Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Keep it simple.

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Thus it does end up being a matter of trust.
    I suggest you check the school/university/regiment of the contender so you can be confident they are the "right sort".
    "...as dry as the Atacama desert".

  2. #42
    Master JohnK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Derby Tup View Post
    What are recent annual attempt numbers like Bob? I thought they peaked a few years ago. Is there not a finite amount of folk willing / interested / capable of doing it

    John, I don't suppose the guy you met does a third of them in the dark?
    After an interesting chat with him I have the feeling he would have no qualms about doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
    Of course GPS "proof" is no such thing - it just means the device has done the round - a pair or a group could get together and share each other's "solo" rounds - though I doubt this would ever be done.


    Similarly there could be a group watch reset when somebody just fails to make the 24 hours - but too many would have to accept this to make it a serious problem.
    Neither is a piece of paper that can be made to look weathered and filled in whilst downing a few cans with your mates at home.
    At least with a GPS if the same trace is used more than once it would be easy to spot and a pattern would emerge

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Short of having permanent logging stations at every summit and then strapping the dibber to the contender (in the same way as happens at mountain marathons) there's no practical way to prove that the contender does visit every summit. Thus it does end up being a matter of trust.

    There have been occasions this year when GPS devices have failed, both to show that the contender visited a summit and that they completed the round due to the device freezing or malfunctioning in some way. It's not a common occurrence but it does happen. I think I'd be pretty annoyed if I relied on such a device for ratification only to find out after I'd finished that it hadn't recorded everything.





    Simple answer to that is that the club gets to maintain its tradition of trust that you mention
    Last edited by JohnK; 21-08-2017 at 08:58 PM.
    The older I get the Faster I was

  3. #43
    Master Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Darkest eckythumpland
    Posts
    1,623
    John, if you "understood" the safety issue then you'd appreciate and realise why even tacitly encouraging people who may be unprepared for a long day on their own in the fells isn't the best idea. Morgan wrote this for the Club website, the fourth paragraph is particularly pertinent. And in case you don't know what an "unincorporated body" means in UK law. Some more info here and I'm sure that there are plenty more pages to expand upon the basics.

    Ultimately we are recorders not policemen, hence the comment about trust. A typical ratification form probably takes about five minutes to process, verify and then respond to the successful contender, that's assuming everything is correct of course, some, shall we say, take a lot longer. All that is done in my spare time, willingly. Even in the paper days, the Club didn't ask for the actual bits of paper used on the Round itself, only the current spreadsheet's predecessor. Verifying a GPX track? Crikey! Here's a sample point from a walk up in Scotland I've the data for:

    <trkpt lat="57.7372156642" lon="-5.0899013970"><ele>281.47</ele><time>2017-08-09T08:32:05Z</time><extensions><gpxtpx:TrackPointExtension><gpxt px:atemp>11.4</gpxtpx:atemp></gpxtpx:TrackPointExtension></extensions></trkpt>

    That file has that block of data for every 13 seconds or so for 8 hours, no way am I filtering through that by hand. Obviously you wouldn't do that so load it into a mapping program or web site. I've then to go to every one of the 42 summits and the four road crossings and get the time and how long the contender took from the last check point. I think that's going to take considerably longer than checking a spreadsheet. The next step is to filter based on proximity to the known locations of the summits and put those times into something more suitable like, ooh, let's see. a spreadsheet.

    There are websites that allow the user to pass a GPX file and speed up the time taken between points, add "jitter" so that the resulting file doesn't look too similar to the original - ten decimal points for the lat and long? replace the last three with a random number between 000 & 999. How the hell am I going to spot that?

    I'm not some anti-technology Luddite, my job is very much tech based, nor am I claiming the current system is perfect, but by and large it works and I don't see any pressing need to throw that baby out with the bathwater.
    Bob

    http://bobwightman.co.uk/run/bob_graham.php

    Without me you'd be one place nearer the back

  4. #44
    Master JohnK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    1,403
    [QUOTE=Bob;635015]John, if you "understood" the safety issue then you'd appreciate and realise why even tacitly encouraging people who may be unprepared for a long day on their own in the fells isn't the best idea. Morgan wrote this for the Club website, the fourth paragraph is particularly pertinent. And in case you don't know what an "unincorporated body" means in UK law. Some more info here and I'm sure that there are plenty more pages to expand upon the basics.

    Ultimately we are recorders not policemen, hence the comment about trust. A typical ratification form probably takes about five minutes to process, verify and then respond to the successful contender, that's assuming everything is correct of course, some, shall we say, take a lot longer. All that is done in my spare time, willingly. Even in the paper days, the Club didn't ask for the actual bits of paper used on the Round itself, only the current spreadsheet's predecessor. Verifying a GPX track? Crikey! Here's a sample point from a walk up in Scotland I've the data for:

    <trkpt lat="57.7372156642" lon="-5.0899013970"><ele>281.47</ele><time>2017-08-09T08:32:05Z</time><extensions><gpxtpx:TrackPointExtension><gpxt px:atemp>11.4</gpxtpx:atemp></gpxtpx:TrackPointExtension></extensions></trkpt>

    That file has that block of data for every 13 seconds or so for 8 hours, no way am I filtering through that by hand. Obviously you wouldn't do that so load it into a mapping program or web site. I've then to go to every one of the 42 summits and the four road crossings and get the time and how long the contender took from the last check point. I think that's going to take considerably longer than checking a spreadsheet. The next step is to filter based on proximity to the known locations of the summits and put those times into something more suitable like, ooh, let's see. a spreadsheet.

    There are websites that allow the user to pass a GPX file and speed up the time taken between points, add "jitter" so that the resulting file doesn't look too similar to the original - ten decimal points for the lat and long? replace the last three with a random number between 000 & 999. How the hell am I going to spot that?

    I'm not some anti-technology Luddite, my job is very much tech based, nor am I claiming the current system is perfect, but by and large it works and I don't see any pressing need to throw that baby out with the bathwater.[/QUOTE


    Bob as I said in my original post I am not having a dig at anything or anybody, just expressing my opinion and up until your last post, which I feel shows a degree of agitation. I felt that there were some interesting points being made which could have led to constructive debate.

    However if I have in anyway irritated you then I apologise and will in future refrain from expressing and discussing my opinion.
    All the best to you.
    Last edited by JohnK; 21-08-2017 at 10:17 PM.
    The older I get the Faster I was

  5. #45
    Master Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Darkest eckythumpland
    Posts
    1,623
    Neither agitated nor irritated so no need to apologise nor refrain from voicing your opinion. I was merely pointing out, perhaps a little forcibly, that GPX data doesn't really offer any advantages over the current system, or rather, it brings with it a whole new raft of problems from technical to legal. A case of the Emperor's new Clothes.
    Bob

    http://bobwightman.co.uk/run/bob_graham.php

    Without me you'd be one place nearer the back

  6. #46
    Master TheReverand's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Gods own country, Hartlepool
    Posts
    1,459
    One option that would help with the erosion in the Back o' Skiddaw (but only that area) would be to only allow anti-clockwise rounds for a few years.

    [/QUOTE]

    Another might go something like this " in an effort to help the sensitive areas of the round recover, the BG club will not be accepting any new entries in the calendar year of 2019. We would also encourage runners not to recce said sensitive areas during this time .... "

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South South Pennines
    Posts
    142
    For me, when I come to the BGR or PBR (I plan to in the next 10 years), I will do it 'on sight' with minimal fuss; no pacers or carriers (a mate if they want to?), no road support (unless my dad offers) and just see how it goes. Being fit, having good nav and excellent mountain sense will go some way to getting me through. I've only been on 1/3 of each round, but have studied the maps so know what to expect. Do my training elsewhere so as to minimise my erosion on the route.
    I'm not fussed about being a member of a club, the environmental impact of a traditional round is too much and I don't like to rely on other people too much.
    That is how I am. I appreciate others want to do it differently; this makes their round or mine neither less or more valid, just different.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •