GPX OR NOT GPX?

[teethgrinder]

I dont think you have to pay to download from RWGPS. I do it most weeks.

The basic is free, more sophisticated stuff costs.
https://ridewithgps.com/choose_account

Yes.
I'm too mean to pay for the sophisticated stuff but happy to pirate routes from others for free.
I also have quite a few of my routes on RWGPS that anyone is free to use. I might be more willing to pay for more sophisticated stuff if I got paid some bunce for my routes. As it is, I'm happy to trade routes for free and I add more routes than I pirate. If they start charging to copy routes, then I'll take mine off and put them somewhere people can copy them for free. They'd effectively be using my routes to make money. That'd be reasonable if they give me a cut. Even so, I'd rather be able to give my routes for free.

[nextSibling]

Over the last few years RWGPS has become the lingua franca of randonneuring in this part of the world (NW US, maybe all the US). I can't remember the last time there wasn't a link to a RWGPS route in an online ride description. As an organizer it's just what one provides. All the big clubs seem to have club accounts. The conversation has moved on to devising the most automated ways to use the RWGPS route sheet to generate a RUSA-friendly version (that many riders will never look at). Like all quality software, it generally just works. There doesn't seem to be much debate about it, other than from a small and diminishing number who are holding out against any GPS use whatsoever.

It doesn't hurt that the founders still run it, they haven't sold out to Big Software Inc., and they seem to honestly support and care about what they provide (they're also friends-of-friends and seem like good guys). The couple of times I've reported bugs, they've been attentive.

Yes, I suppose we're all dependent on something that could all get bought and re-purposed/get screwed up by marketing weasels/crash and burn/die in a fire, but that's true of any file server, hosting service, cloud provider, or local hard-drive. The boring old advice will never change. If you care enough, make backups.

[Exit Stage Left]

I dont think you have to pay to download from RWGPS. I do it most weeks.

The basic is free, more sophisticated stuff costs.
https://ridewithgps.com/choose_account

Yes.
I'm too mean to pay for the sophisticated stuff but happy to pirate routes from others for free.
I also have quite a few of my routes on RWGPS that anyone is free to use. I might be more willing to pay for more sophisticated stuff if I got paid some bunce for my routes. As it is, I'm happy to trade routes for free and I add more routes than I pirate. If they start charging to copy routes, then I'll take mine off and put them somewhere people can copy them for free. They'd effectively be using my routes to make money. That'd be reasonable if they give me a cut. Even so, I'd rather be able to give my routes for free.

I have a very complex relationship with 'intellectual property'. When Pathe News digitised their content in the early 2000s, I took the view that as I'd ridden the PBP, I could download their 1948 PBP footage for a fee of £30.00 and use it in PBP films. I also felt I could use appropriate music for free, which is a bit more dodgy. The film was on Youtube for a while, but the music choices meant it gradually got weeded out around the world. It's on Vimeo still, and part 2 has two appearances by Teethgrinder.  One is on the 2003 triplet, and one is with Gethin Butler on the Daylight in 2003.





The connection with GPS is that we can always think of reasons why we deserve to have someone else's work for free. I originated a lot of that content, but I've stolen some of it. I can square that with myself, as I put a lot of work into it. I'm probably kidding myself though.

[Wobbly]

Blimey, that PBP 2003 footage brought back a few memories!

I rode for a while with the chap in the USA-themed top hat on the prologue. Happy days...

[Exit Stage Left]

Blimey, that PBP 2003 footage brought back a few memories!

I rode for a while with the chap in the USA-themed top hat on the prologue. Happy days...

I spoke to him, in German. Part 2 is of course more strange.






There are those who think you can do the same by uploading a raw file from their phone. But that's the modern world. Monsieur Schuman, mentioned in the Pathe footage, was one of the founders of the EU, I do like to be topical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schuman

[FifeingEejit]

There are those who think you can do the same by uploading a raw file from their phone. But that's the modern world.

When I saw your post saying about how you were reducing your filming and that people tending to do their own filming was part of that decision (this was a few posts ago so forgive me if I remember wrong please!) I was tinged with sadness.

Selfie videos only document a single aspect and view point, the one lived by the rider with that camera, my on ride photos also only capture what I experienced, where as your films take the 3rd person position of an observer and show the many aspects that you see... And ponder,
I've rather enjoyed watching those that you have shared and of which I have found for this reason.

Even collecting the multitude of videos taken by riders I don't think you can get close to that of an observer.

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[Exit Stage Left]

Any filming is only a record of the route that someone has devised. The early PBPs were just the N12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_nationale_12. Later routes were more complex, to make them safer for the increased numbers who were inspired to copy the pioneers. The same is true of most Audaxes. The fastest Google Maps route from Chepstow to Llanberis is A49 and A5, but that's not a good idea. Chepstow to Menai takes a more Westerly route. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Chepstow/Menai+Bridge/@52.4522447,-5.3226733,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x487194534a64a7e3:0x8a63ac52d385370e!2m2!1d-2.673804!2d51.641856!1m5!1m1!1s0x4865008230c0e101:0x666e2d847a19e4d2!2m2!1d-4.165577!2d53.222607!3e1?hl=en&authuser=0

[FifeingEejit]

True on the recording, the presentation however is down to the presenter/editor.

My regular nighttime assistant on the mtb rides is into filmography, and collected plenty of rushes to form into short films.

The one I most want to see is the 9ne he's not done yet, that of the year I rode the puffer in a pair until around midnight at which point as I finished lap 1 of a block of 2 he solomely told me my partner having returned from his previous laps stating "I don't feel too well", was "not too good" on my asking.
He apparently has some amusing footage from the motorhome.

https://youtu.be/CRNqODmbL9A



Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[Exit Stage Left]

A nice enough film, but not an Audax. I used 4 screen in 2005, my first post on Youtube. That featured Akiko Kawachi, who I've mentioned on the 'Female Friendly Audax' thread.

https://youtu.be/fsv_H03tlRs

I did like the LEL 2005 route, available online. https://www.bikemap.net/en/r/13850/

[teethgrinder]

I have a very complex relationship with 'intellectual property'.

It's extremely complicated and full of contradictions. But fundamentally, it boils down to contractual agreements between seller and buyer or user and provider.
Music is an example. If you enjoy mainstream music that has lots of radio play etc, you get to try before you buy. But when you like anything not in the mainstream you are taking a gamble. At least, you were until you could go onto You Tube.
I take the view that anything I put out in public or on line is up for grabs for free and if I don't want anyone to use it, then it stays out of public view where nobody can get to it.
I like that I can hare and steal intellectual property from RWGPS. We are, after all, sharing ideas of using public facilities. I think that RWGPS have it just right. They offer a good service for free, which makes it the go to website for storing, copying and sharing routes. They could probably make big money from advertising as they must have a lot of traffic. But they also charge a small amount for a premium service.
Similar to Strava really, which is becoming more like Facebook and is a jack of the trades of training, route sharing, route planning and social media etc, but master of none.

[Ben T]

RWGPS are being a bit cheeky really though as they are charging people to download content that people are giving them for free, without passing anything on to the content provider/publisher. Personally I don't see any reason to pay them for what's essentially a convenience helper method to essentially just parse content that's already been delivered to me in the HTML of the page.
I also don't see why I should give them free content for them to make money out of.
It's a bit like an aspiring musician going to a record label and saying ok can i put out a single, and the record label saying yeah sure, but we're going to keep ALL the profits. But to get round the fact we're not actually allowed to do that, we're going to give away a version with the vocals erased for free.

[andyoxon]

RWGPS are being a bit cheeky really though as they are charging people to download content that people are giving them for free, without passing anything on to the content provider/publisher. Personally I don't see any reason to pay them for what's essentially a convenience helper method to essentially just parse content that's already been delivered to me in the HTML of the page.
I also don't see why I should give them free content for them to make money out of.
It's a bit like an aspiring musician going to a record label and saying ok can i put out a single, and the record label saying yeah sure, but we're going to keep ALL the profits. But to get round the fact we're not actually allowed to do that, we're going to give away a version with the vocals erased for free.

The free version of ridewithgps does allow you to do a keyword search for someone else's route, copy it to your own routes, edit it, then download it as a gpx file.  You can't filter it to 500 trkpoints, or download it with POI as waypoints on the free plan though, but you can download a thirdparty gpx track (edited or not) for free.

[S2L]

I like that I can hare and steal intellectual property from RWGPS.

A route per se does not qualify for intellectual property. If the route has a name and a logo then maybe those could be considered for intellectual property protection. For instance, they could not call the Audax "Mille miglia", so they had to call it "1001 miglia" because that was the name of a car race, but using the route is not a problem.

For instance, I could borrow Ride London 100 route and organise an Audax called "Beyond the M25" and nobody could do anything about it

[FifeingEejit]

RWGPS are being a bit cheeky really though as they are charging people to download content that people are giving them for free, without passing anything on to the content provider/publisher. Personally I don't see any reason to pay them for what's essentially a convenience helper method to essentially just parse content that's already been delivered to me in the HTML of the page.
I also don't see why I should give them free content for them to make money out of.
It's a bit like an aspiring musician going to a record label and saying ok can i put out a single, and the record label saying yeah sure, but we're going to keep ALL the profits. But to get round the fact we're not actually allowed to do that, we're going to give away a version with the vocals erased for free.

The route is not what RWGPS are providing, that is created by it's users in the tool they are providing.
They provided different levels of features in the tool depending on what you pay;

It's the equivalent of Microsoft offering 3 levels of service in Word,
one where you can only write in Courier New 10pt and save the file
another where you also get access to bold and underline
and another where you are able to change the text colour.

It's a business model that was a long time coming to the IT industry, but had existed in others for years.

[mattc]

I see what you're saying Mr Eejit, but shurely RWGPS are also providing access to a load of route data, as well as some tools - aren't they?? 

It's a bit like MS Word coming with access to a cloud of docs that you can't get to without a copy of MS Word. (I think ... )

(hence Ben trying to use music in his analogy - without content (the routes or music), the whole setup is pretty pointless and valueless)

[andyoxon]

I see what you're saying Mr Eejit, but shurely RWGPS are also providing access to a load of route data, as well as some tools - aren't they?? 

It's a bit like MS Word coming with access to a cloud of docs that you can't get to without a copy of MS Word. (I think ... )

(hence Ben trying to use music in his analogy - without content (the routes or music), the whole setup is pretty pointless and valueless)

Route downloads on ridewithgps are available for free, with no paid subscription. Users can set privacy levels if that's NB.  I can't see the profit aspect here.

[wilkyboy]

I think the point being missed here is not whether or not RideWithGPS — or any other service provider — should or should not charge for using parts of the system — that's just a result of users being freeloading gits and wanting everything for free. 

You see, it costs Real Money for all these services to use Google Maps — and it is not pocket change, but serious amounts.  They also have to pay themselves — nobody's mortgage or food bill gets paid from "being nice and giving it away for free".

How does RWGPS pay its staff and bills?  Subscriptions.  But since users are, on the whole, freeloading gits then they need to be shown a stick/carrot to make some of them cough up, hence the feature limitations.  That's why I stump up the cash and pay my annual subscription, even though I don't need the extra features, you're welcome    You're welcome, because without right-minded people like myself paying into the pot, the service will fold — not "might", but "will".

Drawing parallels with vocals-free music isn't the same thing at all, except in the sense that "if you want to hear that music with vocals then pay for it, so the artist, the writer, the studio engineer, all the session musicians, the cover artist, the copywriters, the marketing droids, and everyone else involved in putting together that product can also keep a roof over their heads and feed their children"; in that case it's exactly the same thing, and anyone, therefore, who evades payment is essentially saying that they don't want all these normal*, hard-working people to have any sort of comfortable life.


* Except the artist, who is as likely as not to be quite weird, but who still has bills to pay.

[Exit Stage Left]

Drawing parallels with vocals-free music isn't the same thing at all, except in the sense that "if you want to hear that music with vocals then pay for it, so the artist, the writer, the studio engineer, all the session musicians, the cover artist, the copywriters, the marketing droids, and everyone else involved in putting together that product can also keep a roof over their heads and feed their children"; in that case it's exactly the same thing, and anyone, therefore, who evades payment is essentially saying that they don't want all these normal*, hard-working people to have any sort of comfortable life.


* Except the artist, who is as likely as not to be quite weird, but who still has bills to pay.

That's where my complex relationship with copyright resides. I often make short films with copyright music, and post them on youtube, they get adverts put on them, and some money goes to the artist. If I'm making a longer film, we'll use the stuff on the video programme, compose music, or concentrate on interviews. That takes a lot longer, so we'll put that on Vimeo pay per view, and sell discs.

I only ever made the longer films, because the disc sales offset the costs. That's a dying market, so the inclination to make any more is diminished. The desire for a record of rides is now well served by action cams, through social media.

I've largely exhausted my interest in long distance cycling, having covered most aspects of it. Changes in how rides are propagated and distributed is interesting though.

[Ben T]

I think the point being missed here is not whether or not RideWithGPS — or any other service provider — should or should not charge for using parts of the system — that's just a result of users being freeloading gits and wanting everything for free. 

You see, it costs Real Money for all these services to use Google Maps — and it is not pocket change, but serious amounts.  They also have to pay themselves — nobody's mortgage or food bill gets paid from "being nice and giving it away for free".

Really!? 

[Feanor]

I'm not sure if your comment is serious or not...
But yes, any website that uses Google Maps api has to  pay serious money now.

As to the question about RWGPS taking payment, and what is that payment for, given that all the content is freely provided...

What they provide is an *infrastructure* to share the routes.
An infrastructure that allows you to view the routes against a paid-for mapping api.
An infrastructure that can store Your Shit for free, on their computers.
An infrastructure that allows you to plan routes for free.
And enough bandwidth on the Internet to make it useable.

That's Real Stuff, with Real Cost.
Who do you think is paying for that?

[Kim]

Meanwhile it's equally valid to use the commercial software you paid for as part of the cost of a GPS receiver or access to proprietary map products.  Or even use open source software^[1] and maps.


_{[1] Which is presumably written by freeloading git GenXers, who would rather develop and share their own stuff than pay to use somebody else's.  Selfish bastards.}

[Ben T]

I'm not sure if your comment is serious or not...
But yes, any website that uses Google Maps api has to  pay serious money now.

As to the question about RWGPS taking payment, and what is that payment for, given that all the content is freely provided...

What they provide is an *infrastructure* to share the routes.
An infrastructure that allows you to view the routes against a paid-for mapping api.
An infrastructure that can store Your Shit for free, on their computers.
An infrastructure that allows you to plan routes for free.
And enough bandwidth on the Internet to make it useable.

That's Real Stuff, with Real Cost.
Who do you think is paying for that?

My only comment about RWGPS's charging model was the distinction between "publisher pays" and "subscriber (downloader) pays".
A "publisher pays" charging model is (imho) fairer, because it's the act of storing data that's using the cloud storage which as you helpfully point out costs money, but the "downloader pays" charging model is likely to generate more income, so that's what they've gone for.

My opinions about RWGPS in general are neither here nor there. It was just the point about the distinction between "subscriber pays" vs "publisher pays".

[wilkyboy]

My only comment about RWGPS's charging model was the distinction between "publisher pays" and "subscriber (downloader) pays".
A "publisher pays" charging model is (imho) fairer, because it's the act of storing data that's using the cloud storage which as you helpfully point out costs money, but the "downloader pays" charging model is likely to generate more income, so that's what they've gone for.

My opinions about RWGPS in general are neither here nor there. It was just the point about the distinction between "subscriber pays" vs "publisher pays".

And that IS an interesting point of view.  As it happens that aligns with my own view — I happen to be a somewhat prolific publisher on RWGPS, so I feel it right that I pay my dues.  The fact that that doesn't get any subscribers the features that I've paid for is the part that's slightly off with your point of view.  As it happens, I've written my own tools to get what I want out of the route once it has been mapped, and so I don't need RWGPS for that, and nor do my "subscribers" (who incidentally don't pay me anything, except by entering my events, which helps fund the rest).

Which suggests we're in agreement, except that I'm not quite so bothered about the subscriber-pays part.

[Ben T]

Yes.
What you aren't able to do with RWGPS is, as an audax organiser, to say "here's a link to my GPX for which you don't have to pay anyone anything else in order to download it".
Your entrants could say - 'what? I've already paid to enter the audax, why do I have to pay again to a 3rd party site to be able to download the route?'
If you were able to pay as a publisher, you could simpy absorb the publisher costs into the entry fee for your audax.

Even if that weren't the default subscription model; it seems publishing a 'free to (fully) download', even at cost, isn't even an option on RWGPS.




I guess if you are a prolific publisher, you are costing RWGPS money by using up cloud storage - that's the way my gut instinct sees it. But you are also making it more of a valuable proposition to subscribe to by increasing the richness of the content that subscribers can (fully) download by subscribing.

[wilkyboy]

I guess if you are a prolific publisher, you are costing RWGPS money by using up cloud storage - that's the way my gut instinct sees it. But you are also making it more of a valuable proposition to subscribe to by increasing the richness of the content that subscribers can (fully) download by subscribing.

Knowing the size of the individual track data, and the number of saved tracks (up around 30m), the cost of storage isn't much — it's just a big database or object store.  But really not that big as these things go — maybe 90TB (30m x 3MB), which is around $2000/mth S3 pricing, plus transfer costs.  But then I'm only thinking about how I would set this up, it's impossible to know from the outside.  Therefore for little me and my routes on RWGPS, maybe 2000 x 3MB would cost them much less than 20p/mth in S3 storage costs.  Unless I've got my decimal point in the wrong place ...

I think the biggest supplier cost would be Google Maps on a per-org basis — a LOT of tiles get loaded while plotting a long route.

I have to say that I have almost zero interest in the content provided by others.  I don't know whether I'm in the majority or minority, but I think RWGPS's route-plotting tools are (currently) the best there are for me and they way I do things.