GPX OR NOT GPX?

[frankly frankie]

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.

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).

[FifeingEejit]

Argyll Alps is the only example in my calendar where the G is not included but there is a RWGPS link
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!

[FifeingEejit]

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.

[frankly frankie]

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>

[wilkyboy]

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.

[wilkyboy]

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.

[CrazyEnglishTriathlete]

This debate has been useful for me.  I grew up in Audax terms before GPS devices were prevalent and learnt to navigate without them, but the vast majority of riders that I ride with 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.

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.

[frankly frankie]

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.

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!

[FifeingEejit]

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...

[wilkyboy]

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 ...

[FifeingEejit]

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.

[Ajax Bay]

. . . 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.

. . . 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.

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).
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

[Hot Flatus]

I quite like riding an audax without a clue where I am. Doesn't seem to make any difference.   Not sure that it particularly matters for anybody  and I cant recall any major incidents of lost riders being irretrievably lost. Even if somebody's GPS borks there are nearly always other options such as a mobile phone, or other riders. No drama. 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.

[FifeingEejit]

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.

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

[Kim]

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.

[L CC]

Back in the day (2009 / 2010 / 2011) I never 'checked the route'.
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.

[Kim]

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.

[Ajax Bay]

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".

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.

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).

Back in the day (2009 / 2010 / 2011) I never 'checked the route'.
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.

Implicitly you have changed what you do now. But the routesheets are as good as they were, bitd, aren't they, maybe better?
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.

[Phil W]

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. 

[L CC]

Back in the day (2009 / 2010 / 2011) I never 'checked the route'.
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.

Implicitly you have changed what you do now. But the routesheets are as good as they were, bitd, aren't they, maybe better?
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.

Yes. I have a laissez faire approach, and deal with The Worst if & when. It mostly doesn't.

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

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.

[quixoticgeek]

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

[Hot Flatus]

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   

[L CC]

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?

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. 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.

[wilkyboy]

This works. Without a GPS, you've room on the bars.

As does this, with change from £15 — quite a lot of change — and you can use a GPS too 

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.

[Ajax Bay]

snip

One of us was executing a well-planned, strategy-based operation which included contingencies in the event of the unforeseeable

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.