We have had a string of posts concerning this topic. The question was first posted by one of our Certifier's as we don't validate every course where there is a record set. Yes, this is true because of several factors.

A. Cost
B. Expert Manpower

If a record is set and it's not an open record then it's up to the Validation Chair to determine if remeasurement is necessary. Here are some of the factors used in deciding when not to do a remeasurement as expressed by Neville Wood our Validations Chair.

A. The measurer has a high reputation
B. A very similar course has been validated previously and the differences check out well by using some other source such as "Streets"
C. The record performance and that from other race particpants is that expected from those in other races.


Rule 265-3 states that all courses our remeasured. This is not what's done and must be changed.

I suppose there are a very few circumstances where a course needing validation may not need/require remeasurement. The #1 prerequisite is the course in question has been previously validated. Secondarily would be the degree or % of any changes to the previously validated course & expertise of the course measurer. But...

I'm curious the # of courses needing validation each year? How much money does the validation chair have to get the job done each year? How many potential validators are there spread around the country?

I'm guessing the # of courses needing validation each year isn't very big and there are plenty of folks around the country that could perform a validation in a timely manner. I don't know how much money is available to handle 'fees' for a validator but I'm guessing there's enough for each year. If not, perhaps we could work w/the event to get them to help cover expenses?

In the end, I feel we should validate all courses via remeasurement.

I feel the same way as Scott. I'm amazed that a validation is done without a re-measurement. No one is infallable. Mistakes happen. If not a re-measurement, at least a physical on-site check by a third party, i.e., someone other than the original course measurer, that the certified course map really does correspond to what is claimed was run on race day. Using "Streets" or any other mapping software to validate a course to me is inadequate. If construction work has occurred on the course since the current version of "Streets" was published, how is the "validator" going to know without an on-site inspection at minimum? Also, most mapping software are inaccurate if there are changes in elevation. We have expert measurers in the form of state certifiers scattered around the US so that the travelling distance for any one of them would be a few hours drive at most. What am I missing here?

My question is; how many courses that have been validated through re-measurement have been found to be short?

If the answer is "zero", then we don't seem to have a problem. If, however, courses are regularly found to be short, then I think physical re-measurement should be required.