Skip to main content

Reply to "Measurement data submitted for course Certification."

Gene, was that in an email? I looked and can't find an email on this, so I'm not sure how I got to be undecided, and I'm puzzled also because there are other certifiers not listed at all.

I would vote against the policy. I know I didn't speak against it at the meeting but (1) I hadn't really thought about some of the arguments Pete has been making and (2) I hadn't really thought about all the extra measurement I would have to do to give a "full" certification for some of the races I am responsible for, and (3) then there is the confusion (in my own mind and records!) of trying to keep it straight that this is a 2011 certification but starts with 09 instead of 11, for example.

I think it may be useful to distinguish between a documented measurement and a certification-- the certificate is a sort of contract that says we stand behind the accuracy of the course. It's value can indeed "wear out" over time for numerous reasons-- race no longer run, landmarks no longer the same as in descriptions, and so on. But the measurement doesn't really "wear out", unless there's been a reconfiguration of the road or the like. I think we should trust that the original measurer would know of such changes and would remeasure the roads affected by them-- but if there's been no change then I would expect that the original measurer would know that as well and should be able to confirm as much.

(OK, I'm thinking about courses that are within my normal "stomping grounds", so that I would be aware of various changes that might affect the courses. I'm not quite so sure about remote courses, maybe others have thoughts about that.)

I do think there might be reasonable distinctions made between courses. I'm looking forward to remeasuring my "Bread Run 10K" to see how it comes out, partly because there have been some minor changes in the path for the alpine climb from C&O Canal up to MacArthur Boulevard. But the National Marathon takes in a long, dangerous and winding tunnel (3 or 4 lanes of traffic) and a 4-lane bridge crossing over that metal grating everyone loves so much, along with a bunch of shorter tunnels and another almost-as-dangerous bridge. I sure don't want to re-measure any more of that than I have to-- and I have already measured and remeasured all the parts that will stay the same. But-- maybe we can leave these decisions and distinctions to the certifier or the measurer or to both of them talking it over together?

I didn't mean to go on so long, just one more thing-- if the policy does stay in place I would encourage you to at least accept one confirming measurement, as long as it gives a value within 0.08% of the stated distance and is not short.
×
×
×
×