Skip to main content

Reply to "Inconsistency on Course Certificate"

At one time I was routinely changing submitted elevations and S-F distances to meters; Paul Hronjak recommended leaving them in the units as submitted (usually feet). I think there is merit to that, as it preserves the original information a little farther into the process. At that time I believe a lot more of us were figuring elevations from careful study of topological maps; I am guessing that most people now use Google Earth or the equivalent.
With the maps, it made sense to submit elevations in feet because those were the contour lines that were available. You can set Google Earth to give you elevations in meters, so this option is now a bit more "accessible" for folks who are a little shaky with metric units.
I don't know what the best policy is but I think the value of recording original information as submitted should not be overlooked.
As for metric splits in races-- they are great and in my experience are well-liked by longtime serious runners. I have marked km splits for a number of the DC Roadrunners' courses, and have heard only positive comments. Personally I enjoy getting time information a little more often. But I haven't been as successful in convincing race directors to use metric splits-- and when they do buy the idea, they usually come back the next year and say that the runners wanted miles so could I mark the miles. My hat is off to Bob Baumel and what he has done in Oklahoma!
×
×
×
×