[yorkie_chris]

I cannot see any other way to go about it other than the established system.

I was at AR07 with designated markers while relatively new, none of them came past like f##knuggets, I wasn't ragging it so never got to the front of the group. It all seemed to run very smoothly.

I ran a little rideout a few months ago and led it, worrying about whether people were going to mark was THE MOST stressful thing going on during the ride! With designated, known, identifiable markers this would be negated almost completely.

The only benefit to me of 2nd man marking system is if you care to ride at a faster pace than the leader, then you still get chance to stretch your legs a little and make progress catching up again after dropping off.

If there had been designated markers on say, the Glencoe run, I would have been bored off my t1ts sat behind the leader/next markers. This is only advantage of 2nd man marking system.*
But, this doesn't seem like a worthwhile thing on the AR which is much slower. And, if any quick riders simply set off at the back of the pack, by the time they are near the front and at risk of getting bored at the leaders pace** then it will be about the time for a stop anyway since they are only 30 miles apart.

Regarding any ill-feeling, the only people who will whinge about not being markers are the very worst ones to do it. You need people who are quick-ish with nothing to prove. This sort of rider will not whinge about it if they've not been picked either.

You've got a system that works as close to perfectly as is reasonable to expect for a relaxed paced rideout like the AR, and the reasons for this system are perfectly clear to anyone with half a brain. AND there is no viable alternative. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

*Given that we are comparing the merits on a large ride such as the AR.
** Obviously the leader cannot ride at too interesting a pace as the markers need to gain a lot of ground.