Infinite life? The Upper Arlington 5 Mile Run has been run since the early 1980’s and was originally certified as OH84011PR. It has changed not a bit since then. When the ten-year policy was adopted I remeasured it in 2006. My personal calibration course has also been remeasured. Both were wastes of time, as I had measured them before, and I knew that they had not changed.
There is no reason why a lot of alterations cannot be made to a course, provided good measurement procedures are followed. By this I mean, when the measured pieces of the course are assembled, each segment has proper calibration and defined end points, and that the application is in good order, so that the certifier can see that everything has been done correctly. Date of first measurement is irrelevant.
The agenda Gene sent to some people by email in early September 2010 had the following as an item to be discussed:
"How many times should we allow an adjustment be made to a Certified Course and the Expiration Date should not be given a new 10 year life!"
My response to this was “It is 5090.63 meters from the east edge of the bricks on Broad Street at High street to the lightpole at the northeast corner of Broad and Parkview. This was measured in 2008. It’s one of the building blocks of the Columbus Marathon. It will remain 5090.63 meters until roadwork changes the pavement or the lightpole. Annual adjustments of the course are common. When I have to change the course, I remeasure only the changed portions of the course to come up with the final course, and then do a whole-course ride to set out the new splits. Thus the next time the course changes the segment in question will show as having been measured once in 2008 and once in the year the course next changes. I believe this methodology is solid. When I’m done I issue a certificate to expire ten years from present date.
I am reluctant to issue a certificate to anyone who wants to adjust a course measured by another person.
I believe this subject does not solve an existing problem, and wonder why we should set it in stone. Are we paranoid that people will try to pervert our system?”
Somebody obviously thought this was enough of a problem that it was placed on the agenda, but exactly what was the problem was not stated. Instead, in the busy venue of our RRTC meeting, the new policy was introduced and decided upon.
This is a good example of what happens when things get done in a hurry.
There are adjustments applied for that clearly are done badly, and these can be handled locally by the state certifier.
Date of measurement is irrelevant. The measurer knows whether what he measured still exists. If it does, and he wishes to get the expiration lifted, I see no reason why a brand-new certificate should not be granted upon proper application. Old data but new application.
Them I would not have to measure my calibration course for a third time, and the UACA 5 Mile Run for the third time.
The ten-year expiration has not happened without its bumps. Things don’t always get done right the first time.
We can talk this to death, but it’s clear to me that date of measurement is irrelevant as long as the measured object exists as it did when measured. It’s time to back off on the fiddling with dates and return to the status quo. We do not need a new policy. The old one is working fine.