"Adjusting" certified courses

This does indeed come up regularly. If it was a last-minute thing I have told the race director to go ahead and add or subtract the same amount to the start as to the finish, and the splits as desired, and to document when and what was done. Then, if a question of a record comes up there will be a clear paper trail in support of course accuracy.

If there is time, the measurer can do this and submit the data as a new course. It is not necessary to remeasure the entire course. A decade or so back I had to do this for the Columbus Marathon, as they wanted to shift the finish by a few hundred meters. I wound up having to ride the entire course again, as I had all the splits to shift as well.

I believe this is most reliably done if it is the original measurer doing the work. I'm a bit skeptical of a new person "adjusting" a course measured by another. I have permitted it, but I always caution the person that if the course should come out wrong, it's the new measurer who carries the responsibility, not the original measurer.

If the original course was measured in 2006 and the "adjustment" was made in 2007 and complete data was submitted for certification of the adjusted course, which consists the original measurements made in 2006 and the adjustment for 2007, what should be the year of certification? 2006 or 2007?

The adjusted course would replace the original, and be certified in 2007.

OK, let's go to the extreme of this situation. If the original was measured in 2001 and we jump forward to 2010 and a course "adjustment" is done. Does the same still apply? Is the certification year 2010? This would result in a loop hole to get around the requirement for full re-measurement of a course that's set to expire after its' ten year life.

In the highly unlikely event that all the PK nails, etc are still visible and haven't been paved over, that none of the landmarks have moved, and the RD hasn't changed his mind about something, you could probably get away with it.

But it wouldn't be good form.

If the original course was measured in 2001 and a change to the start and finish was made, all the previous marks would become invalid and new marks would be needed, and a new map prepared.

If the original measurer did all the work, the date of measurement could include both the 2001 date and the 2007 date, and the course would have a 2007 certification number. The original measurer will know whether the course has changed.

As far as I know, we never issue a new certificate for a past year. All certificates I write in 2007 will be 2007 certificates.

Yes, this would be a way to circumvent the 10 year expiration, but how many people are actually going to do it? Life is too short to sweat the small stuff.

Here's a slightly different situation. An application is received today for a course measured in 2001. If approved, the course would not be valid for prior years, but for 2007 and future years, expiring in 2017 or would it be 10 years after the measurement, 2011.

I am assuming the course was never certified in 2001, but measured then. This will probably not happen. However, one would ask why did it take so long to submit the data. I would expect a new measurement to take place, because things on the course may have changed.

If the course was certified in 2001 and new work is submitted in 2007 then the course expires in 2017.

Here’s the story of this particular situation, which is moot at this point. This marathon course was measured in 2001, and, apparently, submitted to the regional certifier. The course was not certified at that time. It is not known exactly what communication may have taken place between the measurer and the certifier. Today, the measurer seems not to be available to explain exactly what happened. The regional certifier left the position in 2004.

The current/new race director suggested that the application was submitted, and at this point (2001) all communication ended and the matter was not further pursued and it left in limbo, so to speak. The director recently decided to pursue certification, at least in part, as a result of questions brought by runners who ran Boston qualifying times at this race in 2006.

The race director was contacted today, and after the situation was discussed and alternatives presented, she intends that a new measurement, on a different course, be completed for the 2007 race. Due to several reasons, not the least of which was questionable data, the director has decided not to pursue certification of the 2001 measurement.

quote:

I am assuming the course was never certified in 2001, but measured then. This will probably not happen. However, one would ask why did it take so long to submit the data.

Well I have two courses in my pocket that are a couple of years old, that were measured, paperwork done, and maps made, but where not submitted for certification. On one we had to move the location because the county needed to use the park after a hurricane, and the race was displaced and did not return. The other is raced annually but the RD told me that he did not need it certified. First because he thought he would change the course, then he did not but that park was going to change the course, but it is still the same, but the RD said not being certified did not matter to him.

The paperwork for both is filled out ready to go should, A) Some one want to use the first course, or B) the race decide that it would be nice to have a cert number, C) Some other RD comes over and asks if I have a course in either location that they can use.

Should I file the paperwork I would expect it to expire 10 years after the date of the measurement, not the filing date. I would expect to have to go out and check the marks are still there, but that is just common sense.

I just got a call about adjusting a course by some 400m. I measured the original course about 5 yrs ago and it was one of the hilliest I've ridden - I would bet my house that no records will ever be set on it.

I'm torn between telling the organizers to go ahead and adjust it, or going back to remeasure (and charging them for my trouble).

I've actually got several courses "in pocket" as well. One is being held pending payment by the RD. The others are courses for my own races - I've done the rides, and the maps are 90% finished, then got put on the back burner when other things popped up. I suppose I should just earmark a day to finish them and get them off the deck.