Author Topic: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances  (Read 6538 times)

Fidgetbuzz

  • L sp MOON. 1st R sp MARS . At X SO sp STARS
DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« on: October 03, 2010, 10:25:02 am »
Bear with me for a moment while I sketch a snag that I have just hit.

I ride a 300+ back from family in Petersfield to Norwich several times a year. I use 6 controls - Weston ( Petersfield) Marlow, Berkhamsted, Hitchin, Cherry Hinton ( Cambridge) Brandon Home. Depending on traffic conditions / time of day I do have 2 or 3 minor route variations - and they make the route 325 +/- 5kms

Several years ago Sheila and I agreed using mapsource delivery van direct that this was over 300. In fact most often the ride is about 322kms.

When i switched to Danial we probably never checked the route as it had been previously OKd.

I am now switching to Rich who uses Autoroute - so to make his life easier I thought that I would get a copy of Autoroute - and thx to the forum ( many thx Tatanab)I now have an old copy.

BUT - and here is the snag autoroute shows my 6 controls shortest route as 278 kms - so if I get Rich to check this he may well say No - Rog - not far enough.

Clearly i can get round this by putting in more controls ie Four Marks, Arborfield , Henley etc - but then I am going to have to visit these controls and this seems to me to be making my route a SPECIFIC route rather than an audax ride where I do not have to follow an exact route.

Clearly the definition of shortest distance was critical when you could not prove how far you had gone - ie Norwich Cambridge ( say 84kms ) -  I could ride down the A11 - I would be mad to do so - but I could. So in the old system I had to put controls away from the A11 to prove that I actually rode 107kms to get there.

But this doesnt seem to make sense to me on my Petersfield Norwich ride - provided I visited my 6 controls - and I submitted a track log that showed I had done 322 kms - why am I ( and Rich ) going to be concerned that a shortest possible route ( which I will never ride)  could be 278kms.

I think there needs to be an entry form for insurance purposes - a defined series of control points at sensible distances apart - and then it is entirely up to the rider to prove using the track log that
A) the controls were passed thru
and
B) that the distance ridden was over the 200 / 300 etc

I see no need for the checking of shortest possible distance.

Anyone else hit this snag?
I was an accountant until I discovered Audax !!

Martin

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2010, 10:41:54 am »
Roger; yes AR often way underestimates distance, this may be because it wants to take you on roads that aren't actually roads or across ferries etc; have you examined the AR route?

If you add Four Marks etc as additional controls this makes it no less an Audax ride, you would still be required to visit these extra places by whichever route you wished, just that in practice the shortest route would be the route you are going to take anyway.

I've tried putting your control points into viamichelin which is equally admissable for AUK purposes 146km to Hitchin;

Google maps 153 thence to Norwich, yes it's mostly A11 etc lunacy as you say; but you are allowed to ride along those roads so to make sure it's longer not using those roads which you plan; extra controls would seem the way forward

Fidgetbuzz

  • L sp MOON. 1st R sp MARS . At X SO sp STARS
Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2010, 10:57:21 am »
I have played with Autoroute a bit more - the majority of the difference seems to come in the Petersfield to Marlow leg - shortest if I just use these 2 points is about 80kms - if I add say 3 more controls which would be on my "standard"  route then i go up to 96kms - but even this would only get 278 up to 294.

So still the key question

Why does shortest route matter one iota - when I can demonstrate from the track log - that I did NOT ride the shortest route
I was an accountant until I discovered Audax !!

Martin

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2010, 11:03:50 am »

Why does shortest route matter one iota - when I can demonstrate from the track log - that I did NOT ride the shortest route

yes it does; because as you have alluded to we are not validating a prescribed route per se; but the shortest distance between pre-nominated locations. In order to make the shortest route match more closely your gpx distance you need to add those extra locations; once you've done that there is nothing else to do; the tracklog will confirm you have passed through them  :)

Martin

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2010, 11:10:59 am »
I've entered your initial controls into my AR 2010 and get 350km; but if I select shortest route for all segments it comes down to 290

Fidgetbuzz

  • L sp MOON. 1st R sp MARS . At X SO sp STARS
Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2010, 11:23:13 am »
I've continued playing to get the route to Chery Hinton to come "right" I have to have
14 "control" points - compared with my old 3.

The need to prove shortest route distance is an irrelevancy - left over from the days when I MIGHT have ridden the shortest route - now the track log proves that I did not.

14 controls instead of my 3 just makes no sense to me - it prescribes my route very tightly - when there is no need for this at all
I was an accountant until I discovered Audax !!

Martin

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2010, 11:27:19 am »
I've got it up to 302 by just adding Four Marks and Henley-on-Thames making 9 controls.

I don't think anythings changed in the rules; AR (and viamichelin by bike which I'm assured comes out more or less identical) was always the means routes were validated AFAIK whether by receipts or gpx.

Once again; AUK operates by validating distances between control points whether they be on calendar; permanent or DIY events; the route taken between them is discretionary and can therefore not be used to validate the ride. I cannot answer for why this ride was previously allowed using just 4 controls but if it was presented to me as such I would be obliged to turn it down as a 300km ride without extra controls.

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2010, 11:45:34 am »
Just done ViaMichelin - it gives 296 as follows:

Start - Marlow: 80
Marlow - Berkhamsted: 30
Berkhamsted - Hitchin: 35
Hitchin - Cherry Hinton: 45
Cherry Hinton - Brandon: 49
Brandon - Fidgetville: 57

To my mind, this route is always going to be way overdistance when ridden because there are (non-motorway) trunk routes available that make the shortest routes between controls much shorter than you'll actually ride.

But the rules are clear. Your contract with the ride is shortest distance between controls, and several methods are showing that as underdistance.

As Martin says - stick an extra control in the worst offending leg (which you can just ride through if you are doing GPS Validation) to force it over 300km.

As you know - what you ride "on the day" is irrelevant; that is not the basis of the contract you have with the event.

Fidgetbuzz

  • L sp MOON. 1st R sp MARS . At X SO sp STARS
Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2010, 03:40:46 pm »
Interesting Chris - we have a different take on this.

Your concept is that I have signed up to do a ride that is at least 200kms as the shortest route between controls
My thought pattern is that I have signed up to do a ride of at least 200kms that passes through  certain controls

Clearly in the past AUK had to have a shortest route between controls to verify a 200 - as I could have ridden the shortest route  ( even if it was crazy - c.f. my Norwich Cambridge down the A11) and there was no possibility for evidential proof that I had not ridden the shortest route.

Now however the world has moved on - I can prove that I have not used the shortest route  - so why the need to stick to the old requirement of shortest distance between controls.

Obviously I can add more "controls" into my DIY rides to satisfy the shortest route argument -- but do i really need to - Petersfield to Norwich the way I ride it is about 320 , using my 6 controls- and the track log will prove this.

Is it relevant that by notionally riding a route that I haven't ridden and will never ride - I could have done it in 280kms. Does this really invalidate the ride "contract" that you refer to and that I have a  different interpretation of?

This isnt  a major problem - clearly i can accommodate the shortest requirement if needed by using more controls-- but it just seems bizarre to me that I need to prove that a route nobody would choose to ride in practice is at least the required distance.
I was an accountant until I discovered Audax !!

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2010, 03:46:54 pm »
Your concept is that I have signed up to do a ride that is at least 200kms as the shortest route between controls

From everything I've read here and elsewhere, this is how I believe it works. GPS validation is just a means of showing you passed through the agreed controls - but you still need to agree the controls in advance, and any extra is entirely irrelevant to the event, just as it would have been if you had been collecting receipts.

Martin

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2010, 03:49:08 pm »

Now however the world has moved on - I can prove that I have not used the shortest route  - so why the need to stick to the old requirement of shortest distance between controls.

because DIY rides by GPS are just another means of validating distances according to the current AUK regulations; which is that the distance must be no less than the minimum distance between controls, in keeping with AUK's principle of "allure libre" ie free route between controls,

nothing's changed except the means by which the visiting of those same control points is recorded.

(from the website)

Plan your route
Planning a route is easy:


Decide on the distance. We validate rides at 50km, 100km, 150km, 200km, then at 100km intervals up to 1000km.
Design your route. Check carefully that the shortest distances between controls add up to at least the distance you nominated. It doesn't matter what route you actually ride, so long as it isn't possible to ride less than the nominated distance.
A good place to start is to place checkpoints at all the ‘corners’ of your route. This is simple if you use Google Maps set to ‘walking’, or Microsoft Autoroute with each section set to ‘shortest distance’.

REMEMBER! You don’t actually have to ride the shortest distance between your checkpoints. You can choose any route you like, as long as you pass through the checkpoints.

It may be worth finding out what software your local organiser uses to check route distances. It’s up to you to make sure your route meets the minimum distance rule.


if you want it changed to what you are suggesting the AGM is that way ->


Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2010, 04:01:40 pm »
The way Audax has evolved to embrace GPS technology is excellent, but isn't it important that in doing so it has to be careful not to give GPS users an advantage over those riders who don't have it?

If all the .gpx is doing is providing proof of passage through control points that a non-GPS user could do another way then all is well and good, but using it to prove a mileage between those controls would give the user an advantage.

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2010, 04:30:42 pm »
The way Audax has evolved to embrace GPS technology is excellent, but isn't it important that in doing so it has to be careful not to give GPS users an advantage over those riders who don't have it?

If all the .gpx is doing is providing proof of passage through control points that a non-GPS user could do another way then all is well and good,

Allready, that is an advantage. No scurrying around to find a control or having to rush to get there before the shop shuts. Presumably much easier to follow than a routesheet (I've never used GPS) almost certainly easier than stopping to unfold a map every now and then.
GPS are very advantageous, isn't that the point?
Owning a computer also gives some advantages over those who don't. Planning a DIY is now a breeze. I remember the days of planning Mesh rides with a crude Mesh map, road atlas and calculator. I'd still have to do similar if it wasn't for my computer. Twas a godsend in 2007 when I was planning 1000k of routes every week for the most part of 2 months, I can tell you.


Quote
but using it to prove a mileage between those controls would give the user an advantage.

The distance between controls has allready been proven because the route is OK'd by the DIY organiser before the actual ride takes place and all routes are subjected to the same scrutiny by the DIY organiser. Whether you take the shortest route or go a longer way is down to you. GPS, I expect, would help you keep to the shortest possible route. The GPS would only be evidence that you've cycled along that particular route.

Martin

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2010, 04:33:18 pm »
The way Audax has evolved to embrace GPS technology is excellent, but isn't it important that in doing so it has to be careful not to give GPS users an advantage over those riders who don't have it?

If all the .gpx is doing is providing proof of passage through control points that a non-GPS user could do another way then all is well and good, but using it to prove a mileage between those controls would give the user an advantage.

exactly; obviously gps does give an advantage over paper validation as there is no need to stop and obtain proof of passage (which may well be unobtainable otherwise) but it should not enable extra km over the shortest distance between controls;

this thread is sort of linked to the infos on perms one; hopefully it will be discussed at the AGM. My opinion is that wherever possible flexibility for accepting proof of passage should be allowed to the perm and DIY organisers; again with the aim of making it fairer all round.

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2010, 05:04:12 pm »
A very interesting topic/thread.

May I ask a two part question please, it's not specificly aimed at any individual.

Whom determines which 'Standard' is used for the route mapping, and what is/are their reason/s for this choice?
where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Martin

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2010, 05:10:18 pm »
A very interesting topic/thread.
Whom determines which 'Standard' is used for the route mapping, and what is/are their reason/s for this choice?

it is standard and has been since DIY perms were set up; Autoroute set to shortest distance (don't ask me about delivery vans or driving speeds) or viamichelin set to cycle; both give very similar results. I cannot comment on which means event secretaries use but I imagine it's AR.

vorsprung

  • Opposites Attract
    • Audaxing
Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2010, 06:25:07 pm »
Fidget me dear,
Just ride the 200 miles and don't bother with a perm form
Audaxing Blog follow @vorsprungbike on

mikewigley

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2010, 07:27:53 pm »
I think I agree with Mr Buzz.  You've signed up to do 300km that goes through those 4 points, and it's then up to you to prove your distance is worthy of validation.  If you've got a GPS then job done.  If not, then there is no way you could demonstrate the distance is right, without adding more controls in the first place.  But it's the rider's responsibility (as I see it) to prove the validation requirements have been met.

If we're accepting GPS as a valid measuring device, then let's use it properly (and sadly that doesn't yet include me).  How you rephrase the rules might be tricky, and I understand the deadline for AGM proposals has gone, but I suspect topics such as this might get an airing at the AGM as part of the Infos discussion.

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2010, 07:35:00 pm »
GPS should NOT make  the entry and approval any different.  The do permit controls to be selected which are not towns so one can make a route which is exactly 204km, when ridden and when checked using AR. Paper POP needs  a town and hence causes rides to be over distance as we need to ride to a town.

14 controls is OK, you just ride through a Grid Ref like you do hundreds more. A bit more effort in the planning and validations but it's only done once (Per ride for the validations but that's not the riders job)

Should be latitude and longitude IMO though since that is what all mapping software and GPS use. Conversion to GRid Ref depends on which algorithm once uses.

Martin

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2010, 07:59:39 pm »
I think I agree with Mr Buzz.  You've signed up to do 300km that goes through those 4 points, and it's then up to you to prove your distance is worthy of validation.  If you've got a GPS then job done.  If not, then there is no way you could demonstrate the distance is right, without adding more controls in the first place.  But it's the rider's responsibility (as I see it) to prove the validation requirements have been met.


unless I'm being incredibly dense; sorry but no you've also got the wrong end of the stick Mike;

DIY orgs are not given a gpx track to approve before the rider does the ride, where would they get it from? Bikely?

 we get a list of controls that we have to join the dots with to make sure the route meets the distance. Thus we have to treat a DIY gps entry the same as any other. The very tech-savvy riders I get requests from also send me an AR file with just the controls listed and hey presto it comes up with the distance; no gps required. I never get gpx routes to check before the ride.

can some other DIY orgs please confirm this? or else I'm going out and may be some time...

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2010, 08:04:37 pm »
The DIY-by-GPS method that was proposed separately (and trialled for a while)sounds like the solution to FB's problem.

He submits a proposed GPX track of his route showing that it is more than 300km. He then rides it, deciding on the day to take a slightly different route for 30km of it (due to traffic conditions) but it doesn't make much of a difference to the total distance ridden (still over 300km). A few usual proof-of-passage receipts/stamps are gathered along the way (since you'll probably be stopping for food at various places anyway) and you're all good.

This should be an addition to the current DIY schemes, not a way of using a tracklog as proof-of-passage for DIYs arranged through the current method.
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

RichForrest

  • T'is I, Silverback.
Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2010, 08:17:54 pm »
All the gps does is prove you've ridden the route through the controls you enter on the entry form.
The controls still have to add up to the proposed distance before you ride.
I use the 2005 version of autoroute which may vary from other versions. I've never had trouble when sending the .axe file to both Danial and Martin for any rides I've done.

Rich

red marley

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2010, 08:31:18 pm »
Should be latitude and longitude IMO though since that is what all mapping software and GPS use. Conversion to GRid Ref depends on which algorithm once uses.

Feel free to move my response to pedants' corner, but just a point of information: Latitude and longitude do not give you a unique and precise location on the ground. They represent a vector from the centre of an imaginary ellipsoid. You also need the ellipsoid details (usually, but by no means always WGS84) to be certain of the location. Most differences when converting to UK National Grid (which uses the Airy 1830 ellipsoid) are because of different assumptions about the ellipsoid, not an error the algorithm as such. GPS store the ellipsoid they use and will do correct conversions when reprojecting, so it makes little difference to accuracy what projection system is used.

The reality is that the errors by using an incorrect ellipsoid are no more than a few hundred metres on the ground, so have no real bearing (pun intended) on Audax distances.

As you were.

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2010, 10:15:54 pm »
Should be latitude and longitude IMO though since that is what all mapping software and GPS use. Conversion to GRid Ref depends on which algorithm once uses.

Feel free to move my response to pedants' corner, but just a point of information: Latitude and longitude do not give you a unique and precise location on the ground. They represent a vector from the centre of an imaginary ellipsoid. You also need the ellipsoid details (usually, but by no means always WGS84) to be certain of the location. Most differences when converting to UK National Grid (which uses the Airy 1830 ellipsoid) are because of different assumptions about the ellipsoid, not an error the algorithm as such. GPS store the ellipsoid they use and will do correct conversions when reprojecting, so it makes little difference to accuracy what projection system is used.

The reality is that the errors by using an incorrect ellipsoid are no more than a few hundred metres on the ground, so have no real bearing (pun intended) on Audax distances.

As you were.
It would still save us the bother of using a converter if the entry page asked for lat & lon and not GRs <- that is my point.  The GPS is not used (by me) in planning a ride, map software is and these give me Lat & Lon (autoroute, Google Maps do anyway) . GEtting TRacklogs is not a viable solution.

Martin

Re: DIYs / Track logs / Shortest distances
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2010, 10:20:04 pm »
GR's; and lat/long are optional on the entry form; an address will do, otherwise email the organiser and expalin where the control is; we can find it by AR