Thanks, Jim. Yes, this is what I was getting at, if obliquely. I read the science behind the 1m/km rule, and I believe I understand it. What I do not understand is what the margin of error should be. Given the apparent inexactitude of elevation data, shouldn't we adopt some standard of flexibility? Also, it seems to me that, though there is good reasoning to establish 1m/km, this is still subject to a margin of error, isn't it?
Courses that have a lot of uphill in addition to the net drop are certainly not the same as 1m/km drop or more courses that have few if any uphills, right? I know of a 10K course with a 70-foot net drop that has jaw-dropping uphills. I imagine this phenomenon has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. I bring this up to say that it seems to me that there is enough of an arbitrary element to the numbers that seeking precision here does not seem productive to me. Too many unquantifiable variables. My two cents.