TPD Feedback and Issues

[Euler]

It was a pain, as I'm short on data for Ascot and really wanted to capture it.

[lotora]

For clarity, nothing has changed regarding RMG. If you are participating in the markets from these tracks just keep doing what you have been doing. However, watch this space for further announcements in the next few weeks.

Thanks for the clarification.

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

You also mentioned in January: “However, watch this space for further announcements in the next few weeks.” As more than five months have now passed, could you clarify whether those further announcements are still expected, and whether they will be posted here?

[jamesedwards]

You also mentioned in January: “However, watch this space for further announcements in the next few weeks.” As more than five months have now passed, could you clarify whether those further announcements are still expected, and whether they will be posted here?

[jamesedwards]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

[lotora]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

Thanks, James, that’s useful to know.

It will be interesting to see how things develop with RMG data going forward.

[jamesedwards]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

Thanks James, that’s useful, updated information.

It will be interested to see how things develop with RMG data going forward.

I am using the RMG data on almost all tracks. But I am still operating a lower exposure limit for now.

[jamesedwards]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

I just checked and today's hurdles at Uttoxeter are not correct.

[lotora]

My understanding is that the key missing issue with RMG tracks is still the positional data for the jumps, specifically where the obstacles are located on the course.

Without that jump-position data, RMG tracks cannot really be treated in the same way as tracks where the obstacle positions are known, even if the rest of the TPD data is available.

Could you please post an update in this thread once RMG jump-position data becomes available, or if my understanding of the current limitation is no longer correct?

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

I just checked and today's hurdles at Uttoxeter are not correct.

Aha, so this can occasionally affect the Gmax/ARC side of the TPD data as well. Maybe that is another reason not to rely too heavily on jump-position data in automation anyway.

[jamesedwards]

Last time I checked the position of obstacles on ATR tracks was unreliable anyway, especially hurdles as they have greater tendency to move position from meeting to meeting.

I just checked and today's hurdles at Uttoxeter are not correct.

Aha, so this can occasionally affect the Gmax/ARC side of the TPD data as well. Maybe that is another reason not to rely too heavily on jump-position data in automation anyway.

Absolutely.

Many courses change the position of hurdles every couple of meetings and I don't think the TPD Gmax data gets updated. Fences are more likely to remain in situ, but some courses change these occasionally too.

I wouldn't use this data currently.

[lotora]

Thanks for the reply, James. That cleared things up.

@TPD-Zone

Could you please investigate the recent problems with the timing, accuracy and clarity of the daily race information published at: https://www.tpd.zone/status/

Previously, almost all of the day’s races appeared in the first update at around 1:00 a.m. UK time. Recently, it can take several hours before the full schedule is listed, followed by further delays before the information becomes accurate.

The page often initially marks almost every race as “No Pars - Insufficient Data.” Most of these entries are eventually corrected, but this can take several hours. More seriously, some races for which pars are available are never updated and remain incorrectly classified.

This makes it difficult to determine whether the information is simply delayed or whether pars are genuinely unavailable for a particular race. It also makes the page unreliable for customers who need to prepare and review TPD-based automation before racing begins.

There is also a separate concern regarding the wording “Data from an RMG track” in the Notes column. I have raised this issue before, but nothing appears to have changed. That is simply not good enough, particularly because the wording is unlikely to be meaningful to newly registered TPD customers.

Unless users already understand the distinction between RMG racecourses and other venues, they may not know why the course is identified separately, what practical limitation the note is intended to indicate, what data remains available, or how it affects TPD-based automation.

James’s reply also highlights the need for greater clarity, since concerns about the reliability of obstacle-position data may not be limited exclusively to RMG tracks.

The note should therefore include either a brief explanation or a link to a page covering:

1. What an RMG track is.
2. Why these courses are identified separately.
3. What practical limitations the note is intended to indicate.
4. How the available coverage differs from that at other racecourses.
5. Which TPD metrics, ratings or functions may be affected.
6. Whether customers should adjust automation that relies on this information.

Could you please clarify:

1. Why updates to tpd.zone/status/ have become significantly slower.
2. Whether the widespread initial “No Pars - Insufficient Data” classifications are a known issue.
3. Why some races with available pars are never corrected.
4. Whether the service can be restored to its previous standard, with a near-complete and accurate schedule available at around 1:00 a.m. UK time.
5. Why the previously reported concern about “Data from an RMG track” has still not been addressed.
6. What specific limitation this note is intended to communicate.
7. Whether the note can be accompanied by a clearer explanation or a link for customers who are unfamiliar with its meaning.

It is surprising that this part of the service appears to be becoming less reliable rather than improving. Customers depend on it when deciding which races and TPD conditions can safely be included in their automation.