Courses in Limbo

I'd like to second this. Seems I get a variation on this e-mail every week:

Subject: XXXXX 1/2 Marathon course map not on your web page


When will the XXXXX 1/2 Marathon certified course be posted on
your web page? The race was held on June 3rd. I can find maps for the
XXXXX Marathon and 5k but not the 1/2, which was new this year.
I emailed the race director who said he would contact USATF about
getting it posted, but it's still not there. I currently have 3
different course maps, the map on the race's web page, a map emailed to
me by the race director, and the actual course we ran (map generated via
my Garmin). I'd just like to verify which of the 3 was certified.

Please forgive me if I've sent this to the wrong person, and please
forward it to the correct person.

In this case, the race was measured on March 5, paperwork submitted on May 2, initially certified May 13 but not finally certified until June 4. I received it on June 16. Six weeks is a long time to wait for certification, and I'm sure the RD would like to see his course up on the website before the actual race, rather than a month after.

Things take time. There are reasons why they do.

The desire by some for instant gratification does not place an extra burden on us. We have always needed to act in a timely way, responding in a reasonable time. This does not mean that receipt of paperwork must be treated as a “do it right now” imperative. A delay of a few days is not unreasonable.

Responsibility for timely action begins with the race director, who decides when to get the course measured. Weather can be a factor. Timely work and paperwork submission by the measurer is a link in the chain. The certifier’s timeliness in creating the certificate and passing it on to the measurer and the vice chair is next. Then the vice-chair, then the registrar, and finally Keith Lively, who does toe posting on the USATF web site.

Each of these steps takes time. If a runner wants to know something about whether the course is certified, and cannot find it on the USATF web site, the best option is the race director. If the measurer has done his job, he has passed the certificate to the race director, who should then be in a position to answer questions about the course.

It would be nice if the certificate and map could be instantaneously transmitted to USATF with no intervening delays. We could approach this faster than we do now, but only at the cost of losing review and backup capability. It might also require all certifiers to obtain and use similar or identical computing equipment.

I don’t understand “initially certified May 13 but not finally certified until June 4.”

There are two signatures on the certificate. One on the 13th, and the other on the 4th. So the paperwork sat around for (or the final review actually took) a couple weeks before being finally signed.

I'm not pointing fingers here, we're all volunteers and the major point is that the courses get recorded accurately.

Today people have an expectation of right-now service. I can't tell you how many calls I take at work on Monday morning asking if the part that was ordered on Friday afternoon has arrived yet.

So we'll take care of accuracy and let the runners worry about speed.

If instantaneously transmitting measurement certificates and course maps is a positive step forward, why not work towards that goal? Couldn’t electronic transmittals be held in a queue file for each review approval or necessary back up? Once reviewed and backed up be available for uploading.

Why is it necessary for ALL regional certifiers to use the same computing equipment? Don’t we already except various standards for submittals, the quality of course maps varies dramatically from measurer to measurer, aren’t a few certificates and maps submitted on a single page, and a few certificates and maps are currently electronically submitted in color?

What time frame is unreasonable of a regional certifier or vice chair to sit on course applications and final certificates? What expectations should a course measurer or event director have for the system? Reasonable standards seem to be all over the place.

As much as the course certification program seeks a one size fits all, the application of the program is subjectively applied. The goal of reasonably accurate courses remains constant. Let us consider possible ways to speed up the process. I am in full agreement with Pete’s comment above, “We owe timely service to those we serve.”

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin P. Lucas:

Why is it necessary for ALL regional certifiers to use the same computing equipment? Don’t we already except various standards for submittals, the quality of course maps varies dramatically from measurer to measurer, aren’t a few certificates and maps submitted on a single page, and a few certificates and maps are currently electronically submitted in color?

Yes, and they give me a headache. The half-page scans take nearly 10 minutes each to process, as opposed to 30 seconds for the full-page scans. A stack of them is a long, tedious, drawn-out affair, much of the time spent waiting for the pages to load due to the extra scan resolution required. The color maps consume precious bandwidth and storage space.

Uniform equipment isn't required as much as uniform standards. Imagine if I submitted a race for certification with a distance of seven leagues, with a calibration course of six cables, five chains. The starting line is one cubit north of the gaslight. You'd have a hell of a time converting that into something you could actually make sense of.

Now imagine all the measurers sending electronic files. What are the odds that all the files would be ready to upload, without extensive tweaking?

An envelope of 90 courses can be scanned and entered into the database in a day. 90 electronic scans could be faster, or it could be an outright nightmare.

I'm not opposed to the idea, but it will require a big change in the way things are done. As it is, we can't even agree on a uniform certificate.

Kevin, if you want to try your hand at an electrnic submission, e-mail me a map, PNG format, 2550x3300 pixels, 300 dpi, 2 colors. We'll see how well it goes through.