"Audax Guidebook" idea (cf. participation)

[saturn]

Oh dear.  I think I'm about to become Mr Unpopular!  If we have organiser-created gpx files, why not signed routes?  And roving mechanics, and sag wagons.  Let's call it a sportive!

Nothing would be different to the present surely - organisers have the option to make GPX available (as they have now) and entrants would have the option of using them or, if they prefer, creating their own or using the routesheet or following someone else. What's new?

My club publishes bikehike routes for all it's audaxes and for the one I route-checked I published (at the user's own risk) a GDB including routesheet style instructions 75m before turns. Nobody complained that we'd ruined the event by reducing it to the realms of a mere sportive but then the start was perhaps a little early for anyone to have had a tipple.

[Chris S]

For me, the challenge of the route is a key part.  I feel that I'm slightly "cheating" by following my GPS, but at least I've spent some time working with the routesheet and a map to create my own gpx track.

I have embraced with relish, the GPS form of audax.

And yet - one of the most enjoyable rides this season was when I forgot to transfer my route to the GPS, and I had to follow the routesheet. I'm now considering a Routesheet 1st, GPS 2nd hierarchy in my navigation.

[mattc]

(and have had some wine with dinner)

Me Too. The ramblings of a drunken audaxer ............

In vino veritas, my friends !

<looks at empty glass, decides to leave posting til the grumpy morning session>

[AndyH]

I have embraced with relish, the GPS form of audax.

And yet - one of the most enjoyable rides this season was when I forgot to transfer my route to the GPS, and I had to follow the routesheet. I'm now considering a Routesheet 1st, GPS 2nd hierarchy in my navigation.

+1, but it's nice to have the GPS. I like the bit where it tells you the climbing is finished, 50K from home.

[Jaded]

On a recent Audax I helped with I checked part of the route.

Would the organiser have to try and stick together several GPS tracks for this site?

[Euan Uzami]

Oh dear.  I think I'm about to become Mr Unpopular!  If we have organiser-created gpx files, why not signed routes?  And roving mechanics, and sag wagons.  Let's call it a sportive!

For me, the challenge of the route is a key part.  I feel that I'm slightly "cheating" by following my GPS, but at least I've spent some time working with the routesheet and a map to create my own gpx track.

I'm not wholly serious (and have had some wine with dinner) so please don't condemn me out of hand!

Personally I never trust any gpx file other than one i've created from the organiser's route sheet.
Even one the organiser has created.
That said however an organiser's gpx / google maps route (or that of someone else trusted) does make it a hell of a lot quicker to plot out the gpx from the route sheet.

[Ivo]

Personally I never trust any gpx file other than one i've created from the organiser's route sheet.
Even one the organiser has created.

If the GPX file originates from the GPS unit from the organiser it'll be more accurate as the organiser's route sheet (own experience).

[phil d]

Just to be clear, I was not arguing against GPS use on audaxes.  I frequently, but not always, use one myself, and am happily doing GPS-verified perms, too.  I just feel that riders should be prepared to create their own gpx files.

We seem to be talking about two different things here, anyway - IVO and Saturn are talking about a track (one point every 100m or so), whereas ChrisS and I are using routes, with waypoints only at instruction points.

[saturn]

.... Saturn are talking about a track (one point every 100m or so), whereas ChrisS and I are using routes, with waypoints only at instruction points.

Not really, like I say we provided both, I personally prefer to have both - the track to see the line on the map and the route to provide the alert at turns. But that's a luxury, I'm happy with either or neither. What I'm really talking about is the facility to share knowledge and to encourage participation in audaxes - I'd rather we didn't look for / create obstacles where these don't exist. I'd be more than content a link to a bikehike/bikely/whatever plot of a recent previous year's route to entice me into entering this year's event - for me anything else is a bonus.

[Euan Uzami]

Personally I never trust any gpx file other than one i've created from the organiser's route sheet.
Even one the organiser has created.

If the GPX file originates from the GPS unit from the organiser it'll be more accurate as the organiser's route sheet (own experience).

yeah, if it originates from their own GPS unit from when they did the ride previously, it'll be accurate, but there will probably be too many points, and the points will be too dense.

[toontra]

What I'm really talking about is the facility to share knowledge and to encourage participation in audaxes - I'd rather we didn't look for / create obstacles where these don't exist. I'd be more than content a link to a bikehike/bikely/whatever plot of a recent previous year's route to entice me into entering this year's event - for me anything else is a bonus.

That sums up the GPS mapping situation perfectly for me personally. 

[frankly frankie]

One very positive thing from that project, though - it demonstrates the capacity to expand out the AUK site.  I imagine FF will be along to add his pearls of wisdom banality 

I'm no longer a board member but this all sounds very reasonable, very positive, to me.  I feel sure that if it looked as good as it sounds, AUK would be happy to link it in to the AUK site in a fairly intimate way.  After all they can always unlink it if they don't like what is going on, or if there seem to be negative comments, or it would be technically quite simple for each Organiser to nominate whether or not they wish to participate, on a per-event basis.

One practical hint here - if each event is a 'topic' then the easiest way to link that to, say, the AUK Calendar page for that event, is by the Event Number which is the part after the hyphen - so if the event is say number 10-345 in AUK's listings, if the Guidebook site had a topic named 345, or with a hidden field that could be used in a URL - that would link in very easily.  That way the link is 'sticky' year on year, and is zero-maintenance.

BTW I do know that Peter is working on restructuring the whole AUK website, and making it a bit more wikified in the process I think - but its a huge job because he inherited (from me) a Byzantine structure that isn't easy to unravel!  Plus he has other things AUK-related on his plate as well.

If the GPX file originates from the GPS unit from the organiser it'll be more accurate as the organiser's route sheet (own experience).

To be pedantic here - I do agree with what Ivo is saying - but the most accurate GPX (from the point of view of following the road exactly) is one that is generated from a map such as Google maps, not one that has been recorded.  An Org's recorded track may wander around a bit, under trees, and may include unscheduled pee-breaks!!
I think its very reasonable these days to hope that the more clued-up Organisers would provide a track - however I no longer think it's such a good idea to provide a route file, because these really are better left up to the individual riders to write their own, everyone has a different way of doing it.

[Manotea]

As Phil says, standards vary:

Some like tracks, some routes.

Some like 'original' tracks with zillions of points, some like tracks filtered down to, say, 500 track points (etrex upload limit)

Some like route with waypoints on turns, some not (see also: waypoint labeling).

Some prefer proprietory formats (.gdb, .tcx, etc.).

Some like complete tracks/routes, others chop them up by stage.

Etc.


My suggestion would be to publish as standard a track and 'turn by turn' route. The TbT route would also help 'validate' the routesheet. There is no reason why the org cannot subcontract producing a TbT route to others which would also be a Good Thing by widening scrutiny of the routesheet before the event(!).

Regarding late amendments, whilst these can be published onto the website and users notified by whatever means available, there will probably always be an element of ad-hocness about it, including announcements on the day, and riders must accept that.

As an organiser, my practice to date has been to simply publish the track on bikely. I haven't provided turn by turn routes as I've rather adopted a different approach for generating routes for my own use which is simpler/less effort. Regardless TbT is preferred by the majority and that they can be used to validate the routesheet seems like a killer arguement for providing them in future (if I can find a volunteer to produce them for me!).

As a rider and Garmin eTrex Vista user I run a .gdb with track and route. I've recently also acquired a Garmin 705 but am still learning my way round that.

ISTM the more interesting questions centre around whether there is a need for centralised publication of materials (e.g., my .gdb above) beyond the a-hoc sharing via the forum and how this might be provisioned and managed.

[arvid]

To be pedantic here - I do agree with what Ivo is saying - but the most accurate GPX (from the point of view of following the road exactly) is one that is generated from a map such as Google maps, not one that has been recorded.  An Org's recorded track may wander around a bit, under trees, and may include unscheduled pee-breaks!!

Maybe it's different in the UK, but I remember this quote

But first, let me say that you shouldn't look at Google Maps. They had a blind monkey draw their roads behind its back.

from someone in Germany, and another problem is that Google doesn't know bikepaths, so following the road is often not what you want in NL, BE or DE. Maps are always outdated, the best is a recorded track from a week before the ride. Routes, even Turn by Turn, are dependent on the maps of the rider, and therefore too unreliable, IMO. I can follow a track even when my SD card with the map on it fails.
I agree that a recorded track should be edited to remove pee-breaks and wrong turns, and it is good practice to reduce the amount of points to fit most GPS devices.

[Philip Whiteman]

Hi EdinburghFixed,

You get my support.  A great idea.  It will take some effort to put together a decent website though.  Best of luck.  Can I provide feedback on my own events or would that be cheating?

[Ivo]

To be pedantic here - I do agree with what Ivo is saying - but the most accurate GPX (from the point of view of following the road exactly) is one that is generated from a map such as Google maps, not one that has been recorded.  An Org's recorded track may wander around a bit, under trees, and may include unscheduled pee-breaks!!

Maybe it's different in the UK, but I remember this quote

But first, let me say that you shouldn't look at Google Maps. They had a blind monkey draw their roads behind its back.

from someone in Germany, and another problem is that Google doesn't know bikepaths, so following the road is often not what you want in NL, BE or DE. Maps are always outdated, the best is a recorded track from a week before the ride. Routes, even Turn by Turn, are dependent on the maps of the rider, and therefore too unreliable, IMO. I can follow a track even when my SD card with the map on it fails.
I agree that a recorded track should be edited to remove pee-breaks and wrong turns, and it is good practice to reduce the amount of points to fit most GPS devices.

Indeed. I have a few sections on my rides where the GPS will wander around a bit since it doesn't know the bikepath which is not following a road. After some complaint I've started editing my tracks to evade the track jumping over a canal if a road appears at the other side of the canal. Or jumping down from a former railway bridge if there's a road underneath while the bikepath on the former railroad goes another way.
Deviding the track in sections of abt. 80km and 500 points is the middle way I use.

[frankly frankie]

After some complaint I've started editing my tracks to evade the track jumping over a canal if a road appears at the other side of the canal. Or jumping down from a former railway bridge if there's a road underneath while the bikepath on the former railroad goes another way.

That may be a setting on your GPS - 'lock on road' - makes the GPS indicate where it thinks you must be, not where you actually are - turn it off, you don't need it.  And I take your point about cyclepaths etc (though from a UK perspective, riding an event mostly on cycle facilities sounds a bit purgatorial).

[Ivo]

And I take your point about cyclepaths etc (though from a UK perspective, riding an event mostly on cycle facilities sounds a bit purgatorial).

It depends on the local situation. I'd hardly do this in the Netherland. In Flandes some are possible, the RAVEL's in Wallonia however are mostly excellent. Epecially the ones on former railroads are a superb way to scale a mountain range without overdoing it on climbing. Pity that City Navigator doesn't differentiate between active railroads, former railroads and RAVELs. So it takes some preparation to find the information before setting out and reccing a new route.

[Panoramix]

For creating a route that does not avoid cyclepath in the UK, you can use this:

CloudMade Maps

It is based on OSM, the only drawback is that some people mark mtb trails as cyclepaths  so it is a good idea to double-check the track!

Since I live close to the Bristol-Bath cyclepath I sometimes use it to route people to my house.

[border-rider]

I just googled "open source wiki software" - sounds pretty much like setting up and administering an online forum in terms of server & knowledge requirements.

It's actually terribly easy to do and requires little web space

I set up the fixieFAQs wiki

Getting people to contribute is more difficult....