Control Codes or Not?

[MichaelRaz]

Looking for some feedback.  Most of the "events" I have set include multiple courses on a map and I generally use Purple Pen to produce the maps (including Control Descriptions) and the IOF Course File that I parse into the KMLs for each course.  This means that (as per a standard multi-course event) the Control Descriptions on the map include the control sequence (i.e. Control 1,2,3...) and the corresponding Control Codes (i.e. 31,34,51...).  This is all pretty normal back when things were normal and actual control codes are on the boxes in the field.  Our results system and RouteGadget displayed everything based on the Control number (not code).  With MapRunF results, the Control Codes are used rather than the Control Sequence which makes it much more difficult to compare controls visited, see which ones have been missed, etc.

It is very easy for me to modify my process to convert the resulting KML files to be renumbered using the  control sequence rather than the code as, since each course is considered separate in MapRunF, the codes are not needed with the end product.  This would then have each separate course show up in the results with controls S1,1,2,3..F1.

Am I missing anything?  I cannot find anyway to not use the Codes in Purple Pen on the Control Description sheets (other than manually editing each PDF map) but this is minor.

[Robyn Rennie]

Hi Michael - we also use Purple Pen for course planning and then export each course to a GPX file from Purple Pen. One of our club members has written a couple of routines available here - https://tools.widmann.ca/ - which convert the GPX file into a KML file suitable for upload to MapRunF. Then the controls are numbered 1,2,3, etc. rather than using the control numbers. His routine for a score course leaves the control numbers alone as that is more common with a score course.

[MichaelRaz]

Thanks Robyn,

That confirms what I wanted to check.  

I saw (and played with) the routines from your club member - nice.  I'm using some code I wrote (really an extension of stuff I already had for RouteGadget conversions  so it was easy to modify).  Because I get the files from different course setters using different planning software I've just updated my routine  to take in XML V2 (and convert the UTM to LonLat) or V3 file and produce the KML files needed - I generally find it easier not to ask people for anything new!!!  Unfortunately, I'm not a web coder so my stuff is a Windows executable - once I finish up a few things I'll certainly offer it for sharing (more tools the better) but understand the difficulty distributing and maintaining a windows program, no matter how small.

Next Event I'll publish the KMLs with controls in sequence - should make it much easier to review the results.

Michael

[Robyn Rennie]

But check that you don't run into the issue here - http://maprun.250607.n8.nabble.com/Hub-Controls-on-a-course-causes-lots-of-extra-beeping-td242.html because this is what happens if you don't use control codes. So not sure of the complete workaround.

[MichaelRaz]

Yes, it would not work exactly the same with a hub but still easier than a sequence of ‘random’ control codes in the results.  Thanks