I guess we're talking about the name? Again, my $0.02, if a course is measured and submitted at 5.025 or 5.0025 km, it should be certified at that, regardless of what the name of the course is. The nails or whatever start and finish marks should be separated by the distance measured following our process. We measure and adjust courses to inches of length. Why would we not certify at the measured and corrected length?
We've discussed at some length the naming of races and found that usually the client names the course after the race. Are we saying km here that if the client wants to name a 5.0025 course as "Joe's 5 km", we somehow should legislate against that?
Wouldn't it be better for the measurer, if different from the race director, to suggest that the race director use a less misleading name, followed by the certifier suggesting the same thing? If that fails, and the certificate correctly states the distance, the integrity of the measuring process is maintained and so is the client's right to pick a misleading name.
Another choice (similar to Bob T. above), that needs no additional legislation, is for the certifier to note the actual certified distance on the map along with the USATF logo and effective dates. That way the actual certified distance is on the document more likely to be seen by the most people.
The RRTC shouldn't get into the business of legislating race names. How would the RRTC handle the situation where the race director hires an outside (non RRTC involved) contractor to make a map or other advertising material and directs that a 5.5 km race be billed as 5 km?