Rescheduling events was Re: Man of Kent 200k, 18th March.

[Martin]

This event has been postponed due to the adverse weather conditions in Kent with snow already falling and an amber weather warning in place running until late tomorrow.

A provisional plan B was put in place last night which AUK have now approved so I can confirm the event has been rescheduled to Sunday April 8th. Anyone who hasn't entered this event already may now do so via the AUK website (until the ride reaches capacity)

Weather rescheduled events are only permitted for original participants!! NOT extra entries or has the rule been relaxed/changed

don't feed the troll thanks everyone

[iddu]

*cough*

No, it was a legitimate question, that does require answer...

[OHO]
Where suitably adverse weather conditions gives rise to concerns, and an Org makes request re an affected event, there are actually two ways the event can be treated.

Decisions re weather issues generally takes place very close to the actual date of the original event, so there's of necessity a need to get the information out to particpants ASAP about what the Org is doing, their choices being:-

a) It can be cancelled entirely.  In this case, to effectively redo the event it should(*) be entered up in the calendar(**) as a 'new' discrete event. 
    Because it's a 'new' event it is permissible to accept additional entries.  It is expected existing entrants will be offered a free transfer to 'new' event.

   (*)  We may/may not leave it under it's original ref number and just adjust the date, to avoid waste...
   (**) Practically, this will only be the online calendar list - I can't concieve activity timings that would ever get it onto a circulated printed list in due timeframe...

b) It can be rescheduled to sometime within the 30 days following original event date.
    In this case, because it's a (short-notice) imposition by the Org moving the date, entrants (and only entrants at time of rescheduling) are permitted to
    ride on Org's alternative date / as a perm equivalent within the 30-day period.  No new entrants are permitted.   

   For a rescheduled event:-

   * The permitted entrants must use the (original) bervet cards issued for the event
   * If it is a BRM qualifier that they need, they must ride on the Org's new date.  The Org must get their finger out post-event to supply results for ACP.
   * If they're happy with a perm within period, then the brevet should be sent after ride to Permenants Secretary / DIY Orgs, and it will be recorded as a BR perm.

[/OHO]

They're known as "weather cancelled" and "snow cancelled", but it's best to think of them as "weather cancelled" and "weather rescheduled"

[citoyen]

What’s the rationale for the no new entrants rule on a rescheduled event? I’m a bit puzzled by it.

[iddu]

Theoretically the decision by an Org to cancel/reschedule can be taken to the wire, although practically let's assume it's 'always' the afternoon before.

It's a choice of the Org as to what they want to do.

If they cancel it, then (i) NO (original) event is run, (ii) they stand to make loss(es) and (ii) they may/may not elect to run a replacement(*) event at some time in the future.  Since such is a 'new' event, the standard "list it and they shall may enter" scenario applies to all, and entries are permitted (the bulk of which should be freebie transfer of existing set).

If they reschedule it then the rescheduled event is only of (immediate) relevance to the set of entrants you have on-hand, who need to be told ASAP what's going on. Barring any EOL's (unlikely, given the prevailing reason(s) for cancellation/rescheduling), had the event gone ahead as originally planned such set would be the definitive set of entrants - just because the Org is time-shifting the event/perm equivalents within N+30 period should not permit supplemental entrants within the window you've just opened up...

Dem's the guidelines as currently handed down.

(*) So, strictly by the book, the Org should pay to (re)register the 'replacement' event, order new cards etc etc...the expenses incurred for the orginal event should all be applied again (but, IMO, that's being overbearing IRL).

[Manotea]

The key word here is 'guidelines'... whilst no doubt technically correct, 'the interpretation handed down' does appear to suffer from being rather narrow. There is no explanation as to why this restriction is being applied, or why such should be considered a good thing.

This contrasts with another extract from the Orgs handbook, "The traditional advice for Audax UK events was that entries should be received two weeks in advance of the event to allow you time to order Brevet cards and organise catering. However, due to the widespread use of PayPal for entries, riders are increasingly entering events later, particularly for shorter events. It’s up to you to decide when your cut-off date for entries will be.

That's clear and direct; it's the Orgs decision when to accept entries.

AUK's (unwritten?) policy has always been to support the rider ("look for reasons to validate", etc.).

Might AUK apply a policy of "look for reasons to let riders participate in events"?

[Martin]

Thanks iddu, it sounds like this instance falls between the two and a very sensible decision all round.
The only rationale I can think for retricting entries to the rescheduled date is to avoid having to readverise on the website. Although it's a different month so needs the date chaging for RRTY purposes anyway

[Martin]

And a lot more sensible than the 'don't cancel even though nobody is gonna turn up " approach
(which is where email is useful rather than expecting riders to read the bush radio)

[frankly frankie]

What’s the rationale for the no new entrants rule on a rescheduled event? I’m a bit puzzled by it.

Time was that an event - or permanent - had to be published, in time for anybody to enter, before it could be ridden and validated.
The key there really is 'anybody' - so that 'published' means 'in hardcopy'.

For example, if you had a local circuit that you wanted to ride as a permanent - first you had to register that permanent to get it listed by AUK.  Then you had to wait for that listing to appear in Arrivee or the Handbook.  Only then could you enter it and ride it.  The process could take up to 5 months if you were unlucky with timing.

Now - we have DIYs ridden at the drop of a hat, and are even in danger of going down the route of registering a ride retrospectively (as on Strava for example).  Given that AUK has made that shift (and allowing rescheduled events at all is part of that shift) they probably do need to re-think the guidelines around 'published'.

[citoyen]

Time was that an event - or permanent - had to be published, in time for anybody to enter, before it could be ridden and validated.
The key there really is 'anybody' - so that 'published' means 'in hardcopy'.

OK, between yours and iddu's explanations, it starts to make a kind of sense... thanks!

[Ivan]

If this has been rescheduled for original participants only, why then does the new calendar entry appear to accept new entries - shouldn't the closing date remain as it was rather than having advanced to 5th April?

[citoyen]

If this has been rescheduled for original participants only, why then does the new calendar entry appear to accept new entries - shouldn't the closing date remain as it was rather than having advanced to 5th April?

Closing date is set on the event planner as X days before the event, rather than an absolute date, so moving the date of the event would presumably move the closing date at the same time.

The question is whether it would be desirable for the web boffins to fix this loophole in order to enforce The Rules...

[frankly frankie]

The problem lay in re-dating the event surely - after all it is to be ridden with the original brevet cards and as a BRM - which I guess means that the results when submitted to ACP will have to be cheated back to the original date, to match their calendar data.  Then there will be people with RRTY issues.
But the organiser or whoever re-dated it (presumably an Events Sec) can close it to entries any time they want.

[Manotea]

Time was...

However time is... that the AUK website is now a primary method of communication with the membership, and the rescheduled events ARE 'advertized' in the calendar with an updated event and at least two upcoming events are accepting online entries, so it looks officialdom is not keeping up with practice. Nothing new there, not a criticism, just an observation, so yes,

they probably do need to re-think the guidelines around 'published'

However

... and are even in danger of going down the route of registering a ride retrospectively (as on Strava for example).  Given that AUK has made that shift (and allowing rescheduled events at all is part of that shift)

is simply misleading.

Declaring before the scheduled time that an Breveted event has been rescheduled to a later date is a completely different situation to declaring that a ride undertaken without a Brevet being issued in advance is retrospectively recognised as a Breveted ride/event. That's never been on the table. I don't understand where Strava comes into this at all.

Where we are is that whilst historically there were (so I'm told ) examples of events not being cancelled despite conditions being such that nobody would turn up, things have moved on and Orgs and riders do look to reschedule if possible.  Prefereably this would be by way of a Calendar event but various Perm options have also been utilised. For example, the organiser for the London-Oxford-London 200km which was rescheduled because of the weather - has offered Perms for riders who cannot make the new date.

As is, policy/guidelines declaring that new entrants cannot enter rescheduled events are outmoded and need to be revisited, sharpish, otherwise riders will simply "vote with their feet", by carrying a Listed/DIY Perm brevet, whatever, regardless of AUK 'policy'.

Edit: As the rescheduled events are rescheduled within the calendar, RRTY doesn't really come into it, as the date of the event/ride is clearly docuemented. If the RRTY wants then to offer a concession where a month change occurs then that's their call (FWIW I'm agin - riders committed to RRTY should aim to get their ranking rides in early in the month to allow for a second attempt should it be necessary).

Edit: The BRM chestnut. Either ACP allow for events to be rescheduled on request under exceptional circumstances or they don't. If they do there is not a problem. If they don't then such events might be automatically rescheduled as BR events. That would seem reasonable and it's hard to see grounds for complaint, and again it would seem unreasonable that riders be prevented from participating in the rescheduled event.

[Martin]

Citoyen; The closing date is not set in stone; it defaults to 14 days but the organiser can set it to the day before if they like (or even on the day but not tried this) In theory it can be extended beyond 14 days if you wanted (although if events do fill up the organiser just sets the date so it closes when they have reached their limit)

I had this problem with the old ECE entry system as it defaulted to 14 days and I could not change it as ECE's did not have a set date and I was getting regular enquiries as to whether riders were too late to enter (which they were not) the new entry system has fixed this

[Martin]

The idea of allowing riders to ride any time within 30 days opens a can of worms when it comes to infos....

MoK is lucky in having a perm option, if I had to cancel my event I would probably pay for people to ride it later as a DIY

[citoyen]

Citoyen; The closing date is not set in stone

Yes, that's exactly what I meant - in the event planner, you have the option of setting the closing date as X days before the event, and the default value for X as you rightly point out is 14. But whatever number you enter in this field, the actual closing date will always be relative to the event date.

Edit: The BRM chestnut. Either ACP allow for events to be rescheduled on request under exceptional circumstances or they don't. If they do there is not a problem. If they don't then such events might be automatically rescheduled as BR events. That would seem reasonable and it's hard to see grounds for complaint, and again it would seem unreasonable that riders be prevented from participating in the rescheduled event.

I suppose this only really becomes an issue in PBP years.

[Manotea]

The idea of allowing riders to ride any time within 30 days opens a can of worms when it comes to infos....

Not really much different to all the usual issues surrounding infos. But lets be clear, we are discussing the rescheduling of events under exceptional circumstances so not really an issue here..

Rather than tweaking the software to fit idiosyncratic 'rules' it would be simpler and better all round to have more sensible 'rules'.

Citoyen; The closing date is not set in stone; it defaults to 14 days but the organiser can set it to the day before if they like (or even on the day but not tried this) In theory it can be extended beyond 14 days if you wanted (although if events do fill up the organiser just sets the date so it closes when they have reached their limit)

I had this problem with the old ECE entry system as it defaulted to 14 days and I could not change it as ECE's did not have a set date and I was getting regular enquiries as to whether riders were too late to enter (which they were not) the new entry system has fixed this

If the web boffins are going to look at the event date settings, can we please get rid of or make optional the highlighted warning message about "entering two weeks in advance" which appear when the closing date window is set to 0, which is what you would have when EOL is accepted; some possibly many interpret this as meaning entries are closed/unwanted. 

---------

It's worth pointing out that there is no necessity for events to rescheduled as to do so may impact on other local events, in which case, even if the Org and venues are available, it may be more appropriate to simply 'let it go' till next year. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. There is no single answer.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

From memory, ACP does allow BRM dates to be changed in exceptional circumstances. Outside of PBP years, I think it is quite rare. ACP doesn't really have the manpower or systems to cope if lots of events did it. Defaulting to BR validation in those cases seems sensible.

[Manotea]

From memory, ACP does allow BRM dates to be changed in exceptional circumstances. Outside of PBP years, I think it is quite rare. ACP doesn't really have the manpower or systems to cope if lots of events did it. Defaulting to BR validation in those cases seems sensible.

The key word here is 'exceptional'.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

In Oz, the first cases of rescheduling, rather than cancelling, that I recall were massive bushfires and heatwaves well over 40 degrees (authorities advising no outdoor activities). Now Audax Oz has a 'heat policy' (that I think is set a little low; blame the Victorians) but I'm not certain what they do regarding BRMs (most of their calendar).

[Martin]

Citoyen; The closing date is not set in stone

Yes, that's exactly what I meant - in the event planner, you have the option of setting the closing date as X days before the event, and the default value for X as you rightly point out is 14. But whatever number you enter in this field, the actual closing date will always be relative to the event date.

many organisers either do not know or do not use this facility to best advantage. I often enter events within the 14 day "deadline" (and even on the day but only if they do not offer a Paypal option and after agreeing with the organiser first) and it's never been a problem.

I suppose organisers ultimately need a get-out to cover those riders who turn up on the day expecting to enter so the 14 day serves for this purpose.

I would hope that postal entries that go astray are honoured with an EOL if the rider turns up; a simple courtesy on the part of the org

[iddu]

If this has been rescheduled for original participants only, why then does the new calendar entry appear to accept new entries - shouldn't the closing date remain as it was rather than having advanced to 5th April?

Because that's the Org's choice in wanting it as "Weather cancelled", rather than "Snow cancelled" (see prior descriptives).

The processess are what they are at the moment.  Given the quanitity of events affected in the preceeding month no doubt a review will be occurring in due course.

[frankly frankie]

... can we please get rid of or make optional the highlighted warning message about "entering two weeks in advance" which appear when the closing date window is set to 0, which is what you would have when EOL is accepted; some possibly many interpret this as meaning entries are closed/unwanted. 

I see the problem.  OK that wording has been altered by agreement with the Events Sec person.

[citoyen]

The problem lay in re-dating the event surely ... But the organiser or whoever re-dated it (presumably an Events Sec) can close it to entries any time they want.

Yes, of course. Whoever updated the event date could at the same time have updated the closing date (eg set it at 30 days).

I presume that the organiser in this instance was simply unaware of the no new entrants rule (like most of us), rather than wilfully trying to fiddle the system.

[Cudzoziemiec]

It's not at all clear to me why a rescheduled event should not be open to new entrants by default. Let's say there's an event this Saturday you want to ride but unfortunately you have to work that weekend, so you don't enter. On the day the Beast from the East MkIII strikes and the event is rescheduled. The new date is a free weekend for you so, great, why not enter? Obviously original entrants should be given places first so this depends on the event having been undersubscribed in the first place, but subject to places being available, why should this not be the default?