I'm still trying to come to grips with the expiration policy and the new policy that has the course expire ten years from the certification of its oldest segment.
Our current policy doesn't specify how fast a measurer must submit application documentation to the certifer. So, in theory, a course could have been measured a number of years ago, but the certification is active for ten years after the application is submitted.
The new policy starts the clock on any part of the course when the measurement for that part of the course is submitted as part of an application for certification. The disconnect for me is that had the measurer measured that part of the course, documented it, and put it in a drawer, it would have a longer life than it currently does, because by submitting it for approval, he started the clock on it.
Pete at one point suggested that the original measurer be allowed to re-submit the original measurement documentation on a certified course that was facing expiration. I'm in agreement with either allowing this- or specifying the allowable time lag between measurement and certification. If the line of thought here is that all measurements should be "fresh", then let's start the clock at the measurement, not the certification.
While I understand the arguments against extending certification, the reality is that landmarks and road configurations can change over six months just like they can change over ten years. We depend on race organizers to recognize changes and run races over courses as they were measured/documented/certified. We shouldn't require courses to be re-measured if they haven't changed, and we shouldn't penalize race directors for going through our certification process.