Should splits be given for every course?

I didn't realize that measurers don't always include descriptions of splits. I've always insisted that measurers describe split locations. When measuring, I have occasionally certified mid-course splits (e.g., 5 km split in a 10 km course), but I usually don't certify other splits unless a race director asks.

Perhaps the course manual should be updated to read: "It’s best to include all documentation directly on your map, but if this would make the map too cluttered, you SHOULD provide your list of split descriptions on a separate sheet."

Splits are an important part of any course.
Accurate splits enhance the ability of runners to gauge their performance along the course.
Certification is for the total distance though and splits become secondary to total course distance. With the one page requirement, intermediate points not defining the exact route sometimes lose room on the course map.
I am as big a supporter of reasonably accurate splits as any, but don't require splits as part of the certification review. I will comment to the measurer about the lack of splits but as they are not a necessary part of the total course I don't believe it is within the Certifier's authority to require them.
I agree it is by far best to include intermediate splits but should it be required to include them and cause the map to suffer or to require a measurer to go back and measure splits when the RD didn't want them?

Mike,

No one says they can't use a 2nd page for split locations. When they are on the map, I feel as our map requirement states they should be as accurate as possible. You are not serving the running community by not defining them as well as possible.

I think we should strongly encourage measurers to measure and document intermediate points. I almost always do this and for the biggest races I usually adjust the points carefully enough that I could certify the points if I wanted. I don't want to; I am doing this partly to make it more convenient to remeasure in the future for course changes.

But I don't think we should require that intermediate splits be documented, and there are some cases where it can be a thankless task. I'm thinking of races along the C&O Canal towpath, where the Park Service has placed mile posts-- inaccurately for the most part. The RD's often say they want accurate mile points so I measure the points and go to great lengths to document (243 yards past lock 7, 14' before 5'-diameter sycamore, blah blah). I'll tie surveyor's tape on a branch and plant a marker flag. So what happens next is the race director asks if I can just do them a favor and go put the signs out for the race. Well I usually do that too, maybe because I don't want all that prior work to go to waste!

I'm just telling this cautionary tale in hopes that it will dissuade someone else from going down that path. Tell 'em to use the Park Service mile markers, rough and erroneous as they might be, as a general guide to where they are on the course!

Another problem arises when authorities do not want ANY paint or markings placed on the road (currently the rule on National Park roads). I've tried to use duct tape for some of these cases but I've found that sometimes the tape will stick for a long time, and sometimes it's gone after the next rainstorm.

I remember the days before all courses had every mile marked. Was it so bad? I don't know that it made the experience of running any worse or better. Maybe you didn't think about numbers so much. Of course in those days you couldn't have much confidence in the overall distance either. I'm glad we've tried to correct that one.

For the record, I have never rejected a map for lacking splits. The reason I began this thread was, I see plenty of maps from around the west without splits described. I wanted to get some input about splits being documented on the map (or a second page).

When I was a runner, I expected splits to be accurate. This was before I was aware of course certification. Now, I know that most courses can have accurate splits, and wonder why so many certifiers don't encourage a measurer to add them to a map, when accurate split descriptions are possible. I understand trail races are more difficult, but many times, accurate splits are still possible.

I often need to measure courses where I am not allowed to paint or nail the mile marks (Disney Park Properties). But I ALWAYS note my splits in great detail, and they are on the maps. On race day, the course director is able to set out the mile markers.

I have seen the same habit of not listing splits by other measurers, but I encourage my measurers to add them to the map. If you want to see how tough it can get, take a look at some of my WDW Marathon maps.

But with computer programs to create maps, they are also able to decrease the size of the font, and the points may be listed. I can well imagine in the old days that it was much more difficult to do the things we are able to today. As tools become more sophisticated, there should be more emphasis on creating better documents. Even those of us with no drafting education can make good maps. Listing splits is a service to our runners and race directors.

It depends on the course, too. I renewed a 5K prediction run course this year; the RD didn't want splits and doesn't put mile markers out. Considering the event is a (certified) 5,000-meter road run/walk/jaunt/amble/saunter/stumble with a drunken bacchanal as "bookends" it appeared a moot point.

I totally understand the prediction-run map not having splits - that is an important part of the concept of that run. But, that can also be made clear with a simple note on the map regarding the nature of the course, and lack of splits.

It hurts nothing, and helps many, if we put pertinent notes on the maps, not just splits, etc.

I have had situations where the RD wanted to change some small thing about the course, which required me to make an adjustment that took maybe 20 minutes. But to drive around the course and move and document all the new mile mark locations would take much longer, and I would have to charge much more for the change.
Instead, I often measure the mile mark changes on google earth and give the RD GPS coordinates, but I don't put those on the certification map since I didn't measure their locations on site. Should I go ahead and put those GPS coordinates of mile mark locations on the certification map?

Unless the split locations can be accurately described (not just a street address, or a GPS coordinate that may, or may not, be accurate to within 10 meters), I would not put them on a map. We are certifying the length of the course, and along with that, I believe there is an expectation of accurate information on that map. Generalities for descriptions reduce the credibility of the certification, in my mind.

I think we've got relief from the requirement to put all splits on the map by allowing us to put them on a separate sheet. Beyond that I think we degrade our product by not providing splits. If the splits are to be certified, they need the same location measurements as the start, finish and turnaround. If they are not to be certified (99+%) they need a pretty close location description. 10 meters may be the outer limit, top runners will notice a 10 meter error.

Good discussion. I agree with most of what has been said.

There's another angle that we might mention, especially to newer measurers: it's very helpful to have a set of consistent points for intermediate readings during each ride. Often this set of points is the same as the mile marks-- but if it's a course where you can't put the timing marks on the first ride, then some other set of points is very helpful.

Many, probably most, measurers will just look at the total counts for each ride. But some will like the increased confidence from using the "sum of shortest splits" method. And it's something a certifier can use when trying to get a sense of how carefully the course was measured.