Discussion: your gps on Routegadget

O-ing, I loaded your gps track from your AP log onto Routegadget, using the "splits-based" calibration option, mainly so I had a cross-check on the event load. The original gps looks like it misplaced by up to 50m, but the RG routine seems to pull it into something semi-believable, allowing for the big building effects.
Any comments on how well RG has adjusted the track?

RG has done a reasonable job, given that the gpx track wasn't very good to start with. I was having a few issues finding satellites at the start (high buildings), so that may have thrown it off. Obviously there are some issues where the gps says I shortcut through solid buildings and others where the track goes much further. I'm thinking swings and roundabouts in terms of measuring the actual length.
The other two tracks on AP measure 4.74 (Bart) and 4.79 (PowA) compared to my 4.73. Barts track looks a lot better than mine.

I loaded Bart's as well, using "split-based" calibration. When I tried to load it manually onto a georeferenced map image I had a lot of trouble working out where the controls should be , but not as much as when I tried your track.

On a broader topic the raw gps tracks show that there is not much chance of current gps technology replacing control units for sprints, or being used to assess reliably whether a competitor has entered/crossed OOB areas.

Totally agree on your conclusion re GPS replacement of controls or control on OOB. We discussed a lot of this when IOF/OA were trying (and succeeding for WRE) to ban wearing of GPS units; we were arguing that they would be of very limited use in active orienteering situations. And it seems they are still of limited use even post-mortem, particularly in areas of high buildings.

Oh sure, blame the GPS for making it look like you went through buildings!

How do know that SuperO didn't leap them with a single bound?

The high leap would have come in very useful on that course.