If you are going to measure output, shouldn't you rate by total millage measured?
Quantity v Quality - Some people do a bunch of sloppy 5K's and others do a few difficult marathons.
Second problem, you have a system for anointing kings but not chopping their heads off. What happens to your grading system if a course later fails verification?
Maybe the only way to grade a measurer is for some one else to verify some of their courses, before a record depends on it.
I think visual map quality is not as important as the ability to use the map to turn that back into a course. You can't find out how useful a map is until you are standing on the ground with the map in your hand. I have worked from some beautifully clear maps, only to find that there is not enough detail to accurately determine where the heck the course goes. Omitting detail for a better visual grade is counter productive.
Should we have a random system like drug testing uses? Random tests keep most players honest. Would random verifications not make people double check their numbers and maybe ride another ride just for better stats?
Should there be an anonymous reporting system so that if we should end up riding someone else's course, and we find it short, we report it some how and it is assigned to some one to officially verify? Have you never come across marks that were... well not in the same calibration range as yours?
Should there be the occasional checkup of work? In other fields I have been in there have been checks on work product or knowledge, or both. I have had to pas tests, either open book or not, and do direct work that was either judged on output or monitored.
We could test people. The person taking the test could fly in with their bike or use one that was available. I could envision a permanent test course laid out over 13 miles with a varying scale painted all along the side. (The scale marks would be continuous but not consistent, in places 11 inches apart and in others 13 inches, just so the person could not use the marks to correct from.)
The person taking the test would have to lay out a course using been bags for split points. After correction and adjustments they recorded the number marked by the road side and it is compared by computer to the pre-measured course.
If if their been bags were within inches of the correct place, they get an A. If their finish is within feet of the correct place, they get a B, etc.
Also: Most people have a home cert course. Something close for using on local races. Mine is a 1/2 mile cert right out side my front door. (It helps to live on a straight flat road). It would not be difficult for this nation to have one or two sets of very accurate distance measuring systems that could be used to verify peoples home cert courses.
Maybe to keep an A grade you have to go and verify X number of other peoples courses.
Anyone good enough to catch their errors is also good enough to fudge their math. The key is verification of the work on the ground, not the paperwork.
ALSO: Your thinking about grades is all wrong. You are assuming you are an A and everyone works down from there. This is working the wrong direction. The grades should start from 1 going up. That way you have head room as new technologies or other grades show up. So you start at level 1, and go up, just like school.
Measurement and verification of certification are different issues and should not be mixed.
I think you should have a better measurement grade based primarily on the accuracy of your work and secondarily on your experience.
Maybe you can combine the two, something like this:
- Grade 0 - taken class
- Grade 1 - done a couple of courses
- Grade 2 - had at least one course verified
- Grade 3 - had 5 courses verified, at least one of 15K or more, and all found to be within x% of accuracy (at least 3 times better than max error.)
- Grade 3G - Got a grade 3 and passed test on assembling and running a group measurement with multiple bikes over course of at least a 1/2 marathon.
- Grade 3I - Got grade 3 and done course and practical for international events.