Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: Panoramix on 09 December, 2010, 12:34:14 pm
-
I know I am opening a can of worms, please be considerate to each other and keep the debate civilised...
I don't own this software and I am only starting this thread as there is a lot of acrimony around distances. From reading posts and looking at it in a factual way, I think that the software may simply be wrong:
- DIY users say autoroute tend to underestimate distances
- DIY organisers say don't use Google, it will give you an optimistic distance
- Mesh users say, I don't want to switch to DIYs, it spoils my perfectly valid route which anyway is not underdistance
I just have the feeling that the authors of the software may have done some approximations which are causing us issues. We tend to assume that published stuff is right but I don't think we should.
Has anybody tried to check it on say a 10km run? A gps will give you a pretty accurate figure assuming you don't loose signal.
-
*shrug*
My reading is that it is not the accuracy or otherwise of any particular piece of software that is at issue in recent discussions. But how it is being applied.
-
Based on past discussions (and a hunch), it's not about accuracy - it's about what it chooses as the "shortest" route.
(Then there are the difference in what part of a "control town" measurements are taken from - that can make many km difference.)
It's a non-trivial problem for mapping software to calculate shortest route - much easier to measure a specific route (which is not what it's used for in this context!)
-
My reading is that it is not the accuracy or otherwise of any particular piece of software that is at issue in recent discussions. But how it is being applied.
My view too. What you have to do is present an org with a route they can sign off without stress.
I've learned (by trying it, by mistake) that if your route is sufficiently close to minimum distance that you're in a zone where different software can suggest pass/fail, you're cutting it too fine.
Yes there are differences between software and the mesh distances, and they're both different from what you'll ride on the day anyway.
-
We tend to assume that published stuff is right but I don't think we should.
I do, because the important thing is to establish a standard and stick to it.
Unfortunately Autoroute doesn't lend itself to this - each successive version is different, and different users probably have different preferences set up. In retrospect it looks like it was a bad choice - but it was pretty much the only choice at the time.
This is partly why AndyC is advocating a return to - or at least not throwing out - the existing catalogue of Mesh information. And I agree with him, even if it means reviewing it all.
Road atlases have displayed place-to-place distances in both tabular and map form, since long before I was born - and really I don't see any reason to try to improve on that model. It's easy to bring it into the computer age too.
-
In a limited number of experiments I set Google maps and Autoroute to measure exactly the same route. That is, using the same roads. A bit of a fiddle because it means dragging the route around and adding points to overcome the idiosyncrasies of both. The result was that actual distance measurement is about the same for both.
Then it comes down to how the software chooses 'shortest route'. I always zoom out to look at the overall map and make a visual check. If anything looks suspicious I'll move the route around until I'm satisfied it really is shortest. In my opinion the visual check is important.
The only other thing to check is the occasional odd placing of the place name points used for measuring to and from.
-
Has anybody tried to check it on say a 10km run? A gps will give you a pretty accurate figure assuming you don't loose signal.
Not really. A GPS is applying a smoothing algorithm to data filled with errors.
Each location point is a position plus an associated error and the GPS is guessing the path taken between them:-
(http://www.greenbank.org/misc/gpshmm.jpg)
All 3 of those paths (with considerably different lengths) go through the red splotches.
Looking at the tracklogs for laps of Richmond Park (just over 10km per lap) I've got more than 50 laps and with distances of 10.75 to 10.81km. So 60m variance (or ~0.5%).
-
Those points are all good ones, but has anyone done an actual comparison between the calculated distance and the distance on the ground? It's easy to write off an overdistance as down to choosing nicer roads on the day, but it would be good to do one of:
- Ride the actual roads that autoroute specified in its measurement; or
- put in sufficient waypoints to give the actual route ridden, not the shortest route
I reckon it would have to be at least 100km to prove the point either way, rather than a short blast down a single road.
-
If those 3 diagrams are all supposed to illustrate 'guesses' then the middle one looks remarkably perverse. Not saying it doesn't happen, mind.
-
If those 3 diagrams are all supposed to illustrate 'guesses' then the middle one looks remarkably perverse. Not saying it doesn't happen, mind.
No, the black lines were supposed to illustrate possible paths taken, with the red blotches the information the GPS has to calculate distance.
-
Just to expand on what I wrote above - a long time ago I rode a DIY which came out 30% over on the ground* compared to my ancient version of autoroute**. (TBF, the DIY org did hint it might still qualify against their autoroute version with a control taken out.)
I thought this was quite a lot as the lanes didn't seem that far from the direct route, so I traced the actual route in the software and it was still showing substantially less than the ridden distance. How much better are the modern versions?
* I didn't mind, it was a nice route...
** this version included a ferry in Wales that google suggests hadn't run since the early 20th century ::-)
-
it would be good to do one of:
- Ride the actual roads that autoroute specified in its measurement; or
- put in sufficient waypoints to give the actual route ridden, not the shortest route
I'd find it very hard indeed to believe that a map-calculated distance is significantly inaccurate - along the roads it is using.
And I also think that you could check this at least as well by comparing it with documented (road atlas) distances, as you could by riding or driving it.
The issue is with what roads are being chosen, and with what points are being used as the controls.
Should we have standardised, documented single positions for all control towns and locations (I would say yes) or is it always going to be a measure ATM-to-ATM?
-
Those points are all good ones, but has anyone done an actual comparison between the calculated distance and the distance on the ground? It's easy to write off an overdistance as down to choosing nicer roads on the day, but it would be good to do one of:
- Ride the actual roads that autoroute specified in its measurement; or
- put in sufficient waypoints to give the actual route ridden, not the shortest route
I reckon it would have to be at least 100km to prove the point either way, rather than a short blast down a single road.
Just checked a DIY 100 up to Cambridge using Autoroute 2001. GPS of actual route taken gives 108.12km. Autoroute gives 108.3km.
-
Looking at the tracklogs for laps of Richmond Park (just over 10km per lap) I've got more than 50 laps and with distances of 10.75 to 10.81km. So 60m variance (or ~0.5%).
You are right, but 0.5% still is pretty accurate for the purpose of audaxing... If we were to go down to this level of accuracy we would have to start to be worried by people taking the right line and whether there are more left bends than right bends, pretty pointless IMO.
In a limited number of experiments I set Google maps and Autoroute to measure exactly the same route. That is, using the same roads. A bit of a fiddle because it means dragging the route around and adding points to overcome the idiosyncrasies of both. The result was that actual distance measurement is about the same for both.
Then it comes down to how the software chooses 'shortest route'. I always zoom out to look at the overall map and make a visual check. If anything looks suspicious I'll move the route around until I'm satisfied it really is shortest. In my opinion the visual check is important.
The only other thing to check is the occasional odd placing of the place name points used for measuring to and from.
Just checked a DIY 100 up to Cambridge using Autoroute 2001. GPS of actual route taken gives 108.12km. Autoroute gives 108.3km.
This answers my question in fact... So I was "wondering" with no basis!
We tend to assume that published stuff is right but I don't think we should.
I do, because the important thing is to establish a standard and stick to it.
Unfortunately Autoroute doesn't lend itself to this - each successive version is different, and different users probably have different preferences set up. In retrospect it looks like it was a bad choice - but it was pretty much the only choice at the time.
This is partly why AndyC is advocating a return to - or at least not throwing out - the existing catalogue of Mesh information. And I agree with him, even if it means reviewing it all.
Road atlases have displayed place-to-place distances in both tabular and map form, since long before I was born - and really I don't see any reason to try to improve on that model. It's easy to bring it into the computer age too.
How can it be inconsistent and right or even a standard?
The place to place distance approach certainly addresses the issue.
-
I have a DIY by GPS planned but not ridden yet so I don't have a GPS track but....
AR2010 calculates shortest route between controls as 200.3km
If I plot the AR2010 calculated route in bikehike with follow road on it measures the route as 200.53km
AR2003 calculated a few km more, not sure whether it suggested the same route, but I had to add another control to get AR2010 over 200km (I think it gave 197.x for the original controls for which AR2003 gave 200+)
-
The place to place distance approach certainly addresses the issue.
Except for people who have reservations about precisely where a place is located.
'Cambridge'
for example.
But all this is data that is in the public domain and easily accessible - type 'Cambridge' into Gmaps and you get 52.202544, 0.131237.
If we were to agree do do it this way, there has to be some wiggle room on actual distance ridden. It's nearly 5km from here to Cherry Hinton which is one popular Cambridge control location.
So that wiggle room agreement isn't there - and then figures of 100m (in how far?) have been mentioned - even on a 100km that would be 0.1%, ridiculous.
-
Is Autoroute accurate?
Dunno. I don't use it. I use Viamichelin (because it's freely available across the various computer platforms I use) in conjunction with a friendly relationship with my DIY organiser :thumbsup:. Between us, we thrash out any distance issues (not that there have been any).
It just works.
-
Is Autoroute accurate?
Dunno. I don't use it. I use Viamichelin (because it's freely available across the various computer platforms I use) in conjunction with a friendly relationship with my DIY organiser :thumbsup:. Between us, we thrash out any distance issues (not that there have been any).
It just works.
Bad approach.
Sorry.
-
Is Autoroute accurate?
Dunno. I don't use it. I use Viamichelin (because it's freely available across the various computer platforms I use) in conjunction with a friendly relationship with my DIY organiser :thumbsup:. Between us, we thrash out any distance issues (not that there have been any).
It just works.
Bad approach.
Sorry.
Why?
-
Well, because you're dealing with volunteer(s) who's time is valuable. It's noticeable that there has been a high turnover of DIY Orgs since DIYs were invented - most regions are on a 3rd-generation of Organiser in only a few years. Why? Because its labour-intensive.
-
I see.
He hasn't complained so far! :D
I think Organiser workload is a different point though. By its very nature, a DIY route will always have to be checked and verified by the organiser. This doesn't have anything to do with accuracy of software.
-
Well, because you're dealing with volunteer(s) who's time is valuable. It's noticeable that there has been a high turnover of DIY Orgs since DIYs were invented - most regions are on a 3rd-generation of Organiser in only a few years. Why? Because its labour-intensive.
+1 to that; I agreed to take over DIY's as they were a very similar system to ECE's which I was already doing; I had no idea just how many I'd be doing though :o
the improvements to validation that John has made have been invaluable in this respect as has the online DIY entry form. Overall I'd say the paper and electronic Brevidence takes about the same time to validate.
-
I've just spent half an hour plotting an entry for DIY by GPS, giving OS grid references for controls, to transfer to Autoroute so I can check it for distance.
As one of the rural idle rich, I am in the fortunate position of having the time, and I'm certainly not complaining. But I do agree with Francis that it can be very labour intensive, especially when proposed routes come up just a wee bit short: although I think organisers technically have the right simply to reject a too-short route, I've always tried to suggest ways of bringing a short route up to distance. But I also don't think that expecting organisers always to have the time "to thrash out any distance issues" is realistic. I had only about 90 DIYs to validate last year, and my AUK DIY mailbox had 1194 emails in the season just finished, but I know some organisers had a lot more than that.
I'm ok to do another year, until hopefully all these debate about AAA points, GPS validation, Autoroute etc are resolved, but I don't know if I'll be looking to do it for much longer than that.
And it's a great displacement activity, when I really should be decorating the bathroom. ;D
EDIT: What Zoom has just said: John's recent improvements to the recording and validation are a huge improvement on the earlier version.
-
Sounds like this needs to be taken to a new thread, as there is clearly some view-airing required on the subject of DIY organiser workload. I had no idea it was that onerous.
Returning to the subject of the thread, I doubt there is really that much difference between Autoroute and Viamichelin, and it's not currently a requirement that I use Autoroute - merely that I submit a route that conforms to minimum distance, as agreed with my DIY Organiser.
-
OK, so as a user of DIY by GPS, how can I make it easiest for my validator to deal with my rides? I guess there are two parts to the answer, relating to entry and submission of GPX.
While (I think) I comply with the guidelines on the AUK website, little things keep cropping up here that suggest I could do more. Like the difficulty mentioned by Eck of translating grid references to real control locations. I'd never considered that the use of unique references would be anything less than ideal, but it hadn't ocurred to me that because AR doesn't use grid references that's not the case. So what is the ideal format for control descriptions?
-
Sounds like this needs to be taken to a new thread, as there is clearly some view-airing required on the subject of DIY organiser workload. I had no idea it was that onerous.
it's not :)
I generally do the paper bits once a week; the GPS ones as I get them; usually a half dozen a week. I rarely get NGR's as controls (benefits of living in the populated South). The ones that take the time are the ones where the route is just a little bit short or when there is a gert 3 lane A road parallel to the proposed route that is often shorter; especially as both AR and VM by bike generally try to route down these.
-
If via michelin is acceptable, there seem to be an automated way of doing a distance table:
ViaMichelin - JavaScript API V1 - Examples (http://dev.viamichelin.com/web/api-javascript/examples#itineraires-exemple2)
The place to place distance approach certainly addresses the issue.
Except for people who have reservations about precisely where a place is located.
'Cambridge'
for example.
But all this is data that is in the public domain and easily accessible - type 'Cambridge' into Gmaps and you get 52.202544, 0.131237.
If we were to agree do do it this way, there has to be some wiggle room on actual distance ridden. It's nearly 5km from here to Cherry Hinton which is one popular Cambridge control location.
So that wiggle room agreement isn't there - and then figures of 100m (in how far?) have been mentioned - even on a 100km that would be 0.1%, ridiculous.
That is only an issue for big cities which could be excluded from the mesh. You can always add places in the suburb, for instance Bristol could be covered with say Fishponds, Portishead and Almondsbury.
-
I've just spent half an hour plotting an entry for DIY by GPS, giving OS grid references for controls, to transfer to Autoroute so I can check it for distance.
As one of the rural idle rich, I am in the fortunate position of having the time, and I'm certainly not complaining. But I do agree with Francis that it can be very labour intensive, especially when proposed routes come up just a wee bit short: although I think organisers technically have the right simply to reject a too-short route, I've always tried to suggest ways of bringing a short route up to distance. But I also don't think that expecting organisers always to have the time "to thrash out any distance issues" is realistic. I had only about 90 DIYs to validate last year, and my AUK DIY mailbox had 1194 emails in the season just finished, but I know some organisers had a lot more than that.
I'm ok to do another year, until hopefully all these debate about AAA points, GPS validation, Autoroute etc are resolved, but I don't know if I'll be looking to do it for much longer than that.
And it's a great displacement activity, when I really should be decorating the bathroom. ;D
EDIT: What Zoom has just said: John's recent improvements to the recording and validation are a huge improvement on the earlier version.
A lot of effort would be removed if DIY organisers verified distance only after an event has been ridden.
Riders would have the best incentive possible to ensure that their event was long enough.
-
Sounds like this needs to be taken to a new thread, as there is clearly some view-airing required on the subject of DIY organiser workload. I had no idea it was that onerous.
it's not :)
I generally do the paper bits once a week; the GPS ones as I get them; usually a half dozen a week. I rarely get NGR's as controls (benefits of living in the populated South). The ones that take the time are the ones where the route is just a little bit short or when there is a gert 3 lane A road parallel to the proposed route that is often shorter; especially as both AR and VM by bike generally try to route down these.
Zoom is right, it's not usually that onerous, and to be fair, I've had very few entries giving NGRs as controls. The ones I struggle with are where, as Zoom says, the proposed route is shorter than it needs to be or the "shortest" is a Motorway. It's usually easy to suggest slight tweaks to bring it up to distance, especially if I know the area.
phil d asks what would make life easier for organisers? I can't speak for my colleagues but my biggest bugbear has been getting entries for new routes to be ridden at very short notice. I don't mind a bit of discussion about controls etc if I have time, I do get a bit stressed when I'm asked to verify a route that you are planning to ride tomorrow morning.
A lot of effort would be removed if DIY organisers verified distance only after an event has been ridden.
Riders would have the best incentive possible to ensure that their event was long enough.
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmZx9fdGv6-tw-ARBND7mhQ-ZzpWAWf2u6wt_QVfObvIGrDB-ijA) ;D
-
I do get a bit stressed when I'm asked to verify a route that you are planning to ride tomorrow morning.
That's really unreasonable - for someone to expect that kind of turnaround.
It's not happened often, but on the odd occasion I've ridden a route that was not previously OK'd, it was very much on the basis that the risk of non-validation was entirely mine.
Normally, I ask for an OK on a route without any kind of date mentioned. If I ride it before the OK - again, it's my risk.
I thought this was basic DIY stuff that folks understood. Obviously not!
-
[...I do get a bit stressed when I'm asked to verify a route that you are planning to ride tomorrow morning.
I make it quite clear, in those cases, that I won't be able to verify it and that it's the rider's responsibility to ensure it's up to scratch. In fact my blurb says
If you want me to check your route, send an email well in advance. I will endeavour to check it, but it remains your responsibility to ensure your route meets the criteria.
Rich and Martin have the same form of words as they're using my forms.
-
I wouldn't say that Autoroute is inaccurate but would seem to be the most miserly of the systems available. I think it might be a bit tight over certain types of terrain and in areas with a lot of junctions. Unfortuntely over long distances this will all add up, meaning a 205k in ViaMichelin can easily fall underdistance in Autoroute.
This does remind me of a conversation I had on a DIY once when I was explaining audaxing to someone. He asked if it's a long distance cycling thing, why do we always take the shortest route?
-
Rich and Martin have the same form of words as they're using my forms.
I've started pointing DIY entrants towards the AUK entry form (because it saves a bit of manual typing, and is then held on the AUK server) but still point them towards your site for buying cards and for ECE's :thumbsup:
on the subject of the online entry form; one rider has suggested he would like to keep his controls for a regular DIY somewhere and copy / paste them in as required; something for the future?
and for now; we no longer sell Virtual Brevet Cards as they no longer exist; it needs to say "buy validation for GPS DIY rides" :)
-
A lot of effort would be removed if DIY organisers verified distance only after an event has been ridden.
Riders would have the best incentive possible to ensure that their event was long enough.
This seems entirely sensible to me, provided I know the software being used and how it is being applied. Alas, from what I can tell, there is no consistency with a single organiser, let alone across different organisers. It does not inspire me with confidence when an organiser says I look at this bit of software, then I might look at that bit of software, then I might take into account something else.
Which is why, as I've said before, a dash of pragmatism wouldn't go amiss and it is a shame this appears to have vanished in recent years with the illusion that because there is a piece of software, absolute adherence to the regulations can be justified.
I mean, is it really so important if a ride is 195km rather than 200km? Can anyone hand on heart say 5km fundamentally changes the achievement of doing such a distance. All this palaver, when in reality it is fretting over whether someone might gain an extra 20 minutes or so on the bike.
-
I'm sorry Chris I shouldn't have come across so blunt.
He hasn't complained so far! :D
Maybe because
we thrash out any distance issues (not that there have been any).
I think Organiser workload is a different point though. By its very nature, a DIY route will always have to be checked and verified by the organiser. This doesn't have anything to do with accuracy of software.
Plenty of people have already indicated that they find Autoroute accurate. Consistency is the issue, Autoroute seems particularly lacking in it.
-
+1 about what a time vampire administering DIY is. It only takes a couple of slightly needy riders too, to soak up your entire evening. Most riders just get on with it, but a handful want to check and ask about everything.
There is nothing more galling too, than to find yourself trying to refine a route with a rider, who thinks nothing of spending an hour of your time on admin, to save themselves half an hour riding their bike.
-
The ones I struggle with are where, as Zoom says, the proposed route is shorter than it needs to be or the "shortest" is a Motorway.
For those that don't know, Autoroute has an 'Avoid Area' function. If AR is insisting on showing the shortest route as via a motorway (for example) zoom into the map to to show the joining junction, right click and 'select' an area including the junction, then right click on the framed area to get a submenu, select 'avoid area' then refresh the route directions.
HTH
-
:-\ Manotea, I have the 2007 version, and I can't find that feature, which would indeed be useful. Do you have a later edition, or am I missing something? I have to do a "join the dots" plot along what looks like the shortest non M'way route.
If I take it to the Route - More Options - Segments - Preferred Roads, and tell it I don't like motorways, it seems to go in a huff and propose totally absurd alternatives.
And Danial, thank you for saying much more succinctly what I was trying to express earlier: +1 about what a time vampire administering DIY is. It only takes a couple of slightly needy riders too, to soak up your entire evening. Most riders just get on with it, but a handful want to check and ask about everything.
-
It's certainly in AR05. On the map, create an area by holding down L button on the mouse and dragging, then R click within the box to see "avoid area" option
-
I've got AR2010 and Mappoint2004 which has the same UI as AR2004. The UI changed somewhere between.
In AR04 make sure you have selected the 'select' tool on the menu buttonbar (not the 'pan' tool) then left click/hold left button down to select the area, and then right click to get the sub menu. [AR10 doesnt have separate tools, just Left click for 'pan', right click 'for select'.]
If all else fails, try Help, "Avoid".
In AR4 we would set driving speeds for motorways to 0mph, other classes of road to 20mph and then set route options/segments to 'quickest'. That doesnt seem to work since the UI changed (where driving speeds for different road cats are set by sliders). Specifying quickest route seems to ignore the road speeds?!? You can acheive the desired effect in AR10 by setting segments to preferred roads and setting the road speeds for different types of preferred roads to knockout the motorways but I think it gives slightly different results to earlier versions of AR. The sliders make the whole process less precise. Anyways, approved practice seems to be to select shortest distance and knock out the motorways manually. A bit crap really. Or maybe its me doing it wrong.
-
This whole GPS thingy is very new and it bears repeating that I for one, and I'm sure many others, are extremely grateful for the time and effort that Danial and the various ride controllers have and continue to put into making it work.
I know that I have been among the culprits plaguing my local Controller with questions about this and that while it all beds down but I think I've now got a fairly good understanding of how it works (for me at least) with my particular Controller. At least he hasn't ceased diplomatic relations yet.
But one thing that strikes me from this and other associated threads here is that there is some distance to go before everyone "gets it" and I wonder if it would pay dividends for them in the long run if the various Controllers got together and agreed a common modus operandi and then published a collective FAQ, with do's and don't, as comprehensive as possible, on the AUK website, here and Yahoo chat group. It might at least cut down the number of times they have to explain the same things again and again to newbies, of which I confidently predict there will be a steady supply! Once some equilibrium has been established it will also be easier to recruit and train additional ride validators, so as to spread the no doubt increasing workload amongst more shoulders.
I would also say that fussing over exactitudes about various Autoroute versions and other minutiae is counter-productive and simply confuses the issue. The objective is to facilitate people getting out and riding long distances and it really is lunacy to get sniffy about whether or not a journey path falls 500m short of nominal on paper, especially given the (theoretical) shortfalls various well established calendar rides have "got away with" over the years.
-
...it really is lunacy to get sniffy about whether or not a journey path falls 500m short of nominal on paper, especially given the (theoretical) shortfalls various well established calendar rides have "got away with" over the years.
I take it you're referring to sniffy riders here?
-
...it really is lunacy to get sniffy about whether or not a journey path falls 500m short of nominal on paper, especially given the (theoretical) shortfalls various well established calendar rides have "got away with" over the years.
I take it you're referring to sniffy riders here?
I take to mean both riders and organisers. I agree with PP on this issue.
-
...it really is lunacy to get sniffy about whether or not a journey path falls 500m short of nominal on paper, especially given the (theoretical) shortfalls various well established calendar rides have "got away with" over the years.
I take it you're referring to sniffy riders here?
I'm thinking of various contributors who have expressed the view that if a proposed route falls short of nominal by x00 metres it's unconditionally ruled out; i.e. the rules are absolute, are sacrosanct and are more important than the ride. All I'm saying is that ride controllers should have the latitude to employ a bit of discretion. Be clear here; I'm not saying that if it's straightforward to tweak the controls a tad to get the distance up it shouldn't be done, even if it results in a slight overdistance. What I'm saying is that if a situation should arise for a rider where a safe and workable route comes out at 199.5km and the next best alternative is at least say, 220km, then allowing the ride is a lesser evil than prohibiting it and causing the rider not to ride at all.
In practice, I wonder if this is really an issue anyway, since with GPS it's pretty easy to fine tune the distance quite precisely. I'd expect it to be a possible problem only in remote areas which have very few roads to choose from.
And to return to the main thrust of my post, if there was a comprehensive "how-to" available, it could be explained with a bit more emphasis that riders are expected to submit routes that equal or exceed the minimum nominal, even if it means a degree of overdistance.
-
I did ask people to behave at the beginning... Please don't force me to delete the thread, there is useful stuff at the beginning!
-
...What I'm saying is that if a situation should arise for a rider where a safe and workable route comes out at 199.5km and the next best alternative is at least say, 220km, then allowing the ride is a lesser evil than prohibiting it and causing the rider not to ride at all...
No one's prohibiting anything. We're saying you'll earn points if you ride 200+km.
Might I squeeze in a quick plug for my Jan 29 event: 157km with no AAA points. The Glastonbury 100 miler.
-
No Ian, you may not squeeze in a quick plug for you Jan 29 event: 157km with no AAA points. The Glastonbury 100 miler. Nor will it go on Twitter already.
(Glad someone else picked up on using the word 'prohibit'.)
-
one thing that is absolutely true is that Autoroute has some wild errors;
I know this from having had my calendar event kicked out because AR thinks that private roads with footpaths (yes footpaths) are public roads. This is where dialogue between organiers and their Event Secs irons out these problems and compromise on shortest routes / info controls is arrived at.
-
I don't know if Autoroute is accurate. Well it will be but to what degree ? +-1% , +-2% ? I don't know. I do know that a route it planned, my version is 2005 IIRC, is within 0.5% of what my GPS recorded when I rode it. How accurate it all is in real lilfe I don't know, I haven't measured the route using a standardised measuring tool, and then it'll depend on my exact track
-
one thing that is absolutely true is that Autoroute has some wild errors;
I know this from having had my calendar event kicked out because AR thinks that private roads with footpaths (yes footpaths) are public roads. This is where dialogue between organiers and their Event Secs irons out these problems and compromise on shortest routes / info controls is arrived at.
Yes, but routing errors rather than measurement of distance errors. Which is why, as I said earlier, I always do a visual check.
-
You are saying you will earn points if you submit a route that Autoroute calculates to be 200+km.
I will see your pedantry, and raise it to nitpicky level 9, by this modification:
He's saying you will earn points if he says your route is at least 200km. Period. This judgement may or may not be based on Autoroute. He's the Organiser - and what he says, goes.
What you actually ride on the day is completely irrelevant.
-
He's saying you will earn points if he says your route is at least 200km. Period. This judgement may or may not be based on Autoroute. He's the Organiser - and what he says, goes.
this is true; but we are riders too, it's not very satisfactory to send riders massively overdistance when they only want to ride 200km. This is where we enter into a dialogue over the route; suggest slight alternative or extra controls in order to bring the route up to scratch. This is actually easy with AR as we can just scratch one control and lob another in and recalculate.
I consider this to be part of the service I should provide as a DIY org, but given enough notice and within reason.
-
[
...What I'm saying is that if a situation should arise for a rider where a safe and workable route comes out at 199.5km and the next best alternative is at least say, 220km, then allowing the ride is a lesser evil than prohibiting it and causing the rider not to ride at all...
No one's prohibiting anything. We're saying you'll earn points if you ride 200+km.
What Ian is saying is perfectly clear.
If you want to ride BR distances and have concerns about riding overdistance Perms, the way forward is to buy a GPS. That way you can ride from home and so include the distance from your house to the nearest co-op/ATM or wherever you would normally start/finish a ride to claim that elusive 500m to bring your route up to 200km 'Shortest Distance By Controls, except riding additional distance will no longer be an issue because you can now reposition/add additional controls as required to trim the overall 'on the road' route down to 200.5km, whatever, as you see fit.
ISTM this is the very behaviour he would discourage but so be it.
-
I'm thinking of various contributors who have expressed the view that if a proposed route falls short of nominal by x00 metres it's unconditionally ruled out; i.e. the rules are absolute, are sacrosanct and are more important than the ride.
The rules are what make it an Audax. If you want to ride your bike, just do it. If you want AUK points, read the rules.
Of course this thread was supposed to be about the accuracy of Autoroute, not all this other stuff that is being discussed in 3 other threads - sorry Panoramix.
-
The rules are what make it an Audax. If you want to ride your bike, just do it. If you want AUK points, read the rules.
Well said.
-
The ones I struggle with are where, as Zoom says, the proposed route is shorter than it needs to be or the "shortest" is a Motorway.
For those that don't know, Autoroute has an 'Avoid Area' function. If AR is insisting on showing the shortest route as via a motorway (for example) zoom into the map to to show the joining junction, right click and 'select' an area including the junction, then right click on the framed area to get a submenu, select 'avoid area' then refresh the route directions.
HTH
But don't DIY distances have to accept the shortest route, even if it is by motorway?
-
The ones I struggle with are where, as Zoom says, the proposed route is shorter than it needs to be or the "shortest" is a Motorway.
For those that don't know, Autoroute has an 'Avoid Area' function. If AR is insisting on showing the shortest route as via a motorway (for example) zoom into the map to to show the joining junction, right click and 'select' an area including the junction, then right click on the framed area to get a submenu, select 'avoid area' then refresh the route directions.
HTH
But don't DIY distances have to accept the shortest route, even if it is by motorway?
No - it's shortest route by bike.
-
here's a couple of foibles from my own event;
to get from Balcombe church to Brightwell Farm the shortest route by road is to go up to the top of Brantridge Lane; both AR and VM suggest you go up that track past Westup Farm and then down the private road past White House
Streetmap - Maps and directions for the whole of Great Britain (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=531500&y=130500&z=120&sv=balcombe&st=3&tl=Map+of+Balcombe,+West+Sussex)+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
and here; Ditchling to Streat; not via the road but via Hayleigh Farm;
all sorted via a couple of emails with Jackie P :)
Streetmap - Maps and directions for the whole of Great Britain (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533500&y=113500&z=120&sv=westmeston&st=3&tl=Map+of+Westmeston,+East+Sussex)+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
so in addition to a GPS a copy of AR or just a bit of time on VM would solve a lot of these problems
-
here's a couple of foibles from my own event;
to get from Balcombe church to Brightwell Farm the shortest route by road is to go up to the top of Brantridge Lane; both AR and VM suggest you go up that track past Westup Farm and then down the private road past White House
Streetmap - Maps and directions for the whole of Great Britain (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=531500&y=130500&z=120&sv=balcombe&st=3&tl=Map+of+Balcombe,+West+Sussex)+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
and here; Ditchling to Streat; not via the road but via Hayleigh Farm;
all sorted via a couple of emails with Jackie P :)
Streetmap - Maps and directions for the whole of Great Britain (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533500&y=113500&z=120&sv=westmeston&st=3&tl=Map+of+Westmeston,+East+Sussex)+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
so in addition to a GPS a copy of AR or just a bit of time on VM would solve a lot of these problems
Zoom:
Sorry, but I can't piece together all the bits of your puzzle. It looks to me like you're saying that AR's shortest route in the first case is a bridleway on the OS map (so legal for a bicycle).
This seems like a whole separate sub-issue; it's my view that we should only be required to use public roads - if we find a cycle-track or usable bridleway shortcut, that's just a bonus :) [unless it's a Ruff Stuff event!] If the official position is different, fair enough, but it makes this stuff more complicated.
(Yes, I'm aware that a lot of calendar events use cycle-tracks, and loads of DIY's will have used the Severn Bridge "shortcut" along the side of a motorway - commonsense has to be applied at some point ;) )
-
Zoom: Sorry, but I can't piece together all the bits of your puzzle. It looks to me like you're saying that AR's shortest route in the first case is a bridleway on the OS map (so legal for a bicycle).
This seems like a whole separate sub-issue; it's my view that we should only be required to use public roads - if we find a cycle-track or usable bridleway shortcut, that's just a bonus :) [unless it's a Ruff Stuff event!] If the official position is different, fair enough, but it makes this stuff more complicated.
(Yes, I'm aware that a lot of calendar events use cycle-tracks, and loads of DIY's will have used the Severn Bridge "shortcut" along the side of a motorway - commonsense has to be applied at some point ;) )
Some of the most 'fun' bits of an Audax are where you turn off the public highway to take some hidden shortcut, ref: 'The Hole in the Hedge' manouvre in Maidenhead on the Willy Warmer, and I hardly think AR/VM would voluntarily send you across the river crossing at Hambleden Lock on the SBWW.
That's the other side of the GPS coin, I guess. Such 'short cuts' would be invisible to a regular Brevidence perm and a GPS perm at the route validation stage, but might well cause the final submitted GPS track to come up short unless the rider had allowed for it.
I'd agree that there can be no requirement/expectation that riders will use 'off road' shortcuts which may be shorter but not necessaily faster (anybody who has taken a 'short cut' over a gert big hill can vouch for that).
-
This seems like a whole separate sub-issue; it's my view that we should only be required to use public roads - if we find a cycle-track or usable bridleway shortcut, that's just a bonus :)
But that's an OS map link; AR should not list bridleways as it's a driving programme ???
my point was that whoever compiled AR did not have an up to date list of actual roads, and obvious errors like this need to be pointed out. But the onus is on the rider, not the DIY org.
-
This seems like a whole separate sub-issue; it's my view that we should only be required to use public roads - if we find a cycle-track or usable bridleway shortcut, that's just a bonus :)
But that's an OS map link; AR should not list bridleways as it's a driving programme ???
my point was that whoever compiled AR did not have an up to date list of actual roads, and obvious errors like this need to be pointed out. But the onus is on the rider, not the DIY org.
Ah, righty-ho. I think we're in agreement then.
So what this example shows is that AR is probably spot-on at measuring distance - unfortunately it may not always pick an appropriate route to measure!
-
More likely a one-way street or no-right-turn.
-
my Jan 29 event: 157km with no AAA points. The Glastonbury 100 miler.
IRONY!! I saw what you did there.
-
so in addition to a GPS a copy of AR or just a bit of time on VM would solve a lot of these problems
And a copy of Windows and a computer to run it on.
-
so in addition to a GPS a copy of AR or just a bit of time on VM would solve a lot of these problems
And a copy of Windows and a computer to run it on.
if you want Mac based cycling you'll need to ride a sportive :)
-
;D
-
I am aware of a DIY route that was submitted and agreed @ 203k. When the rider came to submit the same ride but in the opposite direction he was told it only measured 201k. Not a problem and both rides were done.
They were "circular" routes rather than out and backs measured on the same copy of AR. So does AR have something in it that treats the same route ridden anticlockwise from one ridden clockwise.
1-way systems and even large roundabouts will contribute to this effect.
This is why I think its rather unfortunate that the accumulated wisdom when using Google Maps for distance-checking is to switch it to 'Walking' mode - which gives slightly under-distance results.
Driving mode and 'avoid highways' and 'show alternatives' is the best way to use Google Maps IMO.
There is (or will be) a Cycling mode but that won't be much use to us - think of it as a Sustrans mode ...
And Google Maps is cross-platform, and I honestly feel is far superior to Autoroute in every way, I just wish the powers that be would make this the officially-sanctioned tool.
-
... So does AR have something in it that treats the same route ridden anticlockwise from one ridden clockwise.
1-way systems and even large roundabouts will contribute to this effect.
This is why I think its rather unfortunate that the accumulated wisdom when using Google Maps for distance-checking is to switch it to 'Walking' mode - which gives slightly under-distance results.
Driving mode and 'avoid highways' and 'show alternatives' is the best way to use Google Maps IMO.
As a rider I use "Walking" precisely because it often under-reads!
(A-road junctions with limited access will also contribute - I guess they are effectively big no-entries.)
-
I am aware of a DIY route that was submitted and agreed @ 203k. When the rider came to submit the same ride but in the opposite direction he was told it only measured 201k. Not a problem and both rides were done.
They were "circular" routes rather than out and backs measured on the same copy of AR. So does AR have something in it that treats the same route ridden anticlockwise from one ridden clockwise.
1-way systems and even large roundabouts will contribute to this effect.
This is why I think its rather unfortunate that the accumulated wisdom when using Google Maps for distance-checking is to switch it to 'Walking' mode - which gives slightly under-distance results.
Driving mode and 'avoid highways' and 'show alternatives' is the best way to use Google Maps IMO.
There is (or will be) a Cycling mode but that won't be much use to us - think of it as a Sustrans mode ...
And Google Maps is cross-platform, and I honestly feel is far superior to Autoroute in every way, I just wish the powers that be would make this the officially-sanctioned tool.
I like Google maps and use it alot. Driving Mode Avoiding Highways is quite rubbish. It will NOT make a route over the A15 across the Humber Bridge despite it being and A road. It avoid the A64 too.
Google Maps (http://www.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=york&daddr=tadcaster+to:Richmond,+North+Yorkshire+to:stokesley+to:Church+St%2FB1257+to:Beverley,+East+Riding+of+Yorkshire,+UK+to:Gainsborough+to:Bawtry+Rd%2FB6045+to:thorne+to:york&hl=en&geocode=FUZUNwMdUnzv_ynxZZjhQMN4SDHR5FSKiat0Rw%3BFZowNgMdGLfs_ymTOcB5izd5SDEzDxfrLa-qBA%3BFTwoPgMdSYDl_ylZNEUQMRR8SDGwGzkuwbtA1Q%3BFXIkPwMdS8nt_ymNK4bPnOl-SDGg3CoW8QN4cA%3BFWy-OwMdcsbv_w%3BFa-cNQMddFj5_ylZxYPYL7h4SDF7_BVN2_Lspw%3BFVvaLgMdTij0_ykFHdtVFVR4SDFpsjYSi2WwgA%3BFQR6LgMd8Mrv_w%3BFXYRMgMdTEfx_yn3yd9lRRp5SDHHWRGGqbay-A%3BFUZUNwMdUnzv_ynxZZjhQMN4SDHR5FSKiat0Rw&mra=ls&dirflg=h&doflg=ptk&sll=54.001312,-1.126099&sspn=1.911469,5.817261&ie=UTF8&z=8)
EDIT: I take it back, by pulling the route to the middle of the bridge Google kindly permits it. Thank heavens for GPS control proof of passage because there is nothing in the middle of the bridge for a stamp or receipt !!!!! and going via Goole is a huge detour, (just notice Goole and Google are similar)
-
something that's just been pointed out to me;
viamichelin now allows 5 intermediate points to be placed into a route and also allows cycle routes over 200km.
I would propose that viamichelin therefore becomes the new standard for riders and DIY orgs to measure minimum distances with 7 controls or less as it does not require snazzy up to date programmes; and enables a pre-defined route by controls to be emailed :thumbsup:
-
something that's just been pointed out to me;
viamichelin now allows 5 intermediate points to be placed into a route and also allows cycle routes over 200km.
Have you tried it though? Seems to be broken.
It fails for me when I try to add a 2nd intermediate point, it comes up with an error that 'pedestrian routes calculated by via michelin cannot exceed 50km' (yes, I'd selected cycle mode but it seems to forget that then prevent me from switching to cycling mode at all).
-
something that's just been pointed out to me;
viamichelin now allows 5 intermediate points to be placed into a route and also allows cycle routes over 200km.
Have you tried it though? Seems to be broken.
hmm; it alowed me to put 7 northbound LEL controls in, but would not allow it by cycle, only shortest (which included motorways) but it did allow a 205km cycle route.