Very good, Duane. I just got an email from the NY state certifier, Jim Gilmer, on this question. I believe he said the exact same thing:
(my re-wording) To handle this situation, we permit the dangerous and unnecessary redundancy of pretending that these are two distinct courses by handling each completely separately and issuing two distinct certification numbers.
Ok, That works for me. I know this solution will fit in our RRTC system today, as I understand it, because it pretends the issue does not exist.
I would not be able to do this in the real world, of course. For example, with this solution we could have one course invalidated for some race related reason. But, since there’s no link in our system to the “other course”, then the “other course” will probably remain unaffected – even though it is going to be the same physical course operating under the same measure. Not good.
Yes – I encourage naming courses after the geography – but for some reason a lot of folk like to put their brand on things when they design and pay for it. I don’t think that tendency is going to go away on its own.
Your Measurement Seminar was outstanding. You shared so many real life practical examples, information, tools, and philosophy – not to mention the camaraderie! I was pleasantly surprised and would recommend the session to any measurer, regardless of his/her experience. Thanks for doing that!