Post by: Jon+1bike on 08 May, 2019, 09:33:47 pm
I have to use computer/gpx due to mental issues, PTSD means I forget what I read, almost immediately plus get stressed!
Is it possible, that someone can organise a section in this website, for all Audax rides to be listed with a gpx file? Is it something that anyone else, would find helpful or offensive!?
Would the organisers, that do so much already, find it helpful?
If I was capable, I would try to do it, but its not likely.
Post by: Manotea on 08 May, 2019, 10:35:51 pm
Seems at least as worthy as some of the other filter options implemented recently.
Post by: Jon+1bike on 09 May, 2019, 12:02:45 am
Post by: Kim on 09 May, 2019, 12:16:52 am
I have to use computer/gpx due to mental issues, PTSD means I forget what I read, almost immediately plus get stressed!
Seems like an excellent reason. In my experience of trying to navigate with routesheets, I find that once I'm a decent way into a ride, I suffer from a sort of placename-specific aphasia. I much prefer a map, as I can hold the shape of a road in my head more reliably, and of course a GPS receiver offloads all that entirely.
I expect the feature could also be useful if you want to do mandatory-route ECEs and things.
Post by: phil d on 09 May, 2019, 05:01:24 pm
So while I support the request that gpx files become a standard part of the audax offering (you don't have to use them if you prefer the "purist" approach of following the routesheet), I think it is necessary to clearly define what the format should be.
Eg tcx or gpx (I can't use tcx, but can convert), route or track, single track or segments, max number of trackpoints? And I'm sure there are other factors I haven't thought of. Some organisers provide a tracklog, presumably of their test ride, with thousands of trackpoints. Is that sufficient for riders to work with? I've never used a gps device to provide navigation detail (just follow a breadcrumb track) - does navigation require something more?
If anyone tells me that the gpx file I provide for Upper Thames is no longer fit for purpose, I'd be happy to change it. Provided it would suit all riders.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 09 May, 2019, 05:06:17 pm
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Kim on 09 May, 2019, 05:23:00 pm
Eg tcx or gpx (I can't use tcx, but can convert), route or track, single track or segments, max number of trackpoints? And I'm sure there are other factors I haven't thought of. Some organisers provide a tracklog, presumably of their test ride, with thousands of trackpoints. Is that sufficient for riders to work with? I've never used a gps device to provide navigation detail (just follow a breadcrumb track) - does navigation require something more?
IMHO a sensible common denominator is a GPX file containing a single Track with enough trackpoints to represent the route in sufficient detail. Users of old devices can downsample/split it to meet their needs. Those who want to hand-craft[1] a Route for turn-by-turn directions (which by its nature is device-map-specific and not something an organiser can usefully provide) can use it as a template/backup. I'd chuck in some Waypoints with accurate positions for controls and infos, with the assumption that some cycling-specific devices may just ignore them, and they don't always make it through a given toolchain.
Linking to something like ridewithgps is nice for people who want to see the ride on a map ahead of the ride, possibly even at the deciding-whether-to-enter stage. Personally, I'd still email a out GPX file along with the routesheet, so you're not relying on a third party service to not go down the evening before the event.
[1] The only way to make a Route than an eTrex will follow at all predictably in turn-by-turn mode is to create it in Mapsource/Basecamp using the same map that's on the device. You still have to check the routing on the device itself, because in their infinite wisdom, Garmin's devs thought it was a good idea to implement a different algorithm on the desktop software. This makes the whole thing a horrendous faff, but one that can be worthwhile if you have trouble reading the GPS screen while you're on the bike.
Post by: lmm on 09 May, 2019, 06:18:38 pm
Please don't rely on RideWithGPS though - it seems to want me to subscribe before I can download anything.
Post by: jiberjaber on 09 May, 2019, 06:51:27 pm
I really appreciate it when there is a GPX or similar file. I have no problems with that being shared on RWGPS or similar.
If I access a public route on RWGPS I am able to download the GPX track without logging in or paying anything...
(https://images2.imgbox.com/33/a9/Ns5NEdNz_o.jpg) (http://imgbox.com/Ns5NEdNz)
(other route sharing services are available)
Post by: L CC on 09 May, 2019, 07:31:29 pm
There are as many ways of using a GPS as there are users.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 May, 2019, 08:01:53 pm
One can convert down but not up, so I'd err on the side of more points rather than fewer. For me personally I'd say that whether there were accurate location points for info controls on the provided GPX has been the biggest single factor affecting how much I enjoyed (and in one case whether I finished) those rides. Riding through a hailstorm is better than stressing about whether I've missed the info. YMMV of course.
Please don't rely on RideWithGPS though - it seems to want me to subscribe before I can download anything.
That'll be user error. You can plan, upload, download, link without paying.
As said upthread, the easiest way would be to post a link to RWGPS route, then people could download it in a format of their choice. Equally, existing routes and be uploaded in any format, then re-downloaded in any format.
We are way past the era of serial cables and dragging and dropping into folders and hoping it would work.
FWIW most orgs offer a GPX. It tends to be the luddite who dont, ie. the sort who only accept paper entries and cheques.
Post by: mattc on 09 May, 2019, 08:11:23 pm
I think it should be incumbent on the user to ensure the GPX is suitable for their device rather than relying on the org to furnish hundreds of versions or down sample it to a lowest common denominator.
hear hear.
Post by: Phil W on 09 May, 2019, 08:29:20 pm
You also don't want to be sending raw track logs as they contain time stamps which can break the navigation of tracks for Garmin Edge units (eTrex series doesn't care)
Post by: Krad on 09 May, 2019, 08:41:32 pm
Post by: Revellinho on 09 May, 2019, 09:57:21 pm
One can convert down but not up, so I'd err on the side of more points rather than fewer. For me personally I'd say that whether there were accurate location points for info controls on the provided GPX has been the biggest single factor affecting how much I enjoyed (and in one case whether I finished) those rides. Riding through a hailstorm is better than stressing about whether I've missed the info. YMMV of course.
Please don't rely on RideWithGPS though - it seems to want me to subscribe before I can download anything.
That'll be user error. You can plan, upload, download, link without paying.
As said upthread, the easiest way would be to post a link to RWGPS route, then people could download it in a format of their choice. Equally, existing routes and be uploaded in any format, then re-downloaded in any format.
We are way past the era of serial cables and dragging and dropping into folders and hoping it would work.
FWIW most orgs offer a GPX. It tends to be the luddite who dont, ie. the sort who only accept paper entries and cheques.
I disagree there. I don't think you are a luddite if you prefer routesheets. I don't mind entries by cheque now that I can process them by taking a photo of them on my phone with my Internet banking account, but I have never navigated an audax by gps. I prefer routesheets. Having said that, I do provide gps files for my events because I know that many entrants don't have the means to mount a routesheet and would not carry a map in case of unexpected issues 'on the ground'. Interestingly, the only time I gave way to the gps users on the Easter Arrow, we ended up going the long the way round. Not that I'm bitter...
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 May, 2019, 09:59:41 pm
One can convert down but not up, so I'd err on the side of more points rather than fewer. For me personally I'd say that whether there were accurate location points for info controls on the provided GPX has been the biggest single factor affecting how much I enjoyed (and in one case whether I finished) those rides. Riding through a hailstorm is better than stressing about whether I've missed the info. YMMV of course.
Please don't rely on RideWithGPS though - it seems to want me to subscribe before I can download anything.
That'll be user error. You can plan, upload, download, link without paying.
As said upthread, the easiest way would be to post a link to RWGPS route, then people could download it in a format of their choice. Equally, existing routes and be uploaded in any format, then re-downloaded in any format.
We are way past the era of serial cables and dragging and dropping into folders and hoping it would work.
FWIW most orgs offer a GPX. It tends to be the luddite who dont, ie. the sort who only accept paper entries and cheques.
I disagree there. I don't think you are a luddite if you prefer routesheets. I don't mind entries by cheque now that I can process them by taking a photo of them on my phone with my Internet banking account, but I have never navigated an audax by gps. I prefer routesheets. Having said that, I do provide gps files for my events because I know that many entrants don't have the means to mount a routesheet and would not carry a map in case of unexpected issues 'on the ground'.
Ahem.
Post by: Revellinho on 09 May, 2019, 10:07:47 pm
Post by: Ian H on 09 May, 2019, 10:08:24 pm
Post by: Karla on 09 May, 2019, 10:11:46 pm
I use gps. I supply tracks with waypoints for my events. I have no sympathy for someone who fails because their gps packs up. You should prepare so you know where you're going, and have back-up systems (a routesheet, perhaps).
Or as FF suggested years ago, a second GPS. These days that's easy: it's sitting in your pocket.
Post by: Revellinho on 09 May, 2019, 10:14:39 pm
I have tried navigating by gps on lesser rides, but found it inferior to a routesheet. Who said comparisons are odious? Can't remember.Paradoxically, I have never ridden an audax without my Garmin. I rely on it to tell me how far I have ridden, what the time is, what the temperature is, which way I am pointing, how long I have been going, what my average speed is etc. Similarly, I have never ridden a time trial without my Garmin for similar reasons - just that I change it to mph.
Post by: aidan.f on 09 May, 2019, 10:17:23 pm
Post by: Somnolent on 09 May, 2019, 10:43:53 pm
Personally I don't particularly like RWGPS, I don't use it often enough to remember where every thing is in a rather complicated UI, and I'd rather create my own from the routesheet to get a mental picture of where the route goes anyway.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 09 May, 2019, 11:04:58 pm
Ultimately I think AUK will need its own repository for GPX tracks (and a means to create them). A reliance on third-parties like RWGPS or Strava, always carries the risk of the relevant useful features being "improved" out of existence, or hidden behind a paywall.
Personally I don't particularly like RWGPS, I don't use it often enough to remember where every thing is in a rather complicated UI, and I'd rather create my own from the routesheet to get a mental picture of where the route goes anyway.
The problem with a means to create them is unless you throw serious money at development you're just going to pick up an existing mapping provider's routing API.
And that has costs of its own and may also result in the features needed being "improved" out of existence.
Though in the case of google I'd safely say that every thing they do makes their software worse, some day they're likely to improve themselves out of existence.
The power of RWGPS comes from it's complexity, the simplicity in Strava and Komoot seems to result in that they just take you where everyone else goes.
And on that final point, isn't that what everyone should be doing as part of ride prep regardless of what navigation method they use?
GPS routing often has a few oddities that the route creator hasn't spotted...
Like the time I routed myself through a pub car park laid with deep chuckies, it was the only routing algorithm oddity I didn't spot, I'd cleaned up 15 or so.
Oh and this time:
Interestingly, the only time I gave way to the gps users on the Easter Arrow, we ended up going the long the way round. Not that I'm bitter...
You were pretty adamant on the junction that we were trying to turn the wrong way, and you were right.
We should have spotted when checking the GPS files over that it went wide of that control by a fair distance.
Post by: grams on 09 May, 2019, 11:17:39 pm
Ultimately I think AUK will need its own repository for GPX tracks (and a means to create them). A reliance on third-parties like RWGPS or Strava, always carries the risk of the relevant useful features being "improved" out of existence, or hidden behind a paywall.
AUK is a tiny organisation with a miniscule budget that's going to be allocated to recreating the basic functionality of the old website on the new platform for the rest of at least some of our lifetimes.
Freeloading on whatever service is currently available for free (even if that changes over time) is far more sustainable than trying to build something ourselves.
Post by: LateStarter on 09 May, 2019, 11:25:33 pm
Ultimately I think AUK will need its own repository for GPX tracks (and a means to create them). A reliance on third-parties like RWGPS or Strava, always carries the risk of the relevant useful features being "improved" out of existence, or hidden behind a paywall.
Personally I don't particularly like RWGPS, I don't use it often enough to remember where every thing is in a rather complicated UI, and I'd rather create my own from the routesheet to get a mental picture of where the route goes anyway.
Audax Australia has a RWGPS "club" account (cost USD250 per year) that contains ALL scheduled and permanent rides, the ride calander links to these. Riders can down load the route in their choice of format and number of points compatible with their device, the RWGPS export function does all necessary conversions and optimisations, the RO does not have to do anything extra.
The "club" account provides premium account benefits for route users including off line maps/routes within the RWGPS phone app which provides a backup option for gps device users or as a primary mapping option for those who don't have a device. It is also a perfect alternate to paper maps and cue sheets. Riders don't even have to have a RWGPS logon to download the route.
So everyone is covered, those with a device, those without but who use their phone and the purists can just print the cue sheet and / or map from RWGPS and use that. I am assuming the purists don't cheat by using soME non gps distance measuring device but rely only on their inbuilt dead reckoning abilities.
This has been available for a couple of years now, was a bit of an effort to get everything established but now members consider it to be a significant benefit.
PS: some "premium" planning features are also available to the RO when they create or maintain the route within the club repository on RWGPS so it's win, win, win, win.
Post by: lmm on 09 May, 2019, 11:48:51 pm
Maybe my sense of justice is misaligned - if an organizer finds its a tool that adds value for them then I can live with that - but certainly it's not something I would favour as a rider.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 09 May, 2019, 11:59:25 pm
The functionality provided probably cost over 100000 to implement.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: jiberjaber on 10 May, 2019, 12:08:13 am
I had misremembered my issue with RideWithGPS; as others have said, it only demands premium if one wants to download with waypoints. I stand by my "please don't use it" as waypoints make a huge difference. I'd happily pay a higher entry fee if organisers need to cover hosting expenses or anything like that, but it feels wrong to me to have a site profiting off the organiser's work that way.Waypoints only make a difference to devices which recognise them. I don't believe mine does. Again, it's one of the 'hundred' different versions an organiser shouldn't be expected to accommodate.
Maybe my sense of justice is misaligned - if an organizer finds its a tool that adds value for them then I can live with that - but certainly it's not something I would favour as a rider.
Best option is a gpx and route sheet. Part of preparing is to run through the route sheet and gpx to familiarise yourself with the route, at that point it's the opportunity for the rider to add such embellishments as they may want, eg waypoints, cue points, warnings etc
Post by: Manotea on 10 May, 2019, 07:00:20 am
250 USD for the rwgps Club account isn't bad.Depending on what you include there might be a 0 or 2 missing on that figure... :)
The functionality provided probably cost over 100000 to implement.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: mattc on 10 May, 2019, 07:20:02 am
...Perhaps its similar to paying PayPal? A necessary evil!
Maybe my sense of justice is misaligned - if an organizer finds its a tool that adds value for them then I can live with that - but certainly it's not something I would favour as a rider.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 10 May, 2019, 07:27:43 am
More likely 4 if you include the initial development of the features collated into the club account.250 USD for the rwgps Club account isn't bad.Depending on what you include there might be a 0 or 2 missing on that figure... :)
The functionality provided probably cost over 100000 to implement.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Phil W on 10 May, 2019, 10:00:37 am
I had misremembered my issue with RideWithGPS; as others have said, it only demands premium if one wants to download with waypoints. I stand by my "please don't use it" as waypoints make a huge difference. I'd happily pay a higher entry fee if organisers need to cover hosting expenses or anything like that, but it feels wrong to me to have a site profiting off the organiser's work that way.Waypoints only make a difference to devices which recognise them. I don't believe mine does. Again, it's one of the 'hundred' different versions an organiser shouldn't be expected to accommodate.
Maybe my sense of justice is misaligned - if an organizer finds its a tool that adds value for them then I can live with that - but certainly it's not something I would favour as a rider.
Even my old Edge 500 (no longer used for audax) handles up to 100 waypoints. So I'd find it strange if later Edge units don't. Waypoints are part of the standard GPX schema and I wouldn't see marking of controls as embellishment. Controls form the basic structure of an audax, more than an outline of a route in fact, as we are mostly talking advisory here in the UK. Imagine the location of controls wasn't indicated in the routesheet but was seen as embellishment.
Post by: rob on 10 May, 2019, 10:16:48 am
What you still need to do, as a rider, is to study the route and make a note of where the controls are. On Saturday's ride several people had been to the wrong location in one town despite this being made very clear in the organiser notes. Similarly I have been at a roadside control getting my card stamped when a group of about 10 riders went stomping past without stopping.
Post by: jiberjaber on 10 May, 2019, 10:43:42 am
I had misremembered my issue with RideWithGPS; as others have said, it only demands premium if one wants to download with waypoints. I stand by my "please don't use it" as waypoints make a huge difference. I'd happily pay a higher entry fee if organisers need to cover hosting expenses or anything like that, but it feels wrong to me to have a site profiting off the organiser's work that way.Waypoints only make a difference to devices which recognise them. I don't believe mine does. Again, it's one of the 'hundred' different versions an organiser shouldn't be expected to accommodate.
Maybe my sense of justice is misaligned - if an organizer finds its a tool that adds value for them then I can live with that - but certainly it's not something I would favour as a rider.
Even my old Edge 500 (no longer used for audax) handles up to 100 waypoints. So I'd find it strange if later Edge units don't. Waypoints are part of the standard GPX schema and I wouldn't see marking of controls as embellishment. Controls form the basic structure of an audax, more than an outline of a route in fact, as we are mostly talking advisory here in the UK. Imagine the location of controls wasn't indicated in the routesheet but was seen as embellishment.
I think you've taken it to far there Phil - of course the controls are going to be on the route sheet - that's the point of it. ;D
I have no idea what you mean about waypoints, I load the route on my Garmin Edge (was 1000, now 1030) and I follow the purple line of righteousness. I have tried with waypoints and I get no alerts or anything different to the route without, therefore they make no difference to my experience. This may not be the case for older GPS units.
Post by: vorsprung on 10 May, 2019, 10:47:01 am
I've run an event for about 10 years (it's being retired this year) and now I think everyone follows the gps track
I supply a 10000 point gpx which works with my eTrex20 and it's up to everyone to make it work with their crazy WooHey devices or 30 year old ex-military geo caching gps or whatever. I work in IT support for a living I am not interested in fixing problems on an unknown set of GPS devices.
I agree that it should be easier to get the track from an event onto your device but the problem lies with the devices and how they are non standard
Having a club RWGPS subscription sounds like an excellent idea
Post by: Delph Cyclist on 10 May, 2019, 11:15:46 am
... many entrants don't have the means to mount a routesheet ...
I find that hard to believe. I attach the route sheet, in a plastic bag (supplied free of charge at most event start controls), to my left wrist using an elastic band (supplied free by Royal Mail). As a back up, I also take my right wrist along on the ride, and there's usually a spare elastic band around my spare inner tube.
But I would welcome some guidelines for what constitutes a universally useful GPX file. I have evolved the following personal guidelines for when I'm creating GPX files for my own events:
- provide in separate legs rather than one big file (to reduce file size)
- plot on BikeHike to allow plotting off-road stretches
- save as "gpx track"
- title of file must be identical with the <name> tags
- don't use multiple <trkseg> tags
I then load that to RideWithGPS so that I can load an interactive map to my website's page for that event, so that entrants can get a visual representation of where we are going, such as at http://www.delphcyclist.info/RuthinPerm.html
I would welcome some idea of what constitutes "too big" for a universally useful GPX file, because I don't use them myself when on a ride
Post by: grams on 10 May, 2019, 12:00:55 pm
I much prefer a single track as it’s only one thing to import and I don’t have to juggle them at controls. But other people might have the opposite preference depending on how their devices work.
Post by: lmm on 10 May, 2019, 01:03:21 pm
But as to the rest, I've never seen a file that was too big or had too many waypoints, so I'd err on the side of including all the ones you have. Those whose devices have a limit can always downsample, and the worst a device will do with waypoints is ignore them, whereas if the information isn't in there then there's no way to put it back.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 10 May, 2019, 01:05:50 pm
... many entrants don't have the means to mount a routesheet ...
At the most basic Pages stuck in a sealled poly pocket in the back of the jersey, dig out for a check every x junctions.
Where x is the number of junctions you can remember...
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 May, 2019, 01:12:01 pm
Some people take a bit longer than others to realise the value of new technology., but that is their choice.
Post by: Delph Cyclist on 10 May, 2019, 01:18:30 pm
I also prefer a single file, FWIW, but that's one question where I don't think there's any universal answer.
But as to the rest, I've never seen a file that was too big or had too many waypoints, so I'd err on the side of including all the ones you have.
In fact what I tend to do is provide a zipped folder containing one GPX file for each leg between controls, and one big file for the whole ride, and let riders sort themselves out. I still get queries from those new to GPX cycling, not quite knowing how to upload them, but I'm in no position to help and can only refer them to their device's user manual.
But the ideal scenario (in my view) is that my riders would take my route sheet, or my detailed map of the ride, and plot their own GPX, as part of their pre-ride preparation. That way, they'd be more aware of where the heck they were going, and can react better to any on the day issues such as road closures. But I'm a bit old school that way.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 May, 2019, 02:02:31 pm
Post by: grams on 10 May, 2019, 03:28:13 pm
But the ideal scenario (in my view) is that my riders would take my route sheet, or my detailed map of the ride, and plot their own GPX, as part of their pre-ride preparation.
I've occasionally indulged in that (trying to plot a GPX from the route sheet alone), but you spend a disproportionate amount of time on certain little sections going up and down Street View either looking for sign posts or trying to work out priorities at junctions where three country lanes meet so you know where the road turns on the longer stretches between instructions. I don't think it actually gives you a great feel for the route overall.
(though it's certainly better than turning up having not looked at the route at all)
Post by: Karla on 10 May, 2019, 03:28:52 pm
Post by: Revellinho on 10 May, 2019, 05:45:09 pm
Revellinho, if you have never navigated a ride by GPS then you are missing out. It is a lot easier. Setting up the damn thing in the first place is the nuisance but once you are riding, it's great. When I started riding er 2003 I used route sheets and everyone did. Rode LEL 2005 with routesheets only for example. Can't remember when I got my GPS. My blog seems to think 2012
I've run an event for about 10 years (it's being retired this year) and now I think everyone follows the gps track
I supply a 10000 point gpx which works with my eTrex20 and it's up to everyone to make it work with their crazy WooHey devices or 30 year old ex-military geo caching gps or whatever. I work in IT support for a living I am not interested in fixing problems on an unknown set of GPS devices.
I agree that it should be easier to get the track from an event onto your device but the problem lies with the devices and how they are non standard
Having a club RWGPS subscription sounds like an excellent idea
I tried it once on a ride round the Lakes. I just could not get on with it - it was just a line on an otherwise blank screen. Perhaps its because I only have a Garmin 500 and the display is so primitive. Also I have slipped into the habit of wanting to see numbers all the time on the device, I'm one of those who does endless calculations as I plod along and things would be otherwise glum.
Post by: S2L on 10 May, 2019, 05:51:49 pm
Revellinho, if you have never navigated a ride by GPS then you are missing out. It is a lot easier. Setting up the damn thing in the first place is the nuisance but once you are riding, it's great. When I started riding er 2003 I used route sheets and everyone did. Rode LEL 2005 with routesheets only for example. Can't remember when I got my GPS. My blog seems to think 2012
I've run an event for about 10 years (it's being retired this year) and now I think everyone follows the gps track
I supply a 10000 point gpx which works with my eTrex20 and it's up to everyone to make it work with their crazy WooHey devices or 30 year old ex-military geo caching gps or whatever. I work in IT support for a living I am not interested in fixing problems on an unknown set of GPS devices.
I agree that it should be easier to get the track from an event onto your device but the problem lies with the devices and how they are non standard
Having a club RWGPS subscription sounds like an excellent idea
I tried it once on a ride round the Lakes. I just could not get on with it - it was just a line on an otherwise blank screen. Perhaps its because I only have a Garmin 500 and the display is so primitive. Also I have slipped into the habit of wanting to see numbers all the time on the device, I'm one of those who does endless calculations as I plod along and things would be otherwise glum.
Around the lakes a route sheet is fine, you probably have a turn every half an hour... try using a route sheet around built up areas, where you have a turn every 3-4 minutes...
50 turns (or other direction) in as many Km is not that uncommon.
Horses for courses, and a routesheet has its severe limitations, a GPX works fine in both scenarios
Post by: FifeingEejit on 10 May, 2019, 06:14:49 pm
But the ideal scenario (in my view) is that my riders would take my route sheet, or my detailed map of the ride, and plot their own GPX, as part of their pre-ride preparation.
I've occasionally indulged in that (trying to plot a GPX from the route sheet alone), but you spend a disproportionate amount of time on certain little sections going up and down Street View either looking for sign posts or trying to work out priorities at junctions where three country lanes meet so you know where the road turns on the longer stretches between instructions. I don't think it actually gives you a great feel for the route overall.
(though it's certainly better than turning up having not looked at the route at all)
It also ballses up when the priority on the road has changed since GSV (and/or occasionally the org) was last there and the route sheet is only telling you when you need to turn off the priority route.
Post by: Jon+1bike on 10 May, 2019, 06:36:33 pm
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #43 on: Today at 03:28:52 pm »
Quote
I think we need to get over the idea that computer illiteracy is a normal and acceptable state of affairs for people these days. Computers have been around for decades, they've been popular did a couple of decades now; if someone can't cope with converting a gpx file into their own niche format for their own obscure device, that's their own problem.
Seems You missed the first statement.. not everyone is as perfect as you! I used to be able to many things on computers, which is now beyond me, I'm sure I'm not alone !!
Post by: mattc on 10 May, 2019, 07:25:29 pm
Is that better? :)I think we need to get over the idea thatcomputer illiteracy is still anormalvery common and perfectly acceptable state of affairs for people these days.
<writes an IT professional>
Post by: Ian H on 10 May, 2019, 07:48:11 pm
But the ideal scenario (in my view) is that my riders would take my route sheet, or my detailed map of the ride, and plot their own GPX, as part of their pre-ride preparation.
I've occasionally indulged in that (trying to plot a GPX from the route sheet alone), but you spend a disproportionate amount of time on certain little sections going up and down Street View either looking for sign posts or trying to work out priorities at junctions where three country lanes meet so you know where the road turns on the longer stretches between instructions. I don't think it actually gives you a great feel for the route overall.
(though it's certainly better than turning up having not looked at the route at all)
It also ballses up when the priority on the road has changed since GSV (and/or occasionally the org) was last there and the route sheet is only telling you when you need to turn off the priority route.
I find it pretty easy to do it in this fashion: a) plot shortest between controls, then b) check whether instructions appear to match the route. If they do then fine, otherwise, c) scan for any obvious correlations and drag the route there. Generally a couple of drags will suffice to make it all fall into place.
The above does assume a reasonably competent routesheet.
Post by: Ben T on 10 May, 2019, 08:08:24 pm
Beyond the older devices with an artificial 500 point limit, I don’t there’s such a thing as too big for anything you might export from a route planning site, at least for brevet length ridesIt's 10,000 on my Garmin. So very few are over this that I don't bother to check and get caught out when one actually is, such as the last audax I did. (Didn't matter, managed to find the way ok though)
Post by: Revellinho on 10 May, 2019, 09:13:17 pm
Revellinho, if you have never navigated a ride by GPS then you are missing out. It is a lot easier. Setting up the damn thing in the first place is the nuisance but once you are riding, it's great. When I started riding er 2003 I used route sheets and everyone did. Rode LEL 2005 with routesheets only for example. Can't remember when I got my GPS. My blog seems to think 2012
I've run an event for about 10 years (it's being retired this year) and now I think everyone follows the gps track
I supply a 10000 point gpx which works with my eTrex20 and it's up to everyone to make it work with their crazy WooHey devices or 30 year old ex-military geo caching gps or whatever. I work in IT support for a living I am not interested in fixing problems on an unknown set of GPS devices.
I agree that it should be easier to get the track from an event onto your device but the problem lies with the devices and how they are non standard
Having a club RWGPS subscription sounds like an excellent idea
I tried it once on a ride round the Lakes. I just could not get on with it - it was just a line on an otherwise blank screen. Perhaps its because I only have a Garmin 500 and the display is so primitive. Also I have slipped into the habit of wanting to see numbers all the time on the device, I'm one of those who does endless calculations as I plod along and things would be otherwise glum.
Around the lakes a route sheet is fine, you probably have a turn every half an hour... try using a route sheet around built up areas, where you have a turn every 3-4 minutes...
50 turns (or other direction) in as many Km is not that uncommon.
Horses for courses, and a routesheet has its severe limitations, a GPX works fine in both scenarios
You are spot on there. One of my events has no turns or instructions between 2 of the controls, you just ride along the road without deviation for 36km. I thought about making up some things to note for the routesheet, because it looked a bit bare, but did not bother in the end. When you get to the control it is L @ T then you ride along the next road for 31km before the next turn.
Post by: Karla on 10 May, 2019, 10:20:32 pm
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #43 on: Today at 03:28:52 pm »
Quote
I think we need to get over the idea that computer illiteracy is a normal and acceptable state of affairs for people these days. Computers have been around for decades, they've been popular did a couple of decades now; if someone can't cope with converting a gpx file into their own niche format for their own obscure device, that's their own problem.
Seems You missed the first statement.. not everyone is as perfect as you! I used to be able to many things on computers, which is now beyond me, I'm sure I'm not alone !!
You could probably have learned how to program your GPS in the time it took you to write that post.
If you don't want to have to use basic consumer electronics, you might as well go the whole hog and stop using basic consumer mechanics too: cycling is not the sport for you.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 May, 2019, 10:30:06 pm
Post by: Karla on 10 May, 2019, 10:43:34 pm
This thread makes a refreshing change from TT land though: there you're lucky if the course description is existent let alone accurate or helpful, and requests for a course map send the old timers into howls of "Why should hard-pressed organisers have to spoon feed the youngsters?!"
Post by: Pingu on 11 May, 2019, 12:10:49 am
...One of my events has no turns or instructions between 2 of the controls, you just ride along the road without deviation for 36km...
I love those bits on route sheets :)
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 11 May, 2019, 01:47:45 am
A GPS based route is less likely to do that. GPS is never wrong, it's just not always there.
https://youtu.be/7Uwh6Z-v3O8
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 11 May, 2019, 04:36:04 pm
Post by: Delph Cyclist on 11 May, 2019, 05:06:17 pm
One of my events has no turns or instructions between 2 of the controls
I've got one of those. The Cragg Challenge Grimpeur on 22 September starts at the bottom of Cragg Vale in Mytholmroyd, and the first control is at the top, just before the turn left at T to Ripponden. The route sheet looks a bit bare.
There is a minimum speed of 12.5kph, but that first control is an Info so (don't tell anyone) I think we're allowed to turn a blind eye to anyone getting there out of time.
Post by: Phil W on 11 May, 2019, 05:32:40 pm
It would take me quite a long while to put together GPX tracks for all of the Cambrian Series Perms, most of which predate GPS devices. And an awful lot longer to check them, unless there was a shedload of volunteers willing to test the tracks.
Might be worth asking those who have recently ridden your perms if they have a GPS tracklog. Will need tidying up to strip out time stamps etc but that is a quick job. That may be a relatively quick route to getting GPX tracks for your perms.
Post by: vorsprung on 11 May, 2019, 07:00:38 pm
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #43 on: Today at 03:28:52 pm »
Quote
I think we need to get over the idea that computer illiteracy is a normal and acceptable state of affairs for people these days. Computers have been around for decades, they've been popular did a couple of decades now; if someone can't cope with converting a gpx file into their own niche format for their own obscure device, that's their own problem.
Seems You missed the first statement.. not everyone is as perfect as you! I used to be able to many things on computers, which is now beyond me, I'm sure I'm not alone !!
You could probably have learned how to program your GPS in the time it took you to write that post.
If you don't want to have to use basic consumer electronics, you might as well go the whole hog and stop using basic consumer mechanics too: cycling is not the sport for you.
well...
GPS is complicated to do correctly because Mr Garmin is an asshat
To do GPS correctly you need to understand every undocumented quirk of your particular device, carry spare batteries/usb charge things and sacrifice a chicken
If AUK put all the routes on RWGPS or some similar service it would help people. I'd rather spend my time on things other than GPS device fettling
Having said that, I kind of agree in a way. If people are going to shell out the $$$ on a GPS device then you'd expect them to be able to use it. It's not super difficult, it's just a time sink
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 11 May, 2019, 09:49:50 pm
It would take me quite a long while to put together GPX tracks for all of the Cambrian Series Perms, most of which predate GPS devices. And an awful lot longer to check them, unless there was a shedload of volunteers willing to test the tracks.
Might be worth asking those who have recently ridden your perms if they have a GPS tracklog. Will need tidying up to strip out time stamps etc but that is a quick job. That may be a relatively quick route to getting GPX tracks for your perms.
And if they'd followed a sensible route, etc. Plus editing GPX tracks is just the sort of fiddly computer thing that I find rather grim. But hopefully by the time GPX tracks are required I'll be retired and have the time and more inclination to do that sort of fiddling.
Post by: jsabine on 11 May, 2019, 11:08:25 pm
Beyond the older devices with an artificial 500 point limit, I don’t there’s such a thing as too big for anything you might export from a route planning site, at least for brevet length ridesIt's 10,000 on my Garmin. So very few are over this
Meh. I've only been caught out once, but that was enough.
I reckon an RWGPS download is almost certain to be over 10k points once it's about 250-280km, so I'll check any 200km routes just in case. (The last 400km route I looked at had either 16k or 18k points, so it definitely needed downsampling for my Etrex.)
Post by: Ian H on 11 May, 2019, 11:33:11 pm
Post by: jsabine on 11 May, 2019, 11:34:55 pm
Post by: LateStarter on 12 May, 2019, 01:17:38 am
If we want a healthy growing club then we have to take account of what the market wants as we are not the only cycling game in town. Personally, having a device greatly enhances my rides but it took a few hours of study and a few rides to master as the functions available and options are far in excess of the smaller number necessary to just follow a route.
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 12 May, 2019, 07:26:12 am
It would take me quite a long while to put together GPX tracks for all of the Cambrian Series Perms, most of which predate GPS devices. And an awful lot longer to check them, unless there was a shedload of volunteers willing to test the tracks.
Might be worth asking those who have recently ridden your perms if they have a GPS tracklog. Will need tidying up to strip out time stamps etc but that is a quick job. That may be a relatively quick route to getting GPX tracks for your perms.
Have decided to stop moping and test the effort involved. Have created a GPX for the Cambrian 1A on Ride with GPS - https://ridewithgps.com/routes/29961189 so would be keen to see how that responds as a test piece. If I get good feedback then I will progressively create routes for all the others. Although, in the immortal words of Captain Oates "I may be some time"
And if they'd followed a sensible route, etc. Plus editing GPX tracks is just the sort of fiddly computer thing that I find rather grim. But hopefully by the time GPX tracks are required I'll be retired and have the time and more inclination to do that sort of fiddling.
Post by: Ian H on 12 May, 2019, 10:34:41 am
If we want a healthy growing club then we have to take account of what the market wants as we are not the only cycling game in town.
If ithe market wants randonnées validated internationally, AUK is the only game in town. If it wants fully-supported sportif events, then there are plenty out there, no need for AUK to get involved.
Post by: frankly frankie on 12 May, 2019, 10:53:12 am
My experience is a bit dated (I still use an old eTrex Vista HCx; it works), but I wonder if there is a standard that would be ok with all devices?
As long as there are old devices like yours still out there in the wild, the 'lowest common denominator' file (including the 500 trackpoint limit) cannot change. AUK published advice about this in the last hardcopy Handbook (distributed January 2014) and that advice can still be found on Aukweb under 'Hints and Tips'.
https://www.aukweb.net/hints/gps/ (https://www.aukweb.net/hints/gps/)
Of course things have moved on a lot since 2014 and even back then this advice raised hackles in some quarters. It could of course be updated but how? - the lowest common denominator hasn't changed. But 95% of riders now expect (expect, not need) far more than 500 points and increasingly there is an expectation of embedded turn instructions. Organisers not recognising this would be bound to get some flak.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 12 May, 2019, 11:18:03 am
With modern devices now carrying out the linking to systems such as RWGPS there is no need for a GPX file at all as the system handles that for you and removes much of the faffage (while introducing other risks), failing to adopt that as it becomes the prevalent approach is counter producing, you alienate those who are not tech savvy enough and are used to the amount of effort required being to hit the pin button, and amuse people like me who don't care much for Jurassic methods of work.
I have a colleague who having been given the same expensive IDE and Automation tools as the rest of us at work, insists on doing everything the most long winded way possible ideally in Notepad++ if he can get away with it.
Post by: Karla on 12 May, 2019, 11:23:13 am
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #43 on: Today at 03:28:52 pm »
Quote
I think we need to get over the idea that computer illiteracy is a normal and acceptable state of affairs for people these days. Computers have been around for decades, they've been popular did a couple of decades now; if someone can't cope with converting a gpx file into their own niche format for their own obscure device, that's their own problem.
Seems You missed the first statement.. not everyone is as perfect as you! I used to be able to many things on computers, which is now beyond me, I'm sure I'm not alone !!
You could probably have learned how to program your GPS in the time it took you to write that post.
If you don't want to have to use basic consumer electronics, you might as well go the whole hog and stop using basic consumer mechanics too: cycling is not the sport for you.
well...
GPS is complicated to do correctly because Mr Garmin is an asshat
To do GPS correctly you need to understand every undocumented quirk of your particular device, carry spare batteries/usb charge things and sacrifice a chicken
If AUK put all the routes on RWGPS or some similar service it would help people. I'd rather spend my time on things other than GPS device fettling
Having said that, I kind of agree in a way. If people are going to shell out the $$$ on a GPS device then you'd expect them to be able to use it. It's not super difficult, it's just a time sink
I agree; that's what I was trying to say. If you've provided an electronic description of the route in gpx, tcx, 500+ points, then it's sufficiently trivial for a user to resample it to whatever format they like that you as the organiser shouldn't be expected to do it for them. Upthread there were people complaining they didn't know how to use RWGPS - but it's not your job to hold the hand of people who buy a spangly GPS but can't use a free website. Similarly, the HCx series units that could only take 500 points have been obsolete for about ten years now, so anyone still using one has had ten years to learn now to downsample a track and shouldn't expect organisers to specifically cater for their antediluvian tech.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 12 May, 2019, 11:33:59 am
GPS is complicated to do correctly because Mr Garmin is an asshat
To do GPS correctly you need to understand every undocumented quirk of your particular device, carry spare batteries/usb charge things and sacrifice a chicken
Thanks to Garmin finally having decent competition, GPS devices are rapidly become mainstream consumer electronics rather than enthusiast fiddly devices.
You don't need to understand every undocumented quirk of a Wahoo because they've made it simple to use i.e. once it's set up and synced to your RWGPS account it "just works".
You do need to understand every undocumented quirk of Garmins because they're like my Notepad++ loving colleague.
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2019, 06:19:15 pm
You do need to understand every undocumented quirk of Garmins
No you don't, just the ones that are relevant to your workflow and likely to come up. (For example, if you're navigating using Tracks, all the arcane knowledge about turn-by-turn routing is irrelevant.) I'd expect a competent Garmin user to have discovered this by real-world testing on bike rides, much in the same way I'd expect a competent saddle user to have determined the optimum model and position for their requirements: Sure, there's always a first time out with a new thing, but you go into that *expecting* to learn from the experience, and if a particular audax is important, that isn't the time for experimentation.
The real edge-cases should be covered by your contingency plan for when your GPS receiver corrupts its storage / shears a battery contact / falls off and gets run over by a taxi / is stolen. Which is probably similar to an non-GPS-user's contingency plan for when their routesheet blows away or is rendered unreadable in a freak BEER accident.
Post by: mattc on 12 May, 2019, 06:37:35 pm
... RWGPS does about all that can be expected to allow users to resolve the problem, the only problem I see is they want you to pay for premium to run the trackpoint reducer.The (free) bikehike site does trackpoint reduction pretty elegantly. Sadly the actual mapping features have fallen into ruin recently (last time I checked), but this might be useful to someone. I've used it a lot.
[bikehike was great ... :'( ]
Post by: Hot Flatus on 12 May, 2019, 06:57:17 pm
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 12 May, 2019, 06:58:40 pm
There seems to be a demand for pre-prepared routes from the 'everything for nothing' generation, who expect only to ask, and to receive for free, with all the spadework done by someone else.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 12 May, 2019, 07:03:21 pm
I suppose the end result will be an AUK app, from where you can buy ID marked Audax routes.
There seems to be a demand for pre-prepared routes from the 'everything for nothing' generation, who expect only to ask, and to receive for free, with all the spadework done by someone else.
A GPS file is just another format of route sheet, one that works with a modern technology that is becoming ubiquitous rather than in the previously ubiquitous paper form*.
If you take away the route sheet you have a navigational challenge event.
* Some people like to claim they are saving trees by not using paper, but apparently there's very little paper not made from 100% recycled pulp these days.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 12 May, 2019, 07:06:03 pm
Bikehike was brilliant. RWGPS is where it is at now. Not found a better one.
RWGPS was launched in 2007
Bikehike was launched in 2008
Anyone else remember Bikely? I used that before RWGPS, and I was using RWGPS to plan rides long before I had a GPS device.
Post by: grams on 12 May, 2019, 07:29:37 pm
There seems to be a demand for pre-prepared routes from the 'everything for nothing' generation, who expect only to ask, and to receive for free, with all the spadework done by someone else.
There’s one generation that expects organisers to manually go through every turning on the route, laboriously describing what the junction looks like, what might be on the sign post, how far along the route it is, mark any dangers on the route, and flatly refuses to use a GPS device that would make all this redudant. Can you imagine the entitlement of these people?
Post by: postie on 12 May, 2019, 08:05:42 pm
Many riders like both and as a organizer i am help to provide both.
Personally i like to read the route sheet before the event ,i find it gives me a feel for the ride, contols etc
On my 400km couple of weeks ,only one ride had no gps unit ( or old fashioned cycle computer as it happened) he just used a routesheet , he was also first rider back!!
Post by: grams on 12 May, 2019, 08:14:33 pm
Post by: Phil W on 12 May, 2019, 08:26:24 pm
Post by: quixoticgeek on 12 May, 2019, 08:50:28 pm
... many entrants don't have the means to mount a routesheet ...
I find that hard to believe. I attach the route sheet, in a plastic bag (supplied free of charge at most event start controls), to my left wrist using an elastic band (supplied free by Royal Mail). As a back up, I also take my right wrist along on the ride, and there's usually a spare elastic band around my spare inner tube.
But I would welcome some guidelines for what constitutes a universally useful GPX file. I have evolved the following personal guidelines for when I'm creating GPX files for my own events:
- provide in separate legs rather than one big file (to reduce file size)
Ugh, I find that really annoying. I want one file, for the whole thing, so I can see the whole route. I've loaded 10+ meg gpx files into my device it doesn't complain. Separating it out into legs just adds work load to the rider.
Quote
- plot on BikeHike to allow plotting off-road stretches
- save as "gpx track"
- title of file must be identical with the <name> tags
- don't use multiple <trkseg> tags
The not using multple trksegs is however a Good Thing™.
J
Post by: De Sisti on 12 May, 2019, 08:55:26 pm
FTFY
If you don't want to ............ cycling is not thesportactivity for you.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 12 May, 2019, 09:16:31 pm
I'm confused how this is even a debate, it's 2019.
Generating a GPX file is really simple, if you are riding the route yourself to test it, and have a GPS. Ride route, take track from your route, share. Done. It may not be the most elegantly crafted track file, it may not be the smallest number of points needed to convey the route, but it will be the route that you rode, as you want it to be ridden.
Now it may be that me being someone who's not done an AUK calendar event, but given the wiggly nature of some of the events I've done here, the route sheet would be multiple pages long, and quite frankly, my arm ain't big enough for that.
I won't do a calendar event that doesn't provide a GPX file, and the GPX file provided, I do expect to contain the full route, in as much detail as possible (if that's 100k track points, that's fine by me). I don't consider this an everything being provided for me kinda thing, I consider this a getting what I paid for kind of thing. I'm giving the org x amount of euros to do the ride, and part of that x is getting the route information in a sensible format. It's 2019, and I consider a GPX file to be the sensible format. If people want to provide a route sheet as well, that's great, but to me, the GPX is the more useful.
I was talking to a grizzled old fart of the Dutch Randoneuring community, and he was explaining to me that since 99% of riders are using GPS devices and thus the GPX files for navigation, the routes have become a lot more complex in their twistyness, They go into towns, rather than round them, because with electronic navigation it's easier. Else trying to get through Liege on a 300 would require a single A4 sheet of directions, and cover a distance of about 4km. In fact when you look at the route sheets provided for the Dutch events, it's basically a list of villages, and a distance. Sure you could try to navigate based on it, but it's going to be a pain.
RatN had something in the region of 35000 track points, is 3.1MB in size, and works just fine with a 2 year old wahoo... For anything run to an ACP distance, there should be no excuses about file size and number of points.
J
PS This of course does side step the utter fuckwits at Garmin who seem to think that the route you want to follow is made up of track points, where as the route points, (a much smaller number), is just, well, um, What ever garmin were smoking when they created this stuff I've got no clue, it makes no bloody sense.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 12 May, 2019, 09:22:25 pm
There seems to be a demand for pre-prepared routes from the 'everything for nothing' generation, who expect only to ask, and to receive for free, with all the spadework done by someone else.
There’s one generation that expects organisers to manually go through every turning on the route, laboriously describing what the junction looks like, what might be on the sign post, how far along the route it is, mark any dangers on the route, and flatly refuses to use a GPS device that would make all this redudant. Can you imagine the entitlement of these people?
Routes didn't come free in the old days, they were part of the package which came in your stamped A5 envelope. That's when AUK was a shoestring operation, with minimal overheads, thanks to its volunteer ethos, which stretched to IT.
But times change, and routes are intellectual property, which can help cover overheads. Paywall technology marches on too.
There are lots of routes on Strava. I'm not too familiar with their pricing model though. As I said, an integrated app, straight to your device is the obvious way ahead. There's no need to be an IT hobbyist these days, and the coming generation are used to paying. It's the generation in the middle who are out of step with progress.
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2019, 09:43:30 pm
- provide in separate legs rather than one big file (to reduce file size)
Ugh, I find that really annoying. I want one file, for the whole thing, so I can see the whole route. I've loaded 10+ meg gpx files into my device it doesn't complain. Separating it out into legs just adds work load to the rider.
Personally, I'm happy with a single massive track *unless* the route is cyclic, at which point splitting it up serves as insurance against GPS receivers trying (or failing) to be clever. I'm also happy to split or merge tracks to suit as part of my pre-audax homework; it's a fraction of the time I'm likely to spend studying the map generally.
(I don't think the GPS manufacturers are right or wrong about what they do when you're off-route and the nearest part of the route is further along than the n+1th point. It's an inherently arbitrary decision, and which is best depends on whether you're more interested in the destination or the journey. The smart solution would be to make it configurable.)
Post by: quixoticgeek on 12 May, 2019, 09:49:02 pm
Personally, I'm happy with a single massive track *unless* the route is cyclic, at which point splitting it up serves as insurance against GPS receivers trying (or failing) to be clever. I'm also happy to split or merge tracks to suit as part of my pre-audax homework; it's a fraction of the time I'm likely to spend studying the map generally.
I'm not sure what there is to be clever about. It's drawing a line on the screen, you follow the line. A good device shows the next x km (say 2.5km), as one colour/shade/style, and the rest of the route as a different shade/colour/style. You can then see which bit you're following.
Quote
(I don't think the GPS manufacturers are right or wrong about what they do when you're off-route and the nearest part of the route is further along than the n+1th point. It's an inherently arbitrary decision, and which is best depends on whether you're more interested in the destination or the journey. The smart solution would be to make it configurable.)
It beeps, or flashes a light, and does nothing else. Your device is drawing a line on a screen, with a "YOU ARE HERE" marker. If "YOU ARE HERE" is not on top of the route line, then it's up to you to work out the best way to get it to match up. What the bloody hell else can it do?
J
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2019, 09:55:31 pm
It beeps, or flashes a light, and does nothing else. Your device is drawing a line on a screen, with a "YOU ARE HERE" marker. If "YOU ARE HERE" is not on top of the route line, then it's up to you to work out the best way to get it to match up. What the bloody hell else can it do?
It can show you a series of roads / a next turn instruction / a simple direction arrow to take to get you back to the route you're following, or calculate the true on-road distance to something (the next turn, the next instruction, the next control, the destination, whatever) and derived average speeds, arrival time or whatever.
I've yet to meet one that's satisfactorily good at this. You can coax Garmin's on-road routing to approximate it, but Garmin's piss-poor implementation (which has actually got worse since the HCx models) doesn't make the concept a bad idea, particularly for riders who for whatever reason struggle with interpreting a graphical display while riding a bike.
Following a line isn't the only way to use a GPS receiver. But even then, if you want to do the line-colouring you describe, the device has to make a decision about which part of the route is 'next'. If you stick to the route, that's trivial, but what should it do if you deviate and rejoin the route further ahead? Does it pick up and carry on, or does it direct you back along the route so you cover the missed section? Either could be correct behaviour.
Post by: Dai P on 12 May, 2019, 09:57:36 pm
Post by: quixoticgeek on 12 May, 2019, 10:01:08 pm
It beeps, or flashes a light, and does nothing else. Your device is drawing a line on a screen, with a "YOU ARE HERE" marker. If "YOU ARE HERE" is not on top of the route line, then it's up to you to work out the best way to get it to match up. What the bloody hell else can it do?
It can show you a series of roads to take to get you back to the route you're following, or calculate the true on-road distance to something (the next turn, the next instruction, the next control, the destination, whatever) and derived average speeds, arrival time or whatever.
Please tell me what ever device it is that does this, so I can make sure never to buy one.
Quote
I've yet to meet one that's satisfactorily good at this. You can coax Garmin's on-road routing to approximate it, but Garmin's piss-poor implementation doesn't make the concept a bad idea, particularly for riders who for whatever reason struggle with interpreting a graphical display while riding a bike.
Following a line isn't the only way to use a GPS receiver.
Weird...
To me a GPSr on a bike is basically the same as a map bungeed to the handlebars with a dot saying You Are Here™, and your route drawn on the map. As a navigational aid, I want nothing else from the GPSr.
From a computer function, I want it to record my ride, give me speed, cadence, and log all my funky data. I don't want it to be thinking about routing or any other crap like that.
As someone of an older generation I used route sheets until this year, did try a Garmin once but couldn’t make it work. I was bought a Wahoo Bolt and wow what a difference! I still have the route sheet as it gives me comfort but the ease of navigation with the Bolt is awesome. Riding at night, the last two 300’s has been a super, so enjoyed. Using rwgps for touring over Easter eased the use of more minor roads, loved it. I will always have a route sheet and carry a map but the ‘go to’ Will now be electronic...... an old fart converted.
I have two Wahoo Elemnt Bolt's. One died on day 7 of RatN, so I bought another one. The original one seems to have since recovered. I needed a backup nav device anyway, but it's €239 I hadn't budgeted on. It's just so bloody simple to use. Love it.
J
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2019, 10:12:58 pm
Weird...
To me a GPSr on a bike is basically the same as a map bungeed to the handlebars with a dot saying You Are Here™, and your route drawn on the map. As a navigational aid, I want nothing else from the GPSr.
That's fine (indeed, that's mostly how I use mine). Someone with a visual impairment, lack of map-reading skills, poor mental arithmetic or preference for routesheet-style prompting may have a different opinion. I'm sure you're familiar with the type of prompting and journey time estimation features ubiquitous in car sat-navs. It doesn't seem unreasonable to want a device that can provide similar UI features while sticking to a pre-programmed route - and is practical to use on a long bicycle ride.
Particularly when navigation isn't actually part of the challenge.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 12 May, 2019, 10:14:55 pm
That's fine (indeed, that's mostly how I use mine). Someone with a visual impairment, lack of map-reading skills, poor mental arithmetic or preference for routesheet-style prompting may have a different opinion. I'm sure you're familiar with the type of prompting and journey time estimation features ubiquitous in car sat-navs. It doesn't seem unreasonable to want a device that can provide similar UI features while sticking to a pre-programmed route. and is practical to use on a long bicycle ride.
Particularly when navigation isn't actually part of the challenge.
All lovely features, but that's gonna need a huuuge screen to fit it all...
J
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2019, 10:15:49 pm
That's fine (indeed, that's mostly how I use mine). Someone with a visual impairment, lack of map-reading skills, poor mental arithmetic or preference for routesheet-style prompting may have a different opinion. I'm sure you're familiar with the type of prompting and journey time estimation features ubiquitous in car sat-navs. It doesn't seem unreasonable to want a device that can provide similar UI features while sticking to a pre-programmed route. and is practical to use on a long bicycle ride.
Particularly when navigation isn't actually part of the challenge.
All lovely features, but that's gonna need a huuuge screen to fit it all...
Or no screen at all. I never suggested that you have to do all this stuff at the same time. You might just want the classic 1990s GPS style compass arrow. Or an accurate ETA at the next control on your 'bike computer'. Or a (text and/or audio) routesheet-style turn instruction, without any kind of graphics.
(The prompting displays fine on my eTrex 30 screen - indeed, it's clearer in urban areas than following a line, which is why I tend to use follow-road routing on my tourer, because the device is mounted - by necessity - further away from my eyes. The problem is it doesn't route consistently.)
Post by: FifeingEejit on 12 May, 2019, 10:16:58 pm
(https://i.ibb.co/M6Ccr9N/Crude-Example.png)
A route "cannons" at a junction;
Leg 1 the black leg approaches from the west, turns side road left, then left at cross.
Leg 2 the red leg approaches from the east, turns side road right, then right at cross.
A well designed device knows you are following Leg 1 and where leg 1 and leg 2 intersect has no interest in placing you on Leg 2 because it isn't wasting battery and CPU cycles trying to match the whole route at once but has loaded up around 1km.
A poorly designed device detects you are matching Leg 1 and then at the intersection shouts Wohahahahahaha WTF. and decides to match Leg 2; thus telling you to go the wrong way.
Where the well designed device may fall over is if you stop at the bus stop and GPS signal is lost and/or it goes to sleep or anything else that will cause it to have to rematch your location to the route
(https://i.ibb.co/TBKkRqX/Crude-Example-With-Stop.png)
It has now lost the context of what you were doing before the shut down, which route should it navigate for you, Leg 1 or Leg 2?
The obvious solution is for the device to work out what your recorded in the last km or so; but what if the cannon is longer than the algorithm is designed to work out for?
Edit: And then there's the really shit that decides when you're on an out and back to start reading you the cue's backwards...
Post by: quixoticgeek on 12 May, 2019, 10:18:21 pm
Or no screen at all...
Audio queues?
A bug I've found in many audio based navigation systems (cyclestreets, ridewithgps app, komoot app, google maps), is when you get a really long straight section, you get no signs of life from the device, when using cyclestreets a couple of years back, it said follow a road for 10km, after about 30 mins I thought why hasn't it told me anything new, turns out it had crashed 10 minutes ago, and I'd missed my turning. Wish it had a "Keep going for another 8km" "Keep going for 3 more km" etc...
J
Post by: quixoticgeek on 12 May, 2019, 10:20:05 pm
Crude example of where breadcrum navigation and matching can go horribly wrong:
(https://i.ibb.co/M6Ccr9N/Crude-Example.png)
A route "cannons" at a junction;
Leg 1 the black leg approaches from the west, turns side road left, then left at cross.
Leg 2 the red leg approaches from the east, turns side road right, then right at cross.
A well designed device knows you are following Leg 1 and where leg 1 and leg 2 intersect has no interest in placing you on Leg 2 because it isn't wasting battery and CPU cycles trying to match the whole route at once but has loaded up around 1km.
A poorly designed device detects you are matching Leg 1 and then at the intersection shouts Wohahahahahaha WTF. and decides to match Leg 2; thus telling you to go the wrong way.
Where the well designed device may fall over is if you stop at the bus stop and GPS signal is lost and/or it goes to sleep or anything else that will cause it to have to rematch your location to the route
(https://i.ibb.co/TBKkRqX/Crude-Example-With-Stop.png)
It has now lost the context of what you were doing before the shut down, which route should it navigate for you, Leg 1 or Leg 2?
The obvious solution is for the device to work out what your recorded in the last km or so; but what if the cannon is longer than the algorithm is designed to work out for?
Which ever one the user picks, cos the user remembers they were following the left hand route... And if the user forgets, yeah, it's a mess.
J
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2019, 10:22:16 pm
Or no screen at all...
Audio queues?
A bug I've found in many audio based navigation systems (cyclestreets, ridewithgps app, komoot app, google maps), is when you get a really long straight section, you get no signs of life from the device, when using cyclestreets a couple of years back, it said follow a road for 10km, after about 30 mins I thought why hasn't it told me anything new, turns out it had crashed 10 minutes ago, and I'd missed my turning. Wish it had a "Keep going for another 8km" "Keep going for 3 more km" etc...
Yeah, I can't be doing with them myself, for much that reason.
But if it's all you can see...
Post by: FifeingEejit on 12 May, 2019, 10:22:43 pm
Which ever one the user picks, cos the user remembers they were following the left hand route... And if the user forgets, yeah, it's a mess.
J
Aye, you turn left and it should eventually work out you're on Leg 1, but this requires you to have been paying attention to the route ahead through the entire sequence of the cannon intersection.
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2019, 10:25:03 pm
Which ever one the user picks, cos the user remembers they were following the left hand route... And if the user forgets, yeah, it's a mess.
J
Aye, you turn left and it should eventually work out you're on Leg 1, but this requires you to have been paying attention to the route ahead through the entire sequence of the cannon intersection.
I call this the "which way to turn out of the station" problem, and it's surprisingly hard to solve, in wetware as much as in software.
(Ultimately, the whole point in a GPS receiver is to make up for the shortfall in my brain's abilities.)
Post by: grams on 12 May, 2019, 10:58:41 pm
A well designed device knows you are following Leg 1 and where leg 1 and leg 2 intersect has no interest in placing you on Leg 2 because it isn't wasting battery and CPU cycles trying to match the whole route at once but has loaded up around 1km.
As probably the only person here who's written such an algorithm*, this is exactly what it does. Well, with a bit more complexity.
The first time the algorithm runs, it searches the whole route until it finds a point that is below the "on route" threshold (50m). It then continues searching for a better point. If it goes more than 1 km ahead of the best point that it's found without finding a better point, it gives up and declares the best point found is "where you are".
The second time the algorithm runs, it does the same thing but starts the search at the last identified best point on the route. If you are on route, this usually means it will only be searching the 1 km or so ahead. This makes the point strongly inclined to only ever move forward along the route (unless none of the points in that 1 km are within 50m, when it'll loop through the whole route).
If you set off in the wrong direction - for example, there's an out and back on the same road, and it guessed wrongly which you were on - you have to go 50m behind the "best point" before it figures out what's going on.
It doesn't remember the "best point" between reboots, so if you restart you'll get the first part of the track that matches, until the tracks diverge.
And note, I wrote all this not really to help with navigation, but because I wanted to provide a simple number for your distance along the route.
(On modern devices, having the whole route in memory and searching through it, even if it's 100,000 points, is a pretty negligible operation. Garmin 10,000 points limit is like something straight out of 1998)
* Shameless plug: https://bikegpx.com
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 09:46:55 am
I have Premium RWGPS so I don't have to use (sorry to pick on you) Wilkyboy's tracks which strip out actual routing info and replace with a control count down.
There's actually no right answer to this, fboab — both full of questionable turn-instructions, or instead just something more generally useful to audaxers, both are correct depending on your point of view. FWIW, I asked RWGPS for the feature (apparently two of us asked within hours) to NOT add interminable cue points of questionable validity and usefulness to my TCX files, and they obliged.
I use RWGPS' "Cue Points" for indications of control locations. I think the only TCX files you've used of mine have been Hereward The Wake 300 and Richard Ellis Memorial 200: okay, on REM they're not so useful, but for the SIX infos on Hereward, at least three in the dark, then they make a LOT of sense! I tend to reserve countdowns for infos only now — to get riders to heads-up for the question before they get there.
I am getting a bit of backspatter from Kazoo users whose device is so simple it can't actually do turn-by-turn routing itself. As I don't use TBT myself, preferring to play Routesheet Bingo (I follow the routesheet — point to Garmin if it correctly tells me I'm off-course; point to me if it's wrong), then I'm relatively unsympathetic ... although looking into it, because I'm also an organiser; on ten chars, not an easy problem to solve.
On Garmin Edge devices, you get a screen showing a list of up-coming cue points and the distance to them — that means the control points give you distance-to-go, but these are completely lost if there are hundreds of TBT-instruction cues in there too.
AND, given that Garmins are limited to 10-characters-per-cue, which is what RWGPS exports, those TBT instructions are awful when on the device!
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 10:10:36 am
You do need to understand every undocumented quirk of Garmins
No you don't, just the ones that are relevant to your workflow and likely to come up.
I'm with Kim on this.
And don't let any Kazoo zealot tell you that their Beloved "just works" — no, it does not. There are foilbles and quirks a-plenty over in la-la-land, just less mentioned.
The real edge-cases should be covered by your contingency plan for when your GPS receiver corrupts its storage / shears a battery contact / falls off and gets run over by a taxi / is stolen. Which is probably similar to an non-GPS-user's contingency plan for when their routesheet blows away or is rendered unreadable in a freak BEER accident.
All of which is resolved by printing the routesheet onto waterproof paper using a laser printer, and taking it with you :thumbsup:
Apart from the blowing-away part, which did happen to someone on one of my rides last year :facepalm:
Post by: Ian H on 13 May, 2019, 10:21:32 am
]
I call this the "which way to turn out of the station" problem...
A friend who turned up late to a 200, with just his Garmin for company, did manage to ride the entire event in reverse. Being fast, it bothered him that he hadn't caught anyone within the first leg. Eventually he encountered groups coming the other way, and the penny dropped.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 10:22:53 am
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 10:25:31 am
I had misremembered my issue with RideWithGPS; as others have said, it only demands premium if one wants to download with waypoints. I stand by my "please don't use it" as waypoints make a huge difference. I'd happily pay a higher entry fee if organisers need to cover hosting expenses or anything like that, but it feels wrong to me to have a site profiting off the organiser's work that way.
Maybe my sense of justice is misaligned - if an organizer finds its a tool that adds value for them then I can live with that - but certainly it's not something I would favour as a rider.
RWGPS — and ALL other sites that use Google Maps underneath — have to pay The Borg somehow, and it's not spare change down the back of the sofa, it's serious money for a busy site. "Profiting"? — more like covering costs.
I use RWGPS a LOT (around 2000? routes plotted to date, some very long ones) so I pay my dues as an organiser, and I'm happy with the deal.
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 10:33:02 am
Waypoints only make a difference to devices which recognise them. I don't believe mine does.
In RWGPS, Waypoints are for GPX and Cue Points are for TCX. And in Garmin, Waypoints are for legacy devices (eTrex et al), and Cue Points are for Edge devices (Garmin calls them Coursepoints).
Furthermore, Garmin Edge Devices beep and show the first 10 characters of the Description added in RWGPS for Cue Points. Cues also appear on the map, although they're hard to see; Waypoints are completely ignored. And eTrex and other legacy devices show Waypoints on the map but DON'T beep or do anything special with them; Cue Points are completely ignored.
So, Jibers, if you're using a Garmin Edge then you'd want TCX + Cue Points to get anything useful out of them.
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 10:40:32 am
Can't decide if a Kazzoo is a Wahoo or a Karoo or a portmanteu.
;D
It's really any device that anyone gets overly excited about, on the verge of — or beyond — going religious about it. For those people, I blow my kazoo in their general direction in disdain. And, yes, that mostly includes newly converted Wahoo users, the most fanatical of the lot — just wait until you need to get your phone out in the rain to fix an issue ... ah, phone battery's dead, because it was hunting for signal in the middle of nowhere ...
There is no perfect solution to any of this, none of the formats are all-encompassing, especially not when we have to consider how we got here, i.e. all the legacy stuff still in use; ALL of the devices have foibles, quirks, limitations. A LOT of the questions don't have a correct answer, they're "it depends". Too many people think something that works for them works for everyone. And a LOT of that has been going on in this thread, too.
Now, I know I left it around here somewhere, the tissue paper's probably gone soggy in the rain ...
Post by: Pingu on 13 May, 2019, 10:47:57 am
...And eTrex and other legacy devices show Waypoints on the map but DON'T beep or do anything special with them; Cue Points are completely ignored...
Waypoints can be set up with proximity alerts so eTrexen will beep at you.
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 10:50:15 am
...And eTrex and other legacy devices show Waypoints on the map but DON'T beep or do anything special with them; Cue Points are completely ignored...
Waypoints can be set up with proximity alerts so eTrexen will beep at you.
Good to know, thanks :thumbsup:
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 10:57:24 am
* Shameless plug: https://bikegpx.com
That looks pretty good as a backup to GPS-failure :thumbsup:
Post by: Phil W on 13 May, 2019, 11:01:27 am
And eTrex and other legacy devices show Waypoints on the map but DON'T beep or do anything special with them; Cue Points are completely ignored.
No cigar for that comment.
The Etrex (and other modern units) can and do beep for waypoints if you set a proximity alarm and if you decide you want your GPS to do that. Regardless of the beep it will put a full screen waypoint alert on your GPS screen when you enter the boundary of your proximity alarm. Proximity alarms can be set to trigger within a certain distance (regardless of which direction you approach from) of a waypoint; I usually opt for 100m.
My working method is to have waypoints with proximity alarms for all controls and use a single track unless the track crosses over itself in which case I split it to avoid tired brain confusion moments. I make a note of which leg of the track to follow (this usually just means knowing whether to go left or right at a split if there is a short out and back) from the start to avoid the going round in reverse type scenario described by Ian.
Cue points are ignored because eTrex do not process Training Centre (TCX) or Course (CRS) files, the latter just being for all intents and purposes a subset of the TCX schema.
I do have a Bryton Rider 50 (that I got in 2013) sitting in the cupboard of disappointment. A feature I like on that is that it drew arrows along the length of the track you were following.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 11:03:08 am
There is no perfect solution to any of this, none of the formats are all-encompassing, especially not when we have to consider how we got here, i.e. all the legacy stuff still in use; ALL of the devices have foibles, quirks, limitations. A LOT of the questions don't have a correct answer, they're "it depends". Too many people think something that works for them works for everyone. And a LOT of that has been going on in this thread, too.
True, although I'll never fix a Wahoo problem at the roadside with my Nokia 6100...
But then I'm happy with breadcrumbs on a map and the simple linking it does.
The OP has specific needs from events due to PTSD, something we've wandered far away from!
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 13 May, 2019, 11:09:51 am
Post by: Phil W on 13 May, 2019, 11:19:27 am
Post by: S2L on 13 May, 2019, 11:24:52 am
I have just filtered (by GPX provision) all the events published in the Audax UK calendar. Of the 304 events listed, 159 of them have an organiser supplied GPX file. So there you go, 52% of Audax UK calendar events will have a GPX supplied by the organiser.
I was expecting a lot more... I've only ever done the BCM that doesn't provide one... although admittedly I steer clear of events if they don't provide a GPX and/or I can't find something remotely reliable online
It's to the organiser's loss to be honest and I really don't understand it... it takes 5 minutes to produce a GPX track and about 3 hours to produce a route sheet...
Post by: lmm on 13 May, 2019, 11:29:06 am
RWGPS — and ALL other sites that use Google Maps underneath — have to pay The Borg somehow, and it's not spare change down the back of the sofa, it's serious money for a busy site. "Profiting"? — more like covering costs.
I use RWGPS a LOT (around 2000? routes plotted to date, some very long ones) so I pay my dues as an organiser, and I'm happy with the deal.
To the extent that RWGPS is making organisers' lives easier I'm happy to pay for it. What I object to is people telling organisers who've already made a GPX with waypoints (perhaps even paying for another tool to do so) that they should put it on RWGPS where riders will have to pay to download the (full-featured version of the) same file, rather than any number of free file hosting sites. That to me is RWGPS profiting from their market position rather than on the merit of whatever functionality they actually offer.
But shrug, I'm sure a subscription costs less than the printer ink I'd spend on routesheets. If there's a community consensus that RWGPS should be the standard then I can live with it.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 11:35:57 am
Do the newer garmin devices still allow file upload direct to internal storage or are they too simplifying devices?
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: grams on 13 May, 2019, 11:43:08 am
I have just filtered (by GPX provision) all the events published in the Audax UK calendar. Of the 304 events listed, 159 of them have an organiser supplied GPX file. So there you go, 52% of Audax UK calendar events will have a GPX supplied by the organiser.
I bet most of the 48% either email a GPX to entrants or supply a RWGPS link or similar.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 13 May, 2019, 11:53:32 am
https://www.bikemap.net/en/r/13850/
I've never used GPS, as I always had video camera batteries as a priority, and there's only so much charging I want to think about. The online mapping is useful though, as it shows the likely effect of wind direction.
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 12:21:21 pm
And eTrex and other legacy devices show Waypoints on the map but DON'T beep or do anything special with them; Cue Points are completely ignored.
No cigar for that comment.
Indeed, but now I know ::-) FWIW, my GPX files DO include Waypoints for controls, as well as TCX have Cue Points for controls.
As for you other comments about splitting for "out and back" sections, absolutely :thumbsup:
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 12:26:30 pm
I have just filtered (by GPX provision) all the events published in the Audax UK calendar. Of the 304 events listed, 159 of them have an organiser supplied GPX file. So there you go, 52% of Audax UK calendar events will have a GPX supplied by the organiser.
Yebbut, I specifically DON'T provide a GPX via AUK's site, but I DO provide GPX + TCX in numerous splits (including all-in-one) and in different point-counts on my website suitable for [nearly] every device, which IS linked from AUK's site. Mebbe I'm the only one, so making it 160; or maybe all the missing 145 events do the same?
Unfortunately, the resultant "52%" in your final assertion is incorrect — it should be "at least 52%".
Post by: Phil W on 13 May, 2019, 12:28:59 pm
You'd hope organisers providing GPX would know to indicate this in the facilities for their events.
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 12:29:15 pm
Do the newer garmin devices still allow file upload direct to internal storage or are they too simplifying devices?
Yes, they do.
When I show people how, they're rather surprised at how simple it is compared to having to jump through hoops uploading to somewhere then linking to, and finally downloading to device they would otherwise have to do.
I have never bothered with the hand-holding way, but then I'm like that.
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 12:30:48 pm
Ah ok, 52% of organisers indicate that they will supply a GPX file on the event details listred on aukweb. This was not based on whether a GPx was loaded on aukweb just whether the events indicate a GPX will be provided. If an organiser will supply a GPx but they have not indicated this for their event then they will be excluded from that 52%
Penny drops — yes this, and that also answers a concern I had with Manotea's filter-request. Absolutely, my apologies, you're correct :-[ :thumbsup:
Post by: frankly frankie on 13 May, 2019, 12:33:25 pm
Waypoints only make a difference to devices which recognise them. I don't believe mine does.In RWGPS, Waypoints are for GPX and Cue Points are for TCX. And in Garmin, Waypoints are for legacy devices (eTrex et al), and Cue Points are for Edge devices (Garmin calls them Coursepoints).
GPX is an open interchange format, whereas TCX is a proprietary format - so part of me roots for GPX even if TCX is more useful in practice.
I would expect a planning site that offers a choice of either, to simply convert Waypoints to Coursepoints and vice versa, so the issue of what your device understands wouldn't arise. It's odd if Edges are incapable of doing the same conversion, given that they have to convert a Track to a Course anyway.
Quote
And eTrex and other legacy devices show Waypoints on the map but DON'T beep or do anything special with them; Cue Points are completely ignored.
Further to what others have said - on an Etrex (a modern one that is) you don't even need to set proximity (just as well as there are limits on how many), an Etrex can simply display a distance countdown to the next upcoming Waypoint (and the Waypoint name if you like - which can be a simple instruction). The Waypoints could even be added separately, from a separate GPX import (for example of just the controls and infos), and this still works.
Here for example, it's just under 3km to the next waypoint, where there is a Right turn (Etrex 30 screen dump, navigating a Track).
(http://www.aukadia.net/gps/e30/routing_tr11.jpg)
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 12:36:32 pm
http://www.aukweb.net/events/detail/19-488/
The filter can only ever be as accurate as the organizer makes their listing, and that's never not going to be the case.
If an organizer loses potential entrants due to that it's up to them whether they care about it or not...
The only event in my calendar that doesn't make any mention of GPS files is the Fort Bill 1000.
As with BGB last year I full expect I'll be making my own route in RWGPS, just as soon as Andy advises of the control location in Paisley!
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 12:38:19 pm
Do the newer garmin devices still allow file upload direct to internal storage or are they too simplifying devices?
Yes, they do.
When I show people how, they're rather surprised at how simple it is compared to having to jump through hoops uploading to somewhere then linking to, and finally downloading to device they would otherwise have to do.
I have never bothered with the hand-holding way, but then I'm like that.
Simple if you have the file, if you have the RWGPS link is it as simple as pinning it like with the Wahoo?
Seamless integration is the way with consumer electronics these days.
Post by: frankly frankie on 13 May, 2019, 12:46:39 pm
You'd hope organisers providing GPX would know to indicate this in the facilities for their events.
It's not been well publicised, to be fair, and I had no idea there was that much take-up. Ideally the organiser's upload process would automatically check the facilities string and add a G if its not already there - but then a similar fudge would need to be added for when a file gets deleted. None of that has been done. And organisers preferring to host their GPS files some other way would still need to maintain this bit of data ('G') themselves. New web will hopefully do it better </holding breath>
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 12:49:59 pm
Simple if you have the file, if you have the RWGPS link is it as simple as pinning it like with the Wahoo?
Seamless integration is the way with consumer electronics these days.
Not at the expense of all the other things that are important to people. "Seamless integration" usually results in either obfuscation of the moving parts, or introduction of limitations, like "do it our way or don't do it at all".
Yes, it would be nice to pin in RWGPS and see it on my Garmin, but I'm not that fussed. As an org I do provide the RWGPS link, so riders can do this.
All the other stuff is more important to me — I DON'T use turn-by-turn, so forget trying to sell me on all that. I DO like a colour screen, so my OS maps looks correct. I DO like 20-hours battery life, so my Garmin 1030 does fine. I DON'T want to rely on my mobile phone to tweak any settings, as battery life and water-nonproofiness become unnecessary issues when miles from flippin' anywhere. I'm sure I've missed something, but there's plenty.
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 12:53:52 pm
It's odd if Edges are incapable of doing the same conversion, given that they have to convert a Track to a Course anyway.
Not really — Waypoints are literally arbitrary points of interest on the map, anywhere, whether on the route or not. That's why eTrex sets "proximity alarms".
Cue Points (CoursePoints) are defined points on the Course itself: literally, if you look at the coords of a CoursePoint there will be a corresponding Trackpoint with the identical coords.
Yes, Garmin could fudge Waypoints to CoursePoints, but it would be a fudge — relatively useful, but fudge-flavoured nonetheless.
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 13 May, 2019, 12:55:26 pm
The reason I organise events (albeit permanent events) is to make those rides available to people who ride them, so if I don't make them available on GPX those events will gradually wither and die, which frustrates the whole purpose of me organising events.
So I might begrudge the effort of putting together GPX tracks for the 10700km of Cambrian Series events (and it is a substantial effort, as mapping software has some extraordinary ideas about what routes are suitable for cycles - blindly following the mapping software suggested route would have riders going through locked gates, six inch deep mud on bridlepaths that end on a blank hillside, etc) so the whole track needs to be scanned, checked against something like Google Streetview or ridden). But if I want these rides to stay alive that's what I will do.
I do agree with many posters above that it is the rider's responsibility to check the route, to perform their own risk assessment, to think about fallback options, and not to blindly rely on their track. That's particularly the case where routes (as the Cambrian Series events do) cover remote locations with the potential of wind/rain/snow/ice/dark combinations that would greatly increase risk of serious injury or loss of life. My GPS is great at telling me where I am, that I am on track, how far I have gone, my average speed and even my heart rate, but it can't tell me that when I make that turn in Abergeswyn at the signpost "Tregaron 14" that I've got at least 90 minutes of open moorland, precipitous gradients up and down, loose gravel and not a shred of cover from the elements.
That leads me onto a final concern, which I don't think has been covered, is the liability if there is an error in a GPX track that becomes a contributory factor to an accident. Hypothetically (as it didn't happen on a recent event I rode) the track follows an old edition of a map, suggesting that a rider crosses a busy dual carriageway instead of taking a recently constructed underpass, they then try to cross that road, and are injured in the crossing....
...any GPX track / link I give would have a health warning - but would that stand up in court?
IMHO it would be useful if AUK could provide organisers with some legally reviewed wording to use as a disclaimer.
Post by: frankly frankie on 13 May, 2019, 01:15:17 pm
My GPS is great at telling me where I am, that I am on track, how far I have gone, my average speed and even my heart rate, but it can't tell me that when I make that turn in Abergeswyn at the signpost "Tregaron 14" that I've got at least 90 minutes of open moorland, precipitous gradients up and down, loose gravel and not a shred of cover from the elements.
Or, as on at least two occasions when I made that turn, that there is a full-on car rally using the same road in the opposite direction.
Quote
That leads me onto a final concern, which I don't think has been covered, is the liability if there is an error in a GPX track that becomes a contributory factor to an accident.
I should imagine it's no different from an error or ambiguity in a Route Sheet. IME an amazing number of organisers turn out to be left-right dyslexic, at least a GPX track solves that problem!
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 01:16:17 pm
Not at the expense of all the other things that are important to people. "Seamless integration" usually results in either obfuscation of the moving parts, or introduction of limitations, like "do it our way or don't do it at all".
Indeed, the eTrex isn't a cycling device, it's really designed for Expeditions and navigating where there is no path.
As such it isn't "consumer" electronics, but specialized.
The Wahoos and Edges etc. are consumer electronics with a specific target market.
This is where I can see Wahoo really dropping the ball in future...
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 01:18:10 pm
IME an amazing number of organisers turn out to be left-right dyslexic, at least a GPX track solves that problem!
I'll put my hand up to that one!
I just can't decide which hand ... :facepalm:
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 01:21:40 pm
My GPS is great at telling me where I am, that I am on track, how far I have gone, my average speed and even my heart rate, but it can't tell me that when I make that turn in Abergeswyn at the signpost "Tregaron 14" that I've got at least 90 minutes of open moorland, precipitous gradients up and down, loose gravel and not a shred of cover from the elements.
Or, as on at least two occasions when I made that turn, that there is a full-on car rally using the same road in the opposite direction.
hm... should be a bloke wearing orange or a shed load of tape and signs to tell you that the lands under MSA control.
Unless it's a road event in which case it's an open road and they "shouldn't" have any reason to average any more than 30mph*.
* We have to get dispensation to use the A9 in perthshire and have to put a note in the final instructions telling people that they're expected to travel at road speed there.
Post by: Ajax Bay on 13 May, 2019, 01:37:58 pm
. . . the vast majority of riders . . . now use them as their primary navigation device and there are many (if not a majority of riders) from whom this is now their only way of navigating.I think your estimate is right: vast majority use a navigational device with a track uploaded. Mostly that track is the one supplied by the organiser, directly as a gpx or indirectly as a route on RwGPS (from which it easy to export a basic gpx or one with bells if you pay).
. . . it is the rider's responsibility to check the route, to perform their own risk assessment, to think about fallback options, and not to blindly rely on their track.
BUT, imo, a substantial number of that vast majority DO NOT check the route, to any significant extent, but just 'load it up' and expect it to minimise the effort they put into navigation. As you simply put it, they 'blindly rely' on 'it' working.
Issuing a gpx makes it easy for riders/entrants to not 'check the route', so they don't do it. Not issuing a gpx means that riders who want to use electronic assistance have to construct a route from the routesheet - often not easy - or go looking on RwGPS (say) for a route/track, ideally a recent one, and again ideally check that against the routesheet. This is all good ride preparation which we should encourage, whether it be calendar or permanent event/ride. I do not agree with the notion that navigating UK's road by bike is not about the navigation. Navigation is part of the multi-faceted challenge that is long distance cycling, along with making sure the bike is reliable, the body/bike interface will last the distance, and that the body is fit enough to provide the power to get round (without the benefit of electrical (power) assistance), and no doubt other facets others can list if so minded.
The organiser of the BCM (who chooses not to produce a gpx) says:
"GPS is fine but we have had people blindly following their GPS and not having a clue where they were (I mean literally – not knowing if they were going North or South or what towns they should be looking for). The route is pretty straightforward but carrying a bit of map means you can get your bearings – also handy if you need to re-route, cut short, find a train station, etc,"
https://ridewithgps.com/routes/20922029?beta=false
Post by: Hot Flatus on 13 May, 2019, 01:46:55 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 01:51:10 pm
Neither approcllach encourages me to carry a map or know where bail out points might be, that has so far come entirely from my own approach to riding these things.
There is also a significant difference between navigation on a provided route and a navigational challenge where you're told to get from somewhere to somewhere and work out how to do it yourself.
That approach does mandate map knowledge but the actual riding is no longer the challenge.
I noted that audax is about riding the distance not about the navigational challenge.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Kim on 13 May, 2019, 01:54:22 pm
Issuing a gpx makes it easy for riders/entrants to not 'check the route', so they don't do it.
Yes, but issuing a routesheet makes it hard for riders to 'check the route', so they don't do it either. If you do try to check a routesheet in advance, you end up playing spot-the-feature-that-doesn't-appear-on-a-map using Streetview, and even then you occasionally have to resort to backtracking and guesswork. It's easy to render a GPX track on a map and study it in advance.
"The organiser told me to scramble down a cliff / cross the M6 / wade across the quicksand / etc." is a technology-agnostic problem. Regardless of how it's presented, a route is only correct at the time it was written, and may contain errors. Short of not publishing a route at all, I don't think there's a way to persuade people to do their homework, or apply common sense while on the road.
Post by: L CC on 13 May, 2019, 02:30:10 pm
I laminated the routesheet, turned up and rode.
You shouldn't have to check where it goes. Does it matter? The routesheet should tell you when you get to controls. The organiser should have checked there's a loo available every so often, and food at regular (?100km) intervals.
Why on earth do you need to do all this homework? You can worry about the shit hitting the fan (or- worst case- a long walk) when/if that happens.
Post by: Kim on 13 May, 2019, 02:38:09 pm
Why on earth do you need to do all this homework? You can worry about the shit hitting the fan (or- worst case- a long walk) when/if that happens.
IME:
a) Because you're stretching the limits of your ability and want to have at least an idea of where the flat/hilly/remote bits are and possible bail-out options.
b) You want to use a GPS device for navigation, and the organiser doesn't provide a GPX file.
c) The organiser doesn't provide waypoints for info controls, and you'd like your GPS to beep at you so you don't miss them.
d) You don't blindly trust an organiser-provided GPX file to work properly with your device without at least eyeballing in known-good software first.
e) Plotting a route to/from the start / Mandatory route ECE by GPS
I reckon d) is less relevant these days, as GPS devices are much less limited and everyone in the Audax-Garmin world seems to have standardised on using Tracks for navigation (or distributing via tools like RWGPS which allow you to choose). I have had routes truncate due to point limits and/or organisers providing a GPX full of Routes in the past.
These days my typical workflow is to import the organiser's GPX into Basecamp, check it goes where I expect it to go (noting any interesting features like bastard hills), add waypoints with proximity alarms for controls and infos if necessary, add my route to/from the start, and upload it to the Garmin. Probably takes about 10 minutes, including the time for Windows to apply all the updates since I last used it. If I'm going to ride it on the tourer, I'll probably create a Route for on-road navigation (because I find the prompts easier to see when the Garmin's mounted further away), which actually involves some proper effort, but still less than tracing a routesheet.
Post by: Ajax Bay on 13 May, 2019, 03:00:23 pm
I quite like riding an audax without a clue where I am.I guess there is a spectrum of the geolocational knowledge desire and suggest you are an outlier.
The point about not knowing where you are also applies to those that blindly follow a route sheet doing nothing more than printing it out before hand. There is also a significant difference between navigation on a provided route and a navigational challenge where you're told to get from somewhere to somewhere and work out how to do it yourself. That approach does mandate map knowledge but the actual riding is no longer the challenge. I noted that audax is about riding the distance not about the navigational challenge.Points one and two - agree. Don't agree that riding is "no longer the challenge". The best MTB orienteers are those (like GB's Emily Benham) who are superb riders and excellent navigators. Riding long distances remains the primary challenge - good navigation will keep the rider on the 'straight and narrow': the organiser's recommended route, or consciously choose to take an alternate route between controls. "Audax is about riding the distance." To suggest that long distance riding does not include navigating the roads is (imo) simplistic. For a calendar or permanent event, if one went wrong (and on my first audax I managed an extra 25km in the first four hours but then benefited from a chaperone (OTP and quoted) for the second half who had ridden the route before), this could mean one could shortcut the remainder of the route by the same amount, and you'd still have "ridden the distance".
Agree and if riders do this (check out the route in advance by whatever means) they have prepared themselves for the ride properly. The trick may be to provide information in a form which enforces sensible preparation but doesn't make that so arduous that it deters riders from so doing. A list of villages passed through, with km, in addition to the routesheet might do this. My practice is to construct a list the villages/towns on the route to display on my top tube: granularity varies depending on the area and the road network complexity. My one for BCM next Saturday has 25 entries (for 2 days). If my GPS went down and my map blew away that would be enough info to complete the ride (ack that riding in the simple road networks of Wales (and Scotland) is a special case). But reliance on that list would be founded on thorough route preparation (for which only a minority have the inclination, even if they were willing to allocate the time).Issuing a gpx makes it easy for riders/entrants to not 'check the route', so they don't do it.Yes, but issuing a routesheet makes it hard for riders to 'check the route', so they don't do it either. If you do try to check a routesheet in advance, you end up playing spot-the-feature-that-doesn't-appear-on-a-map using Streetview, and even then you occasionally have to resort to backtracking and guesswork. It's easy to render a GPX track on a map and study it in advance.
Back in the day (2009 / 2010 / 2011) I never 'checked the route'.Implicitly you have changed what you do now. But the routesheets are as good as they were, bitd, aren't they, maybe better?
I laminated the routesheet, turned up and rode.
You shouldn't have to check where it goes. Does it matter? The routesheet should tell you when you get to controls.
Is this approach one that you'd recommend to a new rider (to audax) who, for the sake of argument, does not have a GPS? If not, why not?
"Does it matter [where it goes]?" I rather think it does! But maybe you're at the @Hot Flatus end of the 'quite like to ride without knowing where I am or where I'm going' end of the spectrum.
Post by: Phil W on 13 May, 2019, 03:07:25 pm
Indeed, the eTrex isn't a cycling device, it's really designed for Expeditions and navigating where there is no path.
As such it isn't "consumer" electronics, but specialized.
Woah, don't know where you got that idea from? The eTrex is very much a consumer device. I doubt many who go hill walking or geocaching or even cycling with one would say they are on an expedition.; they are just on a day out. When visibility is poor or it is pouring down or you are in a blizzard or you are on a upland moorland things like waypoints and tracks can serve a very useful purpose. Even just the ability to provide your grid reference to locate yourself on a paper map can be useful in those conditions.
Post by: L CC on 13 May, 2019, 03:15:34 pm
Yes. I have a laissez faire approach, and deal with The Worst if & when. It mostly doesn't.Back in the day (2009 / 2010 / 2011) I never 'checked the route'.Implicitly you have changed what you do now. But the routesheets are as good as they were, bitd, aren't they, maybe better?
I laminated the routesheet, turned up and rode.
You shouldn't have to check where it goes. Does it matter? The routesheet should tell you when you get to controls.
Is this approach one that you'd recommend to a new rider (to audax) who, for the sake of argument, does not have a GPS? If not, why not?
"Does it matter [where it goes]?" I rather think it does! But maybe you're at the @Hot Flatus end of the 'quite like to ride without knowing where I am or where I'm going' end of the spectrum.
Things only changed when I started to share a bike. The driver likes to know. As navigator, it's my responsibility to tell him where the turns are. It's actually more difficult to light up a routesheet on a tandem than on a solo, and we did a lot of DIY / ECEs, so I ended up moving over to GPS.
I should say I've twice missed a control on the umpteen brevets I've ridden.
Once was ride ending- it wasn't worth going back by the time I'd realised. The other was on the Imperator which I DNF for other reasons. Both times I wasn't using the routesheet.
For a new audaxer I'd definitely say stop fukcing about with electronics, just turn up and ride. But, for some new audaxers they think this
Quote
a) Because you're stretching the limits of your ability and want to have at least an idea of where the flat/hilly/remote bits are and possible bail-out options.
Turn up and ride is possibly better under those circumstances- you don't know where you are so you *have* to just carry on to the end.
I've bailed way more rides since I carried escape methodologies than I ever did BITD.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 13 May, 2019, 03:19:13 pm
For a new audaxer I'd definitely say stop fukcing about with electronics, just turn up and ride. But, for some new audaxers they think this
For the new audaxer I'd say stop fucking about with cryptic route sheets held to your arm by tape, elastic bands, and luck, get a decent bike gps, and do events where the organiser has gone to the effort to produce a proper GPX of the ride. Then you can concentrate on getting the distance under you, rather than trying to work out what the fuck the stream of perl you've printed actually means.
J
Post by: Hot Flatus on 13 May, 2019, 03:25:36 pm
snip
Yes, I remember the ride well.
One of us was executing a well-planned, strategy-based operation which included contingencies in the event of the unforeseeable. The other was just going for a nice bike ride.
If memory serves both ended up at the finish at the same time ;D
Post by: L CC on 13 May, 2019, 03:33:18 pm
What's your DNF vs validation rate? How many GPS devices have you bought to work this fantastic method? I think you're up to 4 now, is it?
I never said anything about elastic bands- we once rode in a group containing a guy who stopped pedalling every time he looked at the route sheet banded on his arm. I was tempted to put a pump through his wheel.
This works (https://www.polaris-bikewear.co.uk/MAPTRAP-Clear-One-size-p/pol01-m001.htm). Without a GPS, you've room on the bars.
The stream of perl you've printed is user error. Routesheets are words. The organiser went to the effort of checking a routesheet that doesn't just show you a line to follow, it tells you what/ how far the next turn is, so you can ignore all the turns for about 10km, and erm, focus on getting those km under your legs.
Everybody thinks the way they do it is the one true way.
It's not. Just like your bike is not the one true bike.
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 03:44:54 pm
This works (https://www.polaris-bikewear.co.uk/MAPTRAP-Clear-One-size-p/pol01-m001.htm). Without a GPS, you've room on the bars.
As does this (https://www.16inchwheels.uk/2016/01/20/a-diy-routesheet-holder-for-about-1-50/), with change from £15 — quite a lot of change — and you can use a GPS too :thumbsup:
The stream of perl you've printed is user error. Routesheets are words. The organiser went to the effort of checking a routesheet that doesn't just show you a line to follow, it tells you what/ how far the next turn is, so you can ignore all the turns for about 10km, and erm, focus on getting those km under your legs.
Ay, a well-written routesheet is more than a spreadsheet of places, but a continuous dialog of the route unfolding in front of you to give you sense of journey, typeset and published in a way that is practical and useful on a bike. Numbers are often irrelevant — if the next junction's a T then keep riding to the T, no specific need for a number, although some indication of "keep going a long way" can be helpful. A thoughtful organiser includes interesting things to look out for along the way, which riders can choose to ignore at no cost to either.
And a poorly-written routesheet can be a frustrating experience, forcing the rider to constantly check and re-check whether they think the organiser meant to turn here or there, or even back a-ways, no matter how many numbers were included for the hard-of-estimating.
There's no one-true-way in this either.
Post by: Ajax Bay on 13 May, 2019, 03:52:57 pm
Give me a break: I said it was my first audax - the 'forseeable' was obscured by audax-myopia. And the two guys who led me 15km astray were relying on their GPSs (presume not actually looking at them) and I was just trying to keep up.snipOne of us was executing a well-planned, strategy-based operation which included contingencies in the event of the unforeseeable
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 03:53:48 pm
Indeed, the eTrex isn't a cycling device, it's really designed for Expeditions and navigating where there is no path.
As such it isn't "consumer" electronics, but specialized.
Woah, don't know where you got that idea from? The eTrex is very much a consumer device. I doubt many who go hill walking or geocaching or even cycling with one would say they are on an expedition.; they are just on a day out. When visibility is poor or it is pouring down or you are in a blizzard or you are on a upland moorland things like waypoints and tracks can serve a very useful purpose. Even just the ability to provide your grid reference to locate yourself on a paper map can be useful in those conditions.
You've never come across someone who thinks hiking is just following the paint splashes on a GR route then?
This is very much the general thinking of people I've met who joined my hiking club after moving to Scotland from mainland europe.
Or the constant reminders that hiking in Scotland where routes aren't marked and you can go anywhere is a much greater undertaking than just a walk on a path?
My thinking on the functions of a pure consumer device may of course differ from your definition.
Post by: Tillapaw on 13 May, 2019, 03:55:19 pm
When visibility is poor or it is pouring down or you are in a blizzard or you are on a upland moorland things like waypoints and tracks can serve a very useful purpose. Even just the ability to provide your grid reference to locate yourself on a paper map can be useful in those conditions.
Completely agree with this, I'm pretty confident I wouldn't be here right now if it weren't for my Garmin GPSmap 62s. I was hiking at altitude in the Argentinian Andes and got stuck in a snow storm while descending from the summit of Mercedario. Being able to navigate back to the waypoints we had logged on the ascent made it possible to get off the glacier and back to camp before the effects of exposure kicked in.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 03:56:58 pm
When visibility is poor or it is pouring down or you are in a blizzard or you are on a upland moorland things like waypoints and tracks can serve a very useful purpose. Even just the ability to provide your grid reference to locate yourself on a paper map can be useful in those conditions.
Completely agree with this, I'm pretty confident I wouldn't be here right now if it weren't for my Garmin GPSmap 62s. I was hiking at altitude in the Argentinian Andes and got stuck in a snow storm while descending from the summit of Mercedario. Being able to navigate back to the waypoints we had logged on the ascent made it possible to get off the glacier and back to camp before the effects of exposure kicked in.
So expedition or a saunter in the park on well defined routes?
Post by: quixoticgeek on 13 May, 2019, 04:11:29 pm
How's that working out for you QG?
What's your DNF vs validation rate? How many GPS devices have you bought to work this fantastic method? I think you're up to 4 now, is it?
So far:
- DNF (aborted - Too cold) - 200km BRM Feb 2018
- DNF (overtime - puked following swallowing a fly) - 300km BRM April 2018 - Finished in 21 hours 06 minutes. 150km on an empty stomach.
- DNF (not fit enough) - 600km BRM Jun 2018
- DNF (Knee problems, at 210km mark) - 300km BRM Mar 2019.
- DNF (Neck and saddle pain @ 20% distance) - RatN - May 2018
Events completed:
- 2018 - 4 x calendar 200km BRM, 1x calendar 300km BRM, 5x 200km DIY - Total 2100km
- 2019 - 1 x calendar 300km BRM, 5x calendar 200km BRM, 5x 200km DIY - Total 2300km
- 2019 - Race around the Netherlands, 1897km - 199 hours 50 minutes, 2nd placed woman.
Since I started audaxing I have purchased the following cycle specific GPS devices:
- Wahoo Elemnt Bolt - Purchased 2019-05-08
I have another Wahoo Elemnt Bolt, Purchased before I started Audaxing in November 2017.
I also own a Garmin e-Trex 10, but I haven't used it for cycling for over 2 years, and never for an Audax. I purchased it originally for geocaching, and then as a nav device for touring on my Brompton.
I also own a Garmin inreach Explorer+, I use this as a tracking device, and while it is capable of being used for navigation due to having map functionality, I do not use it as such.
I have not had a single ride DNF or DNV due to a navigational device failure. When my Wahoo died on RatN, I fell back to my phone, in a waterproof case, with the GPX trace in OSMAND. Whilst this would be enough to get me home, I decided to throw money at it and get a new wahoo, I'd need one anyway. Fortunately my dead wahoo is alive again, so I now have a spare GPS device for the TCR. Ultraracing is not audax, and the approach of multiple gps devices that I have taken here is not one I think is relevant to an Audax, an audax you are allowed outside assistance, you can ride with other people, and the route is often not mandatory.
Does that answer your question? Do I meet your requirements and approval to be able to have an opinion on this? I know I'm a relative beginner, I know I've only completed 21 Audax events, and 1 ultra race across 3 countries. But is that enough?
Quote
I never said anything about elastic bands- we once rode in a group containing a guy who stopped pedalling every time he looked at the route sheet banded on his arm. I was tempted to put a pump through his wheel.
This works (https://www.polaris-bikewear.co.uk/MAPTRAP-Clear-One-size-p/pol01-m001.htm). Without a GPS, you've room on the bars.
Where the bloody hell will that go on my bars? it would get in the way of the aero bars...
And while you may not have been the person to suggest that elastic bands for the route sheet, it *HAS* been said in this thread.
Quote
The stream of perl you've printed is user error. Routesheets are words. The organiser went to the effort of checking a routesheet that doesn't just show you a line to follow, it tells you what/ how far the next turn is, so you can ignore all the turns for about 10km, and erm, focus on getting those km under your legs.
From one event I did last year:
1,1 (VKL) RD-R Schuinrechts éénrichtingstraat / sens unique (Godetialaan)
From another:
0,8 B/R Vilsteren 7 (fietspad links) 17,0
VKL's tot voor brug
I dunno how yacf will cope with the special characters, thats a smily face, and a right arrow for the first instruction, and a up arrow for the second one.
Quote
Everybody thinks the way they do it is the one true way.
It's not. Just like your bike is not the one true bike.
Excellent, I do love it when people make my point for me. Providing a GPX and a route sheet makes it accessible to those who want to use a GPS, and those who want to use a route sheet. Providing only 1 of them makes it complicated for which ever is left out.
As a newbie, who's started recently, I think that using a bike computer like a wahoo or a bike specific garmin is incredibly easy to use, in fact even using a mobile phone (suitably weather proofed) on a handlebar mount is incredibly easy for most people. A route sheet may as well just be perl as far as I am concerned.
Now, seeing as you have had the audacity to challenge my palmares, to make me justify my point of view, I have questions for you:
How many ultra races have you managed to achieve a podium finish on?
What's the coldest Audax you've completed? How many toes have you had frostbite in?
What's the strongest headwind you've had on an Audax?
How many different countries have you completed an Audax in?
J
Post by: Tillapaw on 13 May, 2019, 04:12:46 pm
So expedition or a saunter in the park on well defined routes?
I think it qualifies as an expedition, there is a trail but it isn't well defined and we lost it on the way up which resulted in a 1000m climb on a scree slope. That bit took 12 hours. It's like Aconcagua but without the crowds; we saw 5 other people in the two weeks we were there. We organised it ourselves, no porters or mules so most of the trip was carrying stuff from camp to camp.
Post by: Ian H on 13 May, 2019, 04:19:49 pm
It's to the organiser's loss to be honest and I really don't understand it... it takes 5 minutes to produce a GPX track and about 3 hours to produce a route sheet...
Researching a route, producing a track, riding & checking it, amending the track, adding waypoints, takes me more than 5mins. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong.
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 13 May, 2019, 04:20:48 pm
This is the UK, not the Russian Steppes or the vast wastelands of Siberia.Even in mid Wales you are rarely more than 10 miles from civilisation.
Even in the middle of Hampshire you can be a couple of miles away from a mobile phone signal, so as a back up map device a phone can be useless. When it is cold dark and wet, 10 miles is a long way.
But that's tipping the balance for me, in favour of the GPX as a primary navigation device. The one time I have gone significantly astray (don't laugh) was on one of my own permanents (the Cambrian 3B). I'd done my usual prep of working out a route, checking the intersections on Google StreetView etc.
270km or so into the event I came to a junction that looked familiar, thinking I was getting close to the end, and totally convinced myself that the sign that read "Blaunwaun" actually read "Meidrim". It's amazing what tricks the mind will play when you just want to get back. Blindly riding along (without a GPS at the time) I was quite happy until I reached a T-junction instead of a X. Fortunately (having reccied the route before hand, I had a reasonable understanding of places and names. My iPhone was useless as there was no signal.
If I'd had my GPS (a more recent addition), it would have bleeped at me like crazy and I would have gone back to the junction.
How did I make such a mistake (this was part of SR series no 13, so not a novice rider). I'd started the event at 11.30pm after a days work, not slept, and it had rained on me in an inimitable thick Pembrokeshire drizzle for 8 hours.
As it was, my pre-ride reconnaissance (I do tend to scan the Ordnance Survey maps which, in the UK are available on Bing Maps - there's a pull down) and so I was aware of the lie of the land and place names. I knew I had to cut across the grain of the country, so after an unexpectedly beautiful descent and climb, I saw the desired Meidrim on the signposts and headed for that. So now, even though I do use GPS as my primary device, I do carry the route sheets as a back up and, unless work is manic in the week before, will study the route so that I'm generally aware of where I am.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 13 May, 2019, 04:25:15 pm
This is the UK, not the Russian Steppes or the vast wastelands of Siberia.Even in mid Wales you are rarely more than 10 miles from civilisation.
Even in the middle of Hampshire you can be a couple of miles away from a mobile phone signal, so as a back up map device a phone can be useless. When it is cold dark and wet, 10 miles is a long way.
A mobile phone does not need to have phone signal to be able to work as a navigation device. Apps like OSMand allow you to load that GPX and have offline mapping. You can even operate it in airplane mode, which can make the battery last a lot longer.
Quote
But that's tipping the balance for me, in favour of the GPX as a primary navigation device. The one time I have gone significantly astray (don't laugh) was on one of my own permanents (the Cambrian 3B). I'd done my usual prep of working out a route, checking the intersections on Google StreetView etc.
270km or so into the event I came to a junction that looked familiar, thinking I was getting close to the end, and totally convinced myself that the sign that read "Blaunwaun" actually read "Meidrim". It's amazing what tricks the mind will play when you just want to get back. Blindly riding along (without a GPS at the time) I was quite happy until I reached a T-junction instead of a X. Fortunately (having reccied the route before hand, I had a reasonable understanding of places and names. My iPhone was useless as there was no signal.
Your phone was useless as you hadn't loaded offline mapping data to it. The lack of signal merely made this more pronounced.
J
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 04:26:24 pm
Aye.So expedition or a saunter in the park on well defined routes?
I think it qualifies as an expedition, there is a trail but it isn't well defined and we lost it on the way up which resulted in a 1000m climb on a scree slope. That bit took 12 hours. It's like Aconcagua but without the crowds; we saw 5 other people in the two weeks we were there. We organised it ourselves, no porters or mules so most of the trip was carrying stuff from camp to camp.
I think so too, what's lost on people is heading into the middle of the cairngorm is similarly risky and audacious, we see it as normal and consumer like because its what we are used to.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 13 May, 2019, 04:27:52 pm
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 13 May, 2019, 04:28:14 pm
When visibility is poor or it is pouring down or you are in a blizzard or you are on a upland moorland things like waypoints and tracks can serve a very useful purpose. Even just the ability to provide your grid reference to locate yourself on a paper map can be useful in those conditions.
Completely agree with this, I'm pretty confident I wouldn't be here right now if it weren't for my Garmin GPSmap 62s. I was hiking at altitude in the Argentinian Andes and got stuck in a snow storm while descending from the summit of Mercedario. Being able to navigate back to the waypoints we had logged on the ascent made it possible to get off the glacier and back to camp before the effects of exposure kicked in.
Agreed, and very sensible, though it was possible with much simpler technology. I still don't have a GPS for hiking in Scotland, so if there's any threat of navigation in bad weather, I will have pre-written bearings and distances from known points and be confident about pacing distances to get off the hill safely. GPS would make it a lot easier and take away the risk of error, but for me (personally) part of the experience and enjoyment of travel in bad weather was being able to navigate safely and successfully with such simple devices.
Post by: Kim on 13 May, 2019, 04:29:12 pm
For a new audaxer I'd definitely say stop fukcing about with electronics, just turn up and ride. But, for some new audaxers they think thisQuotea) Because you're stretching the limits of your ability and want to have at least an idea of where the flat/hilly/remote bits are and possible bail-out options.
Turn up and ride is possibly better under those circumstances- you don't know where you are so you *have* to just carry on to the end.
I think it very much depends on the person. Some people benefit from thinking the top of the hill is just round the next corner. I do better when I know it's round the corner, another kilometre or so through the trees, and a final steep bit after the T-junction.
The thing I tend to struggle most with on bike rides is pacing, rather than motivation. I'm generally quite happy to keep plodding until my body rebels, but I'm prone to going too hard early on if I'm not mentally prepared for what's coming. In the early days this was more about managing my asthma, but excessive cycling seems to have improved my resilience to exercise-induced attacks, and it's more about fatigue and digestion, which are longer-term things.
Quote
I've bailed way more rides since I carried escape methodologies than I ever did BITD.
I don't think GPS really counts as an escape methodology, given that even the routesheet users are now carrying a pocket computer that could tell them where the next town is or summon a taxi.
But I tend not to bail rides (not counting those that have been aborted by group consensus because someone else was struggling). I've DNFed one audax because I was puking my guts up and bonking after the first 90km, and I've hobbled to a station with knee failure halfway through a FNRttC, but in general inertia keeps me going (albeit sometimes quite slowly). Not having a family member with a car on speed-dial certainly helps, as does riding a bike that's a a PITA to transport other than by riding it[1]. (Credit where it's due on the two occasions where Mr Arch and nikki OTP rescued me when defeated by lurgy and crash injury respectively.)
The flip side of this is that I'm a bit obsessive about preparation for the things I can control[2]: I'm reasonably careful about bike maintenance, carry a decent set of tools and I like to know where I am. And if my body isn't cooperating on the day, I'll stay at home. Shit still happens (on a bad day, literally), but it's less to worry about when I'm actually on the bike.
[1] I'm much more likely to think about bailing out when I'm riding a Brompton, for reasons that aren't entirely related to how hard work they are to ride...
[2] I'm a child-of-alcoholic cliche in this respect, apparently.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 04:31:56 pm
The first time I saw a gps device was when I was hiking with a mate who is really into his gadgets.When visibility is poor or it is pouring down or you are in a blizzard or you are on a upland moorland things like waypoints and tracks can serve a very useful purpose. Even just the ability to provide your grid reference to locate yourself on a paper map can be useful in those conditions.
Completely agree with this, I'm pretty confident I wouldn't be here right now if it weren't for my Garmin GPSmap 62s. I was hiking at altitude in the Argentinian Andes and got stuck in a snow storm while descending from the summit of Mercedario. Being able to navigate back to the waypoints we had logged on the ascent made it possible to get off the glacier and back to camp before the effects of exposure kicked in.
Agreed, and very sensible, though it was possible with much simpler technology. I still don't have a GPS for hiking in Scotland, so if there's any threat of navigation in bad weather, I will have pre-written bearings and distances from known points and be confident about pacing distances to get off the hill safely. GPS would make it a lot easier and take away the risk of error, but for me (personally) part of the experience and enjoyment of travel in bad weather was being able to navigate safely and successfully with such simple devices.
I wasn't with him the day he climbed the wrong hill by following his incorrectly set up gps thankfully.
His map reading is equally dubious...
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: quixoticgeek on 13 May, 2019, 04:34:40 pm
I thought willy-waving was something only blokes did...
Assuming this is a response to me responding to an attack. Agreed. But if people are going to suggest that I am not experienced enough to hold the opinion I do, to question what I've done, I'm going to fucking well defend it. The same way I will not be gaslit on twitter, I will not tolerate having my view devalued. Its hard enough taking part in Audaxing as it is, without having my efforts devalued by gatekeepers.
Repeatedly on this forum I've been challenged as not being experienced enough to hold the views I do. Even members on this forum have done so on twitter. I will not accept it. Ever.
J
Post by: Kim on 13 May, 2019, 04:41:27 pm
Everybody thinks the way they do it is the one true way.
It's not. Just like your bike is not the one true bike.
Excellent, I do love it when people make my point for me. Providing a GPX and a route sheet makes it accessible to those who want to use a GPS, and those who want to use a route sheet. Providing only 1 of them makes it complicated for which ever is left out.
This.
And this thread was mostly discussing the best way to provide a GPX, to that end.
Post by: Phil W on 13 May, 2019, 04:43:44 pm
Aye.So expedition or a saunter in the park on well defined routes?
I think it qualifies as an expedition, there is a trail but it isn't well defined and we lost it on the way up which resulted in a 1000m climb on a scree slope. That bit took 12 hours. It's like Aconcagua but without the crowds; we saw 5 other people in the two weeks we were there. We organised it ourselves, no porters or mules so most of the trip was carrying stuff from camp to camp.
I think so too, what's lost on people is heading into the middle of the cairngorm is similarly risky and audacious, we see it as normal and consumer like because its what we are used to.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Heading into the Cairngorms is still not an expedition. You will be saying map and compass are a pure expedtion item next, as everything else is a walk in the park, and doesn't require that kind of nonsense.
If anyone tells me they are off on an expedition to climb Ben Macdui they can fook right off and stick their flag where the sun don't shine..
Consumer GPS has been around for approx 20 years now. Time we moved on.
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 13 May, 2019, 04:46:35 pm
Post by: Kim on 13 May, 2019, 04:47:16 pm
Post by: quixoticgeek on 13 May, 2019, 04:47:57 pm
QG, you and everybody else can have whatever opinions you like. I tend to learn more from the stories of the folk who've made a wide variety of mistakes over many years but YMMV.
Good, then perhaps people can stop asking me to demonstrate my experience in order to justify my opinions?
J
Post by: lmm on 13 May, 2019, 06:40:36 pm
I like to eyeball the route a little and see where nearby stations are (and find the controls and mark them myself if they're not marked already). I'm not sure I'd bother doing that on a routesheet-only ride as it would be significantly harder.
The AUK mission statement is to promote long-distance cycling. IMO that's better served by GPX than routesheets these days, in terms of the majority of the potential audience. While I wouldn't suggest that organisers should be obliged to provide GPX if they don't want to, shouldn't the same logic apply to routesheets as well?
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 06:45:26 pm
To the extent that an organiser thinks a warning like "this is the last shop for 20k" (say) is warranted, I'd submit that this can be offered as a GPX waypoint just as well as on a routesheet.
There seems to be a mismatch between belief and actuality with regard to GPS devices. In relation to your comment — you COULD add that to a TCX CoursePoint and load it up on a Garmin Edge device, but only the first 10 characters would display, and it can be tricky to communicate detailed or subtle information in so few characters. Which would be next to useless — "lastshop20".
Whereas on the routesheet it can be written in plain English.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 13 May, 2019, 06:57:34 pm
Is that a good idea, or should it be in a member section of the AUK website, if it should exist at all?
Some people like gpx files/devices and those that more than don't like! I'm sure everyone has an opinion.
I have to use computer/gpx due to mental issues, PTSD means I forget what I read, almost immediately plus get stressed!
Is it possible, that someone can organise a section in this website, for all Audax rides to be listed with a gpx file? Is it something that anyone else, would find helpful or offensive!?
Would the organisers, that do so much already, find it helpful?
If I was capable, I would try to do it, but its not likely.
Post by: Somnolent on 13 May, 2019, 07:17:19 pm
The AUK mission statement is to promote long-distance cycling. IMO that's better served by GPX than routesheets these days, in terms of the majority of the potential audience. While I wouldn't suggest that organisers should be obliged to provide GPX if they don't want to, shouldn't the same logic apply to routesheets as well?Nope. Paper routesheets are accessible to the greater proportion of the potential audience.
That most of them now prefer GPX to paper (or for one reason or another are unable to use paper) is a great argument for encouraging organisers to provide some form of GPX support - but as an add-on, not as a replacement to paper.
But the ability to filter the calendar to exclude routes that don't include GPX tracks is a perfectly reasonable request, one that will no doubt get fed back to the IT team when they start work on redeveloping the events system.
Post by: Ajax Bay on 13 May, 2019, 07:30:58 pm
But the ability to filter the calendar to exclude routes that don't include GPX tracks is a perfectly reasonable request, one that will no doubt get fed back to the IT team when they start work on redeveloping the events system."Perfectly reasonable request" but how many different filters does the potential searcher/filterer need? Having/not having a route described by a organiser-provided gpx must be down the hierarchy of filter priority. What about one which can filter out events which demand mudguards? Wouldn't this rate higher in the requirements the 'IT team' is seeking individually to satisfy?
Post by: mattc on 13 May, 2019, 07:37:00 pm
;D [as it happens, I'm not left-right dyslexic, but I *still* managed to make that error on my first 400k routesheet draft ::-) Fixed on the route-check, thank deity ... ]IME an amazing number of organisers turn out to be left-right dyslexic, at least a GPX track solves that problem!
I'll put my hand up to that one!
I just can't decide which hand ... :facepalm:
But doesn't this raise the spectre of incorrect GPX files? Even if the org is competent at creating them, it's another source of error. Routes almost always change between first inception and the kick-off - is the GPX sent to riders the current version? Did you update the waypoint for Info #2 ?? etc ...
I would rather get a correct routesheet and no GPX than a ropey version of either. All these lovely techies on the internet will crowdsource a file for us - shirley?!?
Post by: Kim on 13 May, 2019, 07:45:37 pm
But the ability to filter the calendar to exclude routes that don't include GPX tracks is a perfectly reasonable request, one that will no doubt get fed back to the IT team when they start work on redeveloping the events system."Perfectly reasonable request" but how many different filters does the potential searcher/filterer need? Having/not having a route described by a organiser-provided gpx must be down the hierarchy of filter priority. What about one which can filter out events which demand mudguards? Wouldn't this rate higher in the requirements the 'IT team' is seeking individually to satisfy?
If there's a field in the database, allow the search to be filtered by it. Preferably in such a way that it can work this out based on the database table itself, rather than hard-coding things that would require future maintenance.
Makes no difference to the code whether that field denotes GPX, mudguards, parking at the start or whatever. If someone thought it important enough to include in the table, then someone will find it important enough to filter results by.
Post by: Karla on 13 May, 2019, 07:47:28 pm
The AUK mission statement is to promote long-distance cycling. IMO that's better served by GPX than routesheets these days, in terms of the majority of the potential audience. While I wouldn't suggest that organisers should be obliged to provide GPX if they don't want to, shouldn't the same logic apply to routesheets as well?Nope. Paper routesheets are accessible to the greater proportion of the potential audience.
Incorrect. Anyone who has any form of telephonic communication already has a GPS receiver, or could switch to one for free. All they need is simething to attach it to their bike, which costs about £10 (https://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-tests/six-best-phone-mounts-326983).
The proportion of people who don't have even a landline phone but want to ride audax is ... not worth factoring into this discussion.
Post by: mattc on 13 May, 2019, 07:53:32 pm
Incorrect. Anyone who has any form of telephonic communication already has a GPS receiver, or could switch to one for free.Also, incorrect!
(I'll post you my phone if you'll pay for the upgrade :) Well, if you ever deign to return to these shores, of course ... )
Post by: Pingu on 13 May, 2019, 08:12:15 pm
...Incorrect. Anyone who has any form of telephonic communication already has a GPS receiver, or could switch to one for free...
Arf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_1100).
Post by: Karla on 13 May, 2019, 08:35:42 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 09:23:18 pm
But the ability to filter the calendar to exclude routes that don't include GPX tracks is a perfectly reasonable request, one that will no doubt get fed back to the IT team when they start work on redeveloping the events system."Perfectly reasonable request" but how many different filters does the potential searcher/filterer need? Having/not having a route described by a organiser-provided gpx must be down the hierarchy of filter priority. What about one which can filter out events which demand mudguards? Wouldn't this rate higher in the requirements the 'IT team' is seeking individually to satisfy?
A filter that allows users to tick which facilities they want as must haves nominally isn't a particularly tricky one, provided the design of the persistence layer allows it.
Probably a day or two development once you cover the need for a back end developer, a front end developer and a tester (Which may be 3 people or 1 person)
Post by: Feanor on 13 May, 2019, 09:23:30 pm
For example, a routesheet becomes useless if you have gotten lost and the instructions no longer make sense.
And a GPX becomes useless if you run out of power.
My take is that a GPS simply moves the fretting to the comfort of your chair in a warm computer room.
I will always download the org's GPX, but will never just use it blindly.
I will load it into both Mapsource, and RWGPS to inspect where it goes.
I will add waypoints for the controls.
I might create routes to overlay the tracks, but actually the Edge 800 will navigate tracks with Turn-by-Turn if you enable that on the individual track.
The great advantage of GPS is that in the dark, in the middle of the night, you have some certainty about exactly which "L @ 370.5k, no SP" is actually correct. Is it really up that dark lane? Or is there another dark lane in half a k? Do we ride on to have a look or not?
With GPS, you can simply say "No, the turn is sill 200m ahead."
And yes, I have absolutely been in that situation.
Post by: Chris S on 13 May, 2019, 09:45:41 pm
The great advantage of GPS is that in the dark, in the middle of the night, you have some certainty about exactly which "L @ 370.5k, no SP" is actually correct. Is it really up that dark lane? Or is there another dark lane in half a k? Do we ride on to have a look or not?
Yes! This was the entire reason I switched to using GPS nav for audax; late on in a 200, in the dark and pissing rain, I somewhat belatedly realised there are two aspects to navigation - knowing where to go yes, but crucially - where the f*ck you are right now, and no paper routesheet or map will do that.
Post by: L CC on 13 May, 2019, 09:54:14 pm
Maybe this is the problem. If that was your point you had put it very badly, because what it reads like to me is that everyone else is doing it wrong. Which is erm, interesting, because some of those other people have been doing it for a few years, differently and successfully. Hence my questioning your experience.QuoteEverybody thinks the way they do it is the one true way.
It's not. Just like your bike is not the one true bike.
Excellent, I do love it when people make my point for me.
.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 13 May, 2019, 10:21:24 pm
Maybe this is the problem. If that was your point you had put it very badly, because what it reads like to me is that everyone else is doing it wrong. Which is erm, interesting, because some of those other people have been doing it for a few years, differently and successfully. Hence my questioning your experience.QuoteEverybody thinks the way they do it is the one true way.
It's not. Just like your bike is not the one true bike.
Excellent, I do love it when people make my point for me.
Just because someone has been doing something a long time, doesn't mean they have been doing it right. Just because I've found a solution that works for me so far doesn't mean it will always work for me, or that it will work for everyone. The problem is we have a number of people making claims such as:
Nope. Paper routesheets are accessible to the greater proportion of the potential audience.
A route sheet is accessible in so far as anyone can print one, assuming they own a printer. But the reality is, what is written on the route sheet is pretty cryptic. For your first event where you are not only worrying about the fact you're riding twice the distance you've ever ridden before, you're now trying to work out what all the codes for each turn mean. You're also trying to read text, at speed, that is mounted on a vibrating shaky platform, or your arm, or where ever it's mounted, potentially through rain. And this is before you have the issue that not everyone on an event speaks the same language, nor takes into account issues with dyslexia. Yes everyone can print a route sheet, doesn't mean everyone can actually use a route sheet.
I'm sure there are many people for whom a routesheet Just Works™, they understand it, they are familiar with it, but to assume that everyone will find a similar level of ease with such an item is naive at best.
For me a GPX file Just Works™, it's technology I am familiar with, I understand it, and I know the quirks of how to use one. It also doesn't require me to have a printer, so when I stop off in the middle of Denmark on the way back from Hell, I can just load the GPX on my phone, sync to my Wahoo, and get riding. No need to decipher the Danish instructions, just follow the dot on the screen. Same when I turn up in Bruges, or Groot-Bijgaarden, or Bunnik.
I wonder how many cyclists under 40 have a bike computer like a wahoo or a garmin, but don't have a printer...
To bring this back to the original question, I think that an ability to search by if a GPX is available should be an option on the website, and I would even go so far as to say it should be one of the priority features for searching for events. But I would go further and suggest that AUK should make it recommended best practice that organisers should provide a quality GPX for their rides. We've spoken at length about how we can make audaxing more inviting to people that aren't old white men, I'd suggest that the routesheet and it's complexities is something that for many could be a barrier to entry. A GPX removes that barrier.
I am hoping to do an UK audax in 2020 (missed chance in 2019), for me it'll have to be a ride that provides a good GPX, and it'll have to be a ride that is BRM. I appreciate I am a minority in these specific requirements however.
J
PS I gave you my Palmares, you never answered my questions.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 10:31:55 pm
I wonder how many cyclists under 40 have a bike computer like a wahoo or a garmin, but don't have a printer...
Printer ownership in general seems to be pretty low.
A straw poll of the people I work with (software developers) a few months back when someone needed to print out a flight booking, resulted in 1 out of 8 having a printer.
That 1 is me, I have a printer because I used to print out rally results.
No other reason.
Historically I'd just use the one at work otherwise, however that's being watched by the bosses and prints out on horrible brown 60gsm paper.
You have to beg for access to colour printing or decent quality paper.
I can't be the only one...
Post by: Kim on 13 May, 2019, 10:43:19 pm
We have a Laserjet 4000, mostly because I discovered the benefits of previously-owned workhorse lasers when I was at uni, and we've done enough LGBT activisim over the years for something that can handle the occasional large print run to be worth keeping around. As such, it was no hassle for me to print out the routesheet for next weekend's audax a few minutes ago. If I didn't own a printer, I'd probably suffice with uploading the PDF to my phone along with the GPX - since I don't have anywhere convenient to mount it[1], the routesheet will spend the duration of the ride in my bag unless something goes wrong.
[1] Handlebars are full, pockets+recumbent seat will destroy paper, and I don't want to have to cover an area of limb with something non-porous unless I really have to.
Post by: Ian H on 13 May, 2019, 10:47:21 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 10:50:26 pm
I wonder if software developers are more or less likely to own printers than their non-technical peers? On one hand, they're probably better equipped to beat the bloody things into submission. On the other, they're acutely aware that printers were sent from hell to make us miserable, and tend to be the kind of people who go out of their way to do things electronically rather than arse about converting things to and from Dead Tree Format.
We have a Laserjet 4000, mostly because I discovered the benefits of previously-owned workhorse lasers when I was at uni, and we've done enough LGBT activisim over the years for something that can handle the occasional large print run to be worth keeping around. As such, it was no hassle for me to print out the routesheet for next weekend's audax a few minutes ago. If I didn't own a printer, I'd probably suffice with uploading the PDF to my phone along with the GPX - since I don't have anywhere convenient to mount it[1], the routesheet will spend the duration of the ride in my bag unless something goes wrong.
[1] Handlebars are full, pockets+recumbent seat will destroy paper, and I don't want to have to cover an area of limb with something non-porous unless I really have to.
When I say having printer, I include having access to printer; the colleague who was trying to find one already knew her parents, brother and entire extended family (which appears to be about half the population of Dundee) don't have a printer.
You like I have a reason to actually have a printer; many don't even have a computer at home any more, their phones or tablets suffice.
What may come as a surprise is that includes some of my colleagues.
I have had to dig out the e-mail advising of a change to a control location on a ride; as mentioned earlier I usually only have an old Nokia on me when out on the bike.
Had I driven down to that event rather than ridden down and ECE'ed back I would have had a problem...
What's worse is I'd read it to consign the location to memory, unfortunately I'd consigned the fact it was at Costa in Tesco to memory and not remembered the actual location of the Tesco in town.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 13 May, 2019, 10:52:01 pm
If you don't have a printer, you contact the organiser (assuming that's me) and ask for one posted or on the day.
So it's too much to expect an organiser to produce a GPX, but asking them to spend time and ink printing the route sheet for you is ok?
How does the etiquette work on this one?
J
Post by: Kim on 13 May, 2019, 11:00:57 pm
If you don't have a printer, you contact the organiser (assuming that's me) and ask for one posted or on the day.
So it's too much to expect an organiser to produce a GPX, but asking them to spend time and ink printing the route sheet for you is ok?
How does the etiquette work on this one?
Depends on whether they accept postal entries, or entries on the line? (ie. are they going to be printing routesheets anyway)
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 11:03:45 pm
If you don't have a printer, you contact the organiser (assuming that's me) and ask for one posted or on the day.
So it's too much to expect an organiser to produce a GPX, but asking them to spend time and ink printing the route sheet for you is ok?
How does the etiquette work on this one?
Postal entries include two envelopes. The second envelope is for the return of the brevet after the event ... the first is for the routesheet beforehand.
It's a very interesting series of points about access to printers. I happen to have a laser printer here in the office, because my wife used to be an accountant and was forever printing stuff out. Our two boys print a fair bit, too. It cost about £150 — I worked out it was cheaper (per page) to buy a new printer with starter toner packs, than to buy replacement toner for the big old Dell laser still sat over in the corner, go figure. It does a fine job of printing a handful of routesheets to put on the desk at the start of one of my events, you're welcome.
I'd hate to have a printer if I didn't have somewhere office-like to put it, though.
Post by: wilkyboy on 13 May, 2019, 11:12:20 pm
If there's a field in the database, allow the search to be filtered by it. Preferably in such a way that it can work this out based on the database table itself, rather than hard-coding things that would require future maintenance.
Makes no difference to the code whether that field denotes GPX, mudguards, parking at the start or whatever. If someone thought it important enough to include in the table, then someone will find it important enough to filter results by.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
You have been following progress on the new website, haven't you, Kim?! :demon: :P
Post by: Kim on 13 May, 2019, 11:17:28 pm
If there's a field in the database, allow the search to be filtered by it. Preferably in such a way that it can work this out based on the database table itself, rather than hard-coding things that would require future maintenance.
Makes no difference to the code whether that field denotes GPX, mudguards, parking at the start or whatever. If someone thought it important enough to include in the table, then someone will find it important enough to filter results by.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
You have been following progress on the new website, haven't you, Kim?! :demon: :P
Sadly there's a fine line between common sense and satire...
Post by: FifeingEejit on 13 May, 2019, 11:47:19 pm
On Tapatalkbollocks now and can't find Kim's post about filtering by codes in a free text box... The sort of thing that makes me shudder before asking the person suggesting it what happens when you want events that are both non mudguard and gpx providers...If there's a field in the database, allow the search to be filtered by it. Preferably in such a way that it can work this out based on the database table itself, rather than hard-coding things that would require future maintenance.
Makes no difference to the code whether that field denotes GPX, mudguards, parking at the start or whatever. If someone thought it important enough to include in the table, then someone will find it important enough to filter results by.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
You have been following progress on the new website, haven't you, Kim?! :demon:
A multi select populated from the lookup table containing the different options is the usual solution, a multi select can use check boxes and not be pull down if you so wish, there shouldn't be a need to use non-dynamicly created elements to do it...
Shouldn't...
Remember my notepad++ loving colleague?
He's actually quite good for trying out new stuff but He's got a counterpart in oddity... The do everything like it's 1994 one.
If the benefits package wasn't so good...
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Ajax Bay on 14 May, 2019, 12:03:25 am
Not quite sure what your question is but:If you don't have a printer, you contact the organiser (assuming that's me) and ask for one posted or on the day.So it's too much to expect an organiser to produce a GPX, but asking them to spend time and ink printing the route sheet for you is ok?
How does the etiquette work on this one?
J
It is not too much to expect an organiser to produce a GPX (or a link to a plotting site from which a route can be exported), but if they choose not to (for whatever reason) then your expectations are not met. What is the penalty for that dislocation of expectation and who pays it? If you wanted to ride that event, you'd have to put effort into preparing a gpx yourself, using the supplied routesheet (on the screen) or by searching and cross checking. This would be good preparation for the ride. Or just choose not to ride it.
Organisers are volunteers and if we/the system imposes mandatory requirements which some don't wish to meet, then they may stop organising. Doesn't sound like a 'win' to me. If such a mandatory requirement set by AudaxUK was driven by valid safety considerations (and demands for a gpx doesn't meet that criterion), maybe there is merit.
I believe most if not all organisers are proud of their rides and the lovingly crafted routesheet and keen to share them (the route and the routesheet) and, if need be and on request, help poor printerless folk by either posting them one or having a few available at the start. Sounds like kindness to me.
You quoted Ian H above: he provides both gpx files and excellent routesheets for all his calendar and permanent rides: see http://www.ukcyclist.co.uk/ (http://www.ukcyclist.co.uk/)
Btw, please don't ask him for his (long) palmares: he's got the BCM to prepare for and ride, and B2S and the Buzzard to check.
Post by: lmm on 14 May, 2019, 12:58:38 am
There seems to be a mismatch between belief and actuality with regard to GPS devices. In relation to your comment — you COULD add that to a TCX CoursePoint and load it up on a Garmin Edge device, but only the first 10 characters would display, and it can be tricky to communicate detailed or subtle information in so few characters. Which would be next to useless — "lastshop20".
Whereas on the routesheet it can be written in plain English.
I don't know about Garmins, but certainly my phone would read out the whole thing - and it's by no means an expensive or modern phone.
Nope. Paper routesheets are accessible to the greater proportion of the potential audience.
That most of them now prefer GPX to paper (or for one reason or another are unable to use paper) is a great argument for encouraging organisers to provide some form of GPX support - but as an add-on, not as a replacement to paper.
If by "accessible" we mean the potential rider being able and willing to take part in a ride while navigating with the proposed method, then I very much doubt it. Paper routesheets may be marginally cheaper in financial terms, but they're intimidating to get started with and fiddly even to the familiar user.
But doesn't this raise the spectre of incorrect GPX files? Even if the org is competent at creating them, it's another source of error. Routes almost always change between first inception and the kick-off - is the GPX sent to riders the current version? Did you update the waypoint for Info #2 ?? etc ...
I would rather get a correct routesheet and no GPX than a ropey version of either. All these lovely techies on the internet will crowdsource a file for us - shirley?!?
There's a limit to how wrong a GPX file can be if the start and end are in the right place, whereas a routesheet can have any number of errors buried in the middle.
I'd take a ropey GPX over a perfect routesheet any day of the week, personally. The one three rides back tried to send me through a flooded-on-the-day ford, but I'm pretty sure that cost me less time than I would've lost overall to checking and rechecking if I'd used the (apparently updated) routesheet.
Post by: Whitedown Man on 14 May, 2019, 06:45:46 am
But the ability to filter the calendar to exclude routes that don't include GPX tracks is a perfectly reasonable request, one that will no doubt get fed back to the IT team when they start work on redeveloping the events system."Perfectly reasonable request" but how many different filters does the potential searcher/filterer need? Having/not having a route described by a organiser-provided gpx must be down the hierarchy of filter priority. What about one which can filter out events which demand mudguards? Wouldn't this rate higher in the requirements the 'IT team' is seeking individually to satisfy?
Yes please
Post by: grams on 14 May, 2019, 08:09:05 am
Organisers are volunteers and if we/the system imposes mandatory requirements which some don't wish to meet, then they may stop organising.
Doesn't this apply equally to the requirement for routesheets? I bet most organisers (and potential new organisers) plot new routes online anyway, so providing a GPX takes no extra effort but providing and checking a routesheet is a whole load of extra work.
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 14 May, 2019, 08:48:52 am
Organisers are volunteers and if we/the system imposes mandatory requirements which some don't wish to meet, then they may stop organising.
Doesn't this apply equally to the requirement for routesheets? I bet most organisers (and potential new organisers) plot new routes online anyway, so providing a GPX takes no extra effort but providing and checking a routesheet is a whole load of extra work.
That's fine for new routes, but not for legacy routes. As noted upthread, it will be a labour of love to generate reliable GPX tracks for 10700km of Cambrian Series rides (which are currently free routes so don't even have the luxury of a route sheet) and there are classic perms such as Trafalgar - Trafalgar and Calais - Brindisi which may be even more challenging.
Post by: L CC on 14 May, 2019, 08:59:13 am
Maybe this is the problem. If that was your point you had put it very badly, because what it reads like to me is that everyone else is doing it wrong. Which is erm, interesting, because some of those other people have been doing it for a few years, differently and successfully. Hence my questioning your experience.QuoteEverybody thinks the way they do it is the one true way.
It's not. Just like your bike is not the one true bike.
Excellent, I do love it when people make my point for me.
Just because someone has been doing something a long time, doesn't mean they have been doing it right. Just because I've found a solution that works for me so far doesn't mean it will always work for me, or that it will work for everyone.
::-)
Do you really not see the hypocrisy in this statement?
Post by: FifeingEejit on 14 May, 2019, 09:01:51 am
If something is a free route and you don't provide a route for people to follow, then surely part of that challenge is and should remain determining a route to take between controls?Organisers are volunteers and if we/the system imposes mandatory requirements which some don't wish to meet, then they may stop organising.
Doesn't this apply equally to the requirement for routesheets? I bet most organisers (and potential new organisers) plot new routes online anyway, so providing a GPX takes no extra effort but providing and checking a routesheet is a whole load of extra work.
That's fine for new routes, but not for legacy routes. As noted upthread, it will be a labour of love to generate reliable GPX tracks for 10700km of Cambrian Series rides (which are currently free routes so don't even have the luxury of a route sheet) and there are classic perms such as Trafalgar - Trafalgar and Calais - Brindisi which may be even more challenging.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: frankly frankie on 14 May, 2019, 09:10:06 am
Remember my notepad++ loving colleague?
He's actually quite good for trying out new stuff but He's got a counterpart in oddity... The do everything like it's 1994 one.
You do realise that his father - or someone remarkably like his father - runs the aukweb website. Don't you?
Post by: FifeingEejit on 14 May, 2019, 09:39:17 am
Routefinding and navigation generally shouldn't be part of the audax challenge. Blind tandem stokers would have a thin time of it if it were.There's do it like it's 1994 because you have to due to legacy systems and do it like it's 1994 because you've never moved on.Remember my notepad++ loving colleague?
He's actually quite good for trying out new stuff but He's got a counterpart in oddity... The do everything like it's 1994 one.
You do realise that his father - or someone remarkably like his father - runs the aukweb website. Don't you?
Aukwebs also a tad different from what was once a bleeding edge healthcare developement team.
While I die a little every time I have to look at legacy systems in Coldfusion10 or .NET 2, seeing new JavaEE 7 code being written in notepad and supporting a flat HTML front end...
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Ian H on 14 May, 2019, 09:47:24 am
If you don't have a printer, you contact the organiser (assuming that's me) and ask for one posted or on the day.
So it's too much to expect an organiser to produce a GPX, but asking them to spend time and ink printing the route sheet for you is ok?
How does the etiquette work on this one?
J
Dunno, but I have found, over the years, that the best way to deal with a rider's complaint is to smile gently and stamp their card.
Post by: Nutbeem on 14 May, 2019, 09:55:20 am
I wouldn't worry about whether the Organiser provides a GPX or not. If they do great, if not you can usually locate a track from someone who has ridden the event previously, & if not I can plot my own.
I'd always check any GPX track for accuracy and anomalies, that's just good preparation in my book.
I'm an Etrex user, and I use Basecamp to filter down trackpoints and to plot and upload Waypoints for the Controls, info Controls and any other Waypoints I think may be handy to have (e.g. Stations that may provide a bail out option).
I do think it's important that riders who use GPX should take the time to familiarise themselves with the device; how to convert file formats before loading & how to use the device features. I often suggest to new users that they use their GPS for navigation on local rides so they can get a feel of how it works, Routing especially. I think may riders only use the navigation features on an event. To me that's rather like putting a different saddle on your bike specifically for a 400Km ride.
Being a belt and braces person I always carry a paper list of the controls, a copy of the route sheet and a paper map. After reading a comment upthread I'll also being making a list of 25 towns and villages across Wales before this weekend.
Although I'm a strong advocate of GPS use I don't think the importance of studying the route can be overstated enough, as one of our fellow club members recently found out to their cost when they blindly followed their GPS through two towns well to the West of their intended route, adding 35Km to the ride distance, which with the time taken to find a way to get back on route meant finishing out of time.
Post by: bairn again on 14 May, 2019, 10:44:16 am
I'll always aim to carry a paper route sheet just in case, much the same way as I'll carry a space blanket and a folding tyre in my bag too but they are all just insurance policies hopefully not to be called upon but reassuring that they are there.
As a relatively uncomplicated soul I normally navigate by gpx track only, occasionally supplemented with waypoints for controls, though thats not normally needed. A control will normally signify that a significant change of direction is about to occur and that (along with details on a brevet card) should make the vast majority of controls reasonably obvious.
Ive read the whole thread and I'm surprised that nobody appears to have explicitly mentioned what I think is the main advantage on using a GPS over hard copy which is that it makes me significantly faster.
It was riding with Maverick at night on the very wet HBKH ride in 2010 - him with a GPS and me with a sodden and soon to be papier mache route sheet - that made the penny drop.
Not having to get hard copy PoP has also made for far better quality DIY rides of which I do plenty.
Paper route sheets also vary wildly in format as they tend to reflect an organisers preference.
There was a point a few years ago when I thought it possible & desirable to not produce hard copy routesheet but Ive since been convinced of their merits.
I think some of the info in the thread also explains why a number of riders missed the Dunblane control on my recent 400km. Id added the controls as POIs on the gpx track but if Im reading it correctly these didnt show on some GPS devices (I must admit that I didnt event know you could do this until I first rode an event where wilkyboy had done this and the controls appeared on screen).
If anybody can help me out so that I can make controls more evident to GPs-ers in future do let me know.
Post by: lmm on 14 May, 2019, 10:47:10 am
That's fine for new routes, but not for legacy routes. As noted upthread, it will be a labour of love to generate reliable GPX tracks for 10700km of Cambrian Series rides (which are currently free routes so don't even have the luxury of a route sheet) and there are classic perms such as Trafalgar - Trafalgar and Calais - Brindisi which may be even more challenging.
I've got no objection to allowing old events to remain routesheet-only if the organiser wishes (and riders can of course choose to ride them or not). I'm just saying by the same token shouldn't we allow organisers to offer new events as GPX-only if they want. I'd think that would mean more new organisers.
(I must admit I hadn't noticed that there are GPX-only permanents around already, which means I've got no excuse not to turn the next good DIY I come up with into one).
Post by: jiberjaber on 14 May, 2019, 10:48:23 am
................
Although I'm a strong advocate of GPS use I don't think the importance of studying the route can be overstated enough, as one of our fellow club members recently found out to their cost when they blindly followed their GPS through two towns well to the West of their intended route, adding 35Km to the ride distance, which with the time taken to find a way to get back on route meant finishing out of time.
^^^This!!!
It always makes me smile when I hear of riders turning up at an Org's house because that's where the GPX route started rather than at the actual start point...
Post by: Carlosfandango on 14 May, 2019, 11:09:39 am
Today, we ride along minor roads and lanes and route sheets are more complicated and more difficult to use. Thankfully the ever improving GPS devices have been a saviour.
That is a gross simplification but mostly true, I think.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 14 May, 2019, 11:09:42 am
I did my first 200km ride in 1982 - virtually before bicycles were invented let alone GPS :D - and started using a GPS in 2010 (Im now on my 2nd Etrex 30). Its my primary method of navigation now.The problems i had at Dunblane were:
I'll always aim to carry a paper route sheet just in case, much the same way as I'll carry a space blanket and a folding tyre in my bag too but they are all just insurance policies hopefully not to be called upon but reassuring that they are there.
As a relatively uncomplicated soul I normally navigate by gpx track only, occasionally supplemented with waypoints for controls, though thats not normally needed. A control will normally signify that a significant change of direction is about to occur and that (along with details on a brevet card) should make the vast majority of controls reasonably obvious.
Ive read the whole thread and I'm surprised that nobody appears to have explicitly mentioned what I think is the main advantage on using a GPS over hard copy which is that it makes me significantly faster.
It was riding with Maverick at night on the very wet HBKH ride in 2010 - him with a GPS and me with a sodden and soon to be papier mache route sheet - that made the penny drop.
Not having to get hard copy PoP has also made for far better quality DIY rides of which I do plenty.
Paper route sheets also vary wildly in format as they tend to reflect an organisers preference.
There was a point a few years ago when I thought it possible & desirable to not produce hard copy routesheet but Ive since been convinced of their merits.
I think some of the info in the thread also explains why a number of riders missed the Dunblane control on my recent 400km. Id added the controls as POIs on the gpx track but if Im reading it correctly these didnt show on some GPS devices (I must admit that I didnt event know you could do this until I first rode an event where wilkyboy had done this and the controls appeared on screen).
If anybody can help me out so that I can make controls more evident to GPs-ers in future do let me know.
1) The rwgps route i had took you into the court yard of the flats next to the church, which I took to mean the access to the church hall was through there rsther than it being one of the limitations of the Google and osm routing algorithms that rwgps uses and that I'm for ever fighting with.
(I always end up with a lap of doune in the GPS when all I want is for it to stop at the spar and then return the way it came in)
2) I completely missed the AUK Control Sign you had tied to the church gate to help us find the control while walking right past it... Partly due to me reading the huge banner next to it that said "try praying" and then looking back at where I was going directly after.
In this case I'd dug around in street view and aerial photos and failed to see how to get to the hall from them too, but there was a vague sign of a path from the courtyard in the aerial photos, in retrospect its bloody obvious that the way into the kirk Hall is to enter the main gate to the church and walk round it.
I think it's fair to say in this case you really couldn't have allowed for that level of eejitery on my part!
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: grams on 14 May, 2019, 11:13:21 am
Although I'm a strong advocate of GPS use I don't think the importance of studying the route can be overstated enough, as one of our fellow club members recently found out to their cost when they blindly followed their GPS through two towns well to the West of their intended route, adding 35Km to the ride distance, which with the time taken to find a way to get back on route meant finishing out of time.
How can this even happen? Manually selecting the wrong route? If the device did it without prompting it should go in the bin.
It always makes me smile when I hear of riders turning up at an Org's house because that's where the GPX route started rather than at the actual start point...
Is that more likely to happen because the organiser's home address is usually far more prominent on the event web page than the start point?
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 11:16:34 am
Postal entries include two envelopes. The second envelope is for the return of the brevet after the event ... the first is for the routesheet beforehand.
It's a very interesting series of points about access to printers. I happen to have a laser printer here in the office, because my wife used to be an accountant and was forever printing stuff out. Our two boys print a fair bit, too. It cost about £150 — I worked out it was cheaper (per page) to buy a new printer with starter toner packs, than to buy replacement toner for the big old Dell laser still sat over in the corner, go figure. It does a fine job of printing a handful of routesheets to put on the desk at the start of one of my events, you're welcome.
I'd hate to have a printer if I didn't have somewhere office-like to put it, though.
Ah yes, postal entries. I understand the arguments that some put forward for them, but the reality is for Gen X and below, postal entry is yet another inaccessible anachronistic barrier to entry things. Who uses a cheque book these days? How many audaxers if they opened their cheque book would find the only times they have used it is to pay for audaxes...
When I mentioned the asking the org to print the route sheet, I'd entirely forgotten that AUK still does postal entry. Every ride I've done, be it Danish, Belgian, or Dutch has been online, or entry on the line.
Do you really not see the hypocrisy in this statement?
No, by all means explain it to me, In PM if you like. You've challenged my experience in public, but when I asked you yours, you replied in private.
Not quite sure what your question is but:
It is not too much to expect an organiser to produce a GPX (or a link to a plotting site from which a route can be exported), but if they choose not to (for whatever reason) then your expectations are not met. What is the penalty for that dislocation of expectation and who pays it? If you wanted to ride that event, you'd have to put effort into preparing a gpx yourself, using the supplied routesheet (on the screen) or by searching and cross checking. This would be good preparation for the ride. Or just choose not to ride it.
Organisers are volunteers and if we/the system imposes mandatory requirements which some don't wish to meet, then they may stop organising. Doesn't sound like a 'win' to me. If such a mandatory requirement set by AudaxUK was driven by valid safety considerations (and demands for a gpx doesn't meet that criterion), maybe there is merit.
I believe most if not all organisers are proud of their rides and the lovingly crafted routesheet and keen to share them (the route and the routesheet) and, if need be and on request, help poor printerless folk by either posting them one or having a few available at the start. Sounds like kindness to me.
You quoted Ian H above: he provides both gpx files and excellent routesheets for all his calendar and permanent rides: see http://www.ukcyclist.co.uk/ (http://www.ukcyclist.co.uk/)
Btw, please don't ask him for his (long) palmares: he's got the BCM to prepare for and ride, and B2S and the Buzzard to check.
Where did you get the mandatory GPX from? I used the phrase "recommended best practice", I didn't use the term Mandatory.
And no, I have no desire to ask anyone for their Palmares unless they deem to challenge mine first.
That said, the BCM is an interesting event, being that it doesn't provide a GPX, and it requires a cheque book for UK residents to enter, and I'm not entirely sure how the incantation works for non UK resident riders, but that's going off topic.
Organisers are volunteers and if we/the system imposes mandatory requirements which some don't wish to meet, then they may stop organising.
Doesn't this apply equally to the requirement for routesheets? I bet most organisers (and potential new organisers) plot new routes online anyway, so providing a GPX takes no extra effort but providing and checking a routesheet is a whole load of extra work.
That's fine for new routes, but not for legacy routes. As noted upthread, it will be a labour of love to generate reliable GPX tracks for 10700km of Cambrian Series rides (which are currently free routes so don't even have the luxury of a route sheet) and there are classic perms such as Trafalgar - Trafalgar and Calais - Brindisi which may be even more challenging.
If you asked for help, I'm sure there would be a number of volunteers who would be happy to help you with generating GPX tracks of your perms. The number of people who have riden them, logging the rides via their GPSr devices would provide a good basis from which to generate your GPX to offer out.
J
Post by: wilkyboy on 14 May, 2019, 11:22:32 am
I've got no objection to allowing old events to remain routesheet-only if the organiser wishes (and riders can of course choose to ride them or not). I'm just saying by the same token shouldn't we allow organisers to offer new events as GPX-only if they want. I'd think that would mean more new organisers.
(I must admit I hadn't noticed that there are GPX-only permanents around already, which means I've got no excuse not to turn the next good DIY I come up with into one).
Firstly, I don't think there are any GPX-only permanents — the Perms Secretary requires a routesheet before he'll approve a perm event. There ARE GPS-validated perms, but I don't think there are any that will only take GPS-validation, i.e. paper-validation not allowed, although could be wrong there?
Secondly, the routesheet — the act by the organiser of preparing the routesheet, turn by turn — forms a sound basis for a well-considered Risk Assessment, which is a requirement before any event is published. Plotting a route on Auto using Google's often arbitrary routing algorithm does not give the required confidence. I can see AUK rightly requiring orgs to prepare a routesheet for some time to come, if only to give it confidence in the RA, whether or not the org chooses to share the routesheet with riders.
And what we've seen is that more organisers doesn't make much difference to AUK. The number of rides and validations has not changed much with respect to number of organisers, ISTR.
Post by: wilkyboy on 14 May, 2019, 11:32:55 am
Ah yes, postal entries. I understand the arguments that some put forward for them, but the reality is for Gen X and below, postal entry is yet another inaccessible anachronistic barrier to entry things. Who uses a cheque book these days? How many audaxers if they opened their cheque book would find the only times they have used it is to pay for audaxes...
It's like the question of whether we should still use cash — "well Gen Z don't so why should anyone else?" — eh?!! I'm Gen X and I am comfortable with cash — and postal entries. Disposing of this useful method would slice off a sizeable minority of long-standing members of AUK for no apparent benefit to AUK. As an organiser it would simplify my life by a little, although not by as much as you might think.
To use pejorative language such as "yet another inaccessible anachronistic barrier" is rather revealing your own prejudices for modernity and against how things used to be done, and still are done by some — I'm sure the less digitally capable members will thank you for such sentiments, J. Fortunately, some of us are more aware, open-minded and inclusive about these things (although I have my own internal biases, too, I'm sure).
Post by: wilkyboy on 14 May, 2019, 11:37:02 am
Do you really not see the hypocrisy in this statement?
No, by all means explain it to me, In PM if you like.
TBH, I didn't see it either :-\
Post by: FifeingEejit on 14 May, 2019, 11:40:20 am
I have a cheque book, I asked for one when I got my current current account because the photo lab I was using at the time didn't take card payments.
I've only used 3 so far, all for audax entries, two for perms because I didn't think as I was taking the entry round to save on stamps that I could take cash, and the other because I entered before the organiser had enabled PayPal.
If I change account again I'm unlikely to ask for a cheque book.
They were very nearly deprecated as a payment method 5 years ago and banks have been working on alternatives since the early 2000s, such as the faster payments scheme.
The government intervened due to certain demographics still using them and the alternatives not being suitable for them.
The take a photo on phone app is also unsuitable for that demographic...
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 11:52:40 am
Firstly, I don't think there are any GPX-only permanents — the Perms Secretary requires a routesheet before he'll approve a perm event. There ARE GPS-validated perms, but I don't think there are any that will only take GPS-validation, i.e. paper-validation not allowed, although could be wrong there?
Secondly, the routesheet — the act by the organiser of preparing the routesheet, turn by turn — forms a sound basis for a well-considered Risk Assessment, which is a requirement before any event is published. Plotting a route on Auto using Google's often arbitrary routing algorithm does not give the required confidence. I can see AUK rightly requiring orgs to prepare a routesheet for some time to come, if only to give it confidence in the RA, whether or not the org chooses to share the routesheet with riders.
Eh? You generate a route sheet, then you ride following the route sheet, to validate that the routesheet works.
You generate the GPX, using what ever tool you desire (rwgps, komoot, vi, emacs, strava), you then ride the ride following the GPX to check it works and doesn't send you down dead ends, or one way streets. You can do the same risk assessment this way, as you can generating a route sheet. You're still generating, testing, modifying, etc... to make sure it works.
Ah yes, postal entries. I understand the arguments that some put forward for them, but the reality is for Gen X and below, postal entry is yet another inaccessible anachronistic barrier to entry things. Who uses a cheque book these days? How many audaxers if they opened their cheque book would find the only times they have used it is to pay for audaxes...
It's like the question of whether we should still use cash — "well Gen Z don't so why should anyone else?" — eh?!! I'm Gen X and I am comfortable with cash — and postal entries. Disposing of this useful method would slice off a sizeable minority of long-standing members of AUK for no apparent benefit to AUK. As an organiser it would simplify my life by a little, although not by as much as you might think.
I have never said that postal entry with a cheque should be abolished, I am saying that it being the *ONLY* way to enter an audax is a barrier to entry. Having it as an option is fine, as long as there are other ways to pay.
I live in a city where not only can you not use cash in most places, but the only card payments that are accepted are a specific type of card that is only really issued in the Netherlands, This is something that tripped up all the UK entrants to RATN. I ended up making payments for people at the start, and they gave me cash, as my Dutch card worked fine, but their UK cards didn't.
I think it's crazy, I would rather use cash for payments in the real world, it makes it easier for me to budget.
Quote
To use pejorative language such as "yet another inaccessible anachronistic barrier" is rather revealing your own prejudices for modernity and against how things used to be done, and still are done by some — I'm sure the less digitally capable members will thank you for such sentiments, J. Fortunately, some of us are more aware, open-minded and inclusive about these things (although I have my own internal biases, too, I'm sure).
You've missed my point. I am not saying the only option should be online entry, I'm saying we should have a plurality of options, so you can send a cheque, and I can send a bank transfer, or paypal. Same way as I am not saying that routesheets should be banned or abolished, but am saying we should recommend that GPX's are provided.
Accessibility and removing barriers to entry is about providing options. Routesheet only events being claimed as accessible to all, is just as inaccessible to many as postal entry only events, but then an online entry only event would be just as inaccessible to some. By offering more than one option, you make the event more accessible to all.
We've talked at length on this forum about how Audaxing is an old white mans game, and what can we do to make it more inviting to other demographics. Making it easier to enter, and providing the necessary information in a means they can use is part of that. It doesn't have to be done at the expense of the older generations, and it shouldn't be.
J
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 14 May, 2019, 12:00:55 pm
You download the route-sheet, or the GPX, turn up and ride. 1800 did the Carlise-Cramond last year, and 'The Adventure Show' covered it.
'Chase the Sun' started in the same way, now you have to register.
https://www.chasethesun.org
A similar approach, with a £4 on the line entry is this reliability series. https://ridethestruggle.com/blogs/struggle/yorkshire-reliability-rides-2019
A typical behaviour pattern for the future might be participation in those events in non-PBP years, and increased uptake for PBP qualification.
This separate Audax board is something of a 'walled garden'. There's no reason why there shouldn't be a 'routesheet only' flower bed within that garden. That way they won't get swamped by the rampant growth of free to download events.
Post by: rob on 14 May, 2019, 12:02:04 pm
We've talked at length on this forum about how Audaxing is an old white mans game, and what can we do to make it more inviting to other demographics.
My bold. Please stop.
There's been a very broad mix of participants on all the rides I've done this year.
Post by: Nutbeem on 14 May, 2019, 12:04:37 pm
Although I'm a strong advocate of GPS use I don't think the importance of studying the route can be overstated enough, as one of our fellow club members recently found out to their cost when they blindly followed their GPS through two towns well to the West of their intended route, adding 35Km to the ride distance, which with the time taken to find a way to get back on route meant finishing out of time.
How can this even happen? Manually selecting the wrong route? If the device did it without prompting it should go in the bin.
It's been subject to much discussion but no one really knows.
The person involved claims their Garmin made them do it.
We know that the day before the event the rider split the organisers GPX from one track into shorter tracks, one per leg of the route, so my suspicion is that there was an inadvertent drag and drop action which altered the middle of the Track and this went un-noticed.
Lessons for me would; don't leave checking and uploading GPX Tracks to the last minute & carefully check the GPX on your PC by zooming and studying it before uploading to the Garmin.
Post by: wilkyboy on 14 May, 2019, 12:11:36 pm
<snip — as above>
J, I'm not going to respond to all your points. However, I did suspect that inclusiveness, rather than exclusiveness, might be your point of view, but that wasn't at all what I got from reading what you had written. As another friend of mine mentioned up-thread, you might want to re-read your posts before posting to make sure that what it will mean to other people aligns with what it means to you. As an inveterate writer I spend quite a long time re-reading and altering my posts before — and after — posting to make sure they make sense, and even then I don't always get it right.
The one point I will focus on is that the process of writing a routesheet is far more mentally engaging and involved than tracing a line on a map. And it's that process that really brings every turn and junction of any route into sharp focus much more clearly than following a line on a computer screen. Personally, I start with the line on the screen and write the routesheet from it, and, yes, checking the route does help iron out issues, but during a ride then there's a lot of other stuff going on — balancing, traffic, weather, pot-holes, darkness — that get in the way of simply assessing whether there's an extant risk to a rider — possibly one from other shores (e.g. on LEL) — that should be taken into consideration. That's how I see it.
N. (Nick)
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 12:13:36 pm
We've talked at length on this forum about how Audaxing is an old white mans game, and what can we do to make it more inviting to other demographics.
My bold. Please stop.
There's been a very broad mix of participants on all the rides I've done this year.
There hasn't been on the events I've done. The highest number of women on an event I've done is about 7-8%. That's across 3 countries, and multiple distances. And the average age is probably late 40's early 50's.
It may be different on the events you're doing, but given the discussions we've seen on here, I see no reason that my statement that the majority of those taking part in audax are a) men, and b) older.
On one recent event, there were more velomobiles than women...
J
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 14 May, 2019, 12:22:55 pm
We've talked at length on this forum about how Audaxing is an old white mans game, and what can we do to make it more inviting to other demographics.
My bold. Please stop.
There's been a very broad mix of participants on all the rides I've done this year.
I questioned some young women about their route to getting to LEL in 2017. https://youtu.be/ZZqdo_kfHt8?t=147
I'm not really drawn to female exceptionalism, as my partner Heather is a Hyper Randonneur and PBP ancienne. She was never concerned that AUK had lots of old white men. That profile meant that she had more people to ride with, as she could read the routesheet, and the old white men couldn't. So she had a captive peloton at night. GPS has put an end to that co-dependency, and groups form more on grounds of riding style.
Post by: rob on 14 May, 2019, 12:27:25 pm
We've talked at length on this forum about how Audaxing is an old white mans game, and what can we do to make it more inviting to other demographics.
My bold. Please stop.
There's been a very broad mix of participants on all the rides I've done this year.
There hasn't been on the events I've done. The highest number of women on an event I've done is about 7-8%. That's across 3 countries, and multiple distances. And the average age is probably late 40's early 50's.
It may be different on the events you're doing, but given the discussions we've seen on here, I see no reason that my statement that the majority of those taking part in audax are a) men, and b) older.
On one recent event, there were more velomobiles than women...
J
You are making statements about diversity in AUK events based on your experience of riding Audax on the Continent ? Just to make sure I get you.
Post by: Kim on 14 May, 2019, 12:32:21 pm
It always makes me smile when I hear of riders turning up at an Org's house because that's where the GPX route started rather than at the actual start point...
Surely that's incompetence on the part of the organiser though, just as it would be if the routesheet instructions started at their house?
Which isn't to say a rider who's done their homework wouldn't spot it, but they shouldn't have to.
Post by: Karla on 14 May, 2019, 12:40:24 pm
Ah yes, postal entries. I understand the arguments that some put forward for them, but the reality is for Gen X and below, postal entry is yet another inaccessible anachronistic barrier to entry things. Who uses a cheque book these days? How many audaxers if they opened their cheque book would find the only times they have used it is to pay for audaxes...
It's like the question of whether we should still use cash — "well Gen Z don't so why should anyone else?" — eh?!! I'm Gen X and I am comfortable with cash — and postal entries. Disposing of this useful method would slice off a sizeable minority of long-standing members of AUK for no apparent benefit to AUK. As an organiser it would simplify my life by a little, although not by as much as you might think.
QG is making a good point, which is that most of this thread has worked on the following underlying assumptions:
- Electronic stuff can break down.
- It's quite reasonable not to be able to use electronic stuff.
- We can always go back to the reliable paper-based alternatives, which cannot fail.
- Everyone has a stable postal address.
- Everyone has the means to send money by post.
The past two audaxes I've entered (and for that matter the past two TTs)
- I have not had a printer, or access to a printer.
- I have not had a return postal address.
- I have not had a chequebook.
- I have not had any local currency to put in the envelope instead of a cheque.
- I have not been able to read the language in which the route sheet has been written.
For approximately the rest of 2019, I expect to be UK-based but itinerant enough that all except the last two of those hills true.
The hypothetical oldster is considered normal on here, who is not old enough to have retired from cycling 200 km but is too old and single to know anyone with a computer. The itinerant Xer, however, is considered niche enough that technologies requiring a stable address and access to cheques are lauded as reliable, universal fallbacks. Why is that?
Post by: wilkyboy on 14 May, 2019, 12:57:34 pm
The hypothetical oldster is considered normal on here, who is not old enough to have retired from cycling 200 km but is too old and single to know anyone with a computer. The itinerant Xer, however, is considered niche enough that technologies requiring a stable address and access to cheques are lauded as reliable, universal fallbacks. Why is that?
Hmm, I'm not sure your assertion is correct about "the hypothetical oldster" and "itinerant Xer". To my mind what has been said is that "there are groups of people like this" and not "all people of a certain age/generation are like this", no not at all.
In fact, in my experience, some of the quickest adopters of GPS have been "oldsters", because they have the spare cash (kids left home) and it mitigates a very real problem (long-sightedness). But that doesn't mean they have a PayPal account.
As for Xers — this is the first I've heard of "stable address" coming into the discussion, so it feels like you're dumping your own personal, and very niche (IMO), issues into the argument. I would posit that it's extremely unusual that someone doesn't have some form of stable address, be it home, college, parents, work, friends, and who would also own a bike and be interested in audax — not impossible, but way outside the current discussion.
And [UK] Xers will be experienced with cheques, whether or not they still use them. The point isn't that they all want to — the point is that they could if they wanted to. It's not about grouping generations together, it's about NOT preventing any subgroups from taking part — however one chooses to define them.
Post by: L CC on 14 May, 2019, 12:59:12 pm
OK, I'll spell it out.Do you really not see the hypocrisy in this statement?
No, by all means explain it to me, In PM if you like.
TBH, I didn't see it either :-\
The reason people (including me) are asking QJ to justify her opinions with experience is because although she'll admit that her way is only *currently* the right way for her, & may not be in the future, she still has the arrogance to claim people who have been doing things successfully but differently than her for years are wrong.
Really?
And no, I won't be bragging about my experience on this thread. It's crass. I've already impressed the only person who cares. Thanks mum!
Post by: jiberjaber on 14 May, 2019, 12:59:40 pm
.......................It always makes me smile when I hear of riders turning up at an Org's house because that's where the GPX route started rather than at the actual start point...
Is that more likely to happen because the organiser's home address is usually far more prominent on the event web page than the start point?
Nope - this was a GPX provided by the org but was their actual ridden track so the started and finished at home and rode to event start. Also - see similar location, different ride, not the first time I've seen this so perhaps it's an in joke by them :thumbsup: (you might recall a lot of people complaining on FB about a 300km ride having an additional over distance of 60km!)
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 01:02:26 pm
You are making statements about diversity in AUK events based on your experience of riding Audax on the Continent ? Just to make sure I get you.
Yes. Noone has provided empirical evidence to suggest that AUK calendar events are significantly more diverse than Randonneurs NL events are.
How many AUK calendar events had even close to 50% gender split, or within the men, am average age of below 40?
J
Post by: wilkyboy on 14 May, 2019, 01:05:35 pm
TBH, I didn't see it either :-\OK, I'll spell it out.
Thanks :thumbsup:
Whew, your point covered a lot of posts in this thread — I see it, but it was a case of wood-for-the-trees.
Post by: Ian H on 14 May, 2019, 01:09:54 pm
Why is that?
Time and technology lag due to organisers being volunteers with other commitments?
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 01:14:27 pm
OK, I'll spell it out.
The reason people (including me) are asking QJ to justify her opinions with experience is because although she'll admit that her way is only *currently* the right way for her, & may not be in the future, she still has the arrogance to claim people who have been doing things successfully but differently than her for years are wrong.
Really
I appear to have epically failed to convey my point. I apologise.
I am not saying that the way people are doing it is wrong. I am saying that people are wrong to assume that a route sheet is the most accessible option, that people are wrong to assume that what works for them works for everyone.
I am trying to suggest a plurality of options should be available, as it will make Audaxing more accessible to a wider audience.
At no point am I saying don't use or supply route sheets, at no point am I saying stop allowing cheques for entry. What I am saying is it is 2019, and Audaxing in the UK would be better if a GPX was provided for each event, that it would be better if people could enter online.
At the very least the website should allow searching by events that do provide GPX of the route.
Quote
And no, I won't be bragging about my experience on this thread. It's crass. I've already impressed the only person who cares. Thanks mum!
Then don't fucking challenge others to demonstrate that they are worthy of holding the opinions they hold if you aren't prepared to accept a similar challenge.
This is a problem that is endemic to both the cycling and the tech world. Women having to justify our reason for being here. This is even worse now I've realised that it's not some bloke on the net challenging me, but another woman. I should not have to justify my existence. The patronising sexist bullshit of being a woman in a male dominated world is enough as it is, lets not make it worse.
J
Post by: rob on 14 May, 2019, 01:14:43 pm
And no, I won't be bragging about my experience on this thread. It's crass. I've already impressed the only person who cares. Thanks mum!
That's great. My Mum cares very little, but she will be letting me sleep in the spare room on my 600 this weekend.
Post by: wilkyboy on 14 May, 2019, 01:15:30 pm
You are making statements about diversity in AUK events based on your experience of riding Audax on the Continent ? Just to make sure I get you.
Yes. Noone has provided empirical evidence to suggest that AUK calendar events are significantly more diverse than Randonneurs NL events are.
How many AUK calendar events had even close to 50% gender split, or within the men, am average age of below 40?
A lot of organisers are trying hard to address the gender split — LWL closed entries to men early to allow women to take up more places and achieved nearly 50-50 I believe. In Cambridge we see around 30% women on shorter events with many coming in from local women's cycling groups, but that evaporates on longer events (which might have something to do with the weather we've had on our most recent ones!).
Unfortunately, the gender-split question in audax is more widely reflected in sports cycling as a whole and the fix will take a lot of time (many years) at grass-roots cycling level — that might be assisted by organisers such as myself working with local groups, but not by much.
As for age-related splits, pfft that's a non-story. Retired people have more free time for such time-selfish endeavours and so the average is skewed. The only way to improve that would be more shorter — i.e. less time required — events for busy young people, EDIT and possibly call them "sportives" to make them unattractive to older rides who would otherwise turn up anyway, since they often have the time (in order to maximise the averaging effect, it's just an observation on how the maths would work).
Post by: rob on 14 May, 2019, 01:23:20 pm
You are making statements about diversity in AUK events based on your experience of riding Audax on the Continent ? Just to make sure I get you.
Yes. Noone has provided empirical evidence to suggest that AUK calendar events are significantly more diverse than Randonneurs NL events are.
How many AUK calendar events had even close to 50% gender split, or within the men, am average age of below 40?
A lot of organisers are trying hard to address the gender split — LWL closed entries to men early to allow women to take up more places and achieved nearly 50-50 I believe. In Cambridge we see around 30% women on shorter events with many coming in from local women's cycling groups, but that evaporates on longer events (which might have something to do with the weather we've had on our most recent ones!).
Unfortunately, the gender-split question in audax is more widely reflected in sports cycling as a whole and the fix will take a lot of time (many years) at grass-roots cycling level — that might be assisted by organisers such as myself working with local groups, but not by much.
As for age-related splits, pfft that's a non-story. Retired people have more free time for such time-selfish endeavours and so the average is skewed. The only way to improve that would be more shorter — i.e. less time required — events for busy young people, EDIT and possibly call them "sportives" to make them unattractive to older rides who would otherwise turn up anyway, since they often have the time (in order to maximise the averaging effect, it's just an observation on how the maths would work).
Thank you.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 14 May, 2019, 01:24:51 pm
The question of whether showing women attracts more women, or reassures MAMILs that it's not just them, is a debatable point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSOdzsCbIvA
Post by: Karla on 14 May, 2019, 01:26:29 pm
The hypothetical oldster is considered normal on here, who is not old enough to have retired from cycling 200 km but is too old and single to know anyone with a computer. The itinerant Xer, however, is considered niche enough that technologies requiring a stable address and access to cheques are lauded as reliable, universal fallbacks. Why is that?
Hmm, I'm not sure your assertion is correct about "the hypothetical oldster" and "itinerant Xer". To my mind what has been said is that "there are groups of people like this" and not "all people of a certain age/generation are like this", no not at all.
In fact, in my experience, some of the quickest adopters of GPS have been "oldsters", because they have the spare cash (kids left home) and it mitigates a very real problem (long-sightedness). But that doesn't mean they have a PayPal account.
As for Xers — this is the first I've heard of "stable address" coming into the discussion, so it feels like you're dumping your own personal, and very niche (IMO), issues into the argument. I would posit that it's extremely unusual that someone doesn't have some form of stable address, be it home, college, parents, work, friends, and who would also own a bike and be interested in audax — not impossible, but way outside the current discussion.
And [UK] Xers will be experienced with cheques, whether or not they still use them. The point isn't that they all want to — the point is that they could if they wanted to. It's not about grouping generations together, it's about NOT preventing any subgroups from taking part — however one chooses to define them.
I agree that audaxers have been early adopters of GPS in general, and that's why the oldster is hypothetical: they're mostly an invention to justified people's pre-existing opinions.
Much of this thread has seen people trying to pick holes in the electronic way of doing things, and justifying paper as being a universal, infallible backup, and therefore superior. Can't get the GPX to work? Post them a routesheet! QG's point (and mine) is that that isn't how lots of people live.
From 2013 to mid 2015 I didn't know where I would be living from month to month, thanks to some shitty bosses in my role as a junior droid in one of our august national institutions. For the second half of 2019 I will be the same - and that isn't niche at all, it's a fairly normal part of life for a lot of people I know in their twenties and thirties. Sure, we could all use Poste Restante bit have you ever tried using that? It's a complete ballache. So the suggestion made upthread that routesheets are more accessible than gpx is false, and is something that really grates.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 01:29:39 pm
I'm not really drawn to female exceptionalism, as my partner Heather is a Hyper Randonneur and PBP ancienne. She was never concerned that AUK had lots of old white men. That profile meant that she had more people to ride with, as she could read the routesheet, and the old white men couldn't. So she had a captive peloton at night. GPS has put an end to that co-dependency, and groups form more on grounds of riding style.
This is the problem. "We don't have an accessibility problem, look Julia is here riding" I've seen it so many times. Yes there are women in audaxing, and many of them are doing amazing stuff, I'm a relative minnow compared to the great women of randonneuring. *BUT* the women that are here are doing so despite the system, not because of it. I've explained at length the shit we have to go through, and for every 1 woman that achieves a SR series or a RrtY, 10 women turn up, do their first 200k, and decide to go ride elsewhere cos they didn't feel welcomed, or wanted.
I'm fed up with people being surprised that I'm riding an audax alone, or that I'm riding it at all. I'm fed up with the patronising bollocks that comes with it.
I wanna ride my bike, and I am able to take that shit and try best to ignore it. Most people won't do that. Expecting minorities to make it into Audxing despite all this crap is just wrong.
Don't ask the women that are here what audaxing is doing right or wrong, ask the women that never made it.
J
Post by: jiberjaber on 14 May, 2019, 01:35:41 pm
It always makes me smile when I hear of riders turning up at an Org's house because that's where the GPX route started rather than at the actual start point...
Surely that's incompetence on the part of the organiser though, just as it would be if the routesheet instructions started at their house?
Which isn't to say a rider who's done their homework wouldn't spot it, but they shouldn't have to.
I think there in lies the issue, "failing to plan is planning to fail"
There isn't a covers-all approach to warning of issues on a GPX like there is for a route sheet (i.e. "CAUTION: Sharp Bend on decent" or "Potholes!") - there's a myriad of approaches from Phil's waypoints to my fav cue points in RWGPS and shades between all that.... in addition, any risk assessment which requires mitigation is easier to achieve on the route sheet than in the GPX (though pointing out in the often attached rider info letter might also contribute to the mitigation)...
The GPX example I gave later on in the thread has 60km extra on the 300km route, the route sheet starts at the correct location.. I suspect the org is trying to help by providing the GPX as a basis, the problem comes when it's taken as the single version of truth.
I think it comes down to the Rider has an equal responsibility - it is not just the Org's sole responsibility - there is certainly an obligation on the rider on the entry form declaration: "You should prepare by studying the route".
All riders will have their own workflows on how they prepare, some will work for the majority, others will be 'just the way they like to do it'.
A good example being Wilkyboy doesn't like the cue point turn directions in RWGPS but likes the control countdowns and this works for him and others. I do not use turn-by-turn directions on my Garmin but do use the cuepoint directions (as do Wahoo users I think) but that works for us, not Wilkyboy... that said, I'm grateful to Nick for providing the GPX in the first place so I have something to work from in my approach.... :thumbsup:
If we could solve the provision of a unified digital route file (in additional to traditional route sheet) that also still ensured we encourages riders to study the route and at the same time mitigates any risks identified by the organiser then that would be great - I am not sure that is something that is realistically achievable given the huge variation of target devices and different approaches used by riders to the events.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 01:40:33 pm
A lot of organisers are trying hard to address the gender split — LWL closed entries to men early to allow women to take up more places and achieved nearly 50-50 I believe. In Cambridge we see around 30% women on shorter events with many coming in from local women's cycling groups, but that evaporates on longer events (which might have something to do with the weather we've had on our most recent ones!).
It's great that events like LWL are doing that. I appreciate the work of male allies like this. I also have been on the receiving end of abuse because people have claimed that I got my space on the TCR because I have tits, and not on my merit as a cyclist. Positive discrimination can be useful, but its use has to be carefully applied.
Quote
Unfortunately, the gender-split question in audax is more widely reflected in sports cycling as a whole and the fix will take a lot of time (many years) at grass-roots cycling level — that might be assisted by organisers such as myself working with local groups, but not by much.
Yep, I've ranted at great length about the various barriers within the cycle industry that prevent more women cycling. This is why I run womens only group rides here in the Netherlands, why when one woman said "I'd love to come, but I don't have a bike", I lent them a spare. Trying to lift up those around me. I'm part way up the ladder, it's my duty to make it easier for other women to get here.
This is why I am overjoyed that Shimano have announced their GRX groupset with a 46/30 groupset.
It's going to take time, but change will come. Doesn't mean AUK et al can't also make it easier.
Quote
As for age-related splits, pfft that's a non-story. Retired people have more free time for such time-selfish endeavours and so the average is skewed. The only way to improve that would be more shorter — i.e. less time required — events for busy young people, EDIT and possibly call them "sportives" to make them unattractive to older rides who would otherwise turn up anyway, since they often have the time (in order to maximise the averaging effect, it's just an observation on how the maths would work).
I'm not sure that flies. If events were held on working days, I might agree, but given they are mostly on weekends, whilst the middle of the bell curve may have family commitments, young people who have not yet had a family should be equally time rich on the weekends.
J
Post by: FifeingEejit on 14 May, 2019, 01:44:08 pm
Why is that?
Time and technology lag due to organisers being volunteers with other commitments?
Bit more complex, demographic and psychological than that.
There's nothing stopping a volunteer from being bleeding edge... If they want to.
And there's nothing wrong with not wanting to either.
That's where the 1994 colleague comes from.
He's actually our "DBA" although we dont' officially have one... yes I know...
He still manages the Databases like they are Oracle 4; we're on 10 just now... yes I know only 20 years out of date...
Oracle have never given their customers any reason to do things the newer ways they create because they never deprecate anything.
In the situation where change isn't forced:
Some people will change to the new ways of doing things straight away, they want to be bleeding edge
Some people will follow the above after a while, because they want to keep up but let other people go through the pain.
Others will see the changes but never bother to follow them because they can't be bothered
And the last group stay in their bubble of the way they've always done things.
All 4 responses are perfectly normal.
When change is forced
The first group moan that the change isn't fast enough
The second group accept the change forced on them
The third group grumble and take the change
The fourth group get upset and throw the toys out the pram because they're being told they can't do things the way they've always done.
Again all 4 responses are perfectly normal.
Post by: L CC on 14 May, 2019, 01:44:30 pm
QuoteAnd no, I won't be bragging about my experience on this thread. It's crass. I've already impressed the only person who cares. Thanks mum!
Then don't fucking challenge others to demonstrate that they are worthy of holding the opinions they hold if you aren't prepared to accept a similar challenge.
This is a problem that is endemic to both the cycling and the tech world. Women having to justify our reason for being here. This is even worse now I've realised that it's not some bloke on the net challenging me, but another woman. I should not have to justify my existence. The patronising sexist bullshit of being a woman in a male dominated world is enough as it is, lets not make it worse.
J
Nobody is asking you to justify your existence. I'm asking you to stop talking like you know it all. To demonstrate you actually have as much experience as those you are so happy to deride. You don't know everything. And neither do I, nor anyone else here.
I'd be just as scathing if you were a bloke, so get off your high fucking horse.
Every couple of years someone arrives on this forum thinking they're the first person ever to ride a bike. It's quite wearing and I've allowed my petty side to be riled.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
Post by: Kim on 14 May, 2019, 01:47:56 pm
If we could solve the provision of a unified digital route file (in additional to traditional route sheet) that also still ensured we encourages riders to study the route and at the same time mitigates any risks identified by the organiser then that would be great - I am not sure that is something that is realistically achievable given the huge variation of target devices and different approaches used by riders to the events.
Agreed, but a Track that reflects the actual intended route of an event without extraneous guff would seem to be a good start. :)
The format issue exists in routesheets as well. Perl aside, some of the typesetting can be downright peculiar (which is what you'd expect, as typesetting - like crafting a quality GPX - is a skill that's independent of planning a bike ride). I note some organisers provide them as spreadsheets with comprehensive columns for total and leg distances in an assortment of units, with the intention that the end user can throw away the stuff they don't want and pick a font and page breaks to suit their vision and/or map-trap. Seems like a good idea to me.
Post by: jiberjaber on 14 May, 2019, 01:50:08 pm
Why is that?
Time and technology lag due to organisers being volunteers with other commitments?
Bit more complex, demographic and psychological than that.
There's nothing stopping a volunteer from being bleeding edge... If they want to.
And there's nothing wrong with not wanting to either.
That's where the 1994 colleague comes from.
He's actually our "DBA" although we dont' officially have one... yes I know...
He still manages the Databases like they are Oracle 4; we're on 10 just now... yes I know only 20 years out of date...
Oracle have never given their customers any reason to do things the newer ways they create because they never deprecate anything.
In the situation where change isn't forced:
Some people will change to the new ways of doing things straight away, they want to be bleeding edge
Some people will follow the above after a while, because they want to keep up but let other people go through the pain.
Others will see the changes but never bother to follow them because they can't be bothered
And the last group stay in their bubble of the way they've always done things.
All 4 responses are perfectly normal.
When change is forced
The first group moan that the change isn't fast enough
The second group accept the change forced on them
The third group grumble and take the change
The fourth group get upset and throw the toys out the pram because they're being told they can't do things the way they've always done.
Again all 4 responses are perfectly normal.
Cheese Station C!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Moved_My_Cheese%3F
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 01:54:15 pm
Every couple of years someone arrives on this forum thinking they're the first person ever to ride a bike. It's quite wearing and I've allowed my petty side to be riled.
I joined the forum in December 2013.
J
Post by: jiberjaber on 14 May, 2019, 01:54:18 pm
If we could solve the provision of a unified digital route file (in additional to traditional route sheet) that also still ensured we encourages riders to study the route and at the same time mitigates any risks identified by the organiser then that would be great - I am not sure that is something that is realistically achievable given the huge variation of target devices and different approaches used by riders to the events.
Agreed, but a Track that reflects the actual intended route of an event without extraneous guff would seem to be a good start. :)
The format issue exists in routesheets as well. Perl aside, some of the typesetting can be downright peculiar (which is what you'd expect, as typesetting - like crafting a quality GPX - is a skill that's independent of planning a bike ride). I note some organisers provide them as spreadsheets with comprehensive columns for total and leg distances in an assortment of units, with the intention that the end user can throw away the stuff they don't want and pick a font and page breaks to suit their vision and/or map-trap. Seems like a good idea to me.
Agreed - I have no love for route sheets per-se other than the ability to use them to eventually verify the routes I navigate with. If you think the debate is heated about GPX and it's hundred approaches - wait till you get in to the conversation about the best approach to route sheets!
(I never print them out anymore (no printer) but when I did I also prefer the full-fat excel as I can slice and dice to suit my requirements)
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 14 May, 2019, 02:03:20 pm
Don't ask the women that are here what audaxing is doing right or wrong, ask the women that never made it.
J
I'm popping out to the shops in a bit. I'd appreciate a methodology for interviews about the availability of GPX files as a factor in participation in Audax rides. I suppose I should ask everybody I encounter. I have interviewed women on LEL and PBP, but clearly that's skewed.
https://vimeo.com/186450760
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 14 May, 2019, 03:05:39 pm
Once I've got rides GPX tracked then I would be happy to offer GPX entry and validation and, as long as the rules permit go completely paperless, to cover those who have no current fixed abode. (As an aside, this would deprive me of one useful piece of information on permanents - the receipts show where people have found food, ATMs, etc, which is good info that I can pass onto other riders of perms that use the same control towns).
Alternatively, you can ride a Super Randonnee, there your proof of passage is photographs of your machine at various specific locations on the route to prove you were there, which is really challenging when you have to find the appropriate part of Denbigh Castle in the early hours!! :facepalm:
Again to respond upthread, I would consider using others' track logs, but I'm not convinced of the savings. I can't upload them blindly, because they may well have gone off route accidentally, deliberately (because they knew of a great cafe a few miles off route or had, on the longer events, organised camping/B&B off-route), or taken a longer alternative that looked brilliant to them but would be utterly bonkers to someone else. But I have committed to do it and by the end of this year, the Cambrian series will be tracked on RWGPS, prioritising any new entries that I receive. There's one exception to that, which is the 6C Super Randonee which is already tracken on Openrunner, because it has to.
All tracks will be issued with a risk warning, which will be an addition to the standard sheet that I send to all first time Cambrian Series riders to make sure they are aware of the risks they are undertaking. Again there may be some who think this is unwarranted, but they should talk to RUSA about that...
I'm not sure how much this helps the OP, but I've heard a reasonable and impassioned argument as to having GPX tracks for events and will respond accordingly.
Post by: S2L on 14 May, 2019, 03:30:58 pm
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/office-complication-complicate-bureaucrat-bureaucracy-paper_pusher-rmon1646_low.jpg)
Post by: Hot Flatus on 14 May, 2019, 03:35:25 pm
I want some of the stuff you guys smoke... ;D ::-)
I think you'll find a variety of substances being smoked/consumed.
Fifing, FF, CET, Imm, Kim and Wilky and are on weed.
QG and FBoab are on methamphetamine and testosterone...
and ESL is, as ever, hitting the acid hard.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 03:45:42 pm
Nobody is asking you to justify your existence. I'm asking you to stop talking like you know it all. To demonstrate you actually have as much experience as those you are so happy to deride. You don't know everything. And neither do I, nor anyone else here.
I'd be just as scathing if you were a bloke, so get off your high fucking horse.
Actually, in this thread, yes you have:
How's that working out for you QG?
What's your DNF vs validation rate? How many GPS devices have you bought to work this fantastic method? I think you're up to 4 now, is it?
You asked me to demonstrate that I am worthy of the opinions I hold.
I've also been challenged in other threads, such as one on the subject of gearing, about whether I was just making a claim about gears not being low enough, or if I really had walked up a hill.
And while in your case you would be just as scathing no matter what my genital configuration were to be, the reality is there are many in the cycling industry for which women are required to justify being there, that we are required to prove we are worthy. You should know that as well as the rest of us. I hadn't realised when I started to defend myself that I wasn't being attacked by a man. I'm glad you consider yourself to be an equal opportunities person, and look forward to you challenging the next jumped up young'en who has the audacity to have a strong opinion.
Quote
Every couple of years someone arrives on this forum thinking they're the first person ever to ride a bike. It's quite wearing and I've allowed my petty side to be riled.
As I say, I've been here since December 2013.
J
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 14 May, 2019, 04:25:19 pm
We should filter all events for rates of female participation, compare that with female validations, and that will show us 'female friendly' events. We can rate those FF. We can then filter for low rates of female participation, and low validation rates for both sexes. We can call those 'willy wavers' or WW.
It might also be possible to filter for GPX provided by organiser combined with WW. That would give us the 'Pendle/Pennine' factor, or PP.
This could lead to a couple of new AUK awards. 'Birdy Bloke' or BB, for the male with the highest proportion of FF validations, and 'Geezer Girl', GG, for the female with the highest proportion of WW finishes.
A high number of WW validations would disqualify a rider from any input on routing for rides with a general appeal, as would eccentric bike choice.
Post by: nextSibling on 14 May, 2019, 04:29:11 pm
...One of my events has no turns or instructions between 2 of the controls, you just ride along the road without deviation for 36km...
I love those bits on route sheets :)
There's a 600km route in Alaska with about four lines on the route sheet.
Post by: lmm on 14 May, 2019, 04:33:53 pm
Firstly, I don't think there are any GPX-only permanents — the Perms Secretary requires a routesheet before he'll approve a perm event. There ARE GPS-validated perms, but I don't think there are any that will only take GPS-validation, i.e. paper-validation not allowed, although could be wrong there?
Secondly, the routesheet — the act by the organiser of preparing the routesheet, turn by turn — forms a sound basis for a well-considered Risk Assessment, which is a requirement before any event is published. Plotting a route on Auto using Google's often arbitrary routing algorithm does not give the required confidence. I can see AUK rightly requiring orgs to prepare a routesheet for some time to come, if only to give it confidence in the RA, whether or not the org chooses to share the routesheet with riders.
And what we've seen is that more organisers doesn't make much difference to AUK. The number of rides and validations has not changed much with respect to number of organisers, ISTR.
I picked a permanent at random and found https://www.audax.uk/event-details?eventId=6075 which looked to just be RWGPS? Perhaps there is a routesheet that's sent out when people sign up, shrug. I've definitely seen talk of a GPS-validation-only perm in a case where there just weren't suitable controls in the right places, but maybe that was speculative.
I would certainly want to have confidence that an organiser has done a check ride and made some effort to minimise the risks of the route (though frankly I've found AUK organisers are if anything more aggressive than Google - a number of times I've been on brevets that hopped onto a 50mph dual carriageway for short stretches where Google would have taken a longer route around. Not something I have any issue with, just an observation). But I would've thought writing up a routesheet was a significant extra effort on top of that. If there's no shortage of organisers then I guess it's not really an issue, shrug.
Post by: Ajax Bay on 14 May, 2019, 04:42:07 pm
I picked a permanent at random and found https://www.audax.uk/event-details?eventId=6075 which looked to just be RWGPS? Perhaps there is a routesheet that's sent out when people sign up, shrug. I've definitely seen talk of a GPS-validation-only perm in a case where there just weren't suitable controls in the right places, but maybe that was speculative.New websititis
http://www.aukweb.net/events/detail/na05/ (http://www.aukweb.net/events/detail/na05/)
Routesheet:
View & Download na05r.pdf http://www.aukweb.net/routes/na05r.pdf (http://www.aukweb.net/routes/na05r.pdf)
GPS:
Download na05g.zip http://www.aukweb.net/gps/na05g.zip (http://www.aukweb.net/gps/na05g.zip)
Post by: jiberjaber on 14 May, 2019, 04:46:36 pm
Firstly, I don't think there are any GPX-only permanents — the Perms Secretary requires a routesheet before he'll approve a perm event. There ARE GPS-validated perms, but I don't think there are any that will only take GPS-validation, i.e. paper-validation not allowed, although could be wrong there?
Secondly, the routesheet — the act by the organiser of preparing the routesheet, turn by turn — forms a sound basis for a well-considered Risk Assessment, which is a requirement before any event is published. Plotting a route on Auto using Google's often arbitrary routing algorithm does not give the required confidence. I can see AUK rightly requiring orgs to prepare a routesheet for some time to come, if only to give it confidence in the RA, whether or not the org chooses to share the routesheet with riders.
And what we've seen is that more organisers doesn't make much difference to AUK. The number of rides and validations has not changed much with respect to number of organisers, ISTR.
I picked a permanent at random and found https://www.audax.uk/event-details?eventId=6075 which looked to just be RWGPS? Perhaps there is a routesheet that's sent out when people sign up, shrug. I've definitely seen talk of a GPS-validation-only perm in a case where there just weren't suitable controls in the right places, but maybe that was speculative.
I would certainly want to have confidence that an organiser has done a check ride and made some effort to minimise the risks of the route (though frankly I've found AUK organisers are if anything more aggressive than Google - a number of times I've been on brevets that hopped onto a 50mph dual carriageway for short stretches where Google would have taken a longer route around. Not something I have any issue with, just an observation). But I would've thought writing up a routesheet was a significant extra effort on top of that. If there's no shortage of organisers then I guess it's not really an issue, shrug.
Looks like there is a route sheet on the current AUK site??
https://www.aukweb.net/perms/detail/NA05/
Post by: wilkyboy on 14 May, 2019, 04:51:12 pm
I would certainly want to have confidence that an organiser has done a check ride and made some effort to minimise the risks of the route (though frankly I've found AUK organisers are if anything more aggressive than Google - a number of times I've been on brevets that hopped onto a 50mph dual carriageway for short stretches where Google would have taken a longer route around. Not something I have any issue with, just an observation). But I would've thought writing up a routesheet was a significant extra effort on top of that. If there's no shortage of organisers then I guess it's not really an issue, shrug.
Yes, they will have done. The routesheet would say "CARE" or "CAUTION" or something like that for those dual carriageways, although the GPS file would probably make no mention.
Typically I ride and re-ride one of my routes (perm or calendar) anywhere upwards from a couple of times to four or five before it's published, getting the best I believe I can from the route, both in quality riding and in rider safety — that's quite a lot of time. The time to write a routesheet is, by comparison, lost in the noise. Maybe that's just me ...
Post by: C-3PO on 14 May, 2019, 04:55:20 pm
Post by: Kim on 14 May, 2019, 07:00:11 pm
Every couple of years someone arrives on this forum thinking they're the first person ever to ride a bike. It's quite wearing and I've allowed my petty side to be riled.
I think it's the nature of cycling: You only get half-decent at it by doing a lot of it, and that tends to be a solo activity. By the time you care enough to seek out fellow cyclists, you're liable to have formed Opinions, possibly the hard way.
Post by: mattc on 14 May, 2019, 07:07:43 pm
2013 you say? Hmmm... do you realise how long ago many people here rode their first 600k? ;D :-*Every couple of years someone arrives on this forum thinking they're the first person ever to ride a bike. It's quite wearing and I've allowed my petty side to be riled.
I joined the forum in December 2013.
J
fboab is right on this. FWIW you are FAR from the worst - we get self-proclaimed experts who don't have half your abilities (or cycling experience). Do remember that a feature of lots-of-audaxing-experience is usually getting to know lots of different riders - I know you think Audax is not very diverse, but trust me, over time you get to chat to a HUGE range of people, ages, backgrounds etc :) Most of us learn from those people - not least we learn that some riders are very different to us!!!
Post by: marcusjb on 14 May, 2019, 07:10:29 pm
...One of my events has no turns or instructions between 2 of the controls, you just ride along the road without deviation for 36km...
I love those bits on route sheets :)
There's a 600km route in Alaska with about four lines on the route sheet.
WATCH
OUT
FOR
BEARS
;)
Post by: rob on 14 May, 2019, 08:17:38 pm
2013 you say? Hmmm... do you realise how long ago many people here rode their first 600k? ;D :-*Every couple of years someone arrives on this forum thinking they're the first person ever to ride a bike. It's quite wearing and I've allowed my petty side to be riled.
I joined the forum in December 2013.
J
fboab is right on this. FWIW you are FAR from the worst - we get self-proclaimed experts who don't have half your abilities (or cycling experience). Do remember that a feature of lots-of-audaxing-experience is usually getting to know lots of different riders - I know you think Audax is not very diverse, but trust me, over time you get to chat to a HUGE range of people, ages, backgrounds etc :) Most of us learn from those people - not least we learn that some riders are very different to us!!!
‘Tis true. Lots of people on here rode audaxes long before forums existed. Many people on here became audaxers because of this forum. I have friends that I knew before and people that I have met on here.
As an example I knew Matt’s dad before I met him.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 May, 2019, 08:47:54 pm
2013 you say? Hmmm... do you realise how long ago many people here rode their first 600k? ;D :-*
fboab is right on this. FWIW you are FAR from the worst - we get self-proclaimed experts who don't have half your abilities (or cycling experience). Do remember that a feature of lots-of-audaxing-experience is usually getting to know lots of different riders - I know you think Audax is not very diverse, but trust me, over time you get to chat to a HUGE range of people, ages, backgrounds etc :) Most of us learn from those people - not least we learn that some riders are very different to us!!!
Excellent, that means I'm better placed to give an opinion on what it means to do your first audax more recently. Comparing the experience of getting into Audax in the last 2-3 years, vs doing so 10, 20, or 30+ years ago, it's different, as are peoples memories of it. Twenty years ago, having a cheque book was the norm, and a GPS device was not a common consumer item. So a route sheet and all that it entails was really the only way to play this game. This is why my statement about it being 2019 is relevant. Times change. What was once considered accessible isn't anymore. Sometimes you need someone to look at things from a slightly different perspective to be able to point this out.
As for the differences, yes, everyone is an individual, and most of the riders I meet on events, and via this forum are very different from me. But they are still predominantly a very specific demographic, one I've been told off for mentioning.
But hey, we all just want to ride bikes, I can continue to scream from the side lines about things that would make it easier for people to join our rides, and people will continue to ignore me, cos I'm a jumped up youngen that hasn't done enough, and wasn't there, and obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. I'll continue to do my rides, maybe one day I'll get to the start of an Audax there'll be more so many women that I have to queue to use the loo. I just won't be doing so on an event that doesn't offer a GPX file of of the route.
Ride safe.
J
Post by: Chris S on 14 May, 2019, 09:21:02 pm
Excellent, that means I'm better placed to give an opinion on what it means to do your first audax more recently. Comparing the experience of getting into Audax in the last 2-3 years, vs doing so 10, 20, or 30+ years ago, it's different, as are peoples memories of it. Twenty years ago, having a cheque book was the norm, and a GPS device was not a common consumer item. So a route sheet and all that it entails was really the only way to play this game. This is why my statement about it being 2019 is relevant. Times change. What was once considered accessible isn't anymore. Sometimes you need someone to look at things from a slightly different perspective to be able to point this out.
Yes and no. I suppose I was an "early adopter" of GPS devices, my first GPS enabled ride was probably the Hopey New Year in 2009. Back then, no rides had an accompanying GPX file, and I accepted that it was my job to transpose the routesheet to a track/route for my device. It became part of the ride prep routine.
Here we are, ten years later, and most organisers now provide GPS options of some description, but they are not obliged to. Unless AUK rules have changed, the routesheet is still king and trumps all.
Being a sanguine kind of chap, if an organiser doesn't offer a GPS file, or does and it's not compatible with my device, I'll just deal with it accordingly; I'll either ride with a routesheet (unlikely), do the donkey-work to make my own GPX (much more likely), or not do the ride.
Like I say - unless the rules have changed, the printed routesheet is still the "road book", and anything else you get from the organiser is up to that organiser and there is no obligation on them to provide anything more than that.
I for one am totally comfortable with that; organisers have enough to worry about without us whining about file-formats or track-point densities.
Post by: Wobbly on 14 May, 2019, 09:59:35 pm
However, I've thoroughly enjoyed catching up with it - kind of like binge-watching a DVD TV series' box-set ;D
Can we have more pointless outrage, more stating-the-bleedin'-obvious and definitely more hissy fits please?
I have enough popcorn, honest.
:thumbsup:
Post by: hellymedic on 14 May, 2019, 10:02:20 pm
As an example I knew Matt’s dad before I met him.
[OT] So did I, and you were a Junior by the AUK definitions of the time...
Post by: Bianchi Boy on 14 May, 2019, 10:09:51 pm
Why do you persist in this drivel?You are making statements about diversity in AUK events based on your experience of riding Audax on the Continent ? Just to make sure I get you.
Yes. Noone has provided empirical evidence to suggest that AUK calendar events are significantly more diverse than Randonneurs NL events are.
How many AUK calendar events had even close to 50% gender split, or within the men, am average age of below 40?
J
Next you will be going on about how football crowds are mainly men who wear nylon shirts.
The events are what they are and will attract people of a particular mind set. I have just ridden the HellFire 400km - this is a really hard event with no toilet facilities on route and the food on offer is limited by the fact you are in Scotland and if you do not eat meat pies there is not much else on offer. Well The Brown's rode the tandem round and Mrs Brown managed just fine, there was a sporty girl in the lead group and two women from Aberdeen who I rolled in with at the end. Participation has nothing to do with any type of equality or diversity objectives set by the organiser, but the mind sets of the riders. It is good to see events where the victimised minority of unwashed while males feel at home.
BB
Post by: Ben T on 14 May, 2019, 11:51:36 pm
Bit of a pain to parse them (I use excel) but they are there.
Post by: S2L on 15 May, 2019, 06:36:18 am
Sadly I missed following this thread from the start :(Is that because you were using the wrong GPX file?
Post by: mattc on 15 May, 2019, 06:46:57 am
Sadly I missed following this thread from the start :(Is that because you were using the wrong GPX file?
:applauds:
Post by: dogtrousers on 15 May, 2019, 09:55:10 am
I do like route sheets and pre-read them and carry them, but don't generally have them ready for quick reference. If I wanted to do a calendar event that didn't supply a GPX I'd quite happily make my own.
That's my view as a relatively technically savvy occasional audaxer. Just do a couple of calendar events per year. Not always an AUK member (but I am at the moment) No perms, no DIY, not an organiser. Been playing with GPS devices since the early 2000s.
I think standardising on a service like RWGPS that provides multiple download options would be a great idea (for me at least). But I do realise that there are some objections in principle - some people object to commercial services per se, and in practice - I imagine a club a/c on RWGPS would probably impose a big administrative burden for membership, and possibly have some privacy implications. But the alternative of AUK developing and supporting its own route storage service I think would be a bad idea. Not cost effective.
Post by: frankly frankie on 15 May, 2019, 11:35:43 am
Nope - this was a GPX provided by the org but was their actual ridden track so the started and finished at home and rode to event start.
A few organisers who provide downloadable GPX files are in fact completely GPS-illiterate - their talents may lie elsewhere** but they're just trying to provide a complete service. Unfortunately there's nothing to distinguish a perfectly valid (but stupid) GPX file from a sensible one. Even downloading from RWGPS offers every end user that choice.
** or they may also be rubbish at tea-making, who knows.
As for age-related splits, pfft that's a non-story. Retired people have more free time for such time-selfish endeavours and so the average is skewed. The only way to improve that would be more shorter — i.e. less time required — events for busy young people, EDIT and possibly call them "sportives" to make them unattractive to older rides who would otherwise turn up anyway, since they often have the time (in order to maximise the averaging effect, it's just an observation on how the maths would work).I'm not sure that flies. If events were held on working days, I might agree, but given they are mostly on weekends, whilst the middle of the bell curve may have family commitments, young people who have not yet had a family should be equally time rich on the weekends.
I think they generally have better things to do though - like hooking up with each other, or buying clothes, or decking the garden. I'm always rather saddened by seeing someone who is young and beautiful putting in the audax miles.
Post by: Kim on 15 May, 2019, 11:50:25 am
But the alternative of AUK developing and supporting its own route storage service I think would be a bad idea. Not cost effective.
What development? It's just a static file(s) on a webserver, just like a routesheet.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 15 May, 2019, 11:54:11 am
You under estimate the work required to provision what on the face of things looks like a basic file store.But the alternative of AUK developing and supporting its own route storage service I think would be a bad idea. Not cost effective.
What development? It's just a static file on a webserver...
First off you need a week of meetings to decide the scope of the simple file store and which bells and whistle it should have, should it link to the garmin and wahoo APIs thus allowing upload directly to device which would need username etc. Etc etc etc
By the time everyone's lost the will to live at that stage you then move on to releasing it to live... Which involves another shed load of meetings because that's the entire scope of someone's job.
5 minute development = 1 week of other bulls#ite
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Somnolent on 15 May, 2019, 12:34:32 pm
I just won't be doing so on an event that doesn't offer a GPX file of of the route.And that is entirely your choice.
Just as it is the choice of the organiser (under the current rules) as to whether or not they offer a GPX file, and if so how they offer it (RWGPS or email attachment or on 3.5" floppy snail-mailed to entrants)
As things stand the below seems stands out as a beacon of common sense (but maybe that's only because I am in same demographic as Chris S) :
.... most organisers now provide GPS options of some description, but they are not obliged to. Unless AUK rules have changed, the routesheet is still king and trumps all.
Being a sanguine kind of chap, if an organiser doesn't offer a GPS file, or does and it's not compatible with my device, I'll just deal with it accordingly; I'll either ride with a routesheet (unlikely), do the donkey-work to make my own GPX (much more likely), or not do the ride.
Like I say - unless the rules have changed, the printed routesheet is still the "road book", and anything else you get from the organiser is up to that organiser and there is no obligation on them to provide anything more than that.
I for one am totally comfortable with that; organisers have enough to worry about without us whining about file-formats or track-point densities.
That said, if QG, or anyone else, believes that AUK should change it's rules to make provision of GPX compulsory, then perhaps they should consider bringing a resolution before the AGM. That would have better chances of being passed than the chances of "winning an argument on the internet" :P
Post by: tom_e on 15 May, 2019, 01:12:42 pm
<ducks and runs>
Post by: wilkyboy on 15 May, 2019, 01:17:57 pm
QG: I, for one, am impressed that you have reduced the proponents of routesheets to arguments about them being a useful tool for risk assessment and planning, rather than a credible navigational option for 2019.
Except that that's not the case, Tom ::-)
Post by: quixoticgeek on 15 May, 2019, 01:21:57 pm
Why do you persist in this drivel?
This drivel? You mean striving for equality in an unequal world?
Quote
Next you will be going on about how football crowds are mainly men who wear nylon shirts.
Not really as I don't have enough information or experience to give that view. I will however say that I am very pleased to see the recent news reports about the various football clubs providing womens hygiene products for free in the toilets at football grounds, so as to help combat period poverty. I appreciate women and girls are a minority in the audience at such events, but simple measures like this are very welcome.
Quote
The events are what they are and will attract people of a particular mind set. I have just ridden the HellFire 400km - this is a really hard event with no toilet facilities on route and the food on offer is limited by the fact you are in Scotland and if you do not eat meat pies there is not much else on offer. Well The Brown's rode the tandem round and Mrs Brown managed just fine, there was a sporty girl in the lead group and two women from Aberdeen who I rolled in with at the end. Participation has nothing to do with any type of equality or diversity objectives set by the organiser, but the mind sets of the riders. It is good to see events where the victimised minority of unwashed while males feel at home.
The fact that you can refer to every single woman who rode, all 4 of them, kinda makes a nice point about how diverse Audax events aren't. I'm assuming there weren't just 8 riders in total.
I'm assuming that the event clearly advertises that there are no toilet facilities for 27 hours, and that the available food options are not vegetarian friendly?
I don't quite get why you think that men are a victimised minority here. Men dominate every aspect of UK life, out numbering women considerably in many fields. Of the boards of directors of FTSE 100 companies, there are more men named John, than women. You can try to claim victim hood, but the reality is just not supportive of this claim.
Are you worried that if more women start turning up to Audaxes, there won't be enough spaces for you to ride?
Just as it is the choice of the organiser (under the current rules) as to whether or not they offer a GPX file, and if so how they offer it (RWGPS or email attachment or on 3.5" floppy snail-mailed to entrants)
Yep. I do actually have a working 3.5" floppy drive, tho I've not had reason to use it recently...
It is a choice, and what this whole thread has been about, is making it easier to find events where the organiser has made that choice.
Quote
That said, if QG, or anyone else, believes that AUK should change it's rules to make provision of GPX compulsory, then perhaps they should consider bringing a resolution before the AGM. That would have better chances of being passed than the chances of "winning an argument on the internet" :P
I don't know where people are getting this idea from that I think a GPX should be compulsory.
I said:
Quote
suggest that AUK should make it recommended best practice that organisers should provide a quality GPX for their rides.
Not mandatory, just recommended as best practice, for organisers to follow or ignore as they see fit.
At this point I'm really tempted to propose a motion for the AUK AGM just out of spite.
QG: I, for one, am impressed that you have reduced the proponents of routesheets to arguments about them being a useful tool for risk assessment and planning, rather than a credible navigational option for 2019.
<ducks and runs>
I'm in awe at the arguments people have reached for to defend route sheets. It's taking a lot of will power not to pick each one apart individually. I particularly like the argument people have that having a printed route sheet makes it harder to get lost, and easier to find your way back on route when you get off route. I don't quite get how this works unless you also have a full map to reference.
But, as we have established, I am young, naive, inexperienced, and talking bollocks, so what do I know.
J
Post by: Ivan on 15 May, 2019, 02:12:02 pm
Post by: Wobbly on 15 May, 2019, 03:23:41 pm
Quote
available food options are not vegetarian friendly
Hurrah! "vegetarians".
Keep it up folks :thumbsup:
;D
Post by: frankly frankie on 15 May, 2019, 03:30:20 pm
But the alternative of AUK developing and supporting its own route storage service I think would be a bad idea. Not cost effective.What development? It's just a static file(s) on a webserver, just like a routesheet.
And AUK have provided this facility, on aukweb, for about the last 13 years.
Where I suppose people might feel it is 'not enough' is that the file has to be placed there by (or at least via) the Organiser of the event in question. There's no facilty for Tom, Dick or Harriet to place a file in that repository, however much they might want to help - because that would require a whole new level of moderation to prevent possible sabotage.
Post by: lmm on 15 May, 2019, 04:05:20 pm
Unfortunately there's nothing to distinguish a perfectly valid (but stupid) GPX file from a sensible one. Even downloading from RWGPS offers every end user that choice.
I'd argue that it's much easier for the rider to check a GPX for common stupidities. One only has to load it up and glance at the map to confirm that it at least goes to all the controls in the right order and spot any "starting from the organiser's house" type issues. A sufficiently determined organiser could create a GPX that went down a cliff or through a river, but I doubt that's a problem we see in practice (I'll stand to be corrected). It takes a lot more effort for a rider to check a route sheet for left-right mistakes that could send them arbitrarily far off course.
Post by: Tillapaw on 15 May, 2019, 04:55:14 pm
Post by: dogtrousers on 15 May, 2019, 05:33:28 pm
I meant an alternative to using a service like RWGPS as had been suggested upthread. That is, providing visualisation and downloads for TCX, GPX, resampling for older devices and so on. Just dumping a load of files on a webserver would, I agree, not have very high development costs.But the alternative of AUK developing and supporting its own route storage service I think would be a bad idea. Not cost effective.
What development? It's just a static file(s) on a webserver, just like a routesheet.
As a very occasional end user with a modicum of tech skills I'm OK with things as they are tbh. And as I'm only an occasional audaxer it's certainly not for me to suggest how things should be done. Sorry if I gave that impression, it wasn't my intention.
Post by: Kim on 15 May, 2019, 06:19:34 pm
I meant an alternative to using a service like RWGPS as had been suggested upthread. That is, providing visualisation and downloads for TCX, GPX, resampling for older devices and so on.But the alternative of AUK developing and supporting its own route storage service I think would be a bad idea. Not cost effective.
What development? It's just a static file(s) on a webserver, just like a routesheet.
That seems unnecessary, given that the end user can always load the file into their visualisation tool of choice (which may be a website like RWGPS, or something local like Basecamp, Viking or OSMAnd), which is likely to be better (or at least more cost-effectively) supported than an Audax UK bespoke mapping tool.
Does RWGPS (or other popular online tools) allow you to visualise a file on an arbitrary website like Bikehike does[1]? That would seem like an appropriate amount of effort/commitment for AUK to give to a third-party tool as a convenience for those who'd like to clicky and see a map of the ride they're thinking of entering.
[1] You can simply feed it a URL to a GPX as a parameter, and it will load and display the file for you, eg: http://www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?lnk=http://www.ductilebiscuit.net/maps/FNRtME-Rollrights-1.3-reduced.gpx
Post by: Somnolent on 16 May, 2019, 01:40:26 pm
QuoteThat said, if QG, or anyone else, believes that AUK should change it's rules to make provision of GPX compulsory, then perhaps they should consider bringing a resolution before the AGM. That would have better chances of being passed than the chances of "winning an argument on the internet" :P
I don't know where people are getting this idea from that I think a GPX should be compulsory.
I said:Quotesuggest that AUK should make it recommended best practice that organisers should provide a quality GPX for their rides.
Not mandatory, just recommended as best practice, for organisers to follow or ignore as they see fit.
Apologies if you think I've misrepresented your views, however whether it is compulsory or simply "recommended best practice" there are still the same prerequisites:
Agreements on universal file format, point density, delivery method, all things which this thread has (yet again) demonstrated are , at best, "challenging" to achieve.
Post by: lmm on 16 May, 2019, 02:33:32 pm
Apologies if you think I've misrepresented your views, however whether it is compulsory or simply "recommended best practice" there are still the same prerequisites:
Agreements on universal file format, point density, delivery method, all things which this thread has (yet again) demonstrated are , at best, "challenging" to achieve.
Are we letting perfect be the enemy of good here? For my money any kind of GPX - 20k points or 500, on the AUK page or an external site or in an email attachment - is a significant improvement over none. I do feel strongly about having waypoints for controls, and about having the whole ride in a single file, but I'd still far rather have a dozen fiddly GPXes with no waypoints (whether that's because the author never added them or because they distributed it via RideWithGPS) than a routesheet alone.
If there's no clear consensus on the format then there doesn't need to be an official recommendation on format, does there? Just "we recommend you make some form of GPX file(s) available for riders who may prefer this form of navigation", with organisers free to implement that as they see fit (or not at all, if they feel strongly enough).
Post by: Carlosfandango on 16 May, 2019, 03:56:19 pm
I really can't see the point of not revealing the route because of "freeloaders" there's more important reasons to reveal it before purchase.
When you think that sportives, for example provide a map, sign posting, marshalling and a contact phone number it seems pathetic that Audax organisers don't want to provide a GPX. You don't even have to ride the route, you can make a GPX on a mapping site.
As far as accessibility goes I've always found Audax awkward. Take the Brian Chapman, one of Audaxes iconic rides. There's no online entry, send a cheque, but who has a cheque book these days? Middle aged men of course, I forgot. No gpx, but then I suppose the organiser doesn't have to bother, because it's over subscribed. Sure he can run it his way, but it makes it seem like Audax is an old boys club that doesn't bother with new people different to the them.
Cambrian permanents, here's another, I'd love to have a go, but no gpx or information. I know they're free routes, but with no information provided, they just seem like macho events with one finisher per decade and that's the way they'll stay.
Why is it so difficult for Audax to be open and inclusive? To provide a little more help to the potential rider, whatever their needs?
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 16 May, 2019, 04:07:36 pm
Post by: Carlosfandango on 16 May, 2019, 04:11:27 pm
Most people have access to middle-aged or old people who have a cheque book, parents for instance. I'd offer to send a cheque to Carlosfandango in exchange for cash, but I'm put off by the display of 'attitude'.
But why should you have access to middle aged people to enter an Audax? That's just ridiculous.
My attitude is one of exasperation.
Post by: Carlosfandango on 16 May, 2019, 04:16:58 pm
Most people have access to middle-aged or old people who have a cheque book, parents for instance. I'd offer to send a cheque to Carlosfandango in exchange for cash, but I'm put off by the display of 'attitude'.
But why should you have access to middle aged people to enter an Audax? That's just ridiculous.
My attitude is one of exasperation.
Oh, I forgot, keep it the same as it's always been, for the same sort of people and if anyone suggests different, they must have an "attitude".
Post by: wilkyboy on 16 May, 2019, 04:20:03 pm
Most people have access to middle-aged or old people who have a cheque book, parents for instance. I'd offer to send a cheque to Carlosfandango in exchange for cash, but I'm put off by the display of 'attitude'.
But why should you have access to middle aged people to enter an Audax? That's just ridiculous.
Yebbut, on the whole, Carl, you don't ::-)
Unfortunately, you picked just one example and by a process of blithe disregard you applied it to audax in general. I assure you that all five calendar events we held this year you could enter online, pay with PayPal, and the routesheet and a plethora of GPS files are available freely to download [edit: replete with waypoints, too]; you could also pay by cheque, or on-the-line with cash.
And all 11 permanent events are the same, before you mention the Cambrians again.
So stop conflating, and consider that most organisers on most events are very open to inclusivity, and perhaps those that appear like they're not also are, but they have their own reasons for doing it the way they do it, eh?! :-*
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 May, 2019, 04:25:21 pm
Three reasons why an organiser might choose it.
Post by: Ben T on 16 May, 2019, 04:32:05 pm
Back in the day you had cheque guarantee cards which meant you could use the chequebook to pay for stuff in shops! https://youtu.be/gV-kY9JuqDE?t=87
Post by: Ajax Bay on 16 May, 2019, 04:49:56 pm
I really can't see the point of not revealing the route because of "freeloaders" there's more important reasons to reveal it before purchase."I really can't see the point of not revealing the route because of "freeloaders" there's more important reasons to reveal it before purchase." Some organisers, with experience of this happening to the detriment of their event, think otherwise. The controls are there from September onwards for any potential ride entrant to see (and if keen plot their own draft route . . . no, too much like hard work).
When you think that sportives, for example provide a map, sign posting, marshalling and a contact phone number it seems pathetic that Audax organisers don't want to provide a GPX. You don't even have to ride the route, you can make a GPX on a mapping site.
As far as accessibility goes I've always found Audax awkward. Take the Brian Chapman, one of Audaxes iconic rides. There's no online entry, send a cheque, but who has a cheque book these days? Middle aged men of course, I forgot. No gpx, but then I suppose the organiser doesn't have to bother, because it's over subscribed. Sure he can run it his way, but it makes it seem like Audax is an old boys club that doesn't bother with new people different to the them.
"it seems pathetic that Audax organisers don't want to provide a GPX." If you pity them, no doubt they feel your pity. If you think that (some) audax organisers are "miserably inadequate" that seems harsh and probably a judgement best left to those with significant organising experience to make (of their organising peers). Not me, and I suspect not you.
"As far as accessibility goes I've always found Audax awkward. Take the Brian Chapman, one of Audaxes iconic rides. There's no online entry, send a cheque, but who has a cheque book these days?" I postulate that most AudaxUK members have a cheque book and that all those based in the UK could have one in a couple of days, if they only asked.
"[The Bryan Chapman Memorial (BCM) organiser issues] No gpx, but then I suppose the organiser doesn't have to bother, because it's over subscribed. Sure he can run it his way, but it makes it seem like Audax is an old boys club that doesn't bother with new people different to the them."
I have had pleasure plotting the BCM 2019 route (6 months ago and revised as the routesheets have been e-mailed out) in RwGPS to help those who prefer not to construct such themselves: https://ridewithgps.com/routes/20922029?beta=false A fair few have looked at it and I assume the majority of riders have exported a tcx or gpx (for free). I hope I have been accurate and, at the weekend, will be on the lookout for riders pausing at the embedded minor aberrations :) eg start of the Barmouth bridge track.
BCM has been oversubscribed for some years, I believe. The organiser chooses to make membership of AUK a pre-requisite for entry and there is no mechanism for doing this using the online entry system (aiui) hence their choice of specifying a postal entry and cheques. Cheques get the full entry fee in the account straight away, too. I don't think there's a 'like him' issue here: I'm sure he has nothing against tall(er) men and women. And the moderating influence is whiskered.
Post by: Redlight on 16 May, 2019, 05:01:59 pm
When you think that sportives, for example provide a map, sign posting, marshalling and a contact phone number it seems pathetic that Audax organisers don't want to provide a GPX. You don't even have to ride the route, you can make a GPX on a mapping site.
There's a big difference between the typical sportive, which is a commercial operation, aimed at making a profit and charging riders through the nose to ride on open (or, occasionally, closed) roads, and the typical AUK event, which is run by one volunteer, doing all of the work in his or her spare time and generally keeping the cost as low as it is possible to go without risking losing money by having to pay for a village hall when there are insufficient entries to cover the cost.
Yes, there are lots of other things that organisers could do, but there is a hell of a lot of work involved in running even a relatively small event, let alone a monster like the BCM, and I, for one, am very grateful that there are people willing to give up their valuable time to do it, for little or no reward (and, it seems, sometimes no thanks). Is it such a great effort to spend an hour or so plotting your own GPX from the comprehensive route sheet that the organiser has prepared (often with helpful or essential additional information that couldn't be incorporated in to a GPX track)?
Post by: FifeingEejit on 16 May, 2019, 05:13:50 pm
PayPal charges a fee. Payments can be reversed by rider without permission from organiser.. Cheque and postal entry permits some control over who gets an entry.
Three reasons why an organiser might choose it.
Cheques can be bounced by the writer, most banks charge a fee to do it.
Chequebooks are still a standard in the UK. If you walk into a bank and ask to open a current account you should be given a chequebook.
If you don't then you either haven't opened a current account, or you've specifically asked not to be sent a chequebook.
In the case of my Bank you have to specifically ask to for one, and their Basic account doesn't include one at all.
And clicking on the 3 Flex account types and then cheque book you'll see the text
"If you would like a cheque book you can request one online, over the phone or in one of our branches. "
The "Basic" Current account doesn't have one and you won't get one unless you change to a Flex account and ask for one:
https://www.nationwide.co.uk/products/current-accounts/flexbasic/features-and-benefits
Back in 2012 Nationwide were one of 2 out of 18 banks that still treated Cheque books as default
https://conversation.which.co.uk/money/cheque-book-bank-building-society/
Other banks may now vary.
Back in the day you had cheque guarantee cards which meant you could use the chequebook to pay for stuff in shops! https://youtu.be/gV-kY9JuqDE?t=87
Back in the day... 2004 when I worked in a computer shop, we always ran a Transac check on any Cheques, as such I processed one and had 5 customers decide to use their Credit Cards after all.
Cheque Guarantee cards usually only guaranteed up to £100
Post by: Carlosfandango on 16 May, 2019, 05:18:43 pm
Post by: wilkyboy on 16 May, 2019, 05:28:19 pm
The point is, why would an organiser choose to make it more difficult to enter an Audax? Why are they running an Audax for there own long established benefit, rather than for the benefit of those who may enter?
Carl, that's not the point at all.
The real point now is this: do you bother to read what others have written and understand the very valid reasons that apply to the extraordinarily narrow selection of rides you posited as The Truth?
We know why Ritchie mandates cheques — his reasoning is explained above and is valid. We know why Colin doesn't provide GPS files for the Cambrian Series — he's explained that himself further back in this thread.
We also know — and it's easy enough to check — that most if not all recent calendar events allow online entry and payment via PayPal, and most if not all provide at least a routesheet and usually a GPS file of some flavour — not always from the organiser directly I'll grant you, but there's almost always one available from somewhere put together by someone with the necessary skills. Phil's percentages indicate potential shortfall, but most if not all can be sourced from somewhere, perhaps even here on yacf.
What I don't know is why you're insisting on pushing points that have already been discredited ???
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 May, 2019, 05:31:57 pm
PayPal charges a fee. Payments can be reversed by rider without permission from organiser.. Cheque and postal entry permits some control over who gets an entry.
Three reasons why an organiser might choose it.
Cheques can be bounced by the writer, most banks charge a fee to do it.Chequebooks are still a standard in the UK. If you walk into a bank and ask to open a current account you should be given a chequebook.
If you don't then you either haven't opened a current account, or you've specifically asked not to be sent a chequebook.
In the case of my Bank you have to specifically ask to for one, and their Basic account doesn't include one at all.
And clicking on the 3 Flex account types and then cheque book you'll see the text
"If you would like a cheque book you can request one online, over the phone or in one of our branches. "
The "Basic" Current account doesn't have one and you won't get one unless you change to a Flex account and ask for one:
https://www.nationwide.co.uk/products/current-accounts/flexbasic/features-and-benefits
Back in 2012 Nationwide were one of 2 out of 18 banks that still treated Cheque books as default
https://conversation.which.co.uk/money/cheque-book-bank-building-society/
Other banks may now vary.Back in the day you had cheque guarantee cards which meant you could use the chequebook to pay for stuff in shops! https://youtu.be/gV-kY9JuqDE?t=87
Back in the day... 2004 when I worked in a computer shop, we always ran a Transac check on any Cheques, as such I processed one and had 5 customers decide to use their Credit Cards after all.
Cheque Guarantee cards usually only guaranteed up to £100
Bouncing a cheque because you've decided you dont want to ride an event you've entered and paid for would cost the entrant time and money. Reversing a PayPal payment is fewer than 8 clicks of a mouse...no charge...no effort. It has happened to organisers. Equally entering a PayPal event is fewer than 8 clicks....entering by post costs stamps and time and effort.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 16 May, 2019, 05:39:37 pm
Bouncing a cheque because you've decided you dont want to ride an event you've entered and paid for would cost the entrant time and money. Reversing a PayPal payment is fewer than 8 clicks of a mouse...no charge...no effort. It has happened to organisers. Equally entering a PayPal event is fewer than 8 clicks....entering by post costs stamps and time and effort.
Aye, it'd be pretty daft to do it given the barriers; but you should have figured from this thread by now that I'll split hairs for the sake of an argument as what you wrote indicated it wasn't possible to cancel a cheque and therefore offered a win over paypal.
Post by: Phil W on 16 May, 2019, 05:49:34 pm
https://www.youtube.com/v/_lOT2p_FCvA
Post by: nextSibling on 16 May, 2019, 05:56:05 pm
...it seems pathetic that Audax organisers don't...
You're talking about unpaid volunteers. You might consider dialing down the entitlement a notch.
Post by: Kim on 16 May, 2019, 07:42:09 pm
But why should you have access to middle aged people to enter an Audax? That's just ridiculous.
Indeed, surely audax is a means of accessing middle-aged people.
Post by: Chris S on 16 May, 2019, 07:54:29 pm
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 May, 2019, 08:22:23 pm
Where the fuck is he????
Post by: Carlosfandango on 16 May, 2019, 09:20:16 pm
The point is, why would an organiser choose to make it more difficult to enter an Audax? Why are they running an Audax for there own long established benefit, rather than for the benefit of those who may enter?
Carl, that's not the point at all.
The real point now is this: do you bother to read what others have written and understand the very valid reasons that apply to the extraordinarily narrow selection of rides you posited as The Truth?
We know why Ritchie mandates cheques — his reasoning is explained above and is valid. We know why Colin doesn't provide GPS files for the Cambrian Series — he's explained that himself further back in this thread.
We also know — and it's easy enough to check — that most if not all recent calendar events allow online entry and payment via PayPal, and most if not all provide at least a routesheet and usually a GPS file of some flavour — not always from the organiser directly I'll grant you, but there's almost always one available from somewhere put together by someone with the necessary skills. Phil's percentages indicate potential shortfall, but most if not all can be sourced from somewhere, perhaps even here on yacf.
What I don't know is why you're insisting on pushing points that have already been discredited ???
Funnily enough I do understand what others have written.
I must say that you, as an organiser, organise wonderful audaxes. For your permanent events you provide a good
description, full of explanation, enticement and assurance, you provide photographs and a gpx and a link to your website. For your calendar events you provide outstanding organisation, hospitality and compassion. Only the weather is sadly lacking. I just wish other events could be run to a similar standard.
I don`t understand how The Brian Chapman can be run under an AUK banner, but not to the same standard. If the organiser wants to run it under his own terms, maybe he should go alone.
Post by: Carlosfandango on 16 May, 2019, 09:33:55 pm
...it seems pathetic that Audax organisers don't...
You're talking about unpaid volunteers. You might consider dialing down the entitlement a notch.
That is a consideration, however AUK members pay for a service, membership fees have risen this year, AUK chooses how to treat volunteers, or to pay them. There`s no issue in paying IT consultants a fair few thousand for their services for example.
It`s nothing about my own entitlement, I`m one of the 50 year old grey/no haired folk already here. For me it`s how we encourage others.
In my opinion it would be an advantage for Audax to be more inclusive, to do things how potential Audaxers might want them done, look to the future etc
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 16 May, 2019, 09:40:15 pm
Rapha took an interest in Brevets for a bit, they were trying to develop their own series under the 'The Continental' banner. That's when they made their Bryan Chapman film. They always seemed to attract dreadful weather for their filming efforts, snow in that instance, rain for their Assynt film.
It's always nice to have your hobby validated, but there was never an appetite for scaling it up. As Carlosfandango points out, it fills up with AUK members anyway.
Post by: wilkyboy on 16 May, 2019, 09:46:54 pm
Only the weather is sadly lacking.
The smoke you're blowing is nice, I'll take that for the team, thank you :thumbsup: However, the weather — yep, we've had a run of four or five with somewhat out-of-the-ordinary weather conditions, unfortunately; I'm currently trying to find another supplier.
I don`t understand how The Brian Chapman can be run under an AUK banner, but not to the same standard. If the organiser wants to run it under his own terms, maybe he should go alone.
BCM is an incredibly popular and wildly over-subscribed event. I think he takes 140 entries, but could probably take twice that. On one of my earliest write-ups I made the note that all members should ride BCM at least once. Then I did the maths and worked out that I'd only get to ride it every 30 years or so if that were the case.
Ritchie and his family and volunteers do an astonishing amount of work to set up and run King's YHA, Menai Scout Hut and Aberhafesp Village Hall for the event. Unfortunately King's is the limiting factor, as it's already creaking at the seams. And so he chooses to filter entries to AUK-only, and, for him, he finds the way is to take postal entries and return any stray non-members who didn't read the entry conditions. Could he do that electronically? Probably, but then he'd get even more non-entries to return, and I suspect he's had one or two bad experiences in the past that is less likely in the paper-based world.
It's his prerogative, and given that it's the only event I think he has the energy to run in any single year, I'm not surprised he's chosen his own way of doing it and sticks to it. And yet he still fills all the places year after year, so market theory says there's no real imperative for him to change.
Anyway, if you're looking for inclusiveness to draw in new audaxers, then picking on the foibles of one of the very oldest, biggest, and longest annual events is still missing the point. It's at the other end of the distances — the BPs and short BRs — that the differences are felt for newcomers. And that is exactly why we do make the effort to provide the good descriptions, the enticement, the assurance, the photos and the GPS files, the hospitality and compassion, the flowers on the tables, and the noteworthy caik O:-)
Not forgetting, of course, that to the outsider every event looks like an AUK-run event, but really it's more of a franchise model: individual organisers are responsible for everything for their own event except entries (and even some take that on themselves), brevet printing, validation, homologation and insurance. So all 100-odd orgs have to somehow be able to do everything — that's a big ask! Clearly some organisers have more time, and some have more talent, but we're all volunteers, and most of us busy with other stuff too.
Post by: Carlosfandango on 16 May, 2019, 09:55:16 pm
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 May, 2019, 10:01:19 pm
Tell you what, why dont you help him, or indeed help Ritchie?
Post by: wilkyboy on 16 May, 2019, 10:02:41 pm
Colin has sent me a PM explaining his situation with the Cambrian series, it`s an epic project that he`s updating. I`d like to apologise to him. I was using his perms as an example and despite being an utter git I don`t want to make personal attacks. Could AUK perhaps provide him with some assistance?
I thought about that, but then thought that I don't actually know which roads and lanes (and Wales is mostly lanes, even the A-roads) that Colin would want the routes to follow. By the time he had told me, he might as well have mapped it himself. It strikes me as one of those no-simple-answer human-labour-sharing problems.
Post by: Carlosfandango on 16 May, 2019, 10:02:59 pm
And where`s fboab to tell me she`s been riding since they invented the boneshaker and she doesn`t need any Johhny come latelys telling her how to ride a bike?
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 May, 2019, 10:07:18 pm
I`m not here for Chis S`s entertainment, feet up, popcorn and beer.
So what are you here for?
Post by: Wycombewheeler on 16 May, 2019, 10:09:17 pm
I did my first 200km ride in 1982 - virtually before bicycles were invented let alone GPS :D - and started using a GPS in 2010 (Im now on my 2nd Etrex 30). Its my primary method of navigation now.I find the best way is to sit with the route sheet before leaving for the event and create a gps track for each section from control/info to next control/info. The benefit of this is that I don't cruise past info controls, and I always have a countdown to the control/info in the corner of the map screen. Not a distance to the end of the ride or a distance to a random turn that has been marked as a point of interest. Also i will have a better understanding of the route by creating my own tracks. I like to know how far i have to go until i can expect food/water so if I am feeling hungry or running short of water I don't stop unnecessarily 5km before the control. Sometimes I don't get round to this and sometimes that bites me. as when a info is labelled with a settlement name which is not apparent while riding, but totally obvious on the map.
I'll always aim to carry a paper route sheet just in case, much the same way as I'll carry a space blanket and a folding tyre in my bag too but they are all just insurance policies hopefully not to be called upon but reassuring that they are there.
As a relatively uncomplicated soul I normally navigate by gpx track only, occasionally supplemented with waypoints for controls, though thats not normally needed. A control will normally signify that a significant change of direction is about to occur and that (along with details on a brevet card) should make the vast majority of controls reasonably obvious.
Ive read the whole thread and I'm surprised that nobody appears to have explicitly mentioned what I think is the main advantage on using a GPS over hard copy which is that it makes me significantly faster.
It was riding with Maverick at night on the very wet HBKH ride in 2010 - him with a GPS and me with a sodden and soon to be papier mache route sheet - that made the penny drop.
Not having to get hard copy PoP has also made for far better quality DIY rides of which I do plenty.
Paper route sheets also vary wildly in format as they tend to reflect an organisers preference.
There was a point a few years ago when I thought it possible & desirable to not produce hard copy routesheet but Ive since been convinced of their merits.
I think some of the info in the thread also explains why a number of riders missed the Dunblane control on my recent 400km. Id added the controls as POIs on the gpx track but if Im reading it correctly these didnt show on some GPS devices (I must admit that I didnt event know you could do this until I first rode an event where wilkyboy had done this and the controls appeared on screen).
If anybody can help me out so that I can make controls more evident to GPs-ers in future do let me know.
the points of interest appearing on the screen is affected by the zoom level as i understand it, so marking them as point is not foolproof, but if takes real effort to ride past the end of the track you are following.
Post by: Carlosfandango on 16 May, 2019, 10:20:02 pm
I`ll be back next week to try and insult someone else and send a few others into an apoplectic frenzy.
Anyone else who wants to see a bit of "attitude", well I`ll see you outside on an Audax sometime.
Post by: mzjo on 16 May, 2019, 10:50:42 pm
Maybe this is the problem. If that was your point you had put it very badly, because what it reads like to me is that everyone else is doing it wrong. Which is erm, interesting, because some of those other people have been doing it for a few years, differently and successfully. Hence my questioning your experience.QuoteEverybody thinks the way they do it is the one true way.
It's not. Just like your bike is not the one true bike.
Excellent, I do love it when people make my point for me.
Just because someone has been doing something a long time, doesn't mean they have been doing it right. Just because I've found a solution that works for me so far doesn't mean it will always work for me, or that it will work for everyone. The problem is we have a number of people making claims such as:Nope. Paper routesheets are accessible to the greater proportion of the potential audience.
A route sheet is accessible in so far as anyone can print one, assuming they own a printer. But the reality is, what is written on the route sheet is pretty cryptic. For your first event where you are not only worrying about the fact you're riding twice the distance you've ever ridden before, you're now trying to work out what all the codes for each turn mean. You're also trying to read text, at speed, that is mounted on a vibrating shaky platform, or your arm, or where ever it's mounted, potentially through rain. And this is before you have the issue that not everyone on an event speaks the same language, nor takes into account issues with dyslexia. Yes everyone can print a route sheet, doesn't mean everyone can actually use a route sheet.
I'm sure there are many people for whom a routesheet Just Works™, they understand it, they are familiar with it, but to assume that everyone will find a similar level of ease with such an item is naive at best.
For me a GPX file Just Works™, it's technology I am familiar with, I understand it, and I know the quirks of how to use one. It also doesn't require me to have a printer, so when I stop off in the middle of Denmark on the way back from Hell, I can just load the GPX on my phone, sync to my Wahoo, and get riding. No need to decipher the Danish instructions, just follow the dot on the screen. Same when I turn up in Bruges, or Groot-Bijgaarden, or Bunnik.
I wonder how many cyclists under 40 have a bike computer like a wahoo or a garmin, but don't have a printer...
To bring this back to the original question, I think that an ability to search by if a GPX is available should be an option on the website, and I would even go so far as to say it should be one of the priority features for searching for events. But I would go further and suggest that AUK should make it recommended best practice that organisers should provide a quality GPX for their rides. We've spoken at length about how we can make audaxing more inviting to people that aren't old white men, I'd suggest that the routesheet and it's complexities is something that for many could be a barrier to entry. A GPX removes that barrier.
I am hoping to do an UK audax in 2020 (missed chance in 2019), for me it'll have to be a ride that provides a good GPX, and it'll have to be a ride that is BRM. I appreciate I am a minority in these specific requirements however.
J
PS I gave you my Palmares, you never answered my questions.
I am over 60, white , male who owns a printer, doesn't own a GPS for the bike (although I have one that claims dual utility car and "randonnée") and hates his "smart?" phone (and doesn't ride UK Audax). How the heck have I got to page 8 before QG tells me I am in the wrong place? Thanks I'll stop wasting my time.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 17 May, 2019, 12:04:20 am
I am over 60, white , male who owns a printer, doesn't own a GPS for the bike (although I have one that claims dual utility car and "randonnée") and hates his "smart?" phone (and doesn't ride UK Audax). How the heck have I got to page 8 before QG tells me I am in the wrong place? Thanks I'll stop wasting my time.
Where did I say this?
J
Post by: wilkyboy on 17 May, 2019, 12:58:51 am
I am over 60, white , male who owns a printer, doesn't own a GPS for the bike (although I have one that claims dual utility car and "randonnée") and hates his "smart?" phone (and doesn't ride UK Audax). How the heck have I got to page 8 before QG tells me I am in the wrong place? Thanks I'll stop wasting my time.
Where did I say this?
I'm not sure you did — mention was certainly made of white old men, but I don't recall you saying that white old men aren't allowed, just that they're not the only ones who ride audax, at least that's what I recall.
As to what mzjo quoted and then responded to, it seemed like the response would've been better placed against a different quote. I think he just wanted to say something — anything — in order to waste his own time and then complain that he's wasting it and tell us all that he's going to stop wasting it. Seems a bit silly, really ::-)
Post by: Ben T on 17 May, 2019, 03:56:10 am
Back in the day... 2004 when I worked in a computer shop, we always ran a Transac check on any Cheques, as such I processed one and had 5 customers decide to use their Credit Cards after all.Back in the day (1997) when I used to work in Spar there was this old woman who always used to come in and pay by cheque.
Cheque Guarantee cards usually only guaranteed up to £100
She didn't want to use her cheque guarantee card because she "knew the owner". There was always this stupid charade whereby she used to cantankerously insist she didn't need it because she knew Nick the owner, and I always used to cantankerously insist that she provide it because everyone else had to. The stand off usually only ended either when Nick came round and told me she didn't need to, or after she realised Nick wasn't going to come, and huffed and puffed and dug it out of her bag.
Post by: S2L on 17 May, 2019, 08:04:56 am
That is a consideration, however AUK members pay for a service, membership fees have risen this year, AUK chooses how to treat volunteers, or to pay them. There`s no issue in paying IT consultants a fair few thousand for their services for example.
AUK members pay for a third party insurance, access to the points/award fayre and a magazine.
Any money they pay to an event organiser, has little to do with AUK. In fact if you decide to DNS well in advance, AUK won't get a penny of your money (no card, no validation = nothing for AUK). If you finish, then AUK will get roughly a pound of your money.
Volunteers agree to help an organiser, nothing to do with AUK, in fact AUK doesn't even know who does what. AUK provide cards and validation, end of. I always expect volunteers to do it because they enjoy it, rather than as a chore. Expectations to perform a task (being that organising or helping out) to a decent standard are legitimate, but typically it is natural selection... if an event is badly run, it is unlikely to happen again
Post by: lmm on 17 May, 2019, 08:38:21 am
I find the best way is to sit with the route sheet before leaving for the event and create a gps track for each section from control/info to next control/info. The benefit of this is that I don't cruise past info controls, and I always have a countdown to the control/info in the corner of the map screen. Not a distance to the end of the ride or a distance to a random turn that has been marked as a point of interest. Also i will have a better understanding of the route by creating my own tracks. I like to know how far i have to go until i can expect food/water so if I am feeling hungry or running short of water I don't stop unnecessarily 5km before the control. Sometimes I don't get round to this and sometimes that bites me. as when a info is labelled with a settlement name which is not apparent while riding, but totally obvious on the map.
the points of interest appearing on the screen is affected by the zoom level as i understand it, so marking them as point is not foolproof, but if takes real effort to ride past the end of the track you are following.
Interesting. For me both the distance to the next turn and the distance to the arrivee (so that I can pace myself) are a higher priority than the distance to the next control (perhaps because I mostly ride X-rated events where there isn't always supplied food at controls); of course with controls marked as points the distance to the control is available as well. I suppose the point is that controls-as-waypoints only works if the organiser is restrained about marking non-controls?
(On the last event I rode, wilkyboy of this thread marked the controls but also a handful of recommended cafes between controls - I remember a sequence of three marked villages, each more or less 20km after the last, that were pretty much indistinguishable for my purposes but one was a control and two were "just" cafes. I think I may have bought some haribo at the control village for the receipt and had a proper coffee stop at one of the other two - I honestly couldn't say which was which. Would you have wanted a countdown to one but not the other? No judgement, just wondering how other people treat these things)
Personally (as someone at the full-value end), ideally I do want to cruise past the info control, if the info can be observed from the saddle. I do want the controls to be obvious but I don't want to have to fiddle with my device at each. I don't know what device's screen or zoom level you're talking about (I rely on audio prompts rather than screen).
(Obviously if it turns out that the thing that's most useful to most people with their devices (and/or is easier for the organiser) is separate tracks for each stage then I'll accept that I have to stitch them together myself just as you split up the tracks yourself)
Post by: frankly frankie on 17 May, 2019, 09:42:55 am
I think I may have bought some haribo at the control village for the receipt and had a proper coffee stop at one of the other two - I honestly couldn't say which was which. Would you have wanted a countdown to one but not the other? No judgement, just wondering how other people treat these things)
Personally (as someone at the full-value end), ideally I do want to cruise past the info control, if the info can be observed from the saddle. I do want the controls to be obvious but I don't want to have to fiddle with my device at each. I don't know what device's screen or zoom level you're talking about (I rely on audio prompts rather than screen).
(Obviously if it turns out that the thing that's most useful to most people with their devices (and/or is easier for the organiser) is separate tracks for each stage then I'll accept that I have to stitch them together myself just as you split up the tracks yourself)
Everyone does it differently, and there is a multitude of different devices in use. That is why, years ago, we suggested a lowest-common-denominator 'standard' for a downloadable GPX file which would work for almost every user, but also bound to be sub-optimal for almost every user. Part of that file definition is 'a single Track for the whole distance' because - for some popular models of Edge GPS** at least - a file containing multiple Tracks is simply a broken file - the GPS will load one of the Tracks and delete the rest (and what is worse, the user may only discover this mid-ride). So it has to be a single Track for the whole distance. However this is of course deeply sub-optimal for anyone who prefers to work with one-Track-per-leg or indeed for any total distance over 200k.
For similar reasons, part of the definition was 'no more than 500 Trackpoints' and again this is obviously deeply sub-optimal for nearly all users, and especially at longer distances - untenable in fact above 300k. (And in fact, the number of devices still in the wild that are limited to 500 points per Track is probably very small indeed by now - it is probably reasonable to drop that part of the definition.)
Some organisers get round all this by providing a suite of optional formats - either all contained in a zip file, or all available via their website, or simply by offloading the whole problem to RWGPS.
Another option might be to arrive at a 'full fat' file definition - a GPX containing all the bells, all the whistles, all the T-by-T directions that anyone could conceivably want, and assume the end user will use the bits they want and reject the bits they don't. It's fairly easy to obtain a file that approaches this ideal (complete with ridiculous high point count) via RWGPS. Unlike the minimal file described above, which works for almost everyone but is sub-optimal for 95% of us - this full fat file would be broken for 95% of us until fettled to suit.
** if it were not for these pesky but popular Edges, the minimal file definition would have been for a file split into two Tracks, ie one out and one back. This would have doubled the points density for everybody.
Post by: wilkyboy on 17 May, 2019, 09:53:30 am
(On the last event I rode, wilkyboy of this thread marked the controls but also a handful of recommended cafes between controls - I remember a sequence of three marked villages, each more or less 20km after the last, that were pretty much indistinguishable for my purposes but one was a control and two were "just" cafes. I think I may have bought some haribo at the control village for the receipt and had a proper coffee stop at one of the other two - I honestly couldn't say which was which. Would you have wanted a countdown to one but not the other? No judgement, just wondering how other people treat these things)
Interesting. I'd appreciate it if you'd PM me which ride that was, so I can take a look at the file — I do so many, I cannot recall which it is. But I have been known to add general info dots to routes, especially when the organiser has been at pains to highlight it themselves in the blurb and event preamble. Hmm, it might've even been one of my own events ...
Anyway, as I'm getting better at using my GPS and I'm presuming others to be doing so also, I'm tending to strip back on the unnecessary gumpf and sticking to just the controls themselves. Occasional events require a little more "detail", but mostly around info controls, because riders tend to chat and ride straight past, so I add a 500m and 1km beep to those.
But, generally, I'm erring towards less in the file ... which annoys Kazoo users, who want all that superfluous TBT stuff in there*; which is of course totally unnecessary when using a proper GPS device. Or a routesheet :demon:
* I'm only pulling legs for fun here — from this discussion, I've started giving a discrete link on my event pages to the whole route on RWGPS, so Kazoo users can pin it, or indeed trace it.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 17 May, 2019, 09:57:24 am
Another option might be to arrive at a 'full fat' file definition - a GPX containing all the bells, all the whistles, all the T-by-T directions that anyone could conceivably want, and assume the end user will use the bits they want and reject the bits they don't. It's fairly easy to obtain a file that approaches this ideal (complete with ridiculous high point count) via RWGPS. Unlike the minimal file described above, which works for almost everyone but is sub-optimal for 95% of us - this full fat file would be broken for 95% of us until fettled to suit.
I'm not sure why the full fat file would be broken for 95% of us.
It'll be broken for anyone using a 500 point limit device, but how many are still using them?
A modern eTrex should be fine with it?
A Garmin Edge device should be fine with it?
A Kazoo once loaded back onto RWGPS will be fine with it as it gets the file through RWGPS' API in the format Wahoo ask RWGPS for.
The bits that don't work with each device are just not there, but the important bit is... the breadcrumbs.
Although whoever decided to call them breadcrumbs needs to reread Hansel and Grettel.
Post by: grams on 17 May, 2019, 10:16:41 am
(Not a kazoo user though)
Do Edge/eTrex devices allow a countdown of km to a waypoint/cue?
Post by: wilkyboy on 17 May, 2019, 10:21:04 am
My understanding is RWGPS doesn’t magically add turn-by-turn if you upload a breadcrumb file to it. You have to plot the route within their editor to get them.
(Not a kazoo user though)
I don't know the answer to this either. It is possible to do it via GMaps APIs, but only when using GMaps APIs to also do the auto-routing, i.e. NOT when uploading a breadcrumb file. Strava did do some Labs work to try to get this conversion to work, but it wasn't wholly successful, as it's quite a hard problem. Also not a Kazoo user.
Do Edge/eTrex devices allow a countdown of km to a waypoint/cue?
Yes. On Edge, when following a Course that contains CoursePoints, there's an additional screen next to the map that lists all the CoursePoints yet to be visited, with the distance to each one counting down. There are also individual fields that relate to just the next CoursePoint, such as distance and estimated time of arrival. And, as described above, something similar exists on eTrex.
Post by: Jem on 17 May, 2019, 10:21:33 am
This thread just keeps on giving.
For me, it just keeps on taking and taking. This thread is a prime example of why I stay off forums. People get hurt. Even people who are not taking part in the argument. I am sitting hear in tears with a dilemma none of have even considered. I agree with FBOAB, a real life friend with whom I have thrashed myself around audaxes in heat and snow for many years, and on tandem trike time trials. Then there is Carlosfandango, the man I love, but with whom in this instance, because I am unashamedly "old school" do not agree. So, while you all tear each other to bits hiding behind online anonymity, spare a thought for those of us who have been around long enough to put names to faces and find ourselves in no man's land in a battle we never asked for but which has really hurt. :'( :'(
I just want to ride my bike.
Jane
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 May, 2019, 10:43:53 am
Quote
The IKEA effect is a cognitive bias in which consumers place a disproportionately high value on products they partially created. The name derives from the name of Swedish manufacturer and furniture retailer IKEA, which sells many furniture products that require assembly.
The IKEA effect has been described as follows: "The price is low for IKEA products largely because they take labor out of the equation. With a Phillips screwdriver, an Allen wrench and rubber mallet, IKEA customers can very literally build an entire home's worth of furniture on a very tight budget. But what happens when they do?" They "fall in love with their IKEA creations. Even when there are parts missing and the items are incorrectly built, customers in the IKEA study still loved the fruits of their labors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA_effect
Lighting used to consume a lot of 'self-build' effort. Frankly Frankie would write articles about using the latest 'almost white' LEDs in home-made lash-ups. Likewise there were endless debates about bike build, but bikes that do everything you want are available off the shelf, and debate centres around the number of chainrings.
Ultimately smartphones will have better battery life, and be more robust. Downloading will be simple, and blockchain will be involved as a gatekeeper to a fully-integrated Audax system.
But we'll lose the IKEA effect, and we'll be forced to look at Audax as a consumer product, with 'Trip Advisor' expectations. All the DIY we used to do contributed to the 'sunk cost' and was part of the process that drew us in.
We do get the occasional glimpse of that future from someone who has done PBP or LEL, and is taken in by the professional gloss of the front end. They tell us that the real thing was a bit wonky, and little attempt was made to conceal the allen screw heads.
It's worth looking up the seminal work on cognitive dissonance, 'When Prophecy Fails'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
Post by: Carlosfandango on 17 May, 2019, 10:45:36 am
This thread just keeps on giving.
For me, it just keeps on taking and taking. This thread is a prime example of why I stay off forums. People get hurt. Even people who are not taking part in the argument. I am sitting hear in tears with a dilemma none of have even considered. I agree with FBOAB, a real life friend with whom I have thrashed myself around audaxes in heat and snow for many years, and on tandem trike time trials. Then there is Carlosfandango, the man I love, but with whom in this instance, because I am unashamedly "old school" do not agree. So, while you all tear each other to bits hiding behind online anonymity, spare a thought for those of us who have been around long enough to put names to faces and find ourselves in no man's land in a battle we never asked for but which has really hurt. :'( :'(
I just want to ride my bike.
Jane
:-* :-* :-*
Post by: jiberjaber on 17 May, 2019, 11:06:05 am
My understanding is RWGPS doesn’t magically add turn-by-turn if you upload a breadcrumb file to it. You have to plot the route within their editor to get them.
(Not a kazoo user though)
I don't know the answer to this either. It is possible to do it via GMaps APIs, but only when using GMaps APIs to also do the auto-routing, i.e. NOT when uploading a breadcrumb file. Strava did do some Labs work to try to get this conversion to work, but it wasn't wholly successful, as it's quite a hard problem. Also not a Kazoo user.
This is correct - load a 'breadcrumb' and all you get us that. If you require cue sheet, you need to drag and recreate the route.
I'm not a kazzo user (but part of the famous Kazoo two band, but thats a different story!) however I dont use Garmin TBT. I rely on the cue sheet within the route that I load on to my Garmin 1030.
Post by: Ian H on 17 May, 2019, 11:41:52 am
My understanding is RWGPS doesn’t magically add turn-by-turn if you upload a breadcrumb file to it. You have to plot the route within their editor to get them.
At least one rider on one of my events last year completely bolloxed a carefully thought-out route via RWGPS. He seemed happy with his main road bash though, even felt the need to point out he'd ridden further than the pukka route.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 17 May, 2019, 12:03:48 pm
My understanding is RWGPS doesn’t magically add turn-by-turn if you upload a breadcrumb file to it. You have to plot the route within their editor to get them.Rwgps won't add tbt directions unless the routes been put through the routing algorithms it utilises, what I mean is even if your device doesn't support the way points and tbt directions in a file, it will still show you the route as breadcrumbs.
(Not a kazoo user though)
Do Edge/eTrex devices allow a countdown of km to a waypoint/cue?
While my lezyne super GPS was still alive, (note to self you've drowned 2 different lezyne devices due to their rubbish sealing usb plug don't buy a 3rd) I would load exactly the same source file into it and my edge 510, and once the 510 was dead I used the rwgps export of the same route I had synced to the wahoo, without problem... Except for the lezyne not supporting starting routes anywhere other than the start location that is...
The base item of use in any gps export is the breadcrumbs, and as long as you have them you should be able to navigate using them provided you can see them.
I don't know how blind stoker's navigate on tandems though, I presume there's no tactile display GPS systems so I guess good quality tbt instructions are useful there, I've yet to see any routing algorithm that know priorities on the road and so doesn't think a sharp right hand bend isn't a junction which could be interesting if it happens to also be a junction like the one at pitormie between dairsie and bulmullo
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Phil W on 17 May, 2019, 12:40:40 pm
Post by: zigzag on 17 May, 2019, 12:41:16 pm
it was a steep learning curve to figure it out, still had little idea how to use it on lel in 2009 but thanks to all the other riders around navigation wasn't a problem. once i've learned it the technology has served me well* over the past decade; i have never navigated using a route sheet and would not ride an event without having a gpx file for it (either supplied by the organiser, or by a kind fellow audaxer who've done it for themselves and shared it). i moved from using gps with maps and waypoints to a simple one that only shows the line to follow, so far so good (but for touring, exploration, adventure etc maps are a must, at least available and usable on a phone).
if there was an online repository of audax gpx files, it would also be good to have a system preventing outdated files, highlighting and notifying about the changes etc., rwgps seems like a suitable ready-made solution, if it can be adapted and adopted for the needs of auk riders - it would be fab!
*never got lost, and only once went around the 200 audax the opposite way as i did not want to retrace 10km back to the missed y-fork - still had a great day out!
Post by: quixoticgeek on 17 May, 2019, 12:50:01 pm
I'm not sure you did — mention was certainly made of white old men, but I don't recall you saying that white old men aren't allowed, just that they're not the only ones who ride audax, at least that's what I recall.
As to what mzjo quoted and then responded to, it seemed like the response would've been better placed against a different quote. I think he just wanted to say something — anything — in order to waste his own time and then complain that he's wasting it and tell us all that he's going to stop wasting it. Seems a bit silly, really ::-)
Ok, glad I'm not going completely mad then.
This thread just keeps on giving.
For me, it just keeps on taking and taking. This thread is a prime example of why I stay off forums. People get hurt. Even people who are not taking part in the argument. I am sitting hear in tears with a dilemma none of have even considered. I agree with FBOAB, a real life friend with whom I have thrashed myself around audaxes in heat and snow for many years, and on tandem trike time trials. Then there is Carlosfandango, the man I love, but with whom in this instance, because I am unashamedly "old school" do not agree. So, while you all tear each other to bits hiding behind online anonymity, spare a thought for those of us who have been around long enough to put names to faces and find ourselves in no man's land in a battle we never asked for but which has really hurt. :'( :'(
I just want to ride my bike.
I'm not anonymous. I rode under my real name on RatN, several people from this forum have met me in person.
I just want to ride my bike. I want to be able to turn up at an Audax and not be the only girl. I want to be able to turn up without being asked if I am with a man. I want to be able to go into the ladies loo at the start of the ride and not find a man. I want to be able to go into a bike shop and not be hit on by the staff. I want to go into a bike shop and not be treated like a moron with them trying to sell me shit I don't need. I want to be able to walk into a bike shop and buy a bike.
I just want to ride my bike. If only it was that easy.
J
Post by: Phil W on 17 May, 2019, 12:51:56 pm
Post by: quixoticgeek on 17 May, 2019, 12:59:58 pm
As for the GPX, if an organiser is going to provide one then provide it in whichever format they can manage. My preference is for a GPX full fat single track and waypoints for Controls and Infos but I'll work with whatever is available. The only thing I would say is don't go down sampling (to the point a track no longer follows the road) as an extra step. It is easy enough for a rider to down sample a track themselves if necessary but up sampling is a somewhat harder (time consuming) task.
Agreed.
J
Post by: farfetched on 17 May, 2019, 01:12:20 pm
I'm not a kazzo user (but part of the famous Kazoo two band, but thats a different story!) however I dont use Garmin TBT. I rely on the cue sheet within the route that I load on to my Garmin 1030.
Without turning this thread into a GPS tutorial, i was wondering exactly what you do to generate a cue sheet that would support navigation without TBT turned on, like you i also turn off the TBT but would appreciate having this. Is this part
of RWGPS for which you have to pay?
Post by: willpom gwraudax on 17 May, 2019, 01:41:44 pm
Post by: Kim on 17 May, 2019, 01:43:37 pm
Although whoever decided to call them breadcrumbs needs to reread Hansel and Grettel.
Consider the "Wrap when full" setting on older eTrexen with a lower trackpoint limit. Seems pretty Hansel and Gretel to me.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 17 May, 2019, 01:48:35 pm
Although whoever decided to call them breadcrumbs needs to reread Hansel and Grettel.
Consider the "Wrap when full" setting on older eTrexen with a lower trackpoint limit. Seems pretty Hansel and Gretel to me.
Fair point
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Somnolent on 17 May, 2019, 03:01:44 pm
Without turning this thread into a GPS tutorial, i was wondering exactly what you do to generate a cue sheet that would support navigation without TBT turned on,
Why generate a cue sheet ? Organisers provide one surely, only in AUK we tend to call it a routesheet ;D ;D ;D ;D
Seriously though, talking of TBT, does anyone else still use (for their Etrex) what used to be called in these pages the "jwo method" ? A breadcrumb trail on the road (or as near as the trackpoint limit will allow), and overlaid with a route that connects "routepoints" which are named in abbreviated audaxese. I've yet to find anything more reliable for a) sticking to the planned route without succumbing to Garmin's own ideas about routing, b) counting down distances to turns, c) audible warning of turn a few seconds before each turn, d) no spurious 'off-route' warnings.
So
Depart - on Laburnam Way
LEFT, onto Sycamore Avenue
RIGHT at T, onto Maple Avenue
RIGHT at T, then imm LEFT.
3rd exit at RDB, A466 $ Monmouth
on the orgnaisers routesheet becomes on my screen:
00 Start
01 Left
02 R.T
03 R.L
04 E.3
(each displayed when they are the next instruction)
Post by: Kim on 17 May, 2019, 03:14:47 pm
Seriously though, talking of TBT, does anyone else still use (for their Etrex) what used to be called in these pages the "jwo method" ? A breadcrumb trail on the road (or as near as the trackpoint limit will allow), and overlaid with a route that connects "routepoints" which are named in abbreviated audaxese.
I sometimes do a variation on that, where I display the breadcrumb trail on the map, then navigate a carefully-crafted route in 'on road' mode. The eTrex generates then lights up, beeps and displays big friendly turn instructions automatically. The advantages are obvious (clear instructions that you don't need reading glasses for, sensible recalculation when you go off-route). The disadvantage is that unless handled with tranquillity, Garmin's auto routing implementation can result in considerable stress, ulcers and even death.
In practice, it's mostly a case of knowing when to ignore the instructions. Usually it's because you're doing something it doesn't understand like crossing a dual cabbageway in pedestrian mode, which is easily handled by chucking a waypoint in to remind you what to do - it'll sort itself out when you get moving again on the other side. Occasionally it'll take the silly way round in a way you didn't spot at the planning stage. This is easily caught by eyeballing the track on the map before committing yourself to any suspicious turnings or tempting descents.
Your approach seems more bullet-proof, particularly if you care about distance to next.
Post by: JonB on 17 May, 2019, 03:25:56 pm
Seriously though, talking of TBT, does anyone else still use (for their Etrex) what used to be called in these pages the "jwo method" ? A breadcrumb trail on the road (or as near as the trackpoint limit will allow), and overlaid with a route that connects "routepoints" which are named in abbreviated audaxese. I've yet to find anything more reliable for a) sticking to the planned route without succumbing to Garmin's own ideas about routing, b) counting down distances to turns, c) audible warning of turn a few seconds before each turn, d) no spurious 'off-route' warnings.
No, I just passively follow the track on the map, no prompts, beeps etc .... However, I'd be interested in this. Would it be difficult to post your workflow for this method (maybe in the GPS board rather than take this one further off course'). No worries if it's a lot of work as I'm reasonably happy with my method but am intrigued.
Post by: farfetched on 17 May, 2019, 03:27:48 pm
Why generate a cue sheet ? Organisers provide one surely, only in AUK we tend to call it a routesheet ;D ;D ;D ;D
I dont ride in the UK, over here in NL they have abandoned the routesheet and replaced it with a list of villages (at least on most of the rides i have done) and a GPX with control/info/warnings waypoints, which is fine as i only used the routesheet to cross-check the GPX beforehand. My question was triggered by the remark earlier of Jibber-jaber and the fact i dont want to use TBT navigation as it seems to slow down my GPS unit. Garmin doesnt seem to deliver anything that does this so it seems i need RWGPS...
Post by: lmm on 17 May, 2019, 03:44:12 pm
I don't know how blind stoker's navigate on tandems though, I presume there's no tactile display GPS systems so I guess good quality tbt instructions are useful there, I've yet to see any routing algorithm that know priorities on the road and so doesn't think a sharp right hand bend isn't a junction which could be interesting if it happens to also be a junction like the one at pitormie between dairsie and bulmullo
I'm sighted but often rely on audio-only navigation; it took a bit of time to learn to "think like the GPS" (and thus realise that e.g. "turn slightly left" might in fact mean "take the turning off to the right as the main road curves left"), but one gets used to it.
To echo a previous post, I'm not sure a "full fat" file would be useless - certainly I've never seen a file I couldn't use. So far the only "unusable"-level issues that have come up are:
- Files with more than 500 points on some old devices (hopefully not an issue any more?)
- Files with more than 10000 points on some devices (avoidable without noticeable impact on riders whose devices could handle more?)
- Multiple tracks in a single GPX file (avoidable though at a cost to those who would prefer separate tracks for different legs)
Any other bells and whistles (waypoints, turn by turn) can be added to suit those who want them without affecting those whose devices can't use them, or have I missed anything? Do we have something close to consensus on that as a recommendation for the best compromise format for organisers who want a single-file answer (if we're confident that 500-point-limit devices really are quite rare at this point), or is there a fundamental incompatibility that means multiple different files are still the c ideal? We do have people with a preference for track-per-control rather than single-track, so I guess that means at least two files (or rather one file and one bundle) if one's looking to satisfy everyone.
Post by: frankly frankie on 17 May, 2019, 03:49:49 pm
Seriously though, talking of TBT, does anyone else still use (for their Etrex) what used to be called in these pages the "jwo method" ? A breadcrumb trail on the road (or as near as the trackpoint limit will allow), and overlaid with a route that connects "routepoints" which are named in abbreviated audaxese. I've yet to find anything more reliable for a) sticking to the planned route without succumbing to Garmin's own ideas about routing, b) counting down distances to turns, c) audible warning of turn a few seconds before each turn, d) no spurious 'off-route' warnings.No, I just passively follow the track on the map, no prompts, beeps etc .... However, I'd be interested in this. Would it be difficult to post your workflow for this method (maybe in the GPS board rather than take this one further off course'). No worries if it's a lot of work as I'm reasonably happy with my method but am intrigued.
Waypoint Naming (http://www.aukadia.net/gps/lwg_20.htm) (broken link mended - sorry!)
It has to be said this works much better on older Etrexes, the newer ones have a much smaller font size for text fields and it's hard to configure them in a way that makes this information as useful as it should be.
Post by: JonB on 17 May, 2019, 04:06:19 pm
Waypoint Naming (http://www.aukweb.net/users/)Thanks Frankie - that's given me a broken link of some kind (the one with cranks, chain and cog bouncing along :))
It has to be said this works much better on older Etrexes, the newer ones have a much smaller font size for text fields and it's hard to configure them in a way that makes this information as useful as it should be.
Post by: jiberjaber on 17 May, 2019, 04:13:55 pm
I'm not a kazzo user (but part of the famous Kazoo two band, but thats a different story!) however I dont use Garmin TBT. I rely on the cue sheet within the route that I load on to my Garmin 1030.
Without turning this thread into a GPS tutorial, i was wondering exactly what you do to generate a cue sheet that would support navigation without TBT turned on, like you i also turn off the TBT but would appreciate having this. Is this part
of RWGPS for which you have to pay?
Pretty much this:
If your device supports it in TCX or FIT format then yes with a paid RWGPS subscription you will be able to download them. Unless you manually edit the cues, whittle the chaff and add the missing you will only get the cues generated by the base map used.
You can still download .FIT and .TCX (both files being different but achieving the same thing) however you need to pay for the "Notify before turn" option to get the cue prompts.
If there are no prompts (cues) in the GPX file you have uploaded to RWGPS (or you want to recreate the cue points that someone has cleared out) then you need to redo the route, this can be achieved in a few easy ways but take time - either
- edit the route using the "add/remove control point" to drag the route a little (causes a re-plan and creates the cues) and needs you to make sure the replan doesn't change the route from your intended path..
- or, edit the route, select "prepare for tracing" from the left Edit menu and then create a new route over the top of the 'trace'
:thumbsup:
Post by: farfetched on 17 May, 2019, 04:29:25 pm
Post by: jiberjaber on 17 May, 2019, 04:49:36 pm
I prefer the dumb silent track. A quick glance as you pass a turning or side road is often all that's needed. Meanwhile I can enjoy the scenery and pay attention to the sign posts telling how far it is to next village etc. The only thing I did do was change the mapping style so the line I am following stands out from all the roads even in bright sunshine.
I'd would love an e-ink style display on a GPS as they are so much clearer in bright sunshine.
Yes changing the style would be good - I think you can do this on Edge devices if you start messing with custom maps - somethings I also find missing which would be useful are names of motorways and rivers as they are often good points to work out where you actually are.
On my current Edge 1030 I not use it exclusively in 'day' mode as the 'night' mode (style) seems to lose the track line I am following as it changes to the sem colour as some of the roads - this could also be indicative of me needing to get my eyes tested!
Post by: Ian H on 17 May, 2019, 05:06:02 pm
Post by: Danu on 17 May, 2019, 05:12:42 pm
Post by: zigzag on 17 May, 2019, 05:24:16 pm
Post by: S2L on 17 May, 2019, 05:25:35 pm
On other forums people moan because their Edge 520 lost a file or their Wahoo Elemnt doesn't update or that ANT+ is not reliable, or their IPhone does not communicate with the unit...
here is like another dimension, a much more primitive one, one where adults are incapable to drag a mouse along a screen and click to produce a circle of points or question how to follow a simple line and need a compass and a sextant to double check they are not being conned by the bugger
It's really really entertaining, sad but happy at the same time... bittersweet
Post by: Hot Flatus on 17 May, 2019, 06:02:33 pm
Post by: Kim on 17 May, 2019, 06:05:14 pm
On the other hand you have adults who are tech savvy enough to use a gps, but seemingly incapable of searching on a website like RWGPS or Strava for the audax gpx of their choice (they are all on there!)
To be fair, you can't trust J Random GPX from the internet. If it's not from the organiser, it's not the canonical route. Which isn't to say that the one somebody put on Strava 2 years ago might not be useful, but you're going to have to diff it against (presumably) the official routesheet before using it.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 17 May, 2019, 06:07:19 pm
You cant always trust one supplied by the organiser either ;)
Post by: Kim on 17 May, 2019, 06:08:55 pm
That is true, but it's pretty easy to cross reference other published routes, and/or quickly plot your own using the found one in conjunction with routesheet.
It's pretty easy to do most of the things described in this thread, if you find them easy. *shrugs*
Quote
You cant always trust one supplied by the organiser either ;)
Indeed, but you should be able to (plusminus last-minute announcements that somebody's nicked a bridge or whatever on the day).
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 May, 2019, 06:09:53 pm
On the other hand you have adults who are tech savvy enough to use a gps, but seemingly incapable of searching on a website like RWGPS or Strava for the audax gpx of their choice (they are all on there!), but then are tech savvy enough to find an internet forum on which to whine about it.
That's the first thing that occurred to me. I assumed that they didn't want to pay a subscription to be able to download the file. It seems to be an ingrained attitude in the 'pirate generation'. They seem to want to go to any length to circumvent paywalls.
I do sympathise, as I'm pretty parsimonious myself. The coming generation don't seem as bothered about paying, as their use of smartphones makes them fairly passive consumers.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 17 May, 2019, 06:11:47 pm
Post by: Hot Flatus on 17 May, 2019, 06:14:00 pm
That is true, but it's pretty easy to cross reference other published routes, and/or quickly plot your own using the found one in conjunction with routesheet.
It's pretty easy to do most of the things described in this thread, if you find them easy. *shrugs*
I'm pointing out the disconnect between being able to set up a gps, get it to communicate with smartphone/computer, operate it, but being unable to click points on a googlemap and hit 'save'.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 May, 2019, 06:14:18 pm
I dont think you have to pay to download from RWGPS. I do it most weeks.
The basic is free, more sophisticated stuff costs.
https://ridewithgps.com/choose_account
Post by: Kim on 17 May, 2019, 06:14:23 pm
That's the first thing that occurred to me. I assumed that they didn't want to pay a subscription to be able to download the file. It seems to be an ingrained attitude in the 'pirate generation'. They seem to want to go to any length to circumvent paywalls.
I do sympathise, as I'm pretty parsimonious myself. The coming generation don't seem as bothered about paying, as their use of smartphones makes them fairly passive consumers.
I suspect it's more a resistance to signing up for things (on faff or privacy grounds), rather than the actual payment. Though the latter usually implies the former.
"I've already signed up to an organisation to get audax routes, why should I need to sign up to another just because the organiser can't be bothered to email/upload a file to AUK?" seems reasonable to me.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 May, 2019, 06:21:50 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 17 May, 2019, 06:34:58 pm
On the other hand you have adults who are tech savvy enough to use a gps, but seemingly incapable of searching on a website like RWGPS or Strava for the audax gpx of their choice (they are all on there!), but then are tech savvy enough to find an internet forum on which to whine about it.So because I can read an OS map should I be writing my own routesheet from the control information provided by the organizer then?
This isn't about what you can or can't do, it's about what the base level of service that everyone receives should be.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: S2L on 17 May, 2019, 06:36:22 pm
On the other hand you have adults who are tech savvy enough to use a gps, but seemingly incapable of searching on a website like RWGPS or Strava for the audax gpx of their choice (they are all on there!)
To be fair, you can't trust J Random GPX from the internet. If it's not from the organiser, it's not the canonical route. Which isn't to say that the one somebody put on Strava 2 years ago might not be useful, but you're going to have to diff it against (presumably) the official routesheet before using it.
I once followed the wrong GPX file... missed the info and didn't get my ride validated...
I still enjoyed it
BTW: it was a GPX file provided by the organiser ;D
People take this brevet malarkey way too seriously
Post by: mattc on 17 May, 2019, 06:50:07 pm
This thread is a mattc wetdreamDarling, I've missed you too - it's been awful being apart! :-* But I'm back, and catching up on this most satisfying debate.
Where the fuck is he????
Will add my (much-missed) wisdom shortly, but it looks like you've been upholding the Spirit of Audax without me in fine style :thumbsup:
Post by: mattc on 17 May, 2019, 06:54:19 pm
I`m not here for Chis S`s entertainment, feet up, popcorn and beer.
So what are you here for?
OK, so it's taken a few pages, but I think I know this one:
He's here to show QG how to really be a dick about audax, and those who waste their free time putting them on for us.
QG you need to up your game to match this guy! Perhaps with a few more rides/years under your belt you'll get the hang of it :thumbsup:
Post by: Hot Flatus on 17 May, 2019, 07:00:11 pm
Have you got your Audax 10,000 Yard Stare award yet?
Post by: Hot Flatus on 17 May, 2019, 07:02:17 pm
On the other hand you have adults who are tech savvy enough to use a gps, but seemingly incapable of searching on a website like RWGPS or Strava for the audax gpx of their choice (they are all on there!), but then are tech savvy enough to find an internet forum on which to whine about it.So because I can read an OS map should I be writing my own routesheet from the control information provided by the organizer then?
You can if you want.
Put the start, finish and intermediate control points into googlemap and it will do it for you :-*
Post by: teethgrinder on 17 May, 2019, 08:05:23 pm
I dont think you have to pay to download from RWGPS. I do it most weeks.
The basic is free, more sophisticated stuff costs.
https://ridewithgps.com/choose_account
Yes.
I'm too mean to pay for the sophisticated stuff but happy to pirate routes from others for free.
I also have quite a few of my routes on RWGPS that anyone is free to use. I might be more willing to pay for more sophisticated stuff if I got paid some bunce for my routes. As it is, I'm happy to trade routes for free and I add more routes than I pirate. If they start charging to copy routes, then I'll take mine off and put them somewhere people can copy them for free. They'd effectively be using my routes to make money. That'd be reasonable if they give me a cut. Even so, I'd rather be able to give my routes for free.
Post by: nextSibling on 17 May, 2019, 09:51:07 pm
It doesn't hurt that the founders still run it, they haven't sold out to Big Software Inc., and they seem to honestly support and care about what they provide (they're also friends-of-friends and seem like good guys). The couple of times I've reported bugs, they've been attentive.
Yes, I suppose we're all dependent on something that could all get bought and re-purposed/get screwed up by marketing weasels/crash and burn/die in a fire, but that's true of any file server, hosting service, cloud provider, or local hard-drive. The boring old advice will never change. If you care enough, make backups.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 May, 2019, 10:12:56 pm
I dont think you have to pay to download from RWGPS. I do it most weeks.
The basic is free, more sophisticated stuff costs.
https://ridewithgps.com/choose_account
Yes.
I'm too mean to pay for the sophisticated stuff but happy to pirate routes from others for free.
I also have quite a few of my routes on RWGPS that anyone is free to use. I might be more willing to pay for more sophisticated stuff if I got paid some bunce for my routes. As it is, I'm happy to trade routes for free and I add more routes than I pirate. If they start charging to copy routes, then I'll take mine off and put them somewhere people can copy them for free. They'd effectively be using my routes to make money. That'd be reasonable if they give me a cut. Even so, I'd rather be able to give my routes for free.
I have a very complex relationship with 'intellectual property'. When Pathe News digitised their content in the early 2000s, I took the view that as I'd ridden the PBP, I could download their 1948 PBP footage for a fee of £30.00 and use it in PBP films. I also felt I could use appropriate music for free, which is a bit more dodgy. The film was on Youtube for a while, but the music choices meant it gradually got weeded out around the world. It's on Vimeo still, and part 2 has two appearances by Teethgrinder. One is on the 2003 triplet, and one is with Gethin Butler on the Daylight in 2003.
https://vimeo.com/9211968
The connection with GPS is that we can always think of reasons why we deserve to have someone else's work for free. I originated a lot of that content, but I've stolen some of it. I can square that with myself, as I put a lot of work into it. I'm probably kidding myself though.
Post by: Wobbly on 17 May, 2019, 10:33:43 pm
I rode for a while with the chap in the USA-themed top hat on the prologue. Happy days...
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 May, 2019, 10:41:31 pm
Blimey, that PBP 2003 footage brought back a few memories!
I rode for a while with the chap in the USA-themed top hat on the prologue. Happy days...
I spoke to him, in German. Part 2 is of course more strange.
https://vimeo.com/9211423
There are those who think you can do the same by uploading a raw file from their phone. But that's the modern world. Monsieur Schuman, mentioned in the Pathe footage, was one of the founders of the EU, I do like to be topical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schuman
Post by: FifeingEejit on 17 May, 2019, 11:11:04 pm
There are those who think you can do the same by uploading a raw file from their phone. But that's the modern world.
When I saw your post saying about how you were reducing your filming and that people tending to do their own filming was part of that decision (this was a few posts ago so forgive me if I remember wrong please!) I was tinged with sadness.
Selfie videos only document a single aspect and view point, the one lived by the rider with that camera, my on ride photos also only capture what I experienced, where as your films take the 3rd person position of an observer and show the many aspects that you see... And ponder,
I've rather enjoyed watching those that you have shared and of which I have found for this reason.
Even collecting the multitude of videos taken by riders I don't think you can get close to that of an observer.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 17 May, 2019, 11:26:08 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 17 May, 2019, 11:44:29 pm
My regular nighttime assistant on the mtb rides is into filmography, and collected plenty of rushes to form into short films.
The one I most want to see is the 9ne he's not done yet, that of the year I rode the puffer in a pair until around midnight at which point as I finished lap 1 of a block of 2 he solomely told me my partner having returned from his previous laps stating "I don't feel too well", was "not too good" on my asking.
He apparently has some amusing footage from the motorhome.
https://youtu.be/CRNqODmbL9A
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 18 May, 2019, 12:14:57 am
https://youtu.be/fsv_H03tlRs
I did like the LEL 2005 route, available online. https://www.bikemap.net/en/r/13850/
Post by: teethgrinder on 18 May, 2019, 02:06:00 pm
I have a very complex relationship with 'intellectual property'.
It's extremely complicated and full of contradictions. But fundamentally, it boils down to contractual agreements between seller and buyer or user and provider.
Music is an example. If you enjoy mainstream music that has lots of radio play etc, you get to try before you buy. But when you like anything not in the mainstream you are taking a gamble. At least, you were until you could go onto You Tube.
I take the view that anything I put out in public or on line is up for grabs for free and if I don't want anyone to use it, then it stays out of public view where nobody can get to it.
I like that I can hare and steal intellectual property from RWGPS. We are, after all, sharing ideas of using public facilities. I think that RWGPS have it just right. They offer a good service for free, which makes it the go to website for storing, copying and sharing routes. They could probably make big money from advertising as they must have a lot of traffic. But they also charge a small amount for a premium service.
Similar to Strava really, which is becoming more like Facebook and is a jack of the trades of training, route sharing, route planning and social media etc, but master of none.
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2019, 03:25:21 pm
I also don't see why I should give them free content for them to make money out of.
It's a bit like an aspiring musician going to a record label and saying ok can i put out a single, and the record label saying yeah sure, but we're going to keep ALL the profits. But to get round the fact we're not actually allowed to do that, we're going to give away a version with the vocals erased for free.
Post by: andyoxon on 19 May, 2019, 03:47:09 pm
RWGPS are being a bit cheeky really though as they are charging people to download content that people are giving them for free, without passing anything on to the content provider/publisher. Personally I don't see any reason to pay them for what's essentially a convenience helper method to essentially just parse content that's already been delivered to me in the HTML of the page.
I also don't see why I should give them free content for them to make money out of.
It's a bit like an aspiring musician going to a record label and saying ok can i put out a single, and the record label saying yeah sure, but we're going to keep ALL the profits. But to get round the fact we're not actually allowed to do that, we're going to give away a version with the vocals erased for free.
The free version of ridewithgps does allow you to do a keyword search for someone else's route, copy it to your own routes, edit it, then download it as a gpx file. You can't filter it to 500 trkpoints, or download it with POI as waypoints on the free plan though, but you can download a thirdparty gpx track (edited or not) for free.
Post by: S2L on 19 May, 2019, 03:55:19 pm
I like that I can hare and steal intellectual property from RWGPS.
A route per se does not qualify for intellectual property. If the route has a name and a logo then maybe those could be considered for intellectual property protection. For instance, they could not call the Audax "Mille miglia", so they had to call it "1001 miglia" because that was the name of a car race, but using the route is not a problem.
For instance, I could borrow Ride London 100 route and organise an Audax called "Beyond the M25" and nobody could do anything about it
Post by: FifeingEejit on 19 May, 2019, 05:07:24 pm
RWGPS are being a bit cheeky really though as they are charging people to download content that people are giving them for free, without passing anything on to the content provider/publisher. Personally I don't see any reason to pay them for what's essentially a convenience helper method to essentially just parse content that's already been delivered to me in the HTML of the page.
I also don't see why I should give them free content for them to make money out of.
It's a bit like an aspiring musician going to a record label and saying ok can i put out a single, and the record label saying yeah sure, but we're going to keep ALL the profits. But to get round the fact we're not actually allowed to do that, we're going to give away a version with the vocals erased for free.
The route is not what RWGPS are providing, that is created by it's users in the tool they are providing.
They provided different levels of features in the tool depending on what you pay;
It's the equivalent of Microsoft offering 3 levels of service in Word,
one where you can only write in Courier New 10pt and save the file
another where you also get access to bold and underline
and another where you are able to change the text colour.
It's a business model that was a long time coming to the IT industry, but had existed in others for years.
Post by: mattc on 19 May, 2019, 05:12:59 pm
It's a bit like MS Word coming with access to a cloud of docs that you can't get to without a copy of MS Word. (I think ... )
(hence Ben trying to use music in his analogy - without content (the routes or music), the whole setup is pretty pointless and valueless)
Post by: andyoxon on 19 May, 2019, 06:02:49 pm
I see what you're saying Mr Eejit, but shurely RWGPS are also providing access to a load of route data, as well as some tools - aren't they?? :-\
It's a bit like MS Word coming with access to a cloud of docs that you can't get to without a copy of MS Word. (I think ... )
(hence Ben trying to use music in his analogy - without content (the routes or music), the whole setup is pretty pointless and valueless)
Route downloads on ridewithgps are available for free, with no paid subscription. Users can set privacy levels if that's NB. I can't see the profit aspect here.
Post by: wilkyboy on 19 May, 2019, 06:19:36 pm
You see, it costs Real Money for all these services to use Google Maps — and it is not pocket change, but serious amounts. They also have to pay themselves — nobody's mortgage or food bill gets paid from "being nice and giving it away for free".
How does RWGPS pay its staff and bills? Subscriptions. But since users are, on the whole, freeloading gits then they need to be shown a stick/carrot to make some of them cough up, hence the feature limitations. That's why I stump up the cash and pay my annual subscription, even though I don't need the extra features, you're welcome O:-) You're welcome, because without right-minded people like myself paying into the pot, the service will fold — not "might", but "will".
Drawing parallels with vocals-free music isn't the same thing at all, except in the sense that "if you want to hear that music with vocals then pay for it, so the artist, the writer, the studio engineer, all the session musicians, the cover artist, the copywriters, the marketing droids, and everyone else involved in putting together that product can also keep a roof over their heads and feed their children"; in that case it's exactly the same thing, and anyone, therefore, who evades payment is essentially saying that they don't want all these normal*, hard-working people to have any sort of comfortable life.
* Except the artist, who is as likely as not to be quite weird, but who still has bills to pay.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 19 May, 2019, 06:49:40 pm
Drawing parallels with vocals-free music isn't the same thing at all, except in the sense that "if you want to hear that music with vocals then pay for it, so the artist, the writer, the studio engineer, all the session musicians, the cover artist, the copywriters, the marketing droids, and everyone else involved in putting together that product can also keep a roof over their heads and feed their children"; in that case it's exactly the same thing, and anyone, therefore, who evades payment is essentially saying that they don't want all these normal*, hard-working people to have any sort of comfortable life.
* Except the artist, who is as likely as not to be quite weird, but who still has bills to pay.
That's where my complex relationship with copyright resides. I often make short films with copyright music, and post them on youtube, they get adverts put on them, and some money goes to the artist. If I'm making a longer film, we'll use the stuff on the video programme, compose music, or concentrate on interviews. That takes a lot longer, so we'll put that on Vimeo pay per view, and sell discs.
I only ever made the longer films, because the disc sales offset the costs. That's a dying market, so the inclination to make any more is diminished. The desire for a record of rides is now well served by action cams, through social media.
I've largely exhausted my interest in long distance cycling, having covered most aspects of it. Changes in how rides are propagated and distributed is interesting though.
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2019, 07:47:03 pm
I think the point being missed here is not whether or not RideWithGPS — or any other service provider — should or should not charge for using parts of the system — that's just a result of users being freeloading gits and wanting everything for free.
You see, it costs Real Money for all these services to use Google Maps — and it is not pocket change, but serious amounts. They also have to pay themselves — nobody's mortgage or food bill gets paid from "being nice and giving it away for free".
Really!? :o :o ::-) ::-) ::-)
Post by: Feanor on 19 May, 2019, 08:02:53 pm
But yes, any website that uses Google Maps api has to pay serious money now.
As to the question about RWGPS taking payment, and what is that payment for, given that all the content is freely provided...
What they provide is an *infrastructure* to share the routes.
An infrastructure that allows you to view the routes against a paid-for mapping api.
An infrastructure that can store Your Shit for free, on their computers.
An infrastructure that allows you to plan routes for free.
And enough bandwidth on the Internet to make it useable.
That's Real Stuff, with Real Cost.
Who do you think is paying for that?
Post by: Kim on 19 May, 2019, 08:12:51 pm
[1] Which is presumably written by freeloading git GenXers, who would rather develop and share their own stuff than pay to use somebody else's. Selfish bastards.
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2019, 08:26:21 pm
I'm not sure if your comment is serious or not...
But yes, any website that uses Google Maps api has to pay serious money now.
As to the question about RWGPS taking payment, and what is that payment for, given that all the content is freely provided...
What they provide is an *infrastructure* to share the routes.
An infrastructure that allows you to view the routes against a paid-for mapping api.
An infrastructure that can store Your Shit for free, on their computers.
An infrastructure that allows you to plan routes for free.
And enough bandwidth on the Internet to make it useable.
That's Real Stuff, with Real Cost.
Who do you think is paying for that?
My only comment about RWGPS's charging model was the distinction between "publisher pays" and "subscriber (downloader) pays".
A "publisher pays" charging model is (imho) fairer, because it's the act of storing data that's using the cloud storage which as you helpfully point out costs money, but the "downloader pays" charging model is likely to generate more income, so that's what they've gone for.
My opinions about RWGPS in general are neither here nor there. It was just the point about the distinction between "subscriber pays" vs "publisher pays".
Post by: wilkyboy on 19 May, 2019, 08:43:21 pm
My only comment about RWGPS's charging model was the distinction between "publisher pays" and "subscriber (downloader) pays".
A "publisher pays" charging model is (imho) fairer, because it's the act of storing data that's using the cloud storage which as you helpfully point out costs money, but the "downloader pays" charging model is likely to generate more income, so that's what they've gone for.
My opinions about RWGPS in general are neither here nor there. It was just the point about the distinction between "subscriber pays" vs "publisher pays".
And that IS an interesting point of view. As it happens that aligns with my own view — I happen to be a somewhat prolific publisher on RWGPS, so I feel it right that I pay my dues. The fact that that doesn't get any subscribers the features that I've paid for is the part that's slightly off with your point of view. As it happens, I've written my own tools to get what I want out of the route once it has been mapped, and so I don't need RWGPS for that, and nor do my "subscribers" (who incidentally don't pay me anything, except by entering my events, which helps fund the rest).
Which suggests we're in agreement, except that I'm not quite so bothered about the subscriber-pays part.
Post by: Ben T on 19 May, 2019, 10:06:57 pm
What you aren't able to do with RWGPS is, as an audax organiser, to say "here's a link to my GPX for which you don't have to pay anyone anything else in order to download it".
Your entrants could say - 'what? I've already paid to enter the audax, why do I have to pay again to a 3rd party site to be able to download the route?'
If you were able to pay as a publisher, you could simpy absorb the publisher costs into the entry fee for your audax.
Even if that weren't the default subscription model; it seems publishing a 'free to (fully) download', even at cost, isn't even an option on RWGPS.
I guess if you are a prolific publisher, you are costing RWGPS money by using up cloud storage - that's the way my gut instinct sees it. But you are also making it more of a valuable proposition to subscribe to by increasing the richness of the content that subscribers can (fully) download by subscribing.
Post by: wilkyboy on 19 May, 2019, 11:03:59 pm
I guess if you are a prolific publisher, you are costing RWGPS money by using up cloud storage - that's the way my gut instinct sees it. But you are also making it more of a valuable proposition to subscribe to by increasing the richness of the content that subscribers can (fully) download by subscribing.
Knowing the size of the individual track data, and the number of saved tracks (up around 30m), the cost of storage isn't much — it's just a big database or object store. But really not that big as these things go — maybe 90TB (30m x 3MB), which is around $2000/mth S3 pricing, plus transfer costs. But then I'm only thinking about how I would set this up, it's impossible to know from the outside. Therefore for little me and my routes on RWGPS, maybe 2000 x 3MB would cost them much less than 20p/mth in S3 storage costs. Unless I've got my decimal point in the wrong place ...
I think the biggest supplier cost would be Google Maps on a per-org basis — a LOT of tiles get loaded while plotting a long route.
I have to say that I have almost zero interest in the content provided by others. I don't know whether I'm in the majority or minority, but I think RWGPS's route-plotting tools are (currently) the best there are for me and they way I do things.
Post by: Ben T on 20 May, 2019, 12:41:45 am
Sounds about right - it's not expensive per user, but a site wouldn't want to have to stomach that $2000 a month cost if they were going to be providing it for free for all users.
Knowing the size of the individual track data, and the number of saved tracks (up around 30m), the cost of storage isn't much — it's just a big database or object store. But really not that big as these things go — maybe 90TB (30m x 3MB), which is around $2000/mth S3 pricing, plus transfer costs. But then I'm only thinking about how I would set this up, it's impossible to know from the outside. Therefore for little me and my routes on RWGPS, maybe 2000 x 3MB would cost them much less than 20p/mth in S3 storage costs. Unless I've got my decimal point in the wrong place ...
Possibly even if they were commercial like RWGPS.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 20 May, 2019, 07:17:48 am
I see what you're saying Mr Eejit, but shurely RWGPS are also providing access to a load of route data, as well as some tools - aren't they?? :-\
It's a bit like MS Word coming with access to a cloud of docs that you can't get to without a copy of MS Word. (I think ... )
(hence Ben trying to use music in his analogy - without content (the routes or music), the whole setup is pretty pointless and valueless)
Unlike with the music analogy where without content it is useless, RWGPS could exist if all it did was let you download the GPX file afterwards.
But the storage of the routes and the search facility that finds routes others have created and made available to be searched (you can mark your routes as private) is another part of the tool.
Storage space isn't free either, so the premium RWGPS users are paying for the free users' space usage, and it's not going to be a small amount.
You see, it costs Real Money for all these services to use Google Maps — and it is not pocket change, but serious amounts. They also have to pay themselves — nobody's mortgage or food bill gets paid from "being nice and giving it away for free".
How does RWGPS pay its staff and bills? Subscriptions. But since users are, on the whole, freeloading gits then they need to be shown a stick/carrot to make some of them cough up, hence the feature limitations. That's why I stump up the cash and pay my annual subscription, even though I don't need the extra features, you're welcome O:-) You're welcome, because without right-minded people like myself paying into the pot, the service will fold — not "might", but "will".
Aye, and google keep putting the price up.
Randomly this morning before I got up I somehow starting thinking of the features on Strava I use compared to what I get from RWGPS.
And I realized I get much more from RWGPS than I do Strava. Better mapping, better tool for routing, much better analysis graphs.
But Strava's gamification with Suffer Scores and segments has me paying them...
Meanwhile it's equally valid to use the commercial software you paid for as part of the cost of a GPS receiver or access to proprietary map products. Or even use open source software[1] and maps.
[1] Which is presumably written by freeloading git GenXers, who would rather develop and share their own stuff than pay to use somebody else's. Selfish bastards.
I've never fully understood Open Sourcers.
I don't understand why a commercial organization would give away it's IP for free.
I don't understand why an employers software developer would go home and spend more of their time in front of a computer writing software.
I do understand why an unemployed software developer would though... but given my experiences of Open Office and the like, that's maybe why they're chronically unemployed.
I do understand that some people like the idea of giving stuff away for free, which is fair enough.
But then I appear to be atypical, what with being a noisy, fidgety, argumentitive nutjob...
Knowing the size of the individual track data, and the number of saved tracks (up around 30m), the cost of storage isn't much — it's just a big database or object store. But really not that big as these things go — maybe 90TB (30m x 3MB), which is around $2000/mth S3 pricing, plus transfer costs. But then I'm only thinking about how I would set this up, it's impossible to know from the outside. Therefore for little me and my routes on RWGPS, maybe 2000 x 3MB would cost them much less than 20p/mth in S3 storage costs. Unless I've got my decimal point in the wrong place ...
--snip--
I have to say that I have almost zero interest in the content provided by others. I don't know whether I'm in the majority or minority, but I think RWGPS's route-plotting tools are (currently) the best there are for me and they way I do things.
One of my colleagues crapped himself when he found out how much ATOS charged us per terrabyte per year.
That was 5 grand, he thought it was expensive. because a spinny disc only costs 100 quid...
My only interest in other peoples routes on RWGPS is the ones Orgs have put up, though I have found traces of a few other extinguished Scottish classics too.
Agree, by far the best route tool out there.
Post by: wilkyboy on 20 May, 2019, 08:30:05 am
Randomly this morning before I got up I somehow starting thinking of the features on Strava I use compared to what I get from RWGPS.
And I realized I get much more from RWGPS than I do Strava. Better mapping, better tool for routing, much better analysis graphs.
But Strava's gamification with Suffer Scores and segments has me paying them...
Exactly my thoughts: for getting at the info I actually want at the end of an audax, RWGPS is my first upload, and I analyse the track. Then I push it to Strava and do a little write-up to go with it, upload a few photos, and that's the public face of my efforts, in the social-media hot-pot that is Strava. I stopped paying for Strava for a while, but I recently restarted my paid membership on the basis it was becoming more important to me — and given how slow the site has become, it's possible they need to pay for more engineers ...
Post by: phil d on 20 May, 2019, 10:58:20 am
Of course, if a user wants it in a different format he/she can then either modify it themselves (though I would guess that relatively few of us have the skill to do that unless it is simple downsizing), or use a commercial site like RWGPS to modify it for them, at their expense.
I fail to see how this is unreasonable? But then, I'm one of those people happy to pay for advert-free apps.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 20 May, 2019, 11:22:41 am
a) Creating routes for you or others to ride
b) Reviewing stats from rides you've done
Then the "publisher pays" model makes sense.
If you view such a system as primarily a tool for:
a) Finding routes to ride
b) commenting on routes you've ridden
Then the "consumer pays" model makes sense, because your are using it to consume the content provided and nothing else.
RWGPS is heavily aimed and weighted at the "publisher" side.
Strava is heavily targeted at the "consumer" side.
The reason I've put publisher and consumer in quotes is because in reality in both models when implemented appropriately the consumer is the payer.
In RWGPS the tools are being consumed for the primary purpose of the site; the publishing of routes for others to find is almost a happy side effect.
Post by: Kim on 20 May, 2019, 12:48:10 pm
I've never fully understood Open Sourcers.
An awful lot of it is people who need a tool to solve some problem, make one, then share it because it might help someone else out. Often that results in other people contributing to making the tool better, so that makes perfect sense to me. You haven't lost anything by sharing it.
Quote
I don't understand why a commercial organization would give away it's IP for free.
Same principle I think. If you're in the widget business and develop a new widget-tracking database, you don't necessarily want to be a database vendor.
Or if you *are* a database vendor, you figure you can make more money selling widget database administration services or out-of-the-box widget-management solutions than you can selling your Free software, which functions as a marketing tool. This certainly seems to work for some companies.
Quote
I don't understand why an employers software developer would go home and spend more of their time in front of a computer writing software.
I think it's like a cycle courier going for a bike ride at the weekend: They get to choose the route, their own timescale and ride their favourite bike that wouldn't last 5 minutes unattended in some loading dock in That London.
Quote
I do understand why an unemployed software developer would though... but given my experiences of Open Office and the like, that's maybe why they're chronically unemployed.
I don't think OO is particularly badly written (it's huge, and mostly works). I think it's meeting a highly dubious set of design objectives.
Post by: Karla on 20 May, 2019, 12:55:16 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 20 May, 2019, 12:59:59 pm
Post by: lmm on 20 May, 2019, 01:34:01 pm
Would I pay a one time 10 quid for each GPX (whether to RWGPS or the organiser)? Sure. Would I sign up for a subscription if it was the agreed standard for AUK events, and I could be confident that all events would have tracks there? Yes, with gritted teeth. But signing up for an ongoing subscription for the sake of this one event, when the next event might use some other service? It's too much, especially when all I want is the file the organiser originally uploaded.
Post by: Kim on 20 May, 2019, 01:36:15 pm
For me it's a combination of an aversion to subscriptions (particularly when it's not clear if I'm getting all the things I want) and a feeling that RWGPS are not providing anything in my workflow. I don't want the Google maps, the downsampling, or anything like that. I just want to download the GPX with waypoints that the organiser originally uploaded, something any number of file hosts offer for free.
Would I pay a one time 10 quid for each GPX (whether to RWGPS or the organiser)? Sure. Would I sign up for a subscription if it was the agreed standard for AUK events, and I could be confident that all events would have tracks there? Yes, with gritted teeth. But signing up for an ongoing subscription for the sake of this one event, when the next event might use some other service? It's too much, especially when all I want is the file the organiser originally uploaded?
+1
Post by: dogtrousers on 20 May, 2019, 02:07:32 pm
You can download a GPX file of a route/ride from RWGPS without having an account of any sort (paid or free). Provided the author has made it public, of course.
What you can't do without certain kinds of account is do fancy-dan processing like downsampling to 500 points on download, and maybe conversion to certain formats. They're not charging people to download content that others have placed on RWGPS. They're charging people (or just requiring people to set up a free account) for extra features. Vanilla GPX download is free. Chocolate sauce download is extra.
If you want to reprocess the GPX that you've downloaded for free and munge it into your required format yourself, then you are free to do so.
Edit: I've just experimented a bit. I logged out of RWGPS and tried some searches and downloads. You can download GPX and TCX, but you can't reduce the number of points and you can't get TCX turn-by-turn (whatever that is) or FIT notify-before-turn (ditto). You can download CSV cuesheets, map images (that are a bit crap). There is actually quite a bit of flexibility available even without an account.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 20 May, 2019, 02:40:03 pm
For me it's a combination of an aversion to subscriptions (particularly when it's not clear if I'm getting all the things I want) and a feeling that RWGPS are not providing anything in my workflow. I don't want the Google maps, the downsampling, or anything like that. I just want to download the GPX with waypoints that the organiser originally uploaded, something any number of file hosts offer for free.
Would I pay a one time 10 quid for each GPX (whether to RWGPS or the organiser)? Sure. Would I sign up for a subscription if it was the agreed standard for AUK events, and I could be confident that all events would have tracks there? Yes, with gritted teeth. But signing up for an ongoing subscription for the sake of this one event, when the next event might use some other service? It's too much, especially when all I want is the file the organiser originally uploaded.
Since RWGPs lets you get the GPX files or direct linking to device for free (without the bells and whistles); your use case has no need for the subscription (unless you want the bells and whistles in the file)
IIRC you need to be a subscriber to export GPX files in Strava
(but then Strava's routing tool is pretty much junk anyway so it doesn't matter much)
Which is a further example of the "publisher" vs "consumer" charging model.
Post by: teethgrinder on 20 May, 2019, 02:53:30 pm
Since RWGPs lets you get the GPX files or direct linking to device for free (without the bells and whistles); your use case has no need for the subscription (unless you want the bells and whistles in the file)
Yes, that's why I put any routes up for sharing. So anyone can look at them or use them for free.
I create routes on Bike Hike, save them to my hard drive and if I want to share it I load it to my RWGPS account.
I also look at other people's routes for ideas etc
Post by: Phil W on 20 May, 2019, 02:53:52 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 20 May, 2019, 02:59:27 pm
I think it's called a Brevet card.
Obviously I can see the advantage of having the waypoints in the GPX,
I've never used that approach. but that's me
Post by: wilkyboy on 20 May, 2019, 03:04:36 pm
Yes you are missing something. Unless you have a premium account you cannot upload waypoints in a GPX you already have. Unless you have a premium account, you cannot add waypoints to your routes within RWGPS. You also cannot download (unless you hack the webpage) a GPX containing waypoints unless you have a premium account. So no, you can't download the vanilla GPX without a subscription. You can download just the track but since you are wanting to use it for navigating an Audax having waypoints to mark the controls is kind of useful. Now if the organiser never marked the controls with waypoints there's nothing lost. It's a bit like an organiser writing a route sheet and then when you download it , it doesn't say where the controls are, but for an extra £5 they will be included. So in affect the GPX no longer describes an Audax it just describes a route.
Ah, I did not know all that. Probably because I work with TCX and cue points and do all the GPX conversions from there. It also seems that they've tightened up on what is and isn't available on the free membership?
Post by: Phil W on 20 May, 2019, 03:11:49 pm
Aye but you get a bit of paper that describes the Audax that makes the route usable in that context.
I think it's called a Brevet card.
Obviously I can see the advantage of having the waypoints in the GPX,
I've never used that approach. but that's me
It's like the advantage of having the controls marked in context in a route sheet. Sure you could have hand written the distance from the brevet card in the appropriate place in the route sheet. But brevet card distances are sometimes the shortest distance and sometimes the actual route distance. How are you to know which is which, and if shortest how the hell are you meant to translate that to ridden especially if looking for an info control?
If we go down this route (no pun intended) in absurdism you could reduce it to here's you brevet card, off you go; no route sheet or GPX. Good luck with that when no one found the info clue because they'd all picked different routes and covered different distances when they decided the sign post at 99km was the one.
An event with check points but no recommended or published route between them is called orienteering but this time on road bikes.
Post by: teethgrinder on 20 May, 2019, 03:32:54 pm
Yes you are missing something. Unless you have a premium account you cannot upload waypoints in a GPX you already have. Unless you have a premium account, you cannot add waypoints to your routes within RWGPS. You also cannot download (unless you hack the webpage) a GPX containing waypoints unless you have a premium account. So no, you can't download the vanilla GPX without a subscription. You can download just the track but since you are wanting to use it for navigating an Audax having waypoints to mark the controls is kind of useful. Now if the organiser never marked the controls with waypoints there's nothing lost. It's a bit like an organiser writing a route sheet and then when you download it , it doesn't say where the controls are, but for an extra £5 they will be included. So in affect the GPX no longer describes an Audax it just describes a route.
Yes, I didn't know that. I don't use waypoints on my routes. I have wondered why nobody seems to use waypoints for controls on Audax events... ;D
They're either a route to get somewhere, a ride to a cafe, so pretty obvious when you get there, or a long ride, including DIY Audax where I don't see any point in waypoints because not everyone will want the same thing as a control.
I only upload as GPX tracks or FIT files. If I can't get the type of file I want, I use a file conversion website to get the type of file I want from a GPX track.
Post by: dogtrousers on 20 May, 2019, 03:52:26 pm
Yes you are missing something. Unless you have a premium account you cannot upload waypoints in a GPX you already have. Unless you have a premium account, you cannot add waypoints to your routes within RWGPS. You also cannot download (unless you hack the webpage) a GPX containing waypoints unless you have a premium account. So no, you can't download the vanilla GPX without a subscription. You can download just the track but since you are wanting to use it for navigating an Audax having waypoints to mark the controls is kind of useful. Now if the organiser never marked the controls with waypoints there's nothing lost. It's a bit like an organiser writing a route sheet and then when you download it , it doesn't say where the controls are, but for an extra £5 they will be included. So in affect the GPX no longer describes an Audax it just describes a route.I see what you mean. I never use waypoints when cycling except very occasionally, and when I do I always add them in manually and set a proximity alarm so I didn't pick up on that. My mistake.
All I ever use GPX for is navigating a route. I can see they would be useful for marking controls. And if, in another world, I were specifying a standard for organisers to comply with I'd probably make them mandatory, or at least recommended. So it is an issue.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 20 May, 2019, 04:05:39 pm
There should be an assumption that routes can be followed with the information provided in hard copy form, without any additional technology, although a watch is handy.
Post by: Nutbeem on 20 May, 2019, 04:08:07 pm
I have had pleasure plotting the BCM 2019 route (6 months ago and revised as the routesheets have been e-mailed out) in RwGPS to help those who prefer not to construct such themselves: https://ridewithgps.com/routes/20922029?beta=false A fair few have looked at it and I assume the majority of riders have exported a tcx or gpx (for free). I hope I have been accurate and, at the weekend, will be on the lookout for riders pausing at the embedded minor aberrations :) eg start of the Barmouth bridge track.
I particularly enjoyed the little off road jaunt through the woods at 320Km & in the middle of the night :)
Seriously though I used your track; split to out & back, slightly edited to use the two main road options on the return legs and Track Points filtered down for my Etrex. It got me to Menai & to Chepstow with no problems - Thank You.
Off road aberation wasn't actually I problem, zooming out the Etrex screen showed me what had happened & I just stayed on the road.
Post by: Phil W on 20 May, 2019, 04:18:35 pm
I've used the Brevet card and a map for navigation before the days of GPS and mobile phones
I'm sure that back in the 1970s audaxes primarily used main roads with simpler navigation. Maybe this basic form of Audax could be marketed as the XXX version and you could be the Vin Diesel?
If it comes down to a series of check points and find your own way using a map then I think it just becomes a version of ultra racing and the Audax format dies a little.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 20 May, 2019, 04:25:10 pm
Aye but you get a bit of paper that describes the Audax that makes the route usable in that context.
I think it's called a Brevet card.
Obviously I can see the advantage of having the waypoints in the GPX,
I've never used that approach. but that's me
It's like the advantage of having the controls marked in context in a route sheet. Sure you could have hand written the distance from the brevet card in the appropriate place in the route sheet. But brevet card distances are sometimes the shortest distance and sometimes the actual route distance. How are you to know which is which, and if shortest how the hell are you meant to translate that to ridden especially if looking for an info control?
If we go down this route (no pun intended) in absurdism you could reduce it to here's you brevet card, off you go; no route sheet or GPX. Good luck with that when no one found the info clue because they'd all picked different routes and covered different distances when they decided the sign post at 99km was the one.
An event with check points but no recommended or published route between them is called orienteering but this time on road bikes.
That one's already been done in this thread with the context of "if you can use GPS software you can work out your own route" and "well if that's the case I ca work a map so..."
Provided the locations are clear enough, yes you could do that, and as you say it's not Audax.
I don't think I've ever found the distance recorded to match the distance on a route sheet at an info control either and unless the info control is at a junction or other feature worthy of mentioning on a route sheet there's always the possibility that you're going to miss one if it's entirely dependent on what ever distance recording method you use (if you indeed use one at all) matching the info.
What does get confusing is when you get an info something like "what's the name of the house at the junction" or "what's the distance to blah at the junction"
There's two junctions within a reasonable margin of error and both fit the bill for the question but due to the priorities on the road only one of them is in the routesheet.
This happened on Moffat Toffee earlier this year, two junctions 500m apart, both fit the bill for the question distance wise although everyone had a different distance on their devices.
Junction 1: https://goo.gl/maps/KzgYhBdWnxnVV3ZXA
Junction 2: https://goo.gl/maps/gtzhZqvw37ooCUUeA
The obvious solution there for Routesheets is to list every junction not just ones you leave the priority route on though that will make route sheets much larger, but without waypoints is a problem on GPS.
Post by: Ben T on 20 May, 2019, 04:39:40 pm
I'm interested in the discussion between "publisher pays" and "end-user pays". I'm not a RWGPS user (free or paid), so may be off-beam here. But it seems to me that the way Wilkyboy uses the service (with a "publisher pays" model) he is able to download the resultant gps files in whatever format he deems appropriate to supply to his audax entrants. He can then supply this file free, by email, as a download from his website, or presumably via a link on the AUK site.
Either of those methods... just not a link to RWGPS, unless he wants his entrants to also have to pay again to RWGPS for his waypoints.
When I talked about RWGPS being a "subscriber pays" model, what I meant was that RWGPS doesn't give you the option of paying as a publisher in order that your subscribers (entrants) don't have to. Whether he also pays a premium as a publisher is by the by.
I've used the term "publisher pays" to mean publisher pays so subscribers don't have to - something that I have previously thought might be quite useful to audax organisers. And probably is to some. But something which RWGPS doesn't allow.
In light of what Phil W points out about having to have premium RWGPS to even upload* waypoints as well, I think it's slightly confusing to talk about RWGPS being either a "publisher pays" or "subscriber pays" model because in reality it is an "everyone pays" model.
* (I was under the illusion that they let you do this for free as it was beneficial to them as content provision that would encourage more paying subscribers but it seems not)
Post by: Phil W on 20 May, 2019, 04:40:29 pm
That one's already been done in this thread with the context of "if you can use GPS software you can work out your own route" and "well if that's the case I ca work a map so..."
Thats a bit like saying you can read a book why not write one? Well you could but most likely it'll be shit and take the average person a very long time. Being a consumer of content doesn't necessarily make you good at creating that content. It does of course make us all expert critics of content created by others.
I don't enter events then expect to also have to create the route and mark controls. If I want to do that I'll just do a DIY or even just a ride and do that at my convenience.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 20 May, 2019, 04:47:41 pm
That one's already been done in this thread with the context of "if you can use GPS software you can work out your own route" and "well if that's the case I ca work a map so..."
Thats a bit like saying you can read a book why not write one? Well you could but most likely it'll be shit and take the average person a very long time. Being a consumer of content doesn't necessarily make you good at creating that content. It does of course make us all expert critics of content created by others.
I don't enter events then expect to also have to create the route and mark controls. If I want to do that I'll just do a DIY or even just a ride and do that at my convenience.
Indeed, That's what my dig back (the map one) was about.
I'm interested in the discussion between "publisher pays" and "end-user pays". I'm not a RWGPS user (free or paid), so may be off-beam here. But it seems to me that the way Wilkyboy uses the service (with a "publisher pays" model) he is able to download the resultant gps files in whatever format he deems appropriate to supply to his audax entrants. He can then supply this file free, by email, as a download from his website, or presumably via a link on the AUK site.
Either of those methods... just not a link to RWGPS, unless he wants his entrants to also have to pay again to RWGPS for his waypoints.
When I talked about RWGPS being a "subscriber pays" model, what I meant was that RWGPS doesn't give you the option of paying as a publisher in order that your subscribers (entrants) don't have to. Whether he also pays a premium as a publisher is by the by.
I've used the term "publisher pays" to mean publisher pays so subscribers don't have to - something that I have previously thought might be quite useful to audax organisers. And probably is to some. But something which RWGPS doesn't allow.
In light of what Phil W points out about having to have premium RWGPS to even upload* waypoints as well, I think it's slightly confusing to talk about RWGPS being either a "publisher pays" or "subscriber pays" model because in reality it is an "everyone pays" model.
* (I was under the illusion that they let you do this for free as it was beneficial to them as content provision that would encourage more paying subscribers but it seems not)
It is more weighted to publisher rather than consumer though.
Whether the waypoints are important are not are up to the route creator to decide; if they think it is then I'd say they should be publishing elsewhere; but it's their call really as you don't have to have them.
Post by: andyoxon on 20 May, 2019, 05:29:26 pm
Yes you are missing something. Unless you have a premium account you cannot upload waypoints in a GPX you already have. Unless you have a premium account, you cannot add waypoints to your routes within RWGPS. You also cannot download (unless you hack the webpage) a GPX containing waypoints unless you have a premium account. So no, you can't download the vanilla GPX without a subscription. You can download just the track but since you are wanting to use it for navigating an Audax having waypoints to mark the controls is kind of useful. Now if the organiser never marked the controls with waypoints there's nothing lost. It's a bit like an organiser writing a route sheet and then when you download it , it doesn't say where the controls are, but for an extra £5 they will be included. So in affect the GPX no longer describes an Audax it just describes a route.
and Garmin users depending on their unit, I guess, can upload a barebones freely downloaded 'ridewithgps' gpx to basecamp/mapsource and easily insert waypoints/add proximity alarms or whatever, filter to 500 trk points etc etc, and export...
Post by: Pingu on 20 May, 2019, 05:36:39 pm
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 20 May, 2019, 05:52:02 pm
When they start modifying the route, to avoid hills, or to follow faster roads, they might find that their modified route is at odds with the Brevet card. Particularly important in a PBP year.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 20 May, 2019, 06:21:04 pm
Which results in me getting complacent, aye Eskdalemuir is that away...
I suspect the North Coast 600 will have a similar level of route checking on my part.
Post by: lmm on 20 May, 2019, 06:55:50 pm
There should be an assumption that routes can be followed with the information provided in hard copy form, without any additional technology, although a watch is handy.
Perhaps. But I'd say it should be a higher priority to ensure that routes can be followed with GPX only (which means including the controls on the GPX), since there are more people who can navigate that way, in practice even if not in theory.
The Brevet Card remains the definitive route. It can include controls that aren't on the route sheet; information controls, and ad-hoc controls. That doesn't make any difference if the rider is following the received official route.
When they start modifying the route, to avoid hills, or to follow faster roads, they might find that their modified route is at odds with the Brevet card. Particularly important in a PBP year.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The Brevet Card does not list a route, only controls. Most (though not all) AUK events are explicitly "free route" with the organiser's suggested route being just that - suggestion. Riders having the option of picking their own route (but only if they want to) is good for the whole "self reliance" ethos IMO.
Given how much of this thread has been saying how riders should study the route beforehand and plan ahead, it would be pretty rotten for an organiser to give out a suggested route (whether sheet or GPX) with an inaccurate list of controls.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 20 May, 2019, 07:15:31 pm
I remember on occasion on a 400 in the Borders when there was an apparent 'secret' control, to ensure the inclusion of a hill. It was actually on the card, but not the routesheet. So it wasn't a secret control, or an information control. Information controls have got harder to police, it was easier before cellphones, and then smartphones. The moral is, read the card, and compare it with the route.
Post by: rob on 20 May, 2019, 07:41:00 pm
Research and a bit of planning kiddies.
Post by: Nutbeem on 20 May, 2019, 10:12:53 pm
Yes you are missing something. Unless you have a premium account you cannot upload waypoints in a GPX you already have. Unless you have a premium account, you cannot add waypoints to your routes within RWGPS. You also cannot download (unless you hack the webpage) a GPX containing waypoints unless you have a premium account. So no, you can't download the vanilla GPX without a subscription. You can download just the track but since you are wanting to use it for navigating an Audax having waypoints to mark the controls is kind of useful. Now if the organiser never marked the controls with waypoints there's nothing lost. It's a bit like an organiser writing a route sheet and then when you download it , it doesn't say where the controls are, but for an extra £5 they will be included. So in affect the GPX no longer describes an Audax it just describes a route.
and Garmin users depending on their unit, I guess, can upload a barebones freely downloaded 'ridewithgps' gpx to basecamp/mapsource and easily insert waypoints/add proximity alarms or whatever, filter to 500 trk points etc etc, and export...
This is precisely what I do.
It does take a bit of time and effort, but it's also good preparation as it means I get to study the route sheet and visualise the Controls & Info Controls on the map.
It also means getting to grips with Basecamp, which isn't the worlds most user friendly or intuitive software programme, but there's a lot it can do, so worth it in my book(1).
We're talking about riding Audax events here; riders are supposed to be fully prepared and able to solve problems when things go wrong in the middle of nowhere. I would suggest it's also reasonable that if they choose to use an electronic navigation device they should have (or aquire) the knowledge and skills to, if not plot their own route, then to be able to modify or adapt a provided route so it works correctly and how they want it to in their own device.
(1) Downloading the BCM route from RWGPS, checking it, splitting it to out and back, reducing the track points, then uloading it to my Garmin took around 30 minutes.
Post by: lmm on 20 May, 2019, 11:11:13 pm
It's not unknown for the route sheet or GPS to be last year's, and for the card to have a different control, due to last minute changes. That's why it's worth reading the card at the beginning, to check that it tallies, and you only get it on the day.
I remember on occasion on a 400 in the Borders when there was an apparent 'secret' control, to ensure the inclusion of a hill. It was actually on the card, but not the routesheet. So it wasn't a secret control, or an information control. Information controls have got harder to police, it was easier before cellphones, and then smartphones. The moral is, read the card, and compare it with the route.
The card not matching what was sent out does happen, but I'd regard it as a significant faux pas on the organiser's part, and expect an explicit announcement on departure at the very least. I don't want to demand too much from volunteer organisers, but a consistent list of controls really does seem like the bare minimum - if you don't have that then are you even running a brevet at that point?
As for info controls I'm content for those to be the de facto honour system - do we really have people not riding to all the control points? I suspect there have been far more cases of people who legitimately cycle the course but miss the info than people who actually didn't visit the point in question. Though I guess that's a whole other argument.
We're talking about riding Audax events here; riders are supposed to be fully prepared and able to solve problems when things go wrong in the middle of nowhere. I would suggest it's also reasonable that if they choose to use an electronic navigation device they should have (or aquire) the knowledge and skills to, if not plot their own route, then to be able to modify or adapt a provided route so it works correctly and how they want it to in their own device.
It's "reasonable", sure. In the same sense that not providing a route sheet at all and expecting the rider to work out their own route would be reasonable. If the org is about the promotion of long-distance cycling then it's absurd to have a high standard and a lot of organiser effort expected for one particular form of navigation while treating another, more popular and accessible form of navigation as a second-class afterthought.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 May, 2019, 12:36:57 am
It's not unknown for the route sheet or GPS to be last year's, and for the card to have a different control, due to last minute changes. That's why it's worth reading the card at the beginning, to check that it tallies, and you only get it on the day.
I remember on occasion on a 400 in the Borders when there was an apparent 'secret' control, to ensure the inclusion of a hill. It was actually on the card, but not the routesheet. So it wasn't a secret control, or an information control. Information controls have got harder to police, it was easier before cellphones, and then smartphones. The moral is, read the card, and compare it with the route.
The card not matching what was sent out does happen, but I'd regard it as a significant faux pas on the organiser's part, and expect an explicit announcement on departure at the very least. I don't want to demand too much from volunteer organisers, but a consistent list of controls really does seem like the bare minimum - if you don't have that then are you even running a brevet at that point?
As for info controls I'm content for those to be the de facto honour system - do we really have people not riding to all the control points? I suspect there have been far more cases of people who legitimately cycle the course but miss the info than people who actually didn't visit the point in question. Though I guess that's a whole other argument.
I started riding Audax before the internet, before I had a mobile phone, and before GPS was available. Any information we had was word of mouth or printed. That meant we were living in the same world as the pioneers of Audax. The Tour de France was on television, and that provided the inspiration factor.
I was reminded of this when I saw a Tour de France colouring book in the children's corner of the church in Horton in Ribblesdale on Sunday, while we were on a walk.
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60762470_2304802552890675_7673118228612120576_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=684b51377b790b17cb8717b3848101fc&oe=5D6258D0)
The fact that people would cheat to say that they'd done Paris Brest Paris added to the prestige, and they do still cheat, and get disqualified. The British approach; of a 'free' route, is a bit of a legacy of hiding the fact we are racing, and I like that bit of 'legacy' as well.
I quite liked the dodges that some of the 'sticklers' among the organisers would put into their rides to ensure you rode the route. It showed that the responsibility that ACP had given them was being taken seriously. ACP has withdrawn their support from national bodies that have been lax in the past.
Post by: Wycombewheeler on 21 May, 2019, 01:13:17 am
but if you have not followed the route, then your distance to the info control will be different to the distance stated on the card, you may be at a different t junction when your distance tallies. Although there have been enough brevet cards on rides I have done where distances stated vary significantly from the distance ridden to that point even when following the route scrupulously.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The Brevet Card does not list a route, only controls. Most (though not all) AUK events are explicitly "free route" with the organiser's suggested route being just that - suggestion. Riders having the option of picking their own route (but only if they want to) is good for the whole "self reliance" ethos IMO.
Given how much of this thread has been saying how riders should study the route beforehand and plan ahead, it would be pretty rotten for an organiser to give out a suggested route (whether sheet or GPX) with an inaccurate list of controls.
Post by: Ben T on 21 May, 2019, 07:26:45 am
The fact that people would cheat to say that they'd done Paris Brest Paris added to the prestige, and they do still cheat, and get disqualified.
And it was TdF riders who used to cheat by getting the train in the old days, not just PBP riders! Couldn't possiby happen now with all the camera crews and team cars.
Post by: lmm on 21 May, 2019, 07:43:22 am
I started riding Audax before the internet, before I had a mobile phone, and before GPS was available. Any information we had was word of mouth or printed. That meant we were living in the same world as the pioneers of Audax. The Tour de France was on television, and that provided the inspiration factor.
I was reminded of this when I saw a Tour de France colouring book in the children's corner of the church in Horton in Ribblesdale on Sunday, while we were on a walk.
The fact that people would cheat to say that they'd done Paris Brest Paris added to the prestige, and they do still cheat, and get disqualified. The British approach; of a 'free' route, is a bit of a legacy of hiding the fact we are racing, and I like that bit of 'legacy' as well.
I quite liked the dodges that some of the 'sticklers' among the organisers would put into their rides to ensure you rode the route. It showed that the responsibility that ACP had given them was being taken seriously. ACP has withdrawn their support from national bodies that have been lax in the past.
Bicycles of the television era were significantly different from those of the original audax - which is as it should be. Audax has always been a test of technology as well as rider - not having the UCI's traditional bicycle design rule is a part of our ethos (and I wouldn't be taking part without it). After all, the pioneers of audax were by definition using a piece of fancy newfangled technology: the bicycle.
Cycle racing and the Tour do indeed have a reputation for cheating (and doping, and team conflict). Part of the appeal of a non-race activity is to keep the good parts of cycling without getting dragged into that. I understand why people would feel the need to cheat on a race, where first place matters. I don't understand cheating on a randonnee, and am genuinely surprised to hear it happens on PBP.
What you've said about free routes doesn't match what was said in the history thread: rides in the '70s when police concern about illegal road races was at its height were in the French style with mandatory routes, relying on the maximum speed and lack of recognition for first finishers to make it clear that it's not a race. Free route is a more recent Britishism (though still decades old at this point). In any case, free route or mandatory the organiser really should be getting the control list right (of course for fixed route a secret control is expected).
but if you have not followed the route, then your distance to the info control will be different to the distance stated on the card, you may be at a different t junction when your distance tallies. Although there have been enough brevet cards on rides I have done where distances stated vary significantly from the distance ridden to that point even when following the route scrupulously.
If you've planned your own route with the routesheet available then you'd route yourself to the same junction and mark it in your notes, I would think. And of course if you have a GPX waypoint then the control is in that location whatever route you take to get there.
Post by: Wycombewheeler on 21 May, 2019, 08:43:09 am
I didn't do this on BCM as the infos were all in unmissable locations but I did have 8 tracks I like to have distance to control displayed in top left corner of the map not distance to end of route.
Post by: lmm on 21 May, 2019, 09:27:22 am
Post by: grams on 21 May, 2019, 09:53:36 am
Post by: S2L on 21 May, 2019, 10:12:34 am
Maybe some time in the future there will be a bike computer made that can display two numbers at once.
I've heard good things about the coming Edge 530 and both numbers are independent, you can read the speed while you check the mileage too... amazing!
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 May, 2019, 10:28:24 am
Cycle racing and the Tour do indeed have a reputation for cheating (and doping, and team conflict). Part of the appeal of a non-race activity is to keep the good parts of cycling without getting dragged into that. I understand why people would feel the need to cheat on a race, where first place matters. I don't understand cheating on a randonnee, and am genuinely surprised to hear it happens on PBP.
What you've said about free routes doesn't match what was said in the history thread: rides in the '70s when police concern about illegal road races was at its height were in the French style with mandatory routes, relying on the maximum speed and lack of recognition for first finishers to make it clear that it's not a race. Free route is a more recent Britishism (though still decades old at this point). In any case, free route or mandatory the organiser really should be getting the control list right (of course for fixed route a secret control is expected).
We rarely see a situation where the various strands of navigation, communication and validation intersect. Such an instance occurred on a ride in Scotland that was filmed. Some Swedes took the main road to Lochinver, rather than the prescribed route. That took them past the next stage of the route, to Durness, so they followed the track. The camera crew told them, but they felt they'd gone too far to retrace, and they probably couldn't get phone signal either. They would have passed a sign to Lochinver, which was clearly the control, marked on the routesheet and the card. Someone has put the film on facebook, and we can see the process in operation, from 28 minutes 29 seconds.
https://www.facebook.com/100000633266878/videos/1847780908586333/?t=1833
It's an interesting situation, and one we could trace in terms of development. The main road route was pointed out on a YACF thread, and is legitimate as a 'free route'. An official GPS route wouldn't have overlapped with the next stage.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 10:41:35 am
Perhaps. But I'd say it should be a higher priority to ensure that routes can be followed with GPX only (which means including the controls on the GPX), since there are more people who can navigate that way, in practice even if not in theory.
Careful, such herasy will have people questioning your experience and demanding you justify such a view...
Quote
The Brevet Card remains the definitive route. It can include controls that aren't on the route sheet; information controls, and ad-hoc controls. That doesn't make any difference if the rider is following the received official route.
When they start modifying the route, to avoid hills, or to follow faster roads, they might find that their modified route is at odds with the Brevet card. Particularly important in a PBP year.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The Brevet Card does not list a route, only controls. Most (though not all) AUK events are explicitly "free route" with the organiser's suggested route being just that - suggestion. Riders having the option of picking their own route (but only if they want to) is good for the whole "self reliance" ethos IMO.
Given you only get the Brevett card approximately 30 minutes before the start, that doesn't give you much time to check against the routesheet or the GPX, and basically means you have to have a map of the course, for a 600, that's gonna be a lot of 1:50k landranger maps.
May I suggest that expecting the Brevet card to be definitive like this, while technically true, is a complete bollocks thing to do.
Quote
Given how much of this thread has been saying how riders should study the route beforehand and plan ahead, it would be pretty rotten for an organiser to give out a suggested route (whether sheet or GPX) with an inaccurate list of controls.
Agreed. The controls positions should be fixed, even if the organiser has to say "Hey, there's a burst water main on the A31245 You're gonna want to take a left before it, then right and right again to get back to the route"
This thread also opens up an interesting debate on the subject of info controls.
AUK seems considerably more dependant on info controls than the Dutch, Belgians, or Danes, based on my experience. In all the events I've done I've only had 2 info's. One was "What is the name of the building at number 19 station road?" Well number 19 didn't have a name, but 15 did. I took a photo of both, turned up at Arrivé, asked the org "Did you want number 15 or number 19?" "That proves you were there". The second info was on BPB last year, which asked the price of a certain menu combo at a kebab shop. I see AUK routes advertised as having 5 controls and 4 info's... on a 200! I'm guessing this is because most AUK routes are free route, so the info's are required to get length, whereas Dutch routes are all Mandatory route (I've had more secret controls than I've had info's!).
How is the location of an info control specified on route sheets and/or GPX's and/or Brevet cards on non mandatory route AUK events? Does it include a lat/long or a OS grid ref of the location? Or is it just a delta of the route sheet?
J
Post by: Pingu on 21 May, 2019, 10:56:44 am
This thread also opens up an interesting debate on the subject of info controls.
FCVO interesting (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=106594.0) :)
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 May, 2019, 11:02:30 am
AUK seems considerably more dependant on info controls than the Dutch, Belgians, or Danes, based on my experience. In all the events I've done I've only had 2 info's.
Britain has a huge network of minor roads, especially in England. Many of those have more undulations than the main roads they might shadow. Bike routes tend to follow those minor roads, and Audax routes then follow those marked routes. In addition there's the AAA culture, where a shorter 'hillier' route would take longer than a main road alternative, the AAA point would be invalidated without an information control.
The result is that there are routes which discriminate against tandems, recumbents and heavier riders, who would all have an easier ride on a free route. It gives rise a series of very British problems, one of which is the self-made GPX.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 11:04:50 am
Britain has a huge network of minor roads, especially in England. Many of those have more undulations than the main roads they might shadow. Bike routes tend to follow those minor roads, and Audax routes then follow those marked routes. In addition there's the AAA culture, where a shorter 'hillier' route would take longer than a main road alternative, the AAA point would be invalidated without an information control.
The result is that there are routes which discriminate against tandems, recumbents and heavier riders, who would all have an easier ride on a free route. It gives rise a series of very British problems, one of which is the self-made GPX.
Why not just make it mandatory route then?
J
Post by: FifeingEejit on 21 May, 2019, 11:15:34 am
Why not just make it mandatory route then?
That means convincing someone to stand out in the pissing rain while it's blowing a hoolie and minus 5 to stamp cards for potentially 20 hours, just so that someone doesn't cut a corner in the last 10km.
A chronic lack of volunteers is a recurring theme across many activities in the UK.
I was speaking to Andy Uttley at the station after the GNR 400 and I was a bit too tired to understand why he used a Mandatory route with secret controls rather than info control on some of the sections he added to get the distance up on Hellfire corner.
I wasn't getting the "you need 3 questions for an Info" and on some of the roads out that way you're lucky if there's 3 sheep to get the name of.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 May, 2019, 11:23:11 am
Britain has a huge network of minor roads, especially in England. Many of those have more undulations than the main roads they might shadow. Bike routes tend to follow those minor roads, and Audax routes then follow those marked routes. In addition there's the AAA culture, where a shorter 'hillier' route would take longer than a main road alternative, the AAA point would be invalidated without an information control.
The result is that there are routes which discriminate against tandems, recumbents and heavier riders, who would all have an easier ride on a free route. It gives rise a series of very British problems, one of which is the self-made GPX.
Why not just make it mandatory route then?
J
We've had all sorts of mandatory stipulations on LEL. Principally banning support vehicles on sections of the route. They get ignored. I asked a Danish driver of a large camper-van who was on the route about his being there. He replied that he'd noticed that the British never seemed to enforce rules, which is a fair enough observation.
In general, the UK runs by a sort of anarchy by consent. Audax would be seen as entirely alien if you explained it to the average Brit. The general view would be that no-one would want to be the 'Little Hitler' who might not validate a ride for a missing stamp.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 11:26:38 am
That means convincing someone to stand out in the pissing rain while it's blowing a hoolie and minus 5 to stamp cards for potentially 20 hours, just so that someone doesn't cut a corner in the last 10km.
A chronic lack of volunteers is a recurring theme across many activities in the UK.
But you don't. The threat should be enough. Include a secret control every now and then to reinforce the threat.
One 300 last year had a secret control in the first 5km. There had been a pretty last minute update to the route/gpx. To pick up on anyone who hadn't got the update, they had the secret control. It was a rare occasion where I'd picked up someone's wheel from the start. Chantel Coolsma was on the front, then 5 guys on here wheel, then me, a nice chain gang. We went over a bridge, the 5 guys between Chantel and me pealed off left, and us 2 continued on. Alas the gap was too much and I couldn't get back on her wheel. Half a k down the road, we hung a left and there was a big WRM 300 sign in the road, and a car by the side of it. Stampy stampy. On we went.
Quote
I was speaking to Andy Uttley at the station after the GNR 400 and I was a bit too tired to understand why he used a Mandatory route with secret controls rather than info control on some of the sections he added to get the distance up on Hellfire corner.
I wasn't getting the "you need 3 questions for an Info" and on some of the roads out that way you're lucky if there's 3 sheep to get the name of.
Yeah. It seems based on the stories that some are coming up with that the info controls some use are really clutching at straws. I wonder how long until GPX based validation becomes an option?
I did like the suggestion that some have had in other info control threads of the org having put an actual sign/object out on the route for you to identify. Tho given some in the home counties have started removing sportiv sign arrows, it may be a short lived object.
J
Post by: FifeingEejit on 21 May, 2019, 11:59:21 am
I think there was a fuss last year on a 300 where there wasn't an secret control despite the boxes on the card.
If you're going to threaten secrets then you'd better have some, and they need to be there for every rider, so you do potentially need someone out in the rain for a long period of time to make it fair.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 12:10:46 pm
Riding a 50km thinking I'd missed a secret control was bad enough,
I think there was a fuss last year on a 300 where there wasn't an secret control despite the boxes on the card.
If you're going to threaten secrets then you'd better have some, and they need to be there for every rider, so you do potentially need someone out in the rain for a long period of time to make it fair.
All ACP produced brevet cards have a secret control box... Even if it's not used.
If you're on the provided GPX, and/or route sheet, then surely there's nothing to worry about re missing it?
That said, it's upto the secret controller to make it very obvious that it's a control. I almost rode past an A4 sheet with a 72pt BRM600 -> pinned to a ply board.
J
Post by: Ajax Bay on 21 May, 2019, 01:26:43 pm
"Promotion of long-distance cycling" on routes defined by a series of controls to be visited in order with a suggested route shared by the organiser. The controls are invariably? (well for calendar events) listed on the events page. I do think that 'info control' locations should be clearly defined on the routesheet (as @QG implies) and the brevet: sometimes this is less well done. All controls are listed on the routesheet which, as you point out, requires considerable organiser effort to construct, validate and check (and check before each annual event as well). This routesheet, or a link to it, is shared with every entrant by direct e-mail. Some are content to publish the routesheet for anyone to access: others prefer to share the current, up-to-date routesheet only with those who have entered. All who can read English can access the routesheet and, with variable amounts of effort, understand it, even if they don't (in the event) use it. (Tip: before the event, download and open the routesheet and 'Find' "info" to see where any/all 'info controls' are and locate them on the map (that's that paper atlas thing one can buy at reputable book shops and garages, or online), or on online mapping.We're talking about riding Audax events here; riders are supposed to be fully prepared and able to solve problems when things go wrong in the middle of nowhere. I would suggest it's also reasonable that if they choose to use an electronic navigation device they should have (or aquire) the knowledge and skills to, if not plot their own route, then to be able to modify or adapt a provided route so it works correctly and how they want it to in their own device.It's "reasonable", sure. In the same sense that not providing a route sheet at all and expecting the rider to work out their own route would be reasonable. If the org is about the promotion of long-distance cycling then it's absurd to have a high standard and a lot of organiser effort expected for one particular form of navigation while treating another, more popular and accessible form of navigation as a second-class afterthought.
The use of navigation devices which rely on GPS and electronic files to define the route is, as you say, "popular" [widespread] and many find it accessible with varying degrees of competence. The vast majority of organisers supply a gpx, or a link to one. But some do not and one reason is that the provision of a gpx allows riders to neglect proper preparation for the ride by relying on their device and the supplied file working on the day. Another reason is that some riders rely so heavily on their devices (and have not carried out navigation preparation) that their situational awareness for much of the ride is lacking. Now this may not matter: they just want a nice ride and don't care, but if something goes awry, they are underprepared and less equipped to cope: the self-reliance ethos which I think is a key element of Audax. One could say the same about routesheet navigation, but at least the routesheet has had to be printed off (by someone) and read. And if used for navigation during the ride, it offers immediate access to the control names/locations and most habitations passed through listed (in capitals/bold or both) which helps those who have become temporarily unsure of their position on or off the route to get back on track.
For this year and last I have (ETA: for my enjoyment), with the tacit acceptance of the two organisers (who have lots else to do), endeavoured to produce and maintain a routesheet-accurate RwGPS route for Mille Pennines 2018, and BCM 2018 and 2019 which hundreds of riders have looked at and hopefully found useful: shows where the ride goes in detail and a gpx can be exported for free (no bells and whistles).
So I think @PhilB has expressed it succinctly (quote above and sorry for the Beddgelert Forest excursion aberration in the dark) and rephrasing. If riders choose to rely on an electronic navigation device they should know how to use it and how to modify files supplied or accessed from open source to suit that device. I think checking the route before riding is an essential part of preparing for a long ride and a gpx file should be regarded as helping that preparation and not a substitute for it.
Post by: rob on 21 May, 2019, 01:30:01 pm
Post by: Ajax Bay on 21 May, 2019, 01:54:54 pm
Round of applause for Ajax BayYou didn't mention the ice creams at Llandrindod Wells!
Post by: FifeingEejit on 21 May, 2019, 02:21:40 pm
One could say the same about routesheet navigation, but at least the routesheet has had to be printed off (by someone) and read. And if used for navigation during the ride, it offers immediate access to the control names/locations and most habitations passed through listed (in capitals/bold or both) which helps those who have become temporarily unsure of their position on or off the route to get back on track.
The human failure with a route sheet is just as strong as with GPS.
Nothing forces someone to read a route sheet before trying to use it.
Human stupidity is not something that can be engineered out with multitudes of assistance, someone will still utterly fail to prepare.
As for the list of places, that's fine provided you can find a signpost pointing back to one of the bold ones; by the time you've found one you may be considerably further away that if your GPS device went mental at you to say you're off route giving you a chance to backtrack along the line it's marked on a map.
What's more at least with the GPS trace you can see how you went wrong, if you tried to follow the instructions you got wrong backwards, you are likely to get even more lost unless you can figure out exactly how you got them wrong, which usually needs a map.
The multitude of route information sources and formats provided by organizers should be enough to prepare, but that doesn't mean everyone is sensible enough to start preparing in good time before a ride.
Post by: Kim on 21 May, 2019, 02:27:08 pm
Human stupidity is not something that can be engineered out with multitudes of assistance, someone will still utterly fail to prepare.
This. Even if they get the navigation right, they'll forget to bring an inner tube or something.
Post by: teethgrinder on 21 May, 2019, 03:05:39 pm
Post by: Wobbly on 21 May, 2019, 03:09:52 pm
The threat should be enough. Include a secret control every now and then to reinforce the threat.
Mandatory routes. Threats. Secret controls to reinforce threats.
Goodness me. How to spoil a hitherto perfectly splendid activity.
:(
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 03:19:05 pm
The threat should be enough. Include a secret control every now and then to reinforce the threat.
Mandatory routes. Threats. Secret controls to reinforce threats.
Goodness me. How to spoil a hitherto perfectly splendid activity.
:(
Some might say the same about lack of GPX and an over reliance on info controls...
J
Post by: Wobbly on 21 May, 2019, 03:26:54 pm
Some might say the same about lack of GPX and an over reliance on info controls...
I'm not totally convinced that those who are imbued with the spirit of long-distance riding would say a lack of GPX spoils the enjoyment of riding long distances.
Post by: lmm on 21 May, 2019, 03:37:27 pm
All who can read English can access the routesheet and, with variable amounts of effort, understand it, even if they don't (in the event) use it.Again, in theory perhaps the routesheet is accessible to all. In practice they tend to use an arcane shorthand, require access to a printer, and any error can send a rider a long way off course. (Also, for whatever it's worth, the routesheet for the last ride I did was emailed out in some microsoft format that I couldn't open). Yes, a rider who puts in enough effort can figure it out. Equally, in the vanishingly rare case of not having a phone or being unwilling to carry a battery pack, a rider who puts in the effort can come up with their own routesheet from a GPX file (condescending explanation of what a computer is optional). Ultimately, I would lay money that there are far more people for whom the amount of effort crosses the line into "not worth the bother" with a routesheet than with a GPX.
The use of navigation devices which rely on GPS and electronic files to define the route is, as you say, "popular" [widespread] and many find it accessible with varying degrees of competence. The vast majority of organisers supply a gpx, or a link to one. But some do not and one reason is that the provision of a gpx allows riders to neglect proper preparation for the ride by relying on their device and the supplied file working on the day. Another reason is that some riders rely so heavily on their devices (and have not carried out navigation preparation) that their situational awareness for much of the ride is lacking. Now this may not matter: they just want a nice ride and don't care, but if something goes awry, they are underprepared and less equipped to cope: the self-reliance ethos which I think is a key element of Audax. One could say the same about routesheet navigation, but at least the routesheet has had to be printed off (by someone) and read.I simply don't believe this makes the difference, at least once you control for rider experience. (I could well believe that routesheet users tend to be experienced riders who prepare better). One can turn up with a GPX one hasn't looked at; equally one can turn up with a routesheet one hasn't read (I assure you it's perfectly possible to print one without reading it). If you want riders to have glanced over the route before turning up, that's easier with a GPX. Yes, providing a GPX means that riders who are less willing to put a lot of effort into fiddling beforehand might be able to participate rather than being forced to stay at home. That's the point, and ultimately yes anything that makes audax more accessible will probably increase the DNF rate at least for the newcomers' first few rides. I don't think that's a reason not to do it; if navigation was seen as an important part of the challenge that would be one thing, but our attitude to organiser-provided routesheets makes it clear that it isn't.
And if used for navigation during the ride, it offers immediate access to the control names/locations and most habitations passed through listed (in capitals/bold or both) which helps those who have become temporarily unsure of their position on or off the route to get back on track.Again I simply don't believe that a routesheet is actually better for this purpose than a GPX. Navigating back to the line on the map is far easier than reconciling one's current position against a set of directions. Indeed many devices will do it automatically.
I think checking the route before riding is an essential part of preparing for a long ride and a gpx file should be regarded as helping that preparation and not a substitute for it.Again, though, why do we make this demand of GPX users and not of routesheet users? Someone who expects the organiser to spend hours on a routesheet is supported by the regs, while someone who expects the organiser to spend minutes on a GPX is mockingly told to buy a map. Surely sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
Post by: nextSibling on 21 May, 2019, 03:39:54 pm
I think there was a fuss last year on a 300 where there wasn't an secret control despite the boxes on the card.
That's what we call a "super-secret" control out here. Didn't bother anyone last time my volunteer became unavailable at the last minute. We often tell people where our 'secret' controls are in advance because they're really support controls with supplies in the middle of nowhere, so it's kind of obvious where they're approximately going to be, anyhow.
Post by: lmm on 21 May, 2019, 03:53:05 pm
I'm not totally convinced that those who are imbued with the spirit of long-distance riding would say a lack of GPX spoils the enjoyment of riding long distances.
I love long-distance riding. Worrying that my ride wasn't going to be validated because I'd missed an info that wasn't on the GPX (I marked the point myself based on a conversation with the organiser but they gave me the wrong village name) was absolutely the least enjoyable audax moment I've had. Worse than the 5th hailstorm of the day hitting my face. Worse than that time a crosswind pushed me into oncoming traffic. Worse than the taxi driver damaging my bike after I had to pack.
Not going to claim it makes a lot of sense on a rational level. I'm sure others will have had their own different experiences (and I'm sure there are those who always prepped perfectly and never had problems). But it absolutely can affect one's enjoyment.
Post by: rob on 21 May, 2019, 03:59:06 pm
Post by: Wobbly on 21 May, 2019, 04:02:28 pm
I love long-distance riding. Worrying that my ride wasn't going to be validated because I'd missed an info that wasn't on the GPX...
I confess to being a little baffled.
I only ever think about info controls when I first read the brevet card; it tells me where the info control is.
I realise I still have a lot to learn about riding Audax events but I cannot fathom why you need a GPX / GPS to answer an info control.
Post by: Nutbeem on 21 May, 2019, 04:09:58 pm
Some might say the same about lack of GPX and an over reliance on info controls...
I'm not totally convinced that those who are imbued with the spirit of long-distance riding would say a lack of GPX spoils the enjoyment of riding long distances.
I'm in agreement with Woobly. For me the ethos of long distance riding is about being able to prepare myself and all of my equiptment and know how to use it for the event.
I've just spent a pleasant morning with a group of veteran cyclists who've toured all over the U.K. & the continent with paper maps. Now we've got electronic navigation aids we clip to our handlebars and make our lives a bit easier, but it seems that's not enough for us; we want someone else to do all the route plotting so we can just upload it and ride. Where is the fun or challenge in that?
Post by: Phil W on 21 May, 2019, 04:11:31 pm
I'm not totally convinced that those who are imbued with the spirit of long-distance riding would say a lack of GPX spoils the enjoyment of riding long distances.
I love long-distance riding. Worrying that my ride wasn't going to be validated because I'd missed an info that wasn't on the GPX (I marked the point myself based on a conversation with the organiser but they gave me the wrong village name) was absolutely the least enjoyable audax moment I've had. Worse than the 5th hailstorm of the day hitting my face. Worse than that time a crosswind pushed me into oncoming traffic. Worse than the taxi driver damaging my bike after I had to pack.
Not going to claim it makes a lot of sense on a rational level. I'm sure others will have had their own different experiences (and I'm sure there are those who always prepped perfectly and never had problems). But it absolutely can affect one's enjoyment.
I would appeal that, on the basis you presumably have proof of passage for the "receipt" controls and you have a timed GPX track that will show you passed the "correct" info location on that ride. Sure it would get wearisome for an organiser if everybody didn't bother answering info but here it sounds like a genuine mistake / misunderstanding around the info location.
Post by: Phil W on 21 May, 2019, 04:24:35 pm
but it seems that's not enough for us; we want someone else to do all the route plotting so we can just upload it and ride. Where is the fun or challenge in that?
Seems we also want someone else to do all the route plotting, write out a route sheet, so we can just print it out, clip it to our holder, and ride. Where's the fun in that?
Find out controls locations at the start I say; organiser gives you a map, a marker pen, so each person can do their own route plotting. No extra time allowed whilst you plot your own route on the map. Do you try and plot the whole 600km in one go, just the next 20km, maybe to the first control? Why is that person plotting a different route to you? Who will be first to sprint out the door with their map and marker pen? Who will follow? Who is going the right way, nobody knows?
What fun and challenge to be had.
Talking Heads wrote about this back in the 80's
Quote
Well we know where we're goin'
But we don't know where we've been
And we know what we're knowin'
But we can't say what we've seen
And we're not little children
And we know what we want
And the future is certain
Give us time to work it out
We're on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin' that ride to nowhere
We'll take that ride
I'm feelin' okay this mornin'
And you know,
We're on the road to paradise
Here we go, here we go
Chorus
Maybe you wonder where you are
I don't care
Here is where time is on our side
Take you there... Take you there
We're on a road to nowhere
We're on a road to nowhere
We're on a road to nowhere
There's a city in my mind
Come along and take that ride
And it's all right, baby, it's all right
And it's very far away
But it's growing day by day
And it's all right, baby, it's all right
They can tell you what to do
But they'll make a fool of you
And it's all right, baby, it's all right
We're on a road to nowhere
Post by: FifeingEejit on 21 May, 2019, 04:30:00 pm
Find out controls locations at the start I say; organiser gives you a map, a marker pen, so each person can do their own route plotting. No extra time allowed whilst you plot your own route on the map. Do you try and plot the whole 600km in one go, just the next 20km, maybe to the first control? Why is that person plotting a different route to you? Who will be first to sprint out the door with their map and marker pen? Who will follow? Who is going the right way, nobody knows?
What fun and challenge to be had.
What you have just described isn't far off a Plot and Bash Navigational rally.
Except with them getting exactly the right route is part of it; oh and the route definition clues that make your brain hurt.
I won't repost the handbook from the HRCR as it's in another thread on here already.
I would consider entering an event like that, but the staffing requirements is huge, to the point that on a "12 car" with 24 participants (2 per car), chances are there will be more people staffing the thing than taking part.
Post by: Phil W on 21 May, 2019, 04:35:47 pm
Edit: Blimey just thought it is over 40 years since I did my first orienteer race that let onto the Ultras I used to do in the mountains in the 80's and 90's.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 21 May, 2019, 04:44:29 pm
Indeed and in orienteering you get to find out your checkpoint locations at the start either by copying from a master map on a board or on the handheld map you are handed. You then work out your own route between them based on your terrain preferences and potential navigational aids shown on the maps such as a wall or stream or contours etc. Good fun, but it's not audax.
Edit: Blimey just thought it is over 40 years since I did my first orienteer race that let onto the Ultras I used to do in the mountains in the 80's and 90's.
The primary difference with Navigationals is that every control is a secret until you get the clue to work out the route to it although the actual location is a secret until you get there.
It's absolutely not Audax though!
Post by: Wycombewheeler on 21 May, 2019, 04:57:00 pm
but it seems that's not enough for us; we want someone else to do all the route plotting so we can just upload it and ride. Where is the fun or challenge in that?
Seems we also want someone else to do all the route plotting, write out a route sheet, so we can just print it out, clip it to our holder, and ride. Where's the fun in that?
Find out controls locations at the start I say; organiser gives you a map, a marker pen, so each person can do their own route plotting. No extra time allowed whilst you plot your own route on the map. Do you try and plot the whole 600km in one go, just the next 20km, maybe to the first control? Why is that person plotting a different route to you? Who will be first to sprint out the door with their map and marker pen? Who will follow? Who is going the right way, nobody knows?
What fun and challenge to be had.
Talking Heads wrote about this back in the 80'sQuoteWell we know where we're goin'
But we don't know where we've been
And we know what we're knowin'
But we can't say what we've seen
And we're not little children
And we know what we want
And the future is certain
Give us time to work it out
We're on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin' that ride to nowhere
We'll take that ride
I'm feelin' okay this mornin'
And you know,
We're on the road to paradise
Here we go, here we go
Chorus
Maybe you wonder where you are
I don't care
Here is where time is on our side
Take you there... Take you there
We're on a road to nowhere
We're on a road to nowhere
We're on a road to nowhere
There's a city in my mind
Come along and take that ride
And it's all right, baby, it's all right
And it's very far away
But it's growing day by day
And it's all right, baby, it's all right
They can tell you what to do
But they'll make a fool of you
And it's all right, baby, it's all right
We're on a road to nowhere
To be fair I'd happily enter such an event. Or at least one with a list of controls and I can prepare my GPS at home, but you want to know what challenge you're getting before you sign up.
Examples
brevet card says info control is in village x, but routesheet reveals it is at roundabout before village x.
Brevet card says info is in hamlet y but on arrival in hamlet y there is no sign revealing the name of the settlement.
A routesheet and gps are supplied but for a section they follow different routes
I would say the GPS file in conjunction with the brevet should be sufficient, but it seems that the routesheet must also be used. Gps can fail and anyone who heads out without a routesheet as backup is going to suffer sooner or later but needing to use a routesheet as well as a gps is a step beyond that.
Gps and routesheet are essential different tools to achieve the task of navigation. Yet no one demands anyone who prefers a routesheet should also be able to produce their own routesheet from a gps or also refer to a gps on a ride because the routesheet doesn't tell the whole story. This is not making things accessible and that's fine if you want only riders who have been doing this since before gps but if you want to attract new riders it may not be appealing to them.
Ithere is definitely an attitude among some old school riders that people navigating by gps rather than following a series of written instructions are somehow inferior. f reliance on routesheet is seen as essential then just ban gps on events and see how that goes for participation.
Since I am unlikely to be chasing points in most cases my likely response to unnecessarily challenging ior copious nfo controls may well be to finish the ride but decline validation. If organisers dont care about their dnf rate they may not be bothered either.
Post by: lmm on 21 May, 2019, 05:00:44 pm
I confess to being a little baffled.
I only ever think about info controls when I first read the brevet card; it tells me where the info control is.
I realise I still have a lot to learn about riding Audax events but I cannot fathom why you need a GPX / GPS to answer an info control.
Where the info control is is exactly the issue. Typical info control questions (What's the name of the farm? What's the phone number for the restaurant? What time is the first church service? Who's the last name on the war memorial?) could be answered in any number of places. So as I approached the village in question I pulled out my brevet card to find out what the question was... only to discover that the info had in fact been in another village which I'd passed through many kilometres back. A more experienced audaxer might have checked that the list of village names on their card matched the list in the organiser's email, but I don't think it's so unreasonable to expect that to be right in the first place.
it seems that's not enough for us; we want someone else to do all the route plotting so we can just upload it and ride. Where is the fun or challenge in that?
The fun and challenge is in the long-distance cycling. I thought that's what we all signed up for. Those who want a navigational challenge are welcome to an event that offers that (I might even join them - working out my own routes can be fun) - but again, in that case it should be a navigational challenge for everyone. The notion that the routesheet should be a first-class service while the GPX should be a challenge is what I find really unreasonable.
I would appeal that, on the basis you presumably have proof of passage for the "receipt" controls and you have a timed GPX track that will show you passed the "correct" info location on that ride. Sure it would get wearisome for an organiser if everybody didn't bother answering info but here it sounds like a genuine mistake / misunderstanding around the info location.
Yeah I had a record and the organiser validated my card in the end, so ultimately no harm done on some level (and I'll probably be less worried if something like that happens again). But if we're talking about enjoyment then, reasonably or not, I was pretty upset/stressed about it for the rest of the ride.
Post by: Kim on 21 May, 2019, 05:05:19 pm
Where the info control is is exactly the issue. Typical info control questions (What's the name of the farm? What's the phone number for the restaurant? What time is the first church service? Who's the last name on the war memorial?) could be answered in any number of places. So as I approached the village in question I pulled out my brevet card to find out what the question was... only to discover that the info had in fact been in another village which I'd passed through many kilometres back. A more experienced audaxer might have checked that the list of village names on their card matched the list in the organiser's email, but I don't think it's so unreasonable to expect that to be right in the first place.
Not accidentally missing infos is the main reason I prefer using GPS. To be fair, I'd be perfectly happy if organisers provided exact coordinates for the info control in written form on the routesheet (I can always make my own waypoints). It's not really about the technology, but the precision. It's just that computers are much more convenient way of handling that sort of abstract numerical data, and the correlation between organisers who are vague about info locations and those who don't provide GPX files seems high.
Post by: wilkyboy on 21 May, 2019, 05:06:28 pm
To be fair I'd happily enter such an event. Or at least one with a list of controls and I can prepare my GPS at home, but you want to know what challenge you're getting before you sign up.
Examples
brevet card says info control is in village x, but routesheet reveals it is at roundabout before village x.
Brevet card says info is in hamlet y but on arrival in hamlet y there is no sign revealing the name of the settlement.
A routesheet and gps are supplied but for a section they follow different routes
I would say the GPS file in conjunction with the brevet should be sufficient, but it seems that the routesheet must also be used. Gps can fail and anyone who heads out without a routesheet as backup is going to suffer sooner or later but needing to use a routesheet as well as a gps is a step beyond that.
Some organisers are better than others. A background in publishing helps, because you learn the editorial and copy-proofing cycle, and you just learn to spot errors, although nothing's ever completely 100%. But the basics of making sure brevet + routesheet + GPS align accurately should be a no-brainer ... but some organisers will still be better than others.
As for routesheets — it is impossible, yes completely impossible, to put meaningful, longhand, descriptive warnings into GPS files that can be read by all devices. Sure, it's possible to put tiny, abbreviated warnings in, but not meaningful ones. It's also possible to list them all in the ride-notes, but we know how many riders neglect to prepare by reading the notes beforehand. So, usually the best place for cautions and warnings is in the routesheet at the place where they appear on the road. Until someone can address this satisfactorily (I think we're a couple or three generations of GPS device away from this) then routesheets are extremely useful for the rich vein of information that they can contain — presuming the organiser has put it there, and some organisers will be better than others.
Basically, many of these arguments come down to this: just how good should organisers be? And if they don't make par, what then? I think this may have been asked up-thread, but it's fun to go round-and-round :thumbsup:
Post by: andyoxon on 21 May, 2019, 05:13:19 pm
I'm not totally convinced that those who are imbued with the spirit of long-distance riding would say a lack of GPX spoils the enjoyment of riding long distances.
I love long-distance riding. Worrying that my ride wasn't going to be validated because I'd missed an info that wasn't on the GPX (I marked the point myself based on a conversation with the organiser but they gave me the wrong village name) was absolutely the least enjoyable audax moment I've had. Worse than the 5th hailstorm of the day hitting my face. Worse than that time a crosswind pushed me into oncoming traffic. Worse than the taxi driver damaging my bike after I had to pack.
Not going to claim it makes a lot of sense on a rational level. I'm sure others will have had their own different experiences (and I'm sure there are those who always prepped perfectly and never had problems). But it absolutely can affect one's enjoyment.
I generally assume a bare bones no waypointed/POI gpx, and then in advance, look at the route sheet to determine how many infos, and what the distance markers are for said infos (which is easier if the org has provided a route sheet with a 'running distance total' admittedly). Then I carefully add the infos myself to the track, and put on to my garmin. Currently I have premium ridewithgps*, so I can just turn a POI into a waypoint (and filter to <=500 points) when I download from ridewgps to PC, but, I always use basecamp & USB connection to send to my gps unit anyway, as it's an older Vista HCx.
* FOC, which was a bit of a mystery.
Post by: Ben T on 21 May, 2019, 05:17:04 pm
Riding a 50km thinking I'd missed a secret control was bad enough,
I think there was a fuss last year on a 300 where there wasn't an secret control despite the boxes on the card.
If you're going to threaten secrets then you'd better have some, and they need to be there for every rider, so you do potentially need someone out in the rain for a long period of time to make it fair.
I once had a bit of a quibble on an event about this years ago.
I was actually navigating by routesheet. The routesheet had been, ahem, wrong, so I'd been using my garmin to simply pick its choice of route to the next control. This meant that although I would arrive at the next control, I wasn't going the prescribed route, and could potentially miss any secret.
So I asked one of the helpers, look - is there actually going to be a secret control? The reply - no.
It only occurred to me years later that having a secret control is incompatible with non-mandatory route, which that event wasn't and I don't think AUK even sanctioned then.
I have no idea to this day why there was a box for one given that it wasn't designated a mandatory route.
(I have nothing against secret controls it has to be said, on an event in france there were loads of them and they were little snack stations, which were very welcome. I presume this was a mandatory route.)
Post by: grams on 21 May, 2019, 05:31:01 pm
So, usually the best place for cautions and warnings is in the routesheet at the place where they appear on the road.
I think it's fair to say that, in 2019:
- The overwhelming majority of riders navigate using a GPS device
- Some make an effort to look at the route notes
- Almost none look at or print the routesheet if they aren't planning to use it for navigation
Therefore an organiser looking to get important information in front of their riders might as well not bother if they're only putting it in the routesheet.
Post by: Wobbly on 21 May, 2019, 05:34:21 pm
Where the info control is is exactly the issue. Typical info control questions (What's the name of the farm? What's the phone number for the restaurant? What time is the first church service? Who's the last name on the war memorial?) could be answered in any number of places. So as I approached the village in question I pulled out my brevet card to find out what the question was... only to discover that the info had in fact been in another village which I'd passed through many kilometres back. A more experienced audaxer might have checked that the list of village names on their card matched the list in the organiser's email, but I don't think it's so unreasonable to expect that to be right in the first place.
With respect you seem to be considerably exaggerating the laxness/ambiguity of Info Control questions.
I have experienced a few examples of Info Control questions where riders came up with a range of answers but it simply is not the chaotic/inaccurate situation you imply.
Post by: lmm on 21 May, 2019, 05:46:02 pm
With respect you seem to be considerably exaggerating the laxness/ambiguity of Info Control questions.
I have experienced a few examples of Info Control questions where riders came up with a range of answers but it simply is not the chaotic/inaccurate situation you imply.
Erm, two of my four examples were questions from rides I've ridden, and the other two were only slightly editorialised. I don't actually think any of those examples are particularly bad info questions - when given an accurate location at which to answer them. I really struggle to think of any info questions that wouldn't have had a similar problem of getting a different answer if you ask it in a different village (other than one info that was "at the aircraft museum, ..." - but one can hardly rely on there always being a convenient aircraft museum or similarly distinctive location).
Post by: mattc on 21 May, 2019, 06:09:32 pm
Have some of you not thought that the views of the users of an internet-based forum, largely populated by people that work in IT, may not be entirely representative of the views of the average Audax UK member ?;D By jove, such insight!
But don't forget, when folks say "not accessible to new riders" what they mean is "not convenient for people just like me".
In fact, the phrase "if you want to attract new riders" seems to have parallels with "won't someone think of the children?!?"; if you want something changed, but can't justify it by any reasoned argument, just roll-out one of these phrases according to whichever suits the situation :thumbsup:
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 May, 2019, 06:19:56 pm
Joining up the dots to produce a seamless experience is now the challenge. It might be sorted out by the next PBP in 2023. At that point it will cease to be interesting to the Gen X IT crowd, and they'll be moving on to retro-Audax.
Post by: rob on 21 May, 2019, 06:31:13 pm
Have some of you not thought that the views of the users of an internet-based forum, largely populated by people that work in IT, may not be entirely representative of the views of the average Audax UK member ?;D By jove, such insight!
But don't forget, when folks say "not accessible to new riders" what they mean is "not convenient for people just like me".
In fact, the phrase "if you want to attract new riders" seems to have parallels with "won't someone think of the children?!?"; if you want something changed, but can't justify it by any reasoned argument, just roll-out one of these phrases according to whichever suits the situation :thumbsup:
This thread basically reads like. ME ME ME ME ME. Why can’t EVERYTHING change to suit ME ?
Post by: mattc on 21 May, 2019, 06:32:41 pm
I'd say that GPS has massively increased the appeal of Audax to sportive riders. It's also helpful that Gravel Bikes are especially suitable for Audax, and there's a chance to use the Apidura luggage.Audax is dying - I reckon Gravel Zwift will be the next big thing.
Joining up the dots to produce a seamless experience is now the challenge. It might be sorted out by the next PBP in 2023. At that point it will cease to be interesting to the Gen X IT crowd, and they'll be moving on to retro-Audax.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 06:50:13 pm
This thread basically reads like. ME ME ME ME ME. Why can’t EVERYTHING change to suit ME ?
Actually what I'm trying to argue is that "Just because it works for a small subset of humans, doesn't mean it works for everyone, and wouldn't it be nice if we could do things in a way that did work for more people, and look how simple it would be to do so" Or words to that effect.
But hey, we all know I'm crazy. As you were.
J
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 06:54:42 pm
Not accidentally missing infos is the main reason I prefer using GPS. To be fair, I'd be perfectly happy if organisers provided exact coordinates for the info control in written form on the routesheet (I can always make my own waypoints). It's not really about the technology, but the precision. It's just that computers are much more convenient way of handling that sort of abstract numerical data, and the correlation between organisers who are vague about info locations and those who don't provide GPX files seems high.
TBH, the realisation that info controls on non-mandatory route Audaxes might be specified in a manor other than lat/long or OS grid is just blowing my mind.
If the only way to get to the info control is via the route sheet in a turn by turn fashion... my mind ... just... wow.
Do we have a thread for discussing the gold standard in info controls?
J
Post by: Phil W on 21 May, 2019, 07:10:40 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 21 May, 2019, 07:15:59 pm
TBH, the realisation that info controls on non-mandatory route Audaxes might be specified in a manor other than lat/long or OS grid is just blowing my mind.
If the only way to get to the info control is via the route sheet in a turn by turn fashion... my mind ... just... wow.
As the aim isn't to be getting you to "navigate" but to follow a route of a distance all controls are described on the basis of turn by turn directions, that some of them will be signed on the road isn't part of it nor is the fact that some aren't identifiable by any method other than the Routesheet or GPS.
A "real" control could just as easily be at Bobs house which has a postal address of some village but in reality is 5km out of it of a small track.
This is particularly the case in rural Scotland where named places can cover a few thousand square kms.
We're not meant to be facing a navigational challenge so providing an OSGB Grid Reference and expecting people to find Bob's house based on that isn't in the spirit of the game.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 07:28:39 pm
As the aim isn't to be getting you to "navigate" but to follow a route of a distance all controls are described on the basis of turn by turn directions, that some of them will be signed on the road isn't part of it nor is the fact that some aren't identifiable by any method other than the Routesheet or GPS.
A "real" control could just as easily be at Bobs house which has a postal address of some village but in reality is 5km out of it of a small track.
This is particularly the case in rural Scotland where named places can cover a few thousand square kms.
We're not meant to be facing a navigational challenge so providing an OSGB Grid Reference and expecting people to find Bob's house based on that isn't in the spirit of the game.
Except now you're not specifying it as an specific location based on geographical coordinates, you're instead specifying it as a instruction following exercise.
If the only way to find it is:
L @ T 10k
R @ X 0.5K
L @ T ...
...
R @ X INFO...
If you took left at the T at 9.5km by mistake, you're now off the route, with no idea necessarily where the route is unless you also plotted the route sheet on a dead tree map. So now you have to find your way back to the route, to then follow it...
If however it's written down as both R @ X INFO (TR 123456*), when you realise you're off route, you can look at your map, or your app, realise you're at TR 123356, and that you can just go up this here hill, and you're at back on the route at the info!
J
* or 51.123456° 1.4235°
PS I've no idea where these actual coordinates are physically, it's just an example...
Post by: Wycombewheeler on 21 May, 2019, 07:56:45 pm
Have some of you not thought that the views of the users of an internet-based forum, largely populated by people that work in IT, may not be entirely representative of the views of the average Audax UK member ?;D By jove, such insight!
But don't forget, when folks say "not accessible to new riders" what they mean is "not convenient for people just like me".
In fact, the phrase "if you want to attract new riders" seems to have parallels with "won't someone think of the children?!?"; if you want something changed, but can't justify it by any reasoned argument, just roll-out one of these phrases according to whichever suits the situation :thumbsup:
I think its axiomatic that if you keep doing things the way you have always done them you keep getting the same results.
If you want wider appeal or diversity then something needs to change.
:demon: Personally I think there are quite enough members and more might make it a challenge to get spaces on events so crack on.
Post by: Graeme on 21 May, 2019, 07:57:47 pm
I'd say that GPS has massively increased the appeal of Audax to sportive riders. It's also helpful that Gravel Bikes are especially suitable for Audax, and there's a chance to use the Apidura luggage.Audax is dying - I reckon Gravel Zwift will be the next big thing.
Joining up the dots to produce a seamless experience is now the challenge. It might be sorted out by the next PBP in 2023. At that point it will cease to be interesting to the Gen X IT crowd, and they'll be moving on to retro-Audax.
:-D
With a dirt dispenser above the electric fan.
Post by: Wycombewheeler on 21 May, 2019, 08:02:13 pm
One of those themere park water spray fans filled with muddy water to get the authentic mud splattered lookI'd say that GPS has massively increased the appeal of Audax to sportive riders. It's also helpful that Gravel Bikes are especially suitable for Audax, and there's a chance to use the Apidura luggage.Audax is dying - I reckon Gravel Zwift will be the next big thing.
Joining up the dots to produce a seamless experience is now the challenge. It might be sorted out by the next PBP in 2023. At that point it will cease to be interesting to the Gen X IT crowd, and they'll be moving on to retro-Audax.
:-D
With a dirt dispenser above the electric fan.
Post by: lmm on 21 May, 2019, 08:04:17 pm
Have some of you not thought that the views of the users of an internet-based forum, largely populated by people that work in IT, may not be entirely representative of the views of the average Audax UK member ?;D By jove, such insight!
But don't forget, when folks say "not accessible to new riders" what they mean is "not convenient for people just like me".
I'm sure many existing AUK members prefer the way AUK has always done it - that doesn't really demonstrate anything. Do you really believe that there are more potential audaxers (if we took a sample from a non-audax cycling club, or a non-audax event) who can follow a routesheet than who can follow a gpx? If all we actually disagree about is the facts then it would be relatively easy to do a survey of some sort and find out.
If it turns out that, say, twice as many cyclists find routesheets easier than GPX then I'd happily say that organisers should spend twice as much time on preparing routesheets than on preparing GPX - and vice versa if vice versa. Would you agree to that statement? Or is convenience for people like you more important than convenience for people like me?
Post by: FifeingEejit on 21 May, 2019, 08:36:24 pm
As the aim isn't to be getting you to "navigate" but to follow a route of a distance all controls are described on the basis of turn by turn directions, that some of them will be signed on the road isn't part of it nor is the fact that some aren't identifiable by any method other than the Routesheet or GPS.
A "real" control could just as easily be at Bobs house which has a postal address of some village but in reality is 5km out of it of a small track.
This is particularly the case in rural Scotland where named places can cover a few thousand square kms.
We're not meant to be facing a navigational challenge so providing an OSGB Grid Reference and expecting people to find Bob's house based on that isn't in the spirit of the game.
Except now you're not specifying it as an specific location based on geographical coordinates, you're instead specifying it as a instruction following exercise.
If the only way to find it is:
L @ T 10k
R @ X 0.5K
L @ T ...
...
R @ X INFO...
If you took left at the T at 9.5km by mistake, you're now off the route, with no idea necessarily where the route is unless you also plotted the route sheet on a dead tree map. So now you have to find your way back to the route, to then follow it...
If however it's written down as both R @ X INFO (TR 123456*), when you realise you're off route, you can look at your map, or your app, realise you're at TR 123356, and that you can just go up this here hill, and you're at back on the route at the info!
J
* or 51.123456° 1.4235°
PS I've no idea where these actual coordinates are physically, it's just an example...
Yes, that is the primary weakness of the route sheet based system.
Post by: rob on 21 May, 2019, 08:40:14 pm
Post by: Tail End Charlie on 21 May, 2019, 09:07:39 pm
Personally I couldn't give a toss what you think.
Post by: Tail End Charlie on 21 May, 2019, 09:25:41 pm
I didn't do an Audax until I had worked out how to put a track on my device (long sighted, so route sheets are out) and produced the gpx file from the route sheet in the comfort of my home. As said by others, this allows you to become vaguely familiar with the route. Even now, I'd rather produce my own gpx than rely on someone else's. (I do find plotting one very therapeutic).
Post by: rob on 21 May, 2019, 09:31:08 pm
Well, that's everyone told then.
Personally I couldn't give a toss what you think.
Let me elaborate. I have been an AUK member since 1993. During that time I have been a full value rider, a swift rider, a controller and an organiser. Many people on here are old enough to have done rides that I organised.
You know why I gave up ? Because my entrants became increasingly needy, didn’t read any of the information supplied but, more importantly, left the finish of events, went home and then rubbished rides on Internet forums. I charged a 6 quid entry fee and covered a load of the costs out of my own pocket.
Some of the behaviour on this thread has been completely unacceptable and it wouldn’t surprise me if we lost more volunteers. I see a lot of criticism and not a lot of volunteering to help out.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 09:59:14 pm
The assumption is that the aim is to attract more people to Audax. Personally I don’t give a fuck if more people ride or not.
If audax doesn't get new people, then audax ends. As a few people leave audax each year, be it due to age, health, loss of interest, etc... the number of people riding will diminish until there aren't enough riders to sustain it. So even if Audax just wants to maintain the same numbers, it needs new people.
Let me elaborate. I have been an AUK member since 1993. During that time I have been a full value rider, a swift rider, a controller and an organiser. Many people on here are old enough to have done rides that I organised.
You know why I gave up ? Because my entrants became increasingly needy, didn’t read any of the information supplied but, more importantly, left the finish of events, went home and then rubbished rides on Internet forums. I charged a 6 quid entry fee and covered a load of the costs out of my own pocket.
Some of the behaviour on this thread has been completely unacceptable and it wouldn’t surprise me if we lost more volunteers. I see a lot of criticism and not a lot of volunteering to help out.
So after moaning about people slagging off your rides on internet fora, you're slagging off people for perhaps wanting to ride audaxes...
A couple of months back I put a proposal to Randonneurs NL for a calendar even for next year. It was considered too ambitious for a novice organiser, so instead I am going to help an experienced organiser with their 1200, then having learnt from then I should hopefully be able to run the event I originally proposed.
I also helped with the 400km BRM from Amsterdam in April. I volunteered to help with this weekend's 400, but they already have enough helpers.
Some of us are volunteering to help.
J
Post by: postie on 21 May, 2019, 10:01:27 pm
The modern audax member was everything done for them, never help or run events etc.
After my 400km recently i had a snotty e.mail from a rider wanting to know why the results weren't on the website( on Wednesday evening)
So i kindly point out the following
Saturday up at 4am for start of 400km, then work followed by sorting food for the finish, man Finish till 10pm Sunday.
Sunday, rest and spend time with family.
Monday ,work 15houur shift at work( yes i know organizers do work).
Tuesday, work then help with evening time trail and ride it.
Wednesday lead evening club run.
Thursday. ,as planned did results , but as it seemed not soon enough! !!!!!
And people wonder why we get fucked off. Unbelievable.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 10:02:19 pm
Yes, that is the primary weakness of the route sheet based system.
That's a really big weakness for route sheets.
If you make a wrong turn when using a route sheet, and don't notice it very quickly, without a map, how does one get back on route?
Without an absolute known position for the controls, or other known points on the route, what chance would someone have?
J
Post by: rob on 21 May, 2019, 10:23:54 pm
So after moaning about people slagging off your rides on internet fora, you're slagging off people for perhaps wanting to ride audaxes...
If you want to ride an Audax you study the rules and enter the event.
What you don’t do is say I’d love to ride but can you change X, Y and maybe Z as well, because, well, I just don’t like the way you’re doing it.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 21 May, 2019, 10:27:52 pm
WELL SAID ROB!!!! I am with you .
The modern audax member was everything done for them, never help or run events etc.
After my 400km recently i had a snotty e.mail from a rider wanting to know why the results weren't on the website( on Wednesday evening)
So i kindly point out the following
Saturday up at 4am for start of 400km, then work followed by sorting food for the finish, man Finish till 10pm Sunday.
Sunday, rest and spend time with family.
Monday ,work 15houur shift at work( yes i know organizers do work).
Tuesday, work then help with evening time trail and ride it.
Wednesday lead evening club run.
Thursday. ,as planned did results , but as it seemed not soon enough! !!!!!
And people wonder why we get fucked off. Unbelievable.
Other organizers who get the results up the following day may be creating a level of expectation amongst riders there that isn't feasible for you to meet.
If you know there is an issue where expectations differ from reality it's standard to do a bit of expectation management.
The simplest way to deal with it is to have a pre-prepared e-mail on the same mailing list as you sent the pre-event info out on that says something along the lines of:
Quote
Thanks for riding hope you had a nice day blah blah blah
I aim to have the provisional finishers list on the website by the end of the week
thanks.
With that you've told people what to expect and no one has any reason to bother you.
And this is all the more important in the internet age as people expect quick turnaround as that's the norm for everything.
Sorry as much of a ball ache as it is, it's just how people are.
Out of interest how did people keep track of their points total and validations before AUKWEB?
Was it published in Arivee (or equivalent) or was it a case of working it out from the card?
Or are all these points and awards a result of the instant calculations and review that aukweb made possible?
Post by: Ian H on 21 May, 2019, 10:34:03 pm
GPS does make for laziness on all of us.
As for being long-sighted, the are plenty of cycling-specific bifocal specs on the market.
But, if you want to make excuses...
Post by: grams on 21 May, 2019, 10:35:32 pm
What you don’t do is say I’d love to ride but can you change X, Y and maybe Z as well, because, well, I just don’t like the way you’re doing it.
You can take the approach of responding to these people “hey, piss off noob” as too many people in this thread delight I doing, and then wonder why you have no volunteers. Or you can think “Hey, this is a person who’s taking an interest in our little hobby, perhaps this can be harnessed in some way” and go from there.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 10:35:49 pm
If you want to ride an Audax you study the rules and enter the event.
Would love to, but only if there's a GPX available...
Quote
What you don’t do is say I’d love to ride but can you change X, Y and maybe Z as well, because, well, I just don’t like the way you’re doing it.
Is asking for a GPX really asking for a massive change? It's also worth noting that noone is demanding anything, people have suggested that in 2019, a GPX file is a good idea, and people have asked if the website that our club membership fees have been spent on could make it easier to find events that do include a GPX.
Your reaction is why we end up with threads like the female friendly audax thread. Because when we ask for what we think are reasonable questions ("Is there a ladies loo at the start, or any of the controls?" or "Is it safe for me as a lone woman to do this ride"), we're made to feel guilty for asking. Your last few posts has done more to put me off wanting to go for a bike ride than any of the other crap cycling has thrown at me, and I've got frost bite in multiple toes from cycling.
Postie's comments about someone emailing on a Wednesday to ask why the results weren't up yet. There's a couple of things here. Yes it's rather quick for results to be out, but it is a PBP year, everyone is anxious, so someone asking politely isn't that unreasonable. You never know, you might have thought you'd put it all in the system but forgot to hit submit (did that once with sending a bank payment, did all the steps, but forgot the final confirm step, got an email asking where the money was, double checked, browser window still open at confirm, my bad). But it's one of those things that could have been perhaps avoided with a simple note on the info to riders "Results will be posted approximately 1-2 weeks after the ride". Then if you get them up on the Thursday, yay you've exceeded expectations. Sorry, I'm suggesting an organiser do something that might make peoples lives easier, I should stop, it might make people want to not organise events.
J
Post by: rob on 21 May, 2019, 10:40:09 pm
Post by: quixoticgeek on 21 May, 2019, 10:46:47 pm
You see, Postie, the solution to your problem is to add a bit more workload. Sound OK ?
Adding a single sentence to the info you sent out, that's so much more work... that saves having to reply to emails from riders asking why results haven't been posted yet...
Someone new has made a suggestion that might make things easier for everyone. You've ridiculed them. Well done.
J
Post by: lmm on 21 May, 2019, 10:56:38 pm
If you want to ride an Audax you study the rules and enter the event.
What you don’t do is say I’d love to ride but can you change X, Y and maybe Z as well, because, well, I just don’t like the way you’re doing it.
You've created a nice catch-22 there where the only people who are allowed to say anything about the policy are the people who agree with all the current policies. If AUK is about the promotion of long distance cycling rather than the promotion of routesheets then it should be open to people who want to do the one without the other. If you think the problem is people demanding too much of organisers, then wouldn't permitting organisers to run a ride without providing a routesheet (GPX only) be a step in the direction you want?
Entitled entrants are nothing new, and I doubt you'd find that newer members are any worse than older, objectively speaking. Again, a rider who expects a high-quality routesheet is in reality demanding far more of an organiser's time than one who expects a high-quality GPX - it's just that one has become normalised and the other hasn't (yet).
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 21 May, 2019, 11:02:20 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 21 May, 2019, 11:07:56 pm
You see, Postie, the solution to your problem is to add a bit more workload. Sound OK ?
Identifying issues and adapting to deal with them should in the long run reduce the work load.
If the person who contacted him because his expectations weren't met had along with others been told what to expect there would probably have been one less e-mail exchange and one less rant on here.
If two, three people etc.
One of the "good" things about motorsport is the final results are published on the night.
This is possible because the results don't really go anywhere else unless there is an appeal above club level.
From publishing time as provisional to final is usually around 30 minutes IIRC
As results person I've had to find faults in spreadsheets in that time,
Find bits of paper that said someone had hit a cone when they said they didn't.
Find the marshal that wrote down that the cone that had apparently not been hit had been hit
And I have had to adjudicate in that time as club steward between the Clerk of the Course and the organizer of a rally who couldn't agree on the right course of action as a result of an appeal, their disagreement came from different readings of the rule that the appeal was based on.
I like it now that I'm not involved in that aspect and simply drive round at the end, collect stuff off the route and eat steak pie while all that's going on.
Unfortunately my dad is the organizer so I still get to hear all the ranting when the phone is put down, but his day job involves people management so does deal with people quite a bit differently from that.
This is all quite tame compared to the MG Midget/Toyota MR2 arguments and the rule changes that effectively made Targa rallying unsuitable for Minis.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 May, 2019, 11:39:29 pm
Usually audaxers have to wait till the frozen depths of winter to establish entrenched positions, snipe at each other and get properly angry. Is there something in the water round here?
I reckon some are competing for attention prior to PBP.
The only thing that's really caught my attention about PBP 2019 is the Bergerie National. But Heather's walking the Pennine Way, so I can do all the sheep filming I want nearer home.
A pity, as it's always nice to catch up with you. Heather likes to marshal at the Mersey Roads, might we see you there?
Post by: Pedal Castro on 22 May, 2019, 05:46:24 am
I'd go further. If I was creating my own GPS routes. I would end the track at a potentially missed info and then start a new track from there. Hard to miss an info when I am getting the route finished triumph tone from my device.
I didn't do this on BCM as the infos were all in unmissable locations but I did have 8 tracks I like to have distance to control displayed in top left corner of the map not distance to end of route.
This is exactly what I do every time. I split the gpx route from the organiser into however many tracks there are controls to ensure I don't overshoot a control. I also have the full route gpx loaded just in case a file gets corrupted. Sometimes I tweak the route, but not often if I don't know the roads.
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 22 May, 2019, 05:48:41 am
Post by: rob on 22 May, 2019, 06:41:08 am
Usually audaxers have to wait till the frozen depths of winter to establish entrenched positions, snipe at each other and get properly angry. Is there something in the water round here?
It’s taken 20 odd pages, to be honest.
Can the mods lock this thread ?
Post by: Danu on 22 May, 2019, 06:50:02 am
Most of us greatly appreciate the time you organisers put in to organising these events (even postie,s), I have enjoyed my audax riding over the years either using Route sheet or gps and have been fortunate to have made many friends thru it
Long May the true spirit of audax continue
Post by: Hot Flatus on 22 May, 2019, 06:54:52 am
Usually audaxers have to wait till the frozen depths of winter to establish entrenched positions, snipe at each other and get properly angry. Is there something in the water round here?
It’s taken 20 odd pages, to be honest.
Can the mods lock this thread ?
a) it's not 'audaxers', it's some audaxers and almost invariably the same audaxers.
b) It doesn't usually take 20 pages, it usually takes two depending on whether they ^ show up.
c) Threads like this are a good opportunity to curate the old Iggy list.
I doubt the thread will be locked. The petulance is confined to two or three contributors only.
Post by: Wobbly on 22 May, 2019, 07:03:29 am
I mean that in the sense that over the years there have plenty of other threads where those new (or relatively new) to Audaxing tell everyone else how it ought to be done. Also we've had plenty of debates on here about whether AUK should/should not strive to increase participation/membership. Also threads with complaints about organisers and complaints about riders.
Live long enough and everything comes around again. It's an internet forum and therefore is of little real-world consequence.
I think what makes this thread more entertaining is the sheer level of inexperience of some contributors ;D
[wanders off to refill popcorn box]
Post by: Hot Flatus on 22 May, 2019, 08:19:19 am
I think it is probably a question of presentation and tact, more than anything else, in an environment of volunteerism. The fact is the vast majority of organisers do produce gpx files, amongst all the other things that they do, and if they don't said rider needs to suck it up, get off their arse and learn how to either do it themself (oh woe is me) or learn where they can find a pre-prepared gpx from somebody who has done the work for them.
It is not even the case that AUK needs to modernise. It has modernised, because as already said the vast majority of rides offer electronic entry, electronic route sheets, and electronic navigation files.
In the spirit of volunteerism, complainants should perhaps volunteer to go off and do the work they expect of others, and part of that work will be learning. If they arent prepared to do some work themself they have no right to expect it of others.
As to postie's point about 'new generation' of audax riders who expect everything, I'll have to take his word for it from his experiences of orging. I cant say I've noticed it from a rider perspective.
Post by: Kim on 22 May, 2019, 08:39:29 am
There are some curious contradictory points being made here, for example it is apparently easier for an organiser to produce a gpx route than it is to produce a routesheet, and yet it is so impossibly difficult for a rider to produce their own gpx file, despite possessing the technical competence to both purchase a gpx device (invariably from the internet), switch it on and learn how to use it, all of which is harder than learning to plot a route on RWGPS or similar.
Well obviously. The organiser's the one who knows where the route is supposed to go, and the rider doesn't until provided with it in some form by the organiser. ???
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 22 May, 2019, 08:54:11 am
Have decided to stop moping and test the effort involved. Have created a GPX for the Cambrian 1A on Ride with GPS - https://ridewithgps.com/routes/29961189 so would be keen to see how that responds as a test piece. If I get good feedback then I will progressively create routes for all the others. Although, in the immortal words of Captain Oates "I may be some time"
[/quote]
A while back (15 pages) I asked (hopefully politely) whether my test track on GPX had been worthwhile creating. It would be quite nice to have a response. I've now got as far as the Cambrian 1K but for all the feedback I've received I might just be creating trails to the nearest spaghetti plantation. ::-)
Post by: Hot Flatus on 22 May, 2019, 08:54:26 am
::-)
Forgive the terse nature of my reply. I've just had my first coffee in a month. I now feel like I am in a major hurry, even though I have a day off and nothing pressing to do. ;D
Post by: Pingu on 22 May, 2019, 09:05:48 am
QuoteHave decided to stop moping and test the effort involved. Have created a GPX for the Cambrian 1A on Ride with GPS - https://ridewithgps.com/routes/29961189 so would be keen to see how that responds as a test piece. If I get good feedback then I will progressively create routes for all the others. Although, in the immortal words of Captain Oates "I may be some time"
A while back (15 pages) I asked (hopefully politely) whether my test track on GPX had been worthwhile creating. It would be quite nice to have a response. I've now got as far as the Cambrian 1K but for all the feedback I've received I might just be creating trails to the nearest spaghetti plantation. ::-)
Try starting a new topic? Your posts might be getting subsumed in this one.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 22 May, 2019, 09:06:30 am
Aerial photography is your back up to that.
That's the only limitation I've found when producing a gps route from routesheet.
The same limitation is what makes gps a rubbish source for a routesheet.
The best person to create all forms of route describe is the person who created the route, however its not impossible for riders to create their own.
Organisers thinking entrants expect everything handed to them is not isolated to Audax, or for that matter organizing events.
The bar by which an event is judged is set by the organizera of other events.
If the majority of events provide a gps file and results by Tuesday then that is what entrants end up expecting.
That causes issues for the outliers, and sometimes toys are ejected from prams and good organisers are lost.
Other times the organizer adapts their event management to their detriment and after a few years they are lost because of the workload.
Telling people what to expect in advance letd you keep working in a way that you already know works for you.
This isn't from 2 years in audax BTW, this is from 20+ years of assisting Motorsport organization, I've seen it all there before.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: S2L on 22 May, 2019, 09:10:08 am
I am thinking of one particular brevet, which has run in the teens of finishers for the past 5 years and I have noticed this year is not even in the calendar, despite a cracking route, which would probably attract 100 riders with a bit of targeted promotion and a GPX file. I did plot my GPX at the time when I did it from the (very basic) route sheet, but it turned out it wasn't 100% correct, therefore I never made it available.
Moral of the story, once you know what you need, you know what to avoid...
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 22 May, 2019, 09:26:12 am
ESL, I was thinking of volunteering for night shift marshalling (or similar) for the 24TT as I've got a commitment on the Saturday.
We'll probably be at Espley for the night shift. I've got less appetite for filming the whole event these days, as I've done it so often.
It's surprising how many of the riders demand a GPX these days, even though every turn is marshalled. The stats are useful I suppose, as is the power meter data, but a lot of if is anxiety displacement.
There seems to be a sort of Russian doll process going on with a lot of them, a nested series of distractions to cover a perfectly understandable concern about the outcomes, from wacky equipment ideas to lucky socks. A TT start gives you a minute with each rider to take in the level of nerves; 90 minutes of start line jitters.
Post by: rob on 22 May, 2019, 09:36:34 am
ESL, I was thinking of volunteering for night shift marshalling (or similar) for the 24TT as I've got a commitment on the Saturday.
We'll probably be at Espley for the night shift. I've got less appetite for filming the whole event these days, as I've done it so often.
It's surprising how many of the riders demand a GPX these days, even though every turn is marshalled. The stats are useful I suppose, as is the power meter data, but a lot of if is anxiety displacement.
There seems to be a sort of Russian doll process going on with a lot of them, a nested series of distractions to cover a perfectly understandable concern about the outcomes, from wacky equipment ideas to lucky socks. A TT start gives you a minute with each rider to take in the level of nerves; 90 minutes of start line jitters.
There was an appeal for marshalls on the facebook page so I'm sure they would be grateful. I'm still weighing up another attempt. I was jittery for about a week before my last (failed) attempt.
Post by: lmm on 22 May, 2019, 09:52:25 am
There are some curious contradictory points being made here, for example it is apparently easier for an organiser to produce a gpx route than it is to produce a routesheet, and yet it is so impossibly difficult for a rider to produce their own gpx file, despite possessing the technical competence to both purchase a gpx device (invariably from the internet), switch it on and learn how to use it, all of which is harder than learning to plot a route on RWGPS or similar. Equally, said rider has neither the time nor the competence to do the above, but has time to log into an internet forum and complain.There's no contradiction here: the amount of complaining about not being provided a GPX is nothing compared to the amount of complaining that giving the barest hint that routesheets might not be the be-all-and-end-all attracts. Preparing a GPX is not zero effort by any means; no-one is claiming that. But try giving out a routesheet that doesn't list where the controls are and telling riders they should figure that out for themselves based on where they're marked on the GPX, and see how much complaining that attracts.
I think it is probably a question of presentation and tact, more than anything else, in an environment of volunteerism. The fact is the vast majority of organisers do produce gpx files, amongst all the other things that they do, and if they don't said rider needs to suck it up, get off their arse and learn how to either do it themself (oh woe is me) or learn where they can find a pre-prepared gpx from somebody who has done the work for them.What are you suggesting we volunteer to do, concretely? I can and do add waypoints to a file that doesn't have them and share my results, but I can't check that the info controls are in the right place because only the organiser has that information. Nor can I add my improved file to the event page. (For what it's worth, if any organiser is struggling with the technical aspects of this I hereby volunteer to mark the points based on their description and return the file for them to check - I really can't imagine any organiser will find this easier than doing it themselves but you never know). Nor can I run my own GPX-but-no-routesheet event as the regs won't let me.
It is not even the case that AUK needs to modernise. It has modernised, because as already said the vast majority of rides offer electronic entry, electronic route sheets, and electronic navigation files.
In the spirit of volunteerism, complainants should perhaps volunteer to go off and do the work they expect of others, and part of that work will be learning. If they arent prepared to do some work themself they have no right to expect it of others.
A while back (15 pages) I asked (hopefully politely) whether my test track on GPX had been worthwhile creating. It would be quite nice to have a response. I've now got as far as the Cambrian 1K but for all the feedback I've received I might just be creating trails to the nearest spaghetti plantation. ::-)
Thanks for doing this. I do want to ride some of them (if nothing else I'll need 6C if I want a R10000) and a GPX does make it much easier - though realistically it may be next year before I can make the trip. Are they linked from the event pages or is there something specific I should note down for where the routes are?
Post by: FifeingEejit on 22 May, 2019, 10:08:44 am
It's surprising how many of the riders demand a GPX these days, even though every turn is marshalled. The stats are useful I suppose, as is the power meter data, but a lot of if is anxiety displacement.
I've noted increasing requests for gpx files for the mtb events I used to ride.
Fair enough for recceing the Strathpeffer route but people seem surprised to discover that the 10 under the ben and relentless routes change every year, the final route being taped up the day before and occasionally changed overnight to mess with us.
Expectations...
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: psyclist on 22 May, 2019, 10:22:42 am
A while back (15 pages) I asked (hopefully politely) whether my test track on GPX had been worthwhile creating. It would be quite nice to have a response. I've now got as far as the Cambrian 1K but for all the feedback I've received I might just be creating trails to the nearest spaghetti plantation. ::-)
I'm riding Cambrian 6C in a couple of months time, which is separate from this exercise. I haven't yet ridden any of the perms, although had been looking last year but arrangements didn't quite work out. Certainly having an official GPX would be a positive aspect. As you've already mentioned, prioritising based on demand sounds very sensible. Perhaps restrict to a few of the more popular routes initially, and wait for feedback from riders before spending time on extending to include all the routes?
Post by: CrazyEnglishTriathlete on 22 May, 2019, 10:42:26 am
QuoteHave decided to stop moping and test the effort involved. Have created a GPX for the Cambrian 1A on Ride with GPS - https://ridewithgps.com/routes/29961189 so would be keen to see how that responds as a test piece. If I get good feedback then I will progressively create routes for all the others. Although, in the immortal words of Captain Oates "I may be some time"
The Cambrian 6C route is on Openrunner - search for Cambrian 6C. That was part of the requirement to prove the route.
A while back (15 pages) I asked (hopefully politely) whether my test track on GPX had been worthwhile creating. It would be quite nice to have a response. I've now got as far as the Cambrian 1K but for all the feedback I've received I might just be creating trails to the nearest spaghetti plantation. ::-)
Try starting a new topic? Your posts might be getting subsumed in this one.
Post by: Phil W on 22 May, 2019, 10:48:34 am
Have decided to stop moping and test the effort involved. Have created a GPX for the Cambrian 1A on Ride with GPS - https://ridewithgps.com/routes/29961189 so would be keen to see how that responds as a test piece. If I get good feedback then I will progressively create routes for all the others. Although, in the immortal words of Captain Oates "I may be some time"
A while back (15 pages) I asked (hopefully politely) whether my test track on GPX had been worthwhile creating. It would be quite nice to have a response. I've now got as far as the Cambrian 1K but for all the feedback I've received I might just be creating trails to the nearest spaghetti plantation. ::-)
[/quote]
Hi CET,
Have had a look over the route you have plotted.
There is a bit after Pont-rhyd-y-groes where you leave the B4343, jump onto a forest track for a few km, before emerging onto the B4574. I think you meant to just go from the B4343 to B4574.
Just east of Rhayader you jump off the A44 for short sections, in two places, and I wonder if you meant to just stay on the A44 in those places.
Other than that the plotted route looks fine to my eye looking at it on OS Mapping.
Phil
Post by: dogtrousers on 22 May, 2019, 11:15:20 am
I think it's fair to say that, in 2019:You're probably right BUT my anecdata suggests it may not be quite true.
- The overwhelming majority of riders navigate using a GPS device
- Some make an effort to look at the route notes
- Almost none look at or print the routesheet if they aren't planning to use it for navigation
I'm an infrequent audaxer but on three occasions over the past couple of years (that makes a moderate percentage of the total) I've helped out riders who have GPS devices for recording and so on, but have no route loaded up. On one occasion I stopped to help a rider with a puncture, their group had long since gone and they had no means of navigating so they stuck with me for the duration (despite me being a much slower rider). On another I repeatedly gave verbal summaries of the route ahead to two riders (again faster than me) who I would later catch up with as they stood scratching their heads staring at their tatty routesheet, or they'd appear from a side road having gone off route, and I'd give some more advice. And on another occasion I acted as guide to a lost sheep who had been dropped by their group until we caught them up at a cafe control.
I think there may be a fair few riders who enter audaxes with friends planning just to follow their leader. If they get separated they need a tedious old trundler with a GPS to help them.
Whether my anecdotes are relevant or useful. Well, that's another matter.
Post by: Somnolent on 22 May, 2019, 01:16:58 pm
I think it's fair to say that, in 2019:You're probably right BUT my anecdata suggests it may not be quite true.
- The overwhelming majority of riders navigate using a GPS device
- Some make an effort to look at the route notes
- Almost none look at or print the routesheet if they aren't planning to use it for navigation
I've similar experience to dogtrousers. I never cease to be amazed by the number of riders who have neither a track loaded to their GPS, not routesheet and just expect to follow others around.
A better summary would be:
- The overwhelming majority of riders carry a GPS device
- Some have the competence to use said device
- Some have loaded a track or course to said device
- Some make an effort to look at the route notes
- Almost none look at or print the routesheet if they aren't planning to use it for navigation**
** and IMO it's their loss. With a combination of pink line on GPS and a printed routesheet I've gone off route just twice in 9 years of audaxing. Total extra distance less than 2 km,
Personally I'd much rather an organiser provided a good quality routesheet in an editable format from which I could plot my own GPX. A confusing or badly formatted PDF and a supplied GPX of dubious quality invariably takes more prep time IME.
Post by: teethgrinder on 22 May, 2019, 01:45:53 pm
- Almost none look at or print the routesheet if they aren't planning to use it for navigation**
** and IMO it's their loss. With a combination of pink line on GPS and a printed routesheet I've gone off route just twice in 9 years of audaxing. Total extra distance less than 2 km,
I don't have a printer so if I don't get a routesheet in the post, I might not even look at the routesheet unless I need to so that I can do a GPX. I'm not willing to buy a printer that I'll hardly use and I'm not willing to go to the internet cafe to use theirs when I much prefer using the GPS anyway.
I don't feel that I've lost anything but I do think that I have gained because I can easily look at the route on a map before I ride very easily, whereas before, when I used routesheets, I wasn't always sure where I was going, just following a set of instructions until I got to the end ad seeing where they took me.
Post by: andyoxon on 22 May, 2019, 01:54:42 pm
*With it being likely that most people using elderly gps units e.g. moi, are used to/can down-sample to <500 trk pts
Post by: zigzag on 22 May, 2019, 01:57:05 pm
*i've done it once or twice too
Post by: megajoulesexpenditure on 22 May, 2019, 02:04:28 pm
Not sure how much extra work your suggestion of a list with GPX files for all events would be. I suspect quite alot........... But the website does already work the other way in that if you choose a ride you'd like to do and look at the 'facilities' listing letters, events with a GPX file provided are marked with a 'G'
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Lucy
Is it possible, that someone can organise a section in this website, for all Audax rides to be listed with a gpx file? Is it something that anyone else, would find helpful or offensive!?
Would the organisers, that do so much already, find it helpful?
If I was capable, I would try to do it, but its not likely.
Post by: andyoxon on 22 May, 2019, 02:11:06 pm
i've seen quite a lot of people* relying on others for navigation. i don't see it as something strange, and they have an excuse not to do any work at the front..
*i've done it once or twice too
I recently did a local 100km populaire with a couple of non-AUK friends. Neither of them had gps units, and I don't think they'd printed the rs. I navigated. If I'd DNF'd, they'd probably have got round using a combination of route memory/phones/sticking with others. There was one chap riding I chatted to briefly whose garmin had thrown a wobbly, and so he didn't have gps navigation, and was hopping between groups, following others. He did have the route on his phone, but no mount it seems.*
*clearly the 'self-sufficiency stakes' rise for 200km+
Post by: FifeingEejit on 22 May, 2019, 02:39:17 pm
Going back to the original posting
Not sure how much extra work your suggestion of a list with GPX files for all events would be. I suspect quite alot........... But the website does already work the other way in that if you choose a ride you'd like to do and look at the 'facilities' listing letters, events with a GPX file provided are marked with a 'G'
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Lucy
Is it possible, that someone can organise a section in this website, for all Audax rides to be listed with a gpx file? Is it something that anyone else, would find helpful or offensive!?
Would the organisers, that do so much already, find it helpful?
If I was capable, I would try to do it, but its not likely.
Just noticed that the new site isn't listing facilities just now as I went on to see how it does the calendar (yes I still use AUKweb)
From a user perspective adding a filter to the audax.uk calendar on the facilities is simple.
From a technical perspective not knowing how it's stored or presented I could never estimate it.
If I was implementing it from scratch on a well designed database I'd probably say a couple of days dev and a day test.
A facilities filter would probably be quite handy, you could for example easily exclude (or include) shoestring events.
Sorry I'm trying to break up a soul crushing code review of an update to ancient code written in a language that should have been consigned to the bin of history years ago.
Post by: grams on 22 May, 2019, 02:52:39 pm
Just noticed that the new site isn't listing facilities just now as I went on to see how it does the calendar (yes I still use AUKweb)
It does on some events:
https://audax.uk/event-details?eventId=6479
But (a) for the many events where facilities aren't in the standard format (capital letters with spaces) it lists nothing; and (b) it throws away any facilities codes it doesn't understand, and it only seems to know a subset of them.
I did a rough survey in the youth of this thread and about half of events used the G code, a further quarter had a GPS file uploaded (or linked) but no G code and there's no telling how many of the rest would have had a GPS file emailed to you despite no G code or file. So a definitive answer to "is there a GPS file supplied?" isn't just a technical problem.
Post by: Wobbly on 22 May, 2019, 03:00:42 pm
There was one chap riding I chatted to briefly whose garmin had thrown a wobbly
:o
Steady on there. No need for threats now...
;D
Post by: FifeingEejit on 22 May, 2019, 03:39:44 pm
So a definitive answer to "is there a GPS file supplied?" isn't just a technical problem.
Officially known here as SISO, occasionally cleaned up for management as GIGO.
But more formally known as Data Quality Issues.
I'd hope the new tools in the new site when ever they come help organizers avoid such situations...
Post by: chrisbainbridge on 22 May, 2019, 03:41:09 pm
I suspect that like myself many new audax riders come to this having already done many long rides with friend or on their own. These days they will have had a car GPS and therefore have bought the bike equivalent for the maps, never thinking of taking a map with them in paper format! I have never used a paper route. I had done 200-300km rides before even hearing about audax having done my own routes on basecamp. rwgps, etc. My GPS (various edge variants) all give me a map, a screen with turn indications, various screens with times, speeds, etc. I download maps and route from RwGPS to my phone for secondary backup (works fine in airplane mode as GPS is passive). Worst case I would retrace to a road I recognised.
Why would I even waste paper on something I have never used and cannot see the point of. I would love to pay slightly more in my subscription, have access to a RwGPS club account and pay a fee to each organiser whose route I copy to my account. We all do it now anyway!!
If you started in audax with paper routes I can understand why you would feel differently
Post by: Kim on 22 May, 2019, 04:44:09 pm
Kim, I think it's pretty obvious that I am talking about a rider producing a gpx from a routesheet not from their imagination of where where the route might go, and that the debate was about the technical difficulty of using mapping websites.
Ah well, in that case it's unambiguous: Creating a line-on-a-map (in any format) from a routesheet is much harder than creating a routesheet from a line on a map, as you nearly always need eyes-on-the-ground knowledge to parse the routesheet. You inevitably end up arsing about in Streetview, and sometimes guessing.
(You can write a routesheet from a map without eyes-on-the-ground knowledge relatively easily, but it won't be a very good one because you won't be able to reference signposts, junction priorities or unmapped landmarks. You'll end up with a lot of distance-based instructions for turns.)
As such, it's less effort for the organiser to create a GPX than for the rider to derive one. Multiply for number of riders who need one, because they probably aren't collaborating. Of course, we may not value everyone's effort equally...
I'd even go so far as to suggest that you could learn to use RWGPS (or similar) in a fraction of the time it takes to unpick a typical routesheet.
Post by: frankly frankie on 22 May, 2019, 04:49:12 pm
I did a rough survey in the youth of this thread and about half of events used the G code, a further quarter had a GPS file uploaded (or linked) but no G code and there's no telling how many of the rest would have had a GPS file emailed to you despite no G code or file. So a definitive answer to "is there a GPS file supplied?" isn't just a technical problem.
This is the point I have tried to make upthread. There's no great difficulty in filtering for events with a G in the facilities string - or (I would prefer) just marking such events with a little GPX logo in any list view - but there's no guaranteed correlation between the presence or absence of a 'G' and the availability or not of an Org-provided GPX file.
It is not even the case that AUK needs to modernise. It has modernised, because as already said the vast majority of rides offer electronic entry, electronic route sheets, and electronic navigation files.
One can envisage (in general terms) a future where 5G and Personal Tracking are a total game-changer for our type of activity - and AUK suddenly finds they've sunk all their funds into Web 2.0
Post by: Hot Flatus on 22 May, 2019, 04:52:26 pm
Post by: frankly frankie on 22 May, 2019, 04:56:06 pm
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 22 May, 2019, 05:08:44 pm
The retired people who might have organised Audaxes at the weekend can get together a group perm midweek, at short notice, to take advantage of good weather.
All a lot simpler than the stuff in this thread.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 22 May, 2019, 05:12:49 pm
This is the point I have tried to make upthread. There's no great difficulty in filtering for events with a G in the facilities string - or (I would prefer) just marking such events with a little GPX logo in any list view - but there's no guaranteed correlation between the presence or absence of a 'G' and the availability or not of an Org-provided GPX file.
That's a data quality problem that all systems suffer from, if the people inputing the information get it wrong or the people providing the information don't provide details of the full situation then inaccuracies are inevitable.
You can only do so much to assist people with that, and it is rarely* a good excuse not to implement something that uses that data, implementing filters on the key could be enough to improve data quality from the inputer as once in place its more important that the info is right. (Carrot/Stick).
* The consequences of data input issues in the systems I work with are considerably greater than incorrectly stating that a GPS file will/won't be provided by an Audax organizer. We have been unable to implement things because the source data often automatic feeds from 3rd party systems aren't suitable, but interfacing systems still seems to be an afterthought in the health care sector, and the alternative always seems to be a single sign on link into the other system's web front end where of course the data is absolutely spot on.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 22 May, 2019, 05:21:57 pm
I note that Audax.uk uses a distance based locational filter; but aukweb uses regional filters.
But on aukweb I've noted that while Northumbrian Audaxes appear when I filter to "Scotland", Cumbrian ones don't.
But even from the top of Fife I can get to the south lakes faster than a vast swathe of Scotland!
So I'm intrigued as to how that works.
Post by: S2L on 22 May, 2019, 05:25:14 pm
* In the time it took, I could have mapped a convincing GPX track for TCR... ::-)
** I secretly enjoyed it :o
Post by: frankly frankie on 22 May, 2019, 05:53:13 pm
But on aukweb I've noted that while Northumbrian Audaxes appear when I filter to "Scotland", Cumbrian ones don't.
The Northumbrian ones presumably start from further north. The filter uses Max and Min latitudes and longitudes. For 'Scotland' the latitudes are 'BETWEEN 54.3 AND 59'. (And as per your previous point, this does rely on the Organiser - no-one else - inputting the correct Lat and Long.)
Post by: FifeingEejit on 22 May, 2019, 06:03:23 pm
But on aukweb I've noted that while Northumbrian Audaxes appear when I filter to "Scotland", Cumbrian ones don't.
The Northumbrian ones presumably start from further north. The filter uses Max and Min latitudes and longitudes. For 'Scotland' the latitudes are 'BETWEEN 54.3 AND 59'. (And as per your previous point, this does rely on the Organiser - no-one else - inputting the correct Lat and Long.)
Ah ha! That makes sense.
Kendal is at 54.3 but IIRC Between is exclusive (I can't double check right now) so the boundary is just south of the top of Windermere; hence the Widnermere and Kendal rides not appearing, and on the other side of the island Richmond is just above 54.4 hence most VC167 events appearing.
Hope no-one wants to start an event from Twatt on Orkney though it's just over 59 ;D :P
Post by: Hot Flatus on 22 May, 2019, 06:07:51 pm
If it only fits where it touches - that would still be a game-changer.
Urban environments only, most likely, so I doubt it will change the game of audax unless people fancy a 200k round the suburbs of Birmingham. ;)
Post by: FifeingEejit on 22 May, 2019, 07:12:16 pm
Cool, can still head off towards Durness and disappear then ;D
Post by: mattc on 22 May, 2019, 07:29:11 pm
Organisers thinking entrants expect everything handed to them is not isolated to Audax, or for that matter organizing events.Aha .... that explains a lot. I was starting to wonder why you keep banging on about rallying in every audax thread ... ;)
The bar by which an event is judged is set by the organizera of other events.
If the majority of events provide a gps file and results by Tuesday then that is what entrants end up expecting.
That causes issues for the outliers, and sometimes toys are ejected from prams and good organisers are lost.
Other times the organizer adapts their event management to their detriment and after a few years they are lost because of the workload.
Telling people what to expect in advance lets you keep working in a way that you already know works for you.
This isn't from 2 years in audax BTW, this is from 20+ years of assisting Motorsport organization, I've seen it all there before.
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 22 May, 2019, 11:15:09 pm
ESL, I was thinking of volunteering for night shift marshalling (or similar) for the 24TT as I've got a commitment on the Saturday.
We'll probably be at Espley for the night shift. I've got less appetite for filming the whole event these days, as I've done it so often.
There was an appeal for marshalls on the facebook page so I'm sure they would be grateful.
Facebook isn't an option but no doubt there are alternatives.
Post by: rob on 22 May, 2019, 11:23:25 pm
ESL, I was thinking of volunteering for night shift marshalling (or similar) for the 24TT as I've got a commitment on the Saturday.
We'll probably be at Espley for the night shift. I've got less appetite for filming the whole event these days, as I've done it so often.
There was an appeal for marshalls on the facebook page so I'm sure they would be grateful.
Facebook isn't an option but no doubt there are alternatives.
@merseyroads24 on Twitter.
Post by: frankly frankie on 23 May, 2019, 09:21:01 am
The Northumbrian ones presumably start from further north. The filter uses Max and Min latitudes and longitudes. For 'Scotland' the latitudes are 'BETWEEN 54.3 AND 59'. (And as per your previous point, this does rely on the Organiser - no-one else - inputting the correct Lat and Long.)
Ah ha! That makes sense.
Kendal is at 54.3 but IIRC Between is exclusive (I can't double check right now) so the boundary is just south of the top of Windermere; ...
Hope no-one wants to start an event from Twatt on Orkney though it's just over 59 ;D :P
The BETWEEN syntax is inclusive and the Kendal ride has a lat of 54.344028 so that is a bit odd if it doesn't show up.
AUK does have members living in Orkney.
Post by: Ian H on 23 May, 2019, 09:57:29 am
Kim, I think it's pretty obvious that I am talking about a rider producing a gpx from a routesheet not from their imagination of where where the route might go, and that the debate was about the technical difficulty of using mapping websites.
Ah well, in that case it's unambiguous: Creating a line-on-a-map (in any format) from a routesheet is much harder than creating a routesheet from a line on a map, as you nearly always need eyes-on-the-ground knowledge to parse the routesheet. You inevitably end up arsing about in Streetview, and sometimes guessing.
From experience, I'd allow a max of 45 mins (perhaps an hour for a 600) to produce a GPX track with waypoints for all controls, including infos, from even the tersest of routesheets (I'm thinking Wessex series). I think I explained my technique sometime ago upthread (and now lost in the noise).
Post by: Wycombewheeler on 23 May, 2019, 09:58:30 am
My old Garmin 510 fell over the morning of LWL I think I got as far as Swindon by memory when I got to a junction I was unsure of I had to wait for the next group to arrive.i've seen quite a lot of people* relying on others for navigation. i don't see it as something strange, and they have an excuse not to do any work at the front..
*i've done it once or twice too
I recently did a local 100km populaire with a couple of non-AUK friends. Neither of them had gps units, and I don't think they'd printed the rs. I navigated. If I'd DNF'd, they'd probably have got round using a combination of route memory/phones/sticking with others. There was one chap riding I chatted to briefly whose garmin had thrown a wobbly, and so he didn't have gps navigation, and was hopping between groups, following others. He did have the route on his phone, but no mount it seems.*
*clearly the 'self-sufficiency stakes' rise for 200km+
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 23 May, 2019, 10:23:55 am
Quote
This Personal Tracking GPS Necklace is multi-purpose and ideal as a…
Dementia Tracker / Alzheimer’s. (those that wander / the elderly)
Tracker for people with medical conditions. (e.g. at risk of falling / having seizures)
Tracker for Kids / Young Children
Tracker for people with mental health problems
Tracker for vulnerable individuals (e.g. learning difficulties like Autism or Down Syndrome)
Tracker for lone workers (Track your employees and keep them safe in the field)
https://www.techsilver.co.uk/product/personal-gps-jewellery/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhNCpgqWx4gIVA5ztCh35CALREAQYBSABEgKkrvD_BwE
I wonder where they would be most suitable. In rides with wide appeal, such as LEL, on rides which are as challenging as TCR, such as the Mille Pennines, or somewhere in the middle, such as BCM. The determining factor would be resource, how much profile the participants had, and how impressive the ride is as a test of cycling ability. I'd be quite interested in tracking Hippy's performance in the forthcoming Pendle 600.
Post by: Pingu on 23 May, 2019, 10:33:57 am
... I see that there are cheap tracker necklaces around, which could do the job...
...I wonder where they would be most suitable...
Round the neck?
Post by: FifeingEejit on 23 May, 2019, 10:40:47 am
The Northumbrian ones presumably start from further north. The filter uses Max and Min latitudes and longitudes. For 'Scotland' the latitudes are 'BETWEEN 54.3 AND 59'. (And as per your previous point, this does rely on the Organiser - no-one else - inputting the correct Lat and Long.)
Ah ha! That makes sense.
Kendal is at 54.3 but IIRC Between is exclusive (I can't double check right now) so the boundary is just south of the top of Windermere; ...
Hope no-one wants to start an event from Twatt on Orkney though it's just over 59 ;D :P
The BETWEEN syntax is inclusive and the Kendal ride has a lat of 54.344028 so that is a bit odd if it doesn't show up.
AUK does have members living in Orkney.
Aye, that's what I get for thinking/responding as I try and get out the door from work.
Think based on what I think I see rather than checking...
Which is an excuse to use training time.
SQL Server 2018
Code: [Select]
CREATE TABLE #Coords (locName VARCHAR(20), Lat NUMERIC(8,6) , Long NUMERIC(8,6))
INSERT INTO #Coords VALUES ('Kendal', 54.344028 , -2.747827);
INSERT INTO #Coords VALUES ('Twatt', 59.098355, -3.274058);
INSERT INTO #Coords VALUES ('Witherslack',54.244473, -2.860085);
SELECT * FROM #Coords WHERE Lat BETWEEN 54.3 AND 59
DROP TABLE #Coords
Result is:
Kendal 54.344028 -2.747827
Which is what was expected.
Rechecked the list and Tour Du Lakes is listed when you select Scotland, I just wasn't seeing it for the trees.
But does explain Tour of Reghed, it's (marginally) too far south!
As for Orkney, without using ferries other than to get there I've got 160km, but it dodges the amusingly named place, I'm sure I can find another 40, I see a DIY being formulated...
https://ridewithgps.com/routes/30060865
and a 450 on Shetland, although there's something fishy with the elevation data...
https://ridewithgps.com/routes/30060977
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 23 May, 2019, 10:41:05 am
... I see that there are cheap tracker necklaces around, which could do the job...
...I wonder where they would be most suitable...
Round the neck?
I've still got my PBP 2011 timing chip on one of my shoes. I reasoned that if someone put them on by mistake, I might still get a finish. Unlikely, as they're size 50 Sidi megas. But some size 48 Specialiseds did get mixed up at LEL. So it might pay to know where your shoes are.
GPS tracker insoles are also available, but are much more expensive. https://www.techsilver.co.uk/product/dementia-tracker-insoles-gps-smartsole/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjvvt3Lmx4gIVw7HtCh0DggU_EAQYASABEgIfpPD_BwE
Post by: lmm on 23 May, 2019, 12:36:32 pm
The most recent congregation to arrive in the broad AUK church has been the dot-watchers. Those inspired by ultra-racing. Ultimately they'll want to be catered for. I see that there are cheap tracker necklaces around, which could do the job.
Some people already use Strava Beacon for that kind of thing.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 23 May, 2019, 12:42:09 pm
The most recent congregation to arrive in the broad AUK church has been the dot-watchers. Those inspired by ultra-racing. Ultimately they'll want to be catered for. I see that there are cheap tracker necklaces around, which could do the job.
They'll of course be absolutely fine with creating their own route based on the control list though and possibly want a compulsory parcours before each control too.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 23 May, 2019, 01:01:13 pm
The most recent congregation to arrive in the broad AUK church has been the dot-watchers. Those inspired by ultra-racing. Ultimately they'll want to be catered for. I see that there are cheap tracker necklaces around, which could do the job.
Some people already use Strava Beacon for that kind of thing.
The most dramatic action takes place out of mobile phone range, so that's not much good. When I was filming Michael Broadwith's LEJOG record, the only point he fell behind schedule was on the climb to Drumochter.
It was pouring down, so I was disinclined to stand and wait, especially as he might have packed. So I went to where I knew there'd be dumb phone reception, phoned home and got an update. I wanted a drone shot around Carrbridge, and that means getting the drone into the air for as short a time as possible. So knowing timings is critical. Knowledge of the topography, sightlines and phone reception are all factors. Gadgets are a useful tool, but not without knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LTFDLDE7o4
I do hope someone is keeping a running total of all the things we have to have to ride Audax. Completing PBP is within the reach of the fit and young, riding something they found in their parent's shed, with some new tyres. A one-time participation could probably be done for £500 with a lot of care and research.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 23 May, 2019, 01:05:08 pm
The most recent congregation to arrive in the broad AUK church has been the dot-watchers. Those inspired by ultra-racing. Ultimately they'll want to be catered for. I see that there are cheap tracker necklaces around, which could do the job.
I met a young couple on a Dutch Audax who were doing their first ride, having been inspired to do so from dot watching the TCR.
When signing up for the Randonneurs NL events, there is a field for a Spot tracker link. If you have it, it's surprisingly useful for the organisers. As they all know I am going to be Lantern Rouge, I've taken to giving orgs the password to my Inreach tracking page, so they can see where I am at. Response from orgs has been generally positive about this. Meaning they don't have to worry about trying to contact my next of kin or something if it looks like I may be over time (happened once).
J
Post by: Somnolent on 23 May, 2019, 09:54:38 pm
- Almost none look at or print the routesheet if they aren't planning to use it for navigation**
** and IMO it's their loss. With a combination of pink line on GPS and a printed routesheet I've gone off route just twice in 9 years of audaxing. Total extra distance less than 2 km,
I don't have a printer so if I don't get a routesheet in the post, I might not even look at the routesheet unless I need to so that I can do a GPX. I'm not willing to buy a printer that I'll hardly use and I'm not willing to go to the internet cafe to use theirs when I much prefer using the GPS anyway.
I don't feel that I've lost anything but I do think that I have gained because I can easily look at the route on a map before I ride very easily, whereas before, when I used routesheets, I wasn't always sure where I was going, just following a set of instructions until I got to the end ad seeing where they took me.
But if it's a bare-bones GPX track the control locations may not be obvious. So what happens when route sheet (which specifies a particular control location) and the GPX diverge (which is not infrequent) in the vicinity of a control. I'm looking at an example right now where not only do the routes diverge by a considerable distance but do so on the approach to a control establishment mentioned on routesheet but which is at least 5km distant from the town mentioned on the Brevet Card, Recipe for confusion on part of rider - and potentially on part of validator too who, at best, has different receipts depending on whether rider looked at routesheet or not.
Post by: Feanor on 23 May, 2019, 10:11:22 pm
That's why my general workflow is:
-Download any tracklog the org may supply;
-Treat it with suspicion;
-Load it up in mapsource and inspect for general sanity;
-Read the routesheet and with the assistance of Google Streetview, divine the exact location of the controls;
-Create waypoints in mapsource with known-good control locations.
Info controls with wooly locations on the routesheet and are only revealed on the card are a pet peeve of mine, because it means I can't plot their exact location.
Post by: Ian H on 23 May, 2019, 10:17:03 pm
Info controls with wooly locations on the routesheet and are only revealed on the card are a pet peeve of mine, because it means I can't plot their exact location.
That's fairly easy: Put a waypoint where you should start looking &, if you can't memorise it, consult the brevet card at that point.
Post by: Feanor on 23 May, 2019, 10:29:11 pm
But I shouldn't have to.
It's not a f*cking treasure hunt.
Just provide the control locations on the route sheet plz.
Post by: wilkyboy on 23 May, 2019, 10:31:18 pm
Just provide the control locations on the route sheet plz.
Unfortunately, that could allow someone to cheat by looking at StreetView, or riding out the day before. Exact locations have to be a bit vague, although typically within a hundred metres or so.
Post by: Feanor on 23 May, 2019, 10:37:24 pm
The location of the control can ( and should, IMHO ) be published on the routesheet.
But the question itself can remain secret, only to be seen on the card.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 23 May, 2019, 10:37:45 pm
Just provide the control locations on the route sheet plz.
Unfortunately, that could allow someone to cheat by looking at StreetView, or riding out the day before. Exact locations have to be a bit vague, although typically within a hundred metres or so.
If the question itself is only on the Brevet then I don't see how you can cheat except on the day once you have the question and the location unless the nature of the question is really obvious in which case how has the organizer got the requisite 3 of them?
By the time you've done the ride enough times to have all 3 question options memorized you probably have all the answers memorized too...
Looking at infos on route sheets I've had recently most of them tell you the nominal distance on the road and/or which junction the info is at.
So looking on Google maps is entirely possible from them, but guessing the question?
11.1 INFO CONTROL AT RAILWAY BRIDGE <- This was reading something off a sign on the bridge
31.7 INFO CONTROL @ X - BO'NESS <- This was the number of certain features present on the petrol station, good luck guessing that one in advance!
189.8 INFO CONTROL : BARNHEAD <- It was what's on one of the signs
236.2 INFO CONTROL @ X in NEWTYLE <- Sign? Nope, War Memorial, good luck reading that on GSV
258.2 INFO CONTROL ON L @ ROAD JUNCTION <- It's from the Auld Alliance but I can't remember what it was
366.4 INFO CONTROL : CULROSS <- Name of something in the village
0.2 Information control on L in ROMALDKIRK 32.4 <- Something written on something in the village
9.6 R @ junction sp Dalroy 244.9 CRAGGIE Info CONTROL 0.0 <- Read something off one of the signs
Info Control at Junction 28.3 <- Sign related
Info Control at Junction 39.2 <- Sign related
Info Control on R at Caravan Park 70.2 <- Related to something in the caravan park
Info Control at Junction 150. <- Can't remember this one
0.7 INFO CONTROL 177 <- Can't remember
33.2km R at T SP TUSHIELAW-INFO CONTROL <- This is the one where there was 2 junctions within a few meters both signed for Tushielaw, it's clearer which junction was intended from the route sheet
124.9km R SP Wamphrey-INFO at junction <- Read something off a sign
Take a guess what I'd use as an info control at this junction
https://goo.gl/maps/pvY9sBbvAnVjqYAL9
Post by: Ian H on 23 May, 2019, 10:52:10 pm
Post by: wilkyboy on 23 May, 2019, 11:03:17 pm
Next thing you know, they'll complaining about the really important things, such as the colour of the brevet cards.
Ah, but what if you're colour-blind? :demon:
Post by: Ajax Bay on 23 May, 2019, 11:04:07 pm
Off topic (gpx provision) but I must confess I'm appalled at your (very experienced organiser) suggestion that the location of info controls should be kept "vague" on the routesheet. Is this really AudaxUK guidance or a Cambridge quirk? As FE has observed, the actual question is on the brevet (btw I see no reason why a description of its location shouldn't be printed on there as well) so while one might have a poke round on GSV, guessing what the question might be, you're going to need to visit the site en route - the very purpose of having an info control there in the first place. Organisers who are concerned about riders using GSV should take care (appreciate not always easy) to select a Q to which the answer cannot be determined by use of GSV.Just provide the control locations on the route sheet plz.Unfortunately, that could allow someone to cheat by looking at StreetView, or riding out the day before. Exact locations have to be a bit vague, although typically within a hundred metres or so.
Painscastle 6, 7 or 12 comes to mind (from a recent 400).
Quoting the AUK Organiser's Handbook:
"INFORMATION CONTROLS: Are unstaffed points that you can use to control the route. You make sure that riders pass this point, by asking riders to find the answer to a question about the point. For example, at the point there might be a road sign that reads “Newtown 5”. The information control question might therefore be “How many miles to Newtown?” The rider could only find out the answer by riding to the sign to get the answer.
"DO:
Keep your questions simple and use clear and obvious landmarks such as post boxes, signposts, or buildings such as churches and pubs.Identify the location clearly on your route sheet. E.g. “INFORMATION CONTROL @ Post box on LHS in 100m”Make sure the location is safe for riders to stop and write the answer in their Brevet card.
"DON’T:
Use cryptic questions –it’s not a treasure hunt and the challenge should be in completing the distance, not answering the questions. Use questions to which the answers are likely to be known by riders in advance. In the age of Google StreetView it can now be very easy for anyone with a smartphone to check out answers.You also shouldn’t put your questions on the routesheet, merely their location, so it’s difficult to work out the answers in advance."
Next thing you know, they'll complaining about the really important things, such as the colour of the brevet cards.What are the colour of the spare brevets you plan to hand over to me on Saturday? Mainly red, no?
Post by: Kim on 23 May, 2019, 11:04:55 pm
Next thing you know, they'll complaining about the really important things, such as the colour of the brevet cards.
Ah, but what if you're colour-blind? :demon:
Then you're too busy bitching about "What colour is the phonebox?" info controls.
Post by: wilkyboy on 23 May, 2019, 11:10:21 pm
Off topic (gpx provision) but I must confess I'm appalled at your (very experienced organiser) suggestion that the location of info controls should be kept "vague" on the routesheet. Is this really AudaxUK guidance or a Cambridge quirk?
That's my experience of dealing with even-more-experienced organisers' info questions. I don't hold myself to that standard, and I'm not saying either's better than the other.
If you look back thru any of my routesheets, the control location is pretty clear, down to within a few metres, even if the question is only on the brevet. The GPS files also indicate it pretty precisely. I do check GSV to try to make the question unanswerable except by visiting the location. Not only that, but my infos account for only 1-2km of minimum distance, just to bring it up to the nominal distance, so if a rider misses it but rides [most] of the rest of the route then they will have ridden more than the nominal distance (because I'm not afraid of keeping in some overdistance — we're long distance cyclists, so it's really a bonus :smug:).
The one info I have on my permanents is significant for distance, the location is again precise, and I have half a dozen questions, unanswerable from GSV. That said, everyone who has ridden that route in the last 18 months or so has validated by GPS making it a moot point.
Post by: Kim on 23 May, 2019, 11:24:57 pm
It's not a race. A minority actually care about the points (outwith things like completing an SR series or qualifying for PBP) as validation of a ride they know they've done anyway. And if you really wanted to cheat at audax, there are all sorts of ways of doing it that sneaky info controls do little to mitigate.
Like Feanor, not being able to use my perfectly good GPS receiver (or map) to indicate the exact location of the info is a pet peeve. If I wanted to go geocaching, I'd be wearing nettle-proof trousers, not carrying a brevet card.
Post by: wilkyboy on 23 May, 2019, 11:27:45 pm
Seems to me that while avoiding anything that's too obvious from Streetview makes sense, there's no real point in being secretive about the info question when riders will often find out the answer from someone (sometimes an organiser) at the next control.
And there are plenty of people also on the same ride who want to know they did it for themselves and it wasn't just some triviality but part of the effort and exertion. That may not be you, but it is me.
Like Feanor, not being able to use my perfectly good GPS receiver (or map) to indicate the exact location of the info is a pet peeve. If I wanted to go geocaching, I'd be wearing nettle-proof trousers, not carrying a brevet card.
And I'm pretty sure I made it clear you can place mine to within a few metres — is that not good enough? ::-)
Post by: Phil W on 23 May, 2019, 11:47:08 pm
Quote
Take a guess what I'd use as an info control at this junction
https://goo.gl/maps/pvY9sBbvAnVjqYAL9
I'd go the the text on the blue background on the brown walking sign.
To be fair to Wilkyboy he's just arguing the toss. I have always been able to precisely mark the location of Infos he has had on his events and perms I've done. In my experience those of us who want to mark control and info locations in advance do it precisely because we don't want to miss them not because we want to cheat. I always set a 100m perimeter alarm anyway just so I don't go flying past.
My infos on the Hertfordshire Greenways are great because they are all in locations that Google Streetview can't access. I mark the locations precisely in the GPX and describe them just as well in the route sheet. I'm not interested if local riders happen to know the answers when they see the question on the brevet as avoiding the Infos means they've avoided the Greenways. Their loss.
Post by: Kim on 23 May, 2019, 11:51:46 pm
Like Feanor, not being able to use my perfectly good GPS receiver (or map) to indicate the exact location of the info is a pet peeve. If I wanted to go geocaching, I'd be wearing nettle-proof trousers, not carrying a brevet card.
And I'm pretty sure I made it clear you can place mine to within a few metres — is that not good enough? ::-)
That's as it should be IMHO. :thumbsup:
That comment wasn't directed at you, BTW, just a general agreement with Feanor. Hence the lack of quoting.
Post by: lmm on 23 May, 2019, 11:54:40 pm
And I'm pretty sure I made it clear you can place mine to within a few metres — is that not good enough? ::-)
An info that's marked as a GPX waypoint is very much good enough. One that isn't is, honestly, not. I will make my best guess at deciphering the routesheet and mark it myself (and share my result here) but I do not think that helps the promotion of long-distance cycling compared to the organiser doing it officially (yes, even with the risk that the extra work of marking the points might tip some organisers into not wanting to bother. I don't want to demand a lot from organisers, but an organiser whose riders don't know where the controls are has failed at the very essence of the thing they set out to do - of course those riders have failed too in that case). That "Identify the location clearly on your route sheet" from the organisers' handbook should be "Identify the location clearly on all navigation information" IMO.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 24 May, 2019, 12:04:20 am
QuoteTake a guess what I'd use as an info control at this junction
https://goo.gl/maps/pvY9sBbvAnVjqYAL9
I'd go the the text on the blue background on the brown walking sign.
To be fair to Wilkyboy he's just arguing the toss. I have always been able to precisely mark the location of Infos he has had on his events and perms I've done. In my experience those of us who want to mark control and info locations in advance do it precisely because we don't want to miss them not because we want to cheat.
My infos on the Hertfordshire Greenways are great because they are all in locations that Google Streetview can't access. I mark the locations precisely in the GPX and describe them just as well in the route sheet. I'm not interested if local riders happen to know the answers when they see the question on the brevet as avoiding the Infos means they've avoided the Greenways. Their loss.
I'd initially read it as him saying they should be vauge, but realized my error pretty quick.
Arguing the toss is one of my ideas of fun anyway.
As for an Info in the picture... there's more than enough to pick from
The ATM sadly doesn't print the location on receipts.
And the sign at the junction has got road numbers that were changed about 20 years ago!
Cupar is now the A914 and Kirkcaldy the A92.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 12:35:39 am
I'm still boggling at how you lot are specifying the location of both info controls, and actual controls.
Looking at the route sheet for this weekend's 400k from Bunnik in .nl. there are 3 controls. Listed as:
TV Zoetermeer '77, Buytenpaaklaan 9B, Zoetermeer
Parkeerplaats, Havenplein 225, Den Helder
Prins Hendrik Hotel, Stuifweg 13, Oosterend
Now Dutch routesheets tend to be considerably more sparse than AUK sheets, simply being a list of villages, and the distances (relative, and cumulative). This is because RNL has accepted that 99.999% of riders are using GPS, so why put the effort in to a turn by turn route sheet. But each control is listed with an address, so you can find them. They are also provided in one of the 3 GPX files (500pt, with controls, without controls). The event is, like all RNL events, mandatory route with the possibility of a secret control.
I'm just going through the next events listed on the auk website, trying to find one that has:
a) route sheet available
b) in a pdf format that is readable on both my laptop and my phone (wtf .doc and .xls?!?)
c) specifies the locations of the controls in a clear concise manor that doesn't require replaying the whole route sheet.
One lists a control as "The Red Lion"*. In which village? Many others are just "Sallies Sandwich bar, On Right" or similar.
Info controls are just specified as the next direction on the route sheet, most route sheets aren't even making the info control or normal control lines Bold! If you've made 1 single wrong turn, you've got next to no chance.
How is it that controls aren't aren't at least provided as:
The Red Lion Inn, London Road, PE5 1AA
or Ideally as:
The Red Lion Inn, London Road, PE5 1AA - (TR123467 - 51.12345, 0.53123)
or Infos as: Junction Of London Road and New road, Little Bighill, (TR675213 - 51.123567, 0.66271)
I know we've established that I'm a jumped up inexperienced noob with no right to comment on what is being done on the British Isles, but I'm in looking at these route sheets in disbelief. How on earth do people actually navigate from them? If you make a single wrong turn, how do you find your way back on to route? If you're using a route sheet, do you also carry a map?
I'm sure if I'd done all my Audaxing in the UK, and not in NL/BE/DK, I might accept this as just "how things are done". But as someone who's done things differently, I really am shocked by how route/control info is provided for UK events.
*Actual name of pub changed so I'm not accused of attacking an individual organiser.
But if it's a bare-bones GPX track the control locations may not be obvious. So what happens when route sheet (which specifies a particular control location) and the GPX diverge (which is not infrequent) in the vicinity of a control. I'm looking at an example right now where not only do the routes diverge by a considerable distance but do so on the approach to a control establishment mentioned on routesheet but which is at least 5km distant from the town mentioned on the Brevet Card, Recipe for confusion on part of rider - and potentially on part of validator too who, at best, has different receipts depending on whether rider looked at routesheet or not.
How is this possible? The GPX should go to the control, be it the front door of the village hall, or the lamp post with the info question answer on it. A GPX that doesn't actually go to the controls, is a pretty useless GPX. The route sheet should match the GPX. The GPX should match the routesheet.
The challenge of Audaxing should be in cycling the distance, not in decrypting the route...
To bring this all back to the original question, asked 24 pages ago, given all the above about AUK route sheet norms. I think it's even more important that the website make it easy to search which rides are providing a GPX file for the route, and it's critical that those GPX files should be to a minimum standard (one file, lots of track points, controls as way points).
J
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 12:37:37 am
Yes, I can do that.
But I shouldn't have to.
It's not a f*cking treasure hunt.
Just provide the control locations on the route sheet plz.
This. So much this.
Edit:
The more I think about this, the more I'm just boggling.
AUK events aren't mandatory route. So you can take any route you like between controls. Mandatory route, as has been established upthread would take all the fun out of audaxing, and the threat of secret control, well any remaining fun just went right out the window. Therefore if the events can use any route, why is it the information on the location of controls isn't specified in a form that you can find them, no matter which route you took. The only way to find the signpost at the correct junction, to get the right answer for how far it is to Canterbury, is to follow each routesheet instruction one at a time. You've effectively created a mandatory route, but it's been done by not providing clear information on the control locations.
It's almost 2am, and my brain is just broken by this... I don't understand.
J
Post by: Kim on 24 May, 2019, 12:46:17 am
b) in a pdf format that is readable on both my laptop and my phone (wtf .doc and .xls?!?)
Open standards rant aside, I mentioned this upthread: Assuming you're suitably equipped, these formats lend themselves to being re-formatted to suit your preferred measurement units and/or map-trap/laminator/longsightedness. It's not a bad idea, in an 'and' rather than 'or' sort of way.
I've done rides where routesheets were provides as both pretty-printed PDF and raw CSV, which seems reasonable.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 12:51:09 am
Take a guess what I'd use as an info control at this junction
https://goo.gl/maps/pvY9sBbvAnVjqYAL9
Name of the rector, or time of the church surface at the church 50m up the road, There's a big clear red sign, gotta have lots of info on it you can use, and the sign isn't clear enough to read on streetview. What's more you can cycle up, take a photo of the sign, and then work out what the answer should be to write on your card at the next real control...
Alternatives include the times of buses on the bus stop by the church, collection times on the postbox opposite the church.
You're all far more experience at this than me, I'm just taking a guess, purely based on GSV of the area.
J
Post by: grams on 24 May, 2019, 12:56:59 am
One lists a control as "The Red Lion"*. In which village? Many others are just "Sallies Sandwich bar, On Right" or similar.
Route sheets are normally divided into sections "Stage 3: From A to B". The control will be in village B. Also places mentioned in bold in the route sheet are villages passed through, so the control will be in the last village marked in bold. It'll also be named on the brevet card.
(And more fundamentally, the control will be in the village you've ended up in by following the route sheet. If you're in the wrong village you're stuffed anyway)
Post by: grams on 24 May, 2019, 01:05:14 am
Therefore if the events can use any route, why is it the information on the location of controls isn't specified in a form that you can find them, no matter which route you took. The only way to find the signpost at the correct junction, to get the right answer for how far it is to Canterbury, is to follow each routesheet instruction one at a time.
If the info controls aren't marked on the GPX (or there is no GPX), enterprising audaxers can prepare by looking backwards in the route sheet for the last absolute point, then work forwards through the instructions to find approximately where on the route the info control is, and use that to figure out alternative routes.
(you are right, this is pretty bonkers once you try to explain it)
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 01:05:57 am
Route sheets are normally divided into sections "Stage 3: From A to B". The control will be in village B. Also places mentioned in bold in the route sheet are villages passed through, so the control will be in the last village marked in bold. It'll also be named on the brevet card.
(And more fundamentally, the control will be in the village you've ended up in by following the route sheet. If you're in the wrong village you're stuffed anyway)
Two route sheets I found for rides happening this Saturday had no bold anywhere on the sheet.
The fact you had to explain this to me, suggests that route sheets aren't as easy for a novice to understand as many people claim...
I'm starting to think I'll never understand AUK route sheets...
Who do I need to pester to make searching by GPX availability a feature of the AUK website sooner rather than later?
J
Post by: Kim on 24 May, 2019, 01:06:53 am
Who do I need to pester to make searching by GPX availability a feature of the AUK website sooner rather than later?
The treasurer? ;)
Post by: FifeingEejit on 24 May, 2019, 01:20:15 am
The usefulness of addresses in the UK is variable.
Streets are poorly signed, house numbers may or may not be obvious, shops tend not to show their street number at all and once you're out of town then to find by address you need local knowledge.
When I was planning to do the ride round ben kilbreck route I saw the organizers address and got the location wrong by 30 miles because there's more than 1 place called Balblair in the Dingwall postal area.
The idea of dropping the card off on the way home evaporated after a bit of clicking around the vast postcode area in GSV, I found the townland but the house could be up any of 20 dirt tracks.
Using coordinates needs either an electronic coordinate finder or a map.
And managing the necessary os maps on a bike...
Direction signs are also variable, and critically the signage system doesn't work on the basis of the shortest route but the highest priority route.
I can stop at a junction and see a village signed to the left via a dual carriageway that I know is actually 5 miles away on minor roads to the right.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 01:24:09 am
The route sheet is your base route for planning from, the assumption isn't that you are staring at a blank map with a list of control locations.
The usefulness of addresses in the UK is variable.
Streets are poorly signed, house numbers may or may not be obvious, shops tend not to show their street number at all and once you're out of town then to find by address you need local knowledge.
When I was planning to do the ride round ben kilbreck route I saw the organizers address and got the location wrong by 30 miles because there's more than 1 place called Balblair in the Dingwall postal area.
The idea of dropping the card off on the way home evaporated after a bit of clicking around the vast postcode area in GSV, I found the townland but the house could be up any of 20 dirt tracks.
Using coordinates needs either an electronic coordinate finder or a map.
And managing the necessary os maps on a bike...
So how the hell does one navigate with a route sheet?
Talk me through it like the idiot that I clearly am. I've just signed up for a 200k ride at the weekend, I've got an email with a route sheet in it. I open the pdf. Now what?
J
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 24 May, 2019, 01:28:32 am
When I was planning to do the ride round ben kilbreck route I saw the organizers address and got the location wrong by 30 miles because there's more than 1 place called Balblair in the Dingwall postal area.
The idea of dropping the card off on the way home evaporated after a bit of clicking around the vast postcode area in GSV, I found the townland but the house could be up any of 20 dirt tracks.
It's Ben Klibreck, a common error, and one that's not helped by the correct spelling being corrected by computers. I'm sensitive to this, as I live in Farington, a spelling that computers don't like either.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 24 May, 2019, 01:49:15 am
Assuming you want to read the route sheet as you go...The route sheet is your base route for planning from, the assumption isn't that you are staring at a blank map with a list of control locations.
The usefulness of addresses in the UK is variable.
Streets are poorly signed, house numbers may or may not be obvious, shops tend not to show their street number at all and once you're out of town then to find by address you need local knowledge.
When I was planning to do the ride round ben kilbreck route I saw the organizers address and got the location wrong by 30 miles because there's more than 1 place called Balblair in the Dingwall postal area.
The idea of dropping the card off on the way home evaporated after a bit of clicking around the vast postcode area in GSV, I found the townland but the house could be up any of 20 dirt tracks.
Using coordinates needs either an electronic coordinate finder or a map.
And managing the necessary os maps on a bike...
So how the hell does one navigate with a route sheet?
Talk me through it like the idiot that I clearly am. I've just signed up for a 200k ride at the weekend, I've got an email with a route sheet in it. I open the pdf. Now what?
J
Starting at the focus centre in Galashiels.
So you can use gsv and because it's a set of instructions I have limited need to look at
The first instruction says:
0km L out of centre car park
You hop on your bike in the car park and join the public road by turning left at the exit
The next instruction is
0.1 Right @ X
After 100m you find yourself at a cross roads, you turn right
0.5km SR R at town cross
Following the priority route (I. E. You do not cross a give way or stop line) the town market cross appears in the middle of the road, you note that there is a side road to the right, you signal and turn right onto it
You then curse profusely as you're on a 10% hill and in the big ring.
5km T left sp cycle route selkirk
After hauling yourself up the hill there is a decent run to the next junction it's a T junction there is a tiny blue sign that someone's turned for a laugh that would point to Selkirk if all was good in the world)
You turn left.
After a side right onto cycle path followed by another side right where the cycle path runs beside the A7 you are in Selkirk.
You keep doing this until you reach the finish.
The reality with those instructions is if it's before 7am a fair whack of riders will ignore the right at town cross, 't right onto the A7, and continue on the A7 until Selkirk.
It's a considerably faster route but a busy enough road that you only want to ride it in the early hours of the morning, that's is the real advantage of non mandatory routing.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 24 May, 2019, 05:53:56 am
Ride a British event using a British routesheet, then I'll listen to your complaints a bit more. I've ridden brevets in about 20 countries with and without GPX and survived all sorts of routesheets in various languages. I know I've had a lot more trouble following French-style routesheets than British-style.
As you suggest, an organiser-supplied GPX usually makes life easier (and should be encouraged), though there have been problems with several of them too. The year I rode Mille Miglia, the organiser had a GPX, routesheet and painted arrows. All methods disagreed 2:1 with the others at least once a day. Which method is the 'correct' way on a mandatory route?
Post by: lmm on 24 May, 2019, 07:12:59 am
As you suggest, an organiser-supplied GPX usually makes life easier (and should be encouraged), though there have been problems with several of them too. The year I rode Mille Miglia, the organiser had a GPX, routesheet and painted arrows. All methods disagreed 2:1 with the others at least once a day. Which method is the 'correct' way on a mandatory route?
Given that all are organiser-supplied I'd say: pick one method, stick with it, argue at the end if necessary. If I follow the GPX then at least I'm guaranteed to reach the arrivee (not necessarily the case with routesheet or arrows if there's a left/right error) and I've made a reasonable good-faith effort to follow the organiser's route, which ought to be good enough.
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 24 May, 2019, 07:34:11 am
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 08:07:10 am
I'm still boggling at how you lot are specifying the location of both info controls, and actual controls.
The more I think about this, the more I'm just boggling.
I'm boggling that you're boggling ::-)
It's times like this that someone comes along and says "just take a deep breath, everything's going to be okay" O:-) But where's the fun in that :demon:
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 08:16:17 am
So how the hell does one navigate with a route sheet?
Easy, since you asked nicely: https://www.camaudax.uk/audax/routesheet (https://www.camaudax.uk/audax/routesheet). I wrote that some time ago; it's not perfect, but it is a very close description of my own routesheets and close enough to others' to be a useful reference for audax-newbies.
Not to everyone's taste, but clear, rational and logical when you work your way thru it. Routesheet-lingo seems a bit weird, but it's very quick to read the shorthand, retain it, and move attention back to the road, and then expand that into meaningful longhand instructions in the mind to follow. I feel a new thread coming along — "AUK routesheets should all use the same shorthand" :demon:
And this codification produces a very compact set of instructions, so avoiding too many sheets of paper, and — more importantly — too many page-turns while riding. The instructions are so compact that the [car] journey from Cambridge (UK) to somewhere near Sienna (IT) fitted onto just than half a side of A4, and yet took to the mountain roads thru Switzerland for a bit of sightseeing.
It just takes a moment to learn — that might make it inaccessible to first-timers, but first-timers are only first-timers the first time, and every other time they're no longer first-timers — QED there are an awful lot more not-first-timers than first-timers, so let's not pander unnecessarily to them at the cost of everyone else, eh? ::-)
Post by: Redlight on 24 May, 2019, 08:29:35 am
So how the hell does one navigate with a route sheet?
Talk me through it like the idiot that I clearly am. I've just signed up for a 200k ride at the weekend, I've got an email with a route sheet in it. I open the pdf. Now what?
J
What do you think we did in the days before GPX?
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 24 May, 2019, 08:30:14 am
Ride a British event using a British routesheet, then I'll listen to your complaints a bit more. I've ridden brevets in about 20 countries with and without GPX and survived all sorts of routesheets in various languages. I know I've had a lot more trouble following French-style routesheets than British-style.
One of the most complex sections was on the LEL in 2005, from 4.00 in this video.
https://vimeo.com/205099954
LWAB suggested we stop at the control before, but I wanted to experience the full horror of the Lincolnshire lanes at night. Ivo appears in an interview discussing translating that stuff into other languages.
You can see where we went on this early GPS track.
https://www.bikemap.net/en/r/13850/ not mine.
Post by: rob on 24 May, 2019, 08:31:59 am
TV Zoetermeer '77, Buytenpaaklaan 9B, Zoetermeer
Actually I've been there. Would be fine, just round the back of the climbing wall place.
TBH on the Dutch event I did I used the routesheet but it was woefully inadequate in the town centres but great in the Countryside.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 08:34:22 am
A GPX that doesn't actually go to the controls, is a pretty useless GPX. The route sheet should match the GPX. The GPX should match the routesheet.
Part of me agrees with you — mine usually do have a little kink off the road to the door of the hall — but another part of me thinks that that sort of detail sets some GPS files apart from others and so should be optional, so there's a noticeable difference between organisers' provided resources, i.e. some will remain better than others. Riders will soon enough choose the ones they prefer, or they won't give a toss.
The challenge of Audaxing should be in cycling the distance, not in decrypting the route...
Maybe, but some of the fun IS decrypting the route, for many participants.
To bring this all back to the original question, asked 24 pages ago, given all the above about AUK route sheet norms. I think it's even more important that the website make it easy to search which rides are providing a GPX file for the route, and it's critical that those GPX files should be to a minimum standard (one file, lots of track points, controls as way points).
Your opinion has been heard. However, in the way you've stated it then it's verging on complete tosh:
- Search fields — yep, with you; recognition (by site people), time, resource, budget, etc.
- ... and it's critical ... — no, it's not, it's just nice-to-have — having a bee in your bonnet about it for 25 pages does not make it anything other than what it has always been ::-)
- ... that those GPX files ... — let me stop you right there — no, No, NO! Technically, TCX files should be the normative standard, because a <CoursePoint> in a TCX is a specific point on the Course (the coordinates will match a node on the line somewhere precisely), whereas a <wpt> in a GPX is an arbitrary point on the map with no corresponding node on the line; you can go from TCX to GPX just fine, converting coursepoints to waypoints, but you cannot go the other way, only some approximation (with some spherical maths). Okay?
- ... controls as waypoints ... — see previous point.
It seems that, in spite of your bogglingness at the quaint arbitrariness of organisers' navigational provisions here in the UK, I rather fancy it's part of the charm. We (Brits) don't particularly like to be told what to do, and we do very much work to a "good-enough" standard. It's a different approach and, so long as you accept that often it's merely good enough rather than the be-all-and-end-all then you get a sense of what the organiser was thinking, a bit of their personality.
Post by: Ian H on 24 May, 2019, 08:39:55 am
Post by: lmm on 24 May, 2019, 08:40:30 am
Congratulations, you've just been directed by the GPX across a farmer's ploughed field surrounded by barbed wire, not even a dirt track across it.
On a non-mandatory route that's no trouble at all. I get my device to route me to the next control (or just the next town) and pick up the GPX there. (Personally - and I know it's not for everyone, I'm not encouraging organisers to do this- I could quite happily follow a GPX that just had the control waypoints, no "breadcrumb trail" needed. I can make my own route, but I can't make my own info control locations).
On a mandatory route... probably the same to be honest. IIRC the rule is something like "please follow the provided route as closely as reasonably possible". If there's a secret control behind the wire then I feel justified in missing it.
What do you do when a routesheet or arrow directs you into a field like that? I don't see how they could be any easier - surely it's harder to pick one of those up at a later point.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 08:40:35 am
If you make a single wrong turn, how do you find your way back on to route? If you're using a route sheet, do you also carry a map?
The bit about place names in ALL-CAPS or bold or BOTH — if you get lost then you find a street sign, or a Policeman, or you knock on someone's door (this is the UK, it's a very nice place full of very nice people who all want to help someone if they can) and ask. You can take a map if you want — I do — but it's not necessary.
Once you get back to that place in ALL-CAPS or bold or BOTH then you're back on route and can continue from there.
As it happens, I do try to always add a note when an instruction is within a previously-mentioned place specifically for this purpose; there's not always space, but I do try, e.g. "L @ TL $ GT SHELFORD" and then "In Gt Shelford, R opp PO $ WHITTLESFORD", although the Post Office has since closed, as has the bank opposite. But I'm just one amongst many.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 08:51:40 am
To be fair to Wilkyboy he's just arguing the toss.
Ay ;)
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 24 May, 2019, 09:21:54 am
Post by: Tail End Charlie on 24 May, 2019, 09:22:29 am
Missed this first time round. Very well put.
This thread basically reads like. ME ME ME ME ME. Why can’t EVERYTHING change to suit ME ?
Actually what I'm trying to argue is that "Just because it works for a small subset of humans, doesn't mean it works for everyone, and wouldn't it be nice if we could do things in a way that did work for more people, and look how simple it would be to do so" Or words to that effect.
But hey, we all know I'm crazy. As you were.
J
Post by: FifeingEejit on 24 May, 2019, 09:51:05 am
Congratulations, you've just been directed by the GPX across a farmer's ploughed field surrounded by barbed wire, not even a dirt track across it.
Those sorts of errors are usually due to the person creating the digital route not putting the effort in to make sure it's actually sensible; some are clearly created by asking the google routing algorithm in walking mode to take you between two places.
A good example of that i found recently is if you ask Google the route from Windermere to Alston as it'll take you over High Street.
RWGPS will use that if you are using it in walking mode...
Similarly the OSM routing will try and use any route marked as a cycle track when on OSM Cycling which is unfortunate as going through ploughed fields is the sort of thing the NCN does...
So how the hell does one navigate with a route sheet?
Talk me through it like the idiot that I clearly am. I've just signed up for a 200k ride at the weekend, I've got an email with a route sheet in it. I open the pdf. Now what?
J
What do you think we did in the days before GPX?
I need to check but I think similar route instructions appear in one of the old AA Road Books I have.
It's certainly not a navigation method that was invented for or is solely used in Audax.
This reproduction of Denis Jenkinson's route notes for the Millie Miglia are a variation on them so as a navigation method it certainly predates 1955.
https://stevemckelvie.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/disputing-the-mossjenks-roller-notes-invention-story/
(https://stevemckelvie.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/rollmap01.jpg)
Tulip diagrams are just a way of drawing the same style route instruction rather than writing it, so it's not an alien system in the Netherlands either, they invented them!
(http://www.donbarrow.co.uk/tulip_V4C_example_2.jpg)
Post by: frankly frankie on 24 May, 2019, 10:23:45 am
Talk me through it like the idiot that I clearly am. I've just signed up for a 200k ride at the weekend, I've got an email with a route sheet in it. I open the pdf. Now what?Assuming you want to read the route sheet as you go...
I'd suggest step 1 is to print it out (or somehow obtain a printed verson). ::-)
I retired from audaxing several years ago but back in my day route sheets almost never had intermediate distances for the instructions. (Routes were a lot less laney then - almost any 200 would be about 50% A-road.)
A typical block of instructions could be:
At T, L
R $ Nether Wallop
2nd L (no $) over bridge then imm. R
R to SHEEPY MAGNA ['to' then caps implies following any further signs to Sheepy Magna]
In SHEEPY MAGNA L $ Tamworth
and so on. Pre GPS and riding without any type of cycle computer I never had any trouble with instructions like these - as long as you occasionally have a place to go THROUGH its all good.
Intermediate distances (in UK routesheets) only started appearing after a long-ago edition of LEL, where the routesheet was a collaborative effort and we realised it would have to be (a) consistent up and down the country and (b) as clear as possible for overseas riders, and we adopted a format already used in the USA, which included distances, and constructed the whole thing on a Google spreadsheet with about a dozen contributors.
Post by: grams on 24 May, 2019, 10:28:10 am
Quote from: quixoticgeek link=topic=111898.msg2396413#msg2396413
Talk me through it like the idiot that I clearly am. I've just signed up for a 200k ride at the weekend, I've got an email with a route sheet in it. I open the pdf. Now what?
Same as everyone else does.
Stare at it for a few seconds, close the window and type “[name of event] gpx” into Google.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 10:29:16 am
Quote from: quixoticgeek link=topic=111898.msg2396413#msg2396413Talk me through it like the idiot that I clearly am. I've just signed up for a 200k ride at the weekend, I've got an email with a route sheet in it. I open the pdf. Now what?
Same as everyone else does.
Stare at it for a few seconds, close the window and type “[name of event] gpx” into Google.
Except that is NOT the same as everyone else does, Graham ::-)
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 10:41:46 am
Starting at the focus centre in Galashiels.
So you can use gsv and because it's a set of instructions I have limited need to look at
The first instruction says:
0km L out of centre car park
You hop on your bike in the car park and join the public road by turning left at the exit
Except you've missed some steps. You previously said:
The route sheet is your base route for planning from, the assumption isn't that you are staring at a blank map with a list of control locations.
So, I've got the route sheet either as a PDF I have to print myself, or the postwoman has just dropped a pre printed one in a SAE through my letter box. What do I do next? How do I use that route sheet to plan my Saturday?
For comparison, last night I downloaded the route info for this weekends 400k RNL event, I took one of the 3 GPX files provided (the one with the controls), loaded it on my phone into OSMAND, looked at the pretty purple line on the map, saw where it went. Visualised the whole route, then loaded the route into my wahoo, stuck the wahoo on the bike. I'm now ready to just turn it on, select the route, and follow the line on the screen. All planning and route familiarisation, done.
Quote
The next instruction is
0.1 Right @ X
After 100m you find yourself at a cross roads, you turn right
0.5km SR R at town cross
Following the priority route (I. E. You do not cross a give way or stop line) the town market cross appears in the middle of the road, you note that there is a side road to the right, you signal and turn right onto it
You then curse profusely as you're on a 10% hill and in the big ring.
Only in a moment of dyslexia, I went left not right, the rest of the instructions kinda match, tho some of the distances are out a little, after half a dozen instructions, I end up in the village of Middlewalllop, and not in the village mentioned on the route sheet. How do I get to the info control on the sign post at a junction at 35km into the route?
Quote
<snip>
You keep doing this until you reach the finish.
The reality with those instructions is if it's before 7am a fair whack of riders will ignore the right at town cross, 't right onto the A7, and continue on the A7 until Selkirk.
It's a considerably faster route but a busy enough road that you only want to ride it in the early hours of the morning, that's is the real advantage of non mandatory routing.
Except because the route sheet is provided purely as a diff of instructions, where the position of any point on the route is given relative to the previous point of the route, if you don't follow the route as detailed, you can't be sure you're at the right point for the info.
QG, the Dutch routesheets are a simplification of the French randonneur/ audax routesheet convention of road numbers and towns without turn by turn instructions. It is a real shit to navigate across bigger towns using that method because you have no idea how to get from the incoming road to the outgoing road, particularly around one-way systems. The Brits, Yanks and Aussies have turn by turn routesheets that (usually) make sense when you actually use them on the road. I've not used a RideWithGPS-drafted 'cuesheet' recently but keep hearing about instances when they use road priorities that don't exist in real life.
Yeah, I would never try to use a Dutch route sheet to actually navigate by, I use them because they list the actual address of each control. So that if I need to, when I've cycled 50km, the distance the brevet card says it is to the control, and I've got to Martinsdyke, and I'm at what I thought was the control, but it seems to be closed, I can then run the address through google maps, as a check sum. Double checking the info I have, and oh look, it's behind me, and I'm just not awake. Yay, checksum works. British sheets seem to detail every single turn, but don't give you an absolute position of the controls. This blows my mind.
Quote
Ride a British event using a British routesheet, then I'll listen to your complaints a bit more. I've ridden brevets in about 20 countries with and without GPX and survived all sorts of routesheets in various languages. I know I've had a lot more trouble following French-style routesheets than British-style.
I appreciate that you and your band of associates are audaxing gods who have done every epic audax available on all continents, and that what you do is the One True Way™. But, if you had started in the situation of having been provided quality GPX files for every ride, that you could just load up onto your Garmin/Wahoo, hit start, and it Just Worked™. Can you not see that coming to an AUK event where you aren't even provided with the location of the controls other than as a relative position from the previous instruction, that this is absolutely fucking insane?!?
Quote
As you suggest, an organiser-supplied GPX usually makes life easier (and should be encouraged), though there have been problems with several of them too. The year I rode Mille Miglia, the organiser had a GPX, routesheet and painted arrows. All methods disagreed 2:1 with the others at least once a day. Which method is the 'correct' way on a mandatory route?
This is the classic problem of why airplanes have multiples of certain instruments, and why it's a good idea in sensing of critical things to have odd numbers sensors, so that you can acquire a quorum. Altimeter 1 says we're at 3000m, Altimeter 2 says we're at 3000m, Altimeter 3 says 5000m. We're most likely at 3000m and Altimeter 3 is on the blink. Now when an organiser has provided 3 different routes, that do not always agree, you can either take a quorum approach. Or as suggested elsewhere, just follow 1 of them, but remain consistent.
Congratulations, you've just been directed by the GPX across a farmer's ploughed field surrounded by barbed wire, not even a dirt track across it.
Congratulations since the course check was ridden last weekend a water main has burst in the village, and you have to take a detour round it. You only know your position relative to the last instruction on the route sheet, how do you find your way out the other side of the village on the correct route?
In the example of the ploughed field, I'd zoom out on the gps, to see where it's trying to take me, then follow a line of best fit round the field until I rejoined the line on my GPS. As I have both my current position, where I've been, and where I'm going, all plotted on screen, this is real simple.
I'm boggling that you're boggling ::-)
It's times like this that someone comes along and says "just take a deep breath, everything's going to be okay" O:-) But where's the fun in that :demon:
I use the term boggling as it's the politest I could come up with at 2am...
A GPX that doesn't actually go to the controls, is a pretty useless GPX. The route sheet should match the GPX. The GPX should match the routesheet.
Part of me agrees with you — mine usually do have a little kink off the road to the door of the hall — but another part of me thinks that that sort of detail sets some GPS files apart from others and so should be optional, so there's a noticeable difference between organisers' provided resources, i.e. some will remain better than others. Riders will soon enough choose the ones they prefer, or they won't give a toss.
If not a little kink, then a waypoint/cuepoint/trackpoint/whatever the gpx standard is that allows my device to go "Ping you've arrived!", lets you know you're in the right place.
Quote
The challenge of Audaxing should be in cycling the distance, not in decrypting the route...
Maybe, but some of the fun IS decrypting the route, for many participants.
Can we have a quality GPX provided for those of us who want to just ride bikes, rather than a decryption exercise crossed with a treasure hunt?
Quote
To bring this all back to the original question, asked 24 pages ago, given all the above about AUK route sheet norms. I think it's even more important that the website make it easy to search which rides are providing a GPX file for the route, and it's critical that those GPX files should be to a minimum standard (one file, lots of track points, controls as way points).
Your opinion has been heard. However, in the way you've stated it then it's verging on complete tosh:
Entirely plausible, I was starting to lose my mind when I wrote this. Did I mentioned that it was boggling the mind?
Quote
- Search fields — yep, with you; recognition (by site people), time, resource, budget, etc.
It shouldn't be too hard, should be a bit like the filter results by manufacturer, when searching a site like wiggle. It's basic functionality and a competent programmer shouldn't take too much time to implement it.
Quote
- ... and it's critical ... — no, it's not, it's just nice-to-have — having a bee in your bonnet about it for 25 pages does not make it anything other than what it has always been ::-)
I think for the long term future of our activity, it is. I wonder how many people get turned away when the route isn't provided as a GPX, but as the cryptic relative positioning system...
Quote
- ... that those GPX files ... — let me stop you right there — no, No, NO! Technically, TCX files should be the normative standard, because a <CoursePoint> in a TCX is a specific point on the Course (the coordinates will match a node on the line somewhere precisely), whereas a <wpt> in a GPX is an arbitrary point on the map with no corresponding node on the line; you can go from TCX to GPX just fine, converting coursepoints to waypoints, but you cannot go the other way, only some approximation (with some spherical maths). Okay?
- ... controls as waypoints ... — see previous point.
Great, please write a best practice guide line for producing an electronic route file for an audax event that when loaded into a Garmin or Wahoo, Just Works.
Quote
It seems that, in spite of your bogglingness at the quaint arbitrariness of organisers' navigational provisions here in the UK, I rather fancy it's part of the charm. We (Brits) don't particularly like to be told what to do, and we do very much work to a "good-enough" standard. It's a different approach and, so long as you accept that often it's merely good enough rather than the be-all-and-end-all then you get a sense of what the organiser was thinking, a bit of their personality.
I've noticed. Be careful in your generalisation tho. I hold a British passport.
It occurs to me that Cervantes's novel was the origin of the adjective 'quixotic', and didn't the Dutch invent windmills?
Windmills have existed from before The Netherlands existed. The first evidence of wind powered machines dates from the 1st century in Egypt, as well as the 4th century in Tibet. The Dutch did however perfect what we think of now as the windmill before the Brits, and it was this ability to harness the wind for mechanisation that allowed the Netherlands to become the then superpower that it was.
But no, the Dutch did not invent windmills.
Yes, there is a reason I use Quixotic to describe myself. The dictionary describes it as "Caught up in the romance of noble deeds, Idealistic without regard for practicality" It seems to be surprisingly accurate, a lot of the time.
What do you do when a routesheet or arrow directs you into a field like that? I don't see how they could be any easier - surely it's harder to pick one of those up at a later point.
Exactly. With a route sheet that only provides your position relative to the last instruction, finding your way off the route and back on to it again seems impossible. Didn't Heisenberg say something about this?
The bit about place names in ALL-CAPS or bold or BOTH — if you get lost then you find a street sign, or a Policeman, or you knock on someone's door (this is the UK, it's a very nice place full of very nice people who all want to help someone if they can) and ask. You can take a map if you want — I do — but it's not necessary.
Once you get back to that place in ALL-CAPS or bold or BOTH then you're back on route and can continue from there.
But if the info is between the places marked IN BOLD you have to back track to the one before the info, then replay the instructions, *AND* you have to make sure you get into the village to play the directions from the right side, so if you've gone wrong, you read the sheet and it says Little Barming, and the instruction in the village is R @ X SP Greater Barming, you enter the village from the north now, not the south as the route has, there's 3 X roads, you have to go all the way to the end of the village, to turn round, to play the instructions back again.
And in trying to find your way back to to Little Barming to pick up the route, you may actually cycle straight past the sign post with the info control answer on it, but not realise it, as the only way you know where it is, is that it's 3km after the right turn at the cross roads, that was 2km after the left at the T, that was 1km after the straight on at the roundabout.
Quote
As it happens, I do try to always add a note when an instruction is within a previously-mentioned place specifically for this purpose; there's not always space, but I do try, e.g. "L @ TL $ GT SHELFORD" and then "In Gt Shelford, R opp PO $ WHITTLESFORD", although the Post Office has since closed, as has the bank opposite. But I'm just one amongst many.
What does the GPX for your route say?
What do you think we did in the days before GPX?
Not know that things could be done a different or better way?
At least with Dutch events, since things have moved to being primarily GPX based, the routes have become a lot more winding and convoluted, because rather than requiring half a page of instructions to describe such a route, the GPS just draws it on the screen. The routes events take now vs the pre GPX era, at least here, differ.
I retired from audaxing several years ago but back in my day route sheets almost never had intermediate distances for the instructions. (Routes were a lot less laney then - almost any 200 would be about 50% A-road.)
A typical block of instructions could be:
At T, L
R $ Nether Wallop
2nd L (no $) over bridge then imm. R
R to SHEEPY MAGNA ['to' then caps implies following any further signs to Sheepy Magna]
In SHEEPY MAGNA L $ Tamworth
and so on. Pre GPS and riding without any type of cycle computer I never had any trouble with instructions like these.
Intermediate distances (in UK routesheets) only started appearing after a long-ago edition of LEL, where the routesheet was a collaborative effort and we realised it would have to be (a) consistent up and down the country and (b) as clear as possible for overseas riders, and we adopted a format already used in the USA, which included distances, and constructed the whole thing on a Google spreadsheet with about a dozen contributors.
So the routes taken have evolved, to use fewer A roads (on safety grounds?). So a route sheet that had fewer instructions, because it's just A2, A3, A4... now becomes lots of wiggling about on country lanes? And the timing of this roughly matches when GPS devices become more common?
Quote from: quixoticgeek link=topic=111898.msg2396413#msg2396413Talk me through it like the idiot that I clearly am. I've just signed up for a 200k ride at the weekend, I've got an email with a route sheet in it. I open the pdf. Now what?
Same as everyone else does.
Stare at it for a few seconds, close the window and type “[name of event] gpx” into Google.
Yeah, only the one you find is the route I took on the ride last year, and because it wasn't mandatory route, I stopped off in Hay-On-Wye to pick up a book I had reserved for me, so now rather than the route the org wanted you to do, and risk assessed, you're taking my detour to go book shopping in the middle of it...
I appreciate that for many events there is a 3rd party created GPX, but how can you be sure to trust it? How can you be sure that it will go past the correct info control location?
J
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 24 May, 2019, 11:43:03 am
I appreciate that you and your band of associates are audaxing gods who have done every epic audax available on all continents, and that what you do is the One True Way™. But, if you had started in the situation of having been provided quality GPX files for every ride, that you could just load up onto your Garmin/Wahoo, hit start, and it Just Worked™. Can you not see that coming to an AUK event where you aren't even provided with the location of the controls other than as a relative position from the previous instruction, that this is absolutely fucking insane?!?
Lay off the 'audaxing gods' bullshit. It doesn't strengthen your argument.
As I've noted before, I agree that a GPX is helpful to riders and a GPX by the organiser is usually better/ easier than a homemade one but frankly it isn't a dealbreaker (for me) and I prefer having a reliable fallback option that doesn't rely on technology/ batteries capacity. A routesheet does that better (for me) than having to buy a replacement GPS unit halfway round a brevet.
Post by: Wobbly on 24 May, 2019, 11:43:19 am
...I'm in looking at these route sheets in disbelief. How on earth do people actually navigate from them? If you make a single wrong turn, how do you find your way back on to route?
I genuinely laughed out loud when I read that. :)
I wonder how many events (no doubt collectively, hundreds) some of the contributors to this thread rode before the advent of GPS.
I have to say this thread reminds me of someone whose only experience is watching episodes of Star Trek lecturing Wernher Von Braun on how to build rockets.
Do keep it up :thumbsup:
Post by: rob on 24 May, 2019, 11:58:20 am
...I'm in looking at these route sheets in disbelief. How on earth do people actually navigate from them? If you make a single wrong turn, how do you find your way back on to route?
I genuinely laughed out loud when I read that. :)
I wonder how many events (no doubt collectively, hundreds) some of the contributors to this thread rode before the advent of GPS.
I have to say this thread reminds me of someone whose only experience is watching episodes of Star Trek lecturing Wernher Von Braun on how to build rockets.
Do keep it up :thumbsup:
It's got to proper levels of LOL now.
I was bought my first GPS this year. How did I manage for so many years ?
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 11:59:37 am
Let's take your point about describing the location of info controls. Now, I have had the privilege to ride quite a few events in the past seven years of mid-life crisis, i.e. audax — somewhere over 100 I think, possibly more, it doesn't really matter. Most don't have infos, but some do. In spite of everything that you have so far suggested as being so faulty or so broken that you think it's "absolutely fucking insane", I have NEVER had a problem locating an info control. Sometimes I have had a problem with colours, but have then spent ten minutes on the bike coming up with multiple alternative colour-names to describe "beige" — purely for the organiser's amusement; they will know I've been there, job done. And once the organiser got unexpectedly high-brow and I picked the wrong high-brow response from the building next door, but it didn't matter, they knew I'd been there.
As it stands, moderates like myself are satisfactorily explaining each of your points away, leaving you with an ever-narrowing range to find umbrage with. It is possibly time you stepped back from this — although for the sake of all the watchers, please do carry on ;D
So, I've got the route sheet either as a PDF I have to print myself, or the postwoman has just dropped a pre printed one in a SAE through my letter box. What do I do next? How do I use that route sheet to plan my Saturday?
Perhaps there's your problem: you feel the need to plan your Saturday to the second? I know I don't — laissez faire, take it as it comes. I like to know where I'm going, what towns I will be visiting, and obviously where all the controls are, although not to the metre. I like to get an idea of hills (for gearing — on fixed, see), and water-replenishment opportunities in hotter weather. But I don't set out with the idea that every moment is pre-mapped, and I'm happy to go off-piste with another rider to visit a monument or stop at a café. Maybe that's just me — or maybe that's just you. But solving your problem is distasteful to many riders who just want to ride their bikes without all this stressing that it seems you do about precisely where everything is.
Quote
Only in a moment of dyslexia, I went left not right, the rest of the instructions kinda match, tho some of the distances are out a little, after half a dozen instructions, I end up in the village of Middlewalllop, and not in the village mentioned on the route sheet. How do I get to the info control on the sign post at a junction at 35km into the route?
Firstly, your mistake for turning the wrong way. For some reason I instinctively know within a few hundred metres when I've gone wrong, so I turn back and double-check; Garmin off-course beeping helps, but I'm usually already thinking it.
And this is one of those points where you narrow the problem to something that doesn't exist. "The sign post at a junction at 35km into the route" — yebbut, that conveniently sweeps the junction at 33.2km out of sight, or the right turn at 35.8km — if you include the other instructions then you can verify to within quite a tight tolerance, certainly enough for redundant verification on a bike ride, where getting the opportunity to ride a road more than once is a bonus. Remember — bike ride, not Mars.
Quote
Except because the route sheet is provided purely as a diff of instructions, where the position of any point on the route is given relative to the previous point of the route, if you don't follow the route as detailed, you can't be sure you're at the right point for the info.
With reference to my above comments, where place names are given in ALL-CAPS, bold or BOTH then you get a rolling redundant verification as you go — you can't ignore it to make your argument, because that's kinda the point of giving place names in ALL-CAPS, bold or BOTH ::-)
Quote
So that if I need to, when I've cycled 50km, the distance the brevet card says it is to the control
Did you check whether the distance given in the brevet is as-routed distance or minimum distance? It's usually minimum distance, which means it's not useful here. Follow the routesheet and the info control will either be at a junction or between two turn instructions, which nicely describes where it is without needing to refer to the distances. Or use a GPS file with a beep of your preferred flavour if you must. But don't rely on any given distance in the brevet unless you know exactly what you're looking at and have accounted for measurement errors of your own (e.g. going off-course for your own reasons, such as to pick up a book that's reserved in your name ...).
Quote
QuoteRide a British event using a British routesheet, then I'll listen to your complaints a bit more. I've ridden brevets in about 20 countries with and without GPX and survived all sorts of routesheets in various languages. I know I've had a lot more trouble following French-style routesheets than British-style.
I appreciate that you and your band of associates are audaxing gods who have done every epic audax available on all continents, and that what you do is the One True Way™. But, if you had started in the situation of having been provided quality GPX files for every ride, that you could just load up onto your Garmin/Wahoo, hit start, and it Just Worked™. Can you not see that coming to an AUK event where you aren't even provided with the location of the controls other than as a relative position from the previous instruction, that this is absolutely fucking insane?!?
Thank you, I'm thinking of getting this comment framed and put up on the wall :thumbsup:
I did not get from LWaB's comment that he was saying "I am an audaxing god" or "this is how it should be", I got from it an experienced opinion comparing styles of routesheets from around the world that indicated that the British version comes out better than the French version upon which the Dutch system is based. Like I said above: bike ride not Mars. The fact you then went on to say as much as "well that's simply not good enough! If you aren't going to agree with me about
Magic :thumbsup:
Quote
I'm boggling that you're boggling ::-)
I use the term boggling as it's the politest I could come up with at 2am...
We're all grown-ups here — say what you mean :demon:
Quote
If not a little kink, then a waypoint/cuepoint/trackpoint/whatever the gpx standard is that allows my device to go "Ping you've arrived!", lets you know you're in the right place.
This is just detail. I think you're a detail person — I like and respect that, but I've learnt to reign it in myself when people around me start rolling their eyes.
Quote
QuoteMaybe, but some of the fun IS decrypting the route, for many participants.
Can we have a quality GPX provided for those of us who want to just ride bikes, rather than a decryption exercise crossed with a treasure hunt?
That's up to the organiser — if they want their events to include a slightly mysterious element then so be it, you don't have to enter. Next you'll be saying I'm not allowed to add information about this castle or that stately home into my routesheet as riders go by ...
Quote
Did I mentioned that it was boggling the mind?
You did. It made me smile :P
Quote
Quote
- Search fields — yep, with you; recognition (by site people), time, resource, budget, etc.
It shouldn't be too hard, should be a bit like the filter results by manufacturer, when searching a site like wiggle. It's basic functionality and a competent programmer shouldn't take too much time to implement it.
Aye, but it won't get done until there are enough tuits to get around. And budget ::-)
Quote
Quote
- ... and it's critical ... — no, it's not, it's just nice-to-have — having a bee in your bonnet about it for 25 pages does not make it anything other than what it has always been ::-)
I think for the long term future of our activity, it is. I wonder how many people get turned away when the route isn't provided as a GPX, but as the cryptic relative positioning system...
No, I think you're mistaken. Have another look at ESL's IKEA reference up-thread — many riders like the fact that some organisers leave gaps, because it gives them the opportunity to fill them and feel like they've contributed. Take away this variance between organisers and audax will have lost much of its community spirit.
Quote
Quote
- ... that those GPX files ... — let me stop you right there — no, No, NO! Technically, TCX files should be the normative standard, because a <CoursePoint> in a TCX is a specific point on the Course (the coordinates will match a node on the line somewhere precisely), whereas a <wpt> in a GPX is an arbitrary point on the map with no corresponding node on the line; you can go from TCX to GPX just fine, converting coursepoints to waypoints, but you cannot go the other way, only some approximation (with some spherical maths). Okay?
- ... controls as waypoints ... — see previous point.
Great, please write a best practice guide line for producing an electronic route file for an audax event that when loaded into a Garmin or Wahoo, Just Works.
Haha — we're back to that thing you've done several times in this thread, i.e. volunteering someone else to do something to change UK audax into something that QG wants :thumbsup:
No, I won't write that, because I wouldn't want someone else to tell me how to create my electronic route files and so I don't expect to inflict the same on anyone else. I like the fact that there is a difference and I am more than capable of fixing it myself when I feel the need.
Quote
QuoteIt seems that, in spite of your bogglingness at the quaint arbitrariness of organisers' navigational provisions here in the UK, I rather fancy it's part of the charm. We (Brits) don't particularly like to be told what to do, and we do very much work to a "good-enough" standard. It's a different approach and, so long as you accept that often it's merely good enough rather than the be-all-and-end-all then you get a sense of what the organiser was thinking, a bit of their personality.
I've noticed. Be careful in your generalisation tho. I hold a British passport.
It wasn't an "us and you" statement, it was merely an observation on the quirks of being British, which have been written about for hundreds of years.
Quote
It occurs to me that Cervantes's novel was the origin of the adjective 'quixotic', and didn't the Dutch invent windmills?
But no, the Dutch did not invent windmills.
Yes, there is a reason I use Quixotic to describe myself. The dictionary describes it as "Caught up in the romance of noble deeds, Idealistic without regard for practicality" It seems to be surprisingly accurate, a lot of the time.
Ah, I think there's an oblique reference that might also seem accurate here ;)
Quote
The bit about place names in ALL-CAPS or bold or BOTH — if you get lost then you find a street sign, or a Policeman, or you knock on someone's door (this is the UK, it's a very nice place full of very nice people who all want to help someone if they can) and ask. You can take a map if you want — I do — but it's not necessary.
Once you get back to that place in ALL-CAPS or bold or BOTH then you're back on route and can continue from there.
But if the info is between the places marked IN BOLD you have to back track to the one before the info, then replay the instructions, *AND* you have to make sure you get into the village to play the directions from the right side, so if you've gone wrong, you read the sheet and it says Little Barming, and the instruction in the village is R @ X SP Greater Barming, you enter the village from the north now, not the south as the route has, there's 3 X roads, you have to go all the way to the end of the village, to turn round, to play the instructions back again.
And in trying to find your way back to to Little Barming to pick up the route, you may actually cycle straight past the sign post with the info control answer on it, but not realise it, as the only way you know where it is, is that it's 3km after the right turn at the cross roads, that was 2km after the left at the T, that was 1km after the straight on at the roundabout.
Have you ever ridden a UK audax? It's surprising how obvious the directions are when riding through a typical village here. And if you do have to ride back past the info and then replay forwards to that point — so what? That's part of the fun and a story to tell :thumbsup:
Anyway, part of me does think it would be your fault for getting lost in the first place, so you reap what you sow — yes, audax is about the distance, but navigation is also part of the undertaking, and not trivialised navigation, but whatever navigation the organiser deems appropriate.
Quote
QuoteAs it happens, I do try to always add a note when an instruction is within a previously-mentioned place specifically for this purpose; there's not always space, but I do try, e.g. "L @ TL $ GT SHELFORD" and then "In Gt Shelford, R opp PO $ WHITTLESFORD", although the Post Office has since closed, as has the bank opposite. But I'm just one amongst many.
What does the GPX for your route say?
Who cares? My point was not about proving routesheet is better than GPS; rather, my point was to respond your argument about it being all-but-impossible to get back on route using the routesheet once you'd decided (intentionally or otherwise) to leave it. I've responded, my point is valid and such instructions would be accurate, useful, and efficacious to the point that if you decided to follow the DNA Path instead of Trumpington Road out of Cambridge, you could still turn right at the correct junction to return to the given route. So having proved that your argument on this point is flawed, there's no point arguing it — and certainly no point trying to dump into it to try to win, as that's what you appear to be doing.
Quote
What do you think we did in the days before GPX?
Not know that things could be done a different or better way?
At least with Dutch events, since things have moved to being primarily GPX based, the routes have become a lot more winding and convoluted, because rather than requiring half a page of instructions to describe such a route, the GPS just draws it on the screen. The routes events take now vs the pre GPX era, at least here, differ.
In your opinion, QG — in your opinion. Now, I'd hate to have to refer back to your gratuitous labels "audaxing gods" and "the One True Way™", but when you say things like this then it does rather appear like you might be trying to attach those labels to yourself.
I'll give you an example: I started this malarkey on routesheets only back in 2012 and told my new-found audaxing friends that I would only move to GPS when I had mastered routesheets. I got my first Garmin after my fourth or fifth ride, simply because I wanted to record my efforts for comparison. I switched to navigating by GPS, but soon added routesheets back into the mix, because I found following the beeps of the BlinkenMachinen took a lot of the fun out of the ride for me. I now ride to the routesheet, with the beep-box set to ONLY tell me when I've gone off-course, and when I've arrived at controls — best of both worlds :thumbsup:
I steer clear of beep-only events, or else I write my own routesheet from StreetView (it's good practice for me, as I have some long ones coming up that need doing this way) and effectively check my work (oh yes) while riding the event itself :facepalm:
Quote
I appreciate that for many events there is a 3rd party created GPX, but how can you be sure to trust it? How can you be sure that it will go past the correct info control location?
You learn to trust some electronical-route creators more than others, same as anything else on t'Internet. And, anyway, so long as the selected route hits all the controls in the right order then it's just a bike ride, it's not Mars :thumbsup:
Post by: S2L on 24 May, 2019, 12:03:27 pm
I wonder how many events (no doubt collectively, hundreds) some of the contributors to this thread rode before the advent of GPS.
Does it matter?
GPS has opened the door to more events in areas where you are restricted to use lanes. When a routesheet has 200 lines of instruction (mine has ONLY 142), then you begin to see the point of technology.
We are not all blessed with having the great outdoors at hand and a choice of a road that goes south and one that goes north.
I think you should enter the "London Sightseer" and navigate it by routesheet... ;D
Post by: megajoulesexpenditure on 24 May, 2019, 12:03:40 pm
Post by: rob on 24 May, 2019, 12:07:44 pm
I think you should enter the "London Sightseer" and navigate it by routesheet... ;D
Have done. Lovely day out.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 12:10:11 pm
I think you should enter the "London Sightseer" and navigate it by routesheet... ;D
Have done. Lovely day out.
Utterly brilliant — the routesheet for 100km was the same number of pages as my routesheet for PBP 2015 at twelve pages! Definitely the hardest route to navigate by routesheet, because it is relentless — I loved it :thumbsup:
Post by: Tail End Charlie on 24 May, 2019, 12:10:33 pm
If you can follow a recipe close enough to make a decent cake then you can follow a routesheet. You already have that skill :thumbsup:
Doesn't matter, following either a routesheet or a gpx, you'll end up at cake.
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 24 May, 2019, 12:11:36 pm
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 12:13:34 pm
Doing the Sightseer by GPX alone is at least as hard as by routesheet alone, though either method is harder than using both simultaneously.
Especially the bits where the "canyon effect" causes your GPS to place you somewhere out in the middle of the River Thames ;D
Post by: zigzag on 24 May, 2019, 12:14:42 pm
*receive the info from the organiser (description page, routesheet, hopefully a gpx file or a link to it)
*if i have time, go through the routesheet and write down all the controls and distances on a post-it or similar
*trim the post-it and attach it to the stem or a top tube
*upload the gpx file to my head unit (if gpx not available, ask on here if anyone's got it - but most likely i would not be entering such event in the first place)
*make sure both my phone and gps device is fully charged and i have a fully charged power bank with me
during the ride:
*just follow the line on the gps unit (i used to save waypoints for controls before, but not anymore as i don't find them necessary - provided that the gpx track is accurate)
*occasionaly glance at my cheat-sheet on the stem to see how far is the next control or info
*repeat until arrivee
*if the gps unit packs up for some reason (highly unlikely), there's always the phone with maps and gps reception, or wait for other riders go past
sometimes i don't prepare a cheat-sheet and just use a brevet card in my back pocket as a substitute - especially good for the info controls. there were a handful of occasions (in ten years) when i was in conversation with another rider and we'd miss an info - just retraced and filled it in - no big deal.
Post by: S2L on 24 May, 2019, 12:15:20 pm
Doing the Sightseer by GPX alone is at least as hard as by routesheet alone, though either method is harder than using both simultaneously.
The newer devices with the latest mapping are brilliant at navigating in cities. Mine is an old breadcrumb trail thing, which is only good for more rural areas and less congested towns.
Technology evolves all the time, route sheets are always the same, so the gap grows bigger every day.
Post by: grams on 24 May, 2019, 12:26:53 pm
But I agree 100% that the "routesheet first" approach makes no sense in a world where the overwhelming majority of riders aren't using it. Putting crucial information there and nowhere else (like the location of info controls) is asking for riders to ignore them and ask someone at the next control.
If I had my druthers I'd relieve organisers of the requirement to provide routesheets at all if they don't fancy it. Since all but a few produce a GPX anyway, this results in a net reduction of work. Any important route notes can be moved to the rider notes document, where riders might see them.
Post by: Wobbly on 24 May, 2019, 12:33:52 pm
I wonder how many events (no doubt collectively, hundreds) some of the contributors to this thread rode before the advent of GPS.
Does it matter?
GPS has opened the door to more events in areas where you are restricted to use lanes. When a routesheet has 200 lines of instruction (mine has ONLY 142), then you begin to see the point of technology.
We are not all blessed with having the great outdoors at hand and a choice of a road that goes south and one that goes north.
I think you should enter the "London Sightseer" and navigate it by routesheet... ;D
Does it matter? Even if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?*
*gratuitous Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quote.
Of course it matters. Everyone who knows me knows I am fanatical about navigation! GPS or Route Sheet I *NEVER* go off route. Ever.
I present Exhibit 1: LEL 2017, track of me riding through Barton-Upon-Humber
(click to show/hide)
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 12:46:38 pm
But I agree 100% that the "routesheet first" approach makes no sense in a world where the overwhelming majority of riders aren't using it. Putting crucial information there and nowhere else (like the location of info controls) is asking for riders to ignore them and ask someone at the next control.
If I had my druthers I'd relieve organisers of the requirement to provide routesheets at all if they don't fancy it. Since all but a few produce a GPX anyway, this results in a net reduction of work. Any important route notes can be moved to the rider notes document, where riders might see them.
Hmm, thank you for your charity, Graham. Unfortunately, I think it's misplaced.
Firstly, let's agree that many riders don't read the information that organisers give them, no matter what format it's given in. I happen to include the info control information in three paper-based locations (brevet, routesheet and ride notes or information sheet), as well as one digital location (website) — but that does not mean that everyone reads it.
Secondly, "routesheet first" is a very good way of checking and risk-assessing a route, and is in fact better than a line on a map in isolation; both together is better still.
Thirdly, there are many AUK organisers who have been organising events longer than GPS has been a commodity facility — you appear to be suggesting that they should change their mindset to accommodate your digital proclivities? Surely organisers can prepare their events exactly how they please, so long as the basics are covered.
Fourthly, I don't think organisers are required to provide routesheets by AUK — I don't recall such a stipulation. I do recall being asked for a routesheet, but I don't know what would've happened if I had told them that I would prefer to submit an electronic route instead. Certainly, the current AUK recommended practice is for a routesheet first; however, newer organisers than me may have a more recently different experience?
Fifthly, you've fallen into QG's trap of very narrow definitions being broad-brushed over all events — you suggested that info control locations are only buried in the routesheet, but only you suggested that. As I've mentioned above, for my events it appears in many places, and yet I still get riders who didn't know. But, categorically, my info-control locations are NOT restricted to the routesheet — and nor are many others. Even if they were, the fact that there ARE info controls on any event should, surely, prompt all users to ask themselves "where?" during their pre-ride preparations?
And finally, what you're suggesting, by omitting the creation of routesheets from events, is that those riders who want a routesheet will be denied. That seems like a forward step at the cost of traditionalists. Given that audax/randoneurring is a very traditional passtime on two/three/four wheels, why would anyone want to modernise it so much that it no longer resembles where it came from?
So, by charitably offering to lighten the burden on organisers, you also end up reducing audax to a beep-fest and alienate people who prefer to think while they ride their bike. Believe me when I tell you that writing the routesheet takes an insignificant length of time compared to riding the route-check and then running the event on the day — what exactly would be saved for me, the organiser, by omitting the routesheet?
Post by: Redlight on 24 May, 2019, 12:48:15 pm
I present Exhibit 1: LEL 2017, track of me riding through Barton-Upon-Humber
Ah. So it was YOU that was following me...
Post by: tom_e on 24 May, 2019, 12:49:06 pm
There are arguments aplenty on the internet, sure, but broadly speaking people are riding the bikes in the way they choose to, all under the auspices of AUK. It's almost a demonstration of a fairly healthy amount of decoupling between AUK and individual organisers. Or is that just me being glass-half-full?
Post by: Wobbly on 24 May, 2019, 12:49:28 pm
I present Exhibit 1: LEL 2017, track of me riding through Barton-Upon-Humber
Ah. So it was YOU that was following me...
In my defence I was very, very hungry ;D
Post by: Redlight on 24 May, 2019, 12:53:10 pm
Can I just say I think Audax UK has actually handled this quite well. The hands-off approach to allowing individual organisers to do their own thing (within limits), then providing information on the website about each, and lettings riders make their own choices which have probably gradually favoured newer options has, I think, managed to keep most people on board somewhere.
There are arguments aplenty on the internet, sure, but broadly speaking people are riding the bikes in the way they choose to, all under the auspices of AUK. It's almost a demonstration of a fairly healthy amount of decoupling between AUK and individual organisers. Or is that just me being glass-half-full?
This. In spades.
Or as Wilkyboy put it: Surely organisers can prepare their events exactly how they please, so long as the basics are covered.
If you have to have a GPS track and the organiser hasn't chosen to produce one, you can easily do it yourself. (Indeed, I choose to do that even where one is provided as I like to know where I'm going and have an image of the route in my mind just in case something goes wrong and I need to find my way to the nearest town with a railway station.) If that's too much effort, then perhaps you should be taking part in more expensive events where the route is signposted.
Post by: tom_e on 24 May, 2019, 12:55:42 pm
I'm pretty confident it should be more successful than my attempt to ride 200km to the seaside entirely using NCN signs without cheating. That was probably audacious. I did accidentally arrive back in one village an hour after I left it.
Post by: Wycombewheeler on 24 May, 2019, 12:59:30 pm
Might not be the best example as navigating by gps in the urban canyons is not easy either.
I wonder how many events (no doubt collectively, hundreds) some of the contributors to this thread rode before the advent of GPS.
Does it matter?
GPS has opened the door to more events in areas where you are restricted to use lanes. When a routesheet has 200 lines of instruction (mine has ONLY 142), then you begin to see the point of technology.
We are not all blessed with having the great outdoors at hand and a choice of a road that goes south and one that goes north.
I think you should enter the "London Sightseer" and navigate it by routesheet... ;D
Post by: lmm on 24 May, 2019, 01:08:22 pm
I've not had a routesheet try to direct me through a field yet as they (should) reflect what the rider actually sees on the road. That farmer's field isn't hypothetical. It was during the first Sydney-Melbourne 1200 and the GPS units showed it on turn by turn cues.
I'd suggest that it's easier to have a routesheet point into a field (just need a left/right mixup) than a GPX (which can prepared as a recording of where someone actually rode if that's your approach - just ride the same ride you'd do to prepare a routesheet, automatically recording instead of manually writing directions), and the reason you've not had it happen is that organisers generally put a lot more time and effort into their routesheets than into their GPX files. Which is my whole complaint!
Let's take your point about describing the location of info controls. Now, I have had the privilege to ride quite a few events in the past seven years of mid-life crisis, i.e. audax — somewhere over 100 I think, possibly more, it doesn't really matter. Most don't have infos, but some do. In spite of everything that you have so far suggested as being so faulty or so broken that you think it's "absolutely fucking insane", I have NEVER had a problem locating an info control.
No doubt I've ridden considerably fewer audax than you, but as I posted before I did miss the info and it did spoil my day considerably. I think that was my 5th ever brevet, so either I'm spectacularly unlucky/lazy/stupid or it's actually quite easy to do. (Actually my very first brevet had a similar error - it was just sheer luck that in that case the waypoint was marked 5km early rather than 5km late). Newcomers who use the routesheet have no trouble finding infos, because the organisers put the effort in to make the routesheet clear. Old hands who learnt to read routesheets can fall back to the routesheet if the GPX is unclear. But a newcomer who sees the organiser sent out a GPX, assumes that that GPX will be enough, and doesn't bother practising the arcane art of routesheet reading (because why would they?) then suddenly comes unstuck partway round, because the organiser is not putting the same effort in to help them out. Why is it that if the info location isn't obvious on the routesheet we blame the organiser, but if it isn't obvious on the GPX we blame the rider?
Bonus example: the ride I'm doing tomorrow, which was explicitly advertised as newcomer friendly, had a route up on RideWithGPS with the controls marked. Conscientious newcomers will have downloaded the track with the waypoints, checked that they could see how it all works on their device, and then received an email a few weeks back from the organiser, advising them to delete any track they've downloaded from RideWithGPS and replace it with the attached updated version... which doesn't have any waypoints on. Yes, a careful enough rider who puts enough effort in will spot this kind of trap. But they shouldn't have to; we don't get organisers sending out a routesheet update with all the infos missing.
Post by: rob on 24 May, 2019, 01:14:21 pm
I present Exhibit 1: LEL 2017, track of me riding through Barton-Upon-Humber
Ah. So it was YOU that was following me...
Seriously, lads, it's the big thing that looks like a bridge. Or was that Southbound ?
Post by: telstarbox on 24 May, 2019, 01:15:48 pm
I'm not anti technology at all - keen user of Strava, smartphone, social media etc. But routesheets work fine for me and many other Audaxers.
Post by: lmm on 24 May, 2019, 01:28:43 pm
Fifthly, you've fallen into QG's trap of very narrow definitions being broad-brushed over all events — you suggested that info control locations are only buried in the routesheet, but only you suggested that. As I've mentioned above, for my events it appears in many places, and yet I still get riders who didn't know. But, categorically, my info-control locations are NOT restricted to the routesheet — and nor are many others. Even if they were, the fact that there ARE info controls on any event should, surely, prompt all users to ask themselves "where?" during their pre-ride preparations?It does happen, frequently. Just asking where it is isn't enough - email and brevet card say "place", routesheet reveals it's in fact the roundabout on the edge going into "place". Or, in one case, the signpost to "place" from previous place.
Many events offer good route information to all riders. But far too many don't.
Quote
Thirdly, there are many AUK organisers who have been organising events longer than GPS has been a commodity facility — you appear to be suggesting that they should change their mindset to accommodate your digital proclivities? Surely organisers can prepare their events exactly how they please, so long as the basics are covered.
Quote
And finally, what you're suggesting, by omitting the creation of routesheets from events, is that those riders who want a routesheet will be denied. That seems like a forward step at the cost of traditionalists.
Surely you see the hypocrisy here? Either we can demand that organisers support both approaches for the benefit of riders, or we can permit organisers to have their own proclivities. But we shouldn't privilege one kind of rider over another.
Quote
Given that audax/randoneurring is a very traditional passtime on two/three/four wheels
It has a proud tradition of innovation as well. The first audax were all about showing off new technology (bicycles). And the fact that audax permits more innovative bike design than the traditionalist UCI is why I do it, personally.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 01:41:34 pm
I'd suggest that it's easier to have a routesheet point into a field (just need a left/right mixup) than a GPX (which can prepared as a recording of where someone actually rode if that's your approach - just ride the same ride you'd do to prepare a routesheet, automatically recording instead of manually writing directions), and the reason you've not had it happen is that organisers generally put a lot more time and effort into their routesheets than into their GPX files. Which is my whole complaint!
Erm, I think using recorded tracks as the primary basis for a distributable course/route is a really bad idea, for several reasons:
- What if the organiser/rider/recorder goes off route at some point? Then you've got errors in the route.
- Who's going to check the organiser/rider/recorder's course/route if it has been recorded on the route-check itself? The riders on the day, I suspect, so any errors cannot be spotted until during the event.
Possibly use a recorded track as the basis to trace a proper line — but I would always expect someone to test ride it before the event, just to be sure — or else entrust it to someone with experience of doing this and an eye for spotting mistakes on-screen.
Quote
Let's take your point about describing the location of info controls. Now, I have had the privilege to ride quite a few events in the past seven years of mid-life crisis, i.e. audax — somewhere over 100 I think, possibly more, it doesn't really matter. Most don't have infos, but some do. In spite of everything that you have so far suggested as being so faulty or so broken that you think it's "absolutely fucking insane", I have NEVER had a problem locating an info control.
No doubt I've ridden considerably fewer audax than you, but as I posted before I did miss the info and it did spoil my day considerably. I think that was my 5th ever brevet, so either I'm spectacularly unlucky/lazy/stupid or it's actually quite easy to do. (Actually my very first brevet had a similar error - it was just sheer luck that in that case the waypoint was marked 5km early rather than 5km late). Newcomers who use the routesheet have no trouble finding infos, because the organisers put the effort in to make the routesheet clear. Old hands who learnt to read routesheets can fall back to the routesheet if the GPX is unclear. But a newcomer who sees the organiser sent out a GPX, assumes that that GPX will be enough, and doesn't bother practising the arcane art of routesheet reading (because why would they?) then suddenly comes unstuck partway round, because the organiser is not putting the same effort in to help them out. Why is it that if the info location isn't obvious on the routesheet we blame the organiser, but if it isn't obvious on the GPX we blame the rider?
Bonus example: the ride I'm doing tomorrow, which was explicitly advertised as newcomer friendly, had a route up on RideWithGPS with the controls marked. Conscientious newcomers will have downloaded the track with the waypoints, checked that they could see how it all works on their device, and then received an email a few weeks back from the organiser, advising them to delete any track they've downloaded from RideWithGPS and replace it with the attached updated version... which doesn't have any waypoints on. Yes, a careful enough rider who puts enough effort in will spot this kind of trap. But they shouldn't have to; we don't get organisers sending out a routesheet update with all the infos missing.
As for expecting the organiser to provide everything to the nth-level of detail, nah ... The basis of audax in the UK is that you ride through given controls in the given order, obtaining proofs-of-passage and answering any questions as you go. Everything else — including caik at the finish — is above-and-beyond.
The problem I have with your statement "assumes that that GPX will be enough" is that on the most common devices, i.e. Garmin eTrex series and Edge series*, the rider will get zero assistance from the device unless they set it up first — on eTrex that means setting up proximity alarms and on Edge that means finding an alternative TCX with CoursePoints embedded. Which means newbies are almost bound to come unstuck using new-fangled BlinkenMachinen rather than relying on traditional paper-based navigation. Literally, that GPX is NOT enough!
Which means that experienced organisers will already know this and will human methods to address the problem — they'll tell riders what to expect, probably in more than one place, and I certainly do this on the start line, too. New organisers have yet to learn — that's why they are mentored, and it would be one of the many things I would pick up with a mentee, if relevant.
The "why?" of that event's latest track issue may contain the answer. I could not comment on it, as I'm not involved, but rushing a job like that can introduce additional errors, which is why I've automated it for my events.
* FWIW, I don't know how Kazoo's respond to waypoints in GPX files.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 24 May, 2019, 01:50:25 pm
...I'm in looking at these route sheets in disbelief. How on earth do people actually navigate from them? If you make a single wrong turn, how do you find your way back on to route?
I genuinely laughed out loud when I read that. :)
I wonder how many events (no doubt collectively, hundreds) some of the contributors to this thread rode before the advent of GPS.
I have to say this thread reminds me of someone whose only experience is watching episodes of Star Trek lecturing Wernher Von Braun on how to build rockets.
Do keep it up :thumbsup:
It's got to proper levels of LOL now.
I was bought my first GPS this year. How did I manage for so many years ?
I wonder how I and many other navigators have manged to get various types of machinery around country lanes both with and without time schedules and with and without secret/known control locations for at least the last 70 years with variations of the routesheet concept if it's as "boggling" as QG seems to think it is.
I think most of my previous grumbling and ranting (the pot stirring is another matter) on this thread was due to people trying to claim creating a route for GPS usage is "rocket science" while pointing out the one major routing issue when trying to plot from route instructions, but claiming that a route sheet giving a series of instructions to follow is "boggling"... that's just pure bampottery.
If you need to see an idea of where you're going then you can easily get a good enough idea from either picking up a road atlas or using a google maps trace without the locations of the info controls on it.
For the Great North road all I wanted to see was that it was basically a ride down the A1 and back (but obviously not on the A1) and that in reality I was never far from civilization or a railway station.
For Over the hill and back this weekend, I can see it's basically 3 outbound legs in the middle of nowhere between places (Gala to Brampton, to Alston to Barnard Castle and back); I knew that long before I had the route sheet because Megajoulesexpenditure put that in the pre-entry ride info.
That also then lets me use google maps to find out what is in the places we're controlling, I'm half hoping to get a fish supper from the chipper in Barnard Castle.
If you can follow a recipe close enough to make a decent cake then you can follow a routesheet. You already have that skill :thumbsup:
Doesn't matter, following either a routesheet or a gpx, you'll end up at cake.
Ultimately they put out the same instructions just in a different format...
Firstly, let's agree that many riders don't read the information that organisers give them, no matter what format it's given in.
Aye, when I've organized hiking weekends even the most organized of people seem to want me to answer questions they already had in their e-mail inbox from me.
I'm happy enough to redirect them to that e-mail... it doesn't always go down well with the recipient right enough.
Quote from: wilkyboy
Fourthly, I don't think organisers are required to provide routesheets by AUK — I don't recall such a stipulation. I do recall being asked for a routesheet, but I don't know what would've happened if I had told them that I would prefer to submit an electronic route instead. Certainly, the current AUK recommended practice is for a routesheet first; however, newer organisers than me may have a more recently different experience?
Writing out a route sheet forces you to think of every junction as you write it and to follow the route in some way or other whether that's on a map, street view, bike or in a car.
It's better if the route creator actually rides (or at least drives) it though.
Even then peoples perception of what should be in there differs.
I've had the clerk of the course instruct me to add notes (a hump back bridge) to one I've written.
Dad told me of a time he was in a time keepers car and the International level driver suggested the lump in the road they'd just got air borne over should have been in the instructions he'd been shouting.
Only wanting a map trace allows you to produce a route on paper having never experienced it in some way, that of course doesn't allow for when there is a large gap between the experience and the here and now.
See the fuss in the Inverness 1200 thread about using the A82
Talking of which I need to prepare my map trace route for the GPS for the 1000.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 01:52:58 pm
For now I would like to reiterate some points, which people keep twisting or misinterpreting.
1) I am not anti Route sheet. I am not saying people should not use them. I am surprised by some of the arguments given to prove they are better than all other alternatives. And I dispute that they are as accessible as some think. But I am not saying we should ban them, abolish them, or anything of the kind.
2) I *am* shocked that people do not feel that information on control locations, especially info controls shouldn't be detailed on the route sheet as an absolute position, be it an address, os grid ref, or a lat/long. That people think that it is not only acceptable, but *right* that positions should only be expressed as relative to other locations, confuses me. I just can't get my head round this thought process. It may make sense when you've riden a few dozen events this way. But for someone discovering this fact for the first time. I find it utterly bizarre.
3) I wish it was easier to see which events do provide a GPX, and wish there was clear guidelines on what makes a good quality GPX file. I'm currently making plans for 2020, and fully intend to do at least one AUK calendar event, and want to make sure I can easily find an event that provides a good GPX, so I can enjoy the ride, enjoy the scenery, and enjoy the cake. All without having to worry about a treasure hunt.
I'll reply to other points later, I just wanted to clarify these points.
Thanks
J
Post by: lmm on 24 May, 2019, 02:00:13 pm
As for expecting the organiser to provide everything to the nth-level of detail, nah ... The basis of audax in the UK is that you ride through given controls in the given order, obtaining proofs-of-passage and answering any questions as you go. Everything else — including caik at the finish — is above-and-beyond.I agree 100% with that much. I don't expect or need cake or drink or mechanical assistance. But I do expect organisers to communicate the control locations; that is part of the basics.
Quote
The problem I have with your statement "assumes that that GPX will be enough" is that on the most common devices, i.e. Garmin eTrex series and Edge series*, the rider will get zero assistance from the device unless they set it up first — on eTrex that means setting up proximity alarms and on Edge that means finding an alternative TCX with CoursePoints embedded. Which means newbies are almost bound to come unstuck using new-fangled BlinkenMachinen rather than relying on traditional paper-based navigation. Literally, that GPX is NOT enough!If the rider fails to understand their particular device or set it up correctly, that's on them. But if the organiser provides an incomplete file, there's little the rider can do about that.
I honestly believe that most newcomers have a better chance of getting round with GPX than with paper, for all the reasons in this thread, and I believe that's reflected in what most of them choose to do. In any case, any failures of GPX devices are no excuse to provide worse files (some devices ignore waypoints, but I don't believe any devices break on them, so leaving them out benefits no-one)
Quote
Which means that experienced organisers will already know this and will human methods to address the problem — they'll tell riders what to expect, probably in more than one place, and I certainly do this on the start line, too. New organisers have yet to learn — that's why they are mentored, and it would be one of the many things I would pick up with a mentee, if relevant.Glad to hear it. If you're making the locations of all your controls clear without reference to the routesheet then that's all I'm asking for. Again, either I've been spectacularly unlucky with the relatively small number of events I've done, or many organisers aren't.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 02:02:45 pm
Fifthly, you've fallen into QG's trap of very narrow definitions being broad-brushed over all events — you suggested that info control locations are only buried in the routesheet, but only you suggested that. As I've mentioned above, for my events it appears in many places, and yet I still get riders who didn't know. But, categorically, my info-control locations are NOT restricted to the routesheet — and nor are many others. Even if they were, the fact that there ARE info controls on any event should, surely, prompt all users to ask themselves "where?" during their pre-ride preparations?It does happen, frequently. Just asking where it is isn't enough - email and brevet card say "place", routesheet reveals it's in fact the roundabout on the edge going into "place". Or, in one case, the signpost to "place" from previous place.
Many events offer good route information to all riders. But far too many don't.
Agreed — however, you seem to be working on the basis that two is five too many.
Quote
QuoteThirdly, there are many AUK organisers who have been organising events longer than GPS has been a commodity facility — you appear to be suggesting that they should change their mindset to accommodate your digital proclivities? Surely organisers can prepare their events exactly how they please, so long as the basics are covered.QuoteAnd finally, what you're suggesting, by omitting the creation of routesheets from events, is that those riders who want a routesheet will be denied. That seems like a forward step at the cost of traditionalists.
Surely you see the hypocrisy here? Either we can demand that organisers support both approaches for the benefit of riders, or we can permit organisers to have their own proclivities. But we shouldn't privilege one kind of rider over another.
Thank you — Happy Friday! I managed to get to nearly 2pm without being called a hypocrite ;)
I don't actually see it as hypocrisy, lmm, rather dealing with multiple audiences: a traditional audience who like a bit of paper, and an audience that wants the organiser to do everything bar turn the pedals. There is of course a third audience who like both, and just for good measure we'll lump in those who don't give a toss either way. I like the traditional audience — and as an organiser then that's my prerogative. I like new-fangled, too — me likes me toys*. And I like new riders who are all wide-eyed at the prospect of Riding Quite A Long Way and I help them with little hints and tips and encouragement before the event (where I know they're new to it all).
However, when you use words like "demand" in relation to what is a totally volunteer-led hobby then I start to feel the need to peel back your argument and lay it bare. YOU are demanding, I am merely pointing out that you have no specific right to demand. Orgs offer an experience; riders can accept that offer on the org's terms — but note which way around that is. You can try negotiating with me on some point or other and I might or might not acquiesce, but ultimately it is my choice whether to either accept your counter-offer, or even negotiate in the first place.
Anyway, argumentative-jousting aside, you misread my statement and my intent, or else took it out of context. If you read back, Graham was saying "digital first!" and I was pushing back and telling him "exactly as they please!" — with respect to how organisers go about preparing their events — there was no hypocrisy in that (or else you're going to have to explain it to me more clearly). You seem to have taken that to mean I won't supply digital files, but will supply a routesheet. I think, perhaps, you need to have a look at any one of my event pages (although none are live at the moment, as no events currently scheduled, but this (https://www.camaudax.uk/cea) is a typical one) and then reconsider your statement ;)
Quote
QuoteGiven that audax/randoneurring is a very traditional passtime on two/three/four wheels
It has a proud tradition of innovation as well. The first audax were all about showing off new technology (bicycles). And the fact that audax permits more innovative bike design than the traditionalist UCI is why I do it, personally.
No, not really, not any longer — certainly not in the UK. The commoditisation of fancy plastics (I know that I've used the C-word previously today, sorry) means riders are turning up with cheap, off-the-shelf bikes that may or may not be UCI-compliant, but are more than sufficient for audax and, more importantly, nobody really gives a toss. The bikes that draw most attention seem to be those that are a bit different — E-gos, vélos, fixies, bromptons, a few classic steel tourers.
The kit on the bikes can be interesting, but it's all an aside to the actual event — lights, computers, bikepacking bags, gravel set-ups — but nothing really related to pushing the envelope, IMO.
I always think it's more about getting the most out of what's available than "innovation" per se. At the end of the day, everyone still has to turn their own pedals themselves (tandems aside).
My point is this: audax has never lost its traditions; going all-digital would be a great loss to the ethos of the community, and a big step away from what is — and what I hope continues to be — "randonneuring" in the UK.
* I'm just not allowed new ones very often.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 24 May, 2019, 02:05:43 pm
2) I *am* shocked that people do not feel that information on control locations, especially info controls shouldn't be detailed on the route sheet as an absolute position, be it an address, os grid ref, or a lat/long. That people think that it is not only acceptable, but *right* that positions should only be expressed as relative to other locations, confuses me. I just can't get my head round this thought process. It may make sense when you've riden a few dozen events this way. But for someone discovering this fact for the first time. I find it utterly bizarre.
An OS Grid Ref is only of use if
1) you have a map and a romer
2) you have a device that shows OSG36 grid references
A lat/log is only of use
1) if you have a device that shows them
2) you are sitting in front of a computer with mapping software open
And address is only useful if the info control actually has an address.
The sign post at the junction where the C123 (Unclassified road) and the B9653 meet does not have an address beyond what you can already work out from that description, and that description is longhand of what a well written routesheet tells you.
Also giving the address of a house may give away the info question...
What's the name of the house at the junction of the C123 and B9653 when turned into an address may be "The old Mill, Farmington, Galashiels"; if you then redacted the house name when you go to Farmington on google maps or on the ground you discover it's an area, 50000 square meters of field with a house at each of 6 junctions.
So the useful information you're left with is the description of the junction...
Part of the uselessness of the uk postal system for location finding is that unlike the Dutch and German postal systems which demand exact addressing, the UK one doesn't.
I can still write a postcard to my gran that has got nothing more than her name and the town she lives in on it.
Post by: zigzag on 24 May, 2019, 02:10:24 pm
2) I *am* shocked that people do not feel that information on control locations, especially info controls shouldn't be detailed on the route sheet as an absolute position, be it an address, os grid ref, or a lat/long. That people think that it is not only acceptable, but *right* that positions should only be expressed as relative to other locations, confuses me. I just can't get my head round this thought process. It may make sense when you've riden a few dozen events this way. But for someone discovering this fact for the first time. I find it utterly bizarre.
this is totally a non-issue and nothing to be shocked about. let's say an info is in the village at 83km. ride into the village, double check the brevet card. it says "name of a cottage opposite a post box". you keep riding through the village until you spot a post box (they are usually red). slow down, note the name of the cottage and carry on. why would you need any other superfluous references?
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 02:12:20 pm
An OS Grid Ref is only of use if
1) you have a map
2) you have a device that shows OSG36 grid references
My smart phone can handle this quite happily. And doesn't need signal to do so. Such info would be provided along side what is currently provided by the route sheet as relative instructions. Belt + braces.
Quote
A lat/log is only of use
1) if you have a device that shows them
2) you are sitting in front of a computer with mapping software open
My smart phone can handle this quite happily. And doesn't need signal to do so. Such info would be provided along side what is currently provided by the route sheet as relative instructions. Belt + braces.
Quote
And address is only useful if the info control actually has an address.
The sign post at the junction where the C123 (Unclassified road) and the B9653 meet does not have an address beyond what you can already work out from that description, and that description is longhand of what the routesheet tells you.
Also giving the address of a house may give away the info question...
What's the name of the house at the junction of the C123 and B9653 when turned into an address may be "The old Mill, Farmington, Galashiels"; if you then redacted the house name when you go to Farmington on google maps you discover it's an area, 50000 square meters of field with a house at each of 6 junctions.
So the useful information you're left with is the description of the junction...
Junction or C133 and B9653 is enough, if also coupled with Is grid or lat/long... Surely.
J
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 02:23:46 pm
<snip>
My smart phone can handle this quite happily. And doesn't need signal to do so. Such info would be provided along side what is currently provided by the route sheet as relative instructions. Belt + braces.
<snip>
My smart phone can handle this quite happily. And doesn't need signal to do so. Such info would be provided along side what is currently provided by the route sheet as relative instructions. Belt + braces.
Junction or C133 and B9653 is enough, if also coupled with Is grid or lat/long... Surely.
I just feel the need to point out two things:
- OBVIOUSLY that presumes riders know what to do with their phone to get to that information;
- LESS obviously that presumes the organiser does too!
- And it also presumes that all riders have phones capable of showing that level of detail.
Three things :facepalm:
I hear you — but as an organiser, I'm going to ignore you, because on a UK event I think grid refs are actually SCARIER than either a dot on the screen or a human-readable textual description for first-timers (your emphasis does appear to be towards getting newbies into this game), and old-timers won't need that level of detail and will be confident in the other ::-)
If you did enter one of my events then I would source and provide you with lat/long or grid-ref info if you felt you needed it and asked, but not in any of the published materials.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 24 May, 2019, 02:31:02 pm
on a UK event I think grid refs are actually SCARIER than either a dot on the screen or a human-readable textual description for first-timers
I agree with you on that; Grid Refs require navigational skills that while necessary on our unwaymarked hills are unnecessary on roads.
I may be justifiable if the route is "Rough Stuff" and wild enough to demand map skills.
S/O @ X - Fords of Avon Refuge is perhaps a tad too understated.
Post by: megajoulesexpenditure on 24 May, 2019, 02:31:26 pm
If you can follow a recipe close enough to make a decent cake then you can follow a routesheet. You already have that skill :thumbsup:
Doesn't matter, following either a routesheet or a gpx, you'll end up at cake.
Post by: grams on 24 May, 2019, 02:35:24 pm
- OBVIOUSLY that presumes riders know what to do with their phone to get to that information;
- LESS obviously that presumes the organiser does too!
- And it also presumes that all riders have phones capable of showing that level of detail.
Yes, but the status quo, where for many events the only way to find out the location of an info control is to reverse engineer it from the route sheet, makes even more presumptions of any rider who foolishly thought the GPX file would be enough to get them round and validated.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 02:40:08 pm
- OBVIOUSLY that presumes riders know what to do with their phone to get to that information;
- LESS obviously that presumes the organiser does too!
- And it also presumes that all riders have phones capable of showing that level of detail.
Yes, but the status quo, where for many events the only way to find out the location of an info control is to reverse engineer it from the route sheet, makes even more presumptions of any rider who foolishly thought the GPX file would be enough to get them round and validated.
Restating a previous point doesn't invalidate the counter argument presented to that previous point, Graham — keep up! —
The problem I have with your statement "assumes that that GPX will be enough" is that on the most common devices, i.e. Garmin eTrex series and Edge series*, the rider will get zero assistance from the device unless they set it up first — on eTrex that means setting up proximity alarms and on Edge that means finding an alternative TCX with CoursePoints embedded. Which means newbies are almost bound to come unstuck using new-fangled BlinkenMachinen rather than relying on traditional paper-based navigation. Literally, that GPX is NOT enough!
Which means that experienced organisers will already know this and will human methods to address the problem — they'll tell riders what to expect, probably in more than one place, and I certainly do this on the start line, too. New organisers have yet to learn — that's why they are mentored, and it would be one of the many things I would pick up with a mentee, if relevant.
* FWIW, I don't know how Kazoo's respond to waypoints in GPX files.
Post by: Kim on 24 May, 2019, 03:01:06 pm
I hear you — but as an organiser, I'm going to ignore you, because on a UK event I think grid refs are actually SCARIER than either a dot on the screen or a human-readable textual description for first-timers
Erm, if there's a dot on the screen, you've provided a grid ref. Job done. Sorted.
Human-readable textual description is clearly a nice to have.
Post by: lmm on 24 May, 2019, 03:18:59 pm
Agreed — however, you seem to be working on the basis that two is five too many.Well, two of my first five events gave no control locations except on the routesheet or gave an incorrect location on the GPX. That suggests it happens about 40% of the time.
Quote
Anyway, argumentative-jousting aside, you misread my statement and my intent, or else took it out of context. If you read back, Graham was saying "digital first!" and I was pushing back and telling him "exactly as they please!" — with respect to how organisers go about preparing their events — there was no hypocrisy in that (or else you're going to have to explain it to me more clearly).Either we say organisers should be free to do as they please - in which case they should be free not to supply a routesheet. Or we say they have to supply a routesheet of a certain quality level if they want to run an official AUK event - in which case surely the same holds for supplying a GPX. It's hypocrisy to say "don't deny riders" when it's your preferred navigational aid but then ""organisers as they please" when it's my preferred navigational aid, no?
[/quote]
Quote
You seem to have taken that to mean I won't supply digital files, but will supply a routesheet.I'm well aware that you produce excellent GPX files that go above and beyond; if all organisers did as you then I'd have no complaints. But you seemed to be advocating that the regs and handbook continue to be routesheet-first, with GPX very much second class.
Quote
Those who enjoy the traditional approach should of course be allowed to continue it. Personally it does nothing for me. The AUK mission statement has nothing about traditions, only about long-distance cyclists. I'd hope there's room for both traditionalists and modernists to do that on an equal footing.
My point is this: audax has never lost its traditions; going all-digital would be a great loss to the ethos of the community, and a big step away from what is — and what I hope continues to be — "randonneuring" in the UK.
Restating a previous point doesn't invalidate the counter argument presented to that previous point, Graham — keep up! —The problem I have with your statement "assumes that that GPX will be enough" is that on the most common devices, i.e. Garmin eTrex series and Edge series*, the rider will get zero assistance from the device unless they set it up first — on eTrex that means setting up proximity alarms and on Edge that means finding an alternative TCX with CoursePoints embedded. Which means newbies are almost bound to come unstuck using new-fangled BlinkenMachinen rather than relying on traditional paper-based navigation. Literally, that GPX is NOT enough!
Which means that experienced organisers will already know this and will human methods to address the problem — they'll tell riders what to expect, probably in more than one place, and I certainly do this on the start line, too. New organisers have yet to learn — that's why they are mentored, and it would be one of the many things I would pick up with a mentee, if relevant.
* FWIW, I don't know how Kazoo's respond to waypoints in GPX files.
Again, none of that amounts to a good reason for leaving the control location out of the GPX. It may not help everyone but it will help some - and there's really nothing gained from not doing it.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 04:10:22 pm
QuoteAnyway, argumentative-jousting aside, you misread my statement and my intent, or else took it out of context. If you read back, Graham was saying "digital first!" and I was pushing back and telling him "exactly as they please!" — with respect to how organisers go about preparing their events — there was no hypocrisy in that (or else you're going to have to explain it to me more clearly).
Either we say organisers should be free to do as they please - in which case they should be free not to supply a routesheet. Or we say they have to supply a routesheet of a certain quality level if they want to run an official AUK event - in which case surely the same holds for supplying a GPX. It's hypocrisy to say "don't deny riders" when it's your preferred navigational aid but then ""organisers as they please" when it's my preferred navigational aid, no?
I think you're still missing the point of the statement that I made and those previously — and no, I don't think there is any hypocrisy in my position ::-)
Firstly, you give an either-or statement, but there are other positions, so let's just knock that on the head. I don't think I ever said either of those statements. Certainly I've argued positions, because I can see lots of points of view, but that doesn't mean that's what I believe for me, just what I believe is generally correct — and in fact I like there to be plenty of leaway, because then you get a noticeable difference between organisers, and that's where the opportunities exist.
If you impose on organisers, you get fewer organisers. Organisers are the life-blood of the organisation.
At each juncture you, QG, and others have proposed mandating certain things that you want from organisers. I have countered many of those arguments with a more rational and reasonable position, because otherwise imposition and fewer orgs. You, QG, and others have proposed making digital the de facto starting point, and I countered that too. And you, QG, and others have been going on about minimum standards, and again no thank you — imposition = fewer orgs.
Fewer orgs = fewer events.
So, I'm still failing to see where I'm being hypocritical; what I am seeing is that you seem to have misinterpreted the position I have been arguing from. Oh well, never mind — but please stop calling it what it's not.
Quote
I'm well aware that you produce excellent GPX files that go above and beyond; if all organisers did as you then I'd have no complaints. But you seemed to be advocating that the regs and handbook continue to be routesheet-first, with GPX very much second class.
Thank you, but not the point. No, I wasn't arguing for or against any rulebook changes — I was actually arguing against non-organisers telling volunteer-organisers how to organise, from a position of relative inexperience. When it comes down to it I don't care that much how you think I should organise, because I'm confident in my approach. I very much DO care that however I do it results in a route that is safe and interesting, and if routesheet-first continues to work for me then that's fine. If at some point you organise something and you choose to do it digital-first, or indeed even decide to NOT provide a routesheet, that would be your prerogative, and also fine.
Quote
Those who enjoy the traditional approach should of course be allowed to continue it. Personally it does nothing for me. The AUK mission statement has nothing about traditions, only about long-distance cyclists. I'd hope there's room for both traditionalists and modernists to do that on an equal footing.
I agree that the traditional approach be allowed to continue. However, what has been proposed is a definite switch away from the traditional, leaving the traditionalists with fewer events. And it's a fairly blinkered view to move forward without looking back — to shape the future without reference to the past; it doesn't need to be mentioned in mission statements or what have you, it just needs to be observed.
Quote
Again, none of that amounts to a good reason for leaving the control location out of the GPX. It may not help everyone but it will help some - and there's really nothing gained from not doing it.
Again, misses the point — the point was NOT whether the control info is, or is not, in the GPX. The point was that unless the first-time rider does something special, that information won't help them, and they run the risk of non-validation. And I did mention that GPX + waypoints is absolutely useless on Edge devices for everyone. Oh, and I was reminded on a phone call from a very well respected member that some basic devices definitely DON'T work with waypoints in GPX files ...
As for whether "there's nothing to be gained from not doing it" — for the organiser then yes there is, and that's saving the expense of a necessary RWGPS subscription and the know-how and time to do something with it.
At the moment you, QG, and others are respectively arguing from your own positions as (as far as I can tell) non-volunteering, non-contributing AUK members who want organisers to be mandated to provide certain facilities for events in certain formats that you're going to define for us. I'm simply arguing the opposite side as a reasonably experienced organiser, that it's up to the organisers to do what each one feels is valid and necessary to run their own events.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 04:19:58 pm
Erm, if there's a dot on the screen, you've provided a grid ref. Job done. Sorted.
You're welcome :thumbsup:
Post by: Ian H on 24 May, 2019, 04:25:05 pm
Post by: Ajax Bay on 24 May, 2019, 05:11:44 pm
Guidance on producing routesheets and electronic files is at Pp25-27 of the
Audax UK Organiser's Handbook (2017)
http://www.aukweb.net/_resources/files/events/Orgs_Handbook_2017.pdf (http://www.aukweb.net/_resources/files/events/Orgs_Handbook_2017.pdf)And p22 gives guidance on info controls, including "Identify the location clearly on your route sheet" Some organisers achieve this better than others.
An entrant will (surely) have noted the controls the ride passes through before entering - these are listed on the event's webpage. E.g.:
"Exeter-London (Back to the Smoke 400)
400km cycling event starting from Exeter. Controls at Wells, Durrington, Stow-on-the-Wold and Buckingham. A linear route from Exeter to London-Marylebone."
Any sensible entrant on a ride will check, on a map (paper or otherwise), the route and note the controls thereon (in fact I'd expect prospective entrants to do this to help them decide whether they want to undertake that ride). Downloading and uploading a provided gpx/tcx onto an online resource (eg RwGPS) can make this easier for some. But as @Ian H has said, going to Googlemaps and entering the start, finish and main controls will immediately get most of the way there. They will examine the routesheet and check if there are any info controls (even if they don't plan to use the routesheet for navigation during the ride). If there are info controls the sensible rider will identify where those controls are too, on the route.
This is an extract from one of @Blacksheep's recent events. Note that the location of the start is clearly described in multiple ways and that a list of abbreviations used is offered to help riders unfamiliar with the organiser's style. I do not think that routesheets are difficult to read provided an initial effort is made. Audax UK deliberately does not mandate a particular style of routesheet and relies on organisers (and if new their mentors) to provide one of sufficient quality.
BREVET CYMRU 400km Saturday 4th. May 2019.
START : 6:00 a.m. at Bulwark Community Centre,
Laburnham Way, Bulwark, CHEPSTOW.
Grid Ref : ST533923, OS 162 or 172
SAT NAV : NP16 5RF
Key to abbreviations.
Cont(inue). TLs = Traffic Lights.
RBT = Roundabout. mrb = Mini roundabout.
X = Crossroads SO = Straight On.
Thro(ugh) Imm(ediate).
$ = signposted. $? = No sign or signpost un-sighted
I would offer as additions:
L = Left
R = Right
T = T junction
stgd X = staggered crossroads
(and some use "sp" for signposted)
No doubt others can add to this list.
Some riders who, say, have never ridden an audax in UK and maybe have said that they won't use a routesheet even if one is offered and won't do a ride unless an electronic file is provided may consider nugatory the minimal effort to learn to read a routesheet. If a rider is a beginner - say they've just started this year - and done so navigating with GPS assistance only, then I recommend that they try riding a ride in a complicated (road network) area using a routesheet, for the experience. In any case I'd recommend that they take a routesheet and, without using an uploaded file, try to plot the route on a paper map (eg road atlas) or app (eg RwGPS). This will stand them in good stead on the ride itself as that work will have ensured sound preparation (in parallel with, inter alia, oiling the chain and checking tyre pressures are correct).
Post by: Redlight on 24 May, 2019, 05:17:23 pm
Seriously, lads, it's the big thing that looks like a bridge. Or was that Southbound ?
Southbound. Ironically, because the "official" GPX track was corrupted and I had done the northbound leg in the dark so was completely flummoxed when I came off the bridge. I had the printed route sheet in my saddlebag but (foolishly) figured that it couldn't be that hard to find my way out of the town, could it?
Post by: Ben T on 24 May, 2019, 05:52:09 pm
2) I *am* shocked that people do not feel that information on control locations, especially info controls shouldn't be detailed on the route sheet as an absolute position, be it an address, os grid ref, or a lat/long. That people think that it is not only acceptable, but *right* that positions should only be expressed as relative to other locations, confuses me. I just can't get my head round this thought process. It may make sense when you've riden a few dozen events this way. But for someone discovering this fact for the first time. I find it utterly bizarre.
3) I wish it was easier to see which events do provide a GPX, and wish there was clear guidelines on what makes a good quality GPX file. I'm currently making plans for 2020, and fully intend to do at least one AUK calendar event, and want to make sure I can easily find an event that provides a good GPX, so I can enjoy the ride, enjoy the scenery, and enjoy the cake. All without having to worry about a treasure hunt.
Two points,
one - it is very easy to pinpoint the location of infos by asking WHY would the organiser have an info here? They don't just have infos for the hell of it, they have an info to make sure you don't take the shortest physically possible route between the two controls either side. Two reasons - either there is a hill that you are supposed to go up, or a dodgy junction/trunk road that you are not supposed to use.
Example: info marked on routesheet but not on GPX, although there is an organiser provided GPX it just doesn't have waypoints. Look at road name on routesheet before info, and road name after info. Find those roads on map. Look at their confluence. Ah yes, those roads mark an out and back purely to avoid a dodgy left turn which the organiser obviously doesn't want you to do - the info is obviously on the only bit that you would miss by doing the dodgy turn. Add waypoint - done.
two, what uk audax doesn't have a GPX these days? I must admit all the ones I enter seem to have an organiser supplied one, even if it doesn't include waypoints. Very few even necessitate doing a google search for "<name of audax> gpx" which usually instantly pulls up an acceptable one.
It sounds a bit like asking for it to be mandatory for all TVs sold to be colour.
However, Nick, since you are doing such a good job of extolling the virtues of routesheet navigation maybe you could explain a couple of things to me, how to get over the barriers I see to using them. I like the idea of navigating via routesheet, I'm just not very good at it!
Two reasons:
one, the main one, is the amount of time I have to spend looking down at it. Not to read the next instruction, but to get my focus to the next instruction, i.e. to scroll down to where I'm up to. I know some others obviously don't have this problem but some others obviously do as I've seen some novel solutions to it on the road - including the odd rider who has an actual scroll as a routesheet holder, and the odd one who has a pen to mark off the instructions they've completed.
The other one is trust. How can I be 100% sure that there are no 'priority' mistakes, which could lead to going miles, and i mean a lot of miles, off route?
"easy - consult the distance" you might say. Let me give you an example.
Two instructions on the routesheet are "1. 10km, L@T sp SomeTown. 2. 374km, L sp SomeOtherTown."
I've just done instruction 1, my left @ T at 10km, i'm confident I'm going the right way as I saw the sign to SomeTown. (I use 374km as an exaggeration to indicate the point that the route follows this road for 'a long way'.)
Now, the routesheet doesn't, or ostensiby shouldn't, need an instruction for all the turn offs there might be on this road between 10 and 374km, because you just follow the road until you've done 374km and you see the sign to SomeOtherTown.
But what if, at say 74km, the road forks - and it's unclear which is the "main" road? i.e., is this a choice between "left" and "straight on", or is it a choice between "straight on" and "right"?
If I take the wrong route and get to an unexpected T junction, say, before 374km, then I know I took the wrong fork, because the T would definitely be marked on the routesheet. But getting to an unexpected T junction is the happy path - in these remote parts, the 'wrong' fork could be just as long as the right one before getting to a T junction. If I get to 374km and there isn't a L turn to SomeOtherTown, then I also know I've gone wrong - but by then I've gone 300km in the wrong direction!
This isn't a hypothetical situation - this actually happened to me about 6 or 7 years ago, and as I say I exaggerate the distances for the purposes of an example, but I did end up going far enough off route to really piss me off. And this was a reputable organiser. I thought at the time they obviously hadn't test ridden it or at least that particular bit, but maybe the priority sign was obscured by a tree, or it was obvious to them, or I was just being dozy and didn't notice the road markings - whatever. But the point is it's very easy to make a mistake, whether it's the routesheet-writers mistake or the riders, which can cost a LOT of distance in the wrong direction which isn't auto-correcting in the way that GPX is. Obviously with GPX, it doesn't matter which the "main" road is. The line either indicates "left" or "not right", they amount to the same thing. But it does indicate something.
That's my 'bad experience' with routesheets and why I've never relied on them as sole navigation method since. Sure I use them, to glean details about controls, where to park bike, which way to exit the control, etc, but I always rely on GPX as primary method.
Test riding the route diligently and making sure any potentially ambigious 'semi-junctions' where which one is the 'main' road isn't clear are marked on the routesheet would eliminate that, but how can I be 100% sure that that has been done, is my issue with it.
Post by: lmm on 24 May, 2019, 06:41:28 pm
Firstly, you give an either-or statement, but there are other positions, so let's just knock that on the head.
I'm not seeing it. You may disagree with my "if so, ..." but I would certainly stand by "Either we say organisers should be free to do as they please... Or we say they have to supply a routesheet of a certain quality level if they want to run an official AUK event". That much is either one or the other, there's no way to do both.
Quote
At each juncture you, QG, and others have proposed mandating certain things that you want from organisers. I have countered many of those arguments with a more rational and reasonable position, because otherwise imposition and fewer orgs. You, QG, and others have proposed making digital the de facto starting point, and I countered that too. And you, QG, and others have been going on about minimum standards, and again no thank you — imposition = fewer orgs.
QG may have said any number of things. I've consistently argued not for any outright imposition of digital-first but for a level playing field: organisers recommended to provide both routesheet and GPX but allowed to do without as they see fit, and the same recommendations about info control locations for both routesheet and GPX.
Quote
I was actually arguing against non-organisers telling volunteer-organisers how to organise, from a position of relative inexperience.
Organisers know best what works for organisers - but beginners know best what works for beginners. AUK has a stated goal of increasing ridership; surely taking input from beginners has to be a part of that.
Quote
If at some point you organise something and you choose to do it digital-first, or indeed even decide to NOT provide a routesheet, that would be your prerogative, and also fine.
Is that actually true? Upthread Tomsk said I would be required to produce a routesheet for the risk assessment.
Quote
Again, misses the point — the point was NOT whether the control info is, or is not, in the GPX. The point was that unless the first-time rider does something special, that information won't help them, and they run the risk of non-validation.
Maybe for some devices. Certainly some devices (including the phone app I use - and I'd think first-timers would be relatively more likely to be using a phone rather than some dedicated device) will do the right thing by default. You're letting perfect be the enemy of good here.
Quote
At the moment you, QG, and others are respectively arguing from your own positions as (as far as I can tell) non-volunteering, non-contributing AUK members who want organisers to be mandated to provide certain facilities for events in certain formats that you're going to define for us. I'm simply arguing the opposite side as a reasonably experienced organiser, that it's up to the organisers to do what each one feels is valid and necessary to run their own events.
Again though that's creating a catch-22, because the only people who can ever become experienced organisers are the people the current system works for. As I said upthread, I'm happy to put the time and expertise into marking the control waypoints if there's an organiser who finds that easier than doing it themselves - but I can't check the info locations (only the organiser knows them), I can't put my GPX on the official page, and my understanding was that the regs won't let me run a GPX-only event.
Post by: Whitedown Man on 24 May, 2019, 06:52:57 pm
Possibly the most sensible point to have been made in this entire thread :thumbsup:
Post by: postie on 24 May, 2019, 06:54:46 pm
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 07:18:12 pm
However, Nick, since you are doing such a good job of extolling the virtues of routesheet navigation maybe you could explain a couple of things to me, how to get over the barriers I see to using them. I like the idea of navigating via routesheet, I'm just not very good at it!
Two reasons:
<snip>
All good points, Ben.
I cannot speak for any organiser but myself. Not everybody's going to agree with my points here, but I assure you they're based on a very long history of desktop and digital design and publishing as both hobby and job.
In answer to your point about relocating the previous instruction, this can be hit'n'miss. Basically, most (but not all) routesheets I see from other organisers are some form of printed spreadsheet, with gridlines — these are really quite bad for relocating the current instruction in order to move onto the next one, because the lines obscure any real "shape" within the text — it's this "shape" that is one of the primary keys for re-finding your place when you glance down.
I use space above/below each instruction to distinguish each from the other. At the right-hand edge of the sheet, it's ragged-right, so the whitespace has form/shape that aids in quick visual recognition. I also put the numbers on the right, not the left, so you're brain isn't fighting a long list of lookalike digits, but actually sees different words at the start of every line. There are lots of other typographical, design and copy-writing techniques that I use throughout to assist relocation, legibility and rapid comprehension while also riding a bike.
This is all carefully designed and wrapped up in a PDF, so every rider gets the same output, with clear fold lines, a useful whitespace border, and a gap along the top of each quarter to slip inside the jaws of a map trap or bulldog clip of some sort (https://www.16inchwheels.uk/2016/01/20/a-diy-routesheet-holder-for-about-1-50/) and as few page turns as feasible. I am constantly reviewing this to improve it where I can, but at the moment I think it's pretty good: clear, legible, useable.
That's what I do, but I'm me and I do tend to go my own way on things like this, because I know how. Unfortunately, when you get hold of a routesheet from someone else then often you aren't in a position to choose the styling, so if it's particularly poor then it can be a demanding experience. Where I have no choice then I use the pointy-finger technique: literally, point at an instruction and your eye will come back to that point next time you look down. A friend of mine taught me that when learning to speed-read.
As for trust in the routesheet — that is something organisers have to earn. There are those I trust and those I don't yet trust.
To get around this, I play what I call "Routesheet Bingo" — I ride to the routesheet; I turn TBT off on my Garmin, but have off-course warnings on. If I miss a turn and the Garmin correctly tells me I've made a mistake then it's a point to the routesheet. However, if I follow the routesheet and the Garmin beeps because the course is different then a point to me. I resolve those types of navigation issues as I think they need to be resolved at the time, because there's no one way to resolve them. You soon learn which orgs are good and which have "other-left" issues.
I do a lot of route-checks this way, it is very effective for checking both the routesheet and the GPS routes at the same time. In a sense, by checking someone's route then I am starting from the position of not trusting it and then imbuing trust in it by checking it carefully as I go — other riders can then lean on that trust on the day, knowing it has been checked by someone independent (checking your own work accurately is harder than you'd think). Usually I have a very good idea where I'm going anyway, because I've scanned through the route on RWGPS, or in one of my own home-grown mapping tools.
FWIW, I managed LEL on just two points lost :thumbsup:
Does this help?
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 07:22:17 pm
LMM: “Organisers know best what works for organisers - but beginners know best what works for beginners. AUK has a stated goal of increasing ridership; surely taking input from beginners has to be a part of that.”
Possibly the most sensible point to have been made in this entire thread :thumbsup:
Except that that isn't actually necessarily true. If we made everything accessible for first-timers, it would often be so idiotic that it would get in the way of regular riders ::-)
It's better to help first-timers rise to a better ability and thereby NOT hobble everyone else :thumbsup:
Post by: Kim on 24 May, 2019, 07:28:39 pm
Any accomplished long distance rider who isn't used to the AUK way of doing things can probably do a convenient 100 just to get their head round things like info controls and brevet cards without too much fuss.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 07:31:09 pm
On the other hand, since first-timers overwhelmingly start with shorter rides, it seems reasonable to provide a bit more hand-holding (I'm thinking some of the stuff mentioned in the diversity thread, like informal mentoring) on Populaires, and let those doing the longer distances get on with it.
Any accomplished long distance rider who isn't used to the AUK way of doing things can probably do a convenient 100 just to get their head round things like info controls and brevet cards without too much fuss.
Aye, this is an excellent point. I do tend to give a little more helpful guidance on our 100s as these are the starting point for many of our riders :thumbsup:
Post by: rob on 24 May, 2019, 07:50:45 pm
Reading all this crap has left me wondering how i managed to ride for so many years with out a gps and still be alive.
You may still be lost on a lane in Dorset and you’re just dreaming this.
Post by: lmm on 24 May, 2019, 08:00:21 pm
Except that that isn't actually necessarily true. If we made everything accessible for first-timers, it would often be so idiotic that it would get in the way of regular riders ::-)
It's better to help first-timers rise to a better ability and thereby NOT hobble everyone else :thumbsup:
It's not zero-sum. There are cases where you can't make it easier for first-timers without making it harder for long-timers, sure, but they're the exception rather than the rule.
Helping people get better makes sense but only if it's something they need to be doing in the first place. Sometimes you have to show the beginner the narrow line that avoids the potholes. But often it's better to patch up the road in the first place.
Post by: wilkyboy on 24 May, 2019, 08:07:07 pm
Except that that isn't actually necessarily true. If we made everything accessible for first-timers, it would often be so idiotic that it would get in the way of regular riders ::-)
It's better to help first-timers rise to a better ability and thereby NOT hobble everyone else :thumbsup:
It's not zero-sum. There are cases where you can't make it easier for first-timers without making it harder for long-timers, sure, but they're the exception rather than the rule.
Helping people get better makes sense but only if it's something they need to be doing in the first place. Sometimes you have to show the beginner the narrow line that avoids the potholes. But often it's better to patch up the road in the first place.
I did hedge a little in what I said :P
Post by: Fidgetbuzz on 24 May, 2019, 08:51:11 pm
To suggest that ALL organisers have to provide files in a particular format with defined locations of info and control points is just asking to be spoon fed . Please grow up and do not expect the world or even audax to be EXACTLY as you want it to be.
My current very old etrex legend has served me well for some 10 years .. and yes I have once ridden past a FREE CONTROL.. and I think at least one info control too .. because I had not looked carefully at my brevet card at the last control .. to see what I was being asked to do next, I was just following the bread crumb route on my etrex. So missing an info or a control was entirely my own fault for being stupid.
Any missing info would be solved by a quick question to a fellow rider who knew that I ridden the route .. and the missing control .. was sorted by the common sense of the organiser and my gpx track.
We all have to carry a brevet card .. just bother at a control to see what and where the next control is .
Problem solved ???
Post by: grams on 24 May, 2019, 09:00:58 pm
To suggest that ALL organisers have to provide files in a particular format with defined locations of info and control points is just asking to be spoon fed . Please grow up and do not expect the world or even audax to be EXACTLY as you want it to be.
If it were normal for routesheets to not note the positions of controls, with each entrant required to decode their location from some other source, would you be happy?
If some people were speaking up in favour of organisers making that information more accessible by incorporating it into the routesheet, would you be hurling insults at them?
Post by: marylogic on 24 May, 2019, 09:09:19 pm
When I joined in 2014 I was attracted by the tradition of audax and the fact that it wasn't all GPX files and feed stations and people trying to smash a gold time etc. My mum has stated pretty much the same view.
I think it's only polite if I am trying someone else's event for the first time to at least consider using the resources they provide.
I've tried using routesheet and gpx separately, neither are perfect so now I use routesheet with gpx as back up.
Post by: lmm on 24 May, 2019, 09:12:03 pm
Good heavens .. how on earth did I manage to ride my early audax rides using a route sheet .. yes it required the ability to read and to think .. sometimes even trying to work out what the organiser was asking me to do , as not all route sheets were set out in identical ways... .. but i managed as had the many riders over the many years before me. And of course I carried a cut out page of a road atlas with me too .. just in case it all went wrong.
This is what's called "survivorship bias". Some number of people succeeded with routesheets. Some number decided that this audax lark was more trouble than it's worth. But the latter aren't here to speak about it.
Quote
To suggest that ALL organisers have to provide files in a particular format with defined locations of info and control points is just asking to be spoon fed . Please grow up and do not expect the world or even audax to be EXACTLY as you want it to be.
Equally: please grow up and do not expect the world or even audax to stay EXACTLY as it is. Marking the points on the GPX is really not that hard, I'm not even asking for it to be mandatory (just recommended), and I reiterate my offer to do it for any organiser who's struggling.
Quote
Any missing info would be solved by a quick question to a fellow rider who knew that I ridden the route .. and the missing control .. was sorted by the common sense of the organiser and my gpx track.
If we could all agree on a clear consensus that this was fine then I'd be a lot less bothered. But there are those on this very thread who are very concerned that info controls should retain their integrity.
Post by: Somnolent on 24 May, 2019, 09:28:48 pm
Back in 2010 on a long ride I introduced one popular style of AUK shorthand to my children, who later went on to do a very small number of audaxes, before deciding they preferred more competitive riding.
Imagine my surprise and amusement to find that once they'd learned to drive they were still using the same notation to write themselves directions rather than buying sat-navs or printing out pages and pages of TBT from Google maps. :o
Like any shorthand or code it takes a bit of getting used to (probably less time than a new GPS device) but once familiar it continues to prove its worth and effectiveness for the rest of one's audaxing career - and maybe beyond.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 10:46:53 pm
Lay off the 'audaxing gods' bullshit. It doesn't strengthen your argument.
As I've noted before, I agree that a GPX is helpful to riders and a GPX by the organiser is usually better/ easier than a homemade one but frankly it isn't a dealbreaker (for me) and I prefer having a reliable fallback option that doesn't rely on technology/ batteries capacity. A routesheet does that better (for me) than having to buy a replacement GPS unit halfway round a brevet.
Nothing I will say will strengthen my argument in the eyes of those who believe I am challenging orthodoxy and historical Ways Things Are Done™.
And if you don't want me to use the term audaxing gods, maybe lay off a little with the 20 countries and hundreds of events so it can't be possibly be wrong attitude.
It's bad enough that I'm being attacked in this thread, but now I'm also being gaslit by a friend of forumites on twitter. Someone that doesn't even follow me, but seems to have found my tweets and tried to pick an argument.
I genuinely laughed out loud when I read that. :)
I wonder how many events (no doubt collectively, hundreds) some of the contributors to this thread rode before the advent of GPS.
I have to say this thread reminds me of someone whose only experience is watching episodes of Star Trek lecturing Wernher Von Braun on how to build rockets.
Do keep it up :thumbsup:
Glad you're enjoying it. I'm expression actual confusion at how something works, and it's making people laugh. At least someone is enjoying this.
We have here a forum where apparently everyone in this thread bar a very small minority think that a routesheet that only provides positions relative to the previous instruction is an entirely fine way to navigate, That's fine, I'm not saying anyone has to stop doing it that way. I am however trying to understand how you all do it. It just does not work for my tiny brain.
QG, it seems to me that you are prone to exaggeration and the use of ever-narrowing definitions to try to effect change on something that isn't perfect, but isn't broken either. What we're doing is going for a bike ride — what we're NOT doing is landing on Mars.
Funny you should mention that. Having worked in aerospace, and having worked designing high reliability high availability systems. It tends to be an approach I take. It's why I've designed my bike the way I have, analysing the various failure modes and use cases, so as to build a bike that I can use to ride long distances, and fix at the side of the road if anything should happen to it. The way I approach a long ride, be it an Audax, or a ultra race is a bit a kin to how some might approach a mars shot. When I start pedalling I want the odds of completion as stacked in my favour as I can. That includes the route info. I want to know the exact location of every control I need to visit, I want it in my GPS, I want it on my phone, I want it on the written notes in my framebag. So When I miss a turn in the rain, or if my wahoo decides to glitch. I can switch to a backup option.
I wonder, those of you who navigate with a printed route sheet, do you carry multiple copies in case of wind, rain, etc... destroying the copy you have on the handlebars/forearm ?
Quote
Let's take your point about describing the location of info controls. Now, I have had the privilege to ride quite a few events in the past seven years of mid-life crisis, i.e. audax — somewhere over 100 I think, possibly more, it doesn't really matter. Most don't have infos, but some do. In spite of everything that you have so far suggested as being so faulty or so broken that you think it's "absolutely fucking insane", I have NEVER had a problem locating an info control. Sometimes I have had a problem with colours, but have then spent ten minutes on the bike coming up with multiple alternative colour-names to describe "beige" — purely for the organiser's amusement; they will know I've been there, job done. And once the organiser got unexpectedly high-brow and I picked the wrong high-brow response from the building next door, but it didn't matter, they knew I'd been there.
As it stands, moderates like myself are satisfactorily explaining each of your points away, leaving you with an ever-narrowing range to find umbrage with. It is possibly time you stepped back from this — although for the sake of all the watchers, please do carry on ;D
Like I say. I want to stack the odds in favour of completion. That means not risking missing an info. Cycling 300km through wind and rain, only to not be validated due to a missed info would be pretty disastrous to me.
Quote
So, I've got the route sheet either as a PDF I have to print myself, or the postwoman has just dropped a pre printed one in a SAE through my letter box. What do I do next? How do I use that route sheet to plan my Saturday?
Perhaps there's your problem: you feel the need to plan your Saturday to the second? I know I don't — laissez faire, take it as it comes. I like to know where I'm going, what towns I will be visiting, and obviously where all the controls are, although not to the metre. I like to get an idea of hills (for gearing — on fixed, see), and water-replenishment opportunities in hotter weather. But I don't set out with the idea that every moment is pre-mapped, and I'm happy to go off-piste with another rider to visit a monument or stop at a café. Maybe that's just me — or maybe that's just you. But solving your problem is distasteful to many riders who just want to ride their bikes without all this stressing that it seems you do about precisely where everything is.
With the route I'm not. Checking over the route for the 400km event I used as an example in one of my posts, it took me maybe 2 minutes, I looked at the plot on the map, I saw where it went, I could see how it interacts with everything else, I could see the availability of water taps. I'm not planning every second. I am however looking at the route and seeing where the controls are.
Quote
QuoteOnly in a moment of dyslexia, I went left not right, the rest of the instructions kinda match, tho some of the distances are out a little, after half a dozen instructions, I end up in the village of Middlewalllop, and not in the village mentioned on the route sheet. How do I get to the info control on the sign post at a junction at 35km into the route?
Firstly, your mistake for turning the wrong way. For some reason I instinctively know within a few hundred metres when I've gone wrong, so I turn back and double-check; Garmin off-course beeping helps, but I'm usually already thinking it.
And this is one of those points where you narrow the problem to something that doesn't exist. "The sign post at a junction at 35km into the route" — yebbut, that conveniently sweeps the junction at 33.2km out of sight, or the right turn at 35.8km — if you include the other instructions then you can verify to within quite a tight tolerance, certainly enough for redundant verification on a bike ride, where getting the opportunity to ride a road more than once is a bonus. Remember — bike ride, not Mars.
Right, so rather than knowing the sign post is at 51.123456, 0.517828, I have to know that the signpost is at the junction that is after L & X ... R @ T ... SO @ X ... the position is given only as relative to several other locations. The only way to find that position, is to follow the prescribed route. On a non mandatory route event. Am I really the only one that sees the contradiction in that? Am I really the only one that is confused that the location of a control isn't specified in an absolute form?
Quote
QuoteExcept because the route sheet is provided purely as a diff of instructions, where the position of any point on the route is given relative to the previous point of the route, if you don't follow the route as detailed, you can't be sure you're at the right point for the info.
With reference to my above comments, where place names are given in ALL-CAPS, bold or BOTH then you get a rolling redundant verification as you go — you can't ignore it to make your argument, because that's kinda the point of giving place names in ALL-CAPS, bold or BOTH ::-)
So I know I'm in BRIDGE and in BRIDGE I have to make a left turn at a T junction, but there are 5 T junctions that could be classed as within the village, plus a cross roads. 4 of these will take me to the same place, the 5th will take me back somewhere else. I've made a navigational screw up, I've realised the error, but I've now cycled into BRIDGE to find the next direction, and there are multiple options, and I have to go all the way through the village to turn round to play the instruction sheet forward again. Or I could check the OS grid ref or the lat/long of the info control that is after the village, and head straight there, pick up the route again, and continue. See how including a single extra piece of information makes it all a lot easier? Avoids stress, avoids the worry about losing time trying to get unlost?
Quote
QuoteSo that if I need to, when I've cycled 50km, the distance the brevet card says it is to the controlDid you check whether the distance given in the brevet is as-routed distance or minimum distance? It's usually minimum distance, which means it's not useful here. Follow the routesheet and the info control will either be at a junction or between two turn instructions, which nicely describes where it is without needing to refer to the distances. Or use a GPS file with a beep of your preferred flavour if you must. But don't rely on any given distance in the brevet unless you know exactly what you're looking at and have accounted for measurement errors of your own (e.g. going off-course for your own reasons, such as to pick up a book that's reserved in your name ...).
Bloody hell. You use the minimum distance not the as routed distance? So I know the control is at 50km, but I've cycled 55km to get there? What number is used for calculating the closing times?
Quote
Thank you, I'm thinking of getting this comment framed and put up on the wall :thumbsup:
I did not get from LWaB's comment that he was saying "I am an audaxing god" or "this is how it should be", I got from it an experienced opinion comparing styles of routesheets from around the world that indicated that the British version comes out better than the French version upon which the Dutch system is based. Like I said above: bike ride not Mars. The fact you then went on to say as much as "well that's simply not good enough! If you aren't going to agree with me aboutGPXGPS files then I'm going to completely diss you and your comment, make you out to be some sort of zombie zealot, and then present my own thoughts on what I want to be the One True Way™".
Magic :thumbsup:
Sometimes when you've been doing something for so long, it takes someone new to come along and say "Um, are you really doing this the best way?" My audaxing god comment is perhaps based partly on shit I've got from people via other media on this subject. Let's face it, up thread I was already asked to justify my experience to be allowed to hold an opinion.
Quote
We're all grown-ups here — say what you mean :demon:
[citation needed] :p
Quote
This is just detail. I think you're a detail person — I like and respect that, but I've learnt to reign it in myself when people around me start rolling their eyes.
Please to not be rolling eyes, it presents a safety hazard people may fall over them :p
Yes, I am a detail person. It's the approach I take to riding, and to my work. I don't want to find myself half way up an alpine pass, only to get stranded in the cold due to a detail that was over looked, be it by me, or by someone else.
Quote
That's up to the organiser — if they want their events to include a slightly mysterious element then so be it, you don't have to enter. Next you'll be saying I'm not allowed to add information about this castle or that stately home into my routesheet as riders go by ...
Ok, then can we at least make it easier to find which organisers want their riders to ride bikes, and which ones want us to do a treasure hunt?
Quote
You did. It made me smile :P
Glad someone's smiling, I've been reduced to tears by things people have written to me on this topic multiple times.
Quote
Aye, but it won't get done until there are enough tuits to get around. And budget ::-)
Well quite. That's a whole different kettle of fish. Or is it a can of worms?
Quote
No, I think you're mistaken. Have another look at ESL's IKEA reference up-thread — many EXISTING riders like the fact that some organisers leave gaps, because it gives them the opportunity to fill them and feel like they've contributed. Take away this variance between organisers and audax will have lost much of its community spirit.
I added something, in bold, and italic. I had the audacity to ask a small number of audaxers on twitter for some additional thoughts on this. Something that probably lead to being attacked. One of those audaxers, someone who's only done a handful of events or so, commented along the lines of "And people wonder why people fined audaxing too confusing to bother".
We are basically gate keeping by being needlessly archaic and convoluted.
Quote
Haha — we're back to that thing you've done several times in this thread, i.e. volunteering someone else to do something to change UK audax into something that QG wants :thumbsup:
No, I won't write that, because I wouldn't want someone else to tell me how to create my electronic route files and so I don't expect to inflict the same on anyone else. I like the fact that there is a difference and I am more than capable of fixing it myself when I feel the need.
I really want to organise an event in the UK now, with all the worst practice I can see from the examples people have mentioned in this thread.
Quote
It wasn't an "us and you" statement, it was merely an observation on the quirks of being British, which have been written about for hundreds of years.
Ok.
Quote
Have you ever ridden a UK audax? It's surprising how obvious the directions are when riding through a typical village here. And if you do have to ride back past the info and then replay forwards to that point — so what? That's part of the fun and a story to tell :thumbsup:
It may be when you're getting back to the finish with a couple of hours to spare, but when you've got a reputation for coming in with just 25 mins left on the clock, any time spent faffing increases stress. Being lost == faffing.
Quote
Anyway, part of me does think it would be your fault for getting lost in the first place, so you reap what you sow — yes, audax is about the distance, but navigation is also part of the undertaking, and not trivialised navigation, but whatever navigation the organiser deems appropriate.
If I give you directions on how to get to the pub, and you follow them and don't get to the pub. That's my fault for not providing you with sufficient information on how to get to the pub.
Quote
Who cares? My point was not about proving routesheet is better than GPS; rather, my point was to respond your argument about it being all-but-impossible to get back on route using the routesheet once you'd decided (intentionally or otherwise) to leave it. I've responded, my point is valid and such instructions would be accurate, useful, and efficacious to the point that if you decided to follow the DNA Path instead of Trumpington Road out of Cambridge, you could still turn right at the correct junction to return to the given route. So having proved that your argument on this point is flawed, there's no point arguing it — and certainly no point trying to dump into it to try to win, as that's what you appear to be doing.
I can't follow what you're saying here.
Quote
In your opinion, QG — in your opinion. Now, I'd hate to have to refer back to your gratuitous labels "audaxing gods" and "the One True Way™", but when you say things like this then it does rather appear like you might be trying to attach those labels to yourself.
I'm really not. I apologise if I have worded things sufficiently badly that it may be construed as such.
Quote
I'll give you an example: I started this malarkey on routesheets only back in 2012 and told my new-found audaxing friends that I would only move to GPS when I had mastered routesheets. I got my first Garmin after my fourth or fifth ride, simply because I wanted to record my efforts for comparison. I switched to navigating by GPS, but soon added routesheets back into the mix, because I found following the beeps of the BlinkenMachinen took a lot of the fun out of the ride for me. I now ride to the routesheet, with the beep-box set to ONLY tell me when I've gone off-course, and when I've arrived at controls — best of both worlds :thumbsup:
The only beep my wahoo gives is if I go off course. I look down and follow the line... The idea of a routesheet to me takes the fun out of the ride. Do you see how this is equally valid as you thinking that a GPS takes the fun out for you?
Quote
You learn to trust some electronical-route creators more than others, same as anything else on t'Internet. And, anyway, so long as the selected route hits all the controls in the right order then it's just a bike ride, it's not Mars :thumbsup:
But how do you know that you've hit all the info controls when the info controls are only specified on the route sheet as a relative position? That is what I don't understand.
I think QG has gone a bit off piste with the assertion that routesheets can't be used effectively for navigation - self-evidently that's not true.
I'm not saying they can't be used effectively. I'm suggesting that there are situations where there are weaknesses in routesheets.
Quote
But I agree 100% that the "routesheet first" approach makes no sense in a world where the overwhelming majority of riders aren't using it. Putting crucial information there and nowhere else (like the location of info controls) is asking for riders to ignore them and ask someone at the next control.
If I had my druthers I'd relieve organisers of the requirement to provide routesheets at all if they don't fancy it. Since all but a few produce a GPX anyway, this results in a net reduction of work. Any important route notes can be moved to the rider notes document, where riders might see them.
Careful now, that's heresy round these parts...
So, by charitably offering to lighten the burden on organisers, you also end up reducing audax to a beep-fest and alienate people who prefer to think while they ride their bike. Believe me when I tell you that writing the routesheet takes an insignificant length of time compared to riding the route-check and then running the event on the day — what exactly would be saved for me, the organiser, by omitting the routesheet?
But by sticking to the routesheet is king, and anything else is a bonus approach, you are potentially excluding others. You don't want the beep fest. Others don't want the treasure hunt.
As for expecting the organiser to provide everything to the nth-level of detail, nah ... The basis of audax in the UK is that you ride through given controls in the given order, obtaining proofs-of-passage and answering any questions as you go. Everything else — including caik at the finish — is above-and-beyond.I agree 100% with that much. I don't expect or need cake or drink or mechanical assistance. But I do expect organisers to communicate the control locations; that is part of the basics.
Exactly. If the location of the controls hasn't been communicated in a clear and concise manor, has the org not fundamentally failed? An Audax is riding a set distance via specific controls in a specific time period. The bare minimum for an org to do is to choose those controls. Everything else is a bonus. I am questioning if we are infact providing that info in the best way.
I just feel the need to point out two things:
- OBVIOUSLY that presumes riders know what to do with their phone to get to that information;
- LESS obviously that presumes the organiser does too!
- And it also presumes that all riders have phones capable of showing that level of detail.
Three things :facepalm:
If the rider doesn't know how to use that information, they can ignore it, they can use the instructions given on the routesheet and follow a string of instructions from the last control. Those who do have the knowledge, understanding, and equipment, can take that grid ref, or lat/long, and they can use that. I'm not saying everyone needs to know how to use that info.
Quote
I hear you — but as an organiser, I'm going to ignore you, because on a UK event I think grid refs are actually SCARIER than either a dot on the screen or a human-readable textual description for first-timers (your emphasis does appear to be towards getting newbies into this game), and old-timers won't need that level of detail and will be confident in the other ::-)
If you did enter one of my events then I would source and provide you with lat/long or grid-ref info if you felt you needed it and asked, but not in any of the published materials.
I'll remember this if I enter an event of yours.
I agree with you on that; Grid Refs require navigational skills that while necessary on our unwaymarked hills are unnecessary on roads.
I may be justifiable if the route is "Rough Stuff" and wild enough to demand map skills.
S/O @ X - Fords of Avon Refuge is perhaps a tad too understated.
S/O @ X - Fords of Avon Refuge - This means absolutely nothing. Without having the instruction before that, and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that, right back to a known physical location, such as a control, or the start. This line is utterly useless. 51.14512, 0.571788. You can plug that into the app of your choice, or even read it off a paper map, and find where it is. Absolute, vs relative.
At each juncture you, QG, and others have proposed mandating certain things that you want from organisers. I have countered many of those arguments with a more rational and reasonable position, because otherwise imposition and fewer orgs. You, QG, and others have proposed making digital the de facto starting point, and I countered that too. And you, QG, and others have been going on about minimum standards, and again no thank you — imposition = fewer orgs.
Please can people stop claiming that I am asking for anything to be mandatory. I have made no such request. I have made suggestions for best practice, I have made suggestions for option things. I have at no point said anything should be mandatory.
As for the imposition == fewer orgs. I wonder how many orgs there might be that are put off by the idea of having to create a route sheet, but if they could provide a GPX, would do so ? Not sure how we'd prove either of these cases.
Quote
At the moment you, QG, and others are respectively arguing from your own positions as (as far as I can tell) non-volunteering, non-contributing AUK members who want organisers to be mandated to provide certain facilities for events in certain formats that you're going to define for us. I'm simply arguing the opposite side as a reasonably experienced organiser, that it's up to the organisers to do what each one feels is valid and necessary to run their own events.
Again. I am not asking for a mandate of ANYTHING. I am also not a non-volunteering member. It's just the events I am volunteering on aren't being run as AUK events (tho no doubt AUK members will/have be(en) riding them). In fact at least 1 person in this thread, received their brevet card at the start of an event from my hand.
Two points,
one - it is very easy to pinpoint the location of infos by asking WHY would the organiser have an info here? They don't just have infos for the hell of it, they have an info to make sure you don't take the shortest physically possible route between the two controls either side. Two reasons - either there is a hill that you are supposed to go up, or a dodgy junction/trunk road that you are not supposed to use.
Example: info marked on routesheet but not on GPX, although there is an organiser provided GPX it just doesn't have waypoints. Look at road name on routesheet before info, and road name after info. Find those roads on map. Look at their confluence. Ah yes, those roads mark an out and back purely to avoid a dodgy left turn which the organiser obviously doesn't want you to do - the info is obviously on the only bit that you would miss by doing the dodgy turn. Add waypoint - done.
But unless I actually sit down and plot that routesheet instruction list on a map (something many have said is hard to do as you may not know how priority is detailed on the road IRL), I can't actually see that the info is taking us up this hill, or avoiding some A road. I can't just load it onto a map, see the route, and go "Ah yes, that makes sense". Like I can with a GPX.
Quote
two, what uk audax doesn't have a GPX these days? I must admit all the ones I enter seem to have an organiser supplied one, even if it doesn't include waypoints. Very few even necessitate doing a google search for "<name of audax> gpx" which usually instantly pulls up an acceptable one.
It sounds a bit like asking for it to be mandatory for all TVs sold to be colour.
Assuming you mean GPX provided by the organiser: BCM.
I've tried very hard throughout this thread not to pull actual route sheets from events and use them as examples, as I do not want people to think I am attacking any specific organisers, or organisers in general. This makes it very hard to give examples in some cases. However I feel that the BCM is such an iconic institution of AUK, and that it's quirks are so well known, that pointing out that the org does not provide a GPX, as others commented on upthread, is ok.
Now At this point someone's going to suggest I put BCM audax gpx, into google. I've done that, as I was curious about the route. You get a *LOT* of results. Knowing which of them will actually get me past the all the controls, including the info's, etc... is impossible, unless you sit there with gpx on the screen, and the route sheet in hand, and play it through. Unless the GPX is provided by the org of the ride, I have no way to trust it. If an org provides me with a GPX, and I follow it to the letter, and can prove that I did so, yet it somehow missed an info or even a physical control. I would hope that on provision of said track log as evidence, and showing that there is culpability on their front too, that the ride would be validated. But I'd spend the whole time bricking it that I would get a DNV.
Cont...
Post by: quixoticgeek on 24 May, 2019, 10:47:29 pm
QG may have said any number of things. I've consistently argued not for any outright imposition of digital-first but for a level playing field: organisers recommended to provide both routesheet and GPX but allowed to do without as they see fit, and the same recommendations about info control locations for both routesheet and GPX.
For the record, once more. I have not suggested mandating anything.
Quote
Organisers know best what works for organisers - but beginners know best what works for beginners. AUK has a stated goal of increasing ridership; surely taking input from beginners has to be a part of that.
*THIS* So much this. You've summed up in one paragraph much of what I've been trying to say for the last how ever many pages. Thank you.
On the other hand, since first-timers overwhelmingly start with shorter rides, it seems reasonable to provide a bit more hand-holding (I'm thinking some of the stuff mentioned in the diversity thread, like informal mentoring) on Populaires, and let those doing the longer distances get on with it.
Any accomplished long distance rider who isn't used to the AUK way of doing things can probably do a convenient 100 just to get their head round things like info controls and brevet cards without too much fuss.
Exactly. We could even tag these in the calendar as newbie friendly events. Then people could search by which events are newbie friendly, like they do when they search for which events provide a GPX... Oh wait...
This is what's called "survivorship bias". Some number of people succeeded with routesheets. Some number decided that this audax lark was more trouble than it's worth. But the latter aren't here to speak about it.
Exactly, and when I've asked people to explain how they do it, the answer seems to be "You just do". Some people even have an instinctive ability to know when they are off route. It's amazing. Everyone's survived, but noone will tell me how they survived...
Quote
Equally: please grow up and do not expect the world or even audax to stay EXACTLY as it is. Marking the points on the GPX is really not that hard, I'm not even asking for it to be mandatory (just recommended), and I reiterate my offer to do it for any organiser who's struggling.
Agreed.
Quote
QuoteAny missing info would be solved by a quick question to a fellow rider who knew that I ridden the route .. and the missing control .. was sorted by the common sense of the organiser and my gpx track.
If we could all agree on a clear consensus that this was fine then I'd be a lot less bothered. But there are those on this very thread who are very concerned that info controls should retain their integrity.
On my first ride I was so scared about the rules and getting round in the time, I would be far to scared to actually ask another rider such things. I rode the 54km from the info control to the finish on a 200k last march, stressing that I'd get to the finish, and because I couldn't answer the question properly, cos the question didn't make sense (see up thread somewhere for more on that), and my ride wouldn't be validated because of it. I didn't need to worry as it happens. But I still did. For all 54km.
Can we dispense with the notion that UK-style routesheets are intrinsically difficult to understand or inherently offputting to the newcomer, or just for traditionalists?
Only if we can also dispense with the notion that they are perfect, cannot be improved in anyway, and are accessible to everyone ?
Quote
Back in 2010 on a long ride I introduced one popular style of AUK shorthand to my children, who later went on to do a very small number of audaxes, before deciding they preferred more competitive riding.
Imagine my surprise and amusement to find that once they'd learned to drive they were still using the same notation to write themselves directions rather than buying sat-navs or printing out pages and pages of TBT from Google maps. :o
Like any shorthand or code it takes a bit of getting used to (probably less time than a new GPS device) but once familiar it continues to prove its worth and effectiveness for the rest of one's audaxing career - and maybe beyond.
I must have been unusually fast in learning how to use my GPS...
J
PS Bloody hell, seems there's a 30000 character limit on posts, and I just hit it, hence splitting across 2 posts for this. Blimey...
Post by: telstarbox on 24 May, 2019, 11:03:31 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 24 May, 2019, 11:13:46 pm
Can we dispense with the notion that UK-style routesheets are intrinsically difficult to understand or inherently offputting to the newcomer, or just for traditionalists?
Dispense with the notion that it is unique to UK Audsxing too, the style of instruction as I a noted earlier has been in use in an international sport since before 1955 where I gave one famous example of such instructions being used to take the win.
That Mille Miglia win is relevant to Audaxing though.
The Italian concept of marking up the route on course was to let spectators know the route and their concept of closed roads was nonexistant, so moss really did get instructions like, T left at hotel, Straight on at Cross and caution over tramlines. Being 1600km they didn't get much route knowledge in advance ans had to find the pits (let's call them controls) in towns and villages from the instructions too.
Perhaps it's relevant to this thread too as the race has plenty of car crashes.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Post by: jsabine on 25 May, 2019, 12:30:15 am
[...] a routesheet that only provides positions relative to the previous instruction is an entirely fine way to navigate, That's fine, I'm not saying anyone has to stop doing it that way. I am however trying to understand how you all do it. It just does not work for my tiny brain.
A couple of other people have said upthread that it just works once you're on the road, and I'll add my voice to that. I started audaxing - using routesheets, because I couldn't justify a couple of hundred quid on an electronic toy - in 2013, and I found no real problems with them (barring one 400, where yes, I ended up coming to the same junction from three of the four possible directions. But that route, that routesheet, and that organiser are a special case).
In 2016 I acquired an Etrex because I really couldn't face 2000+ km of routesheets for the Wild Atlantic Way, and I've drifted into simply following the pink line ever since. But I reckon I've made more unforced routing errors with the GPS than I ever did with routesheets, and I'm currently in the process of making a bit more like Wilkyboy, and moving back to routesheets for primary navigation and using the Etrex for backup and reassurance (and laziness at night).
Meantime, if you actually want to understand how routesheets work in practice, may I suggest that you enter a UK event and actually try navigating using one? If it's SE-based (or at any rate easily accessible from London) I'll happily offer to meander round it with you, but with or without my company, I reckon you'll find it more helpful than simply continuing to boggle.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying routesheets are perfect. Most of them are distinctly imperfect. But so are most GPXs, and I'm quite happy to celebrate creative ambiguity. Even when it means I fuck up a 400.)
Post by: Fidgetbuzz on 25 May, 2019, 06:58:53 am
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 25 May, 2019, 07:42:35 am
In 2016 I acquired an Etrex because I really couldn't face 2000+ km of routesheets for the Wild Atlantic Way, and I've drifted into simply following the pink line ever since.
I was impressed by the pre-event briefing at the Mile Failte in 2014. The approach to controls, with selfies at information stops worked well. It's hard to envisage how that could be scaled beyond about 100 entrants though. From 2.50 on this video.
https://vimeo.com/330078656
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 25 May, 2019, 09:36:02 am
As you suggest, an organiser-supplied GPX usually makes life easier (and should be encouraged)
QG, you seem to be overlooking the points on which we agree and only focusing on where we disagree. I think we agree more than we disagree.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 25 May, 2019, 09:37:31 am
As you suggest, an organiser-supplied GPX usually makes life easier (and should be encouraged)
QG, you seem to be overlooking the points on which we agree and only focusing on where we disagree. I think we agree more than we disagree.
On this point we do agree. It just seems there's a lot of shit flying around making it hard to see these points.
J
Post by: Hummers on 25 May, 2019, 09:40:14 am
For anyone setting out on Audax for the first time, unless you are used to using a GPS in previous activities, you have to get used to using a GPS (and their quirks). For any Audax event, it is never wise to rely on one only one means of following the route, never think you can just follow other people and it pays to have an idea where you are going before setting out.
As a Perm organiser, I advise riders to always have a backup if they are using a GPX as proof of passage as a number of riders have been able to authenticate their attempt due to GPS failure which seems to still be a frequent issue.
With respect to backup with routesheets, a copy sheet tucked into your Caradice/saddlebag is always advisable.
H
Post by: quixoticgeek on 25 May, 2019, 09:53:05 am
I don't have a GPS but have used my phone when I have missed a turn or there is a mistake on the route sheet which rarely happens.
For anyone setting out on Audax for the first time, unless you are used to using a GPS in previous activities, you have to get used to using a GPS (and their quirks). For any Audax event, it is never wise to rely on one only one means of following the route, never think you can just follow other people and it pays to have an idea where you are going before setting out.
This is a specific form of the "No new kit on race day" principle. Buying new stuff to start audaxing with is probably not the best idea, unless you're already doing 150km+ rides, so the actual distance isn't so much the challenge.
I'd had my wahoo for just under 8 weeks when I used it on my first Audax. Even tho I had over 1000km of experience with the device, including a multi day bike packing adventure. But I was still surprised when it beeped at me at the first control. Didn't know it did that. Am glad it does.
Quote
As a Perm organiser, I advise riders to always have a backup if they are using a GPX as proof of passage as a number of riders have been able to authenticate their attempt due to GPS failure which seems to still be a frequent issue.
With respect to backup with routesheets, a copy sheet tucked into your Caradice/saddlebag is always advisable.
Someone messaged me directly this week, she's planning to do her first DIY audax, and wanted some advice. Carrying multiple GPS units for logging purposes so her ride is validated was one of the first things I told her.
I use my Inreach tracker as my backup for logging purposes. Covers 2 roles, means friends know where I am (and thus don't worry about me), and provides a log. It also provides that log "off site", as it relays the position every 10 mins via satellite. But then we've established I'm a bit paranoid, and over engineer things...
J
Post by: quixoticgeek on 25 May, 2019, 10:00:42 am
QG, it seems to me that you are prone to exaggeration and the use of ever-narrowing definitions to try to effect change on something that isn't perfect, but isn't broken either. What we're doing is going for a bike ride — what we're NOT doing is landing on Mars.
Mars[1] is about 430km from Amsterdam...
I wonder if I can find a good way to add 70km to the route... and make it a 1000km round trip DIY audax...
Damn you wilkyboy, this is how I ended up going to Hell[2] last year... :p
J
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars-sous-Bourcq
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway
Post by: mattc on 25 May, 2019, 06:31:39 pm
I've flagged a request on the AUK website to be able to filter listed events (cals and perms) with org supplied gpx tracks.... and Francis has now implemented it on the old website*:
Seems at least as worthy as some of the other filter options implemented recently.
http://www.aukweb.net/events/
*which is what I use anyway, so works for me :P
Post by: Von Broad on 26 May, 2019, 01:08:34 pm
For anyone setting out on Audax for the first time, unless you are used to using a GPS in previous activities, you have to get used to using a GPS (and their quirks). For any Audax event, it is never wise to rely on one only one means of following the route, never think you can just follow other people and it pays to have an idea where you are going before setting out.
Personally, I would never, ever run an organizers GPX file without scrutiny and modification [or one submitted by another rider for that matter]. This is not because the submitted GPX is not worthy [quite the opposite, they've been invariably written by very experienced Audxers/IT professionals], but solely because of personal preferences of how I want to visualize and navigate a GPX file. For me this involves two issues: firstly, mulitple points of a GPX track are nearly always superimposed directly over a road and I much prefer a bare [coloured green track] without instructions of prompts to run along side the road and not superimposed over the top. This means I see me [the cursor] and the road layout/junctions clearly, which are constantly being understood as I move along. And secondly - I want separate GPX tracks for control each section of a ride. But as I say - these are just my personal preferences.
This involves a bit of preparation before an event - the longer the ride, the more preparation involved.
By doing this like, you start to build up a degree of control and self-reliance. When it comes to GPX files, the more responsibility you can remove from the organizer [or anybody else], and transfer to yourself the better experience you'll have.
But, at the end of the day, it's all about getting out there and riding a few, and finding out what works and what doesn't and accumulating a bank of experience. And that can take a while.
Edit: Hey Hummers, nice to see you, where have you been old chap?
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 26 May, 2019, 08:52:44 pm
Quote
OK, fine, Tough Mudder isn’t that hard. It is a moderate-distance run peppered with stuff to jump over and climb through. More than 3 million people have taken part in Tough Mudder events; the number wouldn’t be so high if it were as difficult as everyone makes out.
But is it a good bonding exercise? It depends. Does your idea of bonding involve hitching yourself to a caricature of traditional masculinity in an era when the well-off have to purchase their own suffering?
It sure does! Great, feel free to sign up. There is one in Sussex in a few weeks. It is £139 a person.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2018/sep/03/tough-mudder-sure-sign-midlife-crisis
So the secret to broadening the appeal of Audax is to emphasise the difficulties.
Post by: Manotea on 26 May, 2019, 09:49:09 pm
I've flagged a request on the AUK website to be able to filter listed events (cals and perms) with org supplied gpx tracks.... and Francis has now implemented it on the old website*:
Seems at least as worthy as some of the other filter options implemented recently.
http://www.aukweb.net/events/
*which is what I use anyway, so works for me :P
That's good (well done, Francis!), although it has been pointed out that this might be shortlived; the expectation is that the pages listing cals and perms on the old website will be withdrawn at some point, and current practice is to do so without notice.
P.S., I also took the opportunity to request (and I don't believe I'm the first...) that the pages listing Cals and Perms on the new website be structured along the lines of the old website. The tabular layout and uneven spacing mean that listings on the new website contain way too much whitespace, and in turn means you can only view about 10 events at a time on a regular HD Screen, half that displayed on the old website. I guess I could 'zoom out' but then I wouldn't be able to read the text. I've been advised that my comments will be considered but there are concerns that some users might prefer the new format. More to the point, any such change will incur significant delay, effort and cost. Meanwhile, as I write, the new website currently has a load time of about 40seconds whereas the old website loads more or less instantly.
P.P.S, Props to quixoticgeek for what must surely be the longest - at least in terms of yardage - post on YACF evah!
P.P.P.S. Props to Von B for his Bare Bones ride!
Post by: quixoticgeek on 27 May, 2019, 12:55:27 am
P.P.P.S, Props to quixoticgeek for what must surely be the longest - at least in terms of yardage - post on YACF evah!
Thanks. Hadn't realised there was a 30000 character limit on posts until I hit submit... I can't take all the credit tho, there's a lot of quote text in there :p
J
Post by: iomadh on 27 May, 2019, 10:19:36 pm
I've not done very many Audax rides and always use a route GPX AND print out and laminate the route sheet as well (who knows what might happen to my Garmin; always best to have a backup).
I am reminded of my second ever audax though. First one was a 100 I did with a friend and I just followed everyone else. On my first 200, I did have a device that was recording my route but didn't have a way to display the route, so was relying on my less than perfect understanding of the instructions on the route sheet.
All was well to start with, with the usual pelaton of riders to follow. However the group gradually reduced down to me and another guy who was an experienced chap and we were so busy chatting about PBP and other audax stuff that we missed a turning at some point and ended up lost.
I'd printed out a map of the entire route which on its own would have been useless as the scale was too small but the other guy had brought an OS map. Between us, we'd worked out where we'd gone wrong and got back to the route.
This just sticks out as a highlight in my memories of audaxing. I do wonder know if my use of GPX takes a little bit away from the experience these days -- but it does make life a whole lot easier. I still print out and laminate the routes btw (better safe than sorry) (and yeah, I like getting an editable version so I can resize it to fit the window of my top tube bag)
Post by: arabella on 27 May, 2019, 10:32:13 pm
The thing I like about audax is the no frills approach. All I need is a bike that moves, a few bits and bobs in case of minor ailments to said bike and some food in case I didn’t eat enough at the last control. And a route sheet. And a map, generally 1:250,000.
Then just slavishly follow the instructions. I don’t have any distance measure and nowadays don’t have a wristwatch either. The thing is, as the route’s not mandatory you can do your own (I did go thorough a phase of doing so for parts of the route, until I decided it wasn’t worth it). When I do my own route sheets I occasionally use one of imm[ediately] / soon / eventually to give an idea about how far away the next instruction is, or “KO [keep on] until xxxxx after which”
I occasionally find I’m not where I think I should be. Worst case, I get out the map and decide what to do about it. Usually to navigate to the next identifiable on-route point.
I only take one route sheet, the plastic bag keeps it safe (even on 1400km of the 2009 hypothermia-LEL). I suppose one day I may loose it, and on a not-an-audax which took in the extremely unloved north downs way it bounced away without me noticing. I decided it was time to take a train the rest of the way. Not likely enough to worry about.
I think the thing is,for QG, you are used to NL style (or possibly more than just NL style) route sheets, and AUK ones are different. Personally I have had 0 success trying to navigate across NL using the knob thingies on cycle tracks that are apparently oh so easy. Very much a case of ‘what you are used to’ I think.
As for other things what have been mentioned: I’m a middle aged woman. I don’t think anyone ever asked me if I was with anyone else at a ride, nor have I found blokes in the women’s toilets, maybe those are a non-UK thing. Being middle aged I'm therefore invisible as regards bike shops, and being treated like a moron isn’t limited to women - I’ve had to point out to bloke-I-was-with AND to bloke-in-the-shop that the tyre they were offering was not the size we’d asked for …
istr once upon a time the Worcestershire and south cotswolds blurb used to say no woman had ever entered/finished it (one of the 2). I didn’t enter, being from the flatlands….
Post by: megajoulesexpenditure on 28 May, 2019, 03:52:01 pm
Audax does seem to have become extremely complicated these days ( If you let it of course). The talk of encouraging newcomers. I'm amazed those happening upon these discussions even know that we are a cycling group.
Pedal Up!
One evening gone ....
The thing I like about audax is the no frills approach. All I need is a bike that moves, a few bits and bobs in case of minor ailments to said bike and some food in case I didn’t eat enough at the last control. And a route sheet. And a map, generally 1:250,000.
Then just slavishly follow the instructions. I don’t have any distance measure and nowadays don’t have a wristwatch either. The thing is, as the route’s not mandatory you can do your own (I did go thorough a phase of doing so for parts of the route, until I decided it wasn’t worth it). When I do my own route sheets I occasionally use one of imm[ediately] / soon / eventually to give an idea about how far away the next instruction is, or “KO [keep on] until xxxxx after which”
I occasionally find I’m not where I think I should be. Worst case, I get out the map and decide what to do about it. Usually to navigate to the next identifiable on-route point.
I only take one route sheet, the plastic bag keeps it safe (even on 1400km of the 2009 hypothermia-LEL). I suppose one day I may loose it, and on a not-an-audax which took in the extremely unloved north downs way it bounced away without me noticing. I decided it was time to take a train the rest of the way. Not likely enough to worry about.
I think the thing is,for QG, you are used to NL style (or possibly more than just NL style) route sheets, and AUK ones are different. Personally I have had 0 success trying to navigate across NL using the knob thingies on cycle tracks that are apparently oh so easy. Very much a case of ‘what you are used to’ I think.
As for other things what have been mentioned: I’m a middle aged woman. I don’t think anyone ever asked me if I was with anyone else at a ride, nor have I found blokes in the women’s toilets, maybe those are a non-UK thing. Being middle aged I'm therefore invisible as regards bike shops, and being treated like a moron isn’t limited to women - I’ve had to point out to bloke-I-was-with AND to bloke-in-the-shop that the tyre they were offering was not the size we’d asked for …
istr once upon a time the Worcestershire and south cotswolds blurb used to say no woman had ever entered/finished it (one of the 2). I didn’t enter, being from the flatlands….
Post by: simonp on 28 May, 2019, 04:18:51 pm
...I'm in looking at these route sheets in disbelief. How on earth do people actually navigate from them? If you make a single wrong turn, how do you find your way back on to route?
I genuinely laughed out loud when I read that. :)
I wonder how many events (no doubt collectively, hundreds) some of the contributors to this thread rode before the advent of GPS.
I have to say this thread reminds me of someone whose only experience is watching episodes of Star Trek lecturing Wernher Von Braun on how to build rockets.
Do keep it up :thumbsup:
It's got to proper levels of LOL now.
I was bought my first GPS this year. How did I manage for so many years ?
I rode an 100k Audax with a routesheet in 1998. Did not do one again until 2006, by which time I had a GPS, and I've not used a routesheet ever, except for working out the odd ambiguous control or info location.
Post by: Genosse Brymbo on 28 May, 2019, 04:46:04 pm
HBloody hell, qg, you've woken Hummers up!
Post by: FifeingEejit on 28 May, 2019, 05:53:30 pm
Fairly major bit of misreading the RWGPS elevation calculation and distance reduction though when I scoped it out initially; only saved 1km but added 300m of climb... the 5km I thought it cut was probably in the RWGPSism I'd cut out for going over a footpath somewhere up Yad Moss. :-[
On the other hand I did avoid the A7 between Langholm and Longtown which I detest and spotted that the RWGPS route provided that we were told to check over for ourselves had a RWGPSism in it and led to the sort of route obstacles you find on NCN routes that a UCI Downhill course designer would be proud of...
I probably should have mentioned it beforehand but I thought, why anyone would blindly follow a gps trace taking them onto a "cycle" route when there's a perfectly good quiet road that's even signed all the way...
Absolution of thought process?
Post by: megajoulesexpenditure on 29 May, 2019, 07:44:05 am
I'm now apparently miffed that having discovered a road that's been shut for 5 years is now open that I managed to find my way back on track at all after taking it on Saturday, GPS track and route sheet useless at that point, roadsigns and a tolerable sense of direction... handy.
Fairly major bit of misreading the RWGPS elevation calculation and distance reduction though when I scoped it out initially; only saved 1km but added 300m of climb... the 5km I thought it cut was probably in the RWGPSism I'd cut out for going over a footpath somewhere up Yad Moss. :-[
On the other hand I did avoid the A7 between Langholm and Longtown which I detest and spotted that the RWGPS route provided that we were told to check over for ourselves had a RWGPSism in it and led to the sort of route obstacles you find on NCN routes that a UCI Downhill course designer would be proud of...
I probably should have mentioned it beforehand but I thought, why anyone would blindly follow a gps trace taking them onto a "cycle" route when there's a perfectly good quiet road that's even signed all the way...
Absolution of thought process?
Post by: lmm on 29 May, 2019, 08:11:34 am
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 29 May, 2019, 02:47:22 pm
For me a break from thinking is part of the fun. Just turn the pedals, watch the landscape go by, occasionally turn off when the voice in my ear tells me to.
You can do that on any bike ride. Audax is interesting as a cybernetic system. Sport is usually pretty brutal in terms of feedback. Run 100 metres, and you soon find that you're crap. You might find that you're more suited to endurance, and be driven to longer and longer events, and still find that you're crap. But ultra-distance is impressive in itself.
Tell people that you ran 100 metres in 20 seconds, and they'll look at you funny. Tell them you rode 250 miles in 24 hours, and it sounds impressive. Audax started as a social activity, a long club run, and the navigation is a shared experience. Somehow it's mutated into a much more individualistic experience, something to do with self-actualisation. Me and my trusty sat-nav against the world.
The problem is that following a GPX that someone else provided is less impressive than breaking new ground, unless you're doing it faster than everyone else, or describing the experience in an interesting way. That's assuming that you're interested in the feedback that you get from the experience, rather than the experience itself, which can involve talking to others, maybe even co-operating when you get lost.
Post by: lmm on 30 May, 2019, 07:45:27 am
The problem is that following a GPX that someone else provided is less impressive than breaking new ground, unless you're doing it faster than everyone else, or describing the experience in an interesting way. That's assuming that you're interested in the feedback that you get from the experience, rather than the experience itself, which can involve talking to others, maybe even co-operating when you get lost.
So we should use routesheets to make sure we get lost more often? Or because successfully following one is an impressive achievement? As above, if people want an event where navigation is part of the challenge then there are events run on that basis - that's not what audax is about though[1].
I'm not here to impress anyone. I enjoy audax as an individual pursuit (which I understand it's largely been since 1921), as someone who group rides never appealed to. No doubt others will have their own preferences; as long as we're all pursuing long-distance cycling that's ok, isn't it?
If routesheets work for you then great, but none of these motivated claims about them stack up. If they weren't the tradition no-one would be claiming routesheets were simpler, more reliable, cheaper for riders or easier for organisers. The format works for some people, and it appeals to some people because it's a tradition, but it's not the approach you'd take to satisfy any set of goals if you were starting today. It's an accident of history.
[1] Or at least, not what most of us have said here, and not what's in the AUK mission statement.
Post by: Ajax Bay on 30 May, 2019, 11:25:53 am
if people want an event where navigation is part of the challenge then there are events run on that basis - that's not what audax is about thoughLong distance riding inevitably means that "navigation is part of the challenge" though and if a rider wishes to take certain roads and avoid certain road types, and to arrive at controls (if that's the format), they need to navigate. This can be done in a number of ways. You are just stating your preference for one way and asking, in a non-mandatory way of course, for organisers to provide electronic 'elp for you (and your like) to use that method and to define and communicate the control sites in that way. And implying that if organisers don't provide this they are falling below the quality threshold you would like to be applied. A routesheet is accessible to all (and the 'no printer access' line does not hold water): other formats are not.
In UK the start/finish and 'normal' controls of a calendar ride are published on the event page. I would like to see the locations (once decided by the organiser) of info controls similarly shared (as opposed to being revealed only once the routesheet is sent out) and for those locations to be reasonably well defined, and on the routesheet and on the brevet (on the latter that can give such detail along with the 'question' - there's plenty of space). A 2 letter 6 figure grid reference is all that's needed if the control location is not a 'place'.
Post by: Kim on 30 May, 2019, 11:56:29 am
A routesheet is accessible to all (and the 'no printer access' line does not hold water): other formats are not.
Why is a routesheet more accessible than a map? Mapreading is a skill most of us were taught in school, and use regularly in real life, which is surely more accessible than an abbreviated relative format that relies on an ability to accurately measure distance and fails badly as soon as you deviate from the route.
Sure, I appreciate that routesheets are more efficient for experienced users, particularly if storage density is an issue (ie. paper). But the same can be said for using a GPS.
Post by: jiberjaber on 30 May, 2019, 12:23:37 pm
if people want an event where navigation is part of the challenge then there are events run on that basis - that's not what audax is about thoughLong distance riding inevitably means that "navigation is part of the challenge" though and if a rider wishes to take certain roads and avoid certain road types, and to arrive at controls (if that's the format), they need to navigate. This can be done in a number of ways. You are just stating your preference for one way and asking, in a non-mandatory way of course, for organisers to provide electronic 'elp for you (and your like) to use that method and to define and communicate the control sites in that way. And implying that if organisers don't provide this they are falling below the quality threshold you would like to be applied. A routesheet is accessible to all (and the 'no printer access' line does not hold water): other formats are not.
In UK the start/finish and 'normal' controls of a calendar ride are published on the event page. I would like to see the locations (once decided by the organiser) of info controls similarly shared (as opposed to being revealed only once the routesheet is sent out) and for those locations to be reasonably well defined, and on the routesheet and on the brevet (on the latter that can give such detail along with the 'question' - there's plenty of space). A 2 letter 6 figure grid reference is all that's needed if the control location is not a 'place'.
This started off oh so well then went a bit south... route sheet and GPX are equally accessible... eg: 'no printer but GPS device' compared with 'printer but no GPS device'.... I am in the camp of no printer but have a GPS device. Not sure which argument you were answering with the holds no water. For the familiarisation bit sure, holds no water, but for the actual navigation on the road, without a printer, how does that work? (unless you get a printed sheet of the org at the start - limited sheets might be available)
Info location should certainly be shared before the ride in a way that allows the rider to work out where it is broadly (village/street level) but happy with the actual location description & question reserved for the Brevet. Saying it should be a grid reference on the day of the ride now means I need someway 15 mins before the off to work that out? (paper map/internet access to look it up?)
Just an unambiguous description on the info location in words should suffice... if the organiser was wanting to play silly with the description then I probably wouldn't ride the event again but my experience of UK AUDAX is that Orgs generally are not looking to catch you out here and there is help/consensus amongst the riders where ambiguity creeps in. You've got to be very unlucky to screw up on an info control (eg. miss it completely) but that is rider fault not the organisers...
Post by: grams on 30 May, 2019, 12:48:54 pm
A routesheet is accessible to all (and the 'no printer access' line does not hold water): other formats are not.
If you assume your new audax rider is a complete noob, yes. But if you assume they have some moderate distance cycling experience, chances are they have a GPS and know how to follow a route on it. Being presented with a routesheet is completely alien to this kind of rider.
Quote
A 2 letter 6 figure grid reference is all that's needed if the control location is not a 'place'.
I concur with this, or something like it. Part of my ride preparation ritual is figuring out where the info controls are, which sometimes requires a fair amount of stepping through the routesheet and dicking about on street view. Not the most onerous task, but kind of silly if every rider has to do it.
(Of course if I was following the routesheet, I wouldn't have to do any of this. I could just turn up having not looked at it and the routesheet at all)
Post by: Karla on 30 May, 2019, 01:05:04 pm
A routesheet is accessible to all (and the 'no printer access' line does not hold water): other formats are not.Why is a routesheet more accessible than a map?
It's more accessible to people who are vastly familiar with this way of doing things, and therefore allows old timers to take back control from people who want to navigate using technology that has only been available since the days of the Maastricht treaty.
Post by: jiberjaber on 30 May, 2019, 01:46:39 pm
A routesheet is accessible to all (and the 'no printer access' line does not hold water): other formats are not.Why is a routesheet more accessible than a map?
It's more accessible to people who are vastly familiar with this way of doing things, and therefore allows old timers to take back control from people who want to navigate using technology that has only been available since the days of the Maastricht treaty.
Careful - you'll be wanting a people's vote next or parading around with some fictitious saving linked to printing route sheets and banning GPS Devices on the side of a bus... :thumbsup:
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 30 May, 2019, 02:10:05 pm
However, once organisers start providing accommodation, catering and sleeping arrangements, then GPX is a relatively small factor, and one which can be crowd-sourced. It's easy enough to download a GPX, check it against the route sheet, and Google maps, maybe scope out some anomalies with Google Street View. But there can be less confidence about the standard of accommodation, beds, or food. The old hands know who's good at what, but they also know that it's not done to moan about standards online. We are talking about volunteers after all.
So it's amusing to see all this debate about something that riders can take into their own hands, while the bulk of what organisers provide isn't really up for discussion. Compound that with arguments from people who seem happiest on their own, and don't value the social aspect of Audax, and it all looks a bit odd.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 30 May, 2019, 02:25:48 pm
One evening gone ....
The thing I like about audax is the no frills approach. All I need is a bike that moves, a few bits and bobs in case of minor ailments to said bike and some food in case I didn’t eat enough at the last control. And a route sheet. And a map, generally 1:250,000.
So as well as the route sheet, a map is needed?
Quote
Then just slavishly follow the instructions. I don’t have any distance measure and nowadays don’t have a wristwatch either. The thing is, as the route’s not mandatory you can do your own (I did go thorough a phase of doing so for parts of the route, until I decided it wasn’t worth it). When I do my own route sheets I occasionally use one of imm[ediately] / soon / eventually to give an idea about how far away the next instruction is, or “KO [keep on] until xxxxx after which”
But, unless there is absolute positioning given for info controls, the route is effectively mandatory, at least for sections preceding the info controls.
Quote
I occasionally find I’m not where I think I should be. Worst case, I get out the map and decide what to do about it. Usually to navigate to the next identifiable on-route point.
I only take one route sheet, the plastic bag keeps it safe (even on 1400km of the 2009 hypothermia-LEL). I suppose one day I may loose it, and on a not-an-audax which took in the extremely unloved north downs way it bounced away without me noticing. I decided it was time to take a train the rest of the way. Not likely enough to worry about.
Data points: it's happened at least once. Therefore it is something to put on the "It may happen" list, there for it needs a contingency plan. Your contingency is "well that's a message I should take a train home". Others have an alternative contingency of "I have a second copy in the carradice"
Quote
I think the thing is,for QG, you are used to NL style (or possibly more than just NL style) route sheets, and AUK ones are different. Personally I have had 0 success trying to navigate across NL using the knob thingies on cycle tracks that are apparently oh so easy. Very much a case of ‘what you are used to’ I think.
Actually I am only talking about AUK style route sheets. The quality of the GPX provided by Randonneurs NL is so good I don't need to worry about the route sheet. I just use it to get the address of the controls, as a belt and braces approach.
The Nodepunten are an interesting concept. I love them, but they tend not to provide a particularly direct route from A to B, but if you want to explore the country side, it's nice to occasionally write a string of numbers on your arm, and set off. Most nodes also include a map, which makes improvising easy.
I once tried to follow the signs for NCN 1 from London to Canterbury. I got a police escort from the M20... I did have a map with me, but it was made in 1974, and was missing the M20... M25... M2... and a few other important bits... This was back in 2002, when I was much younger, and much more naive...
Quote
As for other things what have been mentioned: I’m a middle aged woman. I don’t think anyone ever asked me if I was with anyone else at a ride, nor have I found blokes in the women’s toilets, maybe those are a non-UK thing. Being middle aged I'm therefore invisible as regards bike shops, and being treated like a moron isn’t limited to women - I’ve had to point out to bloke-I-was-with AND to bloke-in-the-shop that the tyre they were offering was not the size we’d asked for …
At least one friend of mine who has done many AUK events has found men in the women's loo at AUK events.
I'm in my 30's, tho if I take my helmet off so people see the grey hair, I pass for mid 40's. The world treats me like I'm 12...
The plural of anecdote is data. The singular of data is anecdote.
Quote
istr once upon a time the Worcestershire and south cotswolds blurb used to say no woman had ever entered/finished it (one of the 2). I didn’t enter, being from the flatlands….
Which event is this?
HBloody hell, qg, you've woken Hummers up!
Feature or bug?
You can do that on any bike ride. Audax is interesting as a cybernetic system. Sport is usually pretty brutal in terms of feedback. Run 100 metres, and you soon find that you're crap. You might find that you're more suited to endurance, and be driven to longer and longer events, and still find that you're crap. But ultra-distance is impressive in itself.
Tell people that you ran 100 metres in 20 seconds, and they'll look at you funny. Tell them you rode 250 miles in 24 hours, and it sounds impressive. Audax started as a social activity, a long club run, and the navigation is a shared experience. Somehow it's mutated into a much more individualistic experience, something to do with self-actualisation. Me and my trusty sat-nav against the world.
The problem is that following a GPX that someone else provided is less impressive than breaking new ground, unless you're doing it faster than everyone else, or describing the experience in an interesting way. That's assuming that you're interested in the feedback that you get from the experience, rather than the experience itself, which can involve talking to others, maybe even co-operating when you get lost.
How is following a GPX the org provides and cycling 200km any less impressive than following the route sheet and cycling 200km? Surely the distance is the bit that surprises people.
When non long distance cyclists here about the rides I'm doing, the usual exchange is identical to one Juliana Buhring has in her book:
"You're crazy"
"That is the popular opinion"
I read all the accounts of riders on AUK events, riding this leg with x and y, and then meeting q and z for this bit, and then w and p let them draft for the headwind section. On the November 200 from Bergen-Op-Zoom, I saw everyone over take me in the first about 3km. By the time I was 10km down the road people had fadded into the distance. Eventually a late starter caught up with me, rode with me for maybe 100m, then rode off. I saw about 5 riders at CP1. I then didn't see another rider until I got to the finish, 160km later (110km of which into a 30kph headwind...)
On a 200 in February, I had "company" from a Polish guy for some of the ride. I noticed at times my bike was making a weird freewheeling sound. I kept looking around it trying to work out where it was coming from. Then the sun came out, I looked at my shadow, and realised I'd picked up a wheel parasite. I needed the training ride, the 1000m of climbing, and the 80kph headwinds, were conditions that I was content to battle into. I had the Guilty Feminist on my headphones, I was content. So I didn't object to the guy sitting on my wheel for the first 100k or so. I think of it as paying forward those who have let me sit on their wheel into headwinds (tho I usually ask first). At CP2 I lost the wheel parasite, and picked up 2 newbies on their first event, and shepherded them to the arrivé.
What I'm basically saying is that for me, Audax is a solo experience. The fact I can list every time I've riden with another rider on an Audax, is indicative of how rare it is. But that's cos I'm slow. I turn up to the events, I don't know anyone (tho I'm now becoming known to people, and picking up a few names at least enough to say hello to). I want to do an AUK 400 or 300 next year, even if there is 20 of you from this thread on the event, I'm entering it fully expecting to be both lantern rouge, and riding solo the whole time. I'm slow. But I seem to just keep going.
Long distance riding inevitably means that "navigation is part of the challenge" though and if a rider wishes to take certain roads and avoid certain road types, and to arrive at controls (if that's the format), they need to navigate. This can be done in a number of ways. You are just stating your preference for one way and asking, in a non-mandatory way of course, for organisers to provide electronic 'elp for you (and your like) to use that method and to define and communicate the control sites in that way. And implying that if organisers don't provide this they are falling below the quality threshold you would like to be applied. A routesheet is accessible to all (and the 'no printer access' line does not hold water): other formats are not.
A routesheet is not accessible to all. It is accessible to the majority, but you cannot claim it is accessible to all.
Dyslexia, being non native speaker, that's just 2 of the situations where a route sheet may not be accessible. I did BPB last year, the routesheet was more accessible than most, being that it was multilingual (French, Dutch, English). If however you do not speak these languages, if the latin alphabet is not your primary alphabet, then reading a routesheet, at speed, as it vibrates on the handlebars, it is not accessible.
Quote
In UK the start/finish and 'normal' controls of a calendar ride are published on the event page. I would like to see the locations (once decided by the organiser) of info controls similarly shared (as opposed to being revealed only once the routesheet is sent out) and for those locations to be reasonably well defined, and on the routesheet and on the brevet (on the latter that can give such detail along with the 'question' - there's plenty of space). A 2 letter 6 figure grid reference is all that's needed if the control location is not a 'place'.
Navigation is a term that can cover many things. Following a route sheet is navigation. Following a dot on a screen is navigation. Being told at the start "here's your 4 controls, find your own way, good luck" is also a navigation. They are just different types of navigation.
I'm glad someone else thinks that an absolute position should be provided for info's.
Info location should certainly be shared before the ride in a way that allows the rider to work out where it is broadly (village/street level) but happy with the actual location description & question reserved for the Brevet. Saying it should be a grid reference on the day of the ride now means I need someway 15 mins before the off to work that out? (paper map/internet access to look it up?)
Including it as only a grid reference, requires a map or electronic device.
Including it only as a relative position from a string of directions: L @ T, R @ X, SO @ T, R @ T INFO, requires you've followed every direction to the letter.
Saying it's in the village of BRIDGE, isn't useful, it's a big place.
Put all three on the routesheet, with the actual question on the Brevet card. Now we have precision, we have redundancy, and we have choice. Some riders will follow the route sheet instructions to the letter, others will prefer to navigate to the grid ref, others will follow signs to BRIDGE, and then work it out.
Quote
Just an unambiguous description on the info location in words should suffice... if the organiser was wanting to play silly with the description then I probably wouldn't ride the event again but my experience of UK AUDAX is that Orgs generally are not looking to catch you out here and there is help/consensus amongst the riders where ambiguity creeps in. You've got to be very unlucky to screw up on an info control (eg. miss it completely) but that is rider fault not the organisers...
You use the term unambiguous. I agree. I also think that a relative position based on instructions on the route sheet is *NOT* unambiguous.
A routesheet is accessible to all (and the 'no printer access' line does not hold water): other formats are not.
If you assume your new audax rider is a complete noob, yes. But if you assume they have some moderate distance cycling experience, chances are they have a GPS and know how to follow a route on it. Being presented with a routesheet is completely alien to this kind of rider.
At the start of RatN, I gave a lesson in disk brake maintenance to a world renown rider. They had plenty of experience with navigation, multiple GPS devices, but didn't know how to fix their brakes if there was an issue on the road.
I'd say that for a new person wanting to get into long distance riding, they are more likely to own a GPS (or smart phone with suitable app), than they are to know how to fix their bike at the side of the road, or carry the tools to do so.
Quote
QuoteA 2 letter 6 figure grid reference is all that's needed if the control location is not a 'place'.
I concur with this, or something like it. Part of my ride preparation ritual is figuring out where the info controls are, which sometimes requires a fair amount of stepping through the routesheet and dicking about on street view. Not the most onerous task, but kind of silly if every rider has to do it.
(Of course if I was following the routesheet, I wouldn't have to do any of this. I could just turn up having not looked at it and the routesheet at all)
As long as you don't accidentally take a Left when you wanted a right, or miss a turning... And yes, dicking about with streetview shouldn't be necessary...
It's more accessible to people who are vastly familiar with this way of doing things, and therefore allows old timers to take back control from people who want to navigate using technology that has only been available since the days of the Maastricht treaty.
Wow, so much to unpack in a single sentence. You know what, maybe I'll pass on this one...
I've never used a GPS while Audaxing, mainly because any complex navigation on rides I've done has been on home ground, where I know the lanes. Provision of GPXs is a very binary way of judging rides. If all you expect from Audax is a route you can ride on your own, then it's a deal-breaker.
Come join a Dutch ride!
Quote
However, once organisers start providing accommodation, catering and sleeping arrangements, then GPX is a relatively small factor, and one which can be crowd-sourced. It's easy enough to download a GPX, check it against the route sheet, and Google maps, maybe scope out some anomalies with Google Street View. But there can be less confidence about the standard of accommodation, beds, or food. The old hands know who's good at what, but they also know that it's not done to moan about standards online. We are talking about volunteers after all.
No point providing all of those if it's hard to find where they are :p
Quote
So it's amusing to see all this debate about something that riders can take into their own hands, while the bulk of what organisers provide isn't really up for discussion. Compound that with arguments from people who seem happiest on their own, and don't value the social aspect of Audax, and it all looks a bit odd.
Thing is, I can only take routing into my own hands, if there is unambiguous, absolute positioning given for all the control points.
I would love to have people to ride with, to share the wind, to share the view, to talk to. But for me it's not a deal breaker. I'm gonna bloody well ride, despite any hurdles people try to throw in front of me, not because of them.
I'm just slow, and most people riding audaxes don't want to ride at my speed. But I'm not going to stop doing it just cos noone will ride with me.
J
Post by: Ben T on 30 May, 2019, 03:18:03 pm
This started off oh so well then went a bit south... route sheet and GPX are equally accessible... eg: 'no printer but GPS device' compared with 'printer but no GPS device'.... I am in the camp of no printer but have a GPS device. Not sure which argument you were answering with the holds no water. For the familiarisation bit sure, holds no water, but for the actual navigation on the road, without a printer, how does that work? (unless you get a printed sheet of the org at the start - limited sheets might be available)
Let's not forget, if you don't want it to get wet, you also need a laminator, and laminator sheets.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 30 May, 2019, 03:21:30 pm
Let's not forget, if you don't want it to get wet, you also need a laminator, and laminator sheets.
If you laminate it, and do some origami, then it should hold water!
Is a zip lock bag not the defacto standard waterproof protection?
J
Post by: jiberjaber on 30 May, 2019, 03:30:54 pm
This started off oh so well then went a bit south... route sheet and GPX are equally accessible... eg: 'no printer but GPS device' compared with 'printer but no GPS device'.... I am in the camp of no printer but have a GPS device. Not sure which argument you were answering with the holds no water. For the familiarisation bit sure, holds no water, but for the actual navigation on the road, without a printer, how does that work? (unless you get a printed sheet of the org at the start - limited sheets might be available)
Let's not forget, if you don't want it to get wet, you also need a laminator, and laminator sheets.
Or Toughprint or similar waterproof paper instead (worked OK for LEL - when I did have a printer) Next we'll be asking orgs to provide the route sheet on waterproof paper as well ;D
Post by: rob on 30 May, 2019, 03:35:46 pm
Is a zip lock bag not the defacto standard waterproof protection?
Brevet card bag. Very handy.
Post by: Ajax Bay on 30 May, 2019, 04:09:46 pm
[use routesheet]. . . for the actual navigation on the road, without a printer, how does that work? (unless you get a printed sheet of the org at the start - limited sheets might be available)if people want an event where navigation is part of the challenge then there are events run on that basis - that's not what audax is about thoughLong distance riding inevitably means that "navigation is part of the challenge"
If really no access to printer (home, friend, work, library) then we've established upthread that the organiser will, on request or probably in any case, bring one/several. Accessible.
Info location should certainly be shared before the ride in a way that allows the rider to work out where it is broadly (village/street level) but happy with the actual location description & question reserved for the Brevet. Saying it should be a grid reference on the day of the ride now means I need someway 15 mins before the off to work that out? (paper map/internet access to look it up?)
Not saying it should be given as a grid reference on the day or that that's useful. Location, however defined, shared early on helps those who want to look at the route to do so. I was suggesting an easy way of describing it on the routesheet (if it's not in a 'place').
Just an unambiguous description on the info location in words should suffice...
Agreed, but for some info control locations this is easier said than written.
Post by: citoyen on 30 May, 2019, 04:24:23 pm
So as well as the route sheet, a map is needed?
I've never carried a map on an audax. It strikes me that there's not much point carrying a map unless you also carry a compass.
Quote
I did have a map with me, but it was made in 1974...
Reminds me of the time I came down the wrong side of a mountain in Snowdonia because it was foggy and the map I was using was from the 1960s...
Quote
I'm glad someone else thinks that an absolute position should be provided for info's.
For me, it's a question of precision vs accuracy. If the location is accurate and well described, you won't need grid reference levels of precision to locate it. And the wording of the question on the brevet card should provide any extra context required to further define the location.
Besides, grid references may be precise but that doesn't always mean they're accurate (consider that it's possible for a 4-figure grid reference to be more accurate than a 6-figure grid reference).
Town and village names have the added bonus of being displayed on road signs. Grid references are not.
Quote
Saying it's in the village of BRIDGE, isn't useful, it's a big place.
Bridge is not a good counter-example because a) it is most definitely NOT a "big" place, and b) it is a linear village, so as long as you don't turn off the main road, you should have no trouble locating the info.
Say, for example, the location of the info was given simply as "BRIDGE" on the route sheet, and the question on the brevet card was "Name of pub opposite Londis supermarket", that really ought to be more than enough information for you to be able to find the correct answer, even if you have gone off route on your way to Bridge. (There are several pubs in Bridge, but only one of them is opposite the Londis.)
Quote
Put all three on the routesheet, with the actual question on the Brevet card. Now we have precision, we have redundancy, and we have choice.
Hmmm. As an organiser, I have a policy of not providing redundant information. It's an unnecessary distraction.
For me, the concise nature of a typical routesheet (and lack of redundant information) is one of its virtues. I remember one 200 I did some years ago (pre-GPS) where the organiser took the opposite view and wrote his routesheet as a descriptive essay in long paragraphs. Trying to follow it while riding was... interesting.
Quote
As long as you don't accidentally take a Left when you wanted a right, or miss a turning... And yes, dicking about with streetview shouldn't be necessary...
Routesheets make more sense on Streetview than on a flat map because Streetview is more akin to how they are designed to be used - in the real world, junctions don't always appear the same way they are depicted on maps.
In my experience, what looks like a confusing instruction when you're trying to follow the routesheet on a map at home usually turns out to be a perfectly clear instruction when you're actually doing the ride and can see the junction in front of you.
I get that there are valid reasons why some people find routesheets difficult to use (eg dyslexia) but I simply don't believe that people who continue to use routesheets only do so because of "tradition" or luddism. For most people, they just work. Yes, GPS is now affordable, available and reliable enough to be a viable alternative for most of us, and websites like RWGPS make it accessible and easy to use, but route sheets still have much to recommend them. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Post by: wilkyboy on 30 May, 2019, 04:24:44 pm
Did you miss me?
Post by: quixoticgeek on 30 May, 2019, 04:36:04 pm
Did you miss me?
Yes, but if we adjust for windage, and practice a bit, our aim will improve ;p
J
Post by: citoyen on 30 May, 2019, 04:43:22 pm
QuoteJust an unambiguous description on the info location in words should suffice...
Agreed, but for some info control locations this is easier said than written.
I think there's a separate issue here with regard to info control locations. If they are that difficult to find without a grid reference, that is in my opinion a poor choice of info control and the organiser needs to have a word with him/herself.
As has been noted upthread, many of the issues that make modern routes impossible to navigate without GPS are to do with the nature of the route, not any inherent flaw in the traditional routesheet format. Arguably, such routes should be rejected by the Events Team as excessively complicated.
Post by: wilkyboy on 30 May, 2019, 04:44:15 pm
Did you miss me?
Yes, but if we adjust for windage, and practice a bit, our aim will improve ;p
J
Haha :thumbsup:
Post by: citoyen on 30 May, 2019, 04:44:42 pm
Sorry I've been away. I was riding my bike — with routesheet and GPS, and a map O:-)
Did you miss me?
I was concerned the thread was in danger of dying without you, so I decided to pitch in, despite my better judgment.
Post by: wilkyboy on 30 May, 2019, 04:45:33 pm
I was concerned the thread was in danger of dying without you, so I decided to pitch in, despite my better judgment.
Many hands make light work :thumbsup:
Post by: wilkyboy on 30 May, 2019, 04:45:47 pm
QuoteI only take one route sheet, the plastic bag keeps it safe (even on 1400km of the 2009 hypothermia-LEL). I suppose one day I may loose it, and on a not-an-audax which took in the extremely unloved north downs way it bounced away without me noticing. I decided it was time to take a train the rest of the way. Not likely enough to worry about.
Data points: it's happened at least once. Therefore it is something to put on the "It may happen" list, there for it needs a contingency plan. Your contingency is "well that's a message I should take a train home". Others have an alternative contingency of "I have a second copy in the carradice"
It DID happen to someone on one of my events and they then chose to retire to the nearest train station. However, they could've had a GPS as well, does that not represent a backup? Or another way of looking at it: if people go out with just a GPS, do they carry a second GPS in their carradice? Should they? IMO, if you lose it, that's user-error, not any specific issue with routesheets — or GPSes.
Let's not forget, if you don't want it to get wet, you also need a laminator, and laminator sheets.
Waterproof paper is soooo much easier and more reliable than waterproof bags, etc.
I post this from time to time — at least once on this thread already (https://www.16inchwheels.uk/2016/01/20/a-diy-routesheet-holder-for-about-1-50/). The clip is savage in its grip of the routesheet and it was wholly successful in 80mph winds across the Machynlleth mountain road last October (with an added elastic band to stop it folding over, but in 50mph winds further down the hill that wasn't needed). The paper is stiff enough to withstand almost any weather, and laser-printed the writing remains legible. Even in pouring rain it's possible to write notes on it with a pencil.
Laminated sheets are smooth and so cannot be gripped so well in extreme wind. Also, the shiny nature of the plastic makes them difficult to read in the light from a headtorch. And accumulated drops of rain don't help either. Waterproof paper (of the fibrous variety, rather than the acetate variety) doesn't suffer these problems. Lamination is generally cheaper than sheets of WP paper, thobut, and nicely 'proofs inkjet prints.
Next we'll be asking orgs to provide the route sheet on waterproof paper as well ;D
I did cost this up — it's just under 20p per sheet, so not something that I would be prepared to offer for free. There's also the bulk-cost issue, in that it's over £40 a box (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B009ZAH0R2/), so having enough to offer a pre-printed service represents a significant investment (for audax).
Post by: Phil W on 30 May, 2019, 05:00:35 pm
I carry route sheets as backup, so would go with using the brevet bag should I ever need to.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vb1zvuzqu8aitgu/IMG_0123.JPG?raw=1)
Post by: Phil W on 30 May, 2019, 05:24:59 pm
Post by: wilkyboy on 30 May, 2019, 05:28:31 pm
Post by: Phil W on 30 May, 2019, 05:32:42 pm
Post by: Kim on 30 May, 2019, 05:45:48 pm
I did experiment with a cheap 4" e-reader for showing route sheets. It worked well till the bike mount for it broke. You do need access to the raw route sheet format in Word or some such so you can size it appropriately for display on an e-ink display. With the new backlight screen it would even work at night without a head torch.
I did for a while (over a series of bike rides) consider how to molish a bike computer that a) used a dynamo hub as a power source and wheel rotation sensor b) could display routesheet style instructions on a backlit display.
I decided it was a stupid idea, as Waterproofing Is Hard, and GPS receivers are readily available and a lot more useful.
FWIW, I do use a tablet with proper OS maps for touring, but strictly in a ride for a bit then stop and check the map sort of way. It has all the advantages of high-quality mapping without the bulk of carrying enough paper to cover a long ride. But it's not conducive to keeping moving at audax pace. I'll be delighted when someone makes a waterproof e-ink device that can display (scroll) OS maps in a usable way. I'd even settle for a mono display, though I suspect that puts me in a minority.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 30 May, 2019, 05:49:29 pm
Post by: Phil W on 30 May, 2019, 05:51:43 pm
I did experiment with a cheap 4" e-reader for showing route sheets. It worked well till the bike mount for it broke. You do need access to the raw route sheet format in Word or some such so you can size it appropriately for display on an e-ink display. With the new backlight screen it would even work at night without a head torch.
I did for a while (over a series of bike rides) consider how to molish a bike computer that a) used a dynamo hub as a power source and wheel rotation sensor b) could display routesheet style instructions on a backlit display.
I decided it was a stupid idea, as Waterproofing Is Hard, and GPS receivers are readily available and a lot more useful.
FWIW, I do use a tablet with proper OS maps for touring, but strictly in a ride for a bit then stop and check the map sort of way. It has all the advantages of high-quality mapping without the bulk of carrying enough paper to cover a long ride. But it's not conducive to keeping moving at audax pace.
This is why you use an e-reader that comes already waterproof and with a month long battery life why use a dynamo to power?
Post by: Phil W on 30 May, 2019, 05:57:15 pm
Post by: Kim on 30 May, 2019, 05:58:19 pm
This is why you use an e-reader that comes already waterproof and with a month long battery life why use a dynamo to power?
My thinking (and I was coming at this from the "build a better bicycle computer" side of things, rather than "clever routesheet holder") was to have enough power to run a decent backlight, and to avoid the need for a sensor/magnet/wiring to measure speed/distance.
Once you're not trying to get several years worth of runtime out of a CR2032, you can add features like playing back instructions from a routesheet in flash memory.
But you've basically built a Garmin that doesn't know where it is.
Post by: Kim on 30 May, 2019, 06:00:42 pm
Oh and I have saved maps for display on an e-ink display. Didn't think much of it in mono but with right mapping I'm sure some will be fine in mono.
I've used mono laser-printed OS maps to good effect in the past. Admittedly, I'm not very colour-oriented.
Post by: Ian H on 30 May, 2019, 06:03:48 pm
- A hilly 200 grimpeur in torrential rain where my routesheet disintegrated in my hands.
- A hilly 100 where the routesheet was so confusing that we went off-course, only to find the organiser manning a secret-control (also off-course).
- Routeheets with just a list of place-names, road numbers, and the occasional instruction to turn L or R. (no distances).
- GPS track that deviated from the intended route down a completely broken road.
- GPS track obviously made in the opposite direction to the actual route, going the wrong way round roundabouts, one-ways, etc.
- Instruction to "at complex junction take the 5th left", which actually meant:-
> | | | | > - A routesheet where the organiser (undergoing stressful times) had randomly mixed up L & R (I ended up taking a gratuitous mountain road on that one).
* I coped, got round, got the
Post by: Phil W on 30 May, 2019, 06:08:05 pm
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/x4clcwye28bmn42/IMG_0124.JPG?raw=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/691887nvarxfl3j/IMG_0125.JPG?raw=1)
Post by: grams on 30 May, 2019, 06:11:24 pm
Post by: wilkyboy on 30 May, 2019, 06:40:17 pm
I use an iPhone 7 Plus for all navigation, which is essentially a waterproof tablet that knows where it is. You can even follow the routesheet on it. And organiser’s last minute email notes. And take photos of the brevet card and consult that too.
I did wonder about doing this, but I like my phone on my person, so I can listen to podcasts and the like. And, although I like the idea of "digital routesheets" on the bike, a paper routesheet is good enough and comes without all the other issues.
Post by: Kim on 30 May, 2019, 06:44:16 pm
I use an iPhone 7 Plus for all navigation, which is essentially a waterproof tablet that knows where it is. You can even follow the routesheet on it. And organiser’s last minute email notes. And take photos of the brevet card and consult that too.
I think this is the endgame. The only major barrier is battery life (solving that in a waterproof way is currently non-trivial), and there's an awful lot of work going into making batteries better...
Post by: citoyen on 30 May, 2019, 06:48:19 pm
But you've basically built a Garmin that doesn't know where it is.
So stick a gps chip in it. Simples.
(And while you’re at it, fit a sledgehammer for any walnuts you might need to crack en route.)
Post by: wilkyboy on 30 May, 2019, 06:49:51 pm
I use an iPhone 7 Plus for all navigation, which is essentially a waterproof tablet that knows where it is. You can even follow the routesheet on it. And organiser’s last minute email notes. And take photos of the brevet card and consult that too.
I think this is the endgame. The only major barrier is battery life (solving that in a waterproof way is currently non-trivial), and there's an awful lot of work going into making batteries better...
Not sure about "endgame", but certainly I agree that it's looming large as something that will become ubiquitous.
However, the length of time it takes for riders to widely adopt will be measured in years, possibly five or more, because people won't replace a perfectly good phone with something only slightly better until their current one's dead, especially not at current flagship-model prices. I'm happy with my "new" iPhone SE — I like smaller phones (small pockets), and nobody seems to be making them any longer, certainly not ones with the fancier features, so I'll probably be hanging onto my Garmin for the longest as well.
But, as you say, battery life is the current issue, as well as charging in the rain, so even availability of these future phones will take some time yet (years).
Post by: grams on 30 May, 2019, 07:14:40 pm
I think this is the endgame. The only major barrier is battery life (solving that in a waterproof way is currently non-trivial), and there's an awful lot of work going into making batteries better...
Power bank in a top tube bag and a smudge of Vaseline on the lightning plug. Done.
Post by: Phil W on 30 May, 2019, 08:02:20 pm
Post by: marylogic on 30 May, 2019, 11:05:35 pm
Post by: Ben T on 30 May, 2019, 11:10:20 pm
How does the iPhone 7 touch screen do in the rain? I was trying to use my Samsung Galaxy S4 mini in the rain last weekend and it was hopeless with all the rain on the screen. This wasn't in an Audax context and if on the bike it would have been even more madenning.not much better. But if you have an app that pans for you, I guess you might not need to?
Post by: grams on 31 May, 2019, 12:05:05 am
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 31 May, 2019, 08:13:21 am
Come join a Dutch ride!
I think it's best if I don't bother with Audax. I'd only be skewing the demographic towards old white men, and that would never do. You've convinced me that it's not worth doing without a GPS, and as I've no intention of buying one, I shall stick to lanes and the roads I'm used to.
Post by: arabella on 31 May, 2019, 12:28:57 pm
Come join a Dutch ride!
I think it's best if I don't bother with Audax. I'd only be skewing the demographic towards old white men, and that would never do. You've convinced me that it's not worth doing without a GPS, and as I've no intention of buying one, I shall stick to lanes and the roads I'm used to.
;D
everyone seems to have missed that the ONLY time I lost the route sheet was when I WASN'T on an audax and was on a bumpy bridleway.
Other thought: for those of us that transpose digits (132 == 132) then grid refs aren't ideal either.
Conclusion: there is no solution that suits everyone, up to you to translate what you get into what works for you.
Post by: Karla on 31 May, 2019, 12:41:40 pm
Conclusion: there is no solution that suits everyone, up to you to translate what you get into what works for you.
Arabella wins the thread.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 31 May, 2019, 12:46:54 pm
But hey, this is autax, and where would the fun be in accepting that one's own perception of the world and its machinations might not be the only possibility? ;)
Post by: Wobbly on 31 May, 2019, 01:09:55 pm
In my opinion this thread makes Audax sound really hard when, in reality, it's a pretty simple activity. In fact it's as easy as riding a bike.
If any newcomers have made it this far through the thread then, trust me, you definitely have enough grit and determination to complete an Audax ride :thumbsup:
Post by: S2L on 31 May, 2019, 01:23:33 pm
Although I (and no doubt a few others) have found this thread eminently entertaining I have to wonder what a newcomer to Audax would think after reading it.
Newcomers don't come to this forum... the reason is obvious if you look at the first page... 3/4 of the threads are about rides > 400 km, which are of no interest to newcomers and the rest are people ranting about various things of little interest to a newcomer like dynamo lights or how to validate a Super Randonnee
The majority of AUK activity and by far the most common way for newcomers to engage with Audax is via BPs, but on this forum nobody talks about them
Post by: jiberjaber on 31 May, 2019, 01:36:36 pm
Although I (and no doubt a few others) have found this thread eminently entertaining I have to wonder what a newcomer to Audax would think after reading it.
Newcomers don't come to this forum... the reason is obvious if you look at the first page... 3/4 of the threads are about rides > 400 km, which are of no interest to newcomers and the rest are people ranting about various things of little interest to a newcomer like dynamo lights or how to validate a Super Randonnee
The majority of AUK activity and by far the most common way for newcomers to engage with Audax is via BPs, but on this forum nobody talks about them
I'm obviously an outlier to your statement - As a newcomer a google search led me to here and I read a couple of the pinned threads and marveled at the madness of some of the rides being discussed. A year later I did my first 200km, then the rest as the saying goes is history...
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 01:39:44 pm
The majority of AUK activity and by far the most common way for newcomers to engage with Audax is via BPs, but on this forum nobody talks about them
Hmm, from the top page of the Audax board, I count these threads as being relevant to populaires (with some referring to a series of rides of different distances organised on the same day):
- TINAT 2019 - 15th & 16th June
- Momma rides in Cheshire/N. Wales on Sat Sept 14 2019---now Sun Sept 15 2019
- ACME Anvil Winter Series
- Final reminder---Relocation of start of Berwyns rides on Saturday June 1 2019
- Medway Marvellous Sun 26th May 2019
- B3000
- The Medway Marvellous 100 and 200km. 27th May, Higham, Kent
I've certainly posted recently about riding Deano's 50 (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=110202.0) and the Meriden 160 (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=112014.0).
But yes, there's obviously a discussion bias towards the longer events, as they tend to require more logistical planning. Even if you're ECEing a populaire, that's going to be an individual thing and not warrant as much discussion. The impression I get is that populaire threads tend to be "I'm organising these rides" or "I've just done this ride, it was lovely", where longer events tend to attract more "What are people doing for accommodation at the start?" "Suggestions for POP near $foo?" or "How do the ferries work?" type discussion.
Post by: pangolin on 31 May, 2019, 01:42:44 pm
Although I (and no doubt a few others) have found this thread eminently entertaining I have to wonder what a newcomer to Audax would think after reading it.
Newcomers don't come to this forum... the reason is obvious if you look at the first page... 3/4 of the threads are about rides > 400 km, which are of no interest to newcomers and the rest are people ranting about various things of little interest to a newcomer like dynamo lights or how to validate a Super Randonnee
The majority of AUK activity and by far the most common way for newcomers to engage with Audax is via BPs, but on this forum nobody talks about them
Big assumption! I got into Audax a few years ago by reading something about LEL somewhere, thinking it sounding interesting, googling it and ending up here. Read a bunch of the FAQ style threads and some others.
YACF was 100% the front door for audaxing for me, and I imagine the same must be true for others (like jiberjabber has just said). The website at the time was functional but light on the kind of detail you find here.
@Wobbly, I think they'd come away from a thread like this thinking not so much that Audax was really hard, but more that they have no interest in meeting a lot of the people that do them, so they should try something else instead.
That might come across a tad harsh and it's not directed at everyone. But this thread has been read almost 18,000 times. That was not all QG & WB mashing F5. Try and remember you're disagreeing with each other in full view of potential newcomers.
Post by: Wobbly on 31 May, 2019, 01:45:20 pm
Newcomers don't come to this forum... the reason is obvious...
Well, that told me!
I must remember to stop advising newcomers to use YACF as a source of useful information: S2L says it's not a place for them.
Post by: pangolin on 31 May, 2019, 01:48:47 pm
the rest are people ranting about various things of little interest to a newcomer like dynamo lights
The dynamo light example WAS a newcomer asking about lighting...
He hasn't replied, perhaps because it's now about how to ride the TCR
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 01:53:34 pm
YACF was 100% the front door for audaxing for me, and I imagine the same must be true for others (like jiberjabber has just said). The website at the time was functional but light on the kind of detail you find here.
+1
Post by: Wobbly on 31 May, 2019, 01:54:03 pm
@Wobbly, I think they'd come away from a thread like this thinking not so much that Audax was really hard, but more that they have no interest in meeting a lot of the people that do them...
Probably a very wise decision. I can't stand riding with me either.
Try and remember you're disagreeing with each other in full view of potential newcomers.
Given the, er, fractious nature of some YACF threads in years gone by this one's pretty mild - tedious and at times hilarious but mild.
There hasn't, for example, been a challenge to an actual stand-up fight yet which it is alleged once happened between me and someone who won't be named ;D
Post by: Somnolent on 31 May, 2019, 01:55:37 pm
Although I (and no doubt a few others) have found this thread eminently entertaining I have to wonder what a newcomer to Audax would think after reading it.
Newcomers don't come to this forum... the reason is obvious if you look at the first page... 3/4 of the threads are about rides > 400 km, which are of no interest to newcomers and the rest are people ranting about various things of little interest to a newcomer like dynamo lights or how to validate a Super Randonnee
The majority of AUK activity and by far the most common way for newcomers to engage with Audax is via BPs, but on this forum nobody talks about them
Big assumption! I got into Audax a few years ago by reading something about LEL somewhere, thinking it sounding interesting, googling it and ending up here. Read a bunch of the FAQ style threads and some others.
YACF was 100% the front door for audaxing for me, and I imagine the same must be true for others (like jiberjabber has just said). The website at the time was functional but light on the kind of detail you find here.
@Wobbly, I think they'd come away from a thread like this thinking not so much that Audax was really hard, but more that they have no interest in meeting a lot of the people that do them, so they should try something else instead.
That might come across a tad harsh and it's not directed at everyone. But this thread has been read almost 18,000 times. That was not all QG & WB mashing F5. Try and remember you're disagreeing with each other in full view of potential newcomers.
YACF was also what opened my eyes to the world of audax... and how did I find YACF? In a quest for knowledge on GPS units (what to buy and how to use them - initially in pedestrian events -not even for cycling at first)
Imagine my delight on my first BP when my newly purchased Etrex enabled me to to avoid the navigational booboo that the peloton in front of me committed to!
At the time, I could no more imagine entering a 400km than I could envisage flying to the moon.
Post by: pangolin on 31 May, 2019, 01:56:33 pm
Probably a very wise decision. I can't stand riding with me either.;D
Post by: S2L on 31 May, 2019, 01:56:38 pm
the rest are people ranting about various things of little interest to a newcomer like dynamo lights
The dynamo light example WAS a newcomer asking about lighting...
He hasn't replied, perhaps because it's now about how to ride the TCR
I wouldn't define someone who want to do a RRTY as a newcomer to Audax
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 01:59:27 pm
the rest are people ranting about various things of little interest to a newcomer like dynamo lights
The dynamo light example WAS a newcomer asking about lighting...
He hasn't replied, perhaps because it's now about how to ride the TCR
More likely because the sort of people asking FAQs like that tend not to do a lot of reading. Otherwise they'd have found the myriad dynamo lighting threads in The Knowledge, absorbed a basic understanding of the subject and asked more specific questions.
And, to be fair, several people answered the question before the thread drifted into a not unreasonable discussion of whether dynamo lighting is necessary or desirable for audax riding.
Post by: citoyen on 31 May, 2019, 02:32:46 pm
Conclusion: there is no solution that suits everyone, up to you totranslate what you get into what works for youpick your personal favourite and be dogmatically evangelical about it, making sure you tell everyone else that their choice is wrong.
FTFY
Post by: Bunker22 on 31 May, 2019, 02:38:38 pm
;D
Post by: Ian H on 31 May, 2019, 02:38:52 pm
YACF was 100% the front door for audaxing for me, and I imagine the same must be true for others (like jiberjabber has just said). The website at the time was functional but light on the kind of detail you find here.
Website?? I found AUK from a small ad in the back of the Comic.
Quote
Try and remember you're disagreeing with each other in full view of potential newcomers.
Long-distance cycling is for people who are not easily discouraged. Arguments here possibly weed out the quitters (perhaps I should put some kind of smiley here, who knows.).
Post by: rob on 31 May, 2019, 02:46:04 pm
YACF was 100% the front door for audaxing for me, and I imagine the same must be true for others (like jiberjabber has just said). The website at the time was functional but light on the kind of detail you find here.
Website?? I found AUK from a small ad in the back of the Comic.
You'll need to explain what the Comic is
Post by: Ian H on 31 May, 2019, 02:51:03 pm
You'll need to explain what the Comic is
Nope. Those who are not easily discouraged will take the trouble to find out. ;)
Post by: citoyen on 31 May, 2019, 02:53:08 pm
perhaps I should put some kind of smiley here
Don't open that can of worms!
Post by: Ben T on 31 May, 2019, 02:55:06 pm
Not having the time to read 31 pages, can I just have the conclusion you have all come to...GPX or not GPX? Thanks.
;D
There is no debate about whether to use GPX or not, because it's obvious that that's subjective personal preference.
In order for there to be a debate at all, it has to be steered to be about what people (organisers) are
The only reason 'official guidance' has been brought up is in order for there to be a debate, as it would be no fun otherwise - obviously.
Post by: Wobbly on 31 May, 2019, 02:57:11 pm
Website?? I found AUK from a small ad in the back of the Comic.
You'll need to explain what the Comic is
The Comic could be Cycling Weekly or the quarterly CTC magazine. Or another cycling-related publication.
Or, knowing Ian, The Beano/Dandy/Bunty, etc.
Speaking of the quarterly CTC magazine I could find not one single mention of Audax in the latest edition. Time was when they'd carry part of the AUK's event's calendar in there...
Post by: andyoxon on 31 May, 2019, 03:17:07 pm
...Speaking of the quarterly CTC magazine I could find not one single mention of Audax in the latest edition. Time was when they'd carry part of the AUK's event's calendar in there...
Was thinking the same thing this am, when I had a first look at my copy of Cycle. There's an article about a sportive in Diss, but apparently nothing Audax wise. There is a 'what is Audax page' page on their website, but nothing Audax related on their cycling events page AFAICS.
Post by: Phil W on 31 May, 2019, 03:17:50 pm
Post by: Whitedown Man on 31 May, 2019, 03:38:41 pm
Newcomers don't come to this forum
When I was a newcomer (2015) this was my only source of Audax information. If I hadn’t stumbled across YACF when searching for something (probably a product recommendation) I might still not know that Audax exists.
Post by: S2L on 31 May, 2019, 04:01:27 pm
Newcomers don't come to this forum
When I was a newcomer (2015) this was my only source of Audax information. If I hadn’t stumbled across YACF when searching for something (probably a product recommendation) I might still not know that Audax exists.
Maybe that was true at the time. It might be that because this is a PBP year testosterone is over the top and all people want to talk about is massive overnight/multiday rides (but then again, so was 2015 alas) and recall that epic wind in the fens at LEL. Right now, I can't see a single topic in this forum which could be remotely of interest to someone thinking of riding his/her first brevet, being that a BP or a BR 200.
If I was in that position, I would feel overwhelmed and probably look elsewhere to be honest
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 04:07:38 pm
Not having the time to read 31 pages, can I just have the conclusion you have all come to...GPX or not GPX?
Yes.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 31 May, 2019, 04:08:24 pm
Yes.
Possibly.
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 04:09:27 pm
As a beginner I found an old route sheet, on yellowing parchment, nailed to a tree one dark stormy night, and it led me here.
Good thing it didn't tear at the nail; if you'd found it somewhere else it would have been useless.
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 04:11:26 pm
Right now, I can't see a single topic in this forum which could be remotely of interest to someone thinking of riding his/her first brevet, being that a BP or a BR 200.
If I was in that position, I would feel overwhelmed and probably look elsewhere to be honest
I listed several a few posts back (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=111898.msg2398503#msg2398503)!
Post by: pangolin on 31 May, 2019, 04:14:37 pm
Right now, I can't see a single topic in this forum which could be remotely of interest to someone thinking of riding his/her first brevet, being that a BP or a BR 200.
If I was in that position, I would feel overwhelmed and probably look elsewhere to be honest
I listed several a few posts back (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=111898.msg2398503#msg2398503)!
It was the stickies I found most useful, and they're still there.
Post by: Phil W on 31 May, 2019, 04:16:03 pm
As a beginner I found an old route sheet, on yellowing parchment, nailed to a tree one dark stormy night, and it led me here.
Good thing it didn't tear at the nail; if you'd found it somewhere else it would have been useless.
Luckily the old weather worn tree was mentioned on the parchment.
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 04:17:42 pm
Right now, I can't see a single topic in this forum which could be remotely of interest to someone thinking of riding his/her first brevet, being that a BP or a BR 200.
If I was in that position, I would feel overwhelmed and probably look elsewhere to be honest
I listed several a few posts back (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=111898.msg2398503#msg2398503)!
It was the stickies I found most useful, and they're still there.
Agreed, the Random Audax Questions thread is a wealth of knowledge, and the index thread is superb.
Post by: Phil W on 31 May, 2019, 04:17:57 pm
Yes.
Possibly.
QG is so convinced by the elegant arguments that she is at the moment writing a route sheet for her TCR attempt.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 31 May, 2019, 04:19:31 pm
QG is so convinced by the elegant arguments that she is at the moment writing a route sheet for her TCR attempt.
L @ T
R @ X
Pray.
Hope.
Panic.
Post by: Phil W on 31 May, 2019, 04:27:12 pm
L @ road less travelled
R @ barking dogs of Hell
All directions @ Schrödinger's O
Post by: lmm on 31 May, 2019, 04:43:49 pm
You've convinced me that it's not worth doing without a GPS, and as I've no intention of buying one, I shall stick to lanes and the roads I'm used to.
I've no idea where this notion that a GPS is something you have to buy is coming from. Phone in back pocket with a free app and one earphone in was how I got started (with the screen off it will generally last at least 300km, and that was a cheap old phone). Much easier and cheaper than buying a printer/computer/MS Word. If and when you want to spend some money on making things easier there are options (battery pack, phone mount, dynamo, and sure I guess a dedicated device if you really want it), but they're entirely optional.
Post by: S2L on 31 May, 2019, 04:56:58 pm
Right now, I can't see a single topic in this forum which could be remotely of interest to someone thinking of riding his/her first brevet, being that a BP or a BR 200.
If I was in that position, I would feel overwhelmed and probably look elsewhere to be honest
I listed several a few posts back (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=111898.msg2398503#msg2398503)!
There is a small number of threads (of which I opened one and bumped another), but not a lot of interest from the local crowd, who for the most like to follow the memory lane route of when things were hard and route sheets were all we had...
There is obviously nothing wrong with that at all, I just think that it's not exactly the place a newcomer to audax would feel particularly welcomed or would find much in the way of useful information.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 31 May, 2019, 05:06:33 pm
Newcomers don't come to this forum
When I was a newcomer (2015) this was my only source of Audax information. If I hadn’t stumbled across YACF when searching for something (probably a product recommendation) I might still not know that Audax exists.
Maybe that was true at the time. It might be that because this is a PBP year testosterone is over the top and all people want to talk about is massive overnight/multiday rides (but then again, so was 2015 alas) and recall that epic wind in the fens at LEL. Right now, I can't see a single topic in this forum which could be remotely of interest to someone thinking of riding his/her first brevet, being that a BP or a BR 200.
If I was in that position, I would feel overwhelmed and probably look elsewhere to be honest
That whole topic of shorter BPs was done to death many many times, years ago.
YACF isnt here justvyo encourage audax riding, although in its early years a sizable proportion of the traffic was just that. Times move on. I've no idea where the discussions are hosted now.
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 05:11:19 pm
Right now, I can't see a single topic in this forum which could be remotely of interest to someone thinking of riding his/her first brevet, being that a BP or a BR 200.
If I was in that position, I would feel overwhelmed and probably look elsewhere to be honest
I listed several a few posts back (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=111898.msg2398503#msg2398503)!
There is a small number of threads (of which I opened one and bumped another), but not a lot of interest from the local crowd, who for the most like to follow the memory lane route of when things were hard and route sheets were all we had...
There is obviously nothing wrong with that at all, I just think that it's not exactly the place a newcomer to audax would feel particularly welcomed or would find much in the way of useful information.
My own experience as a newcomer was that YACF was a welcoming community, and the Audax board was just the scary bit where the gnarly randonneurs discussed the 50% rule and their favourite bus shelters and so on.
Which, TBH, was fine. I learned things in Freewheeling and The Knowledge that improved my cycling, participated in forum social rides, and learned that some of the gnarly randonneurs were perfectly pleasant people, who could ride at a pace compatible with mere mortals (even if they had ridden all night with panniers to get to the start). So when some of them suggested I join them for one of those audax things, I decided that it would probably be okay. And it was.
I think some people have a tendency to treat the Audax board as a walled-garden, when it really isn't.
Post by: Neil C on 31 May, 2019, 05:14:34 pm
Right now, I can't see a single topic in this forum which could be remotely of interest to someone thinking of riding his/her first brevet, being that a BP or a BR 200.
How about starting here. https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1201.0
Dozens of very helpful threads.
Post by: S2L on 31 May, 2019, 05:14:59 pm
I was just challenging the idea that newcomers come here to learn and enquire about Audax things... they don't and thank goodness they don't...
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 05:32:18 pm
I was just challenging the idea that newcomers come here to learn and enquire about Audax things... they don't and thank goodness they don't...
I think they do, but not necessarily from "I'm thinking about doing my first long bike ride" kind of way.
I enjoyed reading about people riding across Wales in the rain, and fboab's miserable day out, aralsopp's cable ties and Von Broad's epic frame-bodgery, as well as watching ESL's videos and so on back when 20 miles was a long way on a bike. Audax as a source of good stories is fine, and sometimes leads to other things. That might be riding a long way. It might be serving CAKE to strangers in the middle of the night. And it might just be knowing which bike lights aren't too shit.
But also... I'm from the internet. Technology holy wars are nothing new. GPS vs Routesheets is just another Windows vs Mac, PIC vs Atmel or vi vs Emacs. There comes a point where you've heard it all before, but if not and you stick around (and assuming it's conducted in a remotely civil manner) you're liable to learn something. Just don't expect there to be a conclusion. Sure, this thread has gone a bit off the rails in places, but in between the trolling and the willy-waving I've seen a lot of good advice for people working with both GPX files and traditional routesheets. And at some point someone solved the OP's search problem.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 31 May, 2019, 05:33:03 pm
True on all accounts, both of you... Kim and Hot Flatus
I was just challenging the idea that newcomers come here to learn and enquire about Audax things... they don't and thank goodness they don't...
Some do, but given the huge influx of newbies to audax rides and the recent decline of audax discussion on Yacf I suspect most are to be found elsewhere. The discussions may even be occurring within clubs, of which many have sprung up recently ...Audax club Bristol, Hackney etc
Post by: S2L on 31 May, 2019, 05:45:44 pm
True on all accounts, both of you... Kim and Hot Flatus
I was just challenging the idea that newcomers come here to learn and enquire about Audax things... they don't and thank goodness they don't...
Some do, but given the huge influx of newbies to audax rides and the recent decline of audax discussion on Yacf I suspect most are to be found elsewhere. The discussions may even be occurring within clubs, of which many have sprung up recently ...Audax club Bristol, Hackney etc
Yep... some go as far asking questions on the AUK forum itself! :o :o
I don't know if it is a decline, haven't been long enough to comment... it certainly feels very stale and tedious and this thread is the perfect example
Post by: mattc on 31 May, 2019, 06:03:03 pm
As a beginner I found an old route sheet, on yellowing parchment, nailed to a tree one dark stormy night, and it led me here.Are you sure it wasn't a yellowed thong ?
/tediousreferencetopostsofyore Google it kids. On second thoughts, don't ...
Post by: Hot Flatus on 31 May, 2019, 06:08:07 pm
The difference is there used to be many many many more threads about actual rides and riding. It was far more collegiate, and pretty much every ride (bar the tiniest) had a thread about it with riders arranging to meet up and then posting ride reports afterwards. Click back on the audax board 8 years and you'll see.
That has gone almost entirely, which is a great shame.
Post by: CrinklyLion on 31 May, 2019, 06:14:33 pm
Newcomers don't come to this forum
When I was a newcomer (2015) this was my only source of Audax information. If I hadn’t stumbled across YACF when searching for something (probably a product recommendation) I might still not know that Audax exists.
Likewise. I'm fairly sure it was one of the knitters posting something about cycling on a money forum that brought me to the YACF door, and from there I discovered the world of audax. The best part of 10 years later I still haven't actually got any points... but have done a handful of populaires, recruited a few newbies (I am still taking the credit for Kim's first 2 points), got both my kids to do a few 50s and, in the case of the eldest, a couple of DIY 100s. Oh, and have also volunteered on a number of events including 2 LELs (during one of which I managed to clock up shifts at 4 separate controls and a grand total of about 18 hours sleep over the six days) as well as some shorter stuff. There's lots of ways to be or to become part of the audax community.
FWIW I don't own a GPS, tend in any case to the 'pedal and follow' school of navigation, but can follow a route sheet if I need to. The EldestCub was able to make sense of one too, and I believe the SmallestCub may have been doing so on his recent 50 - although I'm not certain, because I outsourced the pedalling bit to others as well for that one and just wielded a stamp at the cafe for the day myself. I have the spatial awareness of a jellyfish, and the navigational abilities of a DofE expedition full of drunk teens with a broken compass and no electrons in any of their smartphones, but route sheets kind of make sense to me...
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 06:15:55 pm
The difference is there used to be many many many more threads about actual rides and riding. It was far more collegiate, and pretty much every ride (bar the tiniest) had a thread about it with riders arranging to meet up and then posting ride reports afterwards. Click back on the audax board 8 years and you'll see.
That has gone almost entirely, which is a great shame.
Not just an audax phenomenon. There's been a marked decline in YACF social rides, too. I think a large part of that is down to people moving on to other things[1] (in or outside of cycling), but perhaps also because there's now more stuff being organised elsewhere?
[1] I'm as guilty of this as anyone. I've been doing a lot with the ALC and BHPC of late, very little of which makes it to these pages, even though other forumites are often involved.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 31 May, 2019, 06:23:02 pm
I guess people like me, you and countless others haven't been replaced by a younger generation, but that may be a factor of the phenomenon of internet fora being outdated.
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 06:23:11 pm
I am still taking the credit for Kim's first 2 points
Does that mean I get credit for CrinklyUncle's LEL? ;D
Quote
FWIW I don't own a GPS, tend in any case to the 'pedal and follow' school of navigation, but can follow a route sheet if I need to. The EldestCub was able to make sense of one too, and I believe the SmallestCub may have been doing so on his recent 50 - although I'm not certain
SmallestCub was decoding the routesheet, CrinklyUncle was pedalling, and I was following (and occasionally shouting when they went off-route, because I'd done my GPS homework). It seemed to work, though only SmallestCub spotted the gorilla.
Post by: S2L on 31 May, 2019, 06:41:13 pm
I guess people like me, you and countless others haven't been replaced by a younger generation, but that may be a factor of the phenomenon of internet fora being outdated.
LFGSS rides are well attended... mostly young London based riders (some would say hypsters)
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2019, 06:50:28 pm
I guess people like me, you and countless others haven't been replaced by a younger generation, but that may be a factor of the phenomenon of internet fora being outdated.
LFGSS rides are well attended... mostly young London based riders (some would say hypsters)
I think geographical things are doing quite well. Possibly to the detriment of the likes of the social rides departments of YACF and The Other Place.
Post by: quixoticgeek on 01 June, 2019, 11:46:14 am
I've no idea where this notion that a GPS is something you have to buy is coming from. Phone in back pocket with a free app and one earphone in was how I got started (with the screen off it will generally last at least 300km, and that was a cheap old phone). Much easier and cheaper than buying a printer/computer/MS Word. If and when you want to spend some money on making things easier there are options (battery pack, phone mount, dynamo, and sure I guess a dedicated device if you really want it), but they're entirely optional.
If there was a forumite AUKer who wanted to come do a Dutch BRM, but didn't have a GPS, I have a spare Wahoo Elemnt Bolt, I could load the route on for you and let you borrow it for the event. Just give it back to me at the end. (Assuming it's one I'm doing, or helping with).
J
Post by: Jaded on 01 June, 2019, 03:31:15 pm
Probably everyone is thumping away at the bottom of Brexit stories on the internet.
Post by: Wobbly on 01 June, 2019, 06:34:40 pm
There appears to be a thriving Audax community on there. However facebook, being facebook, the threads are ephemeral. Which is a great shame.
Post by: Jaded on 01 June, 2019, 07:04:33 pm
Because everyone has Facebook, don’t they, no one mins being corralled into a monolithic way of behaving and no one minds being fertiliser for Mark Zuckerberg’s Perfumed Garden.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 02 June, 2019, 01:13:13 pm
You've convinced me that it's not worth doing without a GPS, and as I've no intention of buying one, I shall stick to lanes and the roads I'm used to.
I've no idea where this notion that a GPS is something you have to buy is coming from. Phone in back pocket with a free app and one earphone in was how I got started (with the screen off it will generally last at least 300km, and that was a cheap old phone). Much easier and cheaper than buying a printer/computer/MS Word. If and when you want to spend some money on making things easier there are options (battery pack, phone mount, dynamo, and sure I guess a dedicated device if you really want it), but they're entirely optional.
I've got several devices with GPS in them; some cameras, and a 7 inch Huawei T3 tablet that I use for flying a DJI drone. I've got no need for a smartphone, as it would be a distraction while working, have poor battery life, and not pull in signal as well as my dumbphone.
While filming in controls it's noticeable that an ever-increasing number of riders have their faces illuminated by the glow of their phones.
Pictures and footage are taken in the wide-angle format, with the lurid colours of phone cameras, and records of rides are written on phones.
The assumptions are that nearly everyone has a smartphone, and that anyone who doesn't is Luddite. My view is that smartphones tend to narrow people's range of perspectives. Literally, in that you can't get telephoto shots as standard, and metaphorically, as they are pretty limited as a means of expression. There's also a practical reason for my not using them. If you've got vibration whitefinger, touch screens are very unreliable.
So learning the route by tracing a routesheet on a map, filming the event on cameras controlled by buttons and switches, remembering what happened, and writing it up later on a keyboard, were my favoured methods. That way of working is becoming outmoded. Its value is that it produces a result which evokes a ride 10, 15 or 20 years later, whereas smartphone/facebook culture has a time-span measured in hours, or days if you are lucky.
The ephemeral nature of digital culture isn't something that the young are going to worry about, until they want to look back at what they did, and don't have any hard copy.
Post by: lmm on 02 June, 2019, 05:32:50 pm
I've got several devices with GPS in them; some cameras, and a 7 inch Huawei T3 tablet that I use for flying a DJI drone.
That last would almost certainly be adequate for doing GPX navigation in the way I described (assuming you have a jersey pocket that will fit it - if not, armband mount is an option or there are various solutions - much like the various ways of transporting a routesheet).
Quote
not pull in signal as well as my dumbphone.
Having worked in the mobile phone industry I'm extremely sceptical of this. Radio technology keeps improving, and apart from anything else more bands keep being opened up which older phones won't know about (and newer "dumbphones" tend to be using the same radio chips as smartphones, often with worse antennas).
Quote
Its value is that it produces a result which evokes a ride 10, 15 or 20 years later, whereas smartphone/facebook culture has a time-span measured in hours, or days if you are lucky.
The ephemeral nature of digital culture isn't something that the young are going to worry about, until they want to look back at what they did, and don't have any hard copy.
That's the opposite of my experience. I have digital photos and blog entries from 15 years ago, safely backed up in multiple locations and available at a glance when I want to look back at them. Whereas I have no idea where my physical photos and diaries from that era might be (probably lost in one of my house moves).
Post by: Wobbly on 04 June, 2019, 03:59:37 pm
I should have started taking photos sooner...
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SvkGPBZ/IMG-20190602-101121861-smaller.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmhMzT7v/IMG-20190602-112234823-smaller.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4M7nGYQ/IMG-20190602-101134318-smaller.jpg)
etc.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 04 June, 2019, 04:59:44 pm
I'm surprised no-one's thought to mention the most likely culprit for the decline of YACF traffic: facebook.
There appears to be a thriving Audax community on there. However facebook, being facebook, the threads are ephemeral. Which is a great shame.
This also happened with the scottish MTB forum I was on; as facebook groups grew the forum died.
We had meet ups, and information sharing; from the facebook groups (one of which I "run") all that's ever posted is info requests and bike sales.
Facebook groups aren't communities.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 04 June, 2019, 05:05:24 pm
Quote from: FifeingEejit
Facebook groups aren't communities.
People used to say the same about internet forums.
I own a Jap import vehicle, and am on a Facebook group associated with it. They all meet up all the time (40 met last weekend), and they help each other out online and often then in person. All done via Facebook.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 04 June, 2019, 05:10:08 pm
Quote from: FifeingEejit
Facebook groups aren't communities.
People used to say the same about internet forums.
I own a Jap import vehicle, and am on a Facebook group associated with it. They all meet up all the time (40 met last weekend), and they help each other out online and often then in person. All done via Facebook.
Ok I'm over generalizing,but the ones I'm on definitely aren't; others may vary, likewise Internet forums.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 04 June, 2019, 05:15:19 pm
Post by: telstarbox on 04 June, 2019, 05:26:51 pm
As a user of several forums, this one does sometimes feel like there's an "inside group" who've known each other IRL for many years so could this be a barrier to setting up events on here? I'm sure it isn't intentional, just my two pence.The difference is there used to be many many many more threads about actual rides and riding. It was far more collegiate, and pretty much every ride (bar the tiniest) had a thread about it with riders arranging to meet up and then posting ride reports afterwards. Click back on the audax board 8 years and you'll see.
That has gone almost entirely, which is a great shame.
Not just an audax phenomenon. There's been a marked decline in YACF social rides, too. I think a large part of that is down to people moving on to other things[1] (in or outside of cycling), but perhaps also because there's now more stuff being organised elsewhere?
[1] I'm as guilty of this as anyone. I've been doing a lot with the ALC and BHPC of late, very little of which makes it to these pages, even though other forumites are often involved.
Post by: Kim on 04 June, 2019, 05:37:19 pm
As a user of several forums, this one does sometimes feel like there's an "inside group" who've known each other IRL for many years so could this be a barrier to setting up events on here? I'm sure it isn't intentional, just my two pence.
IME most places feel like that, unless you're actually one of the cabal and your imposter syndrome isn't too strong.
Since YACF was - as I understand it[1] - set up by a group of people who'd known each other for years through two previous fora (the clue is, as ever, in the name), that impression can reasonably be justified.
On the gripping hand, the various activities we've successfully organised on here over the years would suggest that this isn't actually the problem.
[1] I'm a newbie and missed all that. I just discovered the place after Meegat OTP pointed it out as somewhere where I could find a decent density of the Right Kind Of Cyclists to ask a technical question.
Post by: mattc on 04 June, 2019, 05:42:01 pm
It was only as the final few riders were coming through the control that it occurred to me how many were clearly using route sheets as their sole navigation method.:thumbsup:
I should have started taking photos sooner...
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SvkGPBZ/IMG-20190602-101121861-smaller.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmhMzT7v/IMG-20190602-112234823-smaller.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4M7nGYQ/IMG-20190602-101134318-smaller.jpg)
etc.
On the same day, I met a rider on the Bristol-Devon 600 who was navigating entirely by routesheet in the back-pocket (you wouldn't have spotted that on your event with your technique!). He's always done it that way. And he was better at spotting turns than me.
Post by: Hot Flatus on 04 June, 2019, 06:16:55 pm
As a user of several forums, this one does sometimes feel like there's an "inside group" who've known each other IRL for many years so could this be a barrier to setting up events on here? I'm sure it isn't intentional, just my two pence.
IME most places feel like that, unless you're actually one of the cabal and your imposter syndrome isn't too strong.
Since YACF was - as I understand it[1] - set up by a group of people who'd known each other for years through two previous fora (the clue is, as ever, in the name), that impression can reasonably be justified.
On the gripping hand, the various activities we've successfully organised on here over the years would suggest that this isn't actually the problem.
[1] I'm a newbie and missed all that. I just discovered the place after Meegat OTP pointed it out as somewhere where I could find a decent density of the Right Kind Of Cyclists to ask a technical question.
[1] I was there for the previous two fora, but on the original (C+) I didnt actually know anybody in person. When I did eventually meet some people (on acf....Jaded) it transpired we'd been chortling at each other's mischief on C+ for several years.
We still have the occasional giggle when the words "is this you?" are uttered (in joke)
Post by: citoyen on 04 June, 2019, 06:59:31 pm
Post by: rob on 04 June, 2019, 09:21:21 pm
In terms of forums I was never on C+, briefly on ACF and then on here. There are a group us that knew each other through Audax before this place existed. There may be in-jokes, so sorry about that.
I have met a lot of new friends through this platform, though. It’s mostly been a positive experience for me.
Post by: Von Broad on 04 June, 2019, 10:19:42 pm
I'm not a heavy user - some sections of the forum I frequent a lot and others barely at all.
But the facility and ease to go back and revisit a thread about a ride I may have done or a technical issue I might be interested in [or a thread about GPX :-)] is so easy and practical to navigate, it's a joy. Easy to find - easy to catch up on.
facebook does my head in - the whole stream of consciousness thing.....I can do a few minutes then I've had enough.....I'm out of there.
long live yacf.
Post by: Wobbly on 04 June, 2019, 11:02:18 pm
I think yacf is brilliant, and I'm very thankful for it's existence.
I'm not a heavy user - some sections of the forum I frequent a lot and others barely at all.
But the facility and ease to go back and revisit a thread about a ride I may have done or a technical issue I might be interested in [or a thread about GPX :-)] is so easy and practical to navigate, it's a joy. Easy to find - easy to catch up on.
facebook does my head in - the whole stream of consciousness thing.....I can do a few minutes then I've had enough.....I'm out of there.
long live yacf.
+1 :thumbsup:
Post by: FifeingEejit on 05 June, 2019, 01:07:41 pm
I lasted a few weeks on the Audax Facebook group and then left. There is a culture, not just in cycling circles, of asking a question on Facebook when you could just Google it.
That's why this exists
http://bfy.tw/NyLa
Post by: Phil W on 05 June, 2019, 01:10:55 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 05 June, 2019, 01:12:42 pm
What's does "Google it" mean?
Depends on whether you're part of Google's Trademark protection squad out to stop them becoming the next Hover or not (a futile job if ever there was one)
Post by: marylogic on 05 June, 2019, 05:49:52 pm
The smaller audax offshoots that I am a member of (northern;ecosse;borders) are small enough to be much more useful
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 09 June, 2019, 11:41:24 am
On Friday, rain was forecast from 3pm, which meant that it made sense to walk from Great Dun Fell to Langdon Beck to pick up the car, and avoid a ride over Yad Moss. If I followed the streams and rivers I knew I couldn't get lost if the mist came down. So I set off with no map, and no possibility of mobile reception. There were occasional signs outlining the access area, with 'You are here', usefully indicated. I missed a useful track shown on those, but I can read landscape and vegetation, so I wasn't much bothered about going 'off-piste'.
I'm not sure I would have done that bit of exploring if I hadn't encountered a Pennine Way walker with an earpiece, listening to some music, or perhaps a podcast, while following GPS instructions. Obviously we were undertaking the same physical activity, but I experienced a feeling of cultural dissonance, stemming from the pre-ordained nature of his task. I've got no aversion to sharing experiences, but there is something to be said for reinforcing your own knowledge of an area through 'doing', rather than following.
I did get some nice shots over the three days, which will chime with LEL riders.
https://vimeo.com/341082537
Post by: lmm on 10 June, 2019, 01:45:52 pm
There's certainly something to be said for "going off-piste", trying to find your own way through a landscape rather than following a given route. But that too is an activity that's been made much more accessible by having GPS available (even if only sealed away at the bottom of one's bag) so that one can have some confidence of being able to find a way back to civilisation in the worst case, even when one is less experienced in those particular skills of reading landscape and vegetation.
Post by: Kim on 10 June, 2019, 02:10:28 pm
Post by: Ian H on 10 June, 2019, 02:55:20 pm
Post by: Jon+1bike on 10 June, 2019, 11:19:11 pm
Quote
I have entered a Welsh 200 which doesn't have a gps file. It took me just over half an hour to create one from the routesheet; a few deductions needed where instructions were vague but named places gave the necessary clue. No fuss and hardly any bother.
..............
Thanks that's great... As my first post points out, It is a Big fuss and lots of bother, for me & I'm sure others!
So could you post a 'gpx file' on yacf, every time you enter a ride & or send to organiser, so they can put on Audax page?
I might not be doing that ride, but someone else will be, if other riders could do the same in each region, a data base could be available and updated. Possibly with support from yacf & Audax 'Maybe'? :thumbsup:
Post by: Kim on 10 June, 2019, 11:24:12 pm
I might not be doing that ride, but someone else will be, if other riders could do the same in each region, a data base could be available and updated.
I'm fairly sure that's called Strav/RideWithGPS/Etc.
Unless the organiser is involved, there's no way to determine that a given third-party GPX is 'official'. If the organiser *is* willing to be involved, they can distribute a volunteer-contributed GPX via email and the AUK website in the usual way, no extra tech needed.
(I'm sure we've covered this upthread.)
Post by: jiberjaber on 10 June, 2019, 11:59:42 pm
Ian H
Quote
I have entered a Welsh 200 which doesn't have a gps file. It took me just over half an hour to create one from the routesheet; a few deductions needed where instructions were vague but named places gave the necessary clue. No fuss and hardly any bother.
..............
Thanks that's great... As my first post points out, It is a Big fuss and lots of bother, for me & I'm sure others!
So could you post a 'gpx file' on yacf, every time you enter a ride & or send to organiser, so they can put on Audax page?
I might not be doing that ride, but someone else will be, if other riders could do the same in each region, a data base could be available and updated. Possibly with support from yacf & Audax 'Maybe'? :thumbsup:
I've done a quick exercise, went on to the AUK calendar and filtered all 200km rides in Wales for the next 4 months, this gives 4 200km rides which do not have a GPX icon next to them. I opened each one, selected the event name and then right clicked to "Search Google For..." Each time the 2nd hit on Google was for a RideWithGPS route!
The first 3 actually do have a GPX on the ride details page but the last one "Barmouth Boulevard" does not, but again, 2nd hit on Google: https://ridewithgps.com/routes/5212762 and 4th result is a link to YACF discussion on the route...
Pistyll Packing Momma
Ferryside Fish Foray
Dr. Foster's Summer Saunter
Barmouth Boulevard
Seems there is already a nice database in existence: Google :thumbsup:
If all else fails, searching (or starting) a thread on here might provoke someone providing a GPX file where the org hasn't included on in the event entry page... (assuming they don't just email one out anyway)
Post by: Nick Firth on 11 June, 2019, 08:08:48 am
Post by: Wobbly on 11 June, 2019, 08:25:18 am
Post by: Ian H on 11 June, 2019, 09:51:38 am
I have always checked routes on maps. The only difference nowadays is the ability to draw a line as I go, so I can follow it later.
So could you post a 'gpx file' on yacf, every time you enter a ride & or send to organiser, so they can put on Audax page?
Post by: citoyen on 11 June, 2019, 11:18:07 am
Unless the organiser is involved, there's no way to determine that a given third-party GPX is 'official'.
Indeed. I would be wary of sharing an untested GPX track (ie before I'd actually ridden the route), and I'd be wary of accepting an untested track from anyone else - even someone I'd broadly trust, such as Ian H.
Even if you create a track based on a routesheet provided by the organiser, there's always the risk of transcription errors and software quirks.
Post by: Kim on 11 June, 2019, 12:27:48 pm
I've never had any cycling technology
I expect you've had quite a lot of it. What do you think that bicycle is?
Post by: Nick Firth on 11 June, 2019, 12:38:42 pm
Post by: Kim on 11 June, 2019, 12:47:44 pm
Oh, we have a wise guy, what I should have said was, cycling technology with ELECTRONICS.
Well, if that's the case you're missing out. It's brilliant being able to see where you're going in the dark, collect data about your ride, and yes, see where you are on a map that's waterproof, never has to be folded and lights up in the dark. Shifting gears cleanly and precisely without any hand force is also pretty neat, and you can't argue with being able to ride a bike when you don't have the strength to ride a bike. Not to mention being able to discuss cycling, exchange routes, obtain advice and buy equipment from knowledgeable people all over the world. But if you don't want or need any of that, that's fine, it's all good.
TBH, my dig was mostly at the way people use "technology" to mean "technology that's been recently invented and I have no interest in", as if we weren't all standing on the shoulders of giants.
Post by: citoyen on 11 June, 2019, 12:53:37 pm
what I should have said was, cycling technology with ELECTRONICS.
Not even lights?
(Any LED light counts as electronics, right?)
Post by: Kim on 11 June, 2019, 01:01:45 pm
(Any LED light counts as electronics, right?)
Absolutely. Quantum, innit.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 11 June, 2019, 01:16:10 pm
Quote
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Given the defined nature of Audax, anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement.
Quote
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
It's a personal decision as to how much you want magic to contribute to your ride. There was very little magic about when I rode my first PBP with incandescent bulbs, and a bottom-bracket dynamo.
Post by: citoyen on 11 June, 2019, 01:25:59 pm
It's a personal decision as to how much you want magic to contribute to your ride. There was very little magic about when I rode my first PBP with incandescent bulbs, and a bottom-bracket dynamo.
Though Henri Desgrange may well have looked askance at your pneumatic tyres, variable gears, lightweight frame and clothing made of synthetic fibres.
Post by: Kim on 11 June, 2019, 01:29:15 pm
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 11 June, 2019, 01:39:46 pm
It's a personal decision as to how much you want magic to contribute to your ride. There was very little magic about when I rode my first PBP with incandescent bulbs, and a bottom-bracket dynamo.
Though Henri Desgrange may well have looked askance at your pneumatic tyres, variable gears, lightweight frame and clothing made of synthetic fibres.
He'd also have given me a penalty for not welding my forks up by myself. Paul De Vivie would have been less censorious of variable gears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Vivie#Campaign_for_multiple_gears
The first PBP was won on pneumatic tyres.
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 11 June, 2019, 02:13:00 pm
Post by: Karla on 11 June, 2019, 02:23:09 pm
Next up: Music was better back when I was a kid.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 11 June, 2019, 02:30:20 pm
QuoteThe only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Given the defined nature of Audax, anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement.
QuoteAny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
It's a personal decision as to how much you want magic to contribute to your ride. There was very little magic about when I rode my first PBP with incandescent bulbs, and a bottom-bracket dynamo.
But aren't they magic in themselves when compared to a tallow candle in a can?
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 11 June, 2019, 02:32:00 pm
And Desgrange only started organising PBP with the second edition.
By the third edition we were on our way to LED lights.
Quote
To the Editors of Electrical World:
SIRS: – During an investigation of the unsymmetrical passage of current through a contact of carborundum and other substances a curious phenomenon was noted. On applying a potential of 10 volts between two points on a crystal of carborundum, the crystal gave out a yellowish light. Only one or two specimens could be found which gave a bright glow on such a low voltage, but with 110 volts a large number could be found to glow. In some crystals only edges gave the light and others gave instead of a yellow light green, orange or blue. In all cases tested the glow appears to come from the negative pole, a bright blue-green spark appearing at the positive pole. In a single crystal, if contact is made near the center with the negative pole, and the positive pole is put in contact at any other place, only one section of the crystal will glow and that same section wherever the positive pole is placed.
There seems to be some connection between the above effect and the e.m.f. produced by a junction of carborundum and another conductor when heated by a direct or alternating current; but the connection may be only secondary as an obvious explanation of the e.m.f. effect is the thermoelectric one. The writer would be glad of references to any published account of an investigation of this or any allied phenomena.
New York, N. Y.
H. J. Round
Post by: citoyen on 11 June, 2019, 02:35:45 pm
The first PBP was won on pneumatic tyres.
Indeed. But wasn’t the first LEJOG done on solid tyres? (I may be misremembering but I’m sure you or LWaB can put me right on this.)
And anyway, haven’t these ultra-endurance events always been as much a trial of the technology as they are of human capabilities?
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 11 June, 2019, 02:56:46 pm
The first PBP was won on pneumatic tyres.
Indeed. But wasn’t the first LEJOG done on solid tyres? (I may be misremembering but I’m sure you or LWaB can put me right on this.)
And anyway, haven’t these ultra-endurance events always been as much a trial of the technology as they are of human capabilities?
On an ordinary, so on solid tyres. LEJOG is an interesting case, as both the technology and the course have changed. Audax has moved in the opposite direction to LEJOG in the case of the courses, from main roads to lanes. That's less marked in the North, as there are quiet roads with fewer junctions. The recent North Coast 600 would have been very difficult to get lost on.
Post by: citoyen on 11 June, 2019, 03:26:39 pm
LEJOG is an interesting case, as both the technology and the course have changed.
I guess the roadbuilding technology has changed at least as much as bike technology, and the effect of that is not to be underestimated.
Post by: FifeingEejit on 11 June, 2019, 03:56:18 pm
The recent North Coast 600 would have been very difficult to get lost on.
Someone did...
There are a few junctions where you can go pretty catastrophically wrong and possibly not notice for a long time; taking Achnasheen road at Garve is one of them.
But that's not the mistake that was made.
Post by: Nick Firth on 11 June, 2019, 04:43:55 pm
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 11 June, 2019, 04:47:57 pm
LEJOG is an interesting case, as both the technology and the course have changed.
I guess the roadbuilding technology has changed at least as much as bike technology, and the effect of that is not to be underestimated.
The big difference LEJOG are tri-bars and power meters, the route has been shortened by bridges, and the alignments and gradients have been improved. In Audax that means that major roads are unsuitable, hence the shift to more laney routes. The old CTC hands could cope with paper route sheets on those, but riders coming from sportives can't.
Post by: Wobbly on 11 June, 2019, 05:15:12 pm
QuoteThe only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Given the defined nature of Audax, anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement.
That's usually my response when some whippet-thin person riding a carbon fibre bike, aero wheels, tubeless 23mm tyres, no mudguards, no luggage, etc. asks me why I'm riding my Pashley Guv'nor or Roadster.
8)
Post by: lmm on 11 June, 2019, 05:34:08 pm
Post by: R_nger on 11 June, 2019, 05:35:23 pm
I've never had any cycling technology, the only thing on my handlebars is handlebar tape & a paper route sheet, I find using a route sheet fun & more informative, you get to remember street names & yes you sometimes take the wrong turn but so what, it may mean you only get 55 minutes in the café instead of an hour & a half. I rode a dozen or so Randonees in the mid 80's out of Doncaster with Sheila, Fliss Beard & Noel, I only did one season because I was racing in those days, I remember those rides with great affection & nostalgia has gotten the better of me, it was a golden period for me & I sort of want it back, I'm now back on a steel bike with a Turbo saddle but I do have Ergo's, I don't want Audax to be too easy.
If you've got time to get lost and still spend 55 minutes at a single control then you've already got it too easy in my book.
Post by: iomadh on 11 June, 2019, 05:57:19 pm
Post by: tonyh on 11 June, 2019, 05:59:35 pm
Post by: trickedem on 11 June, 2019, 06:40:03 pm
So....onto Audax As a rider, I would no longer use a route sheet. If no gpx is available then I would plot a route using the route sheet using bikehike or gpxeditor. Much easier for me. As an organiser I will continue to provide a route sheet, because I know a few riders still use them. However when it comes to validating the ride and info controls...don't get me started. PIA. Absolutely necessary to make sure the route is the correct length and that I can ensure that dangerous roads are avoided, but they can be difficult to find and seem to provide no end of confusion.
I think if we fast forward a few years it will be cheap and convenient to validate everyone's ride using GPS. The majority of riders who use gps tracking can simply provide their track to me online. For anyone who wants to use the route sheet, I will be able to provide them with a cheap device that they simply have to carry with them and hand back at the Arrivee! What do people think?
Post by: JBB on 11 June, 2019, 06:50:04 pm
If anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement, then anything that makes it harder enhances the achievement. Perhaps we should all have to fill in a cryptic crossword at the first control, cross-stitch a given pattern at the second, and cook a gourmet meal at the third. Personally I'd rather audax was about cycling though. Navigational challenges are well and good for those who enjoy them; I get quite enough challenge from distance and climb, TYVM.
I'm not sure that long distance cycling is possible with navigating in some form or other - unless you just want to go round in circles on a enclosed track or use Zwift. A GPS is a wnderful tool to make that element easier if you wish to use it. It's never been a problem for me creating a gpx file from the routesheet if the organiser doesn't supply one; plus of course it gves you a feel for where you are going.
Post by: Kim on 11 June, 2019, 08:08:06 pm
Kim, Where in my post did I say that a paper route sheet is better than GPX
I don't think you did, but that's okay because I didn't suggest that.
Quote
where did I say I was against advancement in cycling technology, where?
You didn't say that either.
What you said was
I've never had any cycling technology
And followed up that by "technology" you meant electronics. Which irked me, because the bicycle is surely one of humankind's greatest technological achievements. Probably right up there with sewers in terms of its ability to improve people's quality of life...
To which I replied with a slightly facetious "What, not even lights? Or internet forums?", listed various other forms of rather good cycling electronics, and agreed that not using any of them was a perfectly valid decision.
*shrug*
Post by: Nick Firth on 11 June, 2019, 09:12:06 pm
Post by: CrinklyLion on 11 June, 2019, 09:14:15 pm
If I want any cycling advice from you I will ask for it.
Oh, I _heartily_ recommend that you do - for a wide range of sometimes mundane, sometimes esoteric, and sometimes quite bonkersly specialist subjects. Kim's been an excellent source of both information and support (cycling-related and other) to me, and many others. She's also really good at knowing the difference between expressing an opinion and giving advice.
Post by: Frank9755 on 12 June, 2019, 07:41:47 am
Unless the organiser is involved, there's no way to determine that a given third-party GPX is 'official'.
Indeed. I would be wary of sharing an untested GPX track (ie before I'd actually ridden the route), and I'd be wary of accepting an untested track from anyone else - even someone I'd broadly trust, such as Ian H.
Even if you create a track based on a routesheet provided by the organiser, there's always the risk of transcription errors and software quirks.
I always just search for a route on ride with GPS and have never had any problems using whatever I have found. I look at the date, the distance and who did it (often the organiser) and select whichever looks best. Sometimes I luck out and get ones where the controls have been set up with way points. If I've time I'll look at the controls and might even streetview them.
The one thing I've never done is tried to create a gps track from a route sheet. If it was necessary I would do it, but there has always been a better starting point available with a trivial search.
Post by: lmm on 12 June, 2019, 07:49:46 am
I'm not sure that long distance cycling is possible with navigating in some form or other - unless you just want to go round in circles on a enclosed track or use Zwift.
I understand a number of people successfully audax with the "follow my mate" method - particularly those on their first couple of rides.
I put navigation in the same category as transporting my bike to the start: it's something I have to do so that I can get on with the main event, and it can be surprisingly hard at times, but it's not really part of the proper challenge.
Quote
It's never been a problem for me creating a gpx file from the routesheet if the organiser doesn't supply one; plus of course it gves you a feel for where you are going.
Plotting out a GPX is tedious but unproblematic, and as people say in practice most rides tend to have one available somewhere even if unofficial. The real sticking point I've had is the control locations (particularly info). If they're given as a location in some "objective" terms (whether that's an address, OS grid reference, or what have you) it's fine, but when the control point is only described in the routesheet and only as a particular distance along it, that's quite nerve-wracking. (And it's something that's quite hard to tell when you're looking through events and picking which to sign up for)
Post by: jsabine on 12 June, 2019, 09:20:37 am
If I want any cycling advice from you I will ask for it.
Yeah, remind me not to bother posting on YACF anymore.
Are you 12?
Post by: nomeansno on 12 June, 2019, 10:11:28 am
Yeah, remind me not to bother posting on YACF anymore.
Sounds great. In fact I think communication with other human beings might not be your thing full stop.
Post by: frankly frankie on 12 June, 2019, 10:27:38 am
I think if we fast forward a few years it will be cheap and convenient to validate everyone's ride using GPS. The majority of riders who use gps tracking can simply provide their track to me online. For anyone who wants to use the route sheet, I will be able to provide them with a cheap device that they simply have to carry with them and hand back at the Arrivee! What do people think?
This has obviously been an objective for the last 10 years, but progress has been slow and will continue to be so I think. What AUK has so far:
1. A category of (permanent) event - which seems to have a strong appeal for a small sector of the ridership - where validation is by submitted tracklog only. This category requires the entrant to submit a 'this is what I intend to do' GPX of sufficient distance, and then after the ride to submit a 'this is what I did' tracklog which must match within reason. The route followed is therefore a mandatory one - not advisory as with most other AUK events.
2. A category of event (so far only perms I think, but it doesn't have to be that way) where the entrant is invited to submit a tracklog in lieu of other forms of proof-of-passage. The organiser has defined the (advisory) route in the normal way, that is by means of a series of control locations, and the submitted tracklog must visit these in order, to be valid. You can see this could work for a small calendar event with only a handful of finishers, and possibly better than a postal finish - but of course at the present state of play it has to be an optional thing.
3. Some Organisers unofficially accept tracklogs as P-o-P if the rider so requests or for example in lieu of a lost brevet card. The AUK Regulations are worded to allow for this, but it is strictly an arrangement between organiser and rider and either of those can refuse if they want.
4. Non-GPS tracking methods such as ankle-tags and control gates may also be used on very large events.
A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P. Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates. In solo Permanent rides where the tracklog is submitted later, it is too easy for a valid tracklog to be copied with falsified datestamps and so re-used on two consecutive weeks for example.
Plus of course a tracklog can be fabricated using software, or can be recorded in a car - for the finish controller or organiser, just displaying a submitted tracklog on a map and seeing that it goes through all the right places, is no-where near good enough. It needs to be analysed or inspected in detail to see that the timestamps are credible for a genuine 'ridden' tracklog. This takes time. AUK offers software to do all this, but it's far from perfect as yet and development seems slow.
In fact simple addition of a single timed physical P-o-P (card stamp, or till receipt) somewhere around the middle of the ride, hugely increases the strength of any associated tracklog.
Post by: Wobbly on 12 June, 2019, 11:08:14 am
1. A category of (permanent) event - which seems to have a strong appeal for a small sector of the ridership - where validation is by submitted tracklog only. This category requires the entrant to submit a 'this is what I intend to do' GPX of sufficient distance, and then after the ride to submit a 'this is what I did' tracklog which must match within reason. The route followed is therefore a mandatory one - not advisory as with most other AUK events.
There is still the option to ride a Permanent by GPS with a free route in between controls. Then the the tracklog simply needs to show that you've ridden through the agreed Controls.
A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P.
-snip-
Plus of course a tracklog can be ... recorded in a car
And the same is true of using receipts as PoP of course.
In fact simple addition of a single timed physical P-o-P (card stamp, or till receipt) somewhere around the middle of the ride, hugely increases the strength of any associated tracklog.
That would prevent people from manufacturing tracklogs, true. But it makes little, if any, difference to someone driving the route in a car and waiting at Controls. Also you lose the convenience of a purely electronic transaction (i.e. emailing the tracklog post-ride) you presumably have to get the physical receipt to the DIY validator.
Overall I think tracklogs are a fantastically convenient way to ride DIYs but, at present, they cannot guarantee someone's actually ridden the route as claimed.
Post by: jiberjaber on 12 June, 2019, 11:12:40 am
Tsk! >:(I think if we fast forward a few years it will be cheap and convenient to validate everyone's ride using GPS. The majority of riders who use gps tracking can simply provide their track to me online. For anyone who wants to use the route sheet, I will be able to provide them with a cheap device that they simply have to carry with them and hand back at the Arrivee! What do people think?
This has obviously been an objective for the last 10 years, but progress has been slow and will continue to be so I think. What AUK has so far:
1. A category of (permanent) event - which seems to have a strong appeal for a small sector of the ridership - where validation is by submitted tracklog only. This category requires the entrant to submit a 'this is what I intend to do' GPX of sufficient distance, and then after the ride to submit a 'this is what I did' tracklog which must match within reason. The route followed is therefore a mandatory one - not advisory as with most other AUK events.
2. A category of event (so far only perms I think, but it doesn't have to be that way) where the entrant is invited to submit a tracklog in lieu of other forms of proof-of-passage. The organiser has defined the (advisory) route in the normal way, that is by means of a series of control locations, and the submitted tracklog must visit these in order, to be valid. You can see this could work for a small calendar event with only a handful of finishers, and possibly better than a postal finish - but of course at the present state of play it has to be an optional thing.
3. Some Organisers unofficially accept tracklogs as P-o-P if the rider so requests or for example in lieu of a lost brevet card. The AUK Regulations are worded to allow for this, but it is strictly an arrangement between organiser and rider and either of those can refuse if they want.
4. Non-GPS tracking methods such as ankle-tags and control gates may also be used on very large events.
A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P. Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates. In solo Permanent rides where the tracklog is submitted later, it is too easy for a valid tracklog to be copied with falsified datestamps and so re-used on two consecutive weeks for example.
Plus of course a tracklog can be fabricated using software, or can be recorded in a car - for the finish controller or organiser, just displaying a submitted tracklog on a map and seeing that it goes through all the right places, is no-where near good enough. It needs to be analysed or inspected in detail to see that the timestamps are credible for a genuine 'ridden' tracklog. This takes time. AUK offers software to do all this, but it's far from perfect as yet and development seems slow.
In fact simple addition of a single timed physical P-o-P (card stamp, or till receipt) somewhere around the middle of the ride, hugely increases the strength of any associated tracklog.
I think there is a version of 2 that is 1 as well (i.e. a DIY using just a list of controls with subsequent validation by GPS). (ETA: https://www.aukweb.net/diy/adv/ )
And of course, I could just ride around the controls in my car collecting receipts as well ;) Which I think the 50% rule was designed to combat and effects both traditional and electronic forms of validation on DIY/Perms.
Seems to me that cheating at an Audax is only cheating yourself, but that's just my personal opinion :thumbsup:
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 12 June, 2019, 11:19:13 am
The problems came with Audaxers stopping for about the time that a lap or section of the course would take them. The question becomes about individual reasons for undertaking a validated ride. A special case arises in the next week or so. There will be a small number of Audaxers who have paid for their PBP without completing a 600 qualifier. The incentive to complete the SR series does tend to blur the moral boundaries of the validation process a bit. There are interesting creative dodges available on some late qualifiers, which are amusing in a 'Wacky Races' sort of way.
A single late qualifier, with strict supervision, might make for an interesting 'jeopardy' subject.
Post by: Wobbly on 12 June, 2019, 11:41:08 am
Seems to me that cheating at an Audax is only cheating yourself, but that's just my personal opinion :thumbsup:
You are, of course, absolutely right there.
Post by: frankly frankie on 12 June, 2019, 11:47:39 am
A single late qualifier, with strict supervision, might make for an interesting 'jeopardy' subject.
We have previously had a single last-gasp qualifier, with AUK's Validator-In-Chief in personal attendance at the finish, so that the results could be processed in the minimum possible time (theoretically within an hour to get the ACP numbers back if everyone works with a will, but in fact I think it was done the next morning, so within 12h). The idea of a late qualifier with postal finish (as this year) seems bizarre to me.
And of course, I could just ride around the controls in my car collecting receipts as well ;) Which I think the 50% rule was designed to combat and effects both traditional and electronic forms of validation on DIY/Perms.
Seems to me that cheating at an Audax is only cheating yourself, but that's just my personal opinion :thumbsup:
True indeed, but if AUK doesn't take this stuff seriously it has no reason for existence. In fact, ever since DIYs were introduced about 10 years ago, I have privately considered them to be a 'step too far' for AUK - too difficult to maintain sufficient integrity IMHO.
Post by: phydaux on 12 June, 2019, 11:55:45 am
To quote from the last paragraph of the story:
Quote
It came down to this: at the Boston Marathon, the oldest, most prestigious, and most professionally managed event on the American racing calendar, Litton had hit every split, changed his clothes along the way, and broken three hours. No one but Litton could say how he did it.
If someone is determined to cheat the system, there is always a way.
Post by: Kim on 12 June, 2019, 12:14:46 pm
Overall I think tracklogs are a fantastically convenient way to ride DIYs but, at present, they cannot guarantee someone's actually ridden the route as claimed.
What's really needed is for them to be cryptographically signed by the GPS receiver. But since that feature's spectacularly failed to appear in cameras, in spite of the obvious benefits, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Post by: citoyen on 12 June, 2019, 12:18:47 pm
A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P. Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates.
Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?
I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.
Post by: Kim on 12 June, 2019, 12:23:43 pm
A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P. Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates.
Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?
I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.
diff and md5sum (standard tools on proper computers) are all you need to detect trivial differences (or absence thereof) between files. If they've gone to the effort to introduce some noise to the data, that's a bit more specialised.
Post by: frankly frankie on 12 June, 2019, 12:46:29 pm
Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?
I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.
AUK's software (used by some DIY Orgs) will red-flag identical tracks (among many other things) - but that is only comparing 2 at a time. It becomes much more complex and time-consuming in the context of even a small event with say 10 finishers. Whereas simply checking tracks for integrity in other ways (eg checking timestamps for 'ridden onna bike') is not a multiplying problem in the same way. It's only (currently) time-consuming if the submitted tracks are in a variety of formats (GPX TCX FIT FIT2) - which they would be - and over-large - which some might be.
Post by: JonBuoy on 12 June, 2019, 12:55:32 pm
Overall I think tracklogs are a fantastically convenient way to ride DIYs but, at present, they cannot guarantee someone's actually ridden the route as claimed.
What's really needed is for them to be cryptographically signed by the GPS receiver. But since that feature's spectacularly failed to appear in cameras, in spite of the obvious benefits, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Such things do exist - I have two that are used for glider competition task validation (https://www.fai.org/page/igc-approved-flight-recorders). They are a bit more specialist and significantly more expensive than mass-produced GPS logging devices and don't stop you giving your recorder to someone else to do the ride for you.
Post by: Ben T on 12 June, 2019, 01:42:21 pm
Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?
I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.
AUK's software (used by some DIY Orgs) will red-flag identical tracks (among many other things) - but that is only comparing 2 at a time. It becomes much more complex and time-consuming in the context of even a small event with say 10 finishers. Whereas simply checking tracks for integrity in other ways (eg checking timestamps for 'ridden onna bike') is not a multiplying problem in the same way. It's only (currently) time-consuming if the submitted tracks are in a variety of formats (GPX TCX FIT FIT2) - which they would be - and over-large - which some might be.
It also doesn't solve the problem caused by lack of simultaneousness:
Say rider A submits a tracklog, it's not identical to any other - so is validated, and then two days later, B submits an identical one. It could be that A copied it off B's garmin without his knowledge and B is innocent.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 12 June, 2019, 01:45:18 pm
Post by: FifeingEejit on 12 June, 2019, 01:48:35 pm
A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P. Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates.
Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?
I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.
diff and md5sum (standard tools on proper computers) are all you need to detect trivial differences (or absence thereof) between files. If they've gone to the effort to introduce some noise to the data, that's a bit more specialised.
Since an increasing number of devices are being simplified (which I've previously referred to erroneously as consumerized) to the point you can only extract the data once uploaded to another service the noise is added to the data
For example, for me to obtain the data from either my Kazoo or back up device (a basic Navic 40) I have then a need to grab my smartphone (which I don't necessarily have with me); upload the data to Strava or RWGPS, and download a GPX file to give to the organizer; that automatically introduces noise that kills the diff or md5sum as the GPX extracted from whats ultimately the same source file will differ based on the user configured fields and user data held by those services.
You'd have to compare the actual GPS tracks for similarity; two different devices hitting the exact same points, sampling interval and times is very unlikely.
To be sure of individual performance you'd have to mandate a device that can have the raw FIT2 (or whatever) extracted from it by the organizer; at which point you're looking at the organizer issuing devices at the start, which would need to include fitting them to the machine with tamper proof material, pairing with compulsory rider monitoring devices (e.g. HR), observing the riders and machines during the ride and recovering them at the finish.
Essentially that's Scruitineering, Parc Ferme, Marshalling and Homologation, it would be a fairly major change from the simple Homologation system used now, increase costs and make the act of riding an AUK Audax considerably more complex, not to mention organizing...
Technically it's possible, it's probably not desirable though.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 12 June, 2019, 02:36:21 pm
Quote
There has also been a noticeable shift in societal attitudes towards women’s leisure. Many women used to be prevented by lower average disposable incomes as well as masculine portrayals of adventure. They were also deterred by male-dominated bunkhouse dormitories and bothy huts – not to mention society’s disproportionate expectations around women “staying home and looking after the kids”.https://theconversation.com/climbing-scottish-mountains-why-munro-bagging-is-on-the-up-and-up-112082
Far less so nowadays, where a glance around the hills and social media sites suggests that women now comprise 30% to 40% of Munro-baggers. Although only around 23% of recent “compleators” have been women, the average Munro round lasts over 20 years, so demographic changes among Munroists will take years to catch up.
Social media is another important driver. Munro-baggers nowadays use everything from Facebook to Instagram to club messageboards to exchange advice, post photographs and reports, and generally joke, plan, debate and argue. This takes the hobby well beyond mountain days and helps to create a scene that draws in prospective new recruits.
That article doesn't mention the obvious impact of GPS, which removes navigation as an issue. There are now well-worn tracks up Munros. To experience what Scottish Hill Walking used to be like, you have to go up hills just under 3,000 feet. Foinaven is an obvious one.
An interesting development in hill-walking is the fragile confidence of the 'smartphonists'. If you've got an actual map, they're keen to stay within sight of you. They seem to have that flimsy-looking technical clothing in black; the stuff on the front of the outdoor magazines.
Maybe there's a market for frustratingly 'pointless' rides of 199, 299, 399 and 599km.
Post by: Phil W on 12 June, 2019, 03:50:52 pm
The opportunity to make shit up has long been there; long before the mass take up of GPS.
As others have said, you'd only be cheating yourself.
If you never fail at an audax event (because you never actually take part), where's the satisfaction when you succeed (because you cheated)?
Post by: Wobbly on 12 June, 2019, 04:25:13 pm
Of course for around £20-30 you can buy a thermal receipt printer and then print your own proof of passage receipts.
Runs off to order a thermal receipt printer :thumbsup:
;D
Post by: Ian H on 12 June, 2019, 04:35:23 pm
Probably cheaper than buying a more suitable bike. [ducks]Of course for around £20-30 you can buy a thermal receipt printer and then print your own proof of passage receipts.
Runs off to order a thermal receipt printer :thumbsup:
;D
Post by: Wobbly on 12 June, 2019, 05:37:57 pm
Hennessey, you're just jealous.
Post by: jiberjaber on 12 June, 2019, 06:12:00 pm
Quote
If you intend to navigate using GPS, please remember that this event includes 4 Information controls - check the Routesheet
Post by: lmm on 12 June, 2019, 06:15:12 pm
It's only (currently) time-consuming if the submitted tracks are in a variety of formats (GPX TCX FIT FIT2) - which they would be - and over-large - which some might be.
If none of the GPXes are identical to each other, none of the TCXes are identical to each other, and so on, then no-one has done the most simplistic cheat of just submitting a copy of someone else's file. Of course more sophisticated cheating is possible, but that might be enough to take it over the "harder than printing fake receipts" threshold.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 21 June, 2019, 12:00:55 am
Post by: Phil W on 03 July, 2019, 03:35:40 pm
Post by: quixoticgeek on 03 July, 2019, 04:51:06 pm
I've got several devices with GPS in them; some cameras, and a 7 inch Huawei T3 tablet that I use for flying a DJI drone. I've got no need for a smartphone, as it would be a distraction while working, have poor battery life, and not pull in signal as well as my dumbphone.
My smart phone is better at picking up signal than any dumbphone I've ever had. Largely because it has 2 sims in it, one of which is always roaming, which means it picks up what ever signal it can get. It also supports 2G, 2.5G, 3G, 3.5G, and 4G increasing the odds of having some form of signal.
Quote
While filming in controls it's noticeable that an ever-increasing number of riders have their faces illuminated by the glow of their phones.
Letting family know they made it to the control safely, updating twitter/instagram (really good for encouraging people to join future rides), checking the route to the next control...
Quote
Pictures and footage are taken in the wide-angle format, with the lurid colours of phone cameras, and records of rides are written on phones.
I'm a camera snob, I've had to accept that I can't reasonably carry my SLR on audaxes, so have compromised with a Olympus TG5 in my back pocket, it's got a 100mm (equiv) zoom, and shoots raw. Tho admittedly a lot of the shots are shot fully open, one handed as I ride along...
Quote
The assumptions are that nearly everyone has a smartphone, and that anyone who doesn't is Luddite. My view is that smartphones tend to narrow people's range of perspectives. Literally, in that you can't get telephoto shots as standard, and metaphorically, as they are pretty limited as a means of expression. There's also a practical reason for my not using them. If you've got vibration whitefinger, touch screens are very unreliable.
Smart phones move on. Modern smart phones released in the last year or so can have really good zooms. At least if the adverts I see at the tram stop are to be believed.
I agree with you re the touch screen UI being sub optimal.
Quote
So learning the route by tracing a routesheet on a map, filming the event on cameras controlled by buttons and switches, remembering what happened, and writing it up later on a keyboard, were my favoured methods. That way of working is becoming outmoded. Its value is that it produces a result which evokes a ride 10, 15 or 20 years later, whereas smartphone/facebook culture has a time-span measured in hours, or days if you are lucky.
I'm writing an article about RatN. Do you know what I'm using as my source notes? Aside from the photos I took (largely on the TG5 mentioned above), but it's my tweets. They provide notes on what I was doing, where, and more importantly, my emotional state at the time.
Quote
The ephemeral nature of digital culture isn't something that the young are going to worry about, until they want to look back at what they did, and don't have any hard copy.
This is also going to bite historians too...
It was only as the final few riders were coming through the control that it occurred to me how many were clearly using route sheets as their sole navigation method.
I should have started taking photos sooner...
<snip>
Confirmation bias. You spotted them because you'd had this thread. How many were using Wahoo devices?
As a user of several forums, this one does sometimes feel like there's an "inside group" who've known each other IRL for many years so could this be a barrier to setting up events on here? I'm sure it isn't intentional, just my two pence.
Agreed. I've been round here for a number of years, and I don't feel part of that inside group, people talk about others doing rides, that clearly a number of people know of, but I've no idea who they are talking about. It's not a major issue to me, I'm used to being in the outgroup, but I can imagine others don't like it.
I think yacf is brilliant, and I'm very thankful for it's existence.
I'm not a heavy user - some sections of the forum I frequent a lot and others barely at all.
But the facility and ease to go back and revisit a thread about a ride I may have done or a technical issue I might be interested in [or a thread about GPX :-)] is so easy and practical to navigate, it's a joy. Easy to find - easy to catch up on.
facebook does my head in - the whole stream of consciousness thing.....I can do a few minutes then I've had enough.....I'm out of there.
long live yacf.
Agreed. I've never had a facebook account, but I've used others, and the UI made absolutely no bloody sense.
Yacf is brilliant, even if I don't get a lot of the injokes and references, even if everyone thinks I'm crazy, and no doubt look at threads and think "Oh bloody hell, what windmill is she tilting at this time?".
My only complaint is the search function isn't great, but that's what "site:yacf.co.uk" is for on google...
I have entered a Welsh 200 which doesn't have a gps file. It took me just over half an hour to create one from the routesheet; a few deductions needed where instructions were vague but named places gave the necessary clue. No fuss and hardly any bother.
I've just entered the Heelen 200 this weekend. There's a GPS provided, I loaded it in seconds, then spent the rest of the time saved replying to this thread...
I've done a quick exercise, went on to the AUK calendar and filtered all 200km rides in Wales for the next 4 months, this gives 4 200km rides which do not have a GPX icon next to them. I opened each one, selected the event name and then right clicked to "Search Google For..." Each time the 2nd hit on Google was for a RideWithGPS route!
The first 3 actually do have a GPX on the ride details page but the last one "Barmouth Boulevard" does not, but again, 2nd hit on Google: https://ridewithgps.com/routes/5212762 and 4th result is a link to YACF discussion on the route...
Pistyll Packing Momma
Ferryside Fish Foray
Dr. Foster's Summer Saunter
Barmouth Boulevard
Seems there is already a nice database in existence: Google :thumbsup:
If all else fails, searching (or starting) a thread on here might provoke someone providing a GPX file where the org hasn't included on in the event entry page... (assuming they don't just email one out anyway)
The problem with this is that you run into the issues that the route is usually last years ride, That may not take into account the fact someone dug up Lincolnshire, or that there's a new road somewhere...
How can you trust a 3rd party GPX?
I've never had any cycling technology, the only thing on my handlebars is handlebar tape & a paper route sheet, I find using a route sheet fun & more informative, you get to remember street names & yes you sometimes take the wrong turn but so what, it may mean you only get 55 minutes in the café instead of an hour & a half. I rode a dozen or so Randonees in the mid 80's out of Doncaster with Sheila, Fliss Beard & Noel, I only did one season because I was racing in those days, I remember those rides with great affection & nostalgia has gotten the better of me, it was a golden period for me & I sort of want it back, I'm now back on a steel bike with a Turbo saddle but I do have Ergo's, I don't want Audax to be too easy.
I'd rant here about technology being more than electronics, but it seems Kim beat me to it!
That's usually my response when some whippet-thin person riding a carbon fibre bike, aero wheels, tubeless 23mm tyres, no mudguards, no luggage, etc. asks me why I'm riding my Pashley Guv'nor or Roadster.
8)
I'm so glad you rode RatN, you made my steel bike with it's 1.4kg lock look light... :p
... bicycle is surely one of humankind's greatest technological achievements. Probably right up there with sewers in terms of its ability to improve people's quality of life...
I'd add Germ theory to this list.
Also the technology that goes into a steel frame is really rather impressive...
I understand a number of people successfully audax with the "follow my mate" method - particularly those on their first couple of rides.
I've had a few people following me around audaxes (without asking), because their navigation approach has failed (broken garmins in some cases, friend rode off in others).
Plus of course a tracklog can be fabricated using software, or can be recorded in a car - for the finish controller or organiser,
Oh just route the route down some sustrans infrastructure, the combo of silly gates and the like will filter out the cars :p
Sorry for going quiet on this thread for a while, life got in the way...
J