Configuration Descriptions

With the limited choices offered, I've always assumed that this was just a "general" classification for the course configuration. If the route goes to a turnaround and returns to the starting point, it's probably best described as an "out-and-back" course.

I've mapped courses that don't fall into any of the suggested configurations and sometimes the best description I can assign is a "complex of loops."

I just measured a course that is a loop, where the finish overlaps the start. Perhaps it might be better described as a "spiral" :-).

Maybe we just need one more classification - "Convoluted".

Ha! That could also describe some of my course measurements!

I cast my enthusiastic vote for "Convoluted". check out Bob Thurston's 5K in S.W. D.C, or his Redskins Park 5K in Landover, MD for examples.

These are the course configurations that I would find most useful on a measurement certificate.

• Point-to-point
  
• Out/back
  
• Single loop
  
• Multiple loops
  

Other descriptions can expand on these.

Thank you. -- Justin

Justin, my point was, what is the definition of each of those? How far apart must Start and Finish be to be a Point-to-Point? 50 meters? 250 meters? Not specified in the manual.

How about out-and-back? If the Finish is 50 meters from the Start, is it still an out-and-back, or does it become a point-to-point?

The interpretation of the descriptions leaves much up to the individual. In that case, is there any point in putting a description on the certificate?

I think only the "loop" is in question.
Maybe we should just use the rules. Any course with a separation of greater then 50% is a point to point.
Just a thought

Okay, in the Rules, there are only three types defined. Keyhole is missing.

As Dave says, "point-to-point" is defined as having a separation greater than 50%, but also could be a course with a drop greater than 1 meter per km.

Should "Keyhole" be added to the definitions? That is a very common course type.

We also use "Complex of Loops", "Partial Loop", and others. Only the three previously mentioned are defined.

Back to a basic question, though: what is the course type used for? Doesn't the map make the layout of the course more clear than a course type?

Doesn't the map make the layout of the course more clear than a course type?[/QUOTE]
It should but it doesn't always!

I think this thread started with Duane questioning what useful information is provided by the course description question 24 with it's 8 choices, not counting sub-choices. I can usually figure out which of the offered 8 choices most closely matched the measured course, even without strict definitions. I note that same course description is on the Measurement Certificate.

As for what useful information is provided by that description on the certificate, I agree with Duane's question. As a stand-alone document, the certificate is more complete with the description, regardless of whether a reader could actually use the information.

If were were to engage in a certificate re-formatting effort, the question of retaining the course description is surely valid.

I believe I am asking a redundant question, but here goes anyway: what was the initial intent of including this description on the certificate? Are certificates ever issued without a map?

Looking at my map of a course I just measured, the first description that comes to mind is "wounded octopus". I do not believe this is one of the form options.

If the map is so bad that it is impossible to determine the shape of the course, it seems to me this is a map problem, not a certificate issue. I am getting my share of badly-drawn maps.

Can we just delete this space on the application and the certificate?

I was thinking about this, and I can't see what harm it does to keep those categories listed there. A little redundancy may be helpful in certificates and maps, just as plenty of redundancy is useful in keeping runners on a course. I was only partly kidding when it comes to interpreting some maps; knowing the "course type" might actually help to see it as intended.

I agree with the doubts that are being raised but too much logic may not always be a good thing. Or to use Bert Lance's words, "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Bob, what prompted me to start this thread are the courses that don't fit neatly into our 8 categories. Is a course really an out-and-back if it doesn't have a common Start/Finish line? Or, how far apart can the Start and Finish lines be, and still be an out-and-back? If they are separated by 200 meters, they don't finish where they started, so it is not really an out-and-back. But, it's not a point-to-point, either, since that, by our definition, has Start and Finish separated by at least 50%.

Keyhole? Does that include an out-loop-spur-loop-back?

My point was, what is the value? If a course doesn't cleanly fit into one of the 8 categories, do we need "other"? I say "no".

Just because something is not broken does not mean it adds value. It may have outlived its original use. We should not always continue with a process just because "it's the way it's always been done". Apple became a very large company because they always asked "how can we do it better?". We should also be looking at our process and paperwork to see how we may improve.

I agree with Duane's last posting. The map tells the configuration.

I also agree with Duane that we should just get rid of the configuration field on the certificate. It serves no purpose.

I agree to eliminate the field.

All,

I agree we will make this decision at the USATF meeting in Dec.

I measured a 5K course a couple of months ago in a downtown area that had 22 turns. I wanted "maze" as a choice for configuration.