Changed to the computer now, writing on mobile too much work
Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 6:07 pm
Why would I need to think of a system for cases that have never happened once before?
Because it is 100% guaranteed it will happen as soon as somebody designs a second version. One of the designs will not be used. And because this system now has at least one designer boycotting that system, even when he believes that his design is better (should be the case in all cases though) and that his correction has a good chance of being used (in the Lombardia case)
I even offer you an idea for a better system:
What happens if I make a second version? You review both versions, including reasoning brought forward in posts or the calendar chat. Decide on one, in consultation with the rest of the community, if the community is silent alone. After all you are the boss, you decide in the end.
So you will have to review the different versions at some point. Agree?
So my brilliant, absolutely revolutionary idea, that nobody else could have come up ,even studying the issue for decades (or maybe everybody that wasn't focused "feeling attacked" and defending his own position at all costs, but spent an ernomous 17"-46" thinking about what problems your "design-your-own-version-system" could have)
Change the order. Review first, see what the community says if you want. And then tell the obnoxious reviewer what you think. If you think the first design is better, ok, say that. If you think the corrections make sense and are better, then write something like "New is better, please make the changes as fast as possible, I'll then put that version online". You will have to do the review at some point anyway, why not make it
BEFORE you ask somebody to make a second version... or if you have time to the new version yourself. And if not make the review before asking to design, since the amount of work for you simply doesn't change, the amount of work for the other guy potentially does. Now in this case it's rather minor changes, Ganda seems uncontroversial, second last km at -4 instead of -3 too, the last km is the only

-3 technically correct, altitude loss is indeed close to 30 meters. But the last 500 meters, important for our sprint are clearly much much flatter, possibly still -1% in reality, or maybe not, don't know. So having it at -2% might make sense for us. . But overall minor changes, so doesn't matter that much, just put it on.
As for cases like Strade Bianche Giro stage, or Paris-Tours, there the demand to design a second version is even more ridiculous, review (again, you will have to do it at some point, so why not first), decide, have the original designer do it in case you end up disagreeing with his original design. And if he refuses for some mysterious reason (I might, especially for mintacts, if I ever get back to designing) do it yourself.
Brilliant proposal for a new system, that doesn't require you to do more work either, and has the advantage of potentially more eagerness to design on the part of some.
Anyway, forget Lombardia, focus on Paris-Tours! Change of %, ok ok, designers decision, I think second 6% is a unnecessary change that changes the balance too much potentially (the first one is of course not uncontroversial either, but somehow helps bringing a certain selection to the race) but ok, designers decision, can try it like that. The last hill, +5 off by 2 or 3 km if I calculated correctly though is wrong and while I don't expect it to be decisive either, it could be in some situations, plus it's somehow such an unnecessary mistake that it should be corrected. Or at least reviewed to see if maybe I got it wrong... And that's something you can ask the designer to do.