Author Topic: The AUK Regulations  (Read 4944 times)

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #25 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 ... )

Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

bhoot

  • MemSec (ex-Mrs RRtY)
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #26 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!

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #27 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...

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #28 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 :)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #29 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?

Cudzoziemiec

  • Dormant but requires tea
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #30 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?
At some point in the ride, you might find yourself in Osaka with Spanish speakers where you had expected Edinburgh talking Greek. This does not mean you are lost, or even off route.

Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #31 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.
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2018, 12:28:51 pm »
yeah, I realize why it was being missunderstood now; clarity isn't my strong point!

Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #33 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.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Dormant but requires tea
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #34 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:
At some point in the ride, you might find yourself in Osaka with Spanish speakers where you had expected Edinburgh talking Greek. This does not mean you are lost, or even off route.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #35 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".

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #36 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.

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #37 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.
It's not dark yet but it's getting there.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #38 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 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!

Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #39 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


Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #40 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.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #41 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.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #42 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.

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.

Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2018, 09:34:43 am »
Doesn’t that lead to UK BRMs becoming mandatory route?

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #44 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.

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #45 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?
It's not dark yet but it's getting there.

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #46 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... :)



Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #47 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?

Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #48 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.


wilkyboy

  • "nick" by any other name
    • 16-inch wheels
Re: The AUK Regulations
« Reply #49 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.
RRTY #7 done.  Need something else to do ... ah, welcome #8 8)