should gps be allowed for perms?

[Martin]

as subject line; seems we are dealing with 3 different types of ride (perms; DIYs, DIY's by gps) which direction would we like to see gps validation go?

[The Seldom Killer]

Before I vote on this, are there any reasons anyone has why Perms shouldn't be validated by gps files?

[mattc]

There are a number of reasons; we've discussed them at length at least twice, here is a sample:

On the counter point, it biases awards and trophies towards those who can take advantage of the technology.  Or who can come up with more "intelligent" routes than another audaxer (admittedly a current consideration with non-GPS DIYs as well).

[I'm still on the fence about this, but I think it's going ahead without me so ... <gallic shrug> ... ]

[Jaded]

"On the counter point, it biases awards and trophies towards those who can take advantage of the technology."

As opposed to biasing them against those that have families and other things going on in their lives that stop them from being free every weekend.

[mikewigley]

as subject line; seems we are dealing with 3 different types of ride; which direction would we like to see gps validation go?

I'm not against GPS files for Perm events, it's just that I don't have the know how to accept them for the series of Perm events I run.  I guess I'm not alone

[mattc]

Just for Jaded:

AUK has always been weighted heavily in favour of the retired/non-working with no family ties.

TBH I don't really get this point - it seems to be arguing in favour of perms (and I certainly agree with it in that respect), but does not affect how we should validate them. (hope that makes sense!)

[Jaded]

I'm nothing if not consistent. 

[The Seldom Killer]

I think this should work from the lowest common denominator principle. Anyone should be able to do a perm luddite style. Adding GPS validation doesn't bias in favour of those who are making use of technology, it simply accomodates those that prefer to. Therefore validation by GPS should only be an additional option on Perms, not a standard. I'm not going to suggest that organisers only wanting to set up Perms for GPSers are lazy, but it certainly lacks the necessary inclusiveness.

Of course once you've agreed to accept Perms by GPS, then you pretty much have opened the door for calendar rides by GPS as well. That might throw up a few problems itself.

[PloddinPedro]

as subject line; seems we are dealing with 3 different types of ride; which direction would we like to see gps validation go?

Not quite sure how the third one would work. Are we saying that all Permanent rides that are validated by GPS should be available in a database for anyone to inspect both the route and the "result"? And what exactly is the "result"? The time taken by each participant? Named riders?

And why just Permanents validated by GPS as opposed to those validated by the paper based method? Or are the latter visible somewhere and I just haven't come across them?

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, just not quite certain what's involved. I'm certainly in favour of validation by GPS as a general principle. I don't accept the arguments floated about it being "unfair" - Audax isn't about "competition" (for the vast majority of us) it's all about encouraging people to ride long distances. If you do want to concern yourself about the small percentage who are in it for awards, then there's a whole raft of "uneven playiing field" already inherent in the traditional paper system, as we have discussed on this forum elsewhere, from "it's easier down south because of the weather" to " there's more events in xxx parts of the country", " it's much flatter/windier where the other guy lives" and "I have to work all week, he's retired and can ride every day", etc., etc.

Are there any other reasons why Perms shouldn't be validated by GPS if the Organiser is willing to equip himself/go through the learning process to do so?

[mattc]

Are there any other reasons why Perms shouldn't be validated by GPS if the Organiser is willing to equip himself/go through the learning process to do so?

The C word.  

p.s. I've just noticed the lack of a key voting option:
No - even DIYs-by-GPS are a travesty!          

[Martin]

as subject line; seems we are dealing with 3 different types of ride; which direction would we like to see gps validation go?

Not quite sure how the third one would work. Are we saying that all Permanent rides that are validated by GPS should be available in a database for anyone to inspect both the route and the "result"? And what exactly is the "result"? The time taken by each participant? Named riders?

No not at all just have a link somewhere (the AUK website seems the obvious place) where AUK members can put e.g. "here's a nice 200; stops at this and that cafe, a bit lumpy, Bikely route is here (linky) if you are interested"

I'm not against GPS files for Perm events, it's just that I don't have the know how to accept them for the series of Perm events I run.  I guess I'm not alone

completely aggree; which is why any decision to allow gps perms needs to take into account those organisers who cannot offer them

[kcass]

Of course once you've agreed to accept Perms by GPS, then you pretty much have opened the door for calendar rides by GPS as well. That might throw up a few problems itself.

Really? I can't see why any organiser would agree to the possibility of having to wade through 100 GPX files in the weeks after his/her ride as opposed having everything checked off on the day as it is at the moment.

In the event of a lost brevet card or lost receipt maybe.

[phil d]

... just have a link somewhere (the AUK website seems the obvious place) where AUK members can put e.g. "here's a nice 200; stops at this and that cafe, a bit lumpy, Bikely route is here (linky) if you are interested"

Which would be great.  Why not see if the current perms that are listed could do this.   

[phil d]

Of course once you've agreed to accept Perms by GPS, then you pretty much have opened the door for calendar rides by GPS as well. That might throw up a few problems itself.

Really? I can't see why any organiser would agree to the possibility of having to wade through 100 GPX files in the weeks after his/her ride as opposed having everything checked off on the day as it is at the moment.

In the event of a lost brevet card or lost receipt maybe.

Speaking both as a rider of GPS perms and the organiser of a calendar event, I would far rather the whole idea of GPS verification be dropped rather than widening it to include calendar events.

But I see no reason why that should be necessary - the whole basis of calendar rides is different.

[Billy Weir]

If some permanent organisers choose not to offer GPS validation (either through preference or capability) then so be it.  It just means that some riders will choose not to do their ride.

Personally, I'm more than happy to accept GPS files and would do as a matter of course.  It's just that, other than my End to End permanent, there is currently no dispensation to do so and to automatically have the ride validated.  I am anticipating this will change at some point in the future to make things easier for both riders and organisers who are GPS savvy.

My currently positive view might change when (as will almost certainly happen) riders bitch and moan that the official AAA points don't agree with the GPS climb figures and "why should they lose out when they could have gotten more by doing it as a DIY by GPS".  Something for the AAA man to worry about though.  My response will be to rub my fingers together, as I'll be playing a sad tune of the world's smallest violin...

[perpetual dan]

as subject line; seems we are dealing with 3 different types of ride; which direction would we like to see gps validation go?

Not quite sure how the third one would work. Are we saying that all Permanent rides that are validated by GPS should be available in a database for anyone to inspect both the route and the "result"? And what exactly is the "result"? The time taken by each participant? Named riders?

No not at all just have a link somewhere (the AUK website seems the obvious place) where AUK members can put e.g. "here's a nice 200; stops at this and that cafe, a bit lumpy, Bikely route is here (linky) if you are interested"

Which I imagine is a bit like proposing a perm, except that there's no brevet cards, no risk assessment, and all the subsequent effort goes to the DIY org. Put like that it seems less desirable, which is a shame as I rather liked the idea of a "good rides" database when I read it earlier.

[Greenbank]

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]

... just have a link somewhere (the AUK website seems the obvious place) where AUK members can put e.g. "here's a nice 200; stops at this and that cafe, a bit lumpy, Bikely route is here (linky) if you are interested"

Which would be great.  Why not see if the current perms that are listed could do this.   

I'm quite happy to contribute to a group effort to 'digitise' existing Perms.

With the permission of the Perm organiser one would:
a) buy an entry/routesheet (I'd cover the cost myself if necessary, I may even ride it one day! ) Or the Perm organiser can send them in bulk (with no Brevet card).
b) come up with a suitable one or two line description for the website giving a quick outline of the route and controls
c) note any special conditions in discussion with organiser (can be done in reverse, can be started from any control, ...)
d) if agreed with the organiser, put up an appropriate GPX file
e) optionally act as email address 'gateway' for organisers that aren't online
f)  keep it updated as the organisers adapt the route or have changes forced on them (controls changing)

[Billy Weir]

GB, given AUK already has the facility to upload GPX tracklogs to individual events, my suggestion is that organisers should first be encouraged to improve the information about their rides as listed on the permanents page of the AUK website.  Personally, I'd rather have all of the information relevant to a ride on the website or easily obtainable by clicking on a web link from the event page.

Some organisers are already showing how it can be done.  For example Ian Hennessey; it was really easy to get quite comprehensive information about his permanent events by clicking on the link to his website.  Likewise some other events I've done this year.

When I ride a permanent event for which a tracklog is not available, I will tend to offer it to the organiser.  Then at least they will have a track they can email riders on request.

[Martin]

... just have a link somewhere (the AUK website seems the obvious place) where AUK members can put e.g. "here's a nice 200; stops at this and that cafe, a bit lumpy, Bikely route is here (linky) if you are interested"

Which would be great.  Why not see if the current perms that are listed could do this.  

and of course the vital bit;

"the controls for this ride are X Y and Z and the minimum distance between them has been agreed as 200 and something km"

"On the counter point, it biases awards and trophies towards those who can take advantage of the technology."

but GPS DIY perms already do that

and all the subsequent effort goes to the DIY org. Put like that it seems less desirable, which is a shame as I rather liked the idea of a "good rides" database when I read it earlier

shudder; I don't really want all the SE perms that are currently ridden to become GPS ones and drop on my doormat / inbox,

so maybe have more perm organisers (some by gpx, some not) rather than have them all centralised as DIY's?

as an example; a well respected Resident of This Parish has suggested that his calendar events be available as perms; by the current system they are not as they contain infos in parts bereft of cashpoints and Co-ops and would have to be submitted as DIY's through someone with nothing better to do (whistles); if they were available as GPS perms the Resident could handle all the entries  

[Exit Stage Left]

What's to stop me putting all my club mates' GPS's into my saddlebag instead of them having the faff of riding around in a group, when they could be doing a bit of gardening, or standing at a barbecue, beer in hand.

[border-rider]

What's to stop you collecting n sets of receipts, or you all riding on mopeds and spending delicious amounts of time in cafes ? GPS validation would at least preclude that

[Exit Stage Left]

What's to stop you collecting n sets of receipts, or you all riding on mopeds and spending delicious amounts of time in cafes ?

That's why events were invented.

[Martin]

What's to stop you collecting n sets of receipts, or you all riding on mopeds and spending delicious amounts of time in cafes ?

That's why events were invented.

yes but down here my next local calendar 200 is err early February ( late January if I travel up to Chalfont) so I'll be ECE'ing and Perming around the Christmas Tree


(which will make a change from last year  )

[mikewigley]

Really? I can't see why any organiser would agree to the possibility of having to wade through 100 GPX files in the weeks after his/her ride as opposed having everything checked off on the day as it is at the moment.

Me neither.  It sounds as if it could take hours for a process that currently takes seconds - the finish controller simply checks that all the boxes have been filled in and that the rider arrived before the finish control closed