New event, new organiser

[BobScarle]

This is my first time as an organiser. I have had plenty of help setting up the route and page. I have now ridden the route for the second time, and it looks fine. I have just got to finish the route sheet and publish that, should be done in the next day or two.

So what have I missed? Is there anything the new (and not so new) organisers always forget? Does anybody have any tips or tricks for the day?

I am hoping that some people from this forum will ride it and give me some honest (ok, not too honest) feedback on the event.

http://www.aukweb.net/events/detail/17-171/

[whosatthewheel]

Hi Bob, it's quite local to me and I think I am free that weekend, so I should be in. I am sure Bobbinogs will sign up too   

[Wobbly]

Entered.

Now tell me how many metres of climbing the are.

[JonBuoy]

Bikehike reckons 1800m.

[Wobbly]

We shouldn't have to ask Bikehike.

[citoyen]

Good luck, Bob.

I'll be making my debut as an organiser on exactly the same day.

[BobScarle]

This was the track from my route check a couple of weeks back.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1832275137

According to that there are 2,234m of climbing. Most of this is contained in the climb to Haugh Woods and the climb up Marcle Hill. You can see these at a little over 130 Km from the profile.

Entered.

Thanks Wobbly. Trouble is I will be looking for Mr Milligan on the day.

Good luck, Bob.

I'll be making my debut as an organiser on exactly the same day.

Thanks citoyen. Hope yours goes well. Maybe we should compare notes afterwards.

[Banjo]

Looks like a good ride.

Pity its on the same day as " Making Haye in a day" from Tewkesbury.

You will be competing for riders.

[alfapete]

Looks lovely, especially as I'm based in Evesham, and it's early in the month to fit RRTY purposes.

Unfortunately there's a family wedding on that day so I'll miss it.
Hope it goes well.

If you need any help at the start I'm willing as wedding is late in the day.

[Wobbly]

Looks like a good ride.

Pity its on the same day as Making Haye from Tewkesbury.

You will be competing for riders.

Clashing with a Black Sheep ride? I'd not checked on the calendar.

That doesn't help either organiser

[Delph Cyclist]

We shouldn't have to ask Bikehike.

That's who I ask

[Wobbly]

It's fine for an organiser to ask Bikehike. But then that organiser should fill in the relevant field for the event on the AUK web site. I fail to understand why organisers don't complete this field. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

[Chris N]

No AAAs = flat.  HTH.

[Wobbly]

 

[citoyen]

It's fine for an organiser to ask Bikehike. But then that organiser should fill in the relevant field for the event on the AUK web site. I fail to understand why organisers don't complete this field. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

The org may not know the number when they first publish the route on the calendar, and once it's published, it's hard to change that info.

I plotted my route on RideWithGPS and used the figure that came up with to put on the calendar but I make no claims as to its accuracy - it could easily be several hundred metres out.

[whosatthewheel]

Elevation figures from sites are always wrong, in a way or another. To measure it accurately, one should ride the course with a decent altimeter, possibly on a day with constant barometric pressure.

I have seen  all numbers for the same route, within plus and minus 50%... if that is the range, it makes no sense to quote them... it's either AAA or it's not.

[Wobbly]

Elevation figures from sites are always wrong, in a way or another. To measure it accurately, one should ride the course with a decent altimeter, possibly on a day with constant barometric pressure.

I have seen  all numbers for the same route, within plus and minus 50%... if that is the range, it makes no sense to quote them... it's either AAA or it's not.

I suggest few organisers ride the course with a decent altimeter on a day with barometric constant pressure and, in fact, use elevation figures from sites.

If elevation figures from sites are so incredibly inaccurate ("plus and minus 50%" - care to cite some evidence?) then AAA figures must be equally inaccurate.

[zakalwe]

Elevation figures from sites are always wrong, in a way or another. To measure it accurately, one should ride the course with a decent altimeter, possibly on a day with constant barometric pressure.

That's not always practical.  An elevation figure estimated from topographic maps may be inaccurate, but it's much better than nothing.

If BikeHike says 3000m for a 200 km route, I know it's going to be a lot hillier than a route for which BikeHike says 1500m.

[whosatthewheel]

Elevation figures from sites are always wrong, in a way or another. To measure it accurately, one should ride the course with a decent altimeter, possibly on a day with constant barometric pressure.

That's not always practical.  An elevation figure estimated from topographic maps may be inaccurate, but it's much better than nothing.

If BikeHike says 3000m for a 200 km route, I know it's going to be a lot hillier than a route for which BikeHike says 1500m.

Yes, that basically is the point, relative comparisonos between events, but no absoulte value you can rely upon.

I did the Cestyll Cymru 200, which had AAA points,  but my Garmin (altimeter) recorded less than 1% elevation ,which is the bare minimum for AAA points. Once plotted into Strava that figure became even smaller, which is typical of older Garmin when coupled with Strava. In that particular case, I feel the AAA points were a bit of a free gift of topographic estimates.
Average speed doesn't lie either, if I average nearly 27 km/h, it can't be that hilly...

* plus or minus 50%... well, just choose a route of your liking, find it on Strava and look at the different elevation people have for exactly the same route... You will see wildly discording figures... if you were to work out a mean, the spread wouldn't be too far off a + or - 50%

[citoyen]

* plus or minus 50%... well, just choose a route of your liking, find it on Strava and look at the different elevation people have for exactly the same route... You will see wildly discording figures... if you were to work out a mean, the spread wouldn't be too far off a + or - 50%

A lot of that variation will be down to sampling frequency - recording at 1 second intervals will capture all the small undulations in the road that longer intervals will miss.

It's questionable whether higher frequency is more 'accurate' as a measure of climbing difficulty though - would you consider those small undulations to be 'climbing'? Is a constantly rolling course harder than a flat course with one or two big climbs?

[Wobbly]

* plus or minus 50%... well, just choose a route of your liking, find it on Strava and look at the different elevation people have for exactly the same route... You will see wildly discording figures... if you were to work out a mean, the spread wouldn't be too far off a + or - 50%

A lot of that variation will be down to sampling frequency - recording at 1 second intervals will capture all the small undulations in the road that longer intervals will miss.

That, and quite possibly people's inability to use GPS equipment/upload to Strava.

I'm not convinced that web sites like BikeHike, Bike Route Toaster, etc. are so massively inconsistent to produce figures like "plus or minus 50%"

[whosatthewheel]

That, and quite possibly people's inability to use GPS equipment/upload to Strava.

I'm not convinced that web sites like BikeHike, Bike Route Toaster, etc. are so massively inconsistent to produce figures like "plus or minus 50%"

There is no level of ability involved, you press a button to record, you press another button to upload a file... it's not that you have to work out the algorhytm to convert a FIT file yourself.

There is a difference between the various mapping tools, not 50%, but can easily be 20%. The point is that having a look at the profile typically gives a better indication of what to expect than reading a number

[zakalwe]

* plus or minus 50%... well, just choose a route of your liking, find it on Strava and look at the different elevation people have for exactly the same route... You will see wildly discording figures... if you were to work out a mean, the spread wouldn't be too far off a + or - 50%

A lot of that variation will be down to sampling frequency - recording at 1 second intervals will capture all the small undulations in the road that longer intervals will miss.

That, and quite possibly people's inability to use GPS equipment/upload to Strava.

I'm not convinced that web sites like BikeHike, Bike Route Toaster, etc. are so massively inconsistent to produce figures like "plus or minus 50%"

Actually, here's an example from a perm that I sometimes ride:

https://www.strava.com/activities/879148155
https://ridewithgps.com/trips/16162070

The latter is created from a GPX file exported from the Strava activity, but the elevation shown is calculated from RWGPS's topography.  The barometric elevation is nearly twice the topographic elevation!  In this case, I think it's because the route is made up mostly of tight, winding lanes with very steep gradients.  I expect the topography doesn't capture most of the changes in elevation.

This one is especially annoying, because it's the only AAA-accredited route in the area (so it's my only option for AAARTY purposes).  It's only eligible for 1.5 AAA points, which is the bare minimum for 100 km.  But in reality, it's one of the toughest AAA routes I've ridden, despite being so short.

[whosatthewheel]

Actually, here's an example from a perm that I sometimes ride:

https://www.strava.com/activities/879148155
https://ridewithgps.com/trips/16162070

The latter is created from a GPX file exported from the Strava activity, but the elevation shown is calculated from RWGPS's topography.  The barometric elevation is nearly twice the topographic elevation!  In this case, I think it's because the route is made up mostly of tight, winding lanes with very steep gradients.  I expect the topography doesn't capture most of the changes in elevation.

This one is especially annoying, because it's the only AAA-accredited route in the area (so it's my only option for AAARTY purposes).  It's only eligible for 1.5 AAA points, which is the bare minimum for 100 km.  But in reality, it's one of the toughest AAA routes I've ridden, despite being so short.

I suspect your Garmin overestimates, which is not unusual in the 5 and 8 range. I used to live in the Chilterns and it's near impossible to plan a route that exceeds 2% average gradient.... that unless you keep going up and down Kop hill. The Chiltern 100 sportive route used to have a 1.5% average gradient, despite going up every single climb... now they have watered it down a little.

You can get to 2% or slightly over in the Lakes, Peak District, Yorkshire Moors and Dales, some parts of Wales and maybe in Cornwall, nowhere else

[BobScarle]

Well I thought I was bound to make mistakes. Didn't think that I would do something as basic as miss off the amount of climbing. Not easy to see where I can add that in now.

Unfortunately it does clash with a Black Sheep ride and that is entirely my fault. I misinterpreted a comment Mark made and thought that his ride was not going to take place. I have been in contact and offered an apology. Two rides in the same area is not ideal, and I like ridding the Hay-in-a-Day audax.