Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => Audax => Topic started by: Manotea on November 16, 2018, 09:43:14 am

Title: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on November 16, 2018, 09:43:14 am
Students of things official will be aware that the AUK Board have been proposing a redraft of the AUK Regulations.

This has long been an interest of mine so I thought I'd have a go, the results of which can be seen at regs.paudax.com (http://regs.paudax.com).

Aside from some inevitable fine tuning my feeling is the document is more or less 'ready to go'. The document has been available  through the AUK forum for a while but as we head towards the AUK Reunion it seems appropriate to bring it to the attention of a wider audience. Regardless of whether it is adopted, I'm happy at least to have taken the opportunity to set out my view on what the AUK regulations should look like, as they will inevitably shape the future character and direction of AUK.

For me, the key points are that:
- AUK is first and foremost a Club that should be governed by its Members. With that in mind I've worked to clarify the relationship between the AUK Company and Club, working on the basis that the Company (only) exists to serve the Club.

   So whilst the AUK Company Articles define the governance of the Company and the powers of the Board to manage the administration of the Company & Club, key Club matters such as membership fees and charges, affiliations, events and awards are laid out as AUK Club regulations.
 
- These are the AUK Regulations, i.e. not the ACP/LRM/UAF regulations.

- These are the AUK Regulations, i.e., the governing set of rules covering AUK Club events and activities laid out as a single document.
 
   Clearly some additional notes will be useful to explain the background to various parts of the regulations, to explain why things are the way they are, but the immediate aim is to focus on the regulations themselves. Doubtless more detailed/relaxed event specific notes for Event Organisers and Riders will form part of the AUK website and event documentation, however, that comes under the heading of presentation. This document represents the underlying regulations on which any such advice would be based, and would be managed by AUK Members through the AGM rather than by AUK Board and website content editors.

N.B., if the document appears rather long, it's simply because you've never seen the regs for all the various AUK events and awards in one place before!

In taking on this project I aimed to improve the regulations structure and language, so that they are easy(er) to navigate, easy(er) to read and to improve their clarity of meaning. Whilst sections have been restructured and various clauses reordered and reworded, it is intended the revised regulations remain consistent with the current regulations and thereby with the AUK systems and website(s). I’ll look to prove that later by providing a cross-map of the current and revised regulations. Any changes to the current regulations - mainly to codify current conventions and practices not included in the current regulations - are laid out in the introductory notes.

Happy reading. Feedback welcome.

Paul Stewart
AUK General Secretary, 2013-2015

p.s., To address a point of concern to many upfront, the revised regs continue to recognise two basic categories of Brevet, BR and BP. This provids a simple way of defining how AUK events are categorised for AUK awards purposes. By allowing that all AUK events fall into one of these two categories means they are automatically eligible for RRTY, AAA, etc. as appropriate. This approach does not rule out additional Brevet Categories and/or award schemes (Diagonals / Verticals /  Squares / whatever) being introduced at a later date. Also, eligible AUK events would continue to be validated by ACP/LRM/UAF as now subject to meeting the requirements of those organisations, so in that respect, ‘nothing has changed’.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: psyclist on November 16, 2018, 12:11:16 pm
 :thumbsup: Looks really good Paul. I hope this sees the light of day.

I've only had a quick skim through, but spotted that you've appeared to make one rather challenging award even harder to obtain  ;D

Quote
AAA Century, for obtaining 1000 AAA points in one season
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on November 29, 2018, 12:17:12 am
Thank you for your feedback on my redraft of the AUK regulations, the current draft of which can be found at regs.paudax.com.

As noted, I'm pleased to have worked through this as a personal project, to see if it is possible to draw all of the regs together in a cohesive document and establish a clear relationship between the AUK Articles and the Regs.

I'm generally happy with the end result and that the feedback received to date is so overwhelmingly positive (albeit from a rather small sample !). I also take a lot of comfort from the absence of a mob with pitchforks. :)

The time to decide "what happens next" is rapidly approaching though, so the question is, is there any interest or appeitite to progress this to the AGM in February.

It may be that you feel that now is not the time to progress this but it does seem to me that there is a strong case for 'action this day'.

What do you think?
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: FifeingEejit on November 29, 2018, 10:55:23 am
Appendix 2 point 2.7 doesn't quite read how it's intended...

This is definitley something that's needed, much clearer and easier to read through than those currently on AUK Web.

This is also the first I've heard of an EPE... Possibly useful given a far number of the Scottish Perms have a control about 50k from my local shop.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: mattc on November 29, 2018, 12:05:41 pm
OT EPE stuff:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: psyclist on November 29, 2018, 12:53:33 pm
I think this is certainly worthy of ‘action this today’.

I would suggest splitting this into 2 debates though, to ensure clarity.

Firstly, the updated structure, bringing everything into a more logical and understandable order.

Secondly, the proposed changes compared to how things are done currently.

I’m happy to re-read with a fine toothcombe.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: FifeingEejit on November 29, 2018, 01:20:45 pm
OT EPE stuff:

(click to show/hide)

Ah!
Until then if I feel like starting one of the handful of perms that go through Perth at Perth, it'll need to be the car and parking (cheaper than the train).
Although I'm planning to start one of them in Stonehaven on Saturday...

The increasing lack of 24hr available cash machines due to bank closures is another threat to perms unless GPS only validation becomes an option for organizers.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: mattc on November 29, 2018, 02:46:26 pm
...

The increasing lack of 24hr available cash machines due to bank closures is another threat to perms unless GPS only validation becomes an option for organizers.
It has!!!  :thumbsup:

Quite a recent thing, and so far only adopted by a few [most of whom were let into the secret early - so it's not 100% down to the rest being dinosaurs :P

Someone else can find a link for you to read on this one :)
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: FifeingEejit on November 29, 2018, 04:39:04 pm
...

The increasing lack of 24hr available cash machines due to bank closures is another threat to perms unless GPS only validation becomes an option for organizers.
It has!!!  :thumbsup:

Quite a recent thing, and so far only adopted by a few [most of whom were let into the secret early - so it's not 100% down to the rest being dinosaurs :P

Someone else can find a link for you to read on this one :)

I know GPS validation is available, but not GPS only.
As in to allow the 24hr controls requirement I've read exists, it's near impossible to define a route with that limitation for paper based validation.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on November 29, 2018, 04:45:08 pm
In most countries, signatures from the public are accepted as proof of passage. Not every country requires a receipt.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: FifeingEejit on November 29, 2018, 04:57:47 pm
In most countries, signatures from the public are accepted as proof of passage. Not every country requires a receipt.

hm... allowed for AUK perms?
Coupar Angus is a concern as it has only 1 outdoor ATM left and there's no night concierge at the hotel if we're after midnight, but chances of finding either a gadgie or navigational rally marshal are reasonably good... 
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Exit Stage Left on November 29, 2018, 05:11:58 pm
Quote
Reference to ‘Points’ for championship trophies has been dropped and those awards are now based on distance. References to ‘Points’ have long been a cause of consternation for many because of the immediate connotation of ‘competition’. Whilst basing such awards on distance might seem a semantic difference, such is far more in keeping with ‘the spirit of audax’.


I wonder if that might cause problems with the AAA trophies.

The idea that 'Points' conveys competition, while 'Championship' does not, is an interesting semantic distinction.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on November 29, 2018, 06:05:43 pm
Agreed it's a fine point, but at least awards for riding the furthest are based on, er, riding the furthest.

AAA and FWC remain points based, as the former reflects AUKs measure of climb tather than the actual, and the latter is a hybrid award, distance plus climb.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on November 29, 2018, 06:13:20 pm
EPE... my understanding is the back-end systems support it, more or less, as in, 'it has been done. The bottleneck is for the front end, i.e., entry process and documentation. I suspect an email to the ECE sec might be the way forward pro tem (that's me off his Christmas card list).

Either way, useful to document the extended event in generic terms allowing EPE in principle.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Exit Stage Left on November 29, 2018, 06:20:27 pm
Agreed it's a fine point, but at least awards for riding the furthest are based on, er, riding the furthest.



The lack of points for rides under 200k, and the 50% rule have long been an integral part of the battle over 'The Spirit of Audax'. Some might even say that such battles are the true 'Spirit of Audax'.

Suffice to say, the 'distance' champion hasn't necessarily ridden the furthest. That might be someone who does a 100k Permanent ever day.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on November 29, 2018, 06:36:22 pm
Some might even say that such battles are the true 'Spirit of Audax'

It's a measure of just how far I have fallen from such a state of grace that I'm not going to argue with you. :)
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on November 29, 2018, 08:15:17 pm
FE, of course not for AUK perms as AUK seems fixated on receipts. Other countries accept signatures for perms and calendar brevets. AUK recognise overseas BRMs even if signatures are used for proof of passage.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: alfapete on November 29, 2018, 08:18:11 pm
Thank you for your feedback on my redraft of the AUK regulations, the current draft of which can be found at regs.paudax.com.

What do you think?

I wonder whether the very small number of forum posts on here reflects the lack of interest in the minutiae of the Regulations. I'm sure (because you've told me) that there might be a strong case for a fundamental revision, but personally I'm not interested in reading through and interpreting the significance of what you're proposing - it just goes over my head.

A topic only for those who love committees, I fear.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on November 29, 2018, 10:17:04 pm
Thank you for your feedback on my redraft of the AUK regulations, the current draft of which can be found at regs.paudax.com.
What do you think?

I wonder whether the very small number of forum posts on here reflects the lack of interest in the minutiae of the Regulations. I'm sure (because you've told me) that there might be a strong case for a fundamental revision, but personally I'm not interested in reading through and interpreting the significance of what you're proposing - it just goes over my head.

A topic only for those who love committees, I fear.

Well, that excludes me, obvs. I do like a bit of clarity though, and for things to be well ordered.

I suspect - know - that youre not alone. Many if not most will feel this is simply not something they want to or feel qualified to get involved with, and many of those that are interested will simply not want to comment publically for fear of being seen to "take a position" or risk upsetting somebody. Fact is that even on the AUK forum, the number of people commenting on 'official' stuff - or anything for that matter ( :) ) seldom reaches double digits. But it all gets read...

However one way or another the AUK Regulations are set to be redrafted, so this issue isn't going to go away.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: FifeingEejit on November 29, 2018, 10:48:06 pm
FE, of course not for AUK perms as AUK seems fixated on receipts. Other countries accept signatures for perms and calendar brevets. AUK recognise overseas BRMs even if signatures are used for proof of passage.
I thought not

Back up selfie at the town sign with time and date on it for macnasty if the Coupar Angus atm and closing times go against us...

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: mattc on November 30, 2018, 09:31:37 am
Thank you for your feedback on my redraft of the AUK regulations, the current draft of which can be found at regs.paudax.com.

What do you think?

I wonder whether the very small number of forum posts on here reflects the lack of interest in the minutiae of the Regulations. I'm sure (because you've told me) that there might be a strong case for a fundamental revision, but personally I'm not interested in reading through and interpreting the significance of what you're proposing - it just goes over my head.

A topic only for those who love committees, I fear.
[My bold] that is probably my category! I'm not uninterested in the issues.

Not SO sure about "those who love committees"; I love the people part of committes. Sharing ideas, getting useful stuff done, the smug feeling that all the moaners out there couldn't get off THEIR arses to actually sort things out ... ;)

But I don't really have a head for legalese and minutae - give me a graph or a spreadsheet and I'm happy. Hats off to the "Paudax"es of this world who save the rest of us from this stuff  :-*
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on November 30, 2018, 10:04:16 am
Agreed it's a fine point, but at least awards for riding the furthest are based on, er, riding the furthest.

AAA and FWC remain points based, as the former reflects AUKs measure of climb tather than the actual, and the latter is a hybrid award, distance plus climb.
So someone with copious free time and no other interests (and how else would anyone become AUK champion?) could theoretically ride two 100km events every day. At the end of the year they'd have not a single point but would have ridden 73,000km and quite possibly be distance champion. I'd really love it if someone did this first under the present regulations and then under these new proposed regs.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: dogtrousers on November 30, 2018, 10:05:28 am
A bit of nit pickery.  I'm not qualified to comment on the substance of the document.

2.8 There's no explicit explanantion that SR stands for Super Randonneur (add to glossary?)
8.7 Is "proof of progress" (not capitalised and not in glossary) different to "Proof of Passage" (capitalised and in glossary)?  Add to glossary or change to Proof of Passage
8.8  The list of route types is not a complete list (unlike the other 8.x lists) as it includes only two exceptional route types and does not have a "normal" entry.  Consider describing it as a list of additional route characteristics.
11.1 proof of passage is not capitalised, for consistency with other sections it should be. (Although whether it really should be capitalised is another question)
11.5.6 "beyond their Control"  No need to capitalise Control in this instance
11.5.7 "complaints process"  Isn't it called grievance process?  Or is that something else?
Appendix 2.  4 "Randonnee Round The Year"  Is that the correct name.  Is it not "Randonneur Round The Year"? (cf aukweb.net)
Appendix 3.  Consider renaming appendix to "Additional Event Types"
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on November 30, 2018, 10:06:50 am
...

The increasing lack of 24hr available cash machines due to bank closures is another threat to perms unless GPS only validation becomes an option for organizers.
It has!!!  :thumbsup:

Quite a recent thing, and so far only adopted by a few [most of whom were let into the secret early - so it's not 100% down to the rest being dinosaurs :P

Someone else can find a link for you to read on this one :)

I know GPS validation is available, but not GPS only.
As in to allow the 24hr controls requirement I've read exists, it's near impossible to define a route with that limitation for paper based validation.
Not sure I understand this. GPS tracks are accepted with no other proof of passage for DIYs so why not for Perms? What does a receipt add to a GPS track, and what does it add on a Perm that it does not add on a DIY?
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: j_a_m_e_s_ on November 30, 2018, 10:33:34 am
Thank you for your feedback on my redraft of the AUK regulations, the current draft of which can be found at regs.paudax.com.

What do you think?

I wonder whether the very small number of forum posts on here reflects the lack of interest in the minutiae of the Regulations. I'm sure (because you've told me) that there might be a strong case for a fundamental revision, but personally I'm not interested in reading through and interpreting the significance of what you're proposing - it just goes over my head.

A topic only for those who love committees, I fear.
[My bold] that is probably my category! I'm not uninterested in the issues.

Not SO sure about "those who love committees"; I love the people part of committes. Sharing ideas, getting useful stuff done, the smug feeling that all the moaners out there couldn't get off THEIR arses to actually sort things out ... ;)

But I don't really have a head for legalese and minutae - give me a graph or a spreadsheet and I'm happy. Hats off to the "Paudax"es of this world who save the rest of us from this stuff  :-*

Many if not most will feel this is simply not something they want to or feel qualified to get involved with, and many of those that are interested will simply not want to comment publically for fear of being seen to "take a position" or risk upsetting somebody. Fact is that even on the AUK forum, the number of people commenting on 'official' stuff - or anything for that matter ( :) ) seldom reaches double digits.

However one way or another the AUK Regulations are set to be redrafted, so this issue isn't going to go away.

I've been relatively vocal over certain matters recently 😇

After reading a certain three page post on AUK forum, delving into case law etc its little wonder that people may feel they lack the wit and intellect to participate. I do. As has been mentioned before, there does seem to be distinct sense of apathy, be it from being "new" or otherwise. Others don't have too much of an investment I guess. Or a combination of both?

The boards interpretations of "minutiae" have lead to quite lively debate recently already, so perhaps an independent party should re write them?

FWIW - I think it'll be what it'll be. One way or another, those in charge will sort it out. So despite my vocalness, I must be one of the apathetic masses.  :(

Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: FifeingEejit on November 30, 2018, 10:39:50 am
...

The increasing lack of 24hr available cash machines due to bank closures is another threat to perms unless GPS only validation becomes an option for organizers.
It has!!!  :thumbsup:

Quite a recent thing, and so far only adopted by a few [most of whom were let into the secret early - so it's not 100% down to the rest being dinosaurs :P

Someone else can find a link for you to read on this one :)

I know GPS validation is available, but not GPS only.
As in to allow the 24hr controls requirement I've read exists, it's near impossible to define a route with that limitation for paper based validation.
Not sure I understand this. GPS tracks are accepted with no other proof of passage for DIYs so why not for Perms? What does a receipt add to a GPS track, and what does it add on a Perm that it does not add on a DIY?

Not all Perms are offered with GPS Validation.
No perms are offered where validation is by GPS only.


Take for example one of my regular DIYs, and say I thought about offering it as a perm.
Start on the tay coast of fife, along to Auchterarder - shops, 24hr available (for now) ATM - good
Up to Aberfeldy, again shops and a 24hr available ATM (for now) - good
Up to Pitlochry, again there's a 24hr ATM so all good
Over the Moulin to Alyth, ah! the RBS shut last year taking the only 24hr available atm with it - no use for a perm, game over.


Likewise a blast up the spine of the Western Isles
A route that would be a prime challenge for an Audaxer, and it's got ferries.
Can't be defined as a Perm as there's nothing to validate you at Vatersay or the Butt of Lewis.

So instead of interesting routes for challenges, new Perms if the regs continue to required paper proof of passage are being relegated to routes that skirt the 24hr shops of the big towns.
and it will have to be shops, as with the reducing usage of cash and continued ram rading of cash machines it's likely the few ATMs that will still be available will be inside shops

this is rather OT now though and there's almost certainly an existing thread it would belong on.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: mattc on November 30, 2018, 11:19:06 am
This ride claims GPS-only-validation quite clearly:

http://www.aukweb.net/perms/detail/PL01/

(Maybe there's more to it - don't shoot the messenger ... )

Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: bhoot on November 30, 2018, 11:33:28 am
Likewise a blast up the spine of the Western Isles
A route that would be a prime challenge for an Audaxer, and it's got ferries.
Can't be defined as a Perm as there's nothing to validate you at Vatersay or the Butt of Lewis.
OT
We managed a DIY on the southern western isles in the summer - down and up from Berneray to just short of Eriskay - proof of passage was a little challenging being non-GPS enabled!
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: FifeingEejit on November 30, 2018, 11:38:39 am
This ride claims GPS-only-validation quite clearly:

http://www.aukweb.net/perms/detail/PL01/

(Maybe there's more to it - don't shoot the messenger ... )

I see the words "can be" and "option" but not "MUST"
The perm description even talks about traditional card based validation.

I think you're missunderstanding what I mean by GPS only validation... I'm meaning no paper validation, because paper proof of passage outwith normal shop hours is increasingly impossible in more pleasant to ride parts of the world...
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: mattc on November 30, 2018, 11:44:19 am

I think you're missunderstanding what I mean by GPS only validation... I'm meaning no paper validation, because paper proof of passage outwith normal shop hours is increasingly impossible in more pleasant to ride parts of the world...
Yes, I clearly am/was. Sorry.

And I don't understand why you want the latter, so I should probably withdraw from this sub-topic ...


this is rather OT now though and there's almost certainly an existing thread it would belong on.
Agreed :)
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: FifeingEejit on November 30, 2018, 11:59:16 am
The later as in Paper Proof of Passage?

Don't Perms currently have to be defined on a paper proof of passage basis?

is there away to split board threads on here?
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on November 30, 2018, 12:10:58 pm
This ride claims GPS-only-validation quite clearly:

http://www.aukweb.net/perms/detail/PL01/

(Maybe there's more to it - don't shoot the messenger ... )

I see the words "can be" and "option" but not "MUST"
The perm description even talks about traditional card based validation.

I think you're missunderstanding what I mean by GPS only validation... I'm meaning no paper validation, because paper proof of passage outwith normal shop hours is increasingly impossible in more pleasant to ride parts of the world...
Matt's not the only one misunderstanding. It was not entirely clear, but I've deduced you mean that at the moment Perm orgs are required to offer validation by paper (receipts etc) and this restricts their freedom to make routes in less populated places. Put like that, I can see the point. What about infos? Or photos of rider+bike at indicated places? Are these not available to Perm orgs, with a receipt as proof of time only required at start and finish, for instance?
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Greenbank on November 30, 2018, 12:18:16 pm
The misunderstanding is about the term "GPS only". The two interpretations are:-

a) A perm that can be validated just with a GPS track, no other paper proof-of-passage is required. Although you are still able to do the Perm and get it validated without using GPS at all as long as you get appropriate paper/photo based proof-of-passage.

b) A perm that can only be validated with a GPS track. Paper/photo proof-of-passage won't be accepted. It's GPS track or nothing.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: FifeingEejit on November 30, 2018, 12:28:51 pm
yeah, I realize why it was being missunderstood now; clarity isn't my strong point!
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: grams on November 30, 2018, 12:29:48 pm
Firstly, can you reformat the document so the line length is sensible? The denser sections of text are close to unreadable (in read-only mode, maybe the editor you can see is better).

A few notes:
- what's the functional effect of a route being considered "off-road"? There's no point defining it if it doesn't change the rules.
(upon checking, this seems to also be a problem in the current regulations)

- The minimum speed of 8 km/h for grimpeurs doesn't seem to exist in current regs. Couldn't it be equally covered by the "as specified by organiser" provision?

- "The standard minimum speed is 15 km/ph" (kms per public house?) - which events does this apply to, given the rules immediately override it for basically all types of event?

- For the Brevet 250 at least you've removed the option to substitute 100s. Is this section supposed to be exhaustive or an overview?

- RRTY is "Randonneur Round The Year". The wordplay doesn't work if it's Randonnee.

- The event type summary table seems to define all BRMs as mandatory route.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on November 30, 2018, 12:32:06 pm
- "The standard minimum speed is 15 km/ph" (kms per public house?) - which events does this apply to, given the rules immediately override it for basically all types of event?
Using that definition, CTC rides and YACF camping weekends.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 01, 2018, 12:47:27 am

2.8 There's no explicit explanantion that SR stands for Super Randonneur (add to glossary?)
>> Done as its a commonly used term, but you can only put so much in the glossary.
8.7 Is "proof of progress" (not capitalised and not in glossary) different to "Proof of Passage" (capitalised and in glossary)?  Add to glossary or change to Proof of Passage
>>Done (Proof of Passage)
8.8  The list of route types is not a complete list (unlike the other 8.x lists) as it includes only two exceptional route types and does not have a "normal" entry.  Consider describing it as a list of additional route characteristics.
>>I looked at this long and hard. Done but note weasel word, ‘may’, i.e., allows for Route Type to be left unspecified, i.e., default to ‘on-road’
11.1 proof of passage is not capitalised, for consistency with other sections it should be. (Although whether it really should be capitalised is another question)
>>It should. Done
11.5.6 "beyond their Control"  No need to capitalise Control in this instance
>> Done (typo)
11.5.7 "complaints process"  Isn't it called grievance process?  Or is that something else?
>> Done. Grievance (I prefer ‘Complaints’ but ‘Grievance’ is far more ‘in the spirit of audax’. 😊
Appendix 2.  4 "Randonnee Round The Year"  Is that the correct name.  Is it not "Randonneur Round The Year"? (cf aukweb.net)
>> Done (typo)
Appendix 3.  Consider renaming appendix to "Additional Event Types"
>> Originally was... makes sense now to revert. Done

Firstly, can you reformat the document so the line length is sensible? The denser sections of text are close to unreadable (in read-only mode, maybe the editor you can see is better).
>>Soz. Done. Reverted to Portrait which also helps. Only so much I can do in google docs. Works much better in Word

What's the functional effect of a route being considered "off-road"? There's no point defining it if it doesn't change the rules. (upon checking, this seems to also be a problem in the current regulations)
>> Whilst there is minimal impact on the primary event regs, its nominally useful to have the option to tag events as having specific route types* included in the calendar listing, i.e., events 'badged' as off route, OCD, etc. searchable as such, With that in mind I’ve added OCD to the list. *These are really Route Attributes, i.e., a route may be Off-Road, AAA and OCD but I’ll leave it as Route Type for now, as it reads better.

>> The minimum speed of 8 km/h for grimpeurs doesn't seem to exist in current regs. Couldn't it be equally covered by the "as specified by organiser" provision?
- "The standard minimum speed is 15 km/ph" (kms per public house?) - which events does this apply to, given the rules immediately override it for basically all types of event?
>> tend to agree. Done. FWIW I'd be inclined to drop the 14.3km/ph option for BR events and standardise on 15km/ph.  I also  dont buy in to the 'perms are harder' view, but don't want that to be a distraction here.
 For the Brevet 250 at least you've removed the option to substitute 100s. Is this section supposed to be exhaustive or an overview?
>> exhaustive. Done
- RRTY is "Randonneur Round The Year". The wordplay doesn't work if it's Randonnee.
>> Dunno about wordplay.... was a typo on my part. Done.
- The event type summary table seems to define all BRMs as mandatory route.
>> Well, as far as ACP is concerned they are :). The summary table referenced is there for general guidance only and does not form part of the AUK regulations.

I’m happy to leave it to the ACP and UAF Secretaries to explain exactly which BRM/LRM/UAF regs AUK is obliged to comply with and to document them for adoption by event organisers looking for their events to be validated by those bodies. That is rather the point. The AUK Regs are the AUK regs. The ACP Regs are the ACP Regs, etc. and simply don't belong in the AUK regs. The other side of the coin is that the AUK regs allow that rides validated by affiliated organisations and compliant/compatible with AUK regulations are eligible/may contribute towards AUK awards.

Appendix 2 point 2.7 doesn't quite read how it's intended...
>>Done


Quote
Thanks for the feedback. Its fair to say that this redraft has already had a far wider general review than the last redraft ever had. Last time round the redrafted regs were posted about two weeks before the AGM with no opportunity for general review, and on the day it was very much a case of, "take it or leave it".
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 01, 2018, 12:15:13 pm
Ref: Validation by GPS

I've added the following to the introductory section of the document:

Additional Notes
Validation by GPS: The section on ‘Proof of Passage’ does not reference validation by GPS but simply lists the traditional forforms and allows that the Organiser may specify other forms of ‘PoP’. This then allows for validation by GPS as an option or mandate validation by GPS, as the organiser requires. This approach also allows for other forms of PoP including ‘dibbers’/tokens to be registered at controls, smartphone based tracking apps, dedicated tracking services and any other technologies that may emerge.

This is essentially the case now. The term GPS does not appear in a the current AUK regulations nor is the use of a Brevet Card mandated. This means there is no regulatory impediment in having GPS validation for a Calendar event (though running a Calendar event with more than a handful of riders might prove challenging) or running a Perm with validation by GPS as the only option.

However, ACP mandates the use of Brevet Cards for BRM/LRM events. This is an example of a regulation required by an AUK affiliate which would form part of the event specific regulations.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: frankly frankie on December 01, 2018, 06:24:45 pm
Also probably an example of an affiliate's regs not being fit for AUK purpose - because I expect ACP mandates the use of brevet cards supplied by ACP.  AUK (and other organisations since) have obviously formed a special relationship to sidestep that, but it won't be codified anywhere.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 12, 2018, 12:48:29 am
OK, here is the final draft for comment before it is submitted into the formal review process. Different file but same place - see regs.paudax.com (http://regs.paudax.com) for details.

Its formatted as a single resolution with four parts to be voted on seperately, Part 1 being the main body of the regulations plus three points worthy of individual consideration.

In getting to this stage there have been some changes:

- the revised regulations include the clause recognising that the Company Articles take precedence. My view is that such a clause is inherently redundent and if invoked indicates that something has gone seriously wrong with the governance of AUK however some will find such a clause essential.

- dropped the listing of fees and charges within the regs. There was a reason why I did so but its a red flag for some and again it a battle not worth fighting. The major issue is that fees and charges should be approved by the membership, and that has been retained.

- dropped replacing 'points' with 'distances' for Championship Trophy citations. I think that would be a good thing but at this stage its a rather a distraction to the larger issues. One for next time, perhaps.

As usual, all feedback welcome!
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Somnolent on December 12, 2018, 08:18:24 pm
As I've said elsewhere trying to shoehorn the wide diversity of AUK events into just two categories  (BP & BRM)  is operationally unworkable.

And this
Quote
Thus, a 200km event might be listed or recognised as an Audax UK Brevet Randonneur AND (for example) as a ACP/Brevet Randonneur Mondiale or UAF Brevet, i.e., the organiser has elected to apply the additional ACP/UAF regulations which would make AUK event eligible for validation by ACP/UAF, which defacto is what happens now.
Has precisely the opposite effect to the stated aims:
Quote
...bringing together the regulations for all of the various Audax UK events and activities in a single cohesive document.
and
Quote
Improves the completeness and clarity of the AUK Regulations, removing points of ambiguity and confusion

Not to mention that a "single cohesive document" whilst perhaps well suited to the paper handbooks of yesteryear, when presented on-screen is likely to be (for the majority) TL:DR

Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: grams on December 12, 2018, 09:50:57 pm
Can you list all of the functional rule changes from the current regulations to this one? That's probably better than expecting everyone to spot them.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 13, 2018, 01:30:29 am
As I've said elsewhere trying to shoehorn the wide diversity of AUK events into just two categories  (BP & BRM)  is operationally unworkable.

And as I've said elsewhere:
a) the revised regulations are fully compatable with current operations
b) the wide diversity of audax uk events are demonstrably accommodated by just two categories of (BP and BR); however there is no reason why additional categories of events/awards might not introduced but the reality is that to-date there simply has been no reason to.

And this
Quote
Thus, a 200km event might be listed or recognised as an Audax UK Brevet Randonneur AND (for example) as a ACP/Brevet Randonneur Mondiale or UAF Brevet, i.e., the organiser has elected to apply the additional ACP/UAF regulations which would make AUK event eligible for validation by ACP/UAF, which defacto is what happens now.
Has precisely the opposite effect to the stated aims:
Quote
...bringing together the regulations for all of the various Audax UK events and activities in a single cohesive document.
and
Quote
Improves the completeness and clarity of the AUK Regulations, removing points of ambiguity and confusion

The resolution is about the consolidation of the Audax UK regulations. Where organisers wish to apply additional regulations to ensure their events are eligible for validation by affiliated organisations they are perfectly able to and this is supported by existing systems. Again, the change is regulatory not operational.

Not to mention that a "single cohesive document" whilst perhaps well suited to the paper handbooks of yesteryear, when presented on-screen is likely to be (for the majority) TL:DR

As I've also said elsewhere, you are confusing regulation and presentation. It's not expected that riders will be a primary reference for riders. In the main they will refer to extracts with additional narratives published through the website pages, as now. However a central source document which underpins such materials is required and this is it.

You've previously suggested that webpages might be automatically generated/collated from some form of backing database, but again, that database needs to be populated from some form of reference documentation and that documentation needs to be available in a format that can be easily understood and managed/updated over time, and again, 'this is it'.   

Yes, this does make the Audax UK Regulations a rather long document. That's that's because it provides a consolidated view of all the AUK events and awards.

In terms of document length it is comparable to the ACP affiliate agreement which includes the full BRM\RM regulations in far more detail than published to riders through the ACP website.

The upside of such documents is that they are comprehensive, accessible and searchable in a way that HTML pages simply are not. With regard to the revised AUK Reulations document, a great detail of effort has been invested in improving the structure and language/phrasing of the revised regulations to ensure they are easily navigable and unambiguous/written in 'plain english' to make them easy(r) to understand.

What we have now, is "TL: Cannot be Read" because the various event and award regulations are scattered all over the place.My concern is that relying on the approach you advocate, of proceeding to revise the regulations without a central reference, would only make that worse.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 13, 2018, 01:42:20 am
Can you list all of the functional rule changes from the current regulations to this one? That's probably better than expecting everyone to spot them.

This is discussed here (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=110219.msg2350245#msg2350245).

To recap: A major part of the restructuring of the regulations is to excise references to BRM/RM, etc. from the regulations. This is consistent with the approach adopted by Audax UK for documenting the regulations for events valdiated by external organisations is simply to provide a reference (link) to the regulations published by the external organisation, and that is the approach I've taken (ref the "Events and Brevets" summary table.). See Resolution Rationale and Introductory Notes to the revised regulations for more details.

However that in itself does not represent a 'functional change', e.g., AUKs will still enter events to be validated as BRM carrying Brevets formatted with BRM control times, as now.

Actual 'Functional changes' previously discussed have either been dropped or split out for approval independently of the main resolution (which allows them to be applied to the current audax uk regulations should the main revision not be approved).

The functional changes are to:
- recognise orgs rights to prioritise entries from subscribed Audax UK members
- require riders interested in awards beyond the standard event Brevet (Championship trophies, Randonneur/Brevet/RRTY/AAA, etc.) to join AUK.
- to allow for event results to include DNS, DNF, Out of Time, etc, so that there is a complete record of participation.

n.b., All the basic infrastructure required to support this already exists, so comments about 'operational difficulties', 'cost of implementation', etc. simply don't hold water.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: grams on December 13, 2018, 09:34:43 am
Doesn’t that lead to UK BRMs becoming mandatory route?
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 13, 2018, 09:55:40 am
I believe that's the direction the AUK Board would take us. To a certain extent - to a large extent - this revision is intended to address such issues. 

But to answer the question, the answer is 'nominally yes but in practice no'; the approach I've described includes provisions to document the BRM regs which apply and which don't.

It's worth noting that the revised regulations outlined would come into effect at the start of the 2019/20 season, i.e., next October, so there will be plenty of time for this.

I don't know about you but I've had enough of talk of 'special relationships' and unwritten rules.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: frankly frankie on December 13, 2018, 01:21:28 pm
As I've also said elsewhere, you are confusing regulation and presentation. It's not expected that riders regs will be a primary reference for riders. In the main they will refer to extracts with additional narratives published through the website pages, as now. However a central source document which underpins such materials is required and this is it.

You've previously suggested that webpages might be automatically generated/collated from some form of backing database, but again, that database needs to be populated from some form of reference documentation and that documentation needs to be available in a format that can be easily understood and managed/updated over time, and again, 'this is it'.

So are you saying that this master document is best stored as a Google Document?  (Not saying it's a bad idea, just seeking clarification).

Quote
10.2.3  For BR events, the minimum average speeds are:
200 to 600 km – 14.3 or 15 km/hr
700 to 1200 km – 13⅓ km/hr 
1300 to 1800 km - 12 km/hr
1900 to 2400 km - 10 km/hr
2500 km and over - 8⅓ km/hr

10.2.4  The maximum speed for BP and BR Events is 30 km/hr.

I know you're going for clarity and succinctness but these are rather significantly changed from the existing regs, and also by paring down the wording it kinda looks as though there's no provision for over-distance 600s - it's not clear these are 'distance categories' rather than simply distances.
But you've lost the minimum speed 'range' between 14.3 and 15.   Likewise you've lost the maximum speed 'up to' 30kph.
Whatever your own views about these clauses, my understanding was you're not out to change the status quo?
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 13, 2018, 11:33:12 pm
I used Google Docs as it was very accessible and allowed for collaborative editing and commenting. I wouldn't use it for the 'reference' document as it is an inherently 'open' format, better to make it a pdf.

Happy to make it 14.3 - 15 km/ph (though offhand I cannot remember any events run with a scheduled minimum speed of, say, 14.85km/ph) but the 'up to' in the phrase 'maximum speed up to 30km/ph is redundant.

Hang on, you're having a laugh... :)


Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: psyclist on December 14, 2018, 08:07:37 am
A few minor items for consideration:

Part 3 - resolution part 2 include ‘EAPC riders’. I had to look this up to understand what EAPC is. I think it would be useful to write this out in full, as is normal practice for clarity.

8.6 "The standard Event Type is a cycle ride for an individual riders” - remove ‘an’

11.3.7 “The rider is responsible for all providing all necessary information and materials required for the Brevet to be validated. “ - remove first ‘all’

Appendix 2 “Jan and Mick Latimer Trophies:    an informal award for the male and female riders whose Mileater Diaries have the highest total distances ridden in the previous full calendar year.” - change ‘an’ to ‘An’ for consistency

Appendix 2 - AAA - 2.8 4th bullet “AAA All-Rounder Award, for riders completing Brevet BR events in a season.” - this is somewhat different to the current text on aukweb which reads “This is an unofficial award in the sense that it's not been discussed with the AUK Board of Directors or approved by them (but it may be one day). It lists AUK Allrounders, i.e. those who have completed BR and BRM events which carry both distance and AAA points.”

Appendix 2 - Fixed Wheel Challenge - this section covers both the Fixed Wheel Challenge and the Super Fixed Wheel Award. A different Brevet card is used for each, but currently in the new regulations there is no mention of the SFW Brevet card. I would suggest having 2 separate sections for the 2 Fixed Schemes, which is currently the approach in the existing regulations.

Appendix 3 - 3. Relays - my understanding is that relays can be BP or BR, and for aggregate Brevets there are certain rules relating to minimum distances per day and how one shorter day may be used to cover the difference in distance between that covered during other days and the total event distance. Would this be worth expanding upon at this stage, or is this something that is at the discretion of the Relay Organiser?
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Somnolent on December 14, 2018, 10:50:32 pm
 
a) the revised regulations are fully compatable with current operations
From the point of view of rider and organiser, yes.  Not so for the central part of the organisation.

Quote
b) the wide diversity of audax uk events are demonstrably accommodated by just two categories of (BP and BR);
The failings of the current structure where everything is compressed uncomfortably into four categories is already very difficult to manage from a regulatory language point of view (viz. your own arguments about the inclusion of links to other organisations rules & regulations) compressing them into two and essentially having two sets of not-quite-compatible regulations applying to many rides?

Quote
however there is no reason why additional categories of events/awards might not introduced but the reality is that to-date there simply has been no reason to. 
  so why not go the whole way and have a category and set of distinct rules for each type of event?
Quote
As I've also said elsewhere, you are confusing regulation and presentation.
  I beg to differ.  The content of the regulation is always, has to be, the most important.  The way they are presented makes them more or less comprehensible to the rider.

Quote
In the main they will refer to extracts with additional narratives published through the website pages, as now. However a central source document which underpins such materials is required
Absolutely agree !  but you appear to have pushed some of what should be 'additional narratives' into the main document and left others out

Quote
  You've previously suggested that webpages might be automatically generated/collated from some form of backing database, but again, that database needs to be populated from some form of reference documentation and that documentation needs to be available in a format that can be easily understood and managed/updated over time,
Actually, no I never suggested such a thing, that was someone else.  It's an interesting concept though, one that needs further exploration.

Quote
Yes, this does make the Audax UK Regulations a rather long document. That's that's because it provides a consolidated view of all the AUK events and awards.
In terms of document length it is comparable to the ACP affiliate agreement which includes the full BRM\RM regulations in far more detail than published to riders through the ACP website.

So it's comparable in length to a rarely consulted document that is of little interest to most riders?
That sounds like a great argument for shortening the thing !

Quote
What we have now, is "TL: Cannot be Read" because the various event and award regulations are scattered all over the place. My concern is that relying on the approach you advocate, of proceeding to revise the regulations without a central reference, would only make that worse.
I'm not disputing the first sentence, but for the record I did propose for discussion in part of the AUK forum a somewhat different structure based on a much more concise "central document" which captured the rules that pertain to all AUK events, and that it be complemented by additional documents (or web pages, or 'extracts with additional narratives'), one for each kind of event.  A structure that that enables the subtleties of each kind of ride to be made clear without a confusing morass of detail about other kinds.

Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: wilkyboy on December 15, 2018, 12:35:01 pm
... but the 'up to' in the phrase 'maximum speed up to 30km/ph is redundant.

No, no it's not redundant — removing "up to" changes its meaning.  I can point at several events with 25kph as the maximum, because the organiser wanted to keep riders bunched together, or so that the arrivée opening time was a bit more manageable, or to align with café opening times, or simply to stop it turning into a winter club ride.  Removing "up to" would deny organisers that option in the future, yet you in isolation determined to remove it from the regulations.

And that, really, is my beef with this whole exercise of yours: you, yourself, are changing the rules of AUK and events, and perhaps not even realising it — or worse, maybe you do realise it, such as with the reclassification of rides!  Which means this should immediately be recognised for what it is — a flawed overhaul of a flawed document, a case of change for change's sake, but no real improvement, and clearly, in at least two cases, some unilaterally decided changes to the current status quo  :hand:

If the purpose of the rewrite is to maintain the status quo and yet make the regulations more readable then the new version would have to defer to the current in cases where they don't agree.  Therefore we may as well just stick with the current version, warts and all.

I haven't seen a proposal for this to be brought up at the next AGM, but I for one will be voting against, because, with respect, at the moment it doesn't appear to be anything more than one person's draft with a few third-party corrections/amendments for the most obvious divergences from the current version — a useful discussion point perhaps, and I applaud you for taking the time to consider and draft it.  But it is dangerous, in my opinion, to suggest that it is "more or less 'ready to go'", due to its far-reaching impact, given that it's the document that underpins the entire running of AUK and audax events in the UK.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Ajax Bay on December 15, 2018, 05:27:28 pm
OK, here is the final draft for comment before it is submitted into the formal review process. Different file but same place - see regs.paudax.com (http://regs.paudax.com) for details.

Its [sic] formatted as a single resolution with four parts to be voted on seperately [sic], Part 1 being the main body of the regulations plus three points worthy of individual consideration.

As usual, all feedback welcome!
As a newbie among the great and good who've commented, here are my minutia.
P6. “Ordre” not “Order”
P7. 1.2 “General Meeting” Capitalise G and M for consistency across the Regs.
P9. 8.5 DIY Permanent    Comment: Oxymoron. Example of history seeming to be more important than clarity for the coming decade.
8.8 Route Type   Comment: Only 51% metalled/paved surface would feel very ‘off-road’ (imo). How about an 80% threshold? What is the origin of the 50% quoted?
P10. 9.3 Use of words ‘may not’ are a weak way of conveying prohibition. ?”must not”? Penalty is neither brevet validated nor awarded and also 11.5.9 applies. Cf 11.5.2
11.5.9 Amend relevant text to “an event official’s instruction”
Appx 1  Line 2  Delete “.”
2.2  Why not similar text on planning/registering route in Arrows/Trails section?
4.3 No comma after i.e.
Appx 2   Opening text - slight rewording recommended (and then reflected in Para 1)
From “An extended event is a DIY Permanent which combines with a Calendar and Permanent Brevets recognised for Audax UK awards so that the overall ride may be recognised as a higher category event for Audax UK Award purposes.”
To “An extended event is a DIY Permanent combined with a Calendar or Permanent Brevet (itself recognised for Audax UK awards) so that the overall ride may be recognised as a longer Brevet Distance Category event for Audax UK Award purposes.”
Appx3  Line 2  “. . .completing a series . . .”    “different”? not necessarily: could be all 200 BRs for example. Delete “different”
5. Order Ordre??
Page 21 of 22 – Table at end
Add “Advisory” to BR(AUK) BRM(ACP) row and RM(LRM) row in column 5. I assume that there is no intent to impose mandatory routes on BRM or LRMs ridden in UK. Edit: I see you addressed @grams point on this earlier.
@grams "The event type summary table seems to define all BRMs as mandatory route."
OP: "Well, as far as ACP is concerned they are :). The summary table referenced is there for general guidance only and does not form part of the AUK regulations."

Hope this is useful.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: grams on December 15, 2018, 05:57:24 pm
I’ve been meaning to post something very much like what willyboy just posted. I think this is doomed unless there’s a good faith effort to remove all *changes* to the regulations that have crept in.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: frankly frankie on December 16, 2018, 10:00:32 am
That's the scary thing though - this isn't doomed at all.  The great majority of AGM votes are cast online, by people who will not have participated in any debate on the proposal.  In these circumstances most proposals get approved, simply because most people prefer to say 'yes' rather than 'no'.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 16, 2018, 11:33:38 am
@Somnolent

I’d summarise all of our discussions on this subject by saying that we are remarkably close but differ on the key and central issue as to the need for a central and authoritative document detailing Audax UK regulations.

My impression is that all you see is the complexity of all the different event forms that AUK is involved in and would see them all documented out separately with all the appropriate rider notes. Nominally that would be quite straightforward, deceptively so.

The problem I perceive with that approach is that without first drawing up a consolidated regulatory document that you will very quickly generate a large number of different event regulation documents, all subtly different which will be impossible to maintain consistently over time. Anybody who has tried to work their way through the Audax Australia regs will understand what I mean.

So yes, there is a need to document individual event forms with appropriate guidance for Orgs and Riders but there needs to be – and the task will be greatly facilitated by – such a central document.

The other point of misunderstanding relates to there being currently two main classes of event/award (BR and BP).

What it comes down to is that right now, for AUK awards purposes, an event is either recognised as BR – the primary standard on which the majority of audax events and awards are based – or not, in which case they are BP. If there was a desire or need to introduce other classes of mutually exclusive Audax UK awards then such additional categories might be defined and we would need to address that but no so desire or need has been demonstrated. Whilst LWaB has pointed out many times that such is the way things are done in France, that, for example, ACP offers several mutually exclusive awards schemes, but for better or worse, Audax UK events and awards schemes have evolved in a different direction.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 16, 2018, 11:34:46 am
@Frankly/Wilky

The sin was not in omitting the fateful ‘up to’ but not explicitly stating that the maximum speed would be specified by the organiser ‘up to’ that limit.

I’ve revised those clauses accordingly, so they are equivalent to current regs.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 16, 2018, 11:35:36 am
@Wilky/Grams

You’d be amazed to know how conscious I am of this being “one man’s effort”, and yet it isn’t. Yes, one man is driving this project but the reality is that whilst committees may be set up to address such matters, these things generally come down to one possibly two individuals. Much the same applies to other projects including previous revisions of the Audax UK regulations, as others have confirmed to me.

Newer members will not appreciate that the last time the Audax UK regulations were revised, the proposed revision was not published to members until 2-3 three weeks before the AGM, that there was no opportunity to review them and it was very much a case of ‘take it or leave it’ at the AGM. I remember one prominent AUK commenting on this ‘quite vocally’, pointing out various changes that had been introduced without consultation.

So as it stands this proposal has already had VASTLY more review and feedback than probably any similar previous official Audax ÚK document, and overall it seems to be standing up well to critical scrutiny. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect or finalised though, that’s what the review process is for. “Ready to go” means submission for formal review prior to submission to the AGM.

As noted on page 1 paragraph 4, aside from specific points I’ve split out to for approval separately, its intended that the revision should not introduce any functional changes, and the process of organising and entering events, validating brevets, etc. would continue as now. I stand by that, and will look at adding a reversion clause to ensure that is the case,

NB: the table at the end is not part of the proposed AUK regulations. It quoted BRMs as having mandatory routes because as far as ACP is concerned, that is the case, I’ve updated the table to include advisory though because that has been AUK practice.

I’ll look to draft out the regulations applying to validation by external organisations – including BRM/LRM - as documented in current AUK regulations – as they would apply in conjunction with this proposal this week.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Manotea on December 16, 2018, 11:44:39 am
@Ajax Bay

Thanks for your feedback. I’ve adopted most of it. You'll note I've reordered the appendices so the important sections come first, i.e., sections on events follow on directly from the main body of the regulations. Seemed only right.

Route type, yes, an on-road is route of 51% would feel very off road to me but the definition in the regs of off-road is 50%. The Weasal word may allows that by default routes (may) be left unclassififed, which is where we are now.
'May not' seems weak but such is the current wording and is fairly consistent with other similar clauses; its a struggle to find a better way of putting it in every day english.
officials' - might be more than one?
DIY Permananent - not following your comment?

Note I'm tagging changes with ## and noting insertions and deletions where appropriate.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Fidgetbuzz on December 16, 2018, 11:52:50 am
I do not have the time or inclination to read and understand the current position or what it is that Manotea is trying to change
.
But my idiots approach is ...

If something needs changing surely the right approach is to have a dialogue with the Board .. explaining to them why these  ideas are an improvement on the present position. If the Board are unconvinced by this approach .. then is the time to start trying to drum up support for changes.

Again without wasting my time on the detail .. my impression is that these ideas are trying to constrain the Boards ability to take the responsibility vested in them as Directors to run the company in the way that they judge to be appropriate to the circumstances then prevailing. If I am right here .. then I do not think that  these ideas are ever going to be appropriate for a Company. It is false logic to try to say .. well it is  not really a company .. it is actually a members club.

If I have the wrong end of the stick here .. i apologise
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: Somnolent on December 16, 2018, 10:38:20 pm
@Somnolent

I’d summarise all of our discussions on this subject by saying that we are remarkably close but differ on the key and central issue as to the need for a central and authoritative document detailing Audax UK regulations.

My impression is that all you see is the complexity of all the different event forms that AUK is involved in and would see them all documented out separately with all the appropriate rider notes. Nominally that would be quite straightforward, deceptively so.

The problem I perceive with that approach is that without first drawing up a consolidated regulatory document that you will very quickly generate a large number of different event regulation documents, all subtly different which will be impossible to maintain consistently over time. Anybody who has tried to work their way through the Audax Australia regs will understand what I mean.

So yes, there is a need to document individual event forms with appropriate guidance for Orgs and Riders but there needs to be – and the task will be greatly facilitated by – such a central document.

The other point of misunderstanding relates to there being currently two main classes of event/award (BR and BP).

What it comes down to is that right now, for AUK awards purposes, an event is either recognised as BR – the primary standard on which the majority of audax events and awards are based – or not, in which case they are BP. If there was a desire or need to introduce other classes of mutually exclusive Audax UK awards then such additional categories might be defined and we would need to address that but no so desire or need has been demonstrated. Whilst LWaB has pointed out many times that such is the way things are done in France, that, for example, ACP offers several mutually exclusive awards schemes, but for better or worse, Audax UK events and awards schemes have evolved in a different direction.

Yes we are close in our approach but I really don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge the validity (or even existence) of any form of central document but your own.

IMO your 'central document' is inconsistent because it includes the detail regulation for two types of events to the exclusion of others, apparently (in your latest post) on the feeble justification of the relevance to award types.

I'd also dispute specifically
Quote
your different event regulation documents, all subtly different which will be impossible to maintain consistently over time.
  They would actually be very easy to maintain because each document, apart from the central one, would refer only to a single type of event, and any changes would affect only that one type and not (inadvertently) other kinds of events, something which is a danger under the present structure.
Title: Re: The AUK Regulations
Post by: frankly frankie on December 17, 2018, 09:57:07 am
Newer members will not appreciate that the last time the Audax UK regulations were revised, the proposed revision was not published to members until 2-3 three weeks before the AGM, that there was no opportunity to review them and it was very much a case of ‘take it or leave it’ at the AGM. I remember one prominent AUK commenting on this ‘quite vocally’, pointing out various changes that had been introduced without consultation.

In fact one of the most contentious changes of all - the move from mandatory to advisory routes - was introduced in precisely this way, buried in an overall revision that was 'not intended to change anything' other than presentation, about 18 years ago.  There was no debate on the advisory routes change at all, either at the AGM or among organisers.