Extended Calendar Events; A Marriage made in Heaven?

[arabella]

Silly: I'm talking about adding up miles over a number of days and calling it a single ride.

bzzt off topic alert!
so where in this scenario do you see those peeps who cycle fast enow to do 380km, have a nice sleep in a hotel and then do the other 220km yet call it a 600km ride    as opposed to the slowpokes who cycle the same route but without the sleep stop  so ride continuously

[Martin]

Silly: I'm talking about adding up miles over a number of days and calling it a single ride.

which ECE's aren't

[Cudzoziemiec]

the whole premise sounds totally ridiculous and doesn't seem to be at all in the spirit of randonneuring where going out on a singe ride as an endurance event is the entire purpose of the sport.

An ECE:

Is a single ride
Is an endurance event (a longer one than the calendar event which is part of it)
Avoids using other transport between home and the event HQ

Surely not particularly ridiculous?

Really, Tony, think about it; if it wasn't at least a little bit ridiculous, would it be audax?

[psyclist]

Nominal distance used to apply to all calendar events but with the advent of mandatory route perms by gps it's no longer necessary to apply this.

you don't have to submit the track of the calendar event beforehand but you do have to commit to riding the full not nominal calendar distance and then a mandatory ECE and submit a total track such that they both add up,

if by any chance the calendar distance is either under that advertised or cut short on the day due to unforeseen circumstances I will accept a longer than entered ECE; this has happened to me twice due to severe weather on the day

Thank you for clarifying the rules Martin. This was not something that I was aware of. I'll separately propose an update to the details on aukweb.

[tonyh]

the whole premise sounds totally ridiculous and doesn't seem to be at all in the spirit of randonneuring where going out on a singe ride as an endurance event is the entire purpose of the sport.

An ECE:

Is a single ride
Is an endurance event (a longer one than the calendar event which is part of it)
Avoids using other transport between home and the event HQ

Surely not particularly ridiculous?

Really, Tony, think about it; if it wasn't at least a little bit ridiculous, would it be audax?

 

[bikey-mikey]

Nominal distance used to apply to all calendar events but with the advent of mandatory route perms by gps it's no longer necessary to apply this.

you don't have to submit the track of the calendar event beforehand but you do have to commit to riding the full not nominal calendar distance and then a mandatory ECE and submit a total track such that they both add up,

if by any chance the calendar distance is either under that advertised or cut short on the day due to unforeseen circumstances I will accept a longer than entered ECE; this has happened to me twice due to severe weather on the day

Thank you for clarifying the rules Martin. This was not something that I was aware of. I'll separately propose an update to the details on aukweb.

I’m not against ECE’s, and indeed have ridden them myself from time to time.

A calender event consists of a free choice route through controls defined by the organiser.

What Martin seems to be saying is that the ENTIRE ride now would fall under the DIYxGPS Mandatory route rules, for distance purposes, in which case there is no longer a ‘Calendar’ route to extend.  Also it would be much cheaper to enter the ENTIRE route direct with your regional DIY organiser..  Of course, the 50% rule would also apply, and none of the ride would gain ‘countable’ points....

Also the actual distances on Calendar events are hardly ever accurate, so how is someone going to know in advance?

Also the distances put on the AUK Calendar pages are often based on the traditional routes, but often there will be a variety of alternatives, some of which may be shorter... albeit perhaps using busier, riskier roads...

So for this to work, even as a sort of replacement perm, the rider would need to submit a zipped GPX route for the entire ride....


I think that this is a step change from the original concept of ECEs, where the calendar event was inviolate, and the ECE ride stood alone on top, proving its own distance...

I would be uncomfortable for rides to be approved as stated above unless and until the entirety of these proposals have been considered by the board, and voted on and approved at an AGM.

[grams]

you don't have to submit the track of the calendar event beforehand but you do have to commit to riding the full not nominal calendar distance and then a mandatory ECE and submit a total track such that they both add up,

To clarify, would I only be able to do an under length ECE if the event advertised itself as a "210 km" (or whatever), or can this be applied to any event as long as I record some extra mileage during the event?

[Greenbank]

What Martin seems to be saying is that the ENTIRE ride now would fall under the DIYxGPS Mandatory route rules

No, what Martin was saying was that if you entered a calendar event that was 215km by the routesheet, and relying upon that, only topped it up with an 85km ECE, then if you took a shortcut or two (by mistake or being forced to due to a road closure, etc) on the calendar event then there is a risk that when you submit your final GPX tracklog he'll find the entire thing you rode was under 300km and so he wouldn't validate the ECE part.

This makes sense. You shouldn't be able to claim 3 AUK points unless you've ridden at least 300km. I don't think anyone will disagree with that. (You'd still get the 2 points from the completed calendar event though.)

What this means is that it is the riders responsibility to ensure that they complete the full distance. If the calendar ride is advertised at 215km then you have a few choices:-
a) Risk it, don't do any checking yourself and only add an 85km ECE leg
b) Risk it, don't do any checking yourself, but add an extra 10km onto the ECE leg just in case
c) Plot the route of the calendar event in a mapping tool and find it is only 209km, so make the ECE leg at least 91km.
d) Plot the route of the calendar event in a mapping tool and find it is only 209km, so make the ECE leg at least 100km just in case you go wrong on the calendar event and shortcut something.
e) ...etc...

Martin can't check each and every calendar event so it must be down to the rider themselves.

On the day it may not even be down to a shortcut
* GPSes don't do cumulative distance very accurately
* You may forget to (re)start the GPS after a control
* Loss of signal due to tree cover may rob you of a vital 500m
* Batteries can go flat leaving you with a missing section of tracklog until you notice, or it can turn itself off on a rough descent, etc

In the absence of your own checking then relying on anything other than the nominal distance of the calendar event increases the risk of non-validation of the ECE part.

Even relying on the nominal distance can be risky in some cases, there are some calendar events right on the edge and some GPSes may log the ride with a tracklog distance under the nominal distance.

[frankly frankie]

On the day it may not even be down to a shortcut
* GPSes don't do cumulative distance very accurately
* You may forget to (re)start the GPS after a control
* Loss of signal due to tree cover may rob you of a vital 500m
* Batteries can go flat leaving you with a missing section of tracklog until you notice, or it can turn itself off on a rough descent, etc

Yes using a tracklog as proof of distance is a bad idea IMHO.  What the tracklog shows (even if it has gaps) is the route that was taken, and the distance of that route is what it is, regardless of the means used to measure it.

[Martin]

What I'm proposing (well actually not proposing, operating)  is that mandatory distance is covered for the calendar event; how can I require mandatory route when I don't even know what it is?

I suggest those who don't like it start looking for a new ECE co-ordinator and I'll gladly pass them all on; anybody want further clarification you know my email

[Carlosfandango]

On the day it may not even be down to a shortcut
* GPSes don't do cumulative distance very accurately
* You may forget to (re)start the GPS after a control
* Loss of signal due to tree cover may rob you of a vital 500m
* Batteries can go flat leaving you with a missing section of tracklog until you notice, or it can turn itself off on a rough descent, etc

Yes using a tracklog as proof of distance is a bad idea IMHO.  What the tracklog shows (even if it has gaps) is the route that was taken, and the distance of that route is what it is, regardless of the means used to measure it.

.

Or you can verify ECEs and perms by producing receipts as proof of passage, your choice but that drastically reduces your routing options and there's not much open at 5am, also the ATM you were relying on may be out of receipts.

I know which method I'd choose. Each to their own.

I'm just really grateful to Martin for providing the service he does, verification by GPS has opened up new challenges and possibilities for me.

[jiberjaber]

.................
I'm just really grateful to Martin for providing the service he does, verification by GPS has opened up new challenges and possibilities for me.

  ^^^^ This in spades!

[tonyh]

..... 100s of riders .... stretch their limits and support organised events every single week by riding ECE's .....

ECEs, and the useful adjustments in the entry requirements for them, seem to be working very well indeed. Improper use of them seems highly unlikely. Best to let the current system continue undisturbed (my view).

[Greenbank]

Yes using a tracklog as proof of distance is a bad idea IMHO.  What the tracklog shows (even if it has gaps) is the route that was taken, and the distance of that route is what it is, regardless of the means used to measure it.

.

Or you can verify ECEs and perms by producing receipts as proof of passage, your choice but that drastically reduces your routing options and there's not much open at 5am, also the ATM you were relying on may be out of receipts.

A tracklog still provides proof-of-passage for the places passed through whilst it was working.

What FF is saying (I believe) is that using it as proof-of-distance increases the possibility of problems which can impact the rider and/or ECE organiser. In the vast majority of cases it simplifies the situation for both, which probably outweighs these infrequent negatives.

(For example, if your GPS switched itself off for 5km of the calender event such that the submitted GPX tracklog you send for ECE 200+100 validation is now only 298km long it means that Martin has to spend time picking apart the GPX file to confirm this and check that the ECE part of the ride was more than 100km. That's relatively simple, but if the ECE leg was only scheduled to be 98km long and relied upon the calendar event being at least 202km long then Martin has to check that the missing section would have been enough to bring the whole ride up to over 300km, etc).

[Carlosfandango]

Yes using a tracklog as proof of distance is a bad idea IMHO.  What the tracklog shows (even if it has gaps) is the route that was taken, and the distance of that route is what it is, regardless of the means used to measure it.

.

Or you can verify ECEs and perms by producing receipts as proof of passage, your choice but that drastically reduces your routing options and there's not much open at 5am, also the ATM you were relying on may be out of receipts.

A tracklog still provides proof-of-passage for the places passed through whilst it was working.

What FF is saying (I believe) is that using it as proof-of-distance increases the possibility of problems which can impact the rider and/or ECE organiser. In the vast majority of cases it simplifies the situation for both, which probably outweighs these infrequent negatives.

(For example, if your GPS switched itself off for 5km of the calender event such that the submitted GPX tracklog you send for ECE 200+100 validation is now only 298km long it means that Martin has to spend time picking apart the GPX file to confirm this and check that the ECE part of the ride was more than 100km. That's relatively simple, but if the ECE leg was only scheduled to be 98km long and relied upon the calendar event being at least 202km long then Martin has to check that the missing section would have been enough to bring the whole ride up to over 300km, etc).

I see, but even so GPS is still reliable, I must have ridden about 30 ECEs/DIY by GPS and I haven't had a failure yet. If I'd relied on receipts I know I would have.

You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water because of the occasional GPS glitch.

[Greenbank]

You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water because of the occasional GPS glitch.

Where has there been any suggestion of throwing anything out?

[Martin]

I get plenty of GPS glitches from riders usually failure to record a leg, I just accept receipts instead as the rider is usually aware;

I've ridden solely by gps 100s of times and the measured distance from the GPS is always within 1km of the advertised (as in route sheet or from Ride with GPS), even when it turns itself off or misses a signal it still records the distance as the crow flies between the trackpoints rather than round bends. My Garmin draws a little yellow line as I go along so I soon know if it's borked.

I have no baby or bath water; I'm just defending mandatory route ECE's. They are no different from paper vs GPS DIY's. Suppose somebody decides to make a 300km DIY based on the 200 calendar event I've just had the card back for (215km) are they going to add 100 or 85km to make that route into a 300?

I'm surprised that I get so many 200's extended to 300 but I do even in the dead of winter; if the calendar event is overdistance why would somebody want to spend even longer out of the road in the early morning / night in order to complete the ride (given that they are also likely to have allowed extra time in order to make sure they get to the start of the calendar event; and also soul searching as to whether they really want to go back out for another 50/60km rather than get the lift back their ride mate has been offering all day?)

Yes it's an unlevel playing field for those with GPS devices but so are DIY by GPS, AAA DIYs etc etc

[jiberjaber]

The Route Validator that is now in use is fantastic at helping visualize the planned route with the submitted route.  It's quite easy to see where the data might be missing, it will just plot a straight line, if that deviates from the proposed route by a set value then it will be flagged, because it's plotted on a map a view could be taken as to the validation based on the info presented and any mitigating circumstances.. 

From my experiments, the route validator compares the ridden track submitted so covers most scenarios i.e. bolting on a 110km ECE to a 106km cal event or bolting on a 94km ECE to a 106km cal event.  And then the scenarios of what data is presented to be checked against the proposed route i.e. you can rely on the distance of the cal event being 106km, ride a 110km ECE and just submit the ECE portion for checking and it will advise on adherence against planned route of what is submitted... or you could submit your whole route (ECE & cal event) both planned and ridden.  it even works on a split ECE+cal+ECE with or without the cal ridden route section.

The system as Martin is running it seems to be working, perhaps too well given the workload he's probably juggling on it!   

The revelation that I could do an ECE of just enough to make up the points distance is a good one, but let's be clear - the risk is on the rider to ensure it all adds up (i.e. mandatory route) which is no difference to how a DIYbyGPS mandatory route works....

I can't understand the problem some are having with this 

[psyclist]

I see, but even so GPS is still reliable, I must have ridden about 30 ECEs/DIY by GPS and I haven't had a failure yet. If I'd relied on receipts I know I would have.

I agree. I've had a few issues with the GPS, but always been able to capture the required data using a backup device or my phone. It has certainly been a much better experience using the GPS than trying to source receipts, and using mandatory routes has allowed for more riding on small lanes that would otherwise not be the most direct between controls.

My concern is purely to ensure what is provided to the volunteer (Martin in this case) is in the most easily usable format, to minimise workload.

[mmmmartin]

I'm just really grateful to Martin for providing the service he does, verification by GPS has opened up new challenges and possibilities for me.

This. Very much so. Specifically it allows me to ECE a 100k on a Sunday by riding there when the trains aren't awake yet, and then afterwards riding to a railway station to get the train home. In a nustehll, its a cracking idea.

In general I have found the whole amateur, keen, helpful, enthusiastic and co-operative ethos of Auk and its officers to be a breath of fresh air.

[Arry-R]

I'm just really grateful to Martin for providing the service he does, verification by GPS has opened up new challenges and possibilities for me.

This. Very much so. Specifically it allows me to ECE a 100k on a Sunday by riding there when the trains aren't awake yet, and then afterwards riding to a railway station to get the train home. In a nustehll, its a cracking idea.

In general I have found the whole amateur, keen, helpful, enthusiastic and co-operative ethos of Auk and its officers to be a breath of fresh air.

Here here that AUK

[Arry-R]

well try asking the 100s of riders who stretch their limits and support organised events every single week by riding ECE's  if they think it's ridiculous

-            -            -            -

Haw maaanyyyyy  ?? 100s every week? ? Shirley not!

That's well serious amount

[frankly frankie]

Yes using a tracklog as proof of distance is a bad idea IMHO.  What the tracklog shows (even if it has gaps) is the route that was taken, and the distance of that route is what it is, regardless of the means used to measure it.

.
Or you can verify ECEs and perms by producing receipts as proof of passage, your choice but that drastically reduces your routing options and there's not much open at 5am, also the ATM you were relying on may be out of receipts.

What FF is saying (I believe) is that using it as proof-of-distance increases the possibility of problems which can impact the rider and/or ECE organiser. In the vast majority of cases it simplifies the situation for both, which probably outweighs these infrequent negatives.

Thankyou.  What I was saying is that the process of verifying a mandatory route ridden is (or should be) just that - there should be no need to check the distance because the distance is built into the original specification, all the rider has to demonstrate is staying as close as reasonably possible to that specification.
But I am not at the sharp end as Martin is, and I can see in practical terms what I describe is probably too simplistic an approach.

[grams]

I think it's possible to be appreciative of Martin's efforts (which I am!) while also wondering whether this innovation (shorter ECEs, not ECEs in general) makes sense within the existing regs.

On the one hand, if you've ridden 300 km, and you've done hit the calendar controls and the mandatory route ECE track then of course you deserve 3 points, well done.

On the other hand, strictly speaking if you're riding a "215 km" then the minimum distance will usually be about 200 km and the extra 15 km comes from whatever meandering you (and/or the organiser) might fancy along the way. Noodling around to acquire distance seems distinctly unaudaxy.

I lean towards the former view and I certainly don't want to make Martin's life more complicated, but I can certainly see the logic in the latter.

[Martin]

Would you rather the rider realises he's only going to get 200 of the 215km calendar event to count for the ECE so does a few short cuts along busy A roads (which the organiser has presumably avoided on the route sheet hence the overdistance, usually the reason) in order to complete the ECE around an hour sooner?