What is your (any measurer/certifier) opinion regarding adding a race's Website to our map? I would suggest putting it immediately under the name of the race, and add "(as of date of measurement)".

I believe that would help runners that access the USATF listings a better chance of finding more info about a race. If the URL is no longer active, the race may no longer exist. And, along that same line (active URL), I think all race directors should be strongly encouraged to put "USATF certified" in their Website. That would help when runners search for certified races.

No, it does not help for races already mapped and listed, but if we start now, it will gradually cover all races that have Websites. And, if an old race wants their site added to the official map, they can pay a fee ($30?) to have a new map submitted to Stu.

Thoughts?

This seems to me to be a decision for the measurer, not certifiers. I can see how it would help, and it doesn't seem to have a downside.

As long as I'm not keeping track of 29,000 websites and fielding questions as to why the Podunk 5k site seems to be down, I'm OK with it.

In the case of multiple races using the same course, it could get messy.

Fundamentally and philosophically a bad idea. A course exists as an entity outside a race.

It is a bad idea because:

• A course could be used by more than one event. Several of our local courses are.
  
  
• The race may be renamed, they often are.
  
  
• The website address may change, this is frequent. Race we did two weeks ago has renamed the website.
  
  
• The registered owner of the domain may part ways with the event organization group. It happens.
  
  
• The event may go away and be replaced by a new event on the same course.
  
  
• The key sponsor may change and therefore the race or website name changes.
  
  
• Websites are essentially a marketing tool for the race. I don’t know what marketing the race has to do with certification of the distance.
  
  
• Events do not own courses. They are usually held in public places and are all certified by USATF who do cannot and do not give any organization exclusive use to a course.
  

For all of the above it think it is a good idea to keep websites of certifications. If you have the extra space a more appropriate item my be the number and expiry date of the cal course used.

I even try to keep the race name out of the title. I think, when looking down a list of courses on the USATF web site a name like Bayfront Park 4 Mile is more informative than St Patrick’s Day Scramble. It tells you both the location and the length.

James, you make some good points. That is why I posted the idea, to get other's views.

I believe what I would then propose is, if the course is being done for a specific organization, and the Start/Finish location(s) is/are on private property (such as a church, school, or business), then the likelyhood of anyone else using the course is slim to non-existent. In this case, the Website could be put on the map.

If the course is in a park, and is likely to be used by others, then the name of the event shouldn't be on the map, and no Website should be on the map.

How about those parameters?

This is really pretty simple.

If the race director wants the race website placed on the course map, the measurer should place the website on the course map.

Otherwise, don't concern yourself with it.

Jay,

I am thinking more about runners coming to the USATF site looking for certified races to run. The site shows the maps, but the runner knows nothing about when the race is run. I was just trying to enhance the runner's experience with our site, by adding a bit of info that may help the runner. Added value with little effort on the measurer's part.

I'm not sure that's the primary way runners use the search engine. I think it's more that they find a race on some online calendar or in print, then go to USATF to see if the course is certified, and what the route is. At least that's how I do it.

If the RD is doing his part and using the certification number in all advertising and event promotion, then it's a simple matter for runners to find the course they're interested in.

I suppose there are rare instances where somebody wants to run 5k and looks for a certified course near his home, and goes out to run it on some random day just to see what his time would be.

But with certification good for 10 years and sponsors changing yearly, if not more often, it seems the maps would show outdated or incorrect information more often than not.

Back in the day, when I was serious about my racing, I could see myself going to the USATF course listing website (it didn't exist way back then) and searching on Michigan just to see which races were certified. But after that it would probably be easier for me to type the name of the race into google than it would be to type in the race website URL. If you made the URL clickable on the map, that would be a different story.

If you can figure out how to get a clickable URL onto a paper map, you'll be my hero.

I'm not sure the purpose of our website is to promote events. Remember that only the course map is posted online, and there is no requirement that the date of the race be on the course map.

Again, I'm in favor of putting on the map what the person authorizing the measurement wants on the map. If the event organizers want to promote their events, they're probably better off putting a course map (with certification number) on their websites then depending on runners to find their way to the RRTC site.

The race date appears only on the certificate, which doesn't appear online.

And half the time, I don't get the map until after the race anyway. As a promotional tool, our system is remarkably ineffective.

The Guido Brothers are of the same opinion as Jay. The customer gets to select the product. The Measurement Data Sheet and the Application for Certification ask for the race name, indicating the intent that the course be used for a particular race.

We also agree that the RRTC website isn't where most runners look for race information. That makes the site not-so-good for advertising.