Certifier Poll

Position on the use of the Electronic Counter

My position on this is simple: Only measurements made using the Jones counter should be considered for certification. The Jones is “idiot proof.” The same cannot be said for electronic counting. It is time to just say no before things get further out of hand.

I have reviewed a couple of submissions based on electronic counting, and they were filled with errors. I spent more time trying to figure out how the counter was working than I did with the actual measurement data, and at the end of the day was not certain I had it right.

I’ve measured several courses using two of the electronic counters, and have discovered the mistakes that can be made – I think I’ve made them all. I also think I probably corrected them. I have no idea how I could convince a certifier that my readings were valid. There are too many little tricks required by the electronic counter.

With the Jones, what you see is what you get. The readings (a single reading, not two) do not depend on the measurer correctly operating the counter. With electronic it depends on the measurer, at every data stop, doing the right thing. As a certifier, I prefer to deal with measurement data and not have to first ascertain whether that data is reliable. Quite frankly I do not know how to do it. I have yet to see anyone suggest how data reliability can be verified.

Electronic counting is a valuable help to the measurer because it can be reset, and is handlebar-mounted. It’s also cheaper than the Jones. These are advantages.

Would we be considering allowing electronic counting for certification if it cost the same as the Jones? I think not.

Once this door is opened it will be difficult to close again. At present there are two electronic counters that have been investigated by Neville. In the future there will be more. How are we certifiers to keep up with a constantly-changing technology?

I think we, as certifiers, want to be Mr. Nice Guy whenever we can, and do not wish to rain on anybody’s parade. We owe a debt to Neville for explaining how electronic counting works, but should we open the door to electronic counting out of a misplaced desire to be supportive of his efforts?

Best regards, Pete

Poll results - Should Electronic Counting be OK for certification?

Duane Russell – yes
Jay Wight – no
Mike Wickiser – mixed
Pete Riegel – no
Tom McBrayer – no
Jim Gerweck – mixed
Bernie Conway – no
David Katz – no
Neville Wood - yes
Michael Franke - mixed
Hugh Jones, Secretary, AIMS - no
Mike Sandford - South of England Certifier - no
Larry Baldasari - no
Matthew Studholme - no
Jane Parks - mixed

I'll keep this updated as results come in.

Pete:
Im have read six replies besides yours and, although the preference for the Jones was overwhelming, none indicated electronic cerifications should not be allowed.

I’ve had six course submissions where the measurer used an electronic counter. Fortunately the measurer had studied Neville’s material well, and seemed quite motivated.

Even so, electronic counter related issues cropped up on two of the measurements. On one of these, I had to ask Pete for assistance, and going over the data together we were able to figure out what the measurer had done – but it took a while.

Outside of this one problem, submissions using the electronic counter have not been much of a concern.

However, if the measurer was not familiar with the nuances and potential pitfalls of the electronic counter, an application review would be considerably more difficult, I believe.

I much prefer receiving data from the manual counter. However, I do admit that I’ve never used the electronic counter to measure, so I’m somewhat ignorant.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here:

Over the weekend I measured a course using the Protegé as my sole device - no J/O for overall distance. I am just as confident in the overall measurement of the course as I would have been had I used the traditional method. The Protegé provided 2 huge advantages in this ride:

1. Since it was relatively near my house, I was able to pre-calculate and print out all the split points, then just zero out at the start, and ride.

2. Some of the roads were heavy w/ beach traffic, which I had to ride against. It was a lot less dangerous being able to watch for oncoming cars without having to look down at the hub for a reading.

That said, I agree that electronic measurement is not for everyone, and certainly not for most neophytes. But a total ban would preclude those of us who are comfortable and skilled in the method from using it. In short, I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bath water.

99 percent of first-time measurers are going to use a J/O counter, since the electronic method isn't listed nor publicized in most (maybe all?) RRTC literature.

Maybe certifiers are getting more and more electronic submissions which require extra work, but if not, my suggestion would be that RRTC adopt a policy (that needn't even be officially spelled out) similar to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In short, if someone wants to do an electronic measurement, and their work indicates they have grasped the concepts and practice, we accept it. But we don't publicize the method. It would be viewed the same as those few courses that are measured by a surveyor's transit or a steel tape the entire distance.

Also, I would reserve the right of an individual certifier to accept or reject a measurement based on how it was done. If an electronic measurer's state certifier didn't accept them, the measurer could submit the measurement to another FS who was willing to review the work.

In response to Neville, I have never written that electronic measuring should not be allowed. It is too valuable a tool for that.

My position is that it should not be allowed for certification. The potential mistakes leave no tracks when they occur and present a certifier with an impossible dilemma. Certify on the basis of a gut feeling? I've done that for two guys whose data I reviewed. I was never able to be sure that the data I was seeing was reliable.

Use EC all you want, but record Jones counts for the certifier.

I asked Hugh Jones (AIMS Secretary and IAAF Measurement coordinator for Europe) and Mike Sandford (South of England measurement coordinator) for their views on our poll, and received answers as follows:

My question to them: Gentlemen: Does IAAF/AIMS/Great Britain measurement have a dog in this hunt?

Received from Hugh Jones:

Interesting reading, but I agree entirely with your summary of the advantages of a Jones Counter: "Idiot proof". I am sure that in UK we will not be moving towards recognising measurements done by electronic counter.

I have done this only once, in Egypt when my bags got lost. I bought an electronic counter and did the measurement as best I could (also using a fibreglass tape, so there were two possible sources of major error). This year I went back to re-measure, and found that I had to move the turn point by about 10m (this would imply 40m for the full distance). Much to my relief, the course was "mixed terrain" first time around, so could not be certified anyway. This year a lot more of the road had been surfaced and it is now certifiable, with about 2km on track and the rest on sealed road.

I am also sure that IAAF would take a lot of convincing before making any change to the approved Jones Counter method, and in order to effect such change it would require all their "administrators" (Bernie, JFD, Dave Cundy and I) to argue fiercely in support - yet I doubt that any of us are in favour.

Regards,

Hugh

Received from Mike:

Dear Pete,

I have had my attention mostly elsewhere, but I did notice the posts about the electronic counter coming up again recently.

I actually thought that the US measurers might not welcome a voice from overseas weighing in on the USAF/RRTC Topics section of your Bulletin board, so I was thinking of keeping my opinions to myself (albeit somewhat reluctantly!)

My view is that for teaching to new measurers in the UK I strongly think we should expect them to use the Jones counter in their early work during their practical training exercise and for a certain amount of time after they have been accredited as a grade 2 measurer. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the possibilities of going wrong with an electronic counter are much greater than with a Jones counter. Elimination of mistakes and sources of mistakes is a key part of the training of a measurer, and if we are to accept a wide range of recruits into measurement it does help to do everything we can to make things mistake free, and obviously some people would not enter the business at all if it appears too complicated.

The instructions for using an electronic counter are much more complex - For an example of this you only have to look at Neville's post of 12 July in the thread at https://measure.infopop.cc/eve/...89510622/m/559104451 to see the complex contortions you have to go through if you over shoot a point with an electronic counter. The equivalent instructions to the novice using the jones counter are so much simpler to understand.

My fear is that if the USA accepted electronic counter measurements (with these sort of complex instructions) from "people off the street", then there could be pressure on UK to follow suit, and this would in fact make life pretty miserable for people like myself trying to keep an eye on the standards of reports and checking them for the purpose of certification.

The above said, I would not go as far as to ban the use of an electronic counter completely, but I would prefer to accept data from only someone who has gained a significant experience of good measurements using the "simple" Jones counter, and who has a demonstrated a good track record of good reports with the Jones counter, in a variety of situations. In UK terms I would be comfortable accepting an electronic counter report from a Grade 1 measurer or a grade 2 measurer with experience and capabilities which I judge to be adequate.

If I got a request from someone to use a electronic counter , I would most strongly recommend that parallel Jones readings are presented as a check that he has the correct method. -- this dual method is clearly the way some US measurers operate which in my view is very good practice. In fact I would suggest that all electronic measurement be done with Jones data also recorded for certified points -- and only in exceptional cases - breakage or loss of the jones counter would I accept electronic data.

I don’t want to join the poll on the USATF board unless you specifically invite foreigners to do so, in which case you can record my vote as a certifier to be strongly against

Regards

Mike

For the record, my vote is a qualified "Yes", electronic counters should be allowed for certifications. My qualification is that it would only acceptable for experienced measurers who have demonstrated proficiency with the Jones counter.

This has been changed - Pete

Pete:
One has only to look at the secondary responses above to see that your score in the poll is grossly inaccurate.
I have never been under the impression that you wanted to ban electronic measurement, and if I have said that somewhere it must have been a slip.

Hugh:
Your experience in Egypt is not relevant here. I am sure you did not buy an electronic counter, but an ordinary cyclocomputer and used it the way the manufacturer intended. It has long been realized that this is not sufficiently accurate for course certification. What we are discussing here are cyclocomputers modified in operation to very accurately to read revolutions or commercial counters to do the same.

Mike:
For overshoot correction, the electronic counter equivalent of that of the Jones is as follows:
“Roll back the wheel though the zero point a number of times equivalent to the excess revs.”
I hardly think this constitutes “complex contortions”.

Duane:
I do not see how experience in reading the Jones is helpful in reading an electronic counter.

New Method of Operation for the Protege
I will shortly issue a report which I expect will make the method more robust and give both measurers and certifiers more confidence in results.

I'm looking forward to his new method that will make it easier for all to follow.

However, to say Hugh's EC used in Egypt was probably not a good one, this is exactly where a problem lies! We need a list of approved counters to use.

The overshoot correction for an EC is not even close to that of the Jones Counter. I'm not saying the EC can't be done for overshoot as Neville explains, but the JR is a no brainer.

I disagree with Neville about the poll results. It's clear that experienced Certifiers have found problems with the EC. One can see on the international level, it won't be an accepted as a device for measuring. This concerns me.

Yes, there are those with mixed feelings about who should use the EC. This must be considered no later than our Annual meeting.

One last point to make. One of the emails received had the following:
"The Electronic Counter was touted as a possible replacement of the Jones Counter when the availability of the Jones Counter was in question. Since there is now no problem with obtaining a Jones Counter thanks to Tom Riegel I think that we should only suggest that the Jones Counter be the tool of choice for measuring".

I feel we have overlooked Tom Riegel's contribution of the JR Counter. Thanks, Tom from the RRTC.