should gps be allowed for perms?

[Greenbank]

The "special secret AUK software" doesn't need to be secret.

Just make sure people know that the software will be improved upon over time and previous files rechecked against the new version. Anyone found cheating gets dealt with accordingly.

In other words, you might be able to sneak something past it now, but that may come back and bite you at some point in the future.

[Martin]

TBH I can't see the point of rolling out the validation software to anyone other than DIY orgs and the AAA Man until such a time that perms might become avaiable for gps validation; it just increases the risk of it getting hacked. It also only analyses actual ridden tracks so is not much use for planning and checking calendar or perm events; Bikely and Autoroute are much better for that.

[Greenbank]

TBH I can't see the point of rolling out the validation software to anyone other than DIY orgs and the AAA Man;

Oh I agree, but I disagree with the idea that it must be kept utterly secret just in case, if it does get into the wild, it somehow makes it any easier for people to cheat (especially in the long term).

To put it another way, it would be impossible to produce a system that was completely impossible to fool. There will always be a way of producing a likely looking GPX file by hand (such as gluing together bits from rides done over several days for example and adjusting the dates).

But the amount of effort required to produce distinct plausible fakes time and time again is much more work than it is to get in your car (or train) and cheat your way round an existing DIY/Perms.

[ian_oli]

The "special secret AUK software" doesn't need to be secret.

Is the secret of the secret Software that, in the best tradition of the plots of Spooks, it does not really exist. I think we won't be told . 

[frankly frankie]

All this is supposition based on a wrong premise.  The software is not 'secret', it's just restricted. 
There are only very few people who have any need for it at this time.  If other Orgs secure an agreement to validate gpx files on AUK's behalf, not only would they be handed the software, but they would be absolutely required to use it, I should think.  (Using other methods of checking as has been suggested earlier in the thread would be a waste of the Org's time and not so reliable, and generally give gpx validation a bad name.)
So, the way things are going, it will soon become common property I should think.

[Euan Uzami]

TBH I can't see the point of rolling out the validation software to anyone other than DIY orgs and the AAA Man;

Oh I agree, but I disagree with the idea that it must be kept utterly secret just in case, if it does get into the wild, it somehow makes it any easier for people to cheat (especially in the long term).

To put it another way, it would be impossible to produce a system that was completely impossible to fool. There will always be a way of producing a likely looking GPX file by hand (such as gluing together bits from rides done over several days for example and adjusting the dates).

But the amount of effort required to produce distinct plausible fakes time and time again is much more work than it is to get in your car (or train) and cheat your way round an existing DIY/Perms.

Only if you hand-craft the gpx file every time. It obviously opens up the whole "but why would  you want to cheat" debate, but you could write a piece of software to produce a 'realistic' GPX file. One way that comes to mind would be to plot a small section of the route (or any route), then ride that small route, compare the two to produce a randomisation  (or "realisticisation") heuristic, then extrapolate that to apply to the whole route. With a bit of fine tuning it's not long before you've essentially got something into which you can feed in a bikehike plotted gpx route at one end, and get a 'realistic' tracklog output at the other.
Once you've got that set up, it strikes me as a lot less work than cheating by driving.
It may be that the gps checking software could be beefed up to spot this, but you have effectively then
started an arms race, and you wouldn't want to have the checking software produce false negatives as that really would piss people off.

It has to be said though that the whole of the above is purely a thought experiment on the intricacies that the desire for gps validation throws up.
As has been said, there really is absolutely no point. I'm almost of the viewpoint that cheating is not only pointless, but so pointless that it essentially renders going to a lot of effort to prevent it slightly pointless, as well - but i'm aware that if that policy was based on that opinion then it  may have undesirable consequences. As it happens i think auk strikes a good balance.

[Euan Uzami]

The "special secret AUK software" doesn't need to be secret.

Is the secret of the secret Software that, in the best tradition of the plots of Spooks, it does not really exist. I think we won't be told .  

maybe on the contrary - far from being that  "it" doesn't exist, but that "it" is in fact a "they"... i.e. there is not only one but several... (pure speculation obviously.)

[Euan Uzami]

...  The software is not 'secret', it's just restricted....

but its source presumably is, as if it was open source it would essentially render itself pointless...

[Martin]

The "special secret AUK software" doesn't need to be secret.

Is the secret of the secret Software that, in the best tradition of the plots of Spooks, it does not really exist. I think we won't be told .  

maybe on the contrary - far from being that  "it" doesn't exist, but that "it" is in fact a "they"... i.e. there is not only one but several... (pure speculation obviously.)

it does exist; I've just validated 3 rides with it.
there may be several versions of it; it does the job admirably but there's always room for improvement...

[Euan Uzami]

The "special secret AUK software" doesn't need to be secret.

Is the secret of the secret Software that, in the best tradition of the plots of Spooks, it does not really exist. I think we won't be told .  

maybe on the contrary - far from being that  "it" doesn't exist, but that "it" is in fact a "they"... i.e. there is not only one but several... (pure speculation obviously.)

it does exist; I've just validated 3 rides with it.
there may be several versions of it; it does the job admirably but there's always room for improvement...

It would be interesting to test it to destruction by pitting it against its counterpart.

[MSeries]

I think this should work from the lowest common denominator principle.

DIY by GPS has changed this already. It's possible for me to use DIY by GPS to do DIY rides that aren't possible without a GPS (i.e. with the existing system of controls requiring proof-of-passage) since it makes it possible to guarantee proof-of-passage in places where it would be impossible to obtain it otherwise.

My only worry is that people without a GPS will lose out because the required effort isn't put in to make new 'traditional' Perms because so many people are just using the GPS method.

Greenbank makes good points here, ones that I would support. I got a GPS to do DIY perms with so I don't have to go overdistance to get a proof of passage.

The question is about validation for perms,  so lets keep it at that. Perms still ought to have some sort of routesheet that are usuable by all riders and proofs of passage that are obtainable by all riders. If the org is prepared to accept a track for validation, then why not? If he is offers some sort of GPS file to supplement the route sheet then that'll work too, many do already, including me, but we should never excude riders who do use GPSs from doing an perm.

In practice, AUK lays down the format of the file to be submitted, GPX is a good one to use since most GPS devices and associated software can use it, it's simple, available and easy to understand. This defines which coordinate system, time formats, time zones etc. and contains all the information needed to show that a rider passed a certain place at a certain time.

[PloddinPedro]

I think Mr. N is correct to say that we should perhaps stick to the point - Zoom's original posting asked if GPS validation should be allowed for Permanents and looking at the poll results so far, it appears the majority of respondents say yes.

However, at the risk of going over ground already trodden I do think it's useful to expand the question a bit, in the way that some posts already have, to address the theoretical question: "would it be acceptable if an Organiser proposed a new Permanent for which he/she provided only a .gpx file and no written routesheet?"

For the purpose of debate, if we put aside for the moment the issue of what the current Regulations say (because they were written when the option didn't exist and thus haven't addressed the question) I imagine the discussion would come from two different directions:-

(a) since riders without GPS would effectively be excluded, would such a development be "fair"?

(b) this should be permitted because it expands the total opportunities for riders to get out and do "long distance cycling" which is precisely why AUK exists.

My view is that (b) should prevail, on the grounds that it favours the maximum number of AUK members (only a small numerical proportion being interested/eligible for the "competitive" aspect) it would encourage the initiation of more new rides and best meets the objective of encouraging long distance riding.

What about the point that traditional Permanents would see a decline in participation as riders switch to GPS? I think this will be inevitable anyway, as riders who are so minded will equip themselves with GPS for the purpose of doing DIY rides and if like me they find this method so favourable that they gradually decline to do rides which are guided only by paper routesheets, they won't be doing the traditional paper only Permanents anyway.

I feel that allowing Permanents to be established on a GPS only basis would expand the library of rides available. I have been doing quite a bit more riding on a DIY basis in East Anglia since the inception of GPS validation and I'm contemplating the notion of eventually putting them into the public domain for others to use if interested. But this won't be so likely to happen if I have to produce paper routesheets (not because I'm opposed in principle but because it would take so much more time to do so.)

The whole GPS thing is so new to AUK that the recent developments probably should be given time to bed down before there is any rush to go mad with it but it would be informative to debate whether GPS-only Permanents are something we should consider getting established in the future, yes?

[MSeries]

Certainly some perms could be improved by removing the need to make detours just to get a control. The removal of info controls has meant that some routes need to make such irritating detours. Savvy perm organisers would offer both a routesheet and a track if they wanted to keep the business and not see their perms go into decline.  They just need to ask a rider for a track and get some software to validate future riders tracks. I could write some software to ensure a track goes 'close enough to' some predetermines points and I am prepared to do this. We can't insist that a rider follows a predefined route only that he passes close enough to certain places so with this in mind, even GPS perms need a list of 'controls' but they could be a junction with nothing other than a set of coordinates to identify it. Perm organisers thus don't need to be GPS users themselves, just computer users.

[PloddinPedro]

..... Savvy perm organisers would offer both a routesheet and a track ........ just need to ask a rider for a track and get some software to validate future riders tracks.

Agreed it could perhaps be done that way but I contemplate a system whereby Permanents are validated by Controllers in the same way as DIY rides are currently being done i.e. a Controller for a geographical area. This would likely require an increase in the number of "officials" (don't panic, Martin!) so as to spread the load but would avoid the need for individual Permanent Organisers to become more digitally trained and would maintain a uniform software set for the validation of all GPS evidenced rides.

.... We can't insist that a rider follows a predefined route only that he passes close enough to certain places so with this in mind, even GPS perms need a list of 'controls' but they could be a junction with nothing other than a set of coordinates to identify it.

Yes, just as DIYs are being done now.

Perm organisers thus don't need to be GPS users themselves, just computer users.

Agreed; this fits in with my comment above, I think.

[Ian H]

For perms, there's no actual requirement to provide a routesheet. At minimum it's a list of controls.

[PloddinPedro]

For perms, there's no actual requirement to provide a routesheet. At minimum it's a list of controls.

Noted, but in reality, are there many Perms that don't come with a routesheet? That's not a counter point, I just don't know!

[Billy Weir]

For perms, there's no actual requirement to provide a routesheet. At minimum it's a list of controls.

I get confused by this because, when setting up new perms, a route sheet is requested amongst the documents you have to submit.  The implication being it is (at least) preferred that you provide a route sheet.

[Greenbank]

The "special secret AUK software" doesn't need to be secret.

Is the secret of the secret Software that, in the best tradition of the plots of Spooks, it does not really exist. I think we won't be told .  

maybe on the contrary - far from being that  "it" doesn't exist, but that "it" is in fact a "they"... i.e. there is not only one but several... (pure speculation obviously.)

it does exist; I've just validated 3 rides with it.
there may be several versions of it; it does the job admirably but there's always room for improvement...

It would be interesting to test it to destruction by pitting it against its counterpart.

That's what I intend to do. If only I find the time to do it...

[frankly frankie]

Perhaps AUK should offer a prize, to the first person to demonstrate a procedure that can reliably defeat their software.  I'm not holding my breath.  (Not counting simple datestamp substitution on a previously-ridden track, of course.)

[Billy Weir]

Perhaps AUK should offer a prize, to the first person to demonstrate a procedure that can reliably defeat their software.  I'm not holding my breath.  (Not counting simple datestamp substitution on a previously-ridden track, of course.)

Date stamp substitution+small random fluctation or stitching together previously ridden tracks is the way I would start to pull together a cheat track, if I were so minded.

Strikes me there is no need for anything more fancy, given that the only time I can see this being of any "use" is where someone is going for a trophy and needs only a couple of extra points a month.  In other words, ride hard for part of the year and then combine these/modify these towards the end of the season or simply recycle tracks from previous years.