Configuration - Go Figure

Speaking of questions about questions. I've never understood the question, "Exact length of course:" No one knows the exact length of the course.

Alan,

Please stay on topic. So do another post on your question.

As for Tom, We have discussed this several times and decided just to leave it there. Now that the certificates are online, one can see the type of course it is. However, before no one knew unless they looked at the map.

We could discuss this if most feel it is of concern,

Alan,

What Gene means is, you should start a new thread or "discussion" with your new question. It makes it difficult to find discussions of past topics if people start talking about things in the middle of a thread that have nothing to do with with the title of the thread.

I think your question is a good one, because the wording you mention conveys the opposite of something many of us are trying to explain to people, that any measurement is an estimate with a given order of accuracy.

Thanks.

I agree with Tom's question. How important is the "definition" of the course layout? What purpose does it serve?

If one has the map, a definition of the course is superfluous. Unless the map has no arrows indicating the direction of travel, all courses would be obvious. On an out-and-back, if there were no arrows, it may be assumed, upon first glance, that it is a point-to-point. Once one looks at the Start and Finish descriptions, it would be apparent it is an out-and-back.

If there is no beneficial purpose for the question, and the spot on the cert, why have it shown? We have lots of information on the cert, and there is no need for valueless info to take up space. We dropped "Replaces", since it was confusing. "Configuration" seems pointless.

I am with Tom and Duane, "what's the point?" of the question.

Lee

Unbelievable! I agree with Duane.

I've always thought this question was semi-meaningless and occasionally hard to answer. Out-and-back, point-to-point and loop are relatively easy to determine, but we've all had "composite" courses like "out-loop-and-back" or "2 loops connected by 2 point to point segments." When I was a vice-chair I basically ignored reviewing that question since there seemed to be asa many answers as there were measurers. One man's out and back was another's series of loops.
I say get rid of it.

I join the Tom and the voters for elimination of this question. John Sissala and I used to laugh about which description to choose when the course was more like "2 loops, not the same, one loop with an out-and back section", etc. I have never understood the reason for the question.