Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: EdinburghFixed on 30 July, 2010, 10:46:00 am
-
For a while I have had a hankering to start writing up the rides I do on some sort of website. I thought an account (including GPS trace and whatnot) might be useful to others trying to hunt down info on a ride, as well as a record for myself of what I've got up to. As an example, there is a 'Border Raid' account on this page (http://www.cyclingcouncillor.com/index.asp?PageID=159) which for me was an important part of deciding to ride that event.
However, the recent "is growth possible in audax" discussion got me thinking. Perhaps it would be more useful to put some time towards a slightly different concept, which would be more of a "brochure" style website featuring particular rides in a less personal style - but still at greater length than the AUK calendar entry.
I think it's important to underline that this would not be a replacement for, or in any other way seek to change the actual AUK site (which many people are perfectly happy with, and fair enough).
Instead, it would be a separate and complimentary entity oriented towards all the potential riders out there, just like you and I, who have not made the leap to actually taking part (for reasons which I believe are mainly informational and not due to any actual inability to ride and enjoy a route).
In a nutshell, I imagine it "featuring" particular rides, with maps / traces, photos if possible (aware that I've never managed to take any decent audax pictures so this might be a big ask!) and so on. In terms of getting content on there, I vaguely imagine a small voluntary editorial group curating information provided by organisers (i.e. organisers wouldn't actually need to bother with using the site itself).
Possibly it might be useful to have some myth-busting side content like "do I really have to have a beard and wear socks and sandals" or "can I ride without a vintage 1920's steel frame and full mudguards" - who knows. It wouldn't need to be comprehensive - more a subset of rides for which particular organisers would like to make information more accessible and are open to the possibility that they might get a slightly larger field.
Having written this down, it seems (even to me) to sound a little bit like a rewrite of the AUK site, although that is not really what I'm trying to get at. Clearly the current AUK site works and that's fine by me - however I think an alternative format (where there's much more information on the individual rides and it's presented in a more accessible fashion) would have definite value.
For example, when trying to promote an event on your local club's website, wouldn't it be nice to be able to pop a link in to a page which has a map of the route on it, some pictures of the toughest climb/scenery/awesome cake stop (delete as appropriate depending on what sort of people you're advertising to ;P ), possibly some testimony from riders of previous editions ("it was the hardest thing I've ever done, never again" is probably not what we'd want though!)
I just wanted to drop this out as a thought experiment, particularly for any feedback from organisers or people who expressed dissatisfaction with the status quo on the other topic. Maybe it would never work, or just be extra effort for no significant gain - in which case, fair enough!
(PS. before anybody asks, I would envision volunteering myself on this, which should go without saying)
-
Excellent idea :thumbsup:
-
Forgive me EF, but doesn't this stuff already exist?
AUKWeb has a FAQ (as does YACF!), there are zillions of ride reports out there, many of which reference photos and GPS logs, and many events already promote themselves with piccies and other PR ;) .
Need info on a ride? Start a topic here, or on various other InterWeb meeting places. I'm sure you can find a topic like
"Newbie thinking of riding the BCM - help!!!" and you will see a dozen helpful responses (and 40 more enthusiastic ones!)
-
I don't know how it would be done technically but it would be great if people (participants as well as organisers) could contribute their own reports directly with minimal editorial effort being required.
I think having a specific focus on audaxes might be attractive. I think there may be various sites to which people can submit general rides (don't the CTC offer this for example?) plus of course some people do it on a site of their own. Given the variability in the degree of info available for audaxes it would be a great resource for existing audaxers as well as a useful promotional tool for those who might be contemplating their first audax. I'd be concerned that extending it to general ride reports / suggestions might dilute it but maybe it would be possible to have sections for each type of ride / event?
I'd certainly be happy to contribute a brief report of any audax I do.
-
Yes, an excellent suggestion - I've been working on something similar for Ireland (http://audaxireland.wordpress.com/) (which is obviously a much smaller task) and to judge from the usage statistics, there are a fair number of people visiting it, and it is slowly becoming more comprehensive. Unless you have a very large team working on it, you'd probably want to start with the events that are generally considered the best before moving on to the unsung pleasures of UK audax.
-
good idea. If it's a one stop shop for definitely maps/gpx routes, but preferably also photos, reports and advice, that'd make it qutie popular
-
It sounds good, I'll happily contribute material if you want.
-
Great idea.
There are ride reports, but they tend to be unstructured, or arbitrarily structured. Some are just words, some just photos, some with lots of tech stuff, some with just pain.
To have a kind of loose template to hang similar stuff on would be great.
-
How about a book along the lines of the 'Classic Rock' series, covering the country's best audax rides at each distance? Mixture of guidebook, ride report, photos and routesheets.
..d
-
Forgive me EF, but doesn't this stuff already exist?
AUKWeb has a FAQ (as does YACF!), there are zillions of ride reports out there, many of which reference photos and GPS logs, and many events already promote themselves with piccies and other PR ;) .
Need info on a ride? Start a topic here, or on various other InterWeb meeting places. I'm sure you can find a topic like
"Newbie thinking of riding the BCM - help!!!" and you will see a dozen helpful responses (and 40 more enthusiastic ones!)
I agree that the information is all there (in some cases at least!), if you're willing to search out ride reports and other material from different places on Google, and potentially find a forum, register for it, and then make a post. This is more or less what I joined YACF for - see my first ever post (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=22266.msg398663#msg398663).
But, again, I think there are no shortage of riders (perhaps even existing randonneurs) for whom this isn't ideal. And I think it's noteworthy that the "gateway" events (200's but particularly BPs?) are amongst the least likely to have information; as a case in point, see the awesome Mille Cymru (http://www.mille-cymru.org.uk/about.html) website.
If you consider the 1000k+ rides to be the sharp end of a participation pyramid, there ought to be many BPs that are similarly well "advertised", even if only a small proportion of organisers have the time to do so - but are there?
-
What you are describing is "Arrivee" magazine but online instead of on dead tree
-
It would be quite good to be in a wiki or CMS form so that everybody can contribute!
-
I think this is such an ace idea. :thumbsup:
Could this perhaps be integrated into the AUK website and calendar? One of the points made in the earlier thread about the future of AUK was that there was sometimes a paucity of information about an event or ride.
It would be great if more calendar events had not such gpx files and routesheets ready to download, but ride reports, photos and even just thumbsups.
The Bryan Chapman and The Elenith are great rides. But I suspect they are popular because they are popular. In other words, new riders gravitate to them because they read lots about them and pick up on the buzz. However The Three Coasts is also a great ride, that struggles to be viable. Perhaps if there were more ride reports and recommendations on the website, more people might add it to their list of audax goals.
So, if you're going to actually go for this, and I really hope you do, please include Pete Coates into your plans.
-
When we discussed the information-about-perms problem in 07, I suggested a Wiki for all these reasons.
The main problem pointed out was that it would mean AUK hosting content that might criticise its organisers.
But otherwise, it's a great way to go (which is why I suggested it ;) )
-
The main problem pointed out was that it would mean AUK hosting content that might criticise its organisers.
I worried about that as well. But it can be easily solved by asking people for recommendations, rather than feedback. It's a bit like the old customer service adage: "If it was bad, please tell us. If it was good, tell your friends."
-
Unknowingly, I re-suggested the wiki of perms idea earlier this year, and the companion issue of moderation was raised.
It's something that could be started outside of the confines of aukweb.net, and perhaps in fullness of time aukweb would feel comfortable to link out to wiki entries (or, the wiki be the primary entry point and folks just get directed through to aukweb to make enter the event or lookup results tables).
-
Riders who packed on this event also DNFed on the following rides:
-
As an organiser, I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing.
I'd much rather have editorial control in relation to information about my events. Hence why I set up a website that provides information I think is relevant.
Then again, something that shares actual rider experiences has some value.
Strangely, with my organiser hat on, I'd be more comfortable with a site that gives reviews/ratings in relation to my rides. I may be the exception though.
-
So whinges about Audaxes are likely to be equally informative:
About the author as much as the ride, especially if the reader can link to the posters other posts/feedback.
This is taking us into the sphere of a full on 'social-networking' website...
-
This is taking us into the sphere of a full on 'social-networking' website...
I see good in this. Audax is undertaken (mostly) by humans after all, and is therefore a social activity - regardless of the socially phobic stereotypes.
-
Audax is undertaken (mostly) by humans after all
Which one is that? I haven't run across it yet...;)
-
...
"Too many narrow lanes with grass down the middle."
...
:o
is it possible to have too many of them? ;)
-
"Not one of the five hot dishes provided at the finish was vegetarian"
;D
again, please tell me which audax that was 'cos i must do it - it sounds great ;D
-
Personally I do not think it should be a sort of electronic version of Arrivée.
Arrivée can be impenetrable and, for the purposes mentioned in the OP, has far too many words.
-
I think the idea of a database where we could look up routes would be extremely useful. I am currently searching the net for a route for the four leaf clover I am doing next weekend and cannot find anything at all. Since I am crap at reading maps, don't own any and always get lost when trying to follow instructions I can see my first Audax aint going to go real well :'(
-
I think the idea of a database where we could look up routes would be extremely useful. I am currently searching the net for a route for the four leaf clover I am doing next weekend and cannot find anything at all. Since I am crap at reading maps, don't own any and always get lost when trying to follow instructions I can see my first Audax aint going to go real well :'(
Routes for a certain event are sometimes tweaked each year (or some rides rotate through a bunch of different routes each year). The final route (for a GPX track) may not be known until the week before when the organiser does their final route check (and finds that one road they're relying on has been closed).
I've heard someone at an Audax moaning that the GPX file the organiser had put together didn't match exactly with the real world because of a minor detour caused by a road closed a couple of days before the event.
I've never had a problem with getting the routesheet a week before the event, plotting it somewhere (even if just spending 10 minutes with a £2 road atlas tracing through the names of the places on the routesheet) and then riding it.
-
In Germany, especially for the NRW region, there's such a website with load's of info. Covering both the shortish sunday rides, the sportives and BRM's. hernolds-radseiten.de (http://www.hernolds-radseiten.de). A good site to learn form when setting up such an online guidebook.
-
Routes for a certain event are sometimes tweaked each year (or some rides rotate through a bunch of different routes each year). The final route (for a GPX track) may not be known until the week before when the organiser does their final route check (and finds that one road they're relying on has been closed).
...
I've never had a problem with getting the routesheet a week before the event, plotting it somewhere (even if just spending 10 minutes with a £2 road atlas tracing through the names of the places on the routesheet) and then riding it.
I also go over the routesheet when I get it (in my case to create a GPS trace to download, as I don't use paper maps).
However this is slightly missing my motivation, which was more that people may not even be entering rides because of the absence of a map - so they're not going to receive the routesheet at all.
I've heard someone at an Audax moaning that the GPX file the organiser had put together didn't match exactly with the real world because of a minor detour caused by a road closed a couple of days before the event.
I think this is an understandable concern (especially for events which do change each year) - perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to have the maps published under the year that they were ridden, so you could say "Map for 2009 event (for indication only)" or something?
-
I think this is an understandable concern (especially for events which do change each year) - perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to have the maps published under the year that they were ridden, so you could say "Map for 2009 event (for indication only)" or something?
That's what I'm reverting to for my events, mention in the track name the distance, town of start and the year.
-
I think this is an understandable concern (especially for events which do change each year) - perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to have the maps published under the year that they were ridden, so you could say "Map for 2009 event (for indication only)" or something?
That would be fine. Personally I'm not looking for a route absolutely correct in every detail in advance. What I want is a visual outline of the main thrust of the ride. At the moment, in the absence of anything supplied by the organiser, I check Bikely and other places for that info (usually past years rides), create my own .gpx route based on that, and then when the routesheet comes I double-check it to make sure all the controls are included and the rest is more or less the same. That's my responsibility, and wouldn't think of criticising the organiser if this process resulted in errors.
The database you are suggesting would vastly improve the current state of things, especially as an ever-increasing number of audaxers are navigating by GPS.
-
I think we would be treading a difficult path if we start making gpx files available openly. Don't get me wrong - I'm quite happy that there should be file sharing between individuals, but there are a number of different ways of dealing with the creation of these files (for instance I know that Manotea and I set them up differently) such that there will be plenty of scope for complaint.
Anyway, I think receiving the routesheet and spending some time with the map (online OS in my case), whether to produce a gpx file or a paper map, is part of "doing the event".
In my view more pressure should be applied to organisers to provide a better synopsis of the ride in the calendar. I don't put it forward as ideal, but it is hardly difficult to do as I have - www.aukweb.net/cal/calsolo.php?Ride=10-602 (http://www.aukweb.net/cal/calsolo.php?Ride=10-602)
-
Anyway, I think receiving the route-sheet and spending some time with the map (online OS in my case), whether to produce a gpx file or a paper map, is part of "doing the event".
For a 400 or 600 that could take literally hours. I honestly don't see the point in every individual having to re-do an event that's already been visualised by someone previously. Also (and this is a BIG factor for me) it's far easier to work up my own gpx route based on a visual route rather than a routesheet. Quite often it's practically impossible to translate a routesheet instruction onto an online mapping page - the classic example would be "Turn left at Postbox" when there is no way of seeing where that postbox is online.
I really don't think the organisers would feel the need to take any criticism for these "database" routes - they would obviously be "user beware" and need to be checked against the event routesheet.
To be clear, I'm not wanting a fully-labelled .gpx route with each instruction labelled. What I would like would be a visual representation, in Bikely or whatever form, as near a possible to the actual event route.
-
I really don't think the organisers would feel the need to take any criticism for these "database" routes - they would obviously be "user beware" and need to be checked against the event routesheet.
Oh, but they will get criticism (I've already seen it, here on YACF). Given that they get criticism for the routesheet* already, this just doubles the complaints!
*OK, sometimes these are justitfied, but we do our best, ok? :)
-
I really don't think the organisers would feel the need to take any criticism for these "database" routes - they would obviously be "user beware" and need to be checked against the event routesheet.
Oh, but they will get criticism (I've already seen it, here on YACF). Given that they get criticism for the routesheet* already, this just doubles the complaints!
*OK, sometimes these are justitfied, but we do our best, ok? :)
Simple caveats ("user beware" and "check against routesheet") would mean the organiser could quickly dismiss any such criticism.
50 individuals creating the same .gpx route from scratch from the routesheet for a 400, 600 or 1000 event is frankly ridiculous.
-
Of course there is a relatively simple solution to this concern - we have only the events of willing organisers on the "guidebook" site in the first place.
I was half going to suggest that a condition of inclusion might be to have online entry anyway*. This is so controversial that a requirement to have some sort of map might slip under the radar? ;-)
* maybe not. I don't know!
-
I generally do a gpx for rides I do, for my Edge 305 (mentioned because of the 100 waypoint limit), using either marengo or bikehike. Obviously very willing to share them or to contribute in any other way.
Sometimes it can take hours.
"Turn left at Postbox" when there is no way of seeing where that postbox is online.
especially when I've used google streetview to look for the bloody postbox !
ukaudaxguide.org.uk available 2 years - £5.98 - and loads of other domain names. Apart from the hosting and the domain name and the volunteers what is required to get this going? Does it need to be 'cleared' with AUK? Apart from putting a link into MS word I know nothing of the hidden workings of the web.
-
Of course there is a relatively simple solution to this concern - we have only the events of willing organisers on the "guidebook" site in the first place.
But those organisers might be the ones who already publish a reasonable amount of info. IMHO we need to provide a way of riders sharing knowledge about the less well publicised events and giving the organisers the option of adding info themselves if they wish. Could each entry have separate sections for organiser's info and rider's info? The latter on the basis of "route from 200X" the former giving organisers the facility to upload / link to a route for the current year themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few organisers who create a route on a mapping site or have a GPX but don't have a means of publishing it.
Personally I'm happy to make a decision to ride an event based on an approximate route and then create my own GPX either from the routesheet or by tailoring a supplied GPX.
-
But those organisers might be the ones who already publish a reasonable amount of info. IMHO we need to provide a way of riders sharing knowledge about the less well publicised events and giving the organisers the option of adding info themselves if they wish. Could each entry have separate sections for organiser's info and rider's info? The latter on the basis of "route from 200X" the former giving organisers the facility to upload / link to a route for the current year themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few organisers who create a route on a mapping site or have a GPX but don't have a means of publishing it.
That's not a bad idea ...
You may not all be aware that AUKweb has facilities for uploading GPX and map etc, but it is very limited. Hence most "e-literate" organisers use their own web-space.
[Mind you, this adds another layer of complexity to the infrastructure. How will you authenticate an "organiser"? ]
-
..... Does it need to be 'cleared' with AUK? .......
This is a very good point. Technically the answer is probably "no", but I think we would be unwise to proceed down this road without at the very least the tacit approval of the AUK board. I am mindful that there have been rumblings in the past concerning yACF getting a bit "ahead of itself" in matters audax, and we need to ensure that IF this idea were to get going it has the weight of AUK behind it. Better still if it could be part of the AUK site.
It would be best if each event could be kicked off by the organiser concerned, with further input following from users. Negative comment? Would need careful moderating - such a site needs to remain broadly factual.
Also, it is worth remembering that sometimes such projects start full of enthusiasm and good intention, but quickly interest is lost. Recall the facility put on the AUK site to plan Mesh Perms? There is the opportunity for any AUK member to add info regarding both nodes and routes between the nodes. A few went up quickly, but very little progress has been made since the early days. I'm as guilty on this as most, as I put up some info about a few "local" nodes and routes, but nothing since.
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.
-
Cooperation and integration with AUK would be wonderful but I think relying on organisers to create the initial entry would be a mistake. There's a general reluctance to add anything to the workload of organisers and this could prove to be an unnecessary hurdle. In any case, one of the most attractive benefits of this idea is the possibility of providing info on audaxes that have been less well publicised by the organiser.
There's nothing stopping anybody setting up (with or without AUK consent) a site for people to upload details of audaxes they've ridden and in the absence of anything else that might be enough to encourage others to enter these events in the future. If organisers wish to add a more official record of the next running of the event that's great but it's not essential.
-
(re the last few posts)
This is why I haven't really gone anywhere with this yet.
At the end of the day I'm "merely" a rider, with a degree of technical expertise and some time to invest in setting up something if it would be useful. I feel a little uncomfortable both with doing anything as part of "official" AUK (meddling with the system!) or with doing something that might be perceived as "against" AUK.
Also, it is worth remembering that sometimes such projects start full of enthusiasm and good intention, but quickly interest is lost.
Yep, I'm aware of this and don't want to end up in a situation where I have a second full-time job updating an audax site!
My gut instinct as a next step was just going to be to register a domain and add it to the existing hosting package I have for my other projects, and proceed to some sort of mockup version based on what interested parties here thought would be useful.
I think a key objective has to be to create something where any number of volunteers (vetted or whatever) can update entries and so on, it doesn't depend on one sort of "webmaster" figure who needs to be on it 24/7.
-
Set something up for the rides you do - and if it works out, invite other contributors as time goes by.
-
I just googled "open source wiki software" - sounds pretty much like setting up and administering an online forum in terms of server & knowledge requirements.
Providing there's a mechanism for moderating any unduly adverse comments about an AUL event or organiser and providing you link to rather than duplicate the AUK calendar I don't see how anything discussed here could be perceived to be against AUK. Indeed it all sounds very pro-AUK.
-
How about a category on here? There is a "Rides (not Audax)" why not a subcategory of Audax & C***** - "Rides"?
Unless there is already a thread associated with a ride it is difficult to know where to place ride report (don't go there, Lancelot :-)) That way a good many other than the mainstream events can be represented and experiences passed on.
-
50 individuals creating the same .gpx route from scratch from the routesheet for a 400, 600 or 1000 event is frankly ridiculous.
Besides, a GPS route/track created from a routesheet is bound to of less quality as a GPS track provided by the organiser. Especially if the track originates from the organisers' GPS and recorded while reccing the route.
-
50 individuals creating the same .gpx route from scratch from the routesheet for a 400, 600 or 1000 event is frankly ridiculous.
Besides, a GPS route/track created from a routesheet is bound to of less quality as a GPS track provided by the organiser. Especially if the track originates from the organisers' GPS and recorded while reccing the route.
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!
-
50 individuals creating the same .gpx route from scratch from the routesheet for a 400, 600 or 1000 event is frankly ridiculous.
Besides, a GPS route/track created from a routesheet is bound to of less quality as a GPS track provided by the organiser. Especially if the track originates from the organisers' GPS and recorded while reccing the route.
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!
Let's take PBP
Signed Route, check
GPS Route provided by the organsier, check
mechanics albeith not roving, check
sag wagons, nope.
Getting quite close to it.
When I provide the GPS Track as organiser I know that the riders stick closer to the route. Most will simply download the track to their GPS. Hardly anyone will try to find a shortcut (especially those who know that at my events a shortcut means an extra hill). So, from an organisers viewpoint, I prefer to provide the GPS track. As an extra benefit it makes your rides more popular.
-
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!
Sportives don't use routesheets OR .gpx tracks. They are fully signed routes, so your analogy isn't appropriate.
More importantly, many riders use GPS units (and increasing), whatever you may think about their validity. Are you really suggesting that AUK or organisers should go out of their way to hinder these people creating their routes?
For me it's similar to the cheque entry issue. GPS use and online entry are the way of the (not too distant) future, if not the present. Should AUK cling on to the "old" way of doing things until the bitter end, or acknowledge and accommodate the transition?
-
..... Does it need to be 'cleared' with AUK? .......
This is a very good point. Technically the answer is probably "no", but I think we would be unwise to proceed down this road without at the very least the tacit approval of the AUK board. ...........edit............. - such a site needs to remain broadly factual.
I would agree with all of that, but be stronger on the "broadly factual", surely it should be factual full stop. Opinions can be adequately expressed here ???
Better still if it could be part of the AUK site.
As I said, I am not an expert, but I would guess that when AUK started it did not have a web site, and that when it first had a web site online entry and payment was not possible. These things evolve, and could this be the next part of the evolution? I am new around here, but am pretty average (male, 48, more free time than I used to have etc...). If the AUK website had somewhere I could contribute GPX files etc. (similar to what we do here) I would do it gladly.
Please excuse me if I am wrong (Matt C particularly because you are obviously younger than me!), but I get the feeling that a lot of organisers are of the generation one up from mine. This is not meant in any way derogatory, but maybe their web skills, ownership of paypal accounts etc is not at the level of younger people. However they are putting back into the sport what they have got out over the years by organising events for the rest of us. I particularly recall the New Forest 160 and the Dorset Downs (which I did enter online, but not through the AUK website and not without a glitch). Excellent events that I would not hesitate to ride again, but basically done the good old fashioned way, and all the helpers / organisors looked about the same age as my parents. (As I drove towards the Dorset Downs I encountered the organiser's brother putting up info control signs :thumbsup:) (obviously next year I will ride to the event) Apologies John if I am denegrating your IT skills. Apologies all as I have just realised what I have said, but I'll leave it and bear the consequenses :-[
As I understand things, a new organiser needs a mentor. What about if the older organisors had a younger IT mentor? I would be happy to process paypal payments for someone without a paypal account. This could be a way to pre mentor future organisers.
Also, it is worth remembering that sometimes such projects start full of enthusiasm and good intention, but quickly interest is lost.
Yes, good point. The quality of what results from this initiative and the ability of members to contribute without the need for a 24/7 webmaster would hopefully maintain and renew the enthusiasm.
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.
So could Ed Fixed's original idea gravitate towards some sort of AUK sanctioned expansion of the current site? The earlier "Audax Expansion" thread talked a lot about the web site, online entry and systems in general. Many (including myself) have expressed positive interest in contributing in some way.
Perhaps the ideas should be formalised and rides to York undertaken to present them formally.
-
(and have had some wine with dinner)
Me Too. The ramblings of a drunken audaxer ............
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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>
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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. :thumbsup:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
For creating a route that does not avoid cyclepath in the UK, you can use this:
CloudMade Maps (http://maps.cloudmade.com/)
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.
-
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 (http://www.fixiefaqs.org.uk) wiki
Getting people to contribute is more difficult....