How to handle certified Splits on the certificate?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
It is a simple process, which will be explained at the meeting
Comment from Jeff John:
I advocate a simple YES / NO response and no more. This is not the place for it. In order to remain true to our philosophy that the certified split is measured and documented to the same rigor as the complete course, then we should continue to insist that the certified split have its own measures, data sheets, application and certificate.
I advocate a simple YES / NO response and no more. This is not the place for it. In order to remain true to our philosophy that the certified split is measured and documented to the same rigor as the complete course, then we should continue to insist that the certified split have its own measures, data sheets, application and certificate.
Jeff, the intent of certified splits is, for example, someone setting a 5k state record during the running of a 10k. I have seen 20k splits certified for half-marathon courses, for that particular reason (whether state or national record).
The way it is currently done, which is to list the certified splits on the certificate, is a very good method. Any measurer can place splits in a certifiable location (split the difference between the locations on the two measurements), and not list them on the cert. This will only mean that a state (or national) record can't be set on that course. The splits, though, will be as accurate as they can possibly be for the length of the segment.
The way it is currently done, which is to list the certified splits on the certificate, is a very good method. Any measurer can place splits in a certifiable location (split the difference between the locations on the two measurements), and not list them on the cert. This will only mean that a state (or national) record can't be set on that course. The splits, though, will be as accurate as they can possibly be for the length of the segment.
I agree with Duane. Of course that rigor that Jeff talks about has to be there but it doesn't have to be a separate rigamarole.
Thanks Duane - your input suggests that I may have misunderstood the issue. My fear was that this proposed action may inadvertently dilute the integrity and utility of the certified split.
There are very important reasons, not related to race records, for the certified split such as for future use as a building block in a new or altered route.
The certified split therefore needs to be able to stand alone on its own merits, i.e, it must have its own documentation not dependent on the original root course.
I agree with Bob that it is unwise to store data in multiple places, AKA, a separate rigmarole.
Hence, although it would be good to note the existence and perhaps the ID number(s) of any certified splits for a course on that course's cert, I hope that this effort is not intended to be in lieu of the split's own thorough documentation.
JJ
There are very important reasons, not related to race records, for the certified split such as for future use as a building block in a new or altered route.
The certified split therefore needs to be able to stand alone on its own merits, i.e, it must have its own documentation not dependent on the original root course.
I agree with Bob that it is unwise to store data in multiple places, AKA, a separate rigmarole.
Hence, although it would be good to note the existence and perhaps the ID number(s) of any certified splits for a course on that course's cert, I hope that this effort is not intended to be in lieu of the split's own thorough documentation.
JJ
There are a few reasons for certified Splits. One is for records. Another is for making it easier for doing a course adjustment.
My concern is how one shows this on the original certificate as there is no need to have a separate certificate.
My concern is how one shows this on the original certificate as there is no need to have a separate certificate.
Just thinking outside the box I suggest the following:
1. in the race name we add the distances of the certified split points.
2. We place an "*" next to the splits that are record eligible. The * notation is placed at the bottom of the certificate.
3. We add a second page listing all of the pertinent data: Drop, Separation, and landmark notation.
4. We add a notation on the map.
I also think that we should remove the start-finish distance and the elevation information from the Certificate. That's all calculation data and not for the Certificate. fyi - it's not included on the IAAF Certificate
1. in the race name we add the distances of the certified split points.
2. We place an "*" next to the splits that are record eligible. The * notation is placed at the bottom of the certificate.
3. We add a second page listing all of the pertinent data: Drop, Separation, and landmark notation.
4. We add a notation on the map.
I also think that we should remove the start-finish distance and the elevation information from the Certificate. That's all calculation data and not for the Certificate. fyi - it's not included on the IAAF Certificate
David,
I don't agree with several points.
First the start/finish need to be
Shown. This allows the records
Chair to see if a course is record
Eligible. Also, it is important to
Show on the bottom of the certificate
The info to see if the drop and
Sep. are done correctly. IAAF is
Not an example we should follow.
I have heard they have make comments
Like we only need to do one ride to
Certify a course. Their reasoning
Is they don't make mistakes.
I don't agree with several points.
First the start/finish need to be
Shown. This allows the records
Chair to see if a course is record
Eligible. Also, it is important to
Show on the bottom of the certificate
The info to see if the drop and
Sep. are done correctly. IAAF is
Not an example we should follow.
I have heard they have make comments
Like we only need to do one ride to
Certify a course. Their reasoning
Is they don't make mistakes.
Gene
I do agree that the IAAF should be doing two measurements for Certification- we are working on this. But the drop and separation is the only information required to determine if a course is ok for records. I also agree that the raw data is important to determine if the the drop and separation is correct but doesn't need to be on the Certificate.
I do agree that the IAAF should be doing two measurements for Certification- we are working on this. But the drop and separation is the only information required to determine if a course is ok for records. I also agree that the raw data is important to determine if the the drop and separation is correct but doesn't need to be on the Certificate.
David
In response to your comment on drop and separation, it is potentially a good idea. Right now as registrar I am seeing about a 10% error rate on certificates. This isn't just drop and separation but they are common errors. Now that we have more courses with the same start and finish for timing purposes that error rate is decreasing. Before we remove the raw data for drop and separation I would like to collect some data on error rates for both. Since this is a slower time of the year for certs, it will take me a few months to collect data on all of the incoming errors to see if there are some simple ways to lower the overall error rate. If drop and separation error rates are very low then it would probably be ok to remove the raw data. I would like to hold off on that discussion until I can provide some compelling data to support a position one way or the other. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
In response to your comment on drop and separation, it is potentially a good idea. Right now as registrar I am seeing about a 10% error rate on certificates. This isn't just drop and separation but they are common errors. Now that we have more courses with the same start and finish for timing purposes that error rate is decreasing. Before we remove the raw data for drop and separation I would like to collect some data on error rates for both. Since this is a slower time of the year for certs, it will take me a few months to collect data on all of the incoming errors to see if there are some simple ways to lower the overall error rate. If drop and separation error rates are very low then it would probably be ok to remove the raw data. I would like to hold off on that discussion until I can provide some compelling data to support a position one way or the other. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
I don't think we should eliminate Drop and Separation from the certificate. While they are calculations, so what? If I am an elite runner, or their agent, looking to see if a course is certified, I am interested in Drop and Separation for record consideration.
I don't see where having those data sets on the certificate is a problem, nor a chore. It is useful information for some runners.
I don't see where having those data sets on the certificate is a problem, nor a chore. It is useful information for some runners.
I think there might be some confusion in my suggestion.
I am NOT suggesting removing the Drop and Separation from the Certificate- this is vital information required for record ratification.
I am only suggesting that we remove the raw data : distance from start to finish and high/low elevation. Of course this data is essential on the measurement report submitted for Certification but it's not needed for the actual Certificate. It has been mentioned that there could be errors in calculating the Drop and Separation - but these errors are caught by the Certifier when reviewing and application. In fact, the Drop and Separation is the only data submitted in regards to Certification that ANYONE can check by going to GoogleEarth because we already provide the exact location of the start and finish.
I am NOT suggesting removing the Drop and Separation from the Certificate- this is vital information required for record ratification.
I am only suggesting that we remove the raw data : distance from start to finish and high/low elevation. Of course this data is essential on the measurement report submitted for Certification but it's not needed for the actual Certificate. It has been mentioned that there could be errors in calculating the Drop and Separation - but these errors are caught by the Certifier when reviewing and application. In fact, the Drop and Separation is the only data submitted in regards to Certification that ANYONE can check by going to GoogleEarth because we already provide the exact location of the start and finish.
Gene, I think I see the underlying problem causing some confusion with the certified split question (at least from my perspective). The problem is mine! I was unaware that the issue that concerns me most may have already been discussed and "decided" - but I'm not alone in that confusion.
I don't make a lot of certified splits but respect them. I thought that I had a handle on the topic based on historical inquiries I had made to some of our best measurers. Today I searched for the official requirements. I came up blank.
The procedures manual does not have an appendix item covering the topic and our web site does not appear to contain a doc on the topic. I think we need to have one, if we're ready for that.
I did find some Forum discussions and learned that we have tried to eliminate the separate certificate for the certified split -- except, as Jane Parks noted, "where needed". I'd like to append to that thought that we probably can not always foresee where it will be needed. I'm sorry I missed that discussion. I would have advocated for preserving the means in the database to identify the split via its own ID number, regardless of how we indicate the splits existence on the full course certificate. I'd recommend we note the splits distance and ID numbers on the main course's cert. The split's record eligibility would be noted where it belongs: In the split's own cert.
If, for example, we have a certified 30K en route to a particular marathon, and a runner breaks a 30K record on that course, that 30K "COURSE" needs to be able to be identified and stand on its own feet, with its own pair of measures, calibrations, drop, separation and verification. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think for record purposes it has any significance that the run was made as part of a longer run -- it's perhaps a bigger feat and very interesting -- but not relevant to the 30K record. The record needs to have a previously certified 30K course - not a footnote buried in a marathon's course documentation.
Certified Splits may become more important soon. I read a fascinating post earlier this year from David Katz where David shared that he was making certified splits to soften the impact of construction on certified courses. That's a brilliant idea. Via the certified split he can isolate the affected component, and avoid re-measuring much of the old course.
When I shared David's post at a race director's meeting this spring it drew a very enthusiastic response from the RD's. They were eager to save money on year-to-year course re-certifications.
But, I am now more confused than ever.
If it's not too much trouble, I would encourage re-opening the broader question of exactly how we should define and handle certified splits in our course measurement practice. I want to do this properly. Hopefully, we can evolve a standardized, published procedure for the uniform handling of all our certified splits.
JJ
I don't make a lot of certified splits but respect them. I thought that I had a handle on the topic based on historical inquiries I had made to some of our best measurers. Today I searched for the official requirements. I came up blank.
The procedures manual does not have an appendix item covering the topic and our web site does not appear to contain a doc on the topic. I think we need to have one, if we're ready for that.
I did find some Forum discussions and learned that we have tried to eliminate the separate certificate for the certified split -- except, as Jane Parks noted, "where needed". I'd like to append to that thought that we probably can not always foresee where it will be needed. I'm sorry I missed that discussion. I would have advocated for preserving the means in the database to identify the split via its own ID number, regardless of how we indicate the splits existence on the full course certificate. I'd recommend we note the splits distance and ID numbers on the main course's cert. The split's record eligibility would be noted where it belongs: In the split's own cert.
If, for example, we have a certified 30K en route to a particular marathon, and a runner breaks a 30K record on that course, that 30K "COURSE" needs to be able to be identified and stand on its own feet, with its own pair of measures, calibrations, drop, separation and verification. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think for record purposes it has any significance that the run was made as part of a longer run -- it's perhaps a bigger feat and very interesting -- but not relevant to the 30K record. The record needs to have a previously certified 30K course - not a footnote buried in a marathon's course documentation.
Certified Splits may become more important soon. I read a fascinating post earlier this year from David Katz where David shared that he was making certified splits to soften the impact of construction on certified courses. That's a brilliant idea. Via the certified split he can isolate the affected component, and avoid re-measuring much of the old course.
When I shared David's post at a race director's meeting this spring it drew a very enthusiastic response from the RD's. They were eager to save money on year-to-year course re-certifications.
But, I am now more confused than ever.
If it's not too much trouble, I would encourage re-opening the broader question of exactly how we should define and handle certified splits in our course measurement practice. I want to do this properly. Hopefully, we can evolve a standardized, published procedure for the uniform handling of all our certified splits.
JJ
Jeff, I am not following why the 30K record in your example would have to have its own certification. If it's listed as a certified split on the marathon certification, that makes it eligible for record setting. This listing is right there on the certification, and I don't think you would call it "buried." (I followed the examples that Gene sent me, of courses that listed certified splits on the cert.)
Jeff and all,
I don't know how to post the certificates with Certified splits. Hence, I will mail you these. For one wanting to have a second page or another certificate showing these is not necessary. If anyone wants copies, just send me your request at xnjnowaz@gmail.com
I don't know how to post the certificates with Certified splits. Hence, I will mail you these. For one wanting to have a second page or another certificate showing these is not necessary. If anyone wants copies, just send me your request at xnjnowaz@gmail.com
Jeff,
I will see if we can get these examples on RRTC.net
Gene
I will see if we can get these examples on RRTC.net
Gene
If you look up VA14061RT you can see two certified splits listed.
Here are two examples of how to use a certificate showing certified Splits. Use the following links.
http://www.usatf.org/events/co...p?courseID=NY16012DK
http://www.usatf.org/events/co...?courseID=TX14002GAN
http://www.usatf.org/events/co...p?courseID=NY16012DK
http://www.usatf.org/events/co...?courseID=TX14002GAN
Thanks Gene, Bob! I have to admit, this is pretty slick. It looks a lot better in practice than what I had envisioned from the verbal description.
My questions: (1) For most courses today we produce the "Course Measurement Data Sheet" as part of the Road Course Application where we list splits, counts, variance for each measurement ride. Is this (rides and Jones counter data capture during the original 2 whole course measure rides) sufficient for creation of the Certified Splits when augmented by the new split information (drop and separation factors) on the whole course certificate( assuming the split's totals are within 0.08%)?
(2) Would it be appropriate to add certified splits to an existing old but valid course at a later date during its lifetime, based on the data captured in the original measures, by adding the drop and separation factors to the cert and augmenting the course title field?
JJ
My questions: (1) For most courses today we produce the "Course Measurement Data Sheet" as part of the Road Course Application where we list splits, counts, variance for each measurement ride. Is this (rides and Jones counter data capture during the original 2 whole course measure rides) sufficient for creation of the Certified Splits when augmented by the new split information (drop and separation factors) on the whole course certificate( assuming the split's totals are within 0.08%)?
(2) Would it be appropriate to add certified splits to an existing old but valid course at a later date during its lifetime, based on the data captured in the original measures, by adding the drop and separation factors to the cert and augmenting the course title field?
JJ
Thanks for your invaluable input Bob. There are a number of possibilities where it might make sense to have separate certs, but, like Pete has noted, the issue really does not come up all that often - so maybe we're spinning our wheels. But the question intrigues me from an academic perspective.
Here's the thread that I was referencing: https://measure.infopop.cc/eve/...=228308924#228308924
See Gene Newman's post, at bottom of thread, of 12 August 2010. Gene shares concerns raised by Ron Fitzpatrick and Jane Parks regarding dropping the separate cert for the splits.
Now, here's what I was thinking of regarding the potential value of separate certs for certified splits: I had the great pleasure of joining Bernie Conway's measure team for this year's Hamilton Run For Hope Marathon in Canada - it was a great learning experience for me! And, although Bernie was unfazed I was very impressed by the complexity of this measure!
Here's the main challenge we faced: Mid-marathon, the new 2016 route utilized an arbitrary significant length of parkway which had also been used in the 2008 certified marathon. Although the police let the race use that section again this year, they would not permit us to measure on the parkway this year.
The old course and new course were not the same. To determine the distance of the parkway section we had to locate an old un-certified split, then ride back one kilometer from it to join the new course route and subtract to estimate the length of the verboten section of the route. ( I shared with Bernie that I thought the process was sound but I did not believe I could certify this course in the USA with this procedure - oops, I don't think he liked that ).
In 20/20 hindsight, I surmised that it would have been awesome if we had foreseen this predicament in 2008 and certified the entire parkway split to points outside the Parkway so that we could construct a new course including the old measured parkway component. This procedure would be beyond reproach. (Embedded question: should the new composite course have a lifetime limited to the remaining life of the original 2008 measure?)
So, my thinking is that, in this example, it would be better to be able to reference the parkway segment via its own cert rather than have to discuss the old marathon in a completely new marathon measure. What if the old marathon course had been invalidated? Are its intermediate splits still valid? I feel it would be much cleaner if the splits used to construct my new course stood on their own merit and had their own cert(s) to prove it.
JJ
Here's the thread that I was referencing: https://measure.infopop.cc/eve/...=228308924#228308924
See Gene Newman's post, at bottom of thread, of 12 August 2010. Gene shares concerns raised by Ron Fitzpatrick and Jane Parks regarding dropping the separate cert for the splits.
Now, here's what I was thinking of regarding the potential value of separate certs for certified splits: I had the great pleasure of joining Bernie Conway's measure team for this year's Hamilton Run For Hope Marathon in Canada - it was a great learning experience for me! And, although Bernie was unfazed I was very impressed by the complexity of this measure!
Here's the main challenge we faced: Mid-marathon, the new 2016 route utilized an arbitrary significant length of parkway which had also been used in the 2008 certified marathon. Although the police let the race use that section again this year, they would not permit us to measure on the parkway this year.
The old course and new course were not the same. To determine the distance of the parkway section we had to locate an old un-certified split, then ride back one kilometer from it to join the new course route and subtract to estimate the length of the verboten section of the route. ( I shared with Bernie that I thought the process was sound but I did not believe I could certify this course in the USA with this procedure - oops, I don't think he liked that ).
In 20/20 hindsight, I surmised that it would have been awesome if we had foreseen this predicament in 2008 and certified the entire parkway split to points outside the Parkway so that we could construct a new course including the old measured parkway component. This procedure would be beyond reproach. (Embedded question: should the new composite course have a lifetime limited to the remaining life of the original 2008 measure?)
So, my thinking is that, in this example, it would be better to be able to reference the parkway segment via its own cert rather than have to discuss the old marathon in a completely new marathon measure. What if the old marathon course had been invalidated? Are its intermediate splits still valid? I feel it would be much cleaner if the splits used to construct my new course stood on their own merit and had their own cert(s) to prove it.
JJ
Jeff, as for separate certificate I don't like it. If a course is invalid, then how could a certificate of Splits be valid? Maybe there are situations where it would work, but there are other situations where it wouldn't.
The others point about going back to an old course and adding certified Splits. It could be done, but this would present problems for the Regional Certifiers and Registrar. Both a new map as well as a new certificate would have to be produced. If additional pages are added, this is a problem for the Registrar. I don't think we should go there.
The others point about going back to an old course and adding certified Splits. It could be done, but this would present problems for the Regional Certifiers and Registrar. Both a new map as well as a new certificate would have to be produced. If additional pages are added, this is a problem for the Registrar. I don't think we should go there.