Mandatory GPS DIY control times.

[Banjo]

On a mandatory diy would being out of time at one control invalidate the ride even if completed in time?

I have a nice DIY route which has a long slow climb near the start.Ridden it succesfully got to first control just in time.Even a short delay would have put me behind the 14.3 average.

[Wycombewheeler]

My understanding is that intermediate control times are not enforced on DIYs. I recall checking if I could go into time deficit doing a DIY 400 to get a decent sleep.

[Greenbank]

AIUI there are no real controls (*) on a Mandatory GPS DIY. You just need to complete the route within time.

I suppose that if you're hours out of time at one point but make it back up then you might need to submit some justification (such as slow progress thanks to terrain!)

(*) Ok, there are on the form, but they are defined so weakly that they're of little use.

The reason that controls are still specified is discussed in this thread: http://forum.audax.uk/index.php?topic=685.0

[Whitedown Man]

That was quite a read! IMHO it gives the reader a flavour of the 2015 row and the depth of feeling, but goes no way to explaining why Mandatory Route DIYs By GPS are not as simple and straightforward as:

1. plot intended route that starts somewhere and finishes somewhere, doesn't include loops, and is at least 200 / 300 / etc KMs
2. submit intended route to your local DIY supremo
3. ride route and submit track of route ridden to your local DIY supremo
4. local DIY supremo confirms that ridden track matches intended track to within defined tolerances.

Adding nominal controls seems to me to serve no purpose whatsoever. However, if those nominal controls mean that naysayers will (however reluctantly) accept the existence of Mandatory Route DIYs By GPS that they would otherwise have objected to, it's a small price to pay.

[Somnolent]

Adding nominal controls seems to me to serve no purpose whatsoever. However, if those nominal controls mean that naysayers will (however reluctantly) accept the existence of Mandatory Route DIYs By GPS that they would otherwise have objected to, it's a small price to pay.

Ultimately it depends on how you define what is a control.
For reasons which need not be rehearsed here, a ride without controls cannot be an audax (or at least not one which is sanctioned by AUK)
But there is an argument that says all those hundreds (or thousands) of trackpoints in the gps file that the mandatory DIY rider submits to the organiser before the ride might be considered to be equally valid as 'controls'.
Quite why a named location such as 'Marsh Gibbon' should be in some way superior to a trackpoint defined <lat="51.90258" lon="-1.06115"> in the context of a mandatory route escapes me.

[Wycombewheeler]

Adding nominal controls seems to me to serve no purpose whatsoever. However, if those nominal controls mean that naysayers will (however reluctantly) accept the existence of Mandatory Route DIYs By GPS that they would otherwise have objected to, it's a small price to pay.

Ultimately it depends on how you define what is a control.
For reasons which need not be rehearsed here, a ride without controls cannot be an audax (or at least not one which is sanctioned by AUK)
But there is an argument that says all those hundreds (or thousands) of trackpoints in the gps file that the mandatory DIY rider submits to the organiser before the ride might be considered to be equally valid as 'controls'.
Quite why a named location such as 'Marsh Gibbon' should be in some way superior to a trackpoint defined <lat="51.90258" lon="-1.06115"> in the context of a mandatory route escapes me.

Careful, if you consider all 500 trackpoints as controls a single closed road would invalidate the ride.

[Greenbank]

Careful, if you consider all 500 trackpoints as controls a single closed road would invalidate the ride.

This is all discussed in the Audax UK forum thread I linked to. A certain amount of deviation (for good reasons like unexpected closed roads) will be tolerated.

But, yes, a road closure that forces you to take a shorter route could end up invalidating your ride.

[Chris S]

But, yes, a road closure that forces you to take a shorter route could end up invalidating your ride.

As a DIY Org for the entire history of Mandatory routes, I don't think I've denied validation once yet, unless it was of the two or three "This totally didn't work for XYZ reasons, feel free to not validate it." cases that were so far off the intended, it was a no-brainer.

If folks ride by and large, what they say they were going to ride,  and within the time limits, I'll validate it. This isn't an exercise in Precision Track Matching .

[frankly frankie]

But on the other hand, we do have to have Standards.  Otherwise what you do is pointless. (pun not intended)

[Martin]

but but but if a mandatory route has thousands of controls (being just a gps track) how can it be enforced?

I'd like a definitive answer to thisfor all AUK rides; as in "do intermediate control times on any UK event matter?"  (where there are no controllers present within the opening / closing times other than the alternative receipts)

[Manotea]

That was quite a read! IMHO it gives the reader a flavour of the 2015 row and the depth of feeling, but goes no way to explaining why Mandatory Route DIYs By GPS are not as simple and straightforward as:

1. plot intended route that starts somewhere and finishes somewhere, doesn't include loops, and is at least 200 / 300 / etc KMs
2. submit intended route to your local DIY supremo
3. ride route and submit track of route ridden to your local DIY supremo
4. local DIY supremo confirms that ridden track matches intended track to within defined tolerances.

Leaving aside the idiosyncracies of AUK admin processes, steps 1-4 is about all there is to it.

So why have Controls for GPS Perms if control times are not validated?

From a practical viewpoint, they provide a measure of documentation by listing the major waypoints of the route. Hardly an onerous requirement.

Beyond that they ensure all AUK Brevets conform to the same regulations and allow that all Brevets are equally eligible for AUK awards.

For me the real anomally is the lack of consistency regarding validation of intermediate control times across all Brevets. but thats a much larger issue. It would be straightforward to automate validation of intermediate control times for GPS Brevets if so desired, and this may b eintroduced as / when validation by some form of tracker becomes the norm, but that's some way off as yet.

But, yes, a road closure that forces you to take a shorter route could end up invalidating your ride.

As a DIY Org for the entire history of Mandatory routes, I don't think I've denied validation once yet, unless it was of the two or three "This totally didn't work for XYZ reasons, feel free to not validate it." cases that were so far off the intended, it was a no-brainer.

If folks ride by and large, what they say they were going to ride,  and within the time limits, I'll validate it. This isn't an exercise in Precision Track Matching .

Exactly so. The reality is that a diversion due to a road closure, whatever, simply is not significant in the context of a x00 km ride, and in practice the vast majority of riders stick to their planned routes like glue. New DIYers occasionally wander off but that's a learning thing and a quiet word ensures they stay on track thereafter.

[Greenbank]

I'd like a definitive answer to thisfor all AUK rides; as in "do intermediate control times on any UK event matter?"  (where there are no controllers present within the opening / closing times other than the alternative receipts)

I think the AUK forum would be the place to ask for a definitive answer to that question, whether you'll get it or not is another matter.

Using a kind of reductio ad absurdum argument, consider a DIY by GPS (mandatory route) with a R@T just 50 meters after starting.

If you're forced to wait a minute to make that turn (because of traffic) are you now out of time at the subsequent GPX point that's 100 meters into the ride? (At 15kph you should have covered that first 100 meters in a maximum of 150th of an hour = 24 seconds).

Personally I'd hope the answer is "no, intermediate control times at unmanned controls don't matter" (plenty of receipts I've obtained as proof-of-passage have had incorrect clocks that put me technically out of time). Out of time at unmanned commercial controls (which have closing times) may present a problem for you (you may need to scrabble around for alternatives). Out of time at a manned control and you're at the mercy of the organiser/controller (but it's still worth getting alternative proof-of-passage and continuing and arguing your case later).

[Manotea]

Whilst our ability to apply the regs is compromised they are definitive.

Just because we lack the ability/desire to apply the regs absolutely does not mean their intent can/should be dismissed.

[frankly frankie]

but but but if a mandatory route has thousands of controls (being just a gps track) how can it be enforced?

If a control is a combination of a location and a time** window, then trackpoints don't qualify.  Because planned trackpoints can very likely have a timestamp outside the window, or no timestamp at all.

** elapsed time from start time.

Regarding flexibility of intermediate passing times, this is already written into the AUK Regulations, albeit hedged with the usual mealy-mouthed caveats:

9.8.3 ... Control opening and closing times are normally determined by dividing the distance of the control from the start by the maximum and minimum speeds, but may be adjusted by the organiser with the prior approval of AUK.

so in theory the DIY Org could regard every control time window to be the same as the total event time window if he wanted.

And the 'intent' of this regulation, is that there is no need to be slavish about intermediate control times, where the control is unstaffed.

[Greenbank]

but but but if a mandatory route has thousands of controls (being just a gps track) how can it be enforced?

If a control is a combination of a location and a time** window, then trackpoints don't qualify.  Because planned trackpoints can very likely have a timestamp outside the window, or no timestamp at all.

** elapsed time from start time.

I don't see the difference between a trackpoint (in the context of an ordered set of trackpoints in a GPX file) and a normal DIY control.

A normal DIY control just has a distance, not a time window. The time window can be easily calculated from that distance using the min/max speeds.

Each trackpoint doesn't have an associated distance from start, but in the context of a route from a start point then each trackpoint does have an associated calculable (albeit not so easily calculable) distance from the start, and from that one can calculate the associated time window.

Looking at the DIY by GPS (mandatory route) entry form, there are boxes there to enter control names, but nowhere to enter distance or lat/lon for those controls, so it would be impossible to calculate time windows for those controls, even though they seem to be on that form solely to placate the people that say that they are required.

Anyway. I don't really want to get into this type of discussion, the AUK forum has covered most of that already. I don't really care how it does or doesn't quite fit within the various regulations as they are worded or could be worded.

I'm just happy that DIY by GPS (with mandatory routing) exists as it makes it much easier for many people to do rides they might not otherwise do. I haven't used it yet (I haven't done much Audaxing in the last few years) but if I ever start doing my Surrey Hills 100km training loop (based on the CTC Hilly 50) then I can grab some AAA/FWC/Populaire points at the same time.

[grams]

Regarding flexibility of intermediate passing times, this is already written into the AUK Regulations, albeit hedged with the usual mealy-mouthed caveats

That seems to only apply to changing the time windows before an event, not missing a hypothetical window during the ride.

I actually spent a lot of time googling last week around this for my own DIY, and the only explicit statement I could find on the topic was this ("The timings on a permanent are different to a calendar event: the intermediate controls are not time-limited"). If they're simply not enforced, and as it seems AUK has no interest in enforcing them, it makes the whole system user unfriendly (or only friendly to insiders who know which rules can be bent) not stating this on the AUK site.