Brevet Route Policies and Process for RBAs and submitters
To submit a route for review, an RBA or their representative completes this form no later than 5 weeks prior to the earliest event using the route. For minor changes that don’t affect the course (route name, etc) you can send email to routes@rusa.org.
To submit either a new or updated route for review the following information is required:
1. RBA Name and Email address.
2. Submitters name and email address. This should be the person to whom questions about the route (cc: RBA) should be directed if other than the RBA.
3. Region. The region that will own the route as listed on the RUSA site e.g., WA: Seattle
4. Local region reviewer, if any. This is a local rider that is familiar with the area and route and is highly encouraged but not mandatory. If used it should contain the name and email of the reviewer.
5. Route name. The name of the route. This should match the ridewithgps route name and is how you’d like it to appear in the RUSA routes database.
6. Type of event (Allure Libre, Audax or both) that will be held using this route. Note that the rules and placement of controls are different for each event type. If the route is to be used for Audax events, the Audax committee should be contacted before the route is submitted.
7. States covered. All of the states that the route passes through.
8. Distance. The total distance of the route in kilometers as shown with the "units" setting in ridewithgps set to "metric". Note that the routes committee truncates the distance so e.g., a 208.7K route would be entered as 208K.
9. Route URL. A link to the ridewithgps file for the route. For multi-day routes (600K or more) a ridewithgps collection should be used with separate entries for each day plus the entire route.
10. Brevet route number. Enter the existing route if this is an update to an existing route.
11. Route cue sheet. The submission must contain a cue sheet for the route. This can take one of two forms:
1. It can be embedded in the ridewithgps file. Riders that want a cue sheet will then print it from ridewithgps.
2. A separate file that you upload in PDF or spreadsheet format.
12. Expected first use date. This is when you plan on holding a brevet using this route.
13. Total unpaved distance. If the route has a section that is unpaved (dirt, gravel), indicate the total number of K's. If this distance is different than that indicated in the linked ridewithgps file, please explain the difference in the comments.
14. Comments. This field is your opportunity to communicate to the reviewer on the routes committee. Some examples of things that might be useful:
1. If you're converting an existing permanent route to a brevet, the perm #
2. If you're making changes to an existing brevet route, the route #
3. If there's something you think the reviewer might question, this is your chance to anticipate those questions and provide answers. An example might be a significant/major shortcut that you don't think is viable or safe, an explanation for a long distance between controls where you might have a staffed or secret control, etc.
What the routes committee sees after you've submitted your route for review is a spreadsheet that is ordered by submission date. In most cases, a reviewer simply takes the next route that doesn't already have a reviewer assigned (FIFO). There are some exceptions where a route might be taken out of turn:
■ the reviewer doesn't have a lot of time and chooses a route that can be reviewed quickly. This is done both to provide good customer service and to keep the list of routes to be reviewed small.
■ a route that will take a long time to review e.g., a 1200K. A route reviewer might take this on while also reviewing other shorter routes that take less time.
■ the "first use" date is relatively soon. Note that this should not under any circumstances be used to get expedited service. Routes are to be submitted no later than 5 weeks before the first use date and the routes committee chair monitors this closely to prevent this from being abused. We recognize that emergencies and mistakes do happen. Sometimes we "meant to do" something and forgot. The routes team will do their best to accommodate but be advised this is a card that can't be played very often and it's possible the routes team will not be able to review your route prior to your event.
In most cases, a routes team member takes the next route on the list and puts their name on it as the reviewer. They then own the route until the review is concluded.
These are some of the things the routes team checks during their review. Note that this isn't an exhaustive list and individual reviewers might look at other things e.g., distance between controls. The tools the team uses are ridewithgps and google streetview. These are great tools but we recognize that they don't replace local knowledge so a dialog between the reviewer and route creator is important.
■ The reviewer checks the route distance in ridewithgps. The official distance for the route is truncated so e.g., 128.7k will be entered in the route database as 128k
■ The reviewer checks the route for loops or other ridewithgps errors.This is a fairly common error and one that's easy to create: an accidental mouse click will create a loop and ridewithgps is famous for taking the "shortest" way between two points so deviations down alleys, driveways, etc., happen.
■ The reviewer walks through the route comparing the map to the cue sheet. This is done when a separate cue sheet is provided in addition to the ridewithgps route. The cue sheet must match the route in all important respects (distance, turns, location of cues, open/close times, hazards) although the labeling might be different e.g., ridewithgps might say "Left turn on CR-X" and the cue sheet says "Left turn on McCullough Rd". The cue should be as seen by someone riding the route.
■ The reviewer checks the route for shortcuts. The reviewer might for example use the route planner in ridewithgps or Strava to plot a route between controls and compare that with the submitted route. Note that the reviewer does not turn on the “heat maps” function when this is done. The purpose here is to see the shortest way and then decide whether that way is a viable shortcut.
■ The reviewer looks for potential hazards e.g., railroad tracks, on the route. If the reviewer notes a potential hazard, they'll check to ensure there's an appropriate warning in the cue sheet.
■ The reviewer verifies the number of gravel K’s. If you’ve indicated there are unpaved sections of the route in your submittal, the reviewer will check the number you’ve submitted against the route. As indicated above, ridewithgps has tools that allow you to correct segments that have been misidentified. This should be done before the route is submitted. If it hasn’t been done or appears to be inaccurate the reviewer will contact you and ask for an update.
As noted above, a cue sheet is required for all route submissions. The cue sheet can take one of two forms:
1. It can be the cues embedded within ridewithgps (preferred)
2. It can be provided as a separate document (spreadsheet, PDF, etc)
Whichever form is used, the cue sheet must match the route in all important respects (distance, turns, location of cues, open/close times, hazards) and must contain open/close times for the start and finish controls. The end open/close times must be correct. Open/close times are not required for intermediate controls but are recommended as a pacing guide for riders and should be flagged as information only.
ALL changes required by the brevet routes team must be made both to the ridewithgps route and separate cue sheet if one is provided.
The cue sheet should contain clear instructions for leaving a control. Although GPS users can follow the track, not everyone uses a GPS so the cue sheet should instruct the rider on the direction to take leaving the control. For example: "leaving control, turn left to continue on 2nd St". This is especially important for controls located on a corner where a rider could easily go the wrong way. If a control is on a straight stretch of road and the rider continues in the same direction of travel as when they entered the control it’s not mandatory but it never hurts to be clear.
The reviewer checks that info/photo controls are identified by address, landmark or intersection (not just distance). For example:
■ At mile 42.5 take a photo of the house at 1125 Middle St (address)
■ Take a photo of the entrance sign at Green County Park (landmark)
■ What is the statue at the intersection of CR-123 and Bailey St? (Intersection)
Shortcuts are inevitable unless we want an info control every five miles. The reviewer looks at any shortcut that saves more than 5% of the distance between controls. If it’s on what appears to be a safe, paved road without crazy steep climbs – the reviewer may question it. If it adds a huge hill or a section of eight-lane highway, don’t worry about it.
If what looks like a viable shortcut exists between two controls and it is more than 5% of the distance e.g., a 42 mile segment between controls with a shortcut of more than a couple of miles, the reviewer will likely question it. There are a number of reasons why it may not in fact be viable that aren't immediately apparent on ridewithgps or streetview such as heavy traffic from a business during the time riders would be on that segment. This is why a dialog between the reviewer and route designer is important.
If controls are numbered, the reviewer makes sure they are in sequence. It frequently happens that when a new route is being developed or a portion of an existing route is being submitted as a new route e.g., the second day of a 600K, that control numbers get out of sync.
Under normal circumstances, you'll receive an automated confirmation when you submit your route for review and the next thing you'll receive is an email from the reviewer saying it's been approved and a screenshot of the entry in the routes database for you to check for errors.
If the reviewer has questions about your route, they'll contact the submitter cc: the RBA if they're not the same person. You should try to respond courteously and promptly. Although you put a lot of effort into designing a quality route, a question about it should not be viewed as a personal attack or indication of failure on your part. The routes team has a job to do and must ensure routes meet the guidelines set forth by the ACP and RUSA. This is a dialog, not a trial and we're on the same team!
As noted above, once your route is approved you'll receive an email from the reviewer with a screenshot of the entry in the routes database. The reviewer will also create an archive as follows:
■ The cue sheet. This will either be a PDF of the cue sheet in ridewithgps if that's what was used or a copy of the cue sheet that was submitted by the reviewer.
■ A copy of the screenshot of the entry in the routes database.
■ A notes file of any communications that took place during the review process or anything that the reviewer noted during the review. Examples might be explanations of what appear to be shortcuts, that the route is based on a permanent, etc.
■ Additionally, the RUSA routes database contains a link to the submitted ridewithgps route.
We also save a separate copy of the ridewithgps route that was submitted in a private library.
Important note: some RBAs submit private routes with a privacy code so it can be accessed by the routes team. This is sometimes done so prospective riders can’t use a route that’s still a work in progress. Once the route is approved, you should mark it public and send that link to the routes team. This is so riders can receive gravel and climbing credit for your ride (the RUSA routes database cannot access private routes).
Submitting changes to existing routes
It is sometimes the case that changes are needed to existing approved routes. Some examples include:
■ a segment that was once a relatively low traveled road has become busier with the passage of time, new businesses, etc.
■ controls on the route have moved or closed
■ rider feedback about certain sections or suggested improvements to the route
■ you discover better route alternatives
■ existing roads on the route have deteriorated to the point they're no longer safe or fun to ride
In this case, the existing route can and should be updated. This is done using the same form as submitting a new route with the main difference being to indicate the existing brevet route number and noting in the comments that you are revising an existing route and the changes you are making.
If you have routes in your region that you've not used in a while and don't plan on using them in the foreseeable future, they can be marked as inactive. There's no downside to doing this - the route still exists and anyone can find it by checking the "include inactive routes" in the brevet route search form on the RUSA site. The advantage is that you and others only see routes that you might use again. This is especially useful if you've revised an existing route but don't want to delete the original.