Hello Gene -- thanks for reminding us about the Annual Meeting. I may have a conflict, so if its not too much trouble, I'll provide my input below. There are currently nine items on the Agenda. I'd like to add a tenth. If you're pressed for time, skip to #10.
Topics for discussion at our Meeting (RRTC) 12/02/2016:
1. Should a calibration course include at least a street address if possible for the endpoints.
Omit the emphasis on "endpoints". The issue our measurers have had with unfamiliar calibration courses is in finding where on earth the calibration course is located. Please provide enough information on the map (cross streets, addresses, GPS coordinates, etc) to find the calibration course.
2. For how many years after its original certification can a course be re-certified, with a new 10-year life, BASED ON ONLY ONE RIDE OF THE COURSE?
No JJ comments.
3. Should we remove High & Low elevations on the Certificate?
No JJ comments.
4. Sometimes Certifiers list the Measurement method as both "bicycle" and "steel tape." Do we need to add a statement about when to check the "steel tape" method?
No JJ Comments.
5. GPS coordinates used to define cone locations: I think all certifiers know that starts, finishes, and turn-arounds cannot be defined by only GPS coordinates. Should we make a statement that the location of anything that ultimately defines the length of the course must be described relative to permanent landmarks, and cannot be described by only GPS coordinates? How many landmarks for each should be used?
No JJ Comments.
6. Intermediate Jones counts: Should we establish a requirement that the Jones counts must be recorded at intermediate points when submitting measurement data? Perhaps for shorter courses this isn't necessary, but for longer courses it should be. I have found this doesn’t happen all the time.
I thought we had this requirement.
7. Should we take off the certificate “Track”. We are not in the business of certifying Tracks.
This question has always perplexed me. I've heard emotional responses that suggest a problem that does not exist! Nobody ever asked me to bring my total station and transit and do a complete licensed surveyor mapping of a track at a cost of $10,000 or more. That's not what we do. But, we do measure the length of road courses that may utilize part or all of a track. Some road races are entirely on the track. We can, we do, and we should continue to verify a track's length when needed since that IS what we do. The licensed surveyor is NOT going to do that. Leave it on.
8. USATF logo for certified courses. Who is allowed to place this on a map? What is the proper Logo to use.
No JJ commentary.
9. How to handle certified Splits on the certificate?
I advocate a simple YES / NO response and no more. This is not the place for it. In order to remain true to our philosophy that the certified split is measured and documented to the same rigor as the complete course, then we should continue to insist that the certified split have its own measures, data sheets, application and certificate.
=============================================================
Most important of all, I would like to re-visit business from 2015:
I'll call it ITEM 10, but it should be re-stated. I always include cal course on the map. But I am advocating a bit more here:
10.
(from 2015
Should we add the Calibration Course number to the map page of the certification?
Current (2015) decision is that it will not be done, but we will revisit this discussion later. If the measurer wants to include it on the map, he may do so at this time.
JJ Response: YES - BUT THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. Let's add it to the database.
This is my main issue. I feel it is critical to our technical transparency to report and track the calibration course used for every certified course. The calibration course is the fundamental basis for ALL of our work. It must be unimpeachable and verifiable.
Case in point: A few years ago I discovered that a popular calibration course was woefully short. I teamed up with the original measurer to steel tape it and make a corrected cal course. But that is NOT enough. Road courses were measured based on that faulty course. Every one of the affected road courses is probably short. But what are those affected courses?
In today's world, the only way to resolve these known faulty courses is to have the state certifier plough through thousands of Road Race Applications to discern which courses were adversely affected. We then can perhaps call for verification and/or invalidation of the affected courses. Under our current procedures the needed information is embedded in our race applications. Its very hard to find.... hence, it probably does not happen.
That's a severe problem. We can do better than this.
The solution is simple and costs next to nothing.
(1) Add one simple data field to the certificate: "CALIBRATION COURSE(S)"
(2) Add the new data field(s) to the database
Now, after these changes, it is a very simple matter to query the database and instantly learn, unequivocally, exactly which courses were impacted by the faulty calibration course.
Our technology met this need many years ago.
We are the leaders in the quality and integrity of road measurement in the world.
It is inconceivable that we would skip this step.
Lets do it.
Thanks to all who read this far. Your thoughts are always welcome.
Jeff John
AIMS/IAAF "B" Measurer
Western New York
