Pete:
Since the course adjustment method I am advocating was appreciated twenty years ago, rediscovery is long overdue. If the problem was only that measurers were not getting a second reading on the first measurement, why was this not fixed simply by listing this as a requirement on the submission form? How did we end up with the present embarrassingly clumsy method?
According to the Manual, the measurer on the second ride must stop at the first finish point if it obvious that the second ride is going to produce a longer course. He must then take out his calculator and make several calculations including the conversion of counts to meters, meters to feet, and feet to feet plus inches. Finally he must take his rule and measure the extension of the course from the first finish to the certified finish. In contrast, with the method I advocate the certified finish is always instantly determined at the end of the second ride without calculator or measuring rule.
I am not sure I grasp the significance of your story about the 18-mile split, but it sounds like a special case the problem of which could have been avoided if measurers had used different colored markers.