Certifying odd distances

I'd say it's certified at 5.2k, and the RD can call it whatever he wants.

Why the odd distance? Fixed S/F points?

I posed that question to the measurer and am waiting on a response.

Should we be trying to steer race directors toward standard distances? I understand sponsorship sometimes dictates odd distances, and some races with long histories don't feel an obligation to change their courses just because certain distances have become the norm. This one doesn't appear to fit either category, though.

Generally a measurer is there to do what the race director wants done. But what obligation do we have to try to keep the race director from doing something that has the potential to reflect poorly on what we do?

Here in New England we have loads of odd-distance courses. Most of them are either landmark to landmark or, more frequently, courses that were measured by car (or maybe horsdrawn carriage) odometer to what was thought to be a standard distance, then later found to be off when certified, but by that point had so much history the organizers did not want to lose that (the 47-year-old Westport, CT Summer Series falls into that category).

I've measured those courses and in fact one of the Westport races comes out to just under 3.1 miles, but there's no way I would ever allow it to be billed as a 5k (although many local runners claim their "5k" PRs on it).

What the race cares to publicly call their event is outside our control. We can control what appears on the certificate.

I suggest "Podunk 5k (5.32 km)" or "Podunk 5k (4.77 km)."

This notation should also appear on the course map if different from the nominal length.

Why even go down that road? If the race wants to put "Podunk 5k" on its flyers, that's up to them, but the cert should read "Podunk 5.32 km" - the exact distance. The will eliminate any confusion when runners go to the search engine, too. Chances are the race name is going to be more grandiose, anyway - like "Pete's Perpetuallly Perambulating Podunk 5k."

Race name and course name don't have to be related. There is no requirement for there to even be a one to one relationship.

Several races may share one course, or a race my be now run on a course that was previously used for another extinct event.

I think we should name courses for the location and distance, not for the event. Courses have a minimum 10 year life span, and when re-measured can go on for ever. Race names often have much shorter lives.

I think it is a very bad idea for a certification name to be misleading. Therefor the prior posting suggesting the name have the correct length is very sound.

We can't control event names, but we can encourage RD's not to run mislabeled races, or to mislead the public about the length.

We can do this by pointing out that:

• Many runners now wear GPS units.
  
• The RD will get a lot of flack if runners think the length is way out.
  
• That when courses are found to be the wrong length it brings the event into disrepute.
  
• That an astute runner WILL check the online copy of the course certification, if only to get the course number for his runner log.
  
• That locals who learn from the grape vine that the course was the 'wrong length', (not as advertised), will stay away in droves.
  
• When a course is short it's seems to be a con, but when it is way to long peoples times will be disappointing and they won't want to come back. Either way, it dampens repeat business.
  

While triathlons may talk of bikes, breaks, drafting, wet suits and Hawaii, the average runner only talks about shoes, splits and courses.
Getting the course wrong means time and splits are wrong. Not a way to make for happy runners.

Education is the answer.

I think Location and Distance for course name works fine when there are likely going to be multiple users of a course, I don't think that convention should be the rule. Case in point:

A race starting in a sponsor's parking lot, and running along a bike trail and road. Naming it "Littleton 5K" is too vague. Name it "Platte River Trail/Prince St. 5K", and that is cumbersome. "Cannibal Run 5K" is specific for my map. Location could be too hard to describe for many races I do.

However, if we put the name of the event (when it is likely that only one event will use a course, which is the case in 90% of my measurements) and distance, the event doesn't even have have to put the distance in their name. Yes, it helps with marketing, but if the want to call it the "Mass Shuffle", let them. Runners will likely then see in parenthesis the distance printed below the event name.

Maybe we are too focused on the event name and course name being the same. I agree with JamesM that there is no requirement they are the same. As long as we show the true distance on the map, we have fulfilled our obligation.

I find this a little troublesome.
"Received an application today from an experienced measurer who measured a course for a school group."
Did they request the measurer to certify A) a 5K or B) the distance for the defined course?

if A: have them change the turnaround if an out and back, the start or finish to equal 5000 meters for heavens sake!

if B)Why did they certify the course if they wanted to have a 5000+ meter course and not advertise it? I know I wouldn't want to compare my time from a certified 5K to one where I had to run another half lap around a track's distance.--I just don't understand why they wanted it certified in the first place I guess if they didn't really care to state the correct distance. That does reflect poorly on what we do (in my humble opinion) in that case to advertise the incorrect distance. I would call it a 5.2K as Stu suggests and advertise it that way. Otherwise you get the "but it was certified" which should mean something!

I have no trouble with fixed points(Gerwick's excellent example)--one judges their performance on past performance year after year. Just don't make it so they judge it to other 5K distance races.

Maybe I am just grumpy...

After discussing this with the measurer:

A) It was an out-loop-back that didn't have a turnaround point, so changing it wouldn't have been THAT easy, and

B) They wanted it to start and finish in front of the school and simply wanted it measured and the splits marked. They had apparently been running it on this course for a couple of years, and didn't want to change the course. Apparently it didn't draw from very far outside the immediate community.

I left the distance out of the course name (the course name was in two languages so it was too long for the blank on the certificate, anyway) and certified the distance as 5197 meters.

We can encourage race directors to run standard distances, but we can't force it down their throats. It's not our event. It's theirs.

Agreed. It is their event and point well taken about not shoving it down their throats. I just begin to question what it means when a race is certified to the layman who does not check the RRCA site to see the actual measured distance of a race who thinks they are running a 5K in this situation.

There I'm done now.. wheh.