Originally Posted by
Bekologist
A lot of these issues are great ones to consider. Not all the issues, of course.
So, an informational control is less useful on an out-n-back unless its the far end control? I had an idea of using highway historical markers for informational controls, but may not use them for out-n-back rides.
Not quite right. An Info Control will work as an intermediate control on the outbound leg -- that is what Crista suggested my friend Dean do on his "Tar Heel 200", and that is also what he does on his "Get 'er Dunn" perm-pop. In each case, he uses a nearby c'store for the control on the return.
Originally Posted by
Bekologist
Another issue I'm wondering about - people talk about keeping the distances close to the 100,200,300 k numbers or whatever, but the surfeit of roads where i live make my proposed routes all a bit over, if i want to include some key features into the rides.... 214k, 112k, those types of distances. is 5-10 percent off the even hundred k mark acceptable for permanent routes?
I was surprised that Stephen wrote that. Here in NC, most of the 10K-Hounds have appreciated "the change," i.e., the excess above 100 or 200. Last year, while 10K-Hounding, another NC-rando and I found that approx 140-kms was a great distance -- it didn't
seem any more time or energy consuming than a 100-kms, but "the change" quickly added up. However, several of the Lone Stars (including Stephen) do so many rides that "the change" may well be immaterial to them.
However, those doing the route for R-12 or P-12 credit only, and not so interested in total kms, may appreciate not riding any more than necessary to qualify on those.