take you through towns/villages rather than straight past them.

Regarding Autoroute - ISTR that originally this was used NOT set to 'shortest' - but set to 'fastest' and the speeds for each road type tweaked to make the mainest roads the slowest ones.  This gave very good results.
The problem I think is that it also gave a lot of inconsistency between different desktops - different versions of Autoroute and different individual speeds settings meant that no 2 people were seeing the same generated route.  This may be why people have gone across to using 'shortest' (if indeed they have).

[Greenbank]

AR's "shortest" algorithm won't always be giving you the real shortest route anyway.

The lengths it goes to to find the 'shortest' route depends on how long the leg is. The longer the leg the simpler the route it tends to prefer.

Further comments and examples in this thread: A DIY organiser's plea