Proof of Passage

[Chris S]

I think this has been discussed at length in the past, but a refresher might be in order as this could be a busy year for DIYs and ECEs.

Is there a list of Officially Approved methods of Proof of Passage, or is it up to individual Organisers as to what they will accept?

[frankly frankie]

Well actually - and this is   -

Reg 5.8: Brevet Cards shall be used for all AUK events. These will be issued before an event. It is the responsibility of the rider to ensure the safe keeping of the card and that it is properly filled in at each control with arrival time, control stamp and the controller’s initials, or with the required information in the case of Information Controls. The Brevet Card is the sole means of proof that a ride has been completed.

 

In other words nothing else is 'officially approved' although Danial's GPX validation is getting there.

Pathetic excuses like datestamped photos and illegible Co-op till receipts are definitely not 'officially approved'   -
however they often pass muster and that is down to the individual Organiser.

[Chris S]

Uh oh...

My Can-of-Worms-o-matic-alarm has just gone off...

Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything... (*looks across desk at pile of barely legible till and ATM receipts...*)

So officially, I should carry my DIY/ECE Brevet card and get it stamped. Perhaps an update to Reg 5.8 is in order, so that ATM and till receipts can be made more acceptable to The Rules?

[Martin]

for an ECE a stamp; signature or receipt is acceptable; the calendar event start is usually a squiggle in the box from the very busy organiser, it does not need to be an electronic receipt to clarify some queries I've had.

I've had two riders both doing the same ECE who are going to sign each others' ECE start, not sure if that's allowed but sounds OK to me. Even if a rider has an ATM right outside their house there is no actual guarantee that they will obtain that proof at the time they leave, or even ride their bike when they do so so it's often down to trust.

[jogler]

so so it's often down to trust.

& if a rider cheats he is only cheating himself so there is no point in being less than honest.

[mattc]

So officially, I should carry my DIY/ECE Brevet card and get it stamped. Perhaps an update to Reg 5.8 is in order, so that ATM and till receipts can be made more acceptable to The Rules?

Collecting stamps fails to answer the question: what on earth constitutes a "valid" stamp?

(And I'm sure glueing a receipt into a Brevet Card would get round the wording of that rule anyway!)

[Manotea]

There's always the ACP approved postcard control. The first time I used one - to test the system -  was in Brighton. It came back with a Crawley postmark. Nowadays they mostly seem to have illegible machine readable barcode postmarks.

[Weirdy Biker]

As a perm organiser (and sometime calendar event org) my approach is that the start and finish controls must clearly show the location and time.

Intermediate controls I'm more relaxed about.  Provided they tell a consistent "story" i.e. your claim doesn't suggest you travelled at a silly speed.

PS: occasionally frustrated by riders who just jam their receipts into the brevet card and send them off.  How hard can it be to order them, put a number in the card and on the receipt, highlight location and time on the slip, and staple them inside the cards....

[frankly frankie]

Perhaps an update to Reg 5.8 is in order, so that ATM and till receipts can be made more acceptable to The Rules?

Yes indeed.  And brevet cards replaced with 'brevet bags' - far more practical.
Then again, cyclists were riding around with LED lights for 15 years before the road traffic laws caught up ...

[Bendy Bianchi]

Sorry, ignoreant question, what's ECE please?

Uh oh...

My Can-of-Worms-o-matic-alarm has just gone off...

Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything... (*looks across desk at pile of barely legible till and ATM receipts...*)

So officially, I should carry my DIY/ECE Brevet card and get it stamped. Perhaps an update to Reg 5.8 is in order, so that ATM and till receipts can be made more acceptable to The Rules?

[red marley]

Sorry, ignoreant question, what's ECE please?

Extended Calendar Event.

Doing a search of 'marriage made in heaven' should give you all the details you need.

[Bendy Bianchi]

gotcha. so a normal audax that you tack on some more yourself.

txs

[Martin]

gotcha. so a normal audax that you tack on some more yourself.

Yes; but within reason; generally a multiple of 50/100k's added to a calendar event to bring it up to a longer standard Randonnee distance; the list of available ones is not exhaustive.

http://www.aukweb.net/cal/perms/ext.pdf

[mikewigley]

& if a rider cheats he is only cheating himself so there is no point in being less than honest.

A commonly quoted but inaccurate statement.  Because there is the possibility that some will take short cuts, routes are judged to be the shortest distance between controls, so events are invariably overdistance.  So we all pay.

[border-rider]

If you have the concept of free routes in place, then the distance can only ever be the shortest between controls, and people not sticking to the routesheet cannot be "cheating"

That's rather different anyway from people fiddling control info.

[eck]

& if a rider cheats he is only cheating himself so there is no point in being less than honest.

A commonly quoted but inaccurate statement.  Because there is the possibility that some will take short cuts, routes are judged to be the shortest distance between controls, so events are invariably overdistance.  So we all pay.

I'm not quite following the logic here, Mike.
And I know of at least two "classic" 200s that aren't 200s at all. 

[Martin]

& if a rider cheats he is only cheating himself so there is no point in being less than honest.

A commonly quoted but inaccurate statement.  Because there is the possibility that some will take short cuts, routes are judged to be the shortest distance between controls, so events are invariably overdistance.  So we all pay.

I'm not quite following the logic here, Mike.

what I think Mike means is that between controls some 200s may be ridden in less than the distance on the route sheet; in order to ensure that a minimum of 200km is ridden between controls the organiser may need to either make the route longer or insert extra info contols.

[nuttycyclist]

& if a rider cheats he is only cheating himself so there is no point in being less than honest.

A commonly quoted but inaccurate statement.  Because there is the possibility that some will take short cuts, routes are judged to be the shortest distance between controls, so events are invariably overdistance.  So we all pay.

It's not always "shortcuts".

On some Audaxes I have deviated from the route, using the routesheet as "advisory".  Both times I had a longer ride.

1) I stayed on a main road instead of the lanes.  Yes the lanes would have been quieter and safer, but by sticking to the main road I could get my head down, speed up, and not worry about many miles of navigation.

2) I stayed on the main road, which was flat, rather than haul the bike up and over a steep climb on the back lanes.  The ride had no AAA points, so why wear myself out when I don't mind riding in traffic?

3) I deviated into a town so that I could get cash out of the cashpoint for the next control.  I didn't back track to the route but continued.

A Secret Control would have forced me onto the routesheet, but personally I wouldn't have had as pleasant a ride.  I'm glad that AUK rules say "advisory" as that means I can make sensible diversions if required, and also if I do get lost I can continue to the route rather than trying to work out where I got lost and backtrack just in case there's a secret control immediately after the confusing turn.

[Greenbank]

I don't think any more rules/regulations are required.

What constitutes appropriate bits of proof-of-passage is something you need to agree with the DIY organiser. Most people have a general idea and I wouldn't think it needs to be more formally stated than it already is(n't).

I use ATM receipts and shop receipts. I've never used a stamp because I always plan my ride to use shops/petrol-stations/ATMs for controls. Other than that, I've only once had to rely on a signature (the woman running the B&B in Alston) as it was close to the time limit and I didn't want to risk the ATM that may not be working.

The cheating issue is separate. I'd guess that if it was all done on honesty (with no proof-of-passage required at all) there'd be quite a bit more cheating than there is now. (Note that I don't say by how much, or even how much cheating goes on currently, but I doubt it's none).

[frankly frankie]

I don't think any more rules/regulations are required.

No indeed. 
My point is that an existing one, that states The Brevet Card is the sole means of proof that a ride has been completed, is one that AUK could now do without.
Just ignoring it (as we currently do) is perilous, because sooner or later some Black Crow™ will come along and make trouble, and 5 years of DIY results will have to be nullified ...

[jogler]

& if a rider cheats he is only cheating himself so there is no point in being less than honest.

A commonly quoted but inaccurate statement.  Because there is the possibility that some will take short cuts, routes are judged to be the shortest distance between controls, so events are invariably overdistance.  So we all pay.

I stand corrected

[phil d]

I don't think any more rules/regulations are required.

No indeed. 
My point is that an existing one, that states The Brevet Card is the sole means of proof that a ride has been completed, is one that AUK could now do without.
Just ignoring it (as we currently do) is perilous, because sooner or later some Black Crow™ will come along and make trouble, and 5 years of DIY results will have to be nullified ...

I would have thought that it could be easily and correctly argued that appropriate receipts stapled into a brevet card become part of that brevet card.

I was slightly concerned earlier this year when an organiser of a (BRM as it happens) calendar event took the receipts out of the card and threw them away, thus removing all evidence of passage at the three intermediate controls.

[Cyklisten]

I was slightly concerned earlier this year when an organiser of a (BRM as it happens) calendar event took the receipts out of the card and threw them away, thus removing all evidence of passage at the three intermediate controls.

I have had this happen too, but if the organiser has seen the receipt and marked the card accordingly (stamp and squiggle) surely that is verification enough?

[Martin]

I was slightly concerned earlier this year when an organiser of a (BRM as it happens) calendar event took the receipts out of the card and threw them away, thus removing all evidence of passage at the three intermediate controls.

I have had this happen too, but if the organiser has seen the receipt and marked the card accordingly (stamp and squiggle) surely that is verification enough?

I've done just this at the end of a BRM (and PBP qualifying) 600 and I don't think I've ever seen them retained; all that matters is that the organiser is satisfied the distance has been ridden.

[frankly frankie]

Yes, replacing receipts with an Organiser's stamp/sig in the appropriate boxes seems OK to me too.  I've done that before now.

As for stapling - well I'm afraid that's something of a rarity.