Mark, I guess my point is that my main concern is that a course is accurate (which is how the whole course certification business got started years ago, thanks to Alan Jones, Ted Corbitt & others). But it is nice to have the official USATF Certified imprimatur as the "Good Road Running Seal of Approval."
There are a whole series of races in nearby NY state that are advertised as "certifiably accurate" meaning they have been measured to our standards, but the race director doesn't want to bother w/ the paperwork/fees to get the final certification. Do they lose runners because of this? I don't know.
I am and always have been a huge advocate of races being run on certified courses, and have measured at least 2 dozen low key events for free just so they can have that feature.
But, as you say, if I have to do 2 rides to confirm what I know to be true, I'm less likely to do so. To me, it falls in the category of bureaucratically induced busy work.
We want to encourage certified courses, and I think we are doing an excellent job of that, which Gene's note that we are on record pace this year bears out. But I worry we have a policy in place that deters, rather than encourages, recertification of expiring courses.
I'll admit to being unsure of what the current policy is, after all the discussion that went on. Two rides like a new measurement, one by the original measurer, or can the original measurer resubmit his figures from the original ride? I would favor a single ride, or even a statement by the original measurer attesting that he has driven the course and been able to locate all the salient landmarks on the original map.
Gene, can you clarify what, if any, consensus was reached on this issue? Thanks.