I'll throw my straw man out there:

- Race director arranges ahead of time for the course to be measured and certified the morning of the race.
- Measurer lays out short (100 meter) cal course on the race course surface.
- Measurer rides the course once and reports the distance(no SCPF) to race director. No adjustments to the course are made.
- Measurer completes SMALL application form that includes no map and sends it to state certifier.
- Certifier sends certificate to race director that states the distance and a statement that the certification was valid only for that race day.
- Only measurers that the state certifier has experience with and trusts would be eligible to perform this type of measurement.

Is it accurate to within 0.1%? Probably not.
Will some courses be shorter than what's reported? Yes, about 50% of them.
Will the course be more accurate that 99% of existing cross country courses? For sure.

I am interested to know why would not use the SCPF and why not measure it a few days ahead of time if there is confidence that the route won't be changed?

There are no official records for cross country races, so I don't think there's any point in using the SCPF?

By measuring the morning of the race you are sure you are measuring the same route the runners are going to follow. Most courses will not be all marked up (flags etc.) more than a day before the race.

Mark, I think that's pretty much the official RRTC procedure now, except for omitting the SCPF. There's probably no need to issue a certificate, really - maybe s piece of official-looking paper (paste in the USATF logo) stating the course is measured accurately.

There's also the question of the cal course - you should probably lay one out on the same surface you're measuring.

Jim,

Are you saying it's similar to the current road race certification procedure, or that there is a separate certification process for XC courses that it is similar to?

I would say it is very different from the current road race certification procedure.