ENOUGH ALREADY!
I don’t remember how this thread got started, but this latest pronouncement is a mistake, and should be rectified ASAP. Complicated changes should only be made when a demonstrable problem exists, and I don’t believe one does. The only one so far proposed is that people may abuse the system. If this is indeed a problem, where is evidence that it is a harmful one?
The decision to shorten the 10 year life of a course based on the oldest measurement of any segment of the course not only complicates what was simple, but it ignores a critical factor. All measurements are based on the use of a calibration course. Logic would require us to certify on the age of the oldest calibration course used. Are we ready for that?
We have three decades of reasonably successful operation without worrying about when the data was created. What now requires a change? I can’t see the problem. Use of older segments is fairly rare.
I urge Gene to put a stop to fiddling with date of oldest measurement and get back to keeping it simple. Certify on the basis of received data, just as though it was brand-new.
I am in the middle of a 5k measurement. I measured once in December, and snow and mind-changing by the race director will result in subsequent measurements being done this year. I believe the certification should be based on the date the work is finished, not when it began. The Kirkham Road calibration course, in front of my house, was last measured and certified in 2005. Should all my measurements this year be given a 2015 expiration date? That would be ridiculous.
Let’s back off to the status quo until someone can point out an actual problem.