Skip to main content

Reply to "Is the Course Measurement Bulletin Board Dead?"

duanerussell posted:

Not dead, as far as I am concerned.  Still a source for lots of good information, especially for new measurers.  

I came here tonight to find the written process for certifying splits, and how to show on the cert.  However, the link to the example certificate that Gene posted is broken, so I can't send it to the measurer with a question.

I keep looking at the forum, but I see very few questions posed, so not much to say.  Wish more new measurers (are there any new measurers out there?) would post, but maybe they don't have questions.  I have been looking for someone in Denver to replace me, but they don't want to get up before dawn on weekends.  Millennials!  Am I right??? 

I too would like to see the process for certifying splits, Duane.

I sometimes hesitate to post a question or a comment on a particular subject here. The reason is, frankly, that my posts sometimes seem to annoy some folks, who on occasion respond on this board in what feels to me like a less-than-sympathetic way.

It's not difficult to see, I think, that a wide variety of backgrounds are represented by our membership. Some of the posts by our engineers are informative and helpful for me. I can learn from them and from anyone else here, too. I love STEM, but my background doesn't include nearly as much STEM post-secondary education as some of us. I doubt we expect that all new measurers are going to have engineering skills.

A great way, IMHO, for us non-engineer types, to understand the science and practice of certification measurement, is to pose "devil's advocate" or "straw man" questions or statements. How these questions do or do not get knocked down can be very informative. I don't believe that, when anyone posts these questions, they are being argumentative. I believe they are both part of the educational process and the valuable exercise of a perennial revue of what we do. It seems to me that if we are interested enough to respond, we should do so respectfully. What may seem "settled science" to me may seem like an open question to you.

Roads and paths change as communities change. Security demands place new restrictions on course designs. Runner demographics change. New technologies offer new opportunities. I don't think that our established practices will change at a fundamental level anytime soon. I do believe that affordable technologies will one day provide an alternative to or even replace our calibrated bicycle method. But this day is surely many years and maybe many decades in the future.

In the meantime, I consider that I stand on the shoulders of some true greats in our profession, for which I am forever grateful. My education and experience n measuring has afforded me the opportunity not only to work with some outstanding individuals and some world-class events, but also to explore beyond our established parameters. I for one find no harm in "pushing the envelope" from time to time in the topics we discuss. I wish we were a little more open to such discussions here. We know no one has a monopoly on all the good ideas, or good questions.

I would encourage all who read this and who may feel reticent to join in because of some feeling of discomfort or even intimidation to give it another try. I do not believe this listserv was developed for the sole purpose of experts making pronouncements and not for newbies questioning what we do and how we do it.  I hope we agree that it was and always will be a place for open discussions. In our continuing quest to always improve what we do, I feel we should be able to enjoy a more lively, informative, inclusive, and vital discussion format.

In this spirit, I would like to express my gratitude to all who contribute here, especially for Mark Neal, who volunteers his valuable time to do a wonderful job of maintaining this resource.

Happy New Year to all.

 

 

 

×
×
×
×