Mark, I have been thinking I should know what you mean about "rolling forward", but I am not certain I get it. My question is this: when we reach an endpoint of a cal course, we have to decide what number to record based on viewing the JO. Often, for me, the reading is between counts, so I just use a .5 reading. What I have noticed that makes me wonder is the non-trivial amount of real estate my wheel covers between counts when I am beginning to calibrate, when I am adjusting the wheel so I am starting exactly on some number. This inaccuracy would be way over the limit for a steel tape cal course measurement. Obviously, this amount of "slop" is of no concern in a course measurement. I am just wondering what inaccuracy, if any, I should be concerned about in a calibration ride. It seems as though I should not be concerned based on what I am reading here. Yet, if the Calibrated Bicycle Method is intended to be an analog of steel-taping, it seems to me that we are working with a somewhat rough estimate right from the beginning of any calibration ride.
From a non-practical, strictly "pie-in-the-sky" perspective, I would guess that a hypothetical JC with one more number dial - that is driven by a gear that turns 10 times for every ones digit turn on the real JC would dispense with any concerns. I can also guess that were it feasible, such a device would already have been tested.
What are your thoughts?