Extended Calendar Events; A Marriage made in Heaven?

[Carlosfandango]

You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water because of the occasional GPS glitch.

Where has there been any suggestion of throwing anything out?

Sorry for any offence, I caught the wrong end of the stick

[Manotea]

Would you rather the rider realises he's only going to get 200 of the 215km calendar event to count for the ECE so does a few short cuts along busy A roads (which the organiser has presumably avoided on the route sheet hence the overdistance, usually the reason) in order to complete the ECE around an hour sooner?

Riders will do whatever they choose to do. It's not something we can second guess and I really wouldnt sweat it. It's for AUK to set the rules in accordance with the principles we operate by and for orgs to administer them as fairly and open mindly as we can, secure in the knowledge that the world and his wife will have their own views as to what is reasonable or not, and change them by the hour.

Not complaining just saying.

[Wycombewheeler]

Wow didn't mean to open that can of worms. In future maybe I should just contact the relevant authority directly.

[hillbilly]

Would you rather the rider realises he's only going to get 200 of the 215km calendar event to count for the ECE so does a few short cuts along busy A roads (which the organiser has presumably avoided on the route sheet hence the overdistance, usually the reason) in order to complete the ECE around an hour sooner?

One could equally comment that the member could be required to ride a further 100km rather than 85km to make the ride up to 300km.  That 85km is permitted (in this example) is a choice that's been made, for entirely understandable reasons.  Like all choices, some will disagree with it.

[Greenbank]

Thankyou.  What I was saying is that the process of verifying a mandatory route ridden is (or should be) just that - there should be no need to check the distance because the distance is built into the original specification, all the rider has to demonstrate is staying as close as reasonably possible to that specification.
But I am not at the sharp end as Martin is, and I can see in practical terms what I describe is probably too simplistic an approach.

The calendar event route is not a mandatory route though and so that part of the route is not part of the original specification. It's only "at least 200km coming from the calendar event" plus a mandatory route for the ECE portion.

That "at least 200km" could be 200.0km if the route is absolutely on the wire, or it could be 215km if the calendar event was over distance and the rider followed the routesheet. It would be several orders of magnitude more work for Martin to research that for every single ECE so all he has to reasonably go on is the GPX tracklog submitted to him.

Martin's approach gives the most flexibility and puts the onus on the rider to check all of the distances beforehand.

[Martin]

Wow didn't mean to open that can of worms. In future maybe I should just contact the relevant authority directly.

c'mon this is YACF plenty of can openers about!

FWIW I've ridden a couple of compulsory route AUK calendar events so they do exist; all I'm saying is that if a rider wants to turn any event into one (by err following the route sheet or supplied gpx) as part of an ECE that's fine; they benefit from the best route and also get their efforts rewarded by riding more of the ECE in company and less on their own

FWIW the whole compulsory route thing was in response to requests from riders doing 120 - 130 km calendar events not 200s. 100s are lot more lax with AUIU only a 95% distance tolerance, are we going to say they have to be extended by at least 105k?

[bikey-mikey]

So I agree the extra for the ECE is easily best done as a mandatory DIYxGPS.

But all the distance done in the calendar event belongs to that calendar event, and if you had not done all the calendar distance you wouldn’t get the ride validated.

Therefore if you ride an over distance 215 KM calendar event, and decided to count that 15 km to an 85 km ECE, you would get the 100 ECE, but you would not get the calendar validated.

You can’t have your cake AND eat it......

That’s not Audax....

Martin does enough as it is, and his ECE role should be to validate the ECE, leaving the calendar event organiser to validate the calendar event.  Obviously the validation team double checks the calendar event validation.  There is no sane argument to use calendar event distance twice, and if it were allowed, we might as well all stop riding the calendar when our Garmin turns over 200...

[Greenbank]

But all the distance done in the calendar event belongs to that calendar event, and if you had not done all the calendar distance you wouldn’t get the ride validated.

That's the assumption that's wrong (IMHO).

Assuming the calendar event ride is not a mandatory route then there's no requirement to ride the full routesheet distance. The only requirement is that you visit the controls in order within the time limits and you should be able to assume that by doing so the ride is at least the nominal distance (x00km).

If the route taken on the calendar ride is too much under distance (with the ECE leg added on) then this will be caught in the final ECE validation stage (see below).

Therefore if you ride an over distance 215 KM calendar event, and decided to count that 15 km to an 85 km ECE, you would get the 100 ECE, but you would not get the calendar validated.

Why on earth not?

If you say "I'm going to ride this 215km calendar event, which may be shorter than 215km in real life but I hope to ride at least 210km on it, and then I'm going to ride a 90km (just to be safe) ECE leg afterwards by this exact route." and then submit a GPX tracklog that shows that you did ride:
a) what looks like the calendar ride (which will be verified by the organiser of that ride in due course - and if it doesn't get validated for some reason then you get 0 points anyway)
b) the mandatory route section of your ECE as required
c) a total distance greater than the nomimal distance you wish to claim for (e.g. 300km in this example)
d) within time limits/etc.

That looks like a pretty fair representation of an Audax to me:-
* Declare what you are going to do in advance
* do it within the rules
* provide proof that you have done what you said you would do.

I don't see how that's having your cake and eating it.

If you only ride 209km on the calendar ride, and then ride a 90km ECE leg then you're going to be out of luck when it comes to claim the ECE because you're submitting proof that you've only ridden 299km. The calendar event will still be validated but your ECE leg will not, you still only get 2 points.

Martin does enough as it is, and his ECE role should be to validate the ECE, leaving the calendar event organiser to validate the calendar event.  Obviously the validation team double checks the calendar event validation.

Martin validates the ECE leg with the added context of the calendar ride it is augmenting, I see no problem in that and it probably makes his job easier more often than not. It makes even more sense for ECE+CAL+ECE, especially if used for rare events that do not start/finish at the same place.

There is no sane argument to use calendar event distance twice, and if it were allowed, we might as well all stop riding the calendar when our Garmin turns over 200...

I don't see how you're using the calendar distance twice given that you're not using the calendar distance at all. Again, if you only ride 209km on a calendar ride and then tack a 90km ECE on the end of it you don't get the ECE part validated because you've only ridden 299km.

Likewise if you stop riding the calendar event when your Garmin turns over 200 you won't be validated because you haven't visited all of the controls.

[EDIT] To be clear, as I understand it, if you ride a 215km calendar event with a 90km ECE leg afterwards and only submit the tracklog for the ECE section then it will not be validated as Martin has no proof that you rode at least 210km on the calendar ride in order to be satisfied that you have ridden at least 300km in total. All he has to go on is the assumption that the calendar event would have been at least 200km.

[bikey-mikey]

You’re using the last 15 km and the arrivee is at the end of that.. so if you use that 15 for the separate ECE, you haven’t finished the calendar, because you didn’t visit the arrivee during the calendar ride...

[Greenbank]

You’re using the last 15 km and the arrivee is at the end of that.. so if you use that 15 for the separate ECE, you haven’t finished the calendar, because you didn’t visit the arrivee during the calendar ride...

You're not using the 15 for the separate ECE. The separate ECE event is just making the total number of points you claim up to 3 to represent the fact that you set out to do at least 300km in a defined way, and submitted proof that you have ridden at least 300km in that defined way.

Who really cares if it was 215+90 or 200+105?

The rider still set out to do X and did X, so they should get the points for doing X.

[EDIT] Is this more a complaint about how it is represented in the results listings of the AUK website (i.e. it looks like someone did a 200km calendar event plus a 100km ECE when they may have done 215 calendar + 90 ECE)?

[grams]

You're not using the 15 for the separate ECE. The separate ECE event is just making the total number of points you claim up to 3 to represent the fact that you set out to do at least 300km in a defined way, and submitted proof that you have ridden at least 300km in that defined way.

You can't submit a DIY by saying "here is a list of controls that describe a 285 km minimum distance route, but I'm expecting the ride will be over 300 km when I submit my GPX track" and expect to get 3 points. The "defined way" has to either be minimum distance between controls or mandatory route, and the 15 falls into neither category.

(What you can do is submit a 300 km mandatory route through those same controls. That would seem to be a solution that allows such rides to be validated within current practice)

[Martin]

all further discussion with myself via email to myself or John Ward thanks; I've requested this thread be either locked or else this topic moved to the AUK forum

Please also note all requests for DIY's that mirror an ECE on the same day will be rejected (unless the DIY / calendar organisers really want them back)

[Charlie Polecat]

Can one person really demand that a discussion cease? Just asking.

[jsabine]

Can one person really demand that a discussion cease? Just asking.

Martin started this thread, so he can delete the whole thing if he wants. I'd be careful how hard you poke.

all further discussion via email to myself or John Ward thanks; I've requested this thread be locked

I think that would be a shame. Discounting the current rabbit-hole, there's a lot of useful and interesting previous discussion here, and it would be a shame to stifle the opportunity for more to take place in the future.

As for the current discussion, I'm very much in favour of the newly revealed status quo. It's always seemed disappointingly restrictive that there was never any scalable way of recognising the distance actually ridden (rather than the nominal) on an overdistance CAL forming part of an ECE outing: this seems to me a logical progression, simplifying the ECE progress and bringing it closer (IMO) to what a layman would legitimately expect.

I think that those who are trying to say it falls outside the rules are doing so by imposing very particular readings, and demanding an inappropriate inflexibility. To my mind, we should welcome interpretations that are inclusive and simple to follow: the time to question it would be if this approach allowed riders to claim credit for a 200 or a 300 ECE when in fact they'd ridden significantly less distance. In fact it's the reverse: it ensures that they can only claim credit for the ECEd distance if they can positively demonstrate that they have ridden the full amount. (It's an open secret that certain calendar events are grandfathered in with a MDBC that's significantly under the nominal distance let alone the routesheet - shortcut one of these using traditional PoP, and you may only be cheating yourself, but you'll be credited for the full amount. Martin's approach here, requiring GPS proof of distance as well as passage, closes that loophole quite neatly.)

Greenbank has it, I think, saying "That looks like a pretty fair representation of an Audax to me:-
* Declare what you are going to do in advance
* do it within the rules
* provide proof that you have done what you said you would do."

Bikey-Mikey's notion that you're in some way double-counting the overdistance of the calendar ride is plainly nonsense (I wonder if he's missing the point that while ECE+CAL may be represented in the results sheets as two separate events, they're linked and in fact form one).

grahamparks says: "You can't submit a DIY by saying "here is a list of controls that describe a 285 km minimum distance route, but I'm expecting the ride will be over 300 km when I submit my GPX track" and expect to get 3 points" - but that's not what you're doing here. As Martin says, "compulsory route AUK calendar events [...] do exist; all I'm saying is that if a rider wants to turn any event into one (by err following the route sheet or supplied gpx) as part of an ECE that's fine; they benefit from the best route and also get their efforts rewarded by riding more of the ECE in company and less on their own."

You're saying "I'll ride $CAL using the organiser's route, and I'll ride $ECE following this GPX, and they'll add up to $DISTANCE." Martin checks that what you've ridden looks about right, and that it's >=$DISTANCE, and all is well. If it looks wrong, or if it's <=$DISTANCE, you won't get validated. I am really struggling to see why this might be objectionable.

[jsabine]

Silly: I'm talking about adding up miles over a number of days and calling it a single ride.

That's PBP fucked then. Will you contact the ACP or will I?

[hillbilly]

...common sense....

I will be surprised if many disagree with you. In a few years, discussions like these may be quaint, as AUK will adapt (I hope) to e-validation as standard rather than as the exception. 

[Wycombewheeler]

You’re using the last 15 km and the arrivee is at the end of that.. so if you use that 15 for the separate ECE, you haven’t finished the calendar, because you didn’t visit the arrivee during the calendar ride...

So I just submit a mandatory route DIY 300 including the event. Turn up tell the organuset what I'm doing don't take the brevet ( no attempting 2 rides at once) ride the event ride home collect my 3 points and all is ok.
I don't see how how this is any different.
Except the workload for fit validators goes up and the event shows fewer riders.
I'm pretty knew but I assumed these were exactly the reasons why ECE was set up.
Or I think 'whatever I'll just drive there' I don't see that anyone is getting away with anything here. A stated route 300 us planned and then ridden.

[earthloop]

So I just submit a mandatory route DIY 300 including the event. Turn up tell the organuset what I'm doing don't take the brevet ( no attempting 2 rides at once) ride the event ride home collect my 3 points and all is ok.
I don't see how how this is any different.

For an advisory route event, the ECE option is different in that the event part of the route isn't mandatory, the route by which you ride the event just has to turn out to be long enough on the day.

If you consider ECEing the event vs doing a DIY 300 that does not include the event, then it seems pretty fair to me. Your reward for including the event (which will cost you time because you'll plan to be at the start comfortably on time but can't start the event leg before time) is an advantage in terms of route flexibility, which allows you to ride the event on the same basis as other entrants.

[Bairn Again]

It used to be the case that you could only use the "rounded down" distance for a calendar event when formulating your ECE.

Now there is a way that the whole calendar event distance that you ride can count for the overall total meaning a shorter ECE is required (and in a way that doesnt compromise the integrity of either the calendar event or ECE). 

Surely that's something that people who actually ride ECEs will welcome?



   

[jsabine]

It used to be the case that you could only use the "rounded down" distance for a calendar event when formulating your ECE.

Now there is a way that the whole calendar event distance that you ride can count for the overall total meaning a shorter ECE is required (and in a way that doesnt compromise the integrity of either the calendar event or ECE). 

Surely that's something that people who actually ride ECEs will welcome?

My goodness. A post that's succinct, gets the point, and is dangerously close to suggesting that you know what you're talking about.

Are you sure you're allowed to post on YACF?

[jiberjaber]

It used to be the case that you could only use the "rounded down" distance for a calendar event when formulating your ECE.

Now there is a way that the whole calendar event distance that you ride can count for the overall total meaning a shorter ECE is required (and in a way that doesnt compromise the integrity of either the calendar event or ECE). 

Surely that's something that people who actually ride ECEs will welcome?



 

The point exactly... ! 

[Greenbank]

You're not using the 15 for the separate ECE. The separate ECE event is just making the total number of points you claim up to 3 to represent the fact that you set out to do at least 300km in a defined way, and submitted proof that you have ridden at least 300km in that defined way.

You can't submit a DIY by saying "here is a list of controls that describe a 285 km minimum distance route, but I'm expecting the ride will be over 300 km when I submit my GPX track" and expect to get 3 points. The "defined way" has to either be minimum distance between controls or mandatory route, and the 15 falls into neither category.

I can see the distinction, I (personally) think the ECE version is closer to the "state up front, prove, do" ethos of Audax. [EDIT - sorry, wasn't clear what I had written before]

For me the "here is a list of controls that describe a 285 km minimum distance route, but I'm expecting the ride will be over 300 km when I submit my GPX track" falls just the other side of (my own) line of what I deem acceptable.

I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree on this.

I think earthloop sums it up best for me, it's a helpful interpretation of the rules which rewards people who are encouraged to be less flexible in order to support calendar events rather than doing their own pure DIY ride.

[grams]

I'm sad this has been pulled. It seems like something that should exist and the opportunities for abuse are minimal and I hope it returns.

However, I still raise a curious eyebrow at this part:

if by any chance the calendar distance is either under that advertised [...] I will accept a longer than entered ECE

I think I'd expect riders be judged (and if the margin is small, approved) based solely on how close they came to achieving what they entered, so extra mileage tacked on isn't relevant.

[Greenbank]

I'm sad this has been pulled.

Unless I'm missing something, nothing has been pulled.

[grams]

I'm sad this has been pulled.

Unless I'm missing something, nothing has been pulled.

Either I imagined it or a comment has been deleted/edited since last night...