Moving start & finish to Different Point on a Course

Matt, from what you have stated the answer is yes as it being certified. The miles were not certified and it would up to the race to mark them.

Gene

Thanks for reply, Gene. Would this be true for non-loop courses too? That is, providing the real estate for the certified distance is not changed, moving the start and finish to new positions along the same certified course does not affect its certified status. Just double checking my understanding here.

Thanks.

I'm hoping we can finally look at Matt's unanswered followup question above. I think the answer is obvious -- but I'd prefer to hear from our best measurers and RRTC authorities.

What if the course is not a perfect loop that STARTs and FINISHes at the same spot? What if, instead, it's effectively more like a point-to-point.

This question comes up around here (Buffalo/WNY) occasionally and just did again today. The course in question is not quite a loop. The START and FINISH points are separated by about 1/4 mile.

Today, I heard from the first time RD who is publically contending he has a Certified Course (NY10015JG) even though he intends to move the start a mile away from the official start point and place it on an entirely different road.

I advised him that his course would not be considered certified unless he takes specific action to make it so.

Technically, his altered course might be good if he were to steel-tape, or calibrated-ride it to measure the separation and then accurately transfer that separation to the new road and then note the spots reliative to physical reference points -- but that's approaching an original course measure. Do we have such a procedure authorized? I would not think so. I'd hate to have to try to get a record ratified with all that going on.

Was my contention correct?
Thanks for any input.

Technically, Jeff, the course is still certified. The methodology does not require a calibrated bike, or a steel tape.

They would measure (Jones Counter) from a common point on both courses, to the old Start. Record counts. Ride the course back to the common point, then compare counts. If within tolerance, use the one that gave the longest measurement. That is how far you will now ride to the new Start location. Make a mark, then ride back to the common point. Compare counts, and adjust as necessary.

Thus, you have taken the same distance that the old Start was from the common point, and relocated it to the new Start, the same distance from the common point.

While this allows the course to remain certified, one has to ask "At what length do we require a complete re-measure?". In my opinion, this is reaching that point. My initial response would be "no more than 25% of the course length", but this is only a mile. If we had the 25% threshold, that would be 10k for a Marathon. In that case, a mile is not a significant amount. Open for discussion.

I would suggest to the race director, that while the course is still certified, they should consider a complete re-do, as it gives them a 10-year life. Of course, they may also be thinking that if the new configuration doesn't work out, they will change it again, and don't want to spend the money until they are sure the course works.

Anyone else have a threshold for course modifications before a complete re-do is required?

Whoa! That sounds like a different course to me, and should be properly measured and certified. It wasn't clear that Jeff's RD even measured it (or how it was done if it was), and with the start on a different road-- I don't understand how you can say this course is still certified. I agree with Jeff's opinion on this.
To me if the start, finish, or anything about the course is different from what is shown on the certified map then it's a different course. If it's a "little bit" different, then that little bit should be measured, and the certifier should use judgement to determine whether to certify the adjustment. I would think it gets a new number as well (?).

Duane,
It's sounds to me like you are describing the difference between an adjusted course measurement and a full course measurement, but in both cases the course needs to be re-certified, right?

All this is totally different that what Matt's concern was about on a closed loop.

Yes, this deals with an adjustment to a course. The question is how much adjustment should be allowed? I suggest no hard rule here. Common sense should take place by the certifier. If the certifier feels all is done as Duane has explained, then the course would be issued a new certificate(the life would be 10 years from the original measurement).

Wow! Great response guys. Thanks!

I’ve perhaps not been clear. Back in 2008 Matt asked a question about the loop course. Gene responded quickly and appropriately. Matt thanked him. But then Matt asked a follow-up question, this time referring to a NON-LOOP course. Nobody saw his new question – but it’s an interesting one.

Duane, I read your response three times. I’m convinced you’ve answered Matt’s ORIGINAL question again quite nicely but have not addressed the NEW question. Correct me if I’m wrong here. You communicate very well – if you did answer my question, then this is the first time I can’t follow it.

Here’s what we have:

0) This is NOT a loop course. About quarter mile separation between start and finish.
1) There is a good active certified course, NY10015JG, that race #1 created and still uses.
2) A new race wants to have a similar course in the area but starting nearer it own venue.
3) The old race is not going away, it is happy with the existing course and not involved.
4) The prospective new course will have entirely different undocumented START and FINISH points.
5) But all other aspects of the new course are the same as the existing course, NY10015JG.

I must take exception to the new RD claiming that he is using THE certified course NY10015JG. There is no existing certified course with these START and FINISH locations. There is no certified course map. There has been no certifier review of his course or documentation, if any. I don't know how we can claim that anyone can take the certified course map and set-up this new course in the future, one of our most cherished tenets. I would not think it proper to validate an un–reviewed course. We could do it but isn’t this inconsistent with our existing policies?

If it were proper, then I like Duane's explanation above. If he had a Jones counter, then the RD could capture the counts comprising the START-FINISH separation and just move the separation gap to start where he wanted -- no steel tape or calibration needed. Slick.

Ok, Does that help? Thanks a million Duane, Bob, Mark and Gene for taking a look.
Thanks for any new input.

Jeff, the new details you describe totally change the situation. Moving the Start to a new location, as described in my initial response, would use the same cert number. But, since the moved Start is not replacing the original Start, means this is a new course, and needs to be measured and certified as a new course. Add to that, the Finish has also moved, and there is no question that the new course can't claim to be an altered version of NY10015JG.

Just because two different courses share most of the course, does not mean that the two are the same, certified course. Start and Finish are different, and when the new map is created for the "adjusted" course, I would be the new race director does not want the old course name on his map.

Hope this clarifies. I initially thought that only the Start was moved, the old course would go away, and it was for the same race. Sorry I misunderstood.

Hi Guys,
I just wanted to add my two sense to this as from a runners point of view. Lets say i look up the race and print the map out and day of race I go to the course and see the start and finish are not where they should be according to the map than to me the course is not certified and I will have to question the race director on why and I am sure he has other things to worry about day of race than some runner asking why the course isn't the same as the map.
I think any time there is a change to the course no matter how small it is it should be recertified so as a runner I know the course was certified and is correct.

J A, you are correct. If the course has changed it is not certified ... period!

J.A. and Paul, thanks for your input. I confess I agree with you strongly. We absolutely do not want to put mutiple differing versions of a single "Certified Course" into the public domain. The potential chaos should be obvious.

I had the pleasure of being one of the runners hanging onto the lead pack of the infamous 1985 Buffalo-Niagara International Marathon. The Ft Erie police had a valid race map -- but the course had been "altered" since their map was produced. The well-intentioned police led us almost three miles off course, deep into the Canadian hinterlands before the "old" course rejoined the "new". We did not know if we were running 26 or 29 miles. Many good runners quit in disgust when news got to us at about 10 miles into the run.

The RRTC should not be encouraging the creation of this type of fiasco.

I have heard mention of the words "ALTER" and "MODIFICATION" as if they were routine to some. I suggest we have a review of whatever doctrine has spawned these ill advised notions.

I would encourage that no published certified course map be touched except for corrections at the Certifier's discretion.

Is that reasonable?

JJ

In the last year, I have been asked on four separate occasions whether I can modify an existing, active certified course and re-certify it. My simple answer: "Yes. By starting all over from scratch. If we change the course, USATF considers this a new course". Whether common sense and USATF allow adding a few yards to the finish and subtracting that same amount from the start, for instance, as I have been requested to do, I just don't do it. I sense that there are some permissible exceptions.

Jeff, your story about the 1985 marathon is well-known. This race and a few notorious races in the D.C. area over the years has inspired me to counsel all my race clients: "Never allow police to lead any race unless a race staff person who is knowledgeable about the course is riding in the lead vehicle".

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff:
J.A. and Paul, thanks for your input. I confess I agree with you strongly. We absolutely do not want to put mutiple differing versions of a single "Certified Course" into the public domain. The potential chaos should be obvious.

I had the pleasure of being one of the runners hanging onto the lead pack of the infamous 1985 Buffalo-Niagara International Marathon. The Ft Erie police had a valid race map -- but the course had been "altered" since their map was produced. The well-intentioned police led us almost three miles off course, deep into the Canadian hinterlands before the "old" course rejoined the "new". We did not know if we were running 26 or 29 miles. Many good runners quit in disgust when news got to us at about 10 miles into the run.

The RRTC should not be encouraging the creation of this type of fiasco.

I have heard mention of the words "ALTER" and "MODIFICATION" as if they were routine to some. I suggest we have a review of whatever doctrine has spawned these ill advised notions.

I would encourage that no published certified course map be touched except for corrections at the Certifier's discretion.

Is that reasonable?

JJ

Thanks to a tip from my state certifier, I've discovered a new and very nicely written “policy on adjustments to certified courses”.

For better or worse, the policy leaves a lot to certifier/measurer discretion, i.e., it does not clarify exactly how much “adjustment” , or where, is to be considered acceptable in lieu of making a new course.

The policy can be found here: http://www.usatf.org/events/co...tion/adjustments.asp