Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: mattc on 08 January, 2019, 01:13:27 pm
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-46527865
"
Fell runners have been banned from using GPS to help them navigate in competitive races in Wales.
A proposal put forward in the summer has been adopted for all Welsh Fell Runners Association (WFRA) registered races as of Tuesday.
The organisation said GPS "threatens the fundamentals of our sport".
Runners can record their route on a GPS watch, but cannot follow a pre-set route, use a device showing a map or pre-load checkpoints on their device.
Altimeters are still allowed and people can use devices which show how far they have run.
The move comes after a vote held by members at the AGM of the WFRA, which the organisation said was a response to feedback from members.
Secretary Andrew Blackmore said: "The use of GPS devices for navigational purposes is not commensurate with the ethos of our sport.
"Fell running is a simple sport - you have some hills and some checkpoints to visit. You use your skill and fitness to get between these points as fast as possible."
"
Sounds like they have a lot of similar discussions to some within AUK!
-
Quite right in a race scenario and where navigation by compass/map is a core component of the sport.
Audax, not being racing, it doesn't really matter.
-
As a trail runner who has completed precisely one ::-) Category A fell run I have been watching this story with interest. There is a balance to be met between inclusiveness and having thousands of inexperienced/over confident runners traipsing over vulnerable habitats. GPS is a good back-up but should be just that - for when the regular map-reading or route knowledge isn't working. You can't possibly get as much detail from a GPS watch route as you can from a good map. Some of the fell races are very reliant on knowing the route and have minimal marking on the trail. There can be real risks of running over a crag or getting into tricky ground in poor conditions wearing nowt much more than shorts and vest. By banning GPS, it perhaps excludes those without good map skills but probably supports those who couldn't otherwise be competitive because other runners have a technological advantage.
-
I wouldn't be against a "no navigation devices" policy in AUK, for as long as also route sheets get scrapped. There is fundamentally no difference in the use of a GPS Vs the use of a route sheet, they are both skill-less ways to navigate.
Problem is, it would be the end of Audax... ::-)
-
Competing without GPS seems a lot like competing without aerodynamic aids, or competing without an engine: Perfectly reasonable, if that's how you choose to define the particular sport. Navigation using a map and compass is certainly a skill, and I'd argue a more challenging one than using a GPS receiver effectively.
I agree with Greenbank that it doesn't really matter for audax. Which isn't to say that an non-GPS navigation challenge, akin to the fixed wheel challenge, wouldn't be a reasonable thing to have.
As a general rule, categories are more inclusive than bans.
-
Surely the idea of Audax is that within the time limits people can finish a course as they please ? After all the only person we are competing against are ourselves ?
-
Surely the idea of Audax is that within the time limits people can finish a course as they please ? After all the only person we are competing against are ourselves ?
Yes, but with recognition for particular forms of masochism, such as barrows, downwrongs and not bringing enough gears. Doesn't seem unreasonable to add analogue navigation to that list if there's enthusiasm for such a thing.
-
For most hill races, the main advantage is whether you are already familiar with the route, or if you can follow someone else who knows the route.
It is not orienteering, it is just about running up and down hills. So what's wrong with using whatever methods you like to navigate.
-
GPS has transformed mountain navigation. Munro-bagging is one area where fewer skills are now required. It's now less of an achievement.
I don't think GPS has devalued Audax, as the courses in the past were very straightforward. The laney rides we do now make completion without GPS more of a challenge.
-
I ran Dartmoor last year, with a piece of paper with a few key compass bearings, and cut out bits of map. It was a lot easier to run with others who had GPS trackers than consult the map.
On a more serious note, I wonder how long it is before they have a runner get lost / suffer from hypothermia / fall over a crag / half drown in a river crossing that was worse than they expected, and there is external pressure for them to reverse the decision.
-
So what's wrong with using whatever methods you like to navigate.
Inclined to agree, though batteries never run out on a map and compass leaving you clueless as to where you may be (as long as you have the map skills of course).
-
I've done plenty of Audax without a GPS. The transition years were interesting. I first used GPS on a 200 back in 2011 and left lots of blokes floundering with maps at intersections that I breezed straight through. Remembering earlier rides, trying to read maps with routes marked in orange under sodium lighting, or searching a village to find an unsignposted road, I'd say that GPS makes a hell of a difference to overall time. We didn't have minutely-detailed route sheets, though, just lists of places to go through, the road numbers & the distances.
-
So what's wrong with using whatever methods you like to navigate.
Inclined to agree, though batteries never run out on a map and compass leaving you clueless as to where you may be (as long as you have the map skills of course).
Swings and roundabouts. Anyone who hasn't been in a cave for the last 20 years knows how to manage battery life. Maps are fragile and don't work in the dark, but tend to fail much more gracefully than electronics. It's much easier to get un-lost with a GPS, and it's easier to make plans with a map. If you want to carry a lot of detailed maps, electronics wins over paper for weight and bulk. Etc.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have map reading and GPS skills competitions, such as orienteering and geocaching. Whether you consider either of those to be core components of running up hills or riding a bike a long way is entirely subjective. It seems that the WFRA have decided that map reading is.
-
I've never done any fell running so can't comment on how GPS or map reading or following signs interplays with that. But for audax, I think it would be unreasonable to ban GPS (or indeed to ban route sheets or make either compulsory), and while an Audax Paper Navigation Challenge might in itself be a perfectly decent idea, I question the need for yet another award.
-
I wouldn't want an outright ban on GPS navigation for audax, but I do like the idea of routesheet & map only navigation on some events.
When I'm following a line on a Garmin I am less aware of where I am than when I'm using a map.
-
When I'm following a line on a Garmin I am less aware of where I am than when I'm using a map.
Agreed. Routesheets are even worse, in this respect.
-
Navigation as a skill is not an intrinsic part of audaxing. We'd have to ban blind tandem stokers if it was.
-
Navigation as a skill is not an intrinsic part of audaxing. We'd have to ban blind tandem stokers if it was.
And tandems generally.
And group riding.
-
There are brevets in Oz where riders are literally on the same road for 50 or 80km, checkpoint to checkpoint with no turning onto other roads. Not much navigation required there.
I did an Indian 200 in 2017 and rode on (I think) seven roads in total.
-
Navigation as a skill is not an intrinsic part of audaxing. We'd have to ban blind tandem stokers if it was.
And tandems generally.
And group riding.
And anyone who's ridden the route before and knows the way, unless we change the route every time or have no repeat events.
-
So what's wrong with using whatever methods you like to navigate.
Inclined to agree, though batteries never run out on a map and compass leaving you clueless as to where you may be (as long as you have the map skills of course).
If I had a penny for every time I've heard an argument of the form "A is superior to B because it doesn't [insert specific failure mode particular to B]" ...
-
The WFRA complete ban is in contrast to the (English) FRA revised policy where individual organisers can decide to allow GPS or not. And on those events which proscribe the use of GPS, a runner is at liberty to carry one. But if used, perhaps in an emergency or for any reason, that runner is required to declare themselves non-competitive.
Navigation when cycling long distances is a skill but a lower level of expertise is required where a GPS with a loaded track/route is available/used. Use of GPS devices mean riders seem (to me) to be far less aware of where they are, where they're going and how far it is. And reacting to changes eg GPS goes down or a road is closed, is often much easier (if the expertise has been developed) with a carried paper map. The seasoned navigator (that's me, with or without GPS, who nevertheless still gets miswayd) with their paper map and route preparation in the bag, can do what they do well and be happy to be of service to those who wish to follow.
-
On a more serious note, I wonder how long it is before they have a runner get lost / suffer from hypothermia / fall over a crag / half drown in a river crossing that was worse than they expected, and there is external pressure for them to reverse the decision.
If you read the article, there is comment that people HAVE died/seriously injured when their GPS batteries ran out => got lost => fell off something.
[The argument would be that anyone competing with just map+compass is far more likely to deal with a crisis equipped with just map+compass than a GPS-dependent. ]
-
GPS has transformed mountain navigation. Munro-bagging is one area where fewer skills are now required. It's now less of an achievement.
I don't think GPS has devalued Audax, as the courses in the past were very straightforward. The laney rides we do now make completion without GPS more of a challenge.
Indeed. I started as an organiser when hardly a rider used a GPS and stopped when about 90% of the field was using a GPS. Over these 9 years I could improve many of my rides replacing busy roads by calm and beautiful lanes, often without signposts. In the beginning years I had to scrap a beautiful section since the only instruction I could give was 'turn left at blue Maria statue'. A bit difficult to spot in the dark, at the end of a 600.
I definitely prefer audax routes designed with a GPS in mind leading me to small and beauiful lanes.
-
[The argument would be that anyone competing with just map+compass is far more likely to deal with a crisis equipped with just map+compass than a GPS-dependent. ]
That's probably true, but may simply be because map+compass is now niche, and people using niche methods seem more likely to know what they're doing. I'm sure 20 years ago the GPS users did just fine (probably by carrying a sufficiency of batteries and a map[1]+compass, rather than blindly trusting their tech), and the insufficiently paranoid were among the map+compass users.
[1] To be fair, a GPS receiver of that era was generally considered to be a substitute for the compass, rather than the map. You couldn't really do anything useful with one without mapreading skills.
-
Probably plenty of runners with a map and compass in their bumbag just to pass the kit check, but no idea how to use them. Their navigation is just following everyone else.
Though I have done a run where I had to demonstrate how to use a compass halfway through.
-
The WFRA complete ban is in contrast to the (English) FRA revised policy where individual organisers can decide to allow GPS or not. And on those events which proscribe the use of GPS, a runner is at liberty to carry one. But if used, perhaps in an emergency or for any reason, that runner is required to declare themselves non-competitive.
I wonder how any of that is policed.
...Use of GPS devices mean riders seem (to me) to be far less aware of where they are, where they're going and how far it is...
I recall an event which turned at West Bay (on the English Channel, for those unfamiliar), some years before GPS was much available. One rider shaded his eyes, peered out to sea, and asked if we shouldn't be able to see Wales from here.
-
Surely the idea of Audax is that within the time limits people can finish a course as they please ? After all the only person we are competing against are ourselves ?
Yes, but with recognition for particular forms of masochism, such as barrows, downwrongs and not bringing enough gears. Doesn't seem unreasonable to add analogue navigation to that list if there's enthusiasm for such a thing.
People can do that themselves if they want to ?
-
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have map reading and GPS skills competitions, such as orienteering and geocaching. Whether you consider either of those to be core components of running up hills or riding a bike a long way is entirely subjective. It seems that the WFRA have decided that map reading is.
Indeed.
I don't for one second think that AUK will ban GPS in my lifetime. For me, this makes discussion of the WFRA ban fun, as we can have a friendly chat without any hand-wringing over ruining Audax, etc :P
It is interesting that WFRA have done it - fell running is (perhaps) the closest running niche in ethos to Audax, so I'm intrigued that a successful, long-running sport has chosen to go significantly backwards in technology terms.
I also think we might find space in the AUK world for a few more "orienteering"-style events. The Transcon has shown how popular a cycling event can be where competitors choose widely varying routes between checkpoints, with no single route even suggested by the hosts.
It's a Broad Church said the randonneur for the nth time that day ...
-
I had a GPS (with OS maps on it) fail on Exmoor in moderately unpleasant weather this summer. I was glad I had an actual map as backup, though had to pick my refolding moments in lulls.
The one fell running race I’ve done certainly came from an Orienteering rather than an exactly-x-km start point. Part of the skill was picking the best route (which depended on ones enthusiasm for hills, marsh or distance. That’s hard to do on a small screen.
There’s also a hillwalking thing of having the skills and gear appropriate for when it goes wrong. As noted above, inability to read a map (on screen or paper) is a fair first approximation for basic competence in the mountains. This feels closer to the gap between Audax (and touring) and many other organised rides - not the navigation so much as the expectation that you’ll have the skills to work it out when you’re on your own on an unfamiliar lane.
-
It is interesting that WFRA have done it - fell running is (perhaps) the closest running niche in ethos to Audax,
Going OT here, but <a famous Bristolian randonneur> (yes, famous randonneur is an oxymoron – let's say notorious instead ;D) recently started running with Town and Country Harriers. (http://www.tach.org.uk) Not fell running (well, we don't have fells round here!) but in fields and woods and stuff. He announced they are "so like ACB it's spooky" even to the extent that "all their runs either start or end at the pub!" (Audax is a broad church and not all audaxers go to pubs, etc etc).
-
I also think we might find space in the AUK world for a few more "orienteering"-style events. The Transcon has shown how popular a cycling event can be where competitors choose widely varying routes between checkpoints, with no single route even suggested by the hosts.
Nothing would please me more.
However, I'd fear that you'd get some people being too trusting of google's routing algorithms and end up in a pickle - be that a raging dual carriageway or an overgrown rup.
-
I also think we might find space in the AUK world for a few more "orienteering"-style events. The Transcon has shown how popular a cycling event can be where competitors choose widely varying routes between checkpoints, with no single route even suggested by the hosts.
Nothing would please me more.
However, I'd fear that you'd get some people being too trusting of google's routing algorithms and end up in a pickle - be that a raging dual carriageway or an overgrown rup.
That exact thing has happened many times to TCR riders!
(If you get lost, get unlost, as the man said.)
-
Seems the WFRA have a habit of being deliberately awkward, and making up rules for the sake of it. I'm sure any proposed GPS ban for hill running in England / Scotland would be quickly rejected.
Perhaps it will lead to more race organisers not affiliating their races with the WFRA. Already are quite a few non-affiliated events.
-
This is an interesting idea, but I can see some safety issues it creates.
I have a Garmin Inreach Explorer+ device. It has full GPS functionality, but I carry it primarily as a safety device. It's an Irridium device that transmits my position every 10 mins, so people can track me, and if I hit the magic button and hold it for 10 seconds, someone will come rescue me. The safety benefits of this are obvious. Thing is, under the GPS ban, I wouldn't be allowed to carry such a device.
Maybe there needs to be some sort of mechanism where by it's in a sealed tamper evident pouch, that doesn't allow the device to be used as a GPS, without breaking the seal, making it obvious that it's been used...
As for the AUK Orienteering style event, I've pondered this. I really like the TCR style with "these bits are mandatory, work the rest out yourself". I've been trying to work out if it would work for an Audax. The Calendar events I've done in .NL and .BE are I believe mandatory route events, and being GPS based they do tend to wiggle around all over the place down beautiful country lanes. But on the .BE event before xmas, I had to divert from the route for the final 50km, as the back roads were just ice. I cycled down main roads to get back to the finish. The ride organiser seemed entirely fine with this given the conditions, the bruises, and the obvious damage to the bike from crashing on the ice.
With the Dutch events, everyone uses a GPS, to the point that now the route sheet is just a list of villages and distances. On Zwolle Boekelo Zwolle I was surprised to get a proper route sheet, I commented on this to Ivo, who pointed out this was a very old route, hence the older style sheet.
Do any AUK events offer a GPX, but no route sheet?
J
-
This is an interesting idea, but I can see some safety issues it creates.
I have a Garmin Inreach Explorer+ device. It has full GPS functionality, but I carry it primarily as a safety device. It's an Irridium device that transmits my position every 10 mins, so people can track me, and if I hit the magic button and hold it for 10 seconds, someone will come rescue me. The safety benefits of this are obvious. Thing is, under the GPS ban, I wouldn't be allowed to carry such a device.
Incorrect - RTFM! - sorry, I mean read the article!
-
This is an interesting idea, but I can see some safety issues it creates.
I have a Garmin Inreach Explorer+ device. It has full GPS functionality, but I carry it primarily as a safety device. It's an Irridium device that transmits my position every 10 mins, so people can track me, and if I hit the magic button and hold it for 10 seconds, someone will come rescue me. The safety benefits of this are obvious. Thing is, under the GPS ban, I wouldn't be allowed to carry such a device.
Incorrect - RTFM! - sorry, I mean read the article!
"Runners can record their route on a GPS watch, but cannot follow a pre-set route, use a device showing a map or pre-load checkpoints on their device."
My device shows a map. Thus not allowed?
J
-
"
Runners can use GPS to navigate themselves to safety in an emergency, but must declare themselves a "non-competitive participant" at the finish.
"
-
My reading is you can carry such a device as long as you don’t use it, but who knows if that’s the intention.
-
My reading is you can carry such a device as long as you don’t use it, but who knows if that’s the intention.
How do you judge that? how do you ensure it's not used except in an emergency?
J
-
The same way you ensure no one jumps on a train for part of an audax.
-
Personally, when I gave up on the last GPS running watch I switched to using my phone instead because my new phone was waterproof and had plenty of battery life for the job. Apps are much more flexible than the fixed watch firmware - I have no regrets about switching. I don't normally use the phone to navigate on a run, just call out the kilometre markers. But I do navigate on it sometimes.
I think that their rules allow this use, provided I don't display the map on my phone at any point. Of course, I'm not trying to compete in Wales, so I'm kind of irrelevant. It just seems a bit strange they haven't been really explicit about whether you can use a phone capable of displaying a map, but not actually do so at any point. In the absence of a specific ban on smartphones, you have to assume that is allowed.
My normal running app shows a live map with no option to turn that off, but I don't look at it - I only use the audio prompts and logging. That is clearly outside the rules, but no reason I couldn't find an app without it.
I have some sympathy for their financial argument, which seems to be that running is a simple sport and they don't want to hand a small competitive advantage to those with another hundred quid to spend on a fancy watch. Audax is already a much more equipment-based sport, before you even start the argument about modern traffic and use of minor lanes.
-
It just seems a bit strange they haven't been really explicit about whether you can use a phone capable of displaying a map, but not actually do so at any point.
Have you got a link to where this is discussed in more detail, or are you basing this solely on the contents of a BBC news article?
-
I'm working from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-YwMtlJyL8trA4g7v4E0rdFGbLsvv84i/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-YwMtlJyL8trA4g7v4E0rdFGbLsvv84i/view)
Which says that:
Explanatory Note:
At WFRA registered races, you will be allowed to:
- wear a watch/ carry a device with GPS functionality
- record your route using such a device
- have distance travelled displayed
- use an altimeter
In an emergency: You are, of course, allowed to use a GPS device to navigate yourself to safety, but must declare yourself as a ‘non-competitive’ participant at the Finish.
You will not be allowed to:
- follow a pre-loaded GPS (‘breadcrumb’) route
- use a GPS device which displays a map
- load checkpoints onto the GPS device.
-
So depends if you interpret "which displays" to mean in a generic sense this device displays maps, or narrow its meaning to "which at any point displays".
-
Curious omission of whether you're allowed to use a GPS to tell you your coordinates...
-
Very curious about how you go about using a GPS device in an emergency if you're not allowed to carry one ???
-
I'm working from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-YwMtlJyL8trA4g7v4E0rdFGbLsvv84i/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-YwMtlJyL8trA4g7v4E0rdFGbLsvv84i/view)
Thanks for the link.
Very curious about how you go about using a GPS device in an emergency if you're not allowed to carry one ???
You are allowed to carry one:-
If it can't display a map you can have it turned on to record you run and show you time/distance/altitude as you run.
If it can display a map you can carry it but you can't use it during the race, i.e. it just sits in the bottom of your bag/pack. If you do use it to navigate home (i.e. in an emergency) then you are asked to DQ yourself.
The ideal way of not using a map capable GPS is to just carry it switched off.
That's my reading of it anyway.
-
When I'm following a line on a Garmin I am less aware of where I am than when I'm using a map.
Agreed. Routesheets are even worse, in this respect.
In most cases, I've had to do an event two or three times to have any sense of where I was. Whether with route sheets only or, as in recent years, with GPSs. This is in spite of loving maps and spending time beforehand poring over the route (which is always short - the longest I've done is a 200). Personally I'm waiting for head-up map displays for bikes...
-
Very curious about how you go about using a GPS device in an emergency if you're not allowed to carry one ???
You are allowed to carry one:-
If it can't display a map you can have it turned on to record you run and show you time/distance/altitude as you run.
If it can display a map you can carry it but you can't use it during the race, i.e. it just sits in the bottom of your bag/pack. If you do use it to navigate home (i.e. in an emergency) then you are asked to DQ yourself.
The ideal way of not using a map capable GPS is to just carry it switched off.
That's my reading of it anyway.
Note to self : read the post properly :facepalm:
-
The same way you ensure no one jumps on a train for part of an audax.
I guess difference is none of us in Audax get prizes nor competing but fell runners are
-
I have some sympathy for their financial argument, which seems to be that running is a simple sport and they don't want to hand a small competitive advantage to those with another hundred quid to spend on a fancy watch. Audax is already a much more equipment-based sport, before you even start the argument about modern traffic and use of minor lanes.
Indeed. Rejecting GPS for audaxing (or any form of road cycling) would just be Luddism. Would there be bans for other significant advances, like LED lights or clipless pedals? (Well, I believe some events in the U.S. do sanction against battery lighting.)
Really though there's no comparison between navigating undefined and very 3-dimensional terrain, and navigating the road network. Just apples and oranges.
-
(Well, I believe some events in the U.S. do sanction against battery lighting.)
Nothing RUSA sanctioned though. It's just a bunch of hair shirt types who have come up with their own awards system based on how quickly you complete an Brevet (as a percentage of the time limit) with penalties for using battery powered lighting.
-
Navigation as a skill is not an intrinsic part of audaxing. We'd have to ban blind tandem stokers if it was.
I have known and ridden with (although not on 200s and the like) blind stokers who were far more aware of where they were than their sighted pilots (they were very competent with a smartphone, and all by voice command).
-
When I'm following a line on a Garmin I am less aware of where I am than when I'm using a map.
Agreed. Routesheets are even worse, in this respect.
In most cases, I've had to do an event two or three times to have any sense of where I was. Whether with route sheets only or, as in recent years, with GPSs. This is in spite of loving maps and spending time beforehand poring over the route (which is always short - the longest I've done is a 200). Personally I'm waiting for head-up map displays for bikes...
Before I got a GPS, I used to study the route sheet against maps work out where I'd be going. Sometimes I even used to trace the route on the map in pencil. And carry the maps, particularly if it was an area I didn't know. A 200 can take up to 4 OS 1:50000 maps, so it's a fair wodge of paper! But it meant I always had an idea where I was and what was coming up. When I first got the GPS, I tended to do the same, but quickly learnt to just follow the line. This meant I didn't really know where I was in relation to whole route – how much I'd done, how much was still to come, what direction I'd be heading in next, what places we'd be passing through – and it's actually quite good to know those things. So I reckon I ought to start paying more attention to the route before starting the event. A paper map gives you the best idea of your surroundings but a GPS gives you some idea. A route sheet which you haven't compared to a map beforehand gives very little. IME.
-
As for the AUK Orienteering style event, I've pondered this. I really like the TCR style with "these bits are mandatory, work the rest out yourself". I've been trying to work out if it would work for an Audax. The Calendar events I've done in .NL and .BE are I believe mandatory route events, and being GPS based they do tend to wiggle around all over the place down beautiful country lanes. But on the .BE event before xmas, I had to divert from the route for the final 50km, as the back roads were just ice. I cycled down main roads to get back to the finish. The ride organiser seemed entirely fine with this given the conditions, the bruises, and the obvious damage to the bike from crashing on the ice.
The Brugge 200 was a good example why in the French text there isn't written that you should follow the route but that you should respect it. This wording allows for some deviations of the route if the situation requires you to do so.
Unsafe roads due to very bad weather is an obvious one, escorting a rider with issues to a nearby railroad station another valid one.
-
I don't for one second think that AUK will ban GPS in my lifetime.
I agree. Let's put it this way - if you print off the AUK regulations, which cover everything from whether participants should complete their rides using only human power to whether a specific ride undertaken by, at most, one person every six years, qualifies for both AAA and distance points, the pile of paper is about an inch thick. It doesn't need to get any thicker.
-
Audax has always been technology-driven. The arrival of widespread photocopying in the 1980s was a good fit with the the need to produce small runs of printed documents. That technology was common to a whole range of activist-led groups, and dictated the structure of newsletters and communication through the mail.
The early days of the internet duplicated those established structures, and offered the chance offload the printing onto the end-user. Developments have gradually done away with the need for paper at all, relevant data can be on 'devices'.
One result of the de-linking of activities from hard copy is that information that used to be restricted to the printed page can be distributed more easily. Someone can be inspired by a run or a ride, download the route, record their own individual 'participation', upload it to Strava or the like, link to Facebook, and point to their achievement.
Whether that undermines clubs which are founded on validating 'challenges' is the interesting point. Validation usually requires adherence to some ethical constructs, and often has implicit rules about modesty. Part of the function of validation is to draw attention to personal achievements without seeming to be showing-off.
The current trends in technology lead away from a culture of activist moderation towards self-promoting freeloaders. The central problem is whether that trend undermines the desire of the activists to continue with organising the activities. We do occasionally see the exasperation from organisers when someone asks for a GPS track so they can do their own version of a ride.
The era when the photocopier played a central role was relatively short-lived, New technologies create new ways of working.
-
The current trends in technology lead away from a culture of activist moderation towards self-promoting freeloaders. The central problem is whether that trend undermines the desire of the activists to continue with organising the activities. We do occasionally see the exasperation from organisers when someone asks for a GPS track so they can do their own version of a ride.
An easy faux-pas, given all the people on Strava self-promoting sharing their routes for free. If someone's worked out a nice bike ride, why wouldn't they want other people to do it?
-
And we've seen the opposite: organisers getting annoyed because someone who wants to do their own version of the ride has not asked them for the gpx.
-
The main way to counter the freeloading is to establish a brand. If you're not doing the 'official' version, you're not doing it properly. That costs, but people do like brands.
The alternative is to garner underground 'cult' status. Difficult to do if your 'mission statement' is to promote your activity more widely.
The use of GPS as a navigation tool is bit of a red herring. The main issue is GPS's role in how information about rides is distributed.
-
The use of GPS as a navigation tool is bit of a red herring. The main issue is GPS's role in how information about rides is distributed.
I'll certainly agree with that. While GPX was designed to standardise the process of transferring data to and from GPS receivers, it's become a de-facto standard for arbitrary resolution context-free routesheets. A GPX file is far easier to perform statistical analysis on or render as a line on a map than a classic audax routesheet is[1], and you don't need a GPS receiver to benefit from that.
Strava and the like are just a function of the trend of moving applications from the user's computer to a commercial website for fun and profit. The users generally benefit because it means they don't have to care about as much technical stuff, which means a bigger pool of their peers to share routes and analysis with. There are also the long-term benefits of Big Data - you get access to a powerful tool without having to pay for it because Strava can sell you to interested parties, and the aggregate data can be used in positive new ways (the Strava heatmap-weighted route planning tool is excellent, as long as your idea of a good route matches the average Strava user's).
[1] Many are impossible to render on a map without local knowledge.
-
Reluctantly, I have purchased a GPS despite my preference for route sheets. On a couple of occasions of have ridden events where the route sheets have been less than accurate. In one instance the organiser expressed mea culpa as someone who never used a route sheet.
Personally speaking, I quite enjoy composing route sheets ahead of events. It is a rather absorbing activity and it helps route composition.
I can see the day when route sheets become an optional requirement for event organisers. I suppose that I will have to move with the times.
-
I can see the day when route sheets become an optional requirement for event organisers. I suppose that I will have to move with the times.
I'm already asking riders on my events to tell me in advance if they want a printed route sheet because most of them don't these days, so I don't bother printing them. Use of GPS is almost universal now.
-
Reluctantly, I have purchased a GPS despite my preference for route sheets. On a couple of occasions of have ridden events where the route sheets have been less than accurate. In one instance the organiser expressed mea culpa as someone who never used a route sheet.
Just bear in mind that you're equally likely to encounter a dud GPX provided by an organiser who has never used a GPS.
-
I can see the day when route sheets become an optional requirement for event organisers. I suppose that I will have to move with the times.
I'm already asking riders on my events to tell me in advance if they want a printed route sheet because most of them don't these days, so I don't bother printing them. Use of GPS is almost universal now.
Seen a few use route sheets but they do depend to be, let’s say, older ... nothing against that but those like me mid 40’s like their stats, data etc and all I ever want from Audax is a good route, good gpx and verification !
-
nothing against that but those like me mid 40’s like their stats, data etc
You have simultaneously confirmed a stereotype, and placed yourself firmly in it!
[ Thank god for the variety present in the actual audax world :thumbsup: ]
-
nothing against that but those like me mid 40’s like their stats, data etc
You have simultaneously confirmed a stereotype, and placed yourself firmly in it!
[ Thank god for the variety present in the actual audax world :thumbsup: ]
I totally agree but in my limited experiences of Audax when it comes to mapping there is a difference in age
-
I can see the day when route sheets become an optional requirement for event organisers.
I hope not. Although I have succumbed to GPS in the past couple of years and will download an organiser's track, I still like to print off a route sheet, use it to finger-plot the route on a map and carry it with me on the ride, in case of GPS failure. I like to have a visual image of the route in my head. A GPS track won't tell you useful things such was which railway stations the route passes close to or where you are likely to be passing reasonably close to somewhere that might offer other things that you unexpectedly need along the way.
-
I can see the day when route sheets become an optional requirement for event organisers.
I hope not. Although I have succumbed to GPS in the past couple of years and will download an organiser's track, I still like to print off a route sheet, use it to finger-plot the route on a map and carry it with me on the ride, in case of GPS failure. I like to have a visual image of the route in my head. A GPS track won't tell you useful things such was which railway stations the route passes close to or where you are likely to be passing reasonably close to somewhere that might offer other things that you unexpectedly need along the way.
Erm, just load the track into your mapping software of choice and print it out? Much easier (and less error-prone) than plotting from a routesheet.
Like you, I like to see the route on a map, to get an idea of what sort of terrain I'll be dealing with, possible bailout options, etc. Organiser-provided GPX files are brilliant in this respect.
-
Or if the GPX is already provided via some online mapping tool ...
-
I can see the day when route sheets become an optional requirement for event organisers.
I hope not. Although I have succumbed to GPS in the past couple of years and will download an organiser's track, I still like to print off a route sheet, use it to finger-plot the route on a map and carry it with me on the ride, in case of GPS failure. I like to have a visual image of the route in my head. A GPS track won't tell you useful things such was which railway stations the route passes close to or where you are likely to be passing reasonably close to somewhere that might offer other things that you unexpectedly need along the way.
Erm, just load the track into your mapping software of choice and print it out? Much easier (and less error-prone) than plotting from a routesheet.
Like you, I like to see the route on a map, to get an idea of what sort of terrain I'll be dealing with, possible bailout options, etc. Organiser-provided GPX files are brilliant in this respect.
I only (re)started looking at where route go when I started using a GPS. I used to check over every route for my first few events. Then I started doing a lot of events and just went wherever the routesheet sent me without looking at where it went on a map. Most rides follow the same roads as other rides in the same area anyway. Tracing a route on a map from a routesheet takes a bit of time. It takes very little time to chuck it on Bike Hike or whatever.
-
Reluctantly, I have purchased a GPS despite my preference for route sheets. On a couple of occasions of have ridden events where the route sheets have been less than accurate. In one instance the organiser expressed mea culpa as someone who never used a route sheet.
Just bear in mind that you're equally likely to encounter a dud GPX provided by an organiser who has never used a GPS.
I used to fall under that category but had somebody check the route ahead of the event. Usually the plots loaded off Ridewithgps were fine though.
-
I can see the day when route sheets become an optional requirement for event organisers.
I hope not. Although I have succumbed to GPS in the past couple of years and will download an organiser's track, I still like to print off a route sheet, use it to finger-plot the route on a map and carry it with me on the ride, in case of GPS failure. I like to have a visual image of the route in my head. A GPS track won't tell you useful things such was which railway stations the route passes close to or where you are likely to be passing reasonably close to somewhere that might offer other things that you unexpectedly need along the way.
I'm puzzled. For as long as I can remember the majority of events have had advisory routes
Erm, just load the track into your mapping software of choice and print it out? Much easier (and less error-prone) than plotting from a routesheet.
Like you, I like to see the route on a map, to get an idea of what sort of terrain I'll be dealing with, possible bailout options, etc. Organiser-provided GPX files are brilliant in this respect.
I only (re)started looking at where route go when I started using a GPS. I used to check over every route for my first few events. Then I started doing a lot of events and just went wherever the routesheet sent me without looking at where it went on a map. Most rides follow the same roads as other rides in the same area anyway. Tracing a route on a map from a routesheet takes a bit of time. It takes very little time to chuck it on Bike Hike or whatever.
I'm puzzled by all this? My understanding has always been that, (with the exception of Audax events specifically declared to have a mandatory route) , an audax is completely defined by the brevet card and the provision of precise route information, in whatever form,is at the organiser's discretion. In fact whenever an organiser has provided precise route info' the calendar page has always prefaced it with sentence ' the organiser has provided the following extra information.
-
I've never heard of an event without either route sheet or gps. Most have both, but some still have only route sheet and on some the route sheet is very much an afterthought, perhaps created from the gps automagically and not necessarily corresponding to roads on the ground. There's an argument to be made for not making either obligatory, as JayP says, and certainly for not requiring both. Better no information than misleading information. Doubtless rider-made route sheets would start circulating for those events without oganiser-provided ones, just as gpses do.
-
AUK requires you to submit an actual route as part of the event registration process. It'd also be just about impossible to do the required risk assessment without having a route in mind.
I suppose you don't *have* to share that route with riders though...
(also, finding info controls with just the info on the brevet card may be interesting on some rides. Sometimes it's hard enough with the brevet card, the route sheet and the GPX to work with)
-
I've never heard of an event without either route sheet or gps. Most have both, but some still have only route sheet and on some the route sheet is very much an afterthought, perhaps created from the gps automagically and not necessarily corresponding to roads on the ground. There's an argument to be made for not making either obligatory, as JayP says, and certainly for not requiring both. Better no information than misleading information. Doubtless rider-made route sheets would start circulating for those events without oganiser-provided ones, just as gpses do.
Plotting a usable GPX file from a route sheet is an order of magnitude easier than writing a usable route sheet based on looking at a GPX file in a mapping tool. There are so many things that appear on usable routesheets that don't appear in the mapping tools (aerial photography and Google Streetview help with some but it would take a considerable amount of time to "walk" the entire route using Streetview to spot things that aren't obvious from the mapping, and streetview is not ubiquitous.)
(It's quite easy to write a bad routesheet from a GPX file though.)
I can quite easily use my GPS to follow routes that I've plotted on a mapping tool alone, but I'm far less likely to make a mistake (e.g. miss a turn) if I've plotted the route from the routesheet as I tend to remember the tricky instructions (i.e. "Left on downhill bend, very easy to miss") so when I get to that point my brain is already looking out for the easy to miss turning[1]. If I've looked at the location of almost every instruction in Google Streetview then I'm far more likely to recognise things out on the road.
Just being handed a GPX file doesn't give you all of the same useful information, and you're not sure exactly where in the route you need to specifically look. Doesn't stop it being possible, I guess a large percentage of DIY rides are ridden by GPS alone with no routesheet, or a routesheet cobbled together from just looking at mapping.
1. For example, the left hand turn to Poynings on the Ditchling Devil which is in the middle of a nice descent shortly after the Devil's Dyke info control. If you're reading the route sheet instructions you'll be prepared as it warns you that it's in the middle of the descent, if you're just using a GPS then some people will be enjoying the 30mph+ descent and not paying attention to the pink link veering off to the side.
-
Even writing a route sheet based on looking at a GPX file in a mapping tool might be an improvement from just printing out the mapping tool's automatically generated cue sheet!
-
1. For example, the left hand turn to Poynings on the Ditchling Devil which is in the middle of a nice descent shortly after the Devil's Dyke info control. If you're reading the route sheet instructions you'll be prepared as it warns you that it's in the middle of the descent, if you're just using a GPS then some people will be enjoying the 30mph+ descent and not paying attention to the pink link veering off to the side.
Rookie mistake. Even if you don't have the GPS set up to warn you of the turn, an experienced rider will be wary of this sort of thing under the "downhill is always the wrong direction" principle. If there's a modicum of doubt, it's always worth stopping to check the route at the *top* of a yee-ha descent, whatever navigation method you're using.
TBH I don't think writing a traditional routesheet without riding the route yourself is a good idea. The results tend to be overly reliant on road names and distances, rather than useful landmarks.
-
I think too many people use "GPS" as shorthand for "crappy thing with twelve grainy pixels that beeps occasionally when you're meant to do something".
There's a reason I navigate using a giant smartphone with a nice hi-res map showing a decent amount of the route ahead, including any surprise turns. It also means if you happen upon a road closure or a glitch in the GPX track you can spot alternate routes without slowing down.
-
TBH I don't think writing a traditional routesheet without riding the route yourself is a good idea. The results tend to be overly reliant on road names and distances, rather than useful landmarks.
Oh absolutely not! But it's fine for a first draft.
[I'm sure everyone does them differently; I've route-tested with someone who hadn't even drafted theirs, and *IMHO* it slowed us up to an unacceptable degree. That was with Dictaphone, not making written notes. ]
-
I think too many people use "GPS" as shorthand for "crappy thing with twelve grainy pixels that beeps occasionally when you're meant to do something".
There's a reason I navigate using a giant smartphone with a nice hi-res map showing a decent amount of the route ahead, including any surprise turns. It also means if you happen upon a road closure or a glitch in the GPX track you can spot alternate routes without slowing down.
I think too many people use "GPS" as a shorthand for "complicated navigation tool that the user hasn't learned to use effectively".
There are strong arguments in favour of both the powerful general purpose computing device with the high-resolution screen and the robust power-frugal navigation device, as well as various ways of using dead trees in combination with magnets or primitive counting devices. There's even an argument for the buggy training aid for racing cyclists with the rubbish battery life. :)
The important thing is that the user is aware of and makes allowances for the limitations of whatever they're using.
-
AUK requires you to submit an actual route as part of the event registration process. It'd also be just about impossible to do the required risk assessment without having a route in mind.
I suppose you don't *have* to share that route with riders though...
I've never heard of an event without either route sheet or gps. Most have both, but some still have only route sheet and on some the route sheet is very much an afterthought, perhaps created from the gps automagically and not necessarily corresponding to roads on the ground. There's an argument to be made for not making either obligatory, as JayP says, and certainly for not requiring both. Better no information than misleading information. Doubtless rider-made route sheets would start circulating for those events without oganiser-provided ones, just as gpses do.
Well, I've scrutinised the planner, (although I've used it many times before), and the fact is that there is no requirement to make a route sheet/ gpx track available to riders in order for an event to be published. There just isn't!
The route Grams refers to is the 'google walking' route, generated by the controls, needed to assure the integrity of the nominal route distance and in fairness, as Grams remarks, is not guidance for riders.
Surprisingly it's actually easier to give risk 'control measures' for an event with no specific route. You just make general statements. Something like ' Riders are reminded of the need to plan their routes carefully, anticipating likely hazards, and ensuring that they are able to navigate'
Of course AUK has embraced new technologies and these days our expectations are such that a calendar event with no route sheet or gpx available (not to mention TLC) would get very few, if any, entries.
For a glimpse into the past tho', take a look at some old established perms, The Cambrian series .. Andy Corless' hardriders series ... thousands of kilometres of breathtaking cycling and not a single routesheet or gpx in sight. I used to look at these and think 'what bloody use is this - there's no info why even bother'. These days I see them differently. there's a sort of austere purity about it. Like riding fixed maybe but more so. Getting back to the OP I can well imagine those tough Welsh Fell runners seeing themselves and their events this way and fearing that new tech will trivialise them.
-
The AUK organisers handbook says you have to give the events secretary a copy of your planned route. Nowt to do with google maps. Whether or not the computer enforces this process isn't really relevant.
(I'm not at all familiar with how this works in practice - I can well imagine AUK processes are based on trust to the point that you could get to event day without ever sharing a route with anyone. Whether you would still be around at the end of event day is another matter...)
-
I had a spell getting to grips with GPS in the early 2000s. It was something new to master, and went hand-in-hand with photography, video editing and desktop publishing.
My generation had embarked on a journey to master a number of emerging technologies, spread across a number of novel devices. Activities such as Audax provided an outlet for those skills, especially through social media.
Much of the interest lay in the learning process, as much as in the results. But the fact that the results were visible in the public realm, as magazine articles, validation records and online videos acted as a strong reinforcement, especially if they collected 'likes' on the way.
As time passed, the various devices combined into a single device, which does the job well enough for most purposes. So the learning aspect diminished and was replaced by convenience. We can now learn about rides, download details of the route, navigate around the course, record and upload the experience, and assess the reaction, all on a 'smartphone'.
In the early phases of the technology-shift, the learning curve gave status to those who had acquired useful skills. Once the technology is mature, the intermediate phases have no value, as use becomes more intuitive.
In fell-running, the mastery of navigation is one of the core skills, and initially the mastery of new technologies was an analogous learning process. Once an accessible device is available which de-skills navigation, then it's inevitable that use of that device will be questioned.
All of this is irrelevant to newcomers to an activity, who have grown up with GPS/Smartphones. Why would anyone not want to use them?
My answer is that my interest was sustained by the novelty of the various technologies, and the challenge of getting all the disparate components to work together. The easier that gets, the less interesting it is.
With no innovations, innovative people get bored, and move on. There's sometimes a retro counter-trend, as we see in hipster reaction to digital photography. Perhaps we'll see a return to routesheets produced on a Roneo machine, which opens up the possibility of organising a ride without electricity, as they can be hand-cranked.
Edit. I found an interesting article about the adoption of technology, mentioning duplicators. It suggests to me that nearly universal use of smartphones opens up previously niche activities to 'normals'. One implication is that 'special' activities then lose their 'special' appeal. It also give me the chance to squeeze Mahatma Gandhi into the argument.
The Roneo machine was a wonderful example of what Mahatma Ghandi called "appropriate technology". It enabled careful typists to run off multiple copies of agendas, news-sheets and programmes, instantly, and at low cost. The machines were often hand-cranked, not electric powered.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28292650
-
Rookie mistake. Even if you don't have the GPS set up to warn you of the turn, an experienced rider will be wary of this sort of thing under the "downhill is always the wrong direction" principle. If there's a modicum of doubt, it's always worth stopping to check the route at the *top* of a yee-ha descent, whatever navigation method you're using.
TBH I don't think writing a traditional routesheet without riding the route yourself is a good idea. The results tend to be overly reliant on road names and distances, rather than useful landmarks.
Is it not a truth universally acknowledged that any downhill substantial enough to be worth zooming down *WILL* have a 90° turn, or red traffic light at the bottom. And if the hill itself doesn't then the sadist^WRoute planner will invariably chosen to take a turn half way down it... That's just basic laws of cycling surely?
And even if you have been careful enough to plan your route to not have any such turns, or traffic lights, then Murphy will arrange for you to have a headwind. I had this on my way to Hell. Having got to the highest point of the trip, I was looking forward to what should have been 60km of descent. Only as the valley narrowed, the anabatic wind meant I was now having to pedal downhill, just to make progress. I was not impressed...
J
-
The WFRA complete ban is in contrast to the (English) FRA revised policy where individual organisers can decide to allow GPS or not. And on those events which proscribe the use of GPS, a runner is at liberty to carry one. But if used, perhaps in an emergency or for any reason, that runner is required to declare themselves non-competitive.
I wonder how any of that is policed.
The obvious way would be to seal any GPS-capable devices in a black plastic bag at the start, and say no time if the seal's broken at the finish.
Be a bit unfortunate if you unsealed the bag to answer a phone call, but that's what dumbphones are for.
-
My one foray into long distance fell running (Dartmoor north to south) I doubt there would have been reception most of the way for the thing to ring.
I do take the point about over-reliance on tech. If I'm going up a hill in bad (or forecast bad weather) then I will have a piece of card tucked in a dry pouch with the key bearings and distances for getting off the hill safely. But I guess I was taught things the old way before satellite navigation and smart phones were available and I'm well aware of how tricky the new devices can be to use in the cold wet and dark when touch sensitive means next-to-useless.
Thanks JP for the plug on the Cambrian Series, although as their creator Peter Coulson points out, in most cases there isn't much choice of route in mid Wales, it's either up the endlessly unforgiving steep hill into the wind and rain, or down the crazily surfaced steep hill dodging sheep.
-
Rookie mistake. Even if you don't have the GPS set up to warn you of the turn, an experienced rider will be wary of this sort of thing under the "downhill is always the wrong direction" principle. If there's a modicum of doubt, it's always worth stopping to check the route at the *top* of a yee-ha descent, whatever navigation method you're using.
Is it not a truth universally acknowledged that any downhill substantial enough to be worth zooming down *WILL* have a 90° turn, or red traffic light at the bottom. And if the hill itself doesn't then the sadist^WRoute planner will invariably chosen to take a turn half way down it... That's just basic laws of cycling surely?
You do get the odd exception. They sometimes come with a "Probably best if Kim goes at the front for this bit."[1] prompt from the ride leader. Sometimes they come with unexpected cows...
[1] ©2011 Crinklylion
-
When I'm following a line on a Garmin I am less aware of where I am than when I'm using a map.
Agreed. Routesheets are even worse, in this respect.
What you need is a route sheet with map sections - one of the many formats I supply for my events. Easily created when you know how to use RWGPS. The route notes are also used in FIT & TCX files by devices that handle them, or spoken to you via the RWGPS app so you don't need to look at a screen.
-
Last weekend 2000+ young people traversed and criss-crossed Dartmoor on the 2019 version of the annual Ten Tors event (not a race) walked over Saturday and Sunday. I cycled up to the Okehampton Camp finish and back - in lovely weather - to see my daughter finish. GPSs and the like have always been and were banned; and each team (of up to 5) was allowed to carry one mobile phone which was required to be sealed in an opaque plastic bag - for use in emergency only. The bag was inspected at the finish. The organisers of this event (the Army) take the view that, as well as visiting the ten designated tors (20+ route variations keep numbers of teams on each route to a manageable number) and completing a set distance (35, 45, 55 miles), reliance on GPS for both the event and for the required training beforehand would mean participants would fail to learn and practise (map and compass) navigation skills and just follow their GPS machines 'blindly' - just as many drivers do on our roads. As others have pointed out, though, the terrain crossed on fell running races (as on Ten Tors) is three-dimensional and multi-surface and with OOB to avoid, whereas audax is on tarmac (mostly) and riders are (basically) constrained to the road network with all its scenery (more in the SW and Wales than in 'the east') and benefit from a recommended route between controls offered by the organiser (either by routesheet, gpx or both).
-
I mostly ride Audaxes for the organiser's local knowledge. I agree that this tends to produce twisting, winding routes, that would need a lot of map reading. The other point is that route sheets can be quite variable. Some give clear distances between turns, and follow what I believe to be the full conventions about $ Abbeyville being a sign on which Abbeyville is the first place listed, and bold for places through which you pass. Others give a few directions with no indication of whether it's 100 metres or 10 kilometres to the next point, and the place named for a signpost may be any of the three listed on it. That's particularly an issue where there are three left turns to Abbeyville and you need the second (but you don't know that). With a GPS, it's not really a problem how clear the sheet is.
-
For anyone wanting a navigational challenge, give me a bit of time and I'll produce one of my regular DIY routes in rally form...
https://www.hrcr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/HRCR-Navigation-Handbook-2017.pdf
The whole point of that sport is road based navigation.
Deals with unknown road priority, and yes GPS is banned as are average speed displays.
-
Don't you get a navigator though? Fine for tandems. Otherwise I predict an increase in Audax riders crashing into parked cars as they try to read squiggly lines on their handlebar map holders.
-
For anyone wanting a navigational challenge, give me a bit of time and I'll produce one of my regular DIY routes in rally form...
https://www.hrcr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/HRCR-Navigation-Handbook-2017.pdf
That's a cracking read. And riders (occasionally) moan about routesheets! What are the discussions like in rally fora about 'route instructions' and why GPSs should be allowed/not allowed?
-
Do they let autonomous vehicles into rallies? :demon:
Feed one of those a GPX route and it would do it all itself...
-
For anyone wanting a navigational challenge, give me a bit of time and I'll produce one of my regular DIY routes in rally form...
https://www.hrcr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/HRCR-Navigation-Handbook-2017.pdf
That's a cracking read. And riders (occasionally) moan about routesheets! What are the discussions like in rally fora about 'route instructions' and why GPSs should be allowed/not allowed?
There is occasional bitching about the wrong clue types being used at the wrong crew experience level.
And about crews being graded wrong...
My dad and brother are currently considered Novices, despite them winning championships as experts 10/15 years ago.
And of car eligibility... How else would I know that most MG Midgets are actually Toyota MR2s...
And loads of falling outs...
So just like cycling really.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
-
Last weekend 2000+ young people traversed and criss-crossed Dartmoor on the 2019 version of the annual Ten Tors event (not a race) walked over Saturday and Sunday. I cycled up to the Okehampton Camp finish and back - in lovely weather - to see my duaghter finish. GPSs and the like have always been and were banned; and each team (of up to 5) was allowed to carry one mobile phone which was required to be sealed in an opaque plastic bag - for use in emergency only. The bag was inspected at the finish. The organisers of this event (the Army) take the view that, as well as visiting the ten designated tors (20+ route variations keep numbers of teams on each route to a manageable number) and completing a set distance (35, 45, 55 miles), reliance on GPS for both the event and for the required training beforehand would mean participants would fail to learn and practise (map and compass) navigation skills and just follow their GPS machines 'blindly' - just as many drivers do on our roads.
That's great to hear :thumbsup:
[you don't specify what "young" is - I'm going to guess 16-18yo-ish?]
"young people" surviving 2 days without phones - who knew this was actually possible?!? :P
-
Do they let autonomous vehicles into rallies? :demon:
Feed one of those a GPX route and it would do it all itself...
The real test of an autonomous car is feeding it an OS map, a series of clues, it's current location and seeing if it can get to the next control within the minute it's required to arrive in*, while collecting the letters off of all the control boards, which may require it to drive all directions round a triangle junction.
Oh and without throwing up...
* The finish controls are not part of the instructions so that crews don't just hammer it and wait round the corner.
-
Last weekend 2000+ young people traversed and criss-crossed Dartmoor on the 2019 version of the annual Ten Tors event.
That's great to hear :thumbsup:
[you don't specify what "young" is - I'm going to guess 16-18yo-ish?]
"young people" surviving 2 days without phones - who knew this was actually possible?!? :P
12. Age. All those taking part in the Ten Tors Challenge must be between the ages of 14 and 19 (School Years 8-13).
13. Composition of Teams. A Ten Tors Challenge team is to consist of 6 eligible individuals of any mix of gender . . .
13.1. 35 miles for 14 and 15 year olds.
13.2. 45 miles for 16 and 17 year olds.
13.3. 55 miles for 18 and 19 year olds (17 year olds may participate if they have previously completed the 35 or 45 mile Challenge).
Surprisingly (regarding being parted with phones) 'they' seem to accept that if 'de rulz' says no phones, then that's no phones (including when not policed (ie during the training days and overnights)) and they get on with enjoying/enduring the great outdoors and its challenges.
-
Perhaps not that surprising, in that (like audax), this event will only attract a niche type of person in terms of character and interests, regardless of age, sex, etc etc.