I'll look forward to the results of the trial. If these particular ones prove to be problematical or less than ideal for mainly walking (rather than running) events, I hope there will still be a willingness to try others - perhaps on one or more of the 50s - rather than dropping the idea completely.

An issue might be the degree to which trackers are for emergency or non-normal circumstances, in which case they would primarily be used for focusing on individuals or small groups, rather than for keeping tabs on everyone as they pass through checkpoints. In the former case, their ability to cope with large amounts of simultaneous data, particularly close to the start of an event, wouldn't matter so much; in the latter case, any breaks or slowdowns in system catch-up may mean that individual problems aren't immediately picked up. I guess that means their systems' ability to prioritise units whose alarm buttons have been pressed.

Do any of the 'large ultra-events' use trackers exclusively, or are they always as backup or adjuncts to paper or other systems (PACER in the LDWA case) ?

Iain

I can answer that Iain!

No cost to the LDWA for the trial.
30 units with no emergency button will be provided by Geotracks.
Y 100 Sir Fynwy PACER team (Walk HQ) will report to NEC and outline what they saw as positive and negative. This will be kept nice and loose as there is no commitment to future rental.

NEC 100 coordinator will outline to future 100 organisers what the feedback is and they can make decisions on whether to utilise or not.

Regards,

David

News from Chair's Update of 1st September 2019 is that 30 tracker units are to be trialled on next year's Sr Fnwy 100. Which ones, and how allocated (to volunteers), please ? And how much will they cost (rent or puchase ?). Any criteria for success (or otherwise) yet defined ?

Thanks
Iain

I took part in the Spine Challenger this year and you are issued with a GPS tracker at the start.
Its a small box taped to the rucksack with an emergency button underneath.
If you press the button,its game over and mountain rescue are coming for you.
They also insist on carrying a mobile phones as well.
I cant see the problem with a tracking device and there is the added interest of dot watching to see where your mates have got to.

On GPS trackers vs smartphones: if you carry a recent (3G/4G) phone, unless it?s switched off or out of battery power you already are being tracked - they use GPS satellite positioning in order to orient themselves to the best available terrestrial phone signal. But smartphones do a lot else besides, whereas GPS trackers would make better use of their battery capacity, and their use of universal SIM cards would mean that they are more able to communicate their position at any given time.

Having just looked at the cost of GPS trackers on Amazon, I?m surprised to see that their prices are mostly in the 20 to 60 pounds range, with only the most expensive (combining mapping, texting and more) coming in at 175 pounds. If suitable dedicated trackers continue to be in that price range, I?d expect it would be viable to purchase a small number for trial purposes - perhaps five each of two or more varieties, allocated to volunteer participants in challenge events. If prices come down further in the future, it might be that bulk purchases become cheaper in the long run than short-term rental, though five pounds per device for 48 hours does seem inexpensive compared to 200k for a new website.

It was clear from the recent Beacons challenge that in bad weather it was easy for organisers to track participants? positions and make use of the nearest road access and/or check points in getting them off the hills. However, it?s not clear to me whether the Beacons had more entrants than the 30 or so on the tracked list. In the case of Hundreds or Fifties, one of the criteria would have to be how well the chosen devices, and the phone network through which they were being ?read?, performed under bulk conditions. (Even the small number in the Beacons were quite hard to separate visibly at ?cluster? points, though individuals could be selected out.)

Iain

If the event risk assessment is such that there is a risk here which needs mitigating, and the mitigation is that costs are increased for all entrants to cover the cost of hiring a tracker then I would assert that the risk is such that entrants should be mandated to carry a mobile on which they can initiate help, and be contacted on by the event control (or event control can contact other entrants to direct them to assist another entrant).

I accept that it is easy to hypothesis an edge case where a mobile is not sufficient, however as scenarios go the probability of them happening is diminutive.

Note that I am not arguing that trackers are not possibly a good idea, only that the justification is not safety (on a cost of over 10% of a 100 budget).

As to google maps tracking, if you can enter an email address then you can get it to work. Looks like google does not share location history, but apps like Life360 do and is free. Kind of option that could easily be offered, "if you want us to know where you at all times then do this on your phone".

I think it?s important to keep the scale of the problem in perspective and not let the technology take over to an unwarranted degree. I feel that 100s are inherently relatively safe because unless you stray from the route there is always someone behind you (even the very back person has the sweepers behind them), so anyone injured or in distress should be found by others before too long. So major problems shouldn?t arise unless someone gets significantly lost ? and we are told that ?missing walker? incidents are fairly few and far between.

In addition, it has always been part of the ethos of 100s that walkers need to be reasonably experienced and also aware that responsibility for personal safety lies first and foremost with walkers themselves (in terms of having sufficient clothing, food and navigational expertise to cope with any eventuality). It would be unfortunate if tracking had the unintended consequence of increasing people?s (possibly subconscious) feeling of safety so that they become less focused on the need to look after themselves. I do ask myself to what extent tracking would reduce the feeling of adventure and of being more or less self-reliant in the remote and wild places that we enjoy walking in. Could tracking be an insidious form of ?dumbing down? of the event or ? at its worst ? make us feel like the walking equivalent of toddlers being kept on reins in a department store?

I am glad that mandatory carrying of a mobile phone has been ruled out (I do carry one, but ? as David says ? nobody should be discriminated against for not having one) and I am not against tracking per se, but it does need to be unobtrusive and cause minimal inconvenience to walkers (in terms of weight, cost, or need to do anything with it).

Hi Jeff

The units are not phones. They are GPS trackers that have a universal SIM card fitted. This means that the SIM card has access to all 4 UK mobile phone networks and links to the best at any given time with regards to signal. The battery life will last about 70 hours.

There will undoubtedly be areas of sketchy signal but as it's a universal SIM card the areas will be limited.

Hi Andrew - I think we need to remind ourselves that the process is for event organisers to have an extra layer of security with regards to safety. To mandate that a member of the LDWA has to carry a mobile phone and a battery pack is quite excessive, particularly as Walk HQ still wouldn't know where the entrant was. All they could do is phone the entrant and as most mobile users only have access to one of the 4 mobile providers, then if they have no signal, the mandated phone and battery pack is irrelevant.

As for persuading people to link to Google maps so that they can be tracked, I personally think that a very high percentage of our members would find that technologically challenging.

This is about safety and in the unfortunate case of an incident occurring, an event organiser could demonstrate that they did all they could to mitigate risk. Different event organisers will either agree or disagree with that statement and that's why I have instigated a debate to canvass views.

Many thanks for taking time to contribute to the discussion. You are asking good quality and challenging questions.

Regards

David

Hi David
Would there be an issue with signal loss for all mobile phones in certain areas and the battery life.
When I walk in the cold my batteries don't last as long. As for walking a 100 miler the battery life
would not last the distance.
Also the walk organisers would have to check for signal in all areas.
My partner has a phone which will pick a signal up in more places than mine, and has far more data allowance too, but this comes at a cost.
Regards Jeff

Not quite sure what the argument of discrimination against not having a phone is. Certainly not cost given that a mobile phone can be bought for £1 (+£10 credit).

Personally I would mandate a phone, and a secondary battery (aka a power pack) which must only be used in the event of an emergency (Used getting to a checkpoint means entrant must retire, emergency battery pack not fully charged means DQ)

If people want an element of tracking (good 80% solution) then google maps offers a free service. You can give someone permission to find you, and limit the length of time that that permission is for. Obvious approach would be to setup a disposable google account and get entrant to share their position for the duration of the event.

Looking at costs of trackers what I find surprising is that both the devices and the airtime plans have dropped so much in price. Looks like something I will have a play with.

Hi Armorel - Thankfully very rare. There have been issues with entrants going astray or having left the event without having told Walk HQ. The latter is usually resolved by a phone call. There have also been incidents reported via the Accident / Near Miss reporting process to the NEC, but again very few.

My personal view (others might disagree) that PACER would continue to be used. The software (and in particular the company that I was made aware of) simply provide a tracking process and do not offer the facility to offer checkpoint time management. It does seem that the additional 'bolt ons' push the price up. The one difference between PACER and the tracking software is that a Walk Organiser (family / friend) will know exactly where the entrant is. That's one disadvantage of PACER unfortunately.

Hi Manfred - The issue with mandating mobile phone as a rule is that some of our members will be discriminated against as they do not own them. The hardware associated with this software will be provided.

Many thanks for taking the time to contribute to this discussion. All comments are very valuable.

Regards,

David

I have no problem with the idea in principle, but to put the scale of the issue in context I would like to ask how often the "missing walker" search strategy has had to be used on recent 100s and whether the walker(s) were then found quickly or only after a long search.

I would also like to ask how the idea meshes with the PACER system (which in my view provides a "good enough" opportunity for friends and family to track entrants) - would the new system render most of the work that has gone into PACER redundant?

i think a mandate mobile phone is not too much to ask, other event organizers go even further. The kit list for the Beacons 100 for example contains, among others, those mandatory items:

Watch and Fully charged phone
GPS device with Up Hill Down Dale supplied route loaded and means of powering the device for the duration of the event



Regards
Manfred

Hi Andrew - The mandated mobile phone is an interesting one. This assumes that every entrant has a mobile phone, that they have adequate battery life and that they have good mobile cover on their network of choice I guess. In the scenario that I described on the Taith Torfaen, we rang the telephone number that the entrant said they had and it went to voicemail immediately and on several occasions. There might have been two answers as to why.
1. Their mobile was switched off.
2. They had no mobile network cover.

That was the first part of the missing emergency walker plan. The second part of our plan as outlined was to send a search team from the previous checkpoint where the entrant had been known to have gone through. We also sent a team walking backwards from the next checkpoint. Each team had two people in case they had discovered the entrant and one had to leave to obtain additional help / guide in emergency services.

So a minimum of 4 marshals were used for the search, plus the marshals at the checkpoint that had been due to close were kept on duty in case the entrant had either returned.

Hence, why after observing the GPS tracking devices and whilst recognising that they are not perfect, I asked members to consider whether they system added another string to a walk an organiser's bow with regards to event management.

I'm collating all feedback which includes the very constructive comments made by members in both this forum and that of the LDWA Facebook page. Thanks for taking the time that you have to contribute to the discussion.

Regards,

David

Only real tangible benefit for entrants (which may be worth it) is to stop cheating as what I saw this year could be considered systemic. Where this involves trespass it may well bring the association into disrepute.

Obvious question - How would your lost entrant scenario be improved compared to mandating that entrants carry a switched on mobile phone? (many commercial events mandate this with the event HQ number pre-programmed into the phone)

If there is a concern here then the first thing is to mandate that entrants carry a switched on mobile phone. Also I would suggest that it would be reasonable mandate that entrants carry an emergency usb power pack, which must be fully charged at the end of the event.

I can see that trackers are of interest to dot watchers (see the stats for pacer views), and for competitive entrants that are trying to track their competition. I just dont see where they would make a difference on safety, on what is fundamentally a very safe activity. The only way I could see it making a difference in the unlikely events if it is used together with a dedicated, pre-deployed event safety team.

Interesting points made Andrew.

I tend to agree with you in relation to viewing data post event. I tend to disagree with you on the software usefulness. The software that has been brought to the NEC attention and which I outlined was £5 per unit works off a SIM card that accesses all mobile providers. If one looks at the usefulness of the software on Spine Challenger and Spine Race it does seem to add another layer of support in relation to Walk HQ knowledge. There will be areas where data cannot be collected due to connectivity. One sees that on the Spine series, but it's very short lived and one soon sees the dot moving again. Itbhallened to the Beacons 100. I noticed there was a freezing of data on leaving Brecon.

As a walk organiser (over 30 now), I can see how this would assist me. The Taith Torfaen event would certainly have benefited from this software when an entrant went missing after the penultimate checkpoint. We deployed our missing entrant plan, but in the end, the entrant was found miles away and nowhere near where our search parameters were judged best to start. This software would have helped resolve that issue very quickly.

However, one piece of tracking software alone does not provide a panacea to resolve all risk. I accept that.

As for training; nice idea but as was shown at a recent AGM when a free first aid course was provided, there was little uptake. Would we be so certain that a big investment in event management would receive better support?

Regards

David

I am unconvinced that the Beacons 100 shows that the trackers were of value. Limited number of access points, mean there will only be a very small number of places where people could be pulled out. Checkpoint data, control and basic telephone communication would, I am am sure, have been just as effective.

What it probably does show is effective event management from the Race Director. I do think it would be worth LDWA investigating suitable equivalent training.

Otherwise there is a risk that having trackers means that events feel they have entrant safety *solved*, and dont find out that they are not doing it until it is too late. I do question the extent to which performance data matters/shoudl be available for what is a non competitive event.

Hi David
I would think from The NEC s point they have a duty of care to the walkers and staff who run the checkpoints,
Also the members who would have to go out and rescue anyone having problems.

This would show their commitment to the health and well being for all their members and a better way of login
every detail it. Would it also be a way for the competitors to have a breakdown of their performance .
Regards Jeff.

Hi Jeff

I don't know at the moment. I have simply put the question out there and am collating the answers and feedback which also have very constructive feedback.

Its too late for 2020 as our budget has been set. I have already shared the information with the future 100 organisers. But, I've posed the question and sought feedback to determine the swell of opinion. If overwhelmingly in favour in relation to safety, the next question to be posed is does the NEC insist on its use as opposed to leaving the individual organiser discretion. I have no fixed views but if it is safety related, it's hard not to suggest that NEC should insist.

Regards

David

Hi David
I agree with what you have said.
Could you jut give us clarity on will this stop us having to do self clips and also make it easier for check point staff.
I wouldn't think anyone would have an argument against after all they are there for our safety and probably
make this a lot easier for the organisers to keep a check on us. Also give the check
point staff an indication when they can put their feet up.
Regards

I struggle to understand the concerns about big brother etc. They would be very useful for supporters. Mainly though they make an event safer for all concerned and as others have commented might be a added safety step that encourages more first timers to try a 100?

In a 50mile trail ultra I ran last Feb it was mandtory that participants wore them. They are small, light, fix simply to the top or straps of the rucksack and as I understand it they are highly reliable.

If as per David's post the cost is now as small as £5 I think its a sensible step to require their use on the 100.

Great, a very good argument for making use of a system such as this one.

Rod has posted on Facebook Iain. The organisers made the decision to end the event due to safety concerns. They used the tracking software to identify where the entrants were and placed vehicles in strategic locations knowing that the entrants would pass the vehicles. They were then safely and quickly removed from the hill.

Update on Beacons 100 no. 140 - as of 17.55 he (it is a he) is walking - or has been bodywagoned - off towards Brecon on a minor road.

Some good points about the need to preserve identity except for event organisers and marshals. The Beacons (Brecons) hundred (100k not miles) system (racedrone.net) does allow entrant data to be inspected, so this would have to change.

Another problem with this (racedrone.net) software is that it doesn't distinguish between 'stationary (orange position marker)' and 'retired but not yet back at the start'. On this event, there are lots of people, including no. 124, who are (clearly) on their way back - moving at vehicle speed on a road - but they're still shown as 'green', ie. proceeding round the route. So there looks to be a need for an additional colour-coded status, along with green, orange, red (for activated emergency signal) and black (tracker off).

(As of 17:35 on 10th August, there appears to be only one entrant (no. 140) still on the Beacons route - all of the rest with trackers are either on their way back, have arrived back, or have switched off their device - but he's not moving. At 17.45, just three finishers with trackers are recorded. If the weather's anything like it is here, that's an understandable situation, except maybe for no. 140.)

Otherwise, social media commenters are generally in favour of a tracker system of some sort (not necessarily this one - maybe with higher numbers the cost of alternatives might be even lower).

Iain

I've used one of the OS trackers a couple of times on non- LDWA events, including last year's Lakeland 100. The tracker itself was a box, around 2x3x6 cm, which was taped to one of the rucksack straps. It would need a few people at the start to attach trackers, and do the necessary scanning for individual identification purposes - you can also take photos to appear on the tracking website. The tracker relays the tracking position via mobile networks, but I believe that they are set up to use any network, thus minimising the time when there is no signal to broadcast location. Battery life is fine for a 48 hour event.
Tracking is visible on a website - it is possible to see all competitors and pan/zoom around the route. When zoomed out the website groups a number of entrants together and shows how many are in the same area. Watching all entrants can be a little slow on a mobile device, but you can pick a few favourites and just watch them, which is fine on a mobile device. The website can indicate when a tracker has lost signal, and will fill in the gap in the track once the signal is regained. The LL100 has a similar number of entrants to the LDWA 100 and there doesn't appear to be any issue with data volume.
The tracking seems to be popular with armchair spectators as well as family and friends - I was watching the LL100 this year, and the Facebook page had many comments from people 'dot watching'. People could also clearly see when someone was heading off route - so definitely useful for checking for people getting lost (or cheating ). They could be used to dispense with any self-clips as the route taken by each entrant could be quickly checked on screen as they arrived back at base. They can also be useful for checkpoint staff to see how many people are about to arrive, and so boil kettles etc.
I'd certainly be happy to use a tracker on the LDWA 100 if they are now so cheap - both for safety and information purposes.

It's rather slow on this forum so have made the decision to post publicly facing comments extracted from the LDWA Facebook page to assist debate.

***

Sounds very sensible. If people object on the grounds that Big Brother is watching them then they need to get over it!! I came across a struggling walker on the 100 but had massive problems contacting Walk HQ as the mobile signal was so poor. This device would remove those issues.

Also I was lucky enough that people came and supported me so this type of service would be perfect for them as they would know exactly where I was, and when I would be reaching checkpoints.

Make it a condition of entry and if that stops a handful of people entering so be it!!

***

I think this a excellent idea, giving the organisers more confidence as where anyone is at anyone time so I think this should be adopted and useful especially in bad weather.

***

These are used a lot in ultra running, not intrusive to carry and great in emergencies

***

Absolutely makes sense, and helps identify walkers who have unknowingly gone off route.

***

For me there is a big difference between routine use by the state of ?tracking technology? and use on a voluntary basis for a specific purpose.

I oppose absolutely routinely being tracked irrespective of how without our independent judiciary having determined that?s appropriate specifically for me.

I would not though have the slightest objection to carrying a GPS device on the 100 so long as:

- it?s use is limited to safety purposes and / or to offer live tracking for family and friends
- all data collected is stored in a secure way, not shared, deleted on walk completion and retained by no one

I think one risk is those who lose sight of the personal nature of these challenges complaining about others. I once went down the wrong side of a hedge on a challenge walk, correcting myself at the first gate I came to, no net gain though technically wrong route for about 50 metres being off route by about 2 metres. Someone complained - I?d hate to see this technology lead to stewards enquiries into whether precisely the right line was taken across a field.

So, supportive if used sensibly, for the right reasons, with clear rules around use, secure storage, and disposal of data.

Thanks for the chance to comment.

***

speaking as a mild ?corner cutter? I completely agree with the point about ?route pedants?. (I once cut so many corners, my certificate was round).

***

As a regular competitor in 50's and 100's as well as an event organiser (Shropshire Way 80K) I'm really interested to hear people's views on this. My main concern is cost. They add to the already high cost of staging these events and risks putting people off coming. I don't use trackers in my event and would like to not use them in the future in order to make the price more accessible. Personally, i'm happy tto take part without a tracker but I have to admit that "dotwatching" can be a lot more fun than it sounds and the safety aspect is a big issue for organisers.

***

Would be lost without mine, I use it with my map plus route description , it does not replace compass and map however it is extra friend . Your mobile phone is more likely to have the big brother scenario.

***

Personally I support it though I recognise some people have reservations.

I wouldn?t be too surprised if, at some point in the future, our insurers require them to be carried.

From a technical point of view, the main thing to check is how exactly the gps location is transmitted from the tracker to the webserver where you can view the user?s location on a map.

Most devices actually do it over the mobile phone network. The trackers usually have embedded universal sims which will transmit over whichever of the 4 mobile networks is strongest, but if there are no networks at all then they won?t work (but they do cache historic locations and send them once the user has moved back into an area with mobile coverage).

So I think if we were to consider using them on the hundred, for example, someone should probably recce the route and check that at least 1 network was visible over the whole way, especially in any danger zones where accidents might happen.

(I tested mobile coverage for this years 100 for example and although there was good coverage of EE and Three at Greg?s hut, there was no coverage from any network at all, as far as I could tell, just a few hundred metres away on the summit of cross fell).

You can get trackers which send their locations over the Iridium satellite mobile network, and so work anywhere on the earths surface, but they are prohibitively expensive.

***

One note of caution. There may be an entrant who needs to remain anonymous - victim of an abusive relationship say - so I think it should be possible to both carry the tracker but not be named on the tracking website, with the organising team only having access to your details. From a personal perspective, I'd happily pay an additional £5 for the hours of happy dot-watching it would offer friends & family. And the chance to review my route afterwards - had tracking turned off on my Garmin to save battery, so I'll never know exactly how we crossed Cross Fell!

***

good point about anonymity.

***

Great point.

***

It seems that a simple solution would be to display only an entrant number. It would then be up to the entrant to let people know their number if they wished.

***

This technology sounds a good idea to me. Safety of all entrants should always be of paramount importance, the most recent 100 provided ample examples where this technology would have proved its weight in gold.

***

Excellent suggestion - virtually a no-brainer. Given the availability and cheapness, then the non-use of these units could be raised as a serious criticism against event organisers in the event of a major incident which might involve injury, etc, etc.

***

I've done the Lakeland 50 several times and this year, for the first time, trackers were used. I 100% support the use of trackers. For participants, it's great that friends and family can track process and there is an extra layer of assurance for competitors. This year, a runner broke his leg coming down a rather slippery descent. In the Lakes there are areas where you dont get a phone signal and in any event if you have broken your leg you might not be able to get your phone out of your bag! It's a really great extra layer of safety, as you might not necessarily have another competitor behind you.

I've also been a marhsall. Dibber times give you an idea and who might be coming in next but a tracker will better predict this. Further, organisers will be able to see if someone is getting in trouble.

For an event like the 100, an extra £15 on the entry fee shouldn't matter. You have to appreciate what goes into these events.

***

It does make sense and seems a good idea for the price. But looking at it from another angle, privacy of certain participants may be important, as has been mentioned previously. Because some people, having this tracking info, could do things to interfere with or endanger participants for their own gain. Obviously I am being a bit of a devils advocate, but all possibilities should be looked at.

***

I?m not a walker - but I do Marshall and staff event centres for marches and have worked in Spine race hq - personally I think this is a great idea - I was a professional dot watcher during the Spine working in HQ and can testify that without the tracker system things could go badly wrong - I have been saying since last January that the Ldwa need to bring trackers in for the 100 no matter the cost implications as human life is priceless - the likes of Cross fell high cup nick the Brecons Kinder pen y ghent even the mynd and stiperstones in my beautiful Shropshire and some of the more difficult to access areas of our beautiful country all present serious risk when you factor in tiredness fatigue injury and ill judgement

***

We use trackers on all our D of E expedition groups, it makes following their progress so much simpler and they can be tracked remotely I.e. at home! Each group is allocated a number, the actual identity of that number is only known to the organisers / trackers, so anonymity is protected. Anyone who has access to the view the tracker would only be able to see a number and not know who that number related to unless told.

***

I don't go out without mine. Etrax 30x Ive just up graded. I've just bought myself a new Watch, that is just a good, so am going this weekend to try it. Brilliant safety, navigation tool

***

Worth remembering that in an event such as a 100 there are as many helpers and marshalls as entrants and if current best practise is trackers these should be used for benefit of organisers/marshalls. On any public website (dot watchers) data protection needs considering - use number and chosen name (need not be real name) only

***

No brainer at that cost. The reduced stress on the organisers of knowing exactly where a walker in trouble is is priceless. And the ability to direct emergency services to the exact location saves time and waisted resources.

***

IMO the good things would be that entrants could not cheat (common on the 100 to cut corners), and reduced effort at checkpoints. I would consider the safety case to be minimal/nill as you will still need to contact an entrant by phone. The big negatives are that it may well encourage people to see the event far more as race.

There may also be an aspect of people deciding to rely on the tracker for safety, and not manage their risks appropriately with kit they are carrying.

As with any system it is not just that it exists, but how you would use it. If entrants are expecting that they can press a button, and help is on its way, then plans need to be put in place for help to be 'on its way'.

There would alos need to be effort in that entrants physical state is checked when they come into a checkpoint, trackers would mean that is not required, and some effort would need to be made to replace those checks.

Personally I would not consider there to be any significant data issue. In the end it is the organisers decision, and potential entrants that are not happy have a very simple option.

***

I have used those trackers in the spine fusion. They are unobtrusive, and great for safety in case there is no mobile signal. Andy Todd, they don't replace the need to have the adequate gear, since you still can get hypothermia for example - so the same checks should be carried away. Having lost one walker on an event before, I think it would of a great help.

***

As an event organiser I think it?s a great idea.

***

Sounds good to me. I can't see any real downside

***

For areas with mobile reception, isn't there a phone app that could be used to help organisers track entrants - not just on the 100 ? I noticed that on the Hadrian Hundred marshal's that entrants were requested to use the Glympse app, but not on the main event. It would be good if there was a cheap option for local groups to help trace overdue entrants.

***

I carry a Garmin InReach Mini on all my longer solo walks so that the family can track me. It eases my wife's anxiety considerably.

***

It depends on which type of Tracking Units you intend to use. Many use gps for the tracking but the relying of the position back to HQ is done via mobile signal. For example on The Spine Race there is a ?dead? mobile area between Couldron Snout and High Cup Nick.

Also it?s worth considering the Social Media opportunity of ?following the dots? certainly the Ultra events that have this technology as a mandatory safety feature do get thousands following on Facebook, Instagram etc. Maximising the media profile for the LDWA and the event should also be factored into the debate.

***

I see only positives with this. As for concerns regarding ?Big Brother? issues, as I understand it if you have a mobile phone (and the majority us do) one is always potentially traceable anyway!!

***

I?m positive towards this...I hired a GPS tracker for the Dorset Giant this year so my family could follow me as I was walking solo and it set their minds at rest (as well as mine).

***

It?s a great idea. Safety is paramount and aids both participants and volunteers and it?s not expensive. I would support making acceptance a condition of entry.

***

I struggle to see that such equipment in the context of a non competitive event (with experienced entrants, and appropriate equipment) will significantly change the overall risk and risk management. Yes I agree that they can be considered a nice thing, but do they *by themselves* reduce the risk, IMO no.

Can I see a number of non safety advantages, yes. Could those advantages be worth £5, very possibly.

I do feel that if there is a concern about entrant management on an event then there are other simpler low hanging fruit that can be picked first. One obvious example would be to look at how the event control is operated (It might be worth seeing if something could be learnt from lowland/mountain rescue)

***

I?ll be wearing one in a week?s time for the first time in a race and I must say it?s added an element of security and safety to my 4 day travels across little used trail. Not only for me but for my husband and the organisers who (I hope) will be tracking me. Small price to pay for peace of mind.

***

I'm all for this. I was part of a group that got lost on the final leg of the Kent 100. We were all safe and found our way back OK, but obviously the organisers were concerned with no way of finding where we had got to.
Surprised that you have said some folk don't want this as its akin to Big Brother spying on you. What have they got to hide??? If you don't like it, don't enter. Simples.

***

Great idea, so much can go wrong on a 100 event, that safety has to be the top priority, not just of the entrants, but those who end up spending time trying to find them.

***

From a safety point of view this is a great idea. Having seen the speed of response to someone in trouble with the GPS tracker giving an exact location rather than depending on someone for a description/coordinates of where they are. An injured person is unlikely to be a reliable source of accurate information.
I'm all for it

***

Safety ourweighs any privacy concerns. Team names can be used instead of individuals. Passwords can be set on the page if it is for organiser use only too. Only downside is cost. Average cost is typically £10 each, by the time you add up various hidden charges on some hire websites; for route setup, timed leaderboards, plus other charges etc, which are standard on other sites. So essentially it comes down to, do you want to add £10 to the entry fee to aid safety?

***

Yes, yes yes! I love my family and friends being able to track me! Gives my husband much reassurance!

***

Can't put a price on safety at the touch of a button.... Great idea.... Not sure if I would ever do a hundred but the enjoyment of tracking people..... Love it

***

No issues at all, a great idea.

***

Excellent idea, apart from the safety aspect, they would negate the need for self clips and possibly sweepers too.

***

I'd definitely be giving a thumbs up to the idea. Safety is paramount and if there is tech available to make things easier for the officials then it should be implemented

***

Great idea, I used the emergency function on the Spine in January, we had no phone signal, the tracker worked off all mobile networks, 40 mins later my exhausted companion was collected by the safety team. Also they are great for checkpoint staff, they know exactly when people are arriving.

***

I?m considering my first hundred and I would be much more inclined to give it s go as a female novice walker if we had gps

Depending on where and how such trackers are worn (on the wrist ? attached to a belt ?), I think it's a great idea. There might be some problems in returning the devices after early retirement - it would have to be a condition that they are collected along with tally cards. On this Brecon 100* (a trial ?) there appear to be only 30 or so wearers, but with 500 entrants there might be problems with data swamping - even assuming that the tracking software (in the Brecon case, racedrone.net) can cope with that many simultaneous position updates. (A 'last tracked' time-stamp might be important in such cases).

* When I started writing this, number 124 was off-route by 90deg, but has now (12.19pm on 10th Aug) re-routed to Cribyn and is proceeding well. Two more entrants, nos. 101 and 128, are well off-route but near a car park (they appear to also be re-routing).

Iain

My only question would be, are they fairly reliable in terms of their tracking? Is it likely that they'd freeze someone's location on the on-line tracking so friends watching might become concerned thinking that their friend has stopped when they haven't?

Otherwise, it seems a marvellous idea from a safety angle and also engaging friends and family who want to watch where the competitors are.

Time to engage.

There have been a number of discussions between 100 organisers and National Executive Committee representatives over several years in relation to GPS tracking devices on the annual LDWA 100 mile walk.

From an organiser's perspective, they enable Walk HQ to know exactly where everyone is. This hugely adds to the safety aspect of event organisation. Currently, when a walker goes 'missing' Walk HQ will implement a plan that will consiser several facets. As well as calling the walker's mobile phone (if switched on and in any area with a signal) search teams will be dispatched from the checkpoint that the entrant last visited whilst others will reverse the search by walking along the route from the next checkpoint that the walker has not arrived at. As you will imagine, it's not foolproof and if after several hours contact has not been made with the entrant and their safety cannot be accounted for, the emergency services will be called.

In addition, the GPS units have an emergency button that if pressed will alert Walk HQ who can dispatch marshals to the identified location. We are advised that it is very hard to press this button unintentionally.

So, from a safety perspective, the use of GPS tracking is a superb tool.

What are the disadvantages? Cost is one, but the LDWA has found one company that charges only £5 per unit for the duration of our 48 hour event. When we first started looking at this, unit costs were as high as £15-24 per unit and that's why they've not been used.

However, the NEC has also been advised that entrants would refuse to wear them claiming that the unit would be too intrusive as it would be akin to 'Big Brother' watching. This could of course be easily remedied by altering the rules to ensure that all entrants agree that as part of the conditions of entry, that they wear the provided GPS unit.

Are there battery issues? No. The units would have sufficient power for the duration of the event.

Entrants' families and friends would also be able to follow their loved ones progress. If you would like to see an example of this, you can follow LDWA member Rod Hollands as he walks the Beacons 100 this weekend at:

https://tracking.racedrone.net/osmap/?beacons-100

He's number 124.

On behalf of the NEC I'd love to read your views as any feedback could shape future decisions. This will also be posted on the LDWA Facebook page.

Regards

David Morgan