We’ve been working toward an all-digital format for maps and certificates since Mike Wickiser began the task, and Stu Riegel continued it. Virtually all maps of active courses may be accessed by the USATF search engine.

Storage of the certificates is presently done with file cabinets. Since Stu took the registrar job, certificates have been scanned as well.

While we have made progress toward full electronic storage we aren’t there yet. Here is a modest proposal: Why not make the certificate integral with the map itself? An example of this may be seen below:



I have not included the contact for the race director, as I don’t think it’s relevant to the course itself. The raw data of actual separation and actual elevation is missing as well. The object is to produce a template, similar to our present certificate, which may be filled out by the certifier, cut to size, and taped to the course map. The map is then copied and copies returned to the measurer and the vice chair, who will check and forward to the registrar.

The course ID is in a location such that the registrar need not write it himself. It makes the ID visible when trolling through papers in a file cabinet.

This is very preliminary, and I’m sure others may have comments. I think it’s worth thinking about. In one stroke our paperwork is halved.

Any comments?

Pete, one thing that might be good would be to have an electronic certificate posted online for certifiers to fill in, then submit, just like runners register online for races. Where that info goes would need to be determined, but I would imagine it could be merged into the course list pretty easily. It might save a lot of typing, etc. - I know it has certainly simplified and changed the race registration process, and for the better.

Jim, That's not what I'm exploring here. I'm after seeing whether the certificate as a separate sheet can't be eliminated, and the smaller data box substituted. At this point I can see this as doable and possibly a step in the right direction.

The online map, however it got there, would thus contain the route plus the relevant certification information.

I guess it's worth asking what information REALLY needs to go forward, and to whom.

Our course lists have never included the name of the race director, and that information is not on the map side of the certificate that is posted on the website.

You might want to add the race distance in meters or miles.

I agree - the RD can change from year to year, so having his/her name on the cert/map isn't a necessity.

Pete, I see what you're getting at here. I'd think this would require leaving a sufficient space on the map for it to be pasted in. I'm sure we could come up w/ an electronic template for the certifiers to fill in and either print or paste electronically on the submitted map.

If we're going to go in this direction, I think we should continue to require maps to be in the 8.5" x 11" size- and then reduce them to fit the space available on the new certificate format. we could possibly put the information at the top, and the various logos down one of the sides.

While we're at it, let's take a look at our forms. How much information do we request on the forms that is not necessary to determine if the course was or was not properly measured, and how much is not used by the certifier to calculate information that goes forward?

My knee-jerk reaction is that we don't need our address shown on the map. And, will the phone number and/or email address change often enough to where we may not want them printed? If I am a measurer, and my address/phone/email changes, I am still in the list of measurers on the USATF site, and if we keep that info current, I can be reached through that source. The name of the measurer is the only info that won't change, so that seems to be the only necessary bit of info about the measurer.

That said, I would be okay with my email address being on it, as I won't let that email address expire, as I own my domain. So, it could be a choice made by the measurer, as to how much contact info is printed.

If the map replaced a previous certification, I assume that would also be printed on the map?

I am trying to be the devil's advocate, and come up with a way the map/cert may be counterfitted, but I believe if the course appears in the USATF database, and thus appears on the USATF site, that should be enough validation of authenticity. There really would be no need for the paper certificate in the present form.

What does the Records gentleman from the USATF Records meeting think about this? The one who was talking about the process for validations?

I agree the name and email address is probably all needed for the measurer. As for placement of the info required, that's the Regional Certifier judgement as to where it is placed.

As for Drop and Separation being there, that would be a decision made by the Regional Certifier, but not necessary.

We need to replace the Expiration Date with something like "Certification Valid June 12, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2018."
Note: the June 12th date is the date the course was post marked and Certified.

This led to an interesting discussion as to why we need to keep our Certificates.

See my post on this!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gene Newman,

One thing we need to keep in mind here is that for some courses, particularly marathons, where a lot of detail is needed to describe the course satsifactorily, it's hard work to get all the information needed on an 8.5" x 11" and keeping it readable. If a bunch of new information is going to be required to be added to the map, it may be very difficult to find space for it.

Also keep in mind that the measurement certificate and map may be the only information that a measurer provides to a race director. Thus, transmission of important information about the certification might be lost, for example, the statement about re-certification being necessary is any changes are made to the course. I suspect that there are many RD's who would not know this if it was not on the certificate.

The questions that need seriously asking are who is the certificate (and map) really for and what information needs to be provided to them.

Also, in my opinion, a certain amount of professionalism needs to be maintained in the certification process. Issuing the certificate in its present form looks like an official document. Handwriting or cutting-and-pasting information onto a map produced by others may look less so.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Matthew Studholme,

After reading the replies I'm withdrawing my tentative advocacy of a one-page-contains-everything certificate.

1) The space needed for the certification information would no longer be available for the map, making mapmaking more difficult.

2) The information box would be a bit more compact than readable. The present certificate has the information spread out and readable. This is important, as the registrar should not have to squint as he enters the data into the course list.

3) The certificate itself is something some race directors like to display.

I'm going to try to stifle my new proposals as regards the course list until Gene has had a chance to get used to it, and I intend to put those things on my certified maps that he directs.

LABELING THE MAP

The proposed new requirements for map labeling have received some commentary. The comments relate mainly to two things:

1) The new labeling requirement takes up space on the map that may not be available.
2) The information proposed is mostly available already.

The single exception seems to be the date of certification, which is the date the certifier receives the application from the measurer. This date could be included as an extra column in the database, which would require extra keystrokes by the registrar. It is already included on the certificate. These have been scanned and saved since Stu took over the registrar job, and I expect Gene continues this.

Below is a label I put on a map yesterday. It took up so much room that I had to slightly reduce the entire map to make it fit. I used to put only the certification ID, which takes far less space.



It is important for the ID to be in decently large print, so that the registrar can read it easily when renaming the image file with the course ID.

While I will comply with the new labeling requirements, I’d like to see the required labeling go back to only the course ID, shown in large, legible print.

Is someone going to summarize all of this at some point? There are two threads going on this topic, and there seems to be conflicting information in the different posts, both within and between the two threads.

Maybe I am being picky, but, if the USATF search engine can't handle spaces in our cert number, do we really want to include spaces in the cert number on our maps (and certificates)?

If a race director copied the cert number into their race brochure, exactly as it is shown in the sample above, a runner with the brochure in-hand may go to the USATF site in search of the map. If said runner entered the number exactly as shown in the brochure, the error says "Invalid course number", then instructs the searcher to remove spaces. Might we simply omit the spaces on our certs and maps?

Mark and all,

Below is what our Regional Certifiers will inform their measurers as to what is expected. As for the map, the only new thing is #5. The space taken my this will be small and I feel is not a factor!

Here it is for all to see!!!!!
Maps should have the following:
1.Course ID - (done by Regional Certifier)
2.North Arrow - (done my measurer)
3.Race Name and City- (done by measurer)
4.Start, Finish and Key Turns with descriptions- (done by measurer)
5.In place of Expiration Date the following statement à Certificate valid from(date of submission) to Dec. 31st(10 years hence) - (done by Regional Certifier)

Maps should not contain Pictures or Photographs.
Maps should be only done with Black print on White Paper
Maps should have a margin of 3/8”
Maps should be done on the back of the Certificate if possible.

Here's what I have on all my maps currently:


Henceforth I will modify it as follows


Looking at this I think in addition to the city and state, the map should state the distance as well. The "USATF Certified Course" logo is just a nicety I put in, but is certainly not necessary.

I don't think the measurer's name & email/phone should be a requirement; both are likely to change before the cert's 10-year expiration is reached.

Jim,

That's a nice arrangement of text and logo. I could make it work for my own courses, but I'd expect it wouldn't fit on some of the maps I get, as the measurers don't plan for the addition of a text block, and I have to put it where it will fit.

I agree that the race distance should appear on the map.

Right, I wasn't suggesting it be something the certifiers do, but more as a template/guide for measurers. I used to leave the last 2 digits of the cert. number blank to let the state certifier fill in.

In review of the new requirements for course maps, I came upon a couple of observations.
First, we have never certified races. Courses yes, but races NO. The reason being what happens when The Podunk 5k changes it's name to the Christmas Run 5k? Now a new certificate would be necessary
Forcing the Race name may cause the necessity to reissue certificates unnecessarily. Bob Baumel has made this point clear in the past.
Second, I would stay away from using "valid" anywhere on a certificate unless that course had indeed been Validated. The difference is known to the Validations Chairman but not necessarily known to the general public or the Record keepers.
I have changed my certificates from "Course Submission Date" to Course Certification Effective Date" and use " Certification in effect MM/DD/YYYY to 12/31/YYYY plus 10 years.

Excellent points. Dave Reik always impressed on me the desire to name a course after its location (South Norwalk 5K) rather than race name (Run for Santa) for exactly that reason. There are some instances where I've had race directors ask me to name the course after their event; maybe they feel this will confer some sense of ownership?

The "valid" point is even more important. The use of "Effective" is an excellent choice for both the submission date on the cert and on the map. Actually, to save space might it be possible to simply state "Effective MM/DD/YYYY to MM/DD/YYYY" after the course number?

Jim,

I like it. Simple and easy.

If we metricize, as Ametrica wants, shouldn't we change the date format to YYYY/MM/DD?

Duane,

Actually, the International (ISO 8601) date format is YYYY-MM-DD (with hyphens), not YYYY/MM/DD. See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html

Since most feel we need to change the Certificate, I have notified Bob to make the change on the Template. The VC's will notify their Regional Certifiers to contact Bob for a new Template. Below are the map guidelies!

Maps should have the following:
1.Course ID - (done by Regional Certifier)
2.North Arrow - (done my measurer)
3.Race Name and City- (done by measurer)
4.Start, Finish and Key Turns with descriptions- (done by measurer)
5.In place of Expiration Date use the following "Effective MM-DD-YYYY to MM-DD=YYYY" after the course number - (done by Regional
Certifier)

Maps should not contain Pictures or Photographs.
Maps should be only done with Black print on White Paper
Maps should have a margin of 3/8”
Maps should be done on the back of the Certificate if possible.
Note the Certificate will have the following change:
In place of" Course paperwork postmark date " it will be changed to "Course Certification Effective Date"

Ever notice that when the big boss takes on a job it instantly involves half the work it used to?

No sour grapes here. I just wish I'd thought of it.