ITT GPX Compliance. When is it a fail or worse, cheating?

[Ray Young]

I was talking to someone who intends to do the Borders 350 and he has already ridden some sections where the gpx route would have taken him off the obvious path to take and one bikehike section specifically where when I rode it there was little vegetation but when he rode it it was chest high bracken. On this section there is a clear quad bike track that is not marked on the maps but would take him to the same place as the gpx route. The quad track is slightly shorter but takes a steeper climb so I see no advantage in using it and would not consider it cheating.

Below is my take on route adherence and was wondering what other people's opinions are.

With regards to sticking to the exact gpx line I am happy for anyone to wander off course at times so long as it is within reason. If you can see the a better track near to the one marked that leads in the same general direction and is not shortening the course to a great degree then by all means use it, or if the obvious path deviates a bit from the gpx then again use it. In self supported ITT's we often have to take what people have done on trust, after all if someone cheats (and I don't believe that has entered our sport yet) then they are only cheating themselves. As long as you can honestly say to yourself you didn't cut corners or miles then i'm happy and I can honestly say that I can see nothing wrong with your slight deviations.
I'm sure you know that tracks on the ground can change over time and not be reflected on OS maps especially since the widespread use of quad bikes by farmers whilst other paths can become unused and overgrown. Langlee crags is a prime example of this. The track going straight up would be acceptable, it is a bit shorter yes but it is also steeper so I wouldn't see any time advantage gained in using it.

[Bearbonesnorm]

I think what you've said is spot on Ray. There's massive scope for wandering off a gps trace especially on moorland sections or at night. As long as no one has knowingly shortened the route and is simply trying to pick the path of least resistance, then there's no harm done. The final section of the 2016 BB200 is a prime example - it appeared that no two people took exactly the same line even though there was a (faint) track on the ground, a BW indicated on the map and a first hand gpx line to follow.

[Scattamah]

Personally...I try my damnedest to stick to the supplied GPX as that's what everyone is supposedly given. To the point where the 2015 BB200, I did the bracken surfing instead of being sane and going slightly lower along the fence line where one would've save significant time.

This all stems from my first big ride with a GPX - TD. Matt is strict on it and I'd invested so much time/effort/cash into the attempt that I wasn't about to make a little deviation score me a DQ. Didn't matter as I scratched, but I did later on find out I'd taken a fire road vs the old Lewis and Carrol trail on Stemple Pass and would've had to DQ myself anyways. So sticking to the route is now built-in to me.

But there comes a point where the GPX can only be a guide - in Spain for example, where the GPX didn't show the bridge but went straight across a high speed train line. It was at that point where I had to make the deviation I stopped caring if I was on track or not.

All that said...you're correct Ray in that you're only cheating yourself. We enter these events to test ourselves. Why bother if you're going to half-arse it?

/me hands the soapbox to the next speaker...

Greetz

S.

[whitestone]

I'm sure many of us could come up with examples where the "right of way" on a map bears no resemblance to anything that you'd follow on the ground. One that springs to mind on these discussions is the footpath on Moel Hebog near Beddgelert http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=256681 ... &A=Y&Z=115 which by my reckoning goes via a line just right of the highest point in this shot





Let's just say most people follow the black dashed line shown on the map which does exist on the ground.

GPX files/tracks aren't millimetre or even metre accurate over their entire length, a bit of common sense should prevail. GPS units themselves aren't that accurate either. There are often many more minor tracks and trods on moorland than could possibly be mapped or even seen from satellite images and it's quite possible to end up on a sheep track that ever so gradually has diverged from the path you should be on, by the time you realise it's a bit of heather bashing to get back to the right one. On last September's Cairngorms Loop there were a few minor deviations to get across swollen burns but there was no intent to take advantage and we returned to the appropriate point on the opposite bank.

The GPX for the HT550 alongside Cam Loch near Ledmore is actually shown as in the loch! The closest you can ride is along the beach.

My take is that I'll provide a GPS trace of where I've ridden and if I've deviated from the route and can't explain it to the organiser and I'm DNF'd then so be it. The deviation is more than likely accidental but so what, part of the challenge is to follow the route provided. As Ray notes, things change and if getting between A & B isn't quite "on track" then so what. (I realise that I've probably completely contradicted myself with those two statements! )

[Bearbonesnorm]

I personally believe that the really important things are honesty (maybe call in honour) on the part of the rider and trust on the part of the 'organiser'. If those two things are balanced, then we'll not go far wrong.

[ZeroDarkBivi]

"Trust, but verify..."

My thoughts on this are probably not universally shared! If it is a mass start event (a race by most perspectives), then people should stick to the GPX or as closely as reasonable, unless they can provide a strong justification for deviating. If they are presenting evidence of a completion, then again, it should be a similar criteria, with perhaps a bit more latitude for specific circumstances on the day. If it is to claim a Fastest Known Time, well I just don't really buy into that, or the concept of an ITT in general. Even in normal cycling TTs, there can be a big element of luck as the conditions on the day change over the course of the event, providing an advantage to those at one end of the starting order. With bikepacking, the difference in conditions experienced can have a massive bearing on the time taken to complete the ride, so much that it invalidates any claim of who the best rider is.

Of course I know some people will not agree with this, and there will always be those who want to chase records - It's human nature. And I do appreciate that the bigger the challenge, the more difficult it is to have a proper race, or even a standardised criteria - fastest Munro round or Round the World, for example. There are some remarkable achievements in this field, but are they the result of talent (as we tend to associate with conventional competition), or Planning / Logistics / Support / Luck...? The more I think about it the less faith I have in competition in general; the win at any cost philosophy, the whole concept of what makes the winner (genetics Vs application), the ego and vanity that drive it all... but I am now wittering!

[Ray Young]

Something else I just thought of. The quad track at Longlee Crags, which is in England, is not a legal right of way so as route author I had to use the bridleway even though at certain times of year it's not rideable .

[Bearbonesnorm]

Something else I just thought of. The quad track at Longlee Crags, which is in England, is not a legal right of way so as route author I had to use the bridleway even though at certain times of year it's not rideable .

Good point Ray and something I've needed to explain on a few occasions following the BB200.

[ScotRoutes]

Some GPX routes are not being updated to reflect conditions on the ground. Glen Feshie on the Cairngorms Loop has undergone significant change since the route was first published. The landowner has built and improved some tracks - so that's where all the traffic goes leaving older tracks to be grown-over - and the River Feshie has been doing it's own resculpting leaving the original route in the river. The deviations are not major and it would surely be churlish to penalise anyone for adapting to the current realitè.

BB2016 had one descent that resulted in me pushing my bike down through shoulder-high bracken 8n the dark while other participants were taking a literal shortcut down a narrow track. I (obviously wrongly) assumed that this was against the rules/spirit of the event, though it's equally likely that the supplied GPX file had been drawn rather than ridden at that section.

[Pickers]

My issue is not one of strict compliance with a GPX file - they're not that accurate and can show slightly differently on different devices. To my mind you use the track as you see it on the ground (assuming its a proper RoW). So long as it's within 100 metres or so of the intended route there's not going to be a significant difference overall. I have a bit of an issue with people abusing the trust of the event organiser and claiming a finish when they've blatantly not even come close to completing the course. That's cheating.
I have less of an issue with overall records such as LeJog - they will all have taken place under the most favourable conditions and people doing this wait until the conditions are at their best.

[ZeroDarkBivi]

Glen Feshie on the Cairngorms Loop has undergone significant change since the route was first published. The landowner has built and improved some tracks - so that's where all the traffic goes leaving older tracks to be grown-over - and the River Feshie has been doing it's own resculpting leaving the original route in the river.

That's why I want to do a recce before the 'event' rather than finding myself stumbling along a non-existent track, at night, crossing water at the wrong place, etc, following the line on the screen!

[ianfitz]

Glen Feshie on the Cairngorms Loop has undergone significant change since the route was first published. The landowner has built and improved some tracks - so that's where all the traffic goes leaving older tracks to be grown-over - and the River Feshie has been doing it's own resculpting leaving the original route in the river.

That's why I want to do a recce before the 'event' rather than finding myself stumbling along a non-existent track, at night, crossing water at the wrong place, etc, following the line on the screen!

Glen Tilt is pretty obvious. I rode it at night with the old GPX. And survived. There's really only one track to choose from.

That said I did email Colin and ask him for an updated one!

[ianfitz]

Glen Feshie on the Cairngorms Loop has undergone significant change since the route was first published. The landowner has built and improved some tracks - so that's where all the traffic goes leaving older tracks to be grown-over - and the River Feshie has been doing it's own resculpting leaving the original route in the river.

That's why I want to do a recce before the 'event' rather than finding myself stumbling along a non-existent track, at night, crossing water at the wrong place, etc, following the line on the screen!

Glen Tilt is pretty obvious. I rode it at night with the old GPX. And survived. There's really only one track to choose from.

That said I did email Colin and ask him for an updated one!