I was reading the Measurement Manual, and in the topic of Maps, the example shown has the splits on a separate page. Isn't the accepted method now to include split descriptions on the same page as the map, so only one sheet of paper must be dealt with?

I looked at Connecticut for examples, as there is a plethora of measurers, hence multiple methodologies. I did notice however, that recently, nearly every map has the splits on the same page as the map. If that many measurers can do it for all course lengths, would it not be a good idea to require it? If so, that would necessitate a change in the posted manual.

Am I being too finicky?

Yes, Duane, I think you're being too finicky. I hate to see a map with lots of left-over space, and a separate sheet of splits, and I usually assemble the two into one document when I can.

There are some maps on which this is hard to do without sacrificing map quality. A marathon course can present a problem when all the mile and 5k splits are added. It can usually be done, but sometimes at the sacrifice of map clarity.

Unless the splits are certified, they are an aid to the race director and not a lot of use to anyone else.

I do lean on all my measurers to put the splits on the map whenever possible. That said, I'd hate to see it made a requirement. Start, finish and any TA's are enough to require.

But, when I look at the maps that don't have splits listed, there is still only one page posted.

If our intent is to name courses not for events, but by area/venue, so other races can utilize the same course, how do the new race directors get the splits? Call the Certifier and ask them to go to the files and find an extra page the measurer sent along? Did that extra page get sent along with the app, or was it only given to the race director that had the course certified?

Shouldn't we be including the split descriptions with our posted maps? I haven't tried making a multi-page png, so I don't know what kind of impact that may have. It seems that if the descriptions aren't on the map page, they need to be available with the map online, somehow.

I don't know about requiring splits, but it would be nice to have them on the map if possible. I would rather not have two pages to scan, but in some cases that's necessary.

On another topic, I having the spits as the GPS readings. This should only be used if there are no clear landmarks.

Gene,

I put GPS readings on so people can get close to the marked locations. Just another tool to assure people they are on the right track.

I look at it as street signs when you are going to a new address. The GPS coordinates let you know you in the right area, so you can begin looking closely for the marks. They are not to be used in lieu of locating the marks. Maybe I should add that to my GPS information.

Some thoughts:

My guidance to measurers is that for courses 10K or less, the split descriptions should be on the course map.

That being said, there is no requirement for splits to be on the map at all. Just points that define the course. Unless the split points are certified, they're for information only.

If the split points are on separate sheets, and the measurer wants them to be posted, then the sheets should come to the certifier already reduced so that everything fits on 8.5" x 11". I shudder to think how something reduced to much less than 50% would scan.

I am also less than concerned about having everything posted so that more than one organization can host a race on the same course. If they want to use the course, let them contact the organization that originally went through the time, effort, and expense to design the course and have it measured and certified.