GPS for PERMS

[Ian H]

How does anybody know anything?

I think that deserves a thread of its own...



...Preferably on a different forum.

[JayP]

I guess if I was very keen and riding the full distance I could just get a copy of one of the other peoples GPS tracks, as we are riding in a group

er - that would make a nonsense of the validation wouldn't it?

Or was that the idea?

Independently recorded GPS tracks from members of a group will not all be identical. There will be close agreement in place and time but each unit will sample, and perpetrate errors, independently. There is no more, or less, chance of fraudulent validations with GPS than with trad' cards and receipts.
There are only two types of riders in Audax. Those who relish the flexibility of GPS and those who are going to.

[Billy Weir]

There are only two types of riders in Audax. Those who relish the flexibility of GPS and those who are going to.

Don't underestimate the appeal that physical brevidence has.  For example, some non-AUK members do the Brevet Populaire End to End and state that the reason is that want that tangible evidence of having "officially" done the route.

I find myself in that mindset myself.  I do DIY by GPS now, where I find it's validation process sadly soulless.  It feel like it has taken my experience and changed it into a ledger entry.  If you know what I mean.

Still, the flexibility is good.  Probably spoils us and will probably change the mindset of the club in ways currently not foreseen.

[Ian H]

...It feel like it has taken my experience and changed it into a ledger entry.  If you know what I mean...

You mean it encourages a points-chasing mentality?

[EdinburghFixed]

...It feel like it has taken my experience and changed it into a ledger entry.  If you know what I mean...

You mean it encourages people to get out on their bikes more?

[Billy Weir]

...It feel like it has taken my experience and changed it into a ledger entry.  If you know what I mean...

You mean it encourages a points-chasing mentality?

Not really.  It's more the act of collecting proof of control in a card, sending it off and waiting for it to return in the post (with a little sticker from the validations team) gives a sense of attachment that GPS doesn't.

I suppose it's a bit like the physical attachment to albums or CDs compared to digital download.  The latter is convenient and more flexible, but does not give the same tangible satisfaction.

BTW I view points chasing as setting oneself a goal and doing events to hit it.  If GPS means those goals are easier to attain, then I suspect the mentality of many of us in the club is such that a harder goal will be set.  I've noticed that with the thoughts I now have (e.g. "can I use GPS to set up a long distance off road audax across the North Downs").

[Billy Weir]

...It feel like it has taken my experience and changed it into a ledger entry.  If you know what I mean...

You mean it encourages people to get out on their bikes more?

No.

[JayP]

There are only two types of riders in Audax. Those who relish the flexibility of GPS and those who are going to.

Don't underestimate the appeal that physical brevidence has.  For example, some non-AUK members do the Brevet Populaire End to End and state that the reason is that want that tangible evidence of having "officially" done the route.

I find myself in that mindset myself.  I do DIY by GPS now, where I find it's validation process sadly soulless.  It feel like it has taken my experience and changed it into a ledger entry.  If you know what I mean.

Still, the flexibility is good.  Probably spoils us and will probably change the mindset of the club in ways currently not foreseen.

Yes I do know what you mean Billy. It does cross my mind, with regret, when I look at my 10 inch high pile of validated brevet cards, that it wont be growing anything like as fast as it used to. But GPS v Cards doesn't have to be either/or. There is no reason why, if enough people want, there could not be some commemorative document, with validation sticker at the e nd. Possibly for a small extra charge - like the medals system.

...It feel like it has taken my experience and changed it into a ledger entry.  If you know what I mean...

You mean it encourages a points-chasing mentality?

I think anybody who does DIY rides regularly already has a points chasing or rrty or personal target agenda. My DIY's are solitary rides that start and end at my house. If I wasn't points chasing or similar what would be the point of Audax?
Gps hasn't deepened my lust for points its just made me more successful at getting them. And so what ? Like below

...It feel like it has taken my experience and changed it into a ledger entry.  If you know what I mean...

You mean it encourages people to get out on their bikes more?

[vorsprung]

So if you are with the unit, it doesn't matter if it is your unit, if it is on another bike or if the second person will also use it to make a claim

so by the same token if you are both riding together does only one of you need to get receipts, or bother with a DIY card?  

I've done DIY perm when one of us bought something in a shop and we asked for two receipts from the same purchase

There are no philosophical issues here.  The key thing is that the bike of the rider that is making the claim follows exactly the same path as the GPS.  If the claiming rider does not then they are cheating themselves etc etc in the same way that they might with a bent DIY perm claim.

I'll say it again: a digital copy of data is exactly the same as the original data itself.  All data supplied by the GPS is a copy of what was recorded to its memory.  All claims made by the GPS unit are in the form of copies.  The number of copies is not an issue

The problem of course is if the GPS rider and the claiming rider visit the controls but take a different route.  For example in the up and coming "xmas local 200 + a pub" our leaders GPS map thing gpx goes up the canal.  As it's local I will not go up the canal I will go over the two roundabouts, up the hill, first right and rejoin the route near the church.  So I would be unable to use the GPS of the leader for a claim even though we are going to visit the same set of controls

[Manotea]

...It feel like it has taken my experience and changed it into a ledger entry.  If you know what I mean...

You mean it encourages a points-chasing mentality?

Not really.  It's more the act of collecting proof of control in a card, sending it off and waiting for it to return in the post (with a little sticker from the validations team) gives a sense of attachment that GPS doesn't.

I suppose it's a bit like the physical attachment to albums or CDs compared to digital download.  The latter is convenient and more flexible, but does not give the same tangible satisfaction.

I agree entirely. The process of visting controls, collecting tangible Brevidence that says, "I was there" is what distinguishes Audax. Chasing round a circuit following an arrow with nothing more to show for the day then a GPS track is a completely different experience, more akin to a Sportif or Reliability Ride. Not necessarily better or worse, just different.

[Manotea]

I'll say it again: a digital copy of data is exactly the same as the original data itself.  All data supplied by the GPS is a copy of what was recorded to its memory.  All claims made by the GPS unit are in the form of copies.  The number of copies is not an issue

AFAIAA there is nothing in the rules that says a rider has to submit a track from the riders own GPS.  

So I could lead a ride with assorted others and at the end of the day issue them with a copy of the track for validation.

[JayP]

Two friends apply to ride a DIY perm together. Only one of them actually intends to ride. The other has has his/her friends cooperation to make a false claim.

METHOD A. They apply for a normal brevet card ride. At each control the riding friend gets two receipts, each for a separate purchase. On return the non riding friend gets a full set of receipts which he  submits. Result: The deception works.

METHOD B. They apply for validation by GPS. The riding friend emails his friend a copy of his GPS track which the non rider submits and claims as his own. Result: the deception is detected exactly because one file is an exact replica of the other. This would not occur if the same ride was recorded independently on separate devices even if they were fixed to the same bike. The claim is rejected and a deliberate intention to deceive is revealed which may provoke further action.
 
METHOD C They apply for GPS validation. The rider gives the non rider a copy of his GPS track. The non- rider submits this track but clearly states that the track is his friends and that his own track was lost, truncated ,corrupted, whatever by equipment failure, theft etc etc. Likely Result: The claim is allowed on the Audax principle of trust but a clear warning that this is a once-only indulgence is given.  The deception works - bot only once.

what other possibilities are there?

[Manotea]

The point is, Jayp, is that they are legion but I doubt AUK would consider it helpful to list them here.

[frankly frankie]

I don't think they are legion.

I think copied tracks would be the most obvious and certainly the easiest way to cheat, if that is what two people set out to do - so I would hope that validators would question any such files in the event they spot them.  
Its very unfortunate that .gpx files (being just text files) don't have the originating device Id embedded into them, in the way that digital photos do, for example.  Its also unfortunate that modern GPS devices can copy tracks between themselves wirelessly.

The problem of course is if the GPS rider and the claiming rider visit the controls but take a different route. 

Though I disagree with the rest of what you're saying, strangely enough I don't see any problem with this at all.  You provide proof of passage for the controls - at credible times - that's all that matters.

[Greenbank]

Its very unfortunate that .gpx files (being just text files) don't have the originating device Id embedded into them, in the way that digital photos do, for example.

An embedded Id wouldn't be useful at all as it would be trivial to change with a text editor.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

HK and I debated this issue on a DIY earlier this year.  If we are on a tandem (we are planning on some tandem Audaxing next year), do we need to carry two GPSs (only got one in the house) or does one GPS track cover both of us?

[Greenbank]

HK and I debated this issue on a DIY earlier this year.  If we are on a tandem (we are planning on some tandem Audaxing next year), do we need to carry two GPSs (only got one in the house) or does one GPS track cover both of us?

I can't see why a DIY organiser wouldn't accept a single GPS tracklog, and a note to say it was from a tandem, as proof-of-passage for both of you.

It'd be bonkers to require two separate GPSes.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

It'd be bonkers to require two separate GPSes.

I agree with you but under the current advice, we should have a different GPS track for each rider, just as tandemists have to have separate proof of passage for 'normal DIY' or other permanents.

[Greenbank]

I would expect common sense to prevail.

Requiring tandem riders to provide old style individual brevet cards full of proof-of-passage receipts worked because it was possible. It also fit with the idea that both riders need to enter an event (both needed to contribute towards the for food/insurance/etc).

With no tangible proof-of-passage or even real brevet card(s) (they're both just data) with DIY/Perms by GPS I can't see why the requirement would be enforced in these edge cases.

[Manotea]

METHOD C They apply for GPS validation. The rider gives the non rider a copy of his GPS track. The non- rider submits this track but clearly states that the track is his friends and that his own track was lost, truncated ,corrupted, whatever by equipment failure, theft etc etc. Likely Result: The claim is allowed on the Audax principle of trust but a clear warning that this is a once-only indulgence is given.  The deception works - bot only once.

Right now I'm using an Edge 705 so an immediate concern is what happens if the battery dies on me. I've got a portapow but I'd rather leave it at home if I can. I get about 12 hrs on a 705 which is about enough for a 200 if I dont dawdle. If I know the route - on the first/last stage when riding to/from home, the easiest thing to do is to turn it on when setting off to get a control fix then turn it off until I reach unknown territory or the next control, which every is sooner. I'm told that this isn't permitted (although its not codified) and that what I should do is let the GPS run to failure and use Brevidence from then on. Interestingly, the objection to my approach was not that it might be easier to fake track segments but that it would foul up the route length check performed by the validation tool which was the primary method for validating the track(!). This logic seemed a bit suspect as the track would be incomplete in both cases.

[A 'Gotchas' for the Edge 705 to look out for if the system freezes, which sadly it does occaisionally, the easiest way to clear it is to do a power off/power on. This turns the timer off. If the timer is turned off then track information is not recorded. That's why I had a 30km gap in my last GPS Perm track (when I'm riding I don't show data fields, just the map). The same thing applies if you turn the unit off when leaving a control. Nowadays I hit the timer button every time I leave a control to make sure it's running*. When I remember, that is.]

*Edit: Actually I hit it twice. Once to stop it, and once to start it again...

[Ian H]

... If I wasn't points chasing or similar what would be the point of Audax?...

This is something I'd very much like to address. Points may be a motivation, but should they be the be-all and end-all? What about the sheer enjoyment of travelling entirely under your own steam? I think for example of Mr Abraham's well documented, thoroughly audacious, and totally pointless rides in America.

[Greenbank]

Interestingly, the objection to my approach was not that it might be easier to fake track segments but that it would foul up the route length check performed by the validation tool which was the primary method for validating the track(!). This logic seemed a bit suspect as the track would be incomplete in both cases.

Are you sure?

From what I've read from the DIY organisers that do it, the tracklog isn't used to confirm any kind of distance. It's just used to confirm that you went through (or close enough to) the points you'd nominated as your control points.

The distance check should have been done by the DIY organiser on the list of controls you supplied when you entered the DIY.

There are two slightly confusing uses of 'DIY by GPS' around at the moment (or recently).

1 is the above, specifying a set of control locations for a DIY including some 'GPS' controls where there's nothing to get traditional proof-of-passage, and submitting a tracklog (or snippet) as proof that you went through those points.

2 was a trial based on submitting a GPX file of a proposed route (from bikely or similar), which can be checked for distance, then riding it and submitting the tracklog as proof-of-passage. The two can be compared to ensure that you followed the intended route and any deviations from it are either explained (closed roads/etc) and/or don't affect the distance ridden.

With #2, if the tracklog wasn't recording for a significant period of time it could mean that your ride isn't validated. That's just a risk you have to take (much like the possibility of losing receipts that can invalidate a ride).

I'm not sure what happened to the concept of method #2. Is it formally available or has it just become using method #1 with sufficient GPS controls to bring the route up to distance?

[Billy Weir]

... If I wasn't points chasing or similar what would be the point of Audax?...

This is something I'd very much like to address. Points may be a motivation, but should they be the be-all and end-all? What about the sheer enjoyment of travelling entirely under your own steam? I think for example of Mr Abraham's well documented, thoroughly audacious, and totally pointless rides in America.

I suspect you'll find support for an initiative to make the focus less about points.  It will not be easy though - as you imply, a large number of people find the points total a big motivation.

I've occasionally wondered, for example, if AUK could make more of the range of events people do rather than just focussing on cumulative mileage etc.  Kind of like what the CTC do when they allow for which DAs you visited, if you did treasure hunts, reliability rides etc etc.

It was one of the reasons why (some time ago) I put myself forward to restart the National Series, similar in spirit to what John Mills offered (albeit I didn't progress it beyond initial planning, despite positive noises from the then committee - maybe I should bite the bullet and work to put something in place for 2012 onwards).

[frankly frankie]

Its very unfortunate that .gpx files (being just text files) don't have the originating device Id embedded into them, in the way that digital photos do, for example.

An embedded Id wouldn't be useful at all as it would be trivial to change with a text editor.

By 'embedded' I meant something that is not simple to edit.

[frankly frankie]

... If we are on a tandem (we are planning on some tandem Audaxing next year), do we need to carry two GPSs (only got one in the house) or does one GPS track cover both of us?

I can't see why a DIY organiser wouldn't accept a single GPS tracklog, and a note to say it was from a tandem, as proof-of-passage for both of you.
It'd be bonkers to require two separate GPSes.

Quite prudent to carry two though (one as a spare).