Author Topic: GPX OR NOT GPX?  (Read 28353 times)

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #875 on: June 12, 2019, 09:20:37 am »
If I want any cycling advice from you I will ask for it.
Yeah, remind me not to bother posting on YACF anymore.

Are you 12?

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #876 on: June 12, 2019, 10:11:28 am »
Yeah, remind me not to bother posting on YACF anymore.

Sounds great. In fact I think communication with other human beings might not be your thing full stop.

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #877 on: June 12, 2019, 10:27:38 am »
Tsk!  >:(

I think if we  fast forward a few years it will be cheap and convenient to validate everyone's ride using GPS. The majority of riders who use gps tracking can simply provide their track to me online. For anyone who wants to use the route sheet, I will be able to provide them with a cheap device that they simply have to carry with them and hand back at the Arrivee! What do people think?

This has obviously been an objective for the last 10 years, but progress has been slow and will continue to be so I think.  What AUK has so far:

1. A category of (permanent) event - which seems to have a strong appeal for a small sector of the ridership - where validation is by submitted tracklog only.  This category requires the entrant to submit a 'this is what I intend to do' GPX of sufficient distance, and then after the ride to submit a 'this is what I did' tracklog which must match within reason.  The route followed is therefore a mandatory one - not advisory as with most other AUK events.

2. A category of event (so far only perms I think, but it doesn't have to be that way) where the entrant is invited to submit a tracklog in lieu of other forms of proof-of-passage.  The organiser has defined the (advisory) route in the normal way, that is by means of a series of control locations, and the submitted tracklog must visit these in order, to be valid.  You can see this could work for a small calendar event with only a handful of finishers, and possibly better than a postal finish - but of course at the present state of play it has to be an optional thing.

3. Some Organisers unofficially accept tracklogs as P-o-P if the rider so requests or for example in lieu of a lost brevet card.  The AUK Regulations are worded to allow for this, but it is strictly an arrangement between organiser and rider and either of those can refuse if they want.

4. Non-GPS tracking methods such as ankle-tags and control gates may also be used on very large events.

A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P.  Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates.  In solo Permanent rides where the tracklog is submitted later, it is too easy for a valid tracklog to be copied with falsified datestamps and so re-used on two consecutive weeks for example. 
Plus of course a tracklog can be fabricated using software, or can be recorded in a car - for the finish controller or organiser, just displaying a submitted tracklog on a map and seeing that it goes through all the right places, is no-where near good enough.  It needs to be analysed or inspected in detail to see that the timestamps are credible for a genuine 'ridden' tracklog.  This takes time.  AUK offers software to do all this, but it's far from perfect as yet and development seems slow.
In fact simple addition of a single timed physical P-o-P (card stamp, or till receipt) somewhere around the middle of the ride, hugely increases the strength of any associated tracklog.
It's not dark yet but it's getting there.

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #878 on: June 12, 2019, 11:08:14 am »
1. A category of (permanent) event - which seems to have a strong appeal for a small sector of the ridership - where validation is by submitted tracklog only.  This category requires the entrant to submit a 'this is what I intend to do' GPX of sufficient distance, and then after the ride to submit a 'this is what I did' tracklog which must match within reason.  The route followed is therefore a mandatory one - not advisory as with most other AUK events.

There is still the option to ride a Permanent by GPS with a free route in between controls. Then the the tracklog simply needs to show that you've ridden through the agreed Controls.


A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P.
-snip-
Plus of course a tracklog can be ... recorded in a car

And the same is true of using receipts as PoP of course.


In fact simple addition of a single timed physical P-o-P (card stamp, or till receipt) somewhere around the middle of the ride, hugely increases the strength of any associated tracklog.

That would prevent people from manufacturing tracklogs, true. But it makes little, if any, difference to someone driving the route in a car and waiting at Controls. Also you lose the convenience of a purely electronic transaction (i.e. emailing the tracklog post-ride) you presumably have to get the physical receipt to the DIY validator.


Overall I think tracklogs are a fantastically convenient way to ride DIYs but, at present, they cannot guarantee someone's actually ridden the route as claimed.
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

jiberjaber

  • ... Fancy Pants \o/ ...
  • ACME S&M^2
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #879 on: June 12, 2019, 11:12:40 am »
Tsk!  >:(

I think if we  fast forward a few years it will be cheap and convenient to validate everyone's ride using GPS. The majority of riders who use gps tracking can simply provide their track to me online. For anyone who wants to use the route sheet, I will be able to provide them with a cheap device that they simply have to carry with them and hand back at the Arrivee! What do people think?

This has obviously been an objective for the last 10 years, but progress has been slow and will continue to be so I think.  What AUK has so far:

1. A category of (permanent) event - which seems to have a strong appeal for a small sector of the ridership - where validation is by submitted tracklog only.  This category requires the entrant to submit a 'this is what I intend to do' GPX of sufficient distance, and then after the ride to submit a 'this is what I did' tracklog which must match within reason.  The route followed is therefore a mandatory one - not advisory as with most other AUK events.

2. A category of event (so far only perms I think, but it doesn't have to be that way) where the entrant is invited to submit a tracklog in lieu of other forms of proof-of-passage.  The organiser has defined the (advisory) route in the normal way, that is by means of a series of control locations, and the submitted tracklog must visit these in order, to be valid.  You can see this could work for a small calendar event with only a handful of finishers, and possibly better than a postal finish - but of course at the present state of play it has to be an optional thing.

3. Some Organisers unofficially accept tracklogs as P-o-P if the rider so requests or for example in lieu of a lost brevet card.  The AUK Regulations are worded to allow for this, but it is strictly an arrangement between organiser and rider and either of those can refuse if they want.

4. Non-GPS tracking methods such as ankle-tags and control gates may also be used on very large events.

A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P.  Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates.  In solo Permanent rides where the tracklog is submitted later, it is too easy for a valid tracklog to be copied with falsified datestamps and so re-used on two consecutive weeks for example. 
Plus of course a tracklog can be fabricated using software, or can be recorded in a car - for the finish controller or organiser, just displaying a submitted tracklog on a map and seeing that it goes through all the right places, is no-where near good enough.  It needs to be analysed or inspected in detail to see that the timestamps are credible for a genuine 'ridden' tracklog.  This takes time.  AUK offers software to do all this, but it's far from perfect as yet and development seems slow.
In fact simple addition of a single timed physical P-o-P (card stamp, or till receipt) somewhere around the middle of the ride, hugely increases the strength of any associated tracklog.

I think there is a version of 2 that is 1 as well (i.e. a DIY using just a list of controls with subsequent validation by GPS). (ETA: https://www.aukweb.net/diy/adv/ )

And of course, I could just ride around the controls in my car collecting receipts as well ;) Which I think the 50% rule was designed to combat and effects both traditional and electronic forms of validation on DIY/Perms.

Seems to me that cheating at an Audax is only cheating yourself, but that's just my personal opinion  :thumbsup:
Regards,

Joergen

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #880 on: June 12, 2019, 11:19:13 am »
I talked to Blackburnrod at the Mersey Roads 24 TT in 2007 about how he validated the result. He entered all the observations into a program which gave a graphical illustration of rider progress. Anomalies would have been immediately apparent for the front-runners.

The problems came with Audaxers stopping for about the time that a lap or section of the course would take them. The question becomes about individual reasons for undertaking a validated ride. A special case arises in the next week or so. There will be a small number of Audaxers who have paid for their PBP without completing a 600 qualifier. The incentive to complete the SR series does tend to blur the moral boundaries of the validation process a bit. There are interesting creative dodges available on some late qualifiers, which are amusing in a 'Wacky Races' sort of way.

A single late qualifier, with strict supervision, might make for an interesting 'jeopardy' subject.

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #881 on: June 12, 2019, 11:41:08 am »
Seems to me that cheating at an Audax is only cheating yourself, but that's just my personal opinion  :thumbsup:

You are, of course, absolutely right there.
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #882 on: June 12, 2019, 11:47:39 am »
A single late qualifier, with strict supervision, might make for an interesting 'jeopardy' subject.

We have previously had a single last-gasp qualifier, with AUK's Validator-In-Chief in personal attendance at the finish, so that the results could be processed in the minimum possible time (theoretically within an hour to get the ACP numbers back if everyone works with a will, but in fact I think it was done the next morning, so within 12h).  The idea of a late qualifier with postal finish (as this year) seems bizarre to me.

And of course, I could just ride around the controls in my car collecting receipts as well ;) Which I think the 50% rule was designed to combat and effects both traditional and electronic forms of validation on DIY/Perms.

Seems to me that cheating at an Audax is only cheating yourself, but that's just my personal opinion  :thumbsup:

True indeed, but if AUK doesn't take this stuff seriously it has no reason for existence.  In fact, ever since DIYs were introduced about 10 years ago, I have privately considered them to be a 'step too far' for AUK - too difficult to maintain sufficient integrity IMHO.
It's not dark yet but it's getting there.

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #883 on: June 12, 2019, 11:55:45 am »
I am reminded of this story  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/08/06/marathon-man (WARNING: Very long and detailed) about a marathon runner who falsified his results.  Whilst the evidence that the results are false seems overwhelming, nobody has been able to say how he did it.  Or why.
To quote from the last paragraph of the story:
Quote
It came down to this: at the Boston Marathon, the oldest, most prestigious, and most professionally managed event on the American racing calendar, Litton had hit every split, changed his clothes along the way, and broken three hours. No one but Litton could say how he did it.

If someone is determined to cheat the system, there is always a way.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #884 on: June 12, 2019, 12:14:46 pm »
Overall I think tracklogs are a fantastically convenient way to ride DIYs but, at present, they cannot guarantee someone's actually ridden the route as claimed.

What's really needed is for them to be cryptographically signed by the GPS receiver.  But since that feature's spectacularly failed to appear in cameras, in spite of the obvious benefits, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #885 on: June 12, 2019, 12:18:47 pm »
A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P.  Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates. 

Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?

I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #886 on: June 12, 2019, 12:23:43 pm »
A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P.  Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates. 

Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?

I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.

diff and md5sum (standard tools on proper computers) are all you need to detect trivial differences (or absence thereof) between files.  If they've gone to the effort to introduce some noise to the data, that's a bit more specialised.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #887 on: June 12, 2019, 12:46:29 pm »
Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?
I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.

AUK's software (used by some DIY Orgs) will red-flag identical tracks (among many other things) - but that is only comparing 2 at a time.  It becomes much more complex and time-consuming in the context of even a small event with say 10 finishers.  Whereas simply checking tracks for integrity in other ways (eg checking timestamps for 'ridden onna bike') is not a multiplying problem in the same way.  It's only (currently) time-consuming if the submitted tracks are in a variety of formats (GPX TCX FIT FIT2) - which they would be - and over-large - which some might be.
It's not dark yet but it's getting there.

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #888 on: June 12, 2019, 12:55:32 pm »
Overall I think tracklogs are a fantastically convenient way to ride DIYs but, at present, they cannot guarantee someone's actually ridden the route as claimed.

What's really needed is for them to be cryptographically signed by the GPS receiver.  But since that feature's spectacularly failed to appear in cameras, in spite of the obvious benefits, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Such things do exist - I have two that are used for glider competition task validation.  They are a bit more specialist and significantly more expensive than mass-produced GPS logging devices and don't stop you giving your recorder to someone else to do the ride for you.

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #889 on: June 12, 2019, 01:42:21 pm »
Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?
I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.

AUK's software (used by some DIY Orgs) will red-flag identical tracks (among many other things) - but that is only comparing 2 at a time.  It becomes much more complex and time-consuming in the context of even a small event with say 10 finishers.  Whereas simply checking tracks for integrity in other ways (eg checking timestamps for 'ridden onna bike') is not a multiplying problem in the same way.  It's only (currently) time-consuming if the submitted tracks are in a variety of formats (GPX TCX FIT FIT2) - which they would be - and over-large - which some might be.

It also doesn't solve the problem caused by lack of simultaneousness:
Say rider A submits a tracklog, it's not identical to any other - so is validated, and then two days later, B submits an identical one. It could be that A copied it off B's garmin without his knowledge and B is innocent.
It is what it is. It's not what it's not, so it must be what it is.

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #890 on: June 12, 2019, 01:45:18 pm »
It's all a bit academic with tandems. Are we expecting the captain and stoker to have a GPS each? Doubtless I'll be told that they'll both have smartphones.

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #891 on: June 12, 2019, 01:48:35 pm »
A Tracklog in itself is not an especially strong P-o-P.  Especially in group ride situations such as an event - it is too easy for a valid tracklog to simply be copied around between finishers, and would not be at all easy for the finish controller to spot any exact duplicates. 

Is there not software that can compare tracklogs for excessive similarity, much like what universities use to detect plagiarism?

I suppose the existence of such software and it being available to orgs are separate questions.

diff and md5sum (standard tools on proper computers) are all you need to detect trivial differences (or absence thereof) between files.  If they've gone to the effort to introduce some noise to the data, that's a bit more specialised.

Since an increasing number of devices are being simplified (which I've previously referred to erroneously as consumerized) to the point you can only extract the data once uploaded to another service the noise is added to the data
For example, for me to obtain the data from either my Kazoo or back up device (a basic Navic 40) I have then a need to grab my smartphone (which I don't necessarily have with me); upload the data to Strava or RWGPS, and download a GPX file to give to the organizer; that automatically introduces noise that kills the diff or md5sum as the GPX extracted from whats ultimately the same source file will differ based on the user configured fields and user data held by those services.

You'd have to compare the actual GPS tracks for similarity; two different devices hitting the exact same points, sampling interval and times is very unlikely.

To be sure of individual performance you'd have to mandate a device that can have the raw FIT2 (or whatever) extracted from it by the organizer; at which point you're looking at the organizer issuing devices at the start, which would need to include fitting them to the machine with tamper proof material, pairing with compulsory rider monitoring devices (e.g. HR), observing the riders and machines during the ride and recovering them at the finish.
Essentially that's Scruitineering, Parc Ferme, Marshalling and Homologation, it would be a fairly major change from the simple Homologation system used now, increase costs and make the act of riding an AUK Audax considerably more complex, not to mention organizing...

Technically it's possible, it's probably not desirable though.

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #892 on: June 12, 2019, 02:36:21 pm »
I tend to think of the development of Audax as similar to Munro-Bagging.

Quote
There has also been a noticeable shift in societal attitudes towards women’s leisure. Many women used to be prevented by lower average disposable incomes as well as masculine portrayals of adventure. They were also deterred by male-dominated bunkhouse dormitories and bothy huts – not to mention society’s disproportionate expectations around women “staying home and looking after the kids”.

Far less so nowadays, where a glance around the hills and social media sites suggests that women now comprise 30% to 40% of Munro-baggers. Although only around 23% of recent “compleators” have been women, the average Munro round lasts over 20 years, so demographic changes among Munroists will take years to catch up.

Social media is another important driver. Munro-baggers nowadays use everything from Facebook to Instagram to club messageboards to exchange advice, post photographs and reports, and generally joke, plan, debate and argue. This takes the hobby well beyond mountain days and helps to create a scene that draws in prospective new recruits.
https://theconversation.com/climbing-scottish-mountains-why-munro-bagging-is-on-the-up-and-up-112082

That article doesn't mention the obvious impact of GPS, which removes navigation as an issue. There are now well-worn tracks up Munros. To experience what Scottish Hill Walking used to be like, you have to go up hills just under 3,000 feet. Foinaven is an obvious one.

An interesting development in hill-walking is the fragile confidence of the 'smartphonists'. If you've got an actual map, they're keen to stay within sight of you. They seem to have that flimsy-looking technical clothing in black; the stuff on the front of the outdoor magazines.

Maybe there's a market for frustratingly 'pointless' rides of 199, 299, 399 and 599km.



Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #893 on: June 12, 2019, 03:50:52 pm »
Of course for around £20-30 you can buy a thermal receipt printer and then print your own proof of passage receipts.  Spill some tea or beer on the results, scrunch them up in your pockets, hey presto. Surely this would be a far simpler way than trying to mess around with GPX tracklogs?

The opportunity to make shit up has long been there; long before the mass take up of GPS.   

As others have said, you'd only be cheating yourself. 

If you never fail at an audax event (because you never actually take part), where's the satisfaction when you succeed (because you cheated)?

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #894 on: June 12, 2019, 04:25:13 pm »
Of course for around £20-30 you can buy a thermal receipt printer and then print your own proof of passage receipts.

Runs off to order a thermal receipt printer  :thumbsup:

 ;D
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #895 on: June 12, 2019, 04:35:23 pm »
Of course for around £20-30 you can buy a thermal receipt printer and then print your own proof of passage receipts.

Runs off to order a thermal receipt printer  :thumbsup:

 ;D
Probably cheaper than buying a more suitable bike.  [ducks]

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #896 on: June 12, 2019, 05:37:57 pm »


Hennessey, you're just jealous.
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

jiberjaber

  • ... Fancy Pants \o/ ...
  • ACME S&M^2
Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #897 on: June 12, 2019, 06:12:00 pm »
I see our fav frankie has been active... there now appears to be a notice about info controls added next to where a GPX might be present, not noticed this before so my assumption is it's new  :thumbsup:

Quote
If you intend to navigate using GPS, please remember that this event includes 4 Information controls - check the Routesheet
Regards,

Joergen

Re: GPX OR NOT GPX?
« Reply #898 on: June 12, 2019, 06:15:12 pm »
It's only (currently) time-consuming if the submitted tracks are in a variety of formats (GPX TCX FIT FIT2) - which they would be - and over-large - which some might be.

If none of the GPXes are identical to each other, none of the TCXes are identical to each other, and so on, then no-one has done the most simplistic cheat of just submitting a copy of someone else's file. Of course more sophisticated cheating is possible, but that might be enough to take it over the "harder than printing fake receipts" threshold.