The process for renewing a courses will stop at end of this year. Should it be necessary to remeasure the course as if it was a new course or could we allow just one ride to verifiy the old course as being accurate.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Good question, especially coming from you. The courses I've renewed have all been un-changed from the as measured course. I re-mark the Start and Finish, if needed. I ride the course, without using counts,and re-mark the mile splits. In most cases I make a new map because both my proficiency and software have improved.
I've wondered (and discussed in this forum) about resubmitting the original measurement data with the certification request for an expired course. If the course is unchanged, it seems like make-work for all participants to remeasure and resubmit an entirely new package. Will the remeasured (or whatever) course have a new certification code number? If the expired course is measured one-time, will that measurement be compared to the original?
I've wondered (and discussed in this forum) about resubmitting the original measurement data with the certification request for an expired course. If the course is unchanged, it seems like make-work for all participants to remeasure and resubmit an entirely new package. Will the remeasured (or whatever) course have a new certification code number? If the expired course is measured one-time, will that measurement be compared to the original?
I lean toward requiring the original measurer – and only the original measurer - to verify that the course has not changed. If he can do this, I’d require him/her to submit a statement that the course is unchanged, and a map that reflects the present split descriptions. This would suffice generate a new certificate and a new course number. The old number would remain in the “replaces” blank on the certificate.
Nobody but the original measurer could do this.
Anybody except the original measurer would have to start over and measure twice.
This is just my opinion.
FYI – One of my oldest courses, The Upper Arlington 5 Miler, was first certified as OH84011PR. It has been run annually since then, on suburban streets that have remained unchanged. I remeasured it (twice, as per standard) and certified it as OH06001PR. It’s less than a mile from my house. For a number of years it was expired but nobody cared.
Nobody but the original measurer could do this.
Anybody except the original measurer would have to start over and measure twice.
This is just my opinion.
FYI – One of my oldest courses, The Upper Arlington 5 Miler, was first certified as OH84011PR. It has been run annually since then, on suburban streets that have remained unchanged. I remeasured it (twice, as per standard) and certified it as OH06001PR. It’s less than a mile from my house. For a number of years it was expired but nobody cared.
I’ll jump in here because I am the genesis of this issue. About a month ago I was in Johnson, Tennessee as an official at the NIAI Indoor National Championships. I knew the Kingsport, TN 1K loop used for the 5K National Race Walk Championships needed to be recertified soon, so I contacted Bobby Baker, the race director, and volunteered to re-measure the course. I stayed over an extra night to make this happen. Prior to my trip, I chatted with Mike Wickiser regarding the matter and he, I think, indicated that I only needed to do one verification ride. I thought this made sense, because to validate a course after a record is set required only one ride of the course. Because the course has not changed, I followed that logic to re-measure.
I located a calibration course, did my pre-ride, then headed to the course, and the verification ride was spot on. After that I put nails and pant down at critical areas of the course and then re-rode the calibration course. I redrew the map and submitted everything to Matthew Studholme, the Tennessee Regional Certifier. Hind sight says it only would have taken me an extra 5 minutes to ride the 1K loop a second time.
I am of the belief, consistency in practices should apply. I contend that to do a second ride is not necessary if the course has not changed.
I located a calibration course, did my pre-ride, then headed to the course, and the verification ride was spot on. After that I put nails and pant down at critical areas of the course and then re-rode the calibration course. I redrew the map and submitted everything to Matthew Studholme, the Tennessee Regional Certifier. Hind sight says it only would have taken me an extra 5 minutes to ride the 1K loop a second time.
I am of the belief, consistency in practices should apply. I contend that to do a second ride is not necessary if the course has not changed.
I think the only scenario that would be caught by two rides that wouldn't be caught by one is the following.
Since the original certification the roads have changed in such a way that the course is now shorter than it was originally. The measurer rides the course in a sloppy way, thus overestimating the length of the course. The amount of this overestimation of the course length due to sloppy riding is equal to (within 0.08%) the amount the course was shortened due to the change in the roads.
Any other scenario I can think of is caught just as well by one ride as it is by two.
Since the original certification the roads have changed in such a way that the course is now shorter than it was originally. The measurer rides the course in a sloppy way, thus overestimating the length of the course. The amount of this overestimation of the course length due to sloppy riding is equal to (within 0.08%) the amount the course was shortened due to the change in the roads.
Any other scenario I can think of is caught just as well by one ride as it is by two.
I don't know if it's a compliment about my post from the Guido Brother's, but so be it.
At the 2009 convention we started this discussion in reference to Calibration Courses and concluded they also must be remeasured. However, when I received a phone call from Mike Wickiser about David's situation this made me rethink the whole process that soon is going to become a reality.
My gut feeling is along the same lines as Pete except I still feel there needs to be one measurement to verify the course length is at least the stated distance(ride without SCPF and only do the precalibration of the bike). The roads could look the same, but maybe a few curves were replaced. The original measurer would produce his documentation of the rides and a new map. Next, the Regional Certifier would issue a new certificate as Pete has explained.
At the 2009 convention we started this discussion in reference to Calibration Courses and concluded they also must be remeasured. However, when I received a phone call from Mike Wickiser about David's situation this made me rethink the whole process that soon is going to become a reality.
My gut feeling is along the same lines as Pete except I still feel there needs to be one measurement to verify the course length is at least the stated distance(ride without SCPF and only do the precalibration of the bike). The roads could look the same, but maybe a few curves were replaced. The original measurer would produce his documentation of the rides and a new map. Next, the Regional Certifier would issue a new certificate as Pete has explained.
quote:Originally posted by Pete Riegel:
I lean toward requiring the original measurer – and only the original measurer - to verify that the course has not changed. If he can do this, I’d require him/her to submit a statement that the course is unchanged, and a map that reflects the present split descriptions. This would suffice generate a new certificate and a new course number. The old number would remain in the “replaces” blank on the certificate.
Nobody but the original measurer could do this.
Anybody except the original measurer would have to start over and measure twice.
This is just my opinion.
FYI – One of my oldest courses, The Upper Arlington 5 Miler, was first certified as OH84011PR. It has been run annually since then, on suburban streets that have remained unchanged. I remeasured it (twice, as per standard) and certified it as OH06001PR. It’s less than a mile from my house. For a number of years it was expired but nobody cared.
To start with, I am trying to un-paint myself from a corner. So I am looking for some latitude for personal reasons.
I do, however, believe we need to be consistent; as I see it, recertification and validations should follow the same basic procedure. After all, they are essentially doing the same activity; revalidating the original measurement. One must assume the course was measured correctly the first time and the recertification is just "validating" the measurement. If the measurement is not correct after the first ride, it’s rather unlikely to be correct after the second. Conversely, if the first ride concurs with the original measurement that seems, to me, to be a confirmation the original measurement is correct. An updated map might be appropriate to account for any reference changes that have occurred (landmarks names, etc.) The course I have put into question had a hotel name change so upon redrawing the map, I Identified the hotel generically, and removed the narrative that included a nonexistent sponsor. The map I redrew, though not required, is to scale and I was created on computer allowing an electronic file to be used in place of the existing hand drawn map.
There were two reasons for the expiration and renewal of Certified Courses.
The first was to weed out old and unused courses. This was a way of doing regular file housekeeping maintenance.
The second was to guard against road changes due to weather degradation and the results of repaving and road widening. Road surfaces generally have a 10 year lifespan. After ten years many if not most roadways are resurfaced. Some last longer. Some don't get resurfaced and the road edge degrades.
My opinion is formed by conducting many Course Validations and observing the effects of age on a road course.
I feel that once an active course is expired and renewal is no longer an option, then a single calibrated bike measurement can be adequate indication that the course is accurate within Certification standards. The remeasurement MUST agree to 0.08% when compared to the exitsting previously certified course, as is the policy, "The Shortest measured length determines the course distance.
A 10 year old 5k course that remeasured less than 4996 meters or greater than 5004 meters would require a second measurement since the 0.08% agreement value was exceeded.
The same 5k course that remeasured at 5003 meters would be OK to Re-Certify without changes.
Should a 5k course remeasure from 4996.1 to 5000 meters would be acceptable for a single ride Re-Certification if additional length were added to bring the course up to 5k.
All these values include 1.001 SCPF of course.
The first was to weed out old and unused courses. This was a way of doing regular file housekeeping maintenance.
The second was to guard against road changes due to weather degradation and the results of repaving and road widening. Road surfaces generally have a 10 year lifespan. After ten years many if not most roadways are resurfaced. Some last longer. Some don't get resurfaced and the road edge degrades.
My opinion is formed by conducting many Course Validations and observing the effects of age on a road course.
I feel that once an active course is expired and renewal is no longer an option, then a single calibrated bike measurement can be adequate indication that the course is accurate within Certification standards. The remeasurement MUST agree to 0.08% when compared to the exitsting previously certified course, as is the policy, "The Shortest measured length determines the course distance.
A 10 year old 5k course that remeasured less than 4996 meters or greater than 5004 meters would require a second measurement since the 0.08% agreement value was exceeded.
The same 5k course that remeasured at 5003 meters would be OK to Re-Certify without changes.
Should a 5k course remeasure from 4996.1 to 5000 meters would be acceptable for a single ride Re-Certification if additional length were added to bring the course up to 5k.
All these values include 1.001 SCPF of course.
Another scenario:
I was contacted by a half-marathon race director. Her course is due to expire at the end of 2010. Her late husband originally measured the course, and she helped. She has all of the original paperwork, and she has also been the course director all along. So, she knows the course is the same as was originally measured.
Does she need to ride the course? Or, since she has the original paperwork and knows the course is as-measured, can she just submit the original paperwork? Not much different than someone measuring a course last year, and finally getting around to submitting the paperwork this year. I have one of those situations now, too.
As for having to be re-measured because there may be new pavement on the inside of the curves, that situation already calls for a new measurement. Any construction on the course requires re-measurement, even new paving, according to the rules. If no new pavement has been put down, I don't see a need to re-measure. Any pavement degradation would only add distance to the course, not shorten it.
I was contacted by a half-marathon race director. Her course is due to expire at the end of 2010. Her late husband originally measured the course, and she helped. She has all of the original paperwork, and she has also been the course director all along. So, she knows the course is the same as was originally measured.
Does she need to ride the course? Or, since she has the original paperwork and knows the course is as-measured, can she just submit the original paperwork? Not much different than someone measuring a course last year, and finally getting around to submitting the paperwork this year. I have one of those situations now, too.
As for having to be re-measured because there may be new pavement on the inside of the curves, that situation already calls for a new measurement. Any construction on the course requires re-measurement, even new paving, according to the rules. If no new pavement has been put down, I don't see a need to re-measure. Any pavement degradation would only add distance to the course, not shorten it.
Gene - It was a complement; action usually happens when the boss asks a question, you're the boss and you asked and now there's action.
I have a race director who wants a 10K course re-certified (CT99005DR). It could be renewed for this year's race or re-certified for another 10-years. The race director is having trouble with the "make-work" aspect of re-measuring the course when there have been no changes to the roads. I originally measured the course and have timed every race since the 1st. Both I and the race director live near the course and drive the roads frequently. I wonder if the certifier would accept the Pete Riegel method of a statement that there have been no changes and request a new certificate. I'll check with her (Jane Parks) first.
I've requested and obtained renewal of several courses that I originally measured. I've had requests to renew courses that were originally measured by others. For these, I send the requester the renewal form and point out the importance of responding to question 14. The renewal form clearly indicates that it is the unchanged nature of the course, not it's length, that is the important issue.
I think it a good policy to require something by way of verification of either length or "un-changedness" after 10-years. I don't think we have found the best answer to avoid the make-work of remeasuring an unchanged course, especially by the original measurer. I think Pete's is the best idea so far for the case where the original measurer is requesting renewal of an unchanged course.
Except for long races or races in crowded cities, the one measurement method doesn't save very much (as noted above). In my case if I measured this 10K a second time and followed the standard certification request procedure the extra time would be about an hour, not worth arguing over. Additionally, the fee for obtaining certification (or re-certification) is a factor. Race directors balk at paying the full fee for re-measuring unchanged courses. They consider it make-work.
Maybe the best answer is to discuss renewal of each expired course on a case basis with the certifier. The governing body (RRTC) would need to provide the certifiers with some guidelines.
I have a race director who wants a 10K course re-certified (CT99005DR). It could be renewed for this year's race or re-certified for another 10-years. The race director is having trouble with the "make-work" aspect of re-measuring the course when there have been no changes to the roads. I originally measured the course and have timed every race since the 1st. Both I and the race director live near the course and drive the roads frequently. I wonder if the certifier would accept the Pete Riegel method of a statement that there have been no changes and request a new certificate. I'll check with her (Jane Parks) first.
I've requested and obtained renewal of several courses that I originally measured. I've had requests to renew courses that were originally measured by others. For these, I send the requester the renewal form and point out the importance of responding to question 14. The renewal form clearly indicates that it is the unchanged nature of the course, not it's length, that is the important issue.
I think it a good policy to require something by way of verification of either length or "un-changedness" after 10-years. I don't think we have found the best answer to avoid the make-work of remeasuring an unchanged course, especially by the original measurer. I think Pete's is the best idea so far for the case where the original measurer is requesting renewal of an unchanged course.
Except for long races or races in crowded cities, the one measurement method doesn't save very much (as noted above). In my case if I measured this 10K a second time and followed the standard certification request procedure the extra time would be about an hour, not worth arguing over. Additionally, the fee for obtaining certification (or re-certification) is a factor. Race directors balk at paying the full fee for re-measuring unchanged courses. They consider it make-work.
Maybe the best answer is to discuss renewal of each expired course on a case basis with the certifier. The governing body (RRTC) would need to provide the certifiers with some guidelines.
Guidos - I believe that if the original measurer can verify that the course is still being raced as originally measured, they should be able to re-submit the original paperwork, without riding the course. They can then charge the race whatever they want for the new certificate (and make a new map, if desired). It could be $50, to cover a little time, and the certification fee. The certifier would still review the paperwork, I would assume. I have not seen the certification fee discussed on this type of certification, that I can recall.
If the original measurer couldn't produce the paperwork, then a re-measure is in order, even if the course has not changed (my opinion). The intent of the expiration of courses is to make sure they are still being run as originally measured. This is fine and dandy for courses where it is easy to re-measure.
My concern is for courses that are not easy to re-measure, due to traffic, or if there was significant travel involved. I have gone to Sun Valley, UT, and El Paso, TX, from Denver, to measure courses. Not a simple task to re-measure an unchanged course, or to review it from a distance.
But, the cost of measurement is amortized over 10 years, and it doesn't take many runners each year to recover the cost of re-measurement. As distasteful as it may be, it is a cost of maintaining a certified course. It may cost less to re-measure, if you don't re-do the map (can a new measurement by a different person pick up the old map, Gene?). I see the re-certification as a chance to confirm/verify the course is still being run as originally measured. It is not an unreasonable requirement, as I have found a few courses that don't follow their certification map.
If the original measurer couldn't produce the paperwork, then a re-measure is in order, even if the course has not changed (my opinion). The intent of the expiration of courses is to make sure they are still being run as originally measured. This is fine and dandy for courses where it is easy to re-measure.
My concern is for courses that are not easy to re-measure, due to traffic, or if there was significant travel involved. I have gone to Sun Valley, UT, and El Paso, TX, from Denver, to measure courses. Not a simple task to re-measure an unchanged course, or to review it from a distance.
But, the cost of measurement is amortized over 10 years, and it doesn't take many runners each year to recover the cost of re-measurement. As distasteful as it may be, it is a cost of maintaining a certified course. It may cost less to re-measure, if you don't re-do the map (can a new measurement by a different person pick up the old map, Gene?). I see the re-certification as a chance to confirm/verify the course is still being run as originally measured. It is not an unreasonable requirement, as I have found a few courses that don't follow their certification map.
Thanks for the complement.
This question will be sent to all the RRTC Council Members in a short time and maybe we can do something before the Convention.
Again, my feelings are like Pete's, but I still feel one measurement is important. Landmarks change even if the roads are the same and a new map could reflect those type of changes.
Please let the comments continue!
This question will be sent to all the RRTC Council Members in a short time and maybe we can do something before the Convention.
Again, my feelings are like Pete's, but I still feel one measurement is important. Landmarks change even if the roads are the same and a new map could reflect those type of changes.
Please let the comments continue!
My New Year's resolution was to be more active on the BB, and it is the middle of April already. So here goes regarding renewal of expired courses. My suggestion is to use the original course map as the first ride. Then ride the course once as the second ride. If all matches then the course can be recertified with a single ride and the original map. If not, then a second ride and new map would be required.
I have already done a few renewals, and it is amazing how a utility pole label can change or completely disappear, or a minor curb change/road work has changed the course, or a new gate in a park changes the distance by a few feet. In any case, after 10 years I think it is worth at least one ride to confirm a course.
For simplicity, I propose that a new course number be assigned with a new 10 year expiration date.
Jane
I have already done a few renewals, and it is amazing how a utility pole label can change or completely disappear, or a minor curb change/road work has changed the course, or a new gate in a park changes the distance by a few feet. In any case, after 10 years I think it is worth at least one ride to confirm a course.
For simplicity, I propose that a new course number be assigned with a new 10 year expiration date.
Jane
Here is my stab at, what I think is, a rational recertification procedure. I lifted a lot of this from the Validation procedure.
Guidelines for Course Recertification
Pre-measurement and Post-measurement Calibrations
1. The average of the pre-ride and post-ride calibration values is used for determining the measured course distance.
a. The average constant is always used in calculating results of recertification measurements. In ordinary certification measurements, either the average or larger constant may be used.
b. The Measurer should always do a measurement of the calibration course used for the recertification, and the measurer’s own measurement (not the calibration course’s certified length if it’s a previously certified calibration course) should be used in calculating the length of the race course being recertified.
2. The SCPF (Short Course Prevention Factor) is not used in calculating the results of recertification measurements. In a recertification, we are checking a course that has already been certified, so the SCPF should have been included during the original certification. For example, a 10 km course should have been laid out during the original certification as 10,010 meters (including SCPF); thus, in an ideal (error-free) world, the measurer would find a length of 10,010 meters.
3. Familiarize yourself with the course to be recertified. The measurer must locate all important points along the course, such as the Start, Finish, etc. Do they match the certification map? Similarly, all course restrictions such as turn-arounds, restricted lanes of traffic, etc. must be determined. Here, the important point is determining the course as actually available to the runners during the race.
Riding the course for recertification
1. Only one ride of the race course is required and recommended in a recertification situation. If problems occur, causing the measurer to feel that his/her first ride was flawed, this needs to be described in a narrative report attached to the recertification paperwork. Subsequent rides of the course should be avoided if at all possible. A course that comes up short on the first ride is NOT a candidate for a second chance unless the measurer firmly believes he/she measured something wrong.
Guidelines for Course Recertification
Pre-measurement and Post-measurement Calibrations
1. The average of the pre-ride and post-ride calibration values is used for determining the measured course distance.
a. The average constant is always used in calculating results of recertification measurements. In ordinary certification measurements, either the average or larger constant may be used.
b. The Measurer should always do a measurement of the calibration course used for the recertification, and the measurer’s own measurement (not the calibration course’s certified length if it’s a previously certified calibration course) should be used in calculating the length of the race course being recertified.
2. The SCPF (Short Course Prevention Factor) is not used in calculating the results of recertification measurements. In a recertification, we are checking a course that has already been certified, so the SCPF should have been included during the original certification. For example, a 10 km course should have been laid out during the original certification as 10,010 meters (including SCPF); thus, in an ideal (error-free) world, the measurer would find a length of 10,010 meters.
3. Familiarize yourself with the course to be recertified. The measurer must locate all important points along the course, such as the Start, Finish, etc. Do they match the certification map? Similarly, all course restrictions such as turn-arounds, restricted lanes of traffic, etc. must be determined. Here, the important point is determining the course as actually available to the runners during the race.
Riding the course for recertification
1. Only one ride of the race course is required and recommended in a recertification situation. If problems occur, causing the measurer to feel that his/her first ride was flawed, this needs to be described in a narrative report attached to the recertification paperwork. Subsequent rides of the course should be avoided if at all possible. A course that comes up short on the first ride is NOT a candidate for a second chance unless the measurer firmly believes he/she measured something wrong.
What would be the downside to this?
Forget about renewals and remeasuring old certified courses. It’s a hassle for everybody. Instead, consider every course ever certified (and not shot down by a bad validation) as still certified, and add a caveat that any course that’s over ten years old will not have a course map online because the route may have changed. The needy can contact the race director for a course map.
Any race objecting can remeasure as if the course was never certified. Most will not.
If a record should arise, the actual route would have to be checked, just as with any course. If it doesn’t match the map, tough. No record.
This would eliminate a lot of busywork for little to no gain.
Forget about renewals and remeasuring old certified courses. It’s a hassle for everybody. Instead, consider every course ever certified (and not shot down by a bad validation) as still certified, and add a caveat that any course that’s over ten years old will not have a course map online because the route may have changed. The needy can contact the race director for a course map.
Any race objecting can remeasure as if the course was never certified. Most will not.
If a record should arise, the actual route would have to be checked, just as with any course. If it doesn’t match the map, tough. No record.
This would eliminate a lot of busywork for little to no gain.
Summary of ideas express as I see them!
1.What were the reason for courses to be expired after 10 years. (Note: the IAAF/AIMS has a five year life for their courses)
a.To weed out old and unused courses
b.To guard against road changes due to weather degradation and the results of repaving and road widening.
2.Do nothing and let them expire!
3.Consider every course ever certified(and not shot down by a bad validation) as still certified.
a.Any course over 10 years old will not have a course map online because the route may have changed. The needy can contact the Race Director for a course map. Any race objecting can remeasure as if the course was never certified.
4.Have the original measurer submit his original data with his request for a New Certificate and a new Certification Number.
a.The measurer would state the course is unchanged and also send a new map along with the old Certificate & Map.
5.Handle renewals on a case by case basis.
6.Courses must be remeasured if the original measurer could not produce his original paperwork.
7.Same as #4, however require one ride to show the Course is at least the advertised distance. There were some comments in reference to comparing the course to be within .08% of the original course length and within a certain range.
a.The reason for one ride is not only to check the distance, but to see that the various landmarks are consistent with the old mark(if not make the changes on the new map submitted).
b.How the Ride is taken:
Note: (1). The ride could be could be taken with the SCPF
(2). The ride could be taken without the SCPF
1.What were the reason for courses to be expired after 10 years. (Note: the IAAF/AIMS has a five year life for their courses)
a.To weed out old and unused courses
b.To guard against road changes due to weather degradation and the results of repaving and road widening.
2.Do nothing and let them expire!
3.Consider every course ever certified(and not shot down by a bad validation) as still certified.
a.Any course over 10 years old will not have a course map online because the route may have changed. The needy can contact the Race Director for a course map. Any race objecting can remeasure as if the course was never certified.
4.Have the original measurer submit his original data with his request for a New Certificate and a new Certification Number.
a.The measurer would state the course is unchanged and also send a new map along with the old Certificate & Map.
5.Handle renewals on a case by case basis.
6.Courses must be remeasured if the original measurer could not produce his original paperwork.
7.Same as #4, however require one ride to show the Course is at least the advertised distance. There were some comments in reference to comparing the course to be within .08% of the original course length and within a certain range.
a.The reason for one ride is not only to check the distance, but to see that the various landmarks are consistent with the old mark(if not make the changes on the new map submitted).
b.How the Ride is taken:
Note: (1). The ride could be could be taken with the SCPF
(2). The ride could be taken without the SCPF
quote:Riding the course for recertification
1. Only one ride of the race course is required and recommended in a recertification situation. If problems occur, causing the measurer to feel that his/her first ride was flawed, this needs to be described in a narrative report attached to the recertification paperwork. Subsequent rides of the course should be avoided if at all possible. A course that comes up short on the first ride is NOT a candidate for a second chance unless the measurer firmly believes he/she measured something wrong.
Dave, I like your guidelines, but I'm having trouble understanding the last (Riding the Course) item. I agree that one ride will tell the tale if the course is unchanged. But (assuming that the measurer does not have a "flawed ride"), if that ride determines that the course is not correct, then it would be a simple matter to have the correct count calculated with the SCPF and use that count to determine the correct overall course length. Then, a second ride could be used to verify the correct length of the course to within the 0.08%.
I'm sure that there will be courses that won't re-certify, but if a race director really wants the course certified, then the result of all this should be to obtain certification.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Fitzpatrick:quote:Riding the course for recertification
1. Only one ride of the race course is required and recommended in a recertification situation. If problems occur, causing the measurer to feel that his/her first ride was flawed, this needs to be described in a narrative report attached to the recertification paperwork. Subsequent rides of the course should be avoided if at all possible. A course that comes up short on the first ride is NOT a candidate for a second chance unless the measurer firmly believes he/she measured something wrong.
Dave, I like your guidelines, but I'm having trouble understanding the last (Riding the Course) item. I agree that one ride will tell the tale if the course is unchanged. But (assuming that the measurer does not have a "flawed ride"), if that ride determines that the course is not correct, then it would be a simple matter to have the correct count calculated with the SCPF and use that count to determine the correct overall course length. Then, a second ride could be used to verify the correct length of the course to within the 0.08%.
I'm sure that there will be courses that won't re-certify, but if a race director really wants the course certified, then the result of all this should be to obtain certification.
I believe there needs to be consistency between validation and recertification procedures. I lifted a lot (actually, most) of the wording from the validation procedure. Is it the best wording, maybe not. I am not committed to anything specific. The process of developing/redeveloping the recertification procedure will flush out the exact wording.
Let's start at the beginning - Why is a course certified to begin with?
a) To give the race director confidence that if a record is set on their course, that the course will withstand validation.
b) To allow a particular race to be a "qualifier" for another, more prestigious race.
c) To let runners know they are running a course that is at least as long as the advertised distance, so their times are meaningful when compared to their other race times.
What happens if a course expires, and the RD doesn't have it re-certified?
a) No records can be set on the course.
b) Can't be used as a "qualifier".
c) The course won't be listed on the USATF site, and the race cannot advertise that it uses a certified course.
If the race director decides not to re-certify, they may end up losing runners who are interested in running only certified courses. That, and not being a "qualifier" and thus losing other runners, may be enough for them to re-certify.
If, on the other hand, they don't care about advertising the certification status of their course, they may be content to tell runners that they are still using the course that was once certified, and let it go.
If we are only going to do a one-ride verification of their course, and call it certified, I would imagine they would expect a discount on the measurement fee, especially if a new map is not created. And, why require a new map, if nothing has changed on the course?
I assume the certification and Regional fees will remain the same, as there is still review being conducted of all paperwork, correct?
While WE have agreed that certifications will expire after 10 years, we need to be clear as to the supporting reasons, so we can consistently explain to race directors the reasons for them spending money on a new certification if their course has not changed. Seems like the international rules may be a partial basis. Confirmation that the course is still following the certified route would be the major reason I could cite. Definitely opens up a different fee structure, though.
a) To give the race director confidence that if a record is set on their course, that the course will withstand validation.
b) To allow a particular race to be a "qualifier" for another, more prestigious race.
c) To let runners know they are running a course that is at least as long as the advertised distance, so their times are meaningful when compared to their other race times.
What happens if a course expires, and the RD doesn't have it re-certified?
a) No records can be set on the course.
b) Can't be used as a "qualifier".
c) The course won't be listed on the USATF site, and the race cannot advertise that it uses a certified course.
If the race director decides not to re-certify, they may end up losing runners who are interested in running only certified courses. That, and not being a "qualifier" and thus losing other runners, may be enough for them to re-certify.
If, on the other hand, they don't care about advertising the certification status of their course, they may be content to tell runners that they are still using the course that was once certified, and let it go.
If we are only going to do a one-ride verification of their course, and call it certified, I would imagine they would expect a discount on the measurement fee, especially if a new map is not created. And, why require a new map, if nothing has changed on the course?
I assume the certification and Regional fees will remain the same, as there is still review being conducted of all paperwork, correct?
While WE have agreed that certifications will expire after 10 years, we need to be clear as to the supporting reasons, so we can consistently explain to race directors the reasons for them spending money on a new certification if their course has not changed. Seems like the international rules may be a partial basis. Confirmation that the course is still following the certified route would be the major reason I could cite. Definitely opens up a different fee structure, though.
Price to charge is entirely up to the individual measuring. RRTC has no say as the measurer is an independent contractor. Also, the map would be new and probably show some landmark changes. The fees for all would more than likely be the same.
First we need to decide what's the best way to advance on this issue.
First we need to decide what's the best way to advance on this issue.
Take a look at this an please let me know your feelings on this matter! Email me with your opinion at newmangc@cox.net
Recertification Poll
Which of the following scenarios(1-5), in your opinion, should be the approved procedure to recertify a race course that, in outward appearance, has not changed? ***Note: A. Numbers two through five would be done by the Original Measurer or a Certifier. B. The course must be at least the advertised distance with the recertification ride. C. If recertified a new Certificate and a new number would be issued. D. Fees would be the same for any submissions to a Certifier, Vice Chair and Registrar.
E. What one charges to do this work is not under RRTC as they would be an independent contractor.
1.No Recertification Possible – Apply for Certification as if the course didn’t exist.
2.One "Recertification Ride without SCPF" only if original paperwork and map is available – Mandatory to draw a new map even if there weren’t any landmarks changes.
3. One "Recertification Ride with SCPF" only if original paperwork and map is available - Mandatory to draw a new map even if there weren’t any landmarks changes.
4.One "Recertification Ride with SCPF" if original map is available - Mandatory to draw a new map even if there weren’t any landmarks changes.
5.One "Recertification Ride without SCPF" if original map is available - Mandatory to draw a new map even if there weren’t any landmarks changes.
What is your choice?
Any other comments:
Your Name (optional):
Recertification Poll
Which of the following scenarios(1-5), in your opinion, should be the approved procedure to recertify a race course that, in outward appearance, has not changed? ***Note: A. Numbers two through five would be done by the Original Measurer or a Certifier. B. The course must be at least the advertised distance with the recertification ride. C. If recertified a new Certificate and a new number would be issued. D. Fees would be the same for any submissions to a Certifier, Vice Chair and Registrar.
E. What one charges to do this work is not under RRTC as they would be an independent contractor.
1.No Recertification Possible – Apply for Certification as if the course didn’t exist.
2.One "Recertification Ride without SCPF" only if original paperwork and map is available – Mandatory to draw a new map even if there weren’t any landmarks changes.
3. One "Recertification Ride with SCPF" only if original paperwork and map is available - Mandatory to draw a new map even if there weren’t any landmarks changes.
4.One "Recertification Ride with SCPF" if original map is available - Mandatory to draw a new map even if there weren’t any landmarks changes.
5.One "Recertification Ride without SCPF" if original map is available - Mandatory to draw a new map even if there weren’t any landmarks changes.
What is your choice?
Any other comments:
Your Name (optional):
Gene-Here's my vote and my $0.02. I don't think that any of the options address the "make-work" issue of measuring an unchanged course. Of the proposed options, I vote for #3.
I'd add the Riegel option of the original measurer submitting a "No-Change" statement and a new map with a request for a new number.
I'd add the Riegel option of the original measurer submitting a "No-Change" statement and a new map with a request for a new number.