GPS for PERMS

[Greenbank]

Just because everyone is happy and noone is known to have cheated, doesn't mean a system is perfect.

I think members should be allowed to give their opinions on what validation is appropriate

absolutely; it's an evolving system. But the answer to the theoretical hacking problem is not to go back to it being paper based (if only partly). If we were to go down that route a mobile phone camera (yes even I have one of them now, it was free, and no contract!) photo would be a lot easier.

Most people with a GPS will have a digital camera or mobile phone with camera. Attaching a digital photo of the receipt to the same email as the GPX tracklog wouldn't be too hard.

But the problem (IMHO) of less reliable 'proof' still exists, irrespective of how easily it can be solved or whether any proposed solution is workable or not.

TBH the paper based perms I have done have been no different to the GPS ones in that respect, I've stopped at the same Tescos, petrol stations and cafes, just that at some I've had a card to stamp or a receipt to get.

and one was the Dun Run; could not have done that by paper

Why? I did the Dun Run as a DIY with paper receipts. Dorking (ATM at the station), Hackney (Tesco), Great Dunmow (ATM), Needham Market (ATM), Dunwich (receipt from cafe at the beach), Needham Market (Shop), Great Dunmow (Shop or ATM), Putney (ATM).

My backup plans for Dunwich were digital photos of me by the Dunwich roadsign, or getting someone there to sign the card and provide contact details (there were a few of the LFGSS lot there that I knew would be there).

[Manotea]

Now, translate that event to some individual in the UK pottering around following his/her gps track, not speaking to a soul all day, practically invisible to the wider world.

To all intents and purposes you've just described a typical audax, calendar & perm.

Company is the exception not the rule. It's the downside of the 'ride at your own pace' thing.

Or maybe it's just me...

Coda: I did go through a brief period when I was uber fit and could just about ride grupetto with fast types like IanH & co and 200km turned into a sort of extended club run but that was long ago...

[saturn]

I think members should be allowed to give their opinions on what validation is appropriate: that's not the same thing as rubbishing a particular kind of event, and it isn't necessarily a criticism of the volunteers doing the validation.

Absolutely but it's possible that the contents are less likely to be so vociferous leading to imbalance - indeed having initially read this thread with interest, I was on the verge of ignoring it but I felt that doing so without expressing my contentedness would be unfair to those who introduced the new system.

[mattc]

Now, translate that event to some individual in the UK pottering around following his/her gps track, not speaking to a soul all day, practically invisible to the wider world.

To all intents and purposes you've just described a typical audax, calendar & perm.

Company is the exception not the rule. It's the downside of the 'ride at your own pace' thing.

Or maybe it's just me...

Every ride I've seen you on, you at least gave the appearance of talking to people working at controls!

[Martin]

Why? I did the Dun Run as a DIY with paper receipts
Hackney (Tesco), Great Dunmow (ATM), Needham Market (ATM), Dunwich (receipt from cafe at the beach
[/quote]

add the 9.5 shortest route from Paddington and the 12km down to the (closed) newsagent in Leiston  which I did and it comes up 10km short  

[DanialW]

Imagine doing an event in France. In the designated control town you wander into a bar and ask for your brevet cards to be signed. The owner and perhaps the customers show interest and ask questions. You have a chat, then continue on your way. There is camaraderie between you and them. You wouldn't dream of (let's say) turning up in a car and asking for your card to be signed.

My experience of doing a perm in France.

"Excusez moi... avez-vous un tampon pour mon brevet s'il-vous plait?"
**CLUNK**
"merci"

[Martin]

Imagine doing an event in France. In the designated control town you wander into a bar and ask for your brevet cards to be signed. The owner and perhaps the customers show interest and ask questions. You have a chat, then continue on your way. There is camaraderie between you and them. You wouldn't dream of (let's say) turning up in a car and asking for your card to be signed.

My experience of doing a perm in France.

"Excusez moi... avez-vous un tamponpour mon brevet s'il-vous plait?"
**CLUNK**
"merci"

check   even in the cafe at the top of the Ventoux; and at the BDT in 2 other towns

was it a red stamp? 

[Manotea]

Why? I did the Dun Run as a DIY with paper receipts
Hackney (Tesco), Great Dunmow (ATM), Needham Market (ATM), Dunwich (receipt from cafe at the beach

add the 9.5 shortest route from Paddington and the 12km down to the (closed) newsagent in Leiston  which I did and it comes up 10km short  

That's because you didn't take a proper long cut to London Fields (via Kingston in my case). Get a receipt? Heck, I've slept in the ATM lobby at Great Dunmow on a solo there and back 400km, sniff.

[frankly frankie]

Well I've just seen the Minutes of the recent AGM (to be published in due course) and in particular the revised Reg 5.8 - the wording agreed by the AGM is

5.8 Brevet Cards shall be available to entrants for all AUK events.  Where Brevet Cards are used, 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.

As I read it, this enables DIY by GPS (in a way that it wasn't, before the alteration) -

1.  Use of GPS track as proof-of-passage through the predetermined control places. ...  And it should be extensible to non-DIY perms (where the Org agrees) as 3peaker is suggesting.

by saying "Where brevet cards are used ..." the regulation allows the possibility of events without brevet cards.

However, it blocks this alternative form -

2.  Use of GPS to follow a predetermined DIY route.  This would have the advantages that control points don't need to be specified at all, so the route could be as convoluted as you like, and it would also make the route itself 'compulsory' which many people see as a good thing.

by saying "Brevet Cards shall be available to entrants for all AUK events." it eliminates any events where a brevet card could not be used.  Which might also include a few X-rated events if they rely entirely on till receipts.

That's a shame.

[Martin]

by saying "Brevet Cards shall be available to entrants for all AUK events." it eliminates any events where a brevet card could not be used.  Which might also include a few X-rated events if they rely entirely on till receipts.

That's a shame.

I was at the AGM; the wording was amended IIRC; I think it meant that on a non-GPS perm a card had to be supplied. For a GPS a card could be provided if the rider really wanted one (they already exist on entries received via the website, and could just be printed off)

[Manotea]

However, it blocks this alternative form -

2.  Use of GPS to follow a predetermined DIY route.  This would have the advantages that control points don't need to be specified at all, so the route could be as convoluted as you like, and it would also make the route itself 'compulsory' which many people see as a good thing.

by saying "Brevet Cards shall be available to entrants for all AUK events." it eliminates any events where a brevet card could not be used.  Which might also include a few X-rated events if they rely entirely on till receipts.

That's a shame.

IIRC the *ALL* was a response to Reid's request that a traditional (paper) Brevet should always be available to a rider should he decide he wanted one for whatever reason as he felt this offered a measure of protection against being forced to go online/use a GPS.

However AFAICT the regulations do not include a prescriptive definition of either a Brevet or a Control.

Thus in the case of an event where the route is described by a GPS track, the Brevet could have two control fields (start & finish) with the track representing the 'control stamp' for both, or something like that.

This does rather circumvent the settlement made with Reid at the AGM.

Edit: Reg 5.7 says "... riders checked through a series of controls which have predetermined opening and closing times and which must be published in the brevet card for calendared events.", which suggests the 'GPS Track BR' would have just one control where the opening and closing times represent the start and (last possible) end time of the (calendar) ride.

[PloddinPedro]

You asked for evidence that GPS validation was less reliable, and I gave you my opinion of why it is. .....................

That's your opinion but is it fact? I may be wrong on this but my understanding is that the authors of the validation software had devised something sufficiently sophisticated to detect this apparently simple tinkering. But let's suppose you are right and the whole GPS thing is very easy to fiddle. In order to justify your amendment to the GPS method you would have to believe there was a real liklihood of some people actually cheating. If cheats do actually exist, your amendment does very little indeed to thwart them and is therefore ineffective. The GPS method admittedly would require the cheat to acquire fewer receipts than he/she would in order to cheat the paper based system but in contrast, it would require a degree of computer skills that not everyone has. The digital trickery might be easy for a  knowledgeable chap like you but I couldn't do it. If I were to cheat, I'd have to drive around the whole course and hang around to get receipts at credible times.

The fact that on an average DIY you usually pass somewhere where you can get a receipt is irrelevant. The issue is that as you describe it, the purpose would be to prevent cheating. And it wouldn't, so it's pointless. If you then argue that the GPS system without any paper evidence at all can be fiddled from the comfort of your armchair, you have to suppose that there are latent cheats out who have previously been too lazy to cheat the paper based system but who now suddenly see an opportunity to commence cheating. Neither of us can know this but I feel that this is somehow unlikely. If I interpret you correctly, you seem to feel that this is a risk. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on it!

In the context of an activity for which there are very few tangible or intangible rewards, I don't believe the cheating risk is such that complex and cumbersome monitoring procedures are necessary. This has been the historic view during the paper based system and I just don't believe the advent of the digital system changes human nature in this regard. In which case, a nice slick, easy and simple system does the best job of facilitating long distance cycling and I feel that's what we've now got and I'm well pleased with it!

[Ian H]

...a nice slick, easy and simple system does the best job of facilitating long distance cycling...

True, but that's not necessarily the same thing as riding an AUK event. Entering and riding an event requires a few formalities. The basis of an AUK event is prior declaration of what you're going to attempt and then proof that you have done it. The proof needs to be reasonably reliable evidence that you've ridden the event - that is, more than mere self-certification. 

[PloddinPedro]

...a nice slick, easy and simple system does the best job of facilitating long distance cycling...

True, but that's not necessarily the same thing as riding an AUK event. Entering and riding an event requires a few formalities. The basis of an AUK event is prior declaration of what you're going to attempt and then proof that you have done it. The proof needs to be reasonably reliable evidence that you've ridden the event - that is, more than mere self-certification. 

Sorry Ian, I'm not sure what you're saying here. I don't disagree with anything you said, until we get to the "self-certification" bit, where I'm unsure what you mean. Are you saying that the new GPS validation method isn't sufficient proof, or is too close to "self-certification"?

[Ian H]

...or is too close to "self-certification"?

Arguably.

[Martin]

...or is too close to "self-certification"?

Arguably.

is it acceptable for validation or not? I'd like a defnite answer.

[Ian H]

...or is too close to "self-certification"?

Arguably.

is it acceptable for validation or not? I'd like a defnite answer.

Yes. I'm just expressing a personal opinion on Greenbank's comments.

[Martin]

...or is too close to "self-certification"?

Arguably.

is it acceptable for validation or not? I'd like a defnite answer.

Yes. I'm just expressing a personal opinion on Greenbank's comments.

Thanks 

[MSeries]

...or is too close to "self-certification"?

Arguably.

is it acceptable for validation or not? I'd like a defnite answer.

Yes. I'm just expressing a personal opinion on Greenbank's comments.

That;s just dIY perms though ? Or all perms ?

[frankly frankie]

... I don't believe the cheating risk is such that complex and cumbersome monitoring procedures are necessary.

But where does that leave AUK?  You wanna ride your bike - go ahead.  
You wanna prove it (for whatever reason) that's where AUK tries to help, and obviously there are going to be standards.

[JayP]

Distance = 205km
Climbing = 2,366m
Duration = 12 hours 6 minutes
Start Time  = 24 Nov 2010 07:15:48
Finish Time = 24 Nov 2010 19:22:16
Minimum Altitude = 3m
Maximum Altitude = 430m
Total number of trackpoints in gpx file      = 2,958
Number of points separated by more than 150m = 169
Largest distance between 2 trackpoints       = 233m
Number of trackpoints used to measure climb  = 1,799
Total climb if measured with all trackpoints = 2,591m
Percentage of ride within max speed limits = 100.0%
Average Speed - Overall = 16.9kph
Average Speed - Moving  = 18.6kph
Time At Rest = 1 hours 5 minutes


The above is a set of summary statistics sent to me by my DIY org recently.
If do this ride again, say every single day for the next month, what are the chances that this particular summary (less date data) will be exactly duplicated at least once?  I suspect next to nothing.
If I was GB's DIY org and he sent me his fiddled time file. I may well notice that he had previously done the same ride and sent me a file with the same number trackpoints separated by more than 150m , the largest distance between two trackpoints equal to 233m etc etc. I may well then look closer and the deception would be revealed.
In order to avoid detection on the grounds of non uniqueness GB would have to carry TWO gps units on his ride and sumbmit one file on completion and the other, with a fiddled date stamp, at a later date.  That might work. 

[PloddinPedro]

... I don't believe the cheating risk is such that complex and cumbersome monitoring procedures are necessary.

But where does that leave AUK?  You wanna ride your bike - go ahead.  
You wanna prove it (for whatever reason) that's where AUK tries to help, and obviously there are going to be standards.

So what's your point? GPS standards have to be much harder than paper based standards? That the paper based method isn't cheatable? You agree that GPS requirements should be supplemented by paper evidence?

[Martin]

The above is a set of summary statistics sent to me by my DIY org recently.
If do this ride again, say every single day for the next month, what are the chances that this particular summary (less date data) will be exactly duplicated at least once?  I suspect next to nothing.

but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?  

more worrying is that someone could ride a DIY not by GPS and then submit the track later having changed the date and entered as a DIY by GPS, chance of this happening about 0.00000000000000000000001% higher;

or just slip a GPS into Peter T's Carradice when he's not looking?

[Greenbank]

The above is a set of summary statistics sent to me by my DIY org recently.
If do this ride again, say every single day for the next month, what are the chances that this particular summary (less date data) will be exactly duplicated at least once?  I suspect next to nothing.
If I was GB's DIY org and he sent me his fiddled time file.

No, I've got 30 different GPX files from 30 different times I've done that ride (or different rides). I wouldn't be submitting the same file (with dates changed) over and over again.

[Wothill]

The above is a set of summary statistics sent to me by my DIY org recently.
If do this ride again, say every single day for the next month, what are the chances that this particular summary (less date data) will be exactly duplicated at least once?  I suspect next to nothing.
If I was GB's DIY org and he sent me his fiddled time file.

No, I've got 30 different GPX files from 30 different times I've done that ride (or different rides). I wouldn't be submitting the same file (with dates changed) over and over again.

I can see how that would make you less likely to be spotted, but you have added another ingredient: your supposed cheat is now also a keen audaxer who has 30 files to choose from in sending in a duplicate. The more genuine rides you do, the less likely you are to be a cheat, I would have thought.