Export event data

Finn,

This is the same in version 7 & 8.
In the Event Header section if the Use Calculated Length box is unchecked all the course lengths are set to the nearest multiple of 5 i.e. 0km, 5km, 10km etc.

Have you seen a problem with the course climb not importing into OE2003 etc?
The xml data looks correct so it must be a strange problem with my machines or with the SportSoftware.

Thanks

Eddie

Hi Eddie

The course length in the XML file is measured in meters.

When the IOF updated the control descriptions standard, they changed the course length field in the control description to show the length in km instead of m, which I think this was a mistake.

My guess for an explanation:

When Condes calculates course lengths, it rounds them to the nearest .1 km, and it then put that length in _meters_ in the XML file. When Condes exports a course length entered as free text, it attempts to convert the string to a number. However, it does not convert that number in any way -- just puts that number into the XML file. If the course length in the free format is shown in km, then there will be km in the XML file, but SI interprets the value as meters, and rounds them to the nearest 5 meters.

I think I should update Condes to interpret the free text string as a length in km. -- i.e. multiply it by 1000 before putting it in the XML file.

Thanks for making me aware of this.

regards,
Finn

Finn,

I am not as fast at replying as you.
That explanation helped explain some of the problems.
The rounding for the control description is rounded to .1km but the xml file appears to have no rounding.
Your explanation also solved the climb puzzle as well! The planner had put 'm' after the number. He did this because otherwise the climb appears as e.g. 30 instead of 30m. Could Condes add the 'm' automatically to the description sheet?

Thanks

Eddie

I guess this would mean modifying the climb field from being a free format text field to a numeric field only, if Condes were to add the "m".
For the current free format climb field, I would be reluctant for Condes to try to guess the format of the contents is in the field, and to guess if it would be appropriate to add an "m".

I'll consider this. Thanks for mentioning it.


When this is said, I can't help expressing my frustration that the latest revision of the IOF control descriptions standard obscures the clarity of the original standard. The people who thought out the system originally, really put thought into - and succeded with - creating a truely international and clear system.

In the original system all distances, be it course length, climb, and dimensions of control features, were measured in meters, so it was not necessary to suffix a unit of measurement to the numerical value.

The new standard mixes kilometers and meters, and it adds a lot of confusion, to humans and to computer systems alike. I wish the revision could have been made with a more gentle hand and with more respect for the clarity of the original system.

best regards,
Finn