Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I see this, Jim. This is a really nice job. Unfortunately, the average petroglyph might be more easily discernible to some of the RDs I work with than the black & white version of this map.

Gene, can you help me understand the "correct size" constraint? I could easily fit all USATF maps on just a small portion of my home PC hard drive. I would guess this is true for any of us who use a Mac or PC that is less than 6 or 7 years old. So, USATF storage space and/or server capacity cannot be a valid reason to require small file sizes for maps, can it? As far as display and download speeds, almost no one uses dial-up anymore, do they?

I can take a wild guess that a check with the USATF IT chief would reveal no need to constrain maps to any particular file size - right? If the answer from this IT person is "Yes, we must restrict file size", then I contend that there is something wrong with the USATF IT enterprise architecture.

I could host the entire database of USATF maps of any size from my modest home PC and my low-cost cable Internet connection and still have plenty of resources left over. Nevertheless, if USATF really needs a server upgrade in order to support greyscale and color maps, and cannot afford it, why don't we start a fund for donations from interested parties? Maybe in a few months or so we could raise sufficient resources to upgrade USATF's hardware.

Jim's map and other color maps I have seen are to me more practical and more valuable because they are easier for volunteer RDs, timing company personnel, and course layout volunteers to understand. True especially for complicated courses or half/full marathons where a we must present a large volume of data on a single page. They help prevent course layout errors which, after all, mitigate the value of our meticulous measurement work. For instance, a large recent race in the D.C. region laid out the courses improperly. A flood of Internet traffic about the race stated that "the course was not measured accurately". Bob Thurston, needless to say, took exception to these uninformed assertions.

Whether color maps would have made it easier for the rocket scientists who conducted this much-maligned event to set up the course properly is doubtful, I concede. However, there are plenty of competent and well-meaning race management personnel out there who struggle with otherwise good certification maps. For the general public, IMHO, anything we can do to make our maps easier for our clients to work with is a worthwhile pursuit.
I understand you, Gene.

What I do not understand is these size restrictions you refer to. Server space and capacity is cheap these days. It seems to me that someone in USATF IT is working under the kind of restrictions that were commonplace 15 or 10 years ago when digital storage space was more expensive and network capacities were not what they are today. If we can watch streaming videos on our phones with no hiccups, USATF can easily store any size maps and provide plenty of Internet pipe at a low cost.

I would love to see the official USATF explanation for these size limitations.
The file size restriction may have more to do with available bandwidth. While you and I may feel that a 1mb file is no problem to download, we don't know the load factor for their connection. I am not saying there is a bandwidth problem, but it is easy for those of us on the outside to not know the reason for constraints, but feel there should be no constraints. Storage space may not be a factor in their limits to us.

For now, USATF has the size restriction. Until they tell Gene otherwise, we are howling at the moon about file size.
They are streaming video on the USATF website. I don't think they consider bandwidth to be a problem. I doubt more than 100 maps get downloaded each day. The impact would be trivial.

If there are constraints that justify the file size limit then why not explain them? Lyman is not suggesting we howl at the messenger. He wants to howl at the source of this limitation, and I agree.
Well folks after talking to my guy that I work with at USATF Basically, it is what it is.

There are more important things to worry about! How about the rule that no longer states a record could be set if not wind aided when a course has a separation of more than 30%, but less that 50%. Nobody in USATF seems to be able to reprogram this into the database.

How about when a course expires, it states it's record eligible? Again, nobody has help me get this fixed.

Why the fuss about the size? I feel we can produce great maps with the limits we have. Yes, maybe USATF is not helpful here, but I want some other things done first.
You are right, Mark. Solving a problem is our only goal here. Or, if you prefer, flip this coin over and characterize our concern as wanting to improve our processes - for the benefit of our race clients, race personnel, visitors to USATF, measurers, certifiers, and hard-working RRTC staff persons who process a lot of certification data these days. No indictment or criticism of any individual is ever intended or condoned by anyone I know.

As a relative newbie to this RRTC forum, I am struck by the attention to detail by participants in discovering and discussing the most meticulous and reliable measuring methods and procedures. I learn something most every time I spend a few minutes reading the latest posts. I am proud to be part of an organization that has such high standards and that has such well-qualified, analytical, technically adept contributors. The relentless pursuit of excellence in the art of certification measuring I perceive within RRTC is truly impressive.

The fact that some of us on this forum feel that we must work around some historically imposed limits on this pursuit of excellence causes me to be confused. I have seen repeatedly that some member efforts directed at improving our processes and reducing the certification workload repeatedly seem to hit a wall. In particular, member efforts to improve the methods we use to process certification maps are regularly rebuffed by USATF. When members examine our processes and then carefully propose improvements that save time, money, trees, simplify and ease the workload for RRTC/USATF staff, that serve our customers better and make RRTC and USATF look more professional, it seems they are routinely disregarded by USATF. The reasons for being "blown off" in this way never seem to reveal themselves.

In a crowd of curious, analytical, technically-adept members who actively engage in the pursuit of excellence in all that we do, it seems to me that USATF's inexplicable disregard for our initiatives serves only to raise more questions rather than inspire passive acceptance of mediocrity. Perhaps some of us may feel that extending our passion for improving our work should be arbitrarily limited in inscrutable ways. Surely, though, this cannot reflect the majority opinion of RRTC members and members of the greater measuring community.

It seems clear to me that most of us want to see progress in an area of our work that has been held back artificially for too long. If there are "more important things to worry about" than the aforementioned benefits, including saving time for hard-working RRTC staff, what may they be?

If USATF wants us to give up and go away in our pursuit of simplifying our map processing standards, propping up straw men and stonewalling rather than encouraging an open and honest discussion of the pros and cons seems to me to serve only to pour an accelerant on this fire. Such active disregard - bordering on disrespect - creates the perception that there is something to hide. We want to believe that USATF's passive-agressive approach is not intentional. Some of us may take this inattention as reason to accept mediocrity and inefficiency. Nevertheless, some of us find ourselves energized by the curious lack of interest by USATF in this matter as we volunteer our efforts to serve our customers better and to work more efficiently. I know for a fact that some of us see no good reason to apply one standard of excellence to most of our work while tolerating a much lower standard for the rest. I believe that USATF's act of supporting this conundrum, whether by intent or by negligence, will ultimately promote more requests for change.
Lyman, don't know if you've ever been to a USATF Annual Meeting or been privy to some of the inner political machinations of the organization.
If you had, you'd view it as much the same way as a bumblebee or helicopter - by all aerodynamic principles, it should not be able to fly, but it simply ignores that fact and continues to buzz merrily on its way.
I do not think so, Duane. I have difficulty believing any CIO this far into the 21st century deals much with bandwidth concerns. Huge Internet pipes are dirt cheap these days. And, as Mark says, if USATF can stream video, it can handle 1MB or larger maps going out and coming in all day long, every day, 365.

Originally posted by Duane Russell:
The file size restriction may have more to do with available bandwidth. While you and I may feel that a 1mb file is no problem to download, we don't know the load factor for their connection. I am not saying there is a bandwidth problem, but it is easy for those of us on the outside to not know the reason for constraints, but feel there should be no constraints. Storage space may not be a factor in their limits to us.

For now, USATF has the size restriction. Until they tell Gene otherwise, we are howling at the moon about file size.

Why the concern? Yes, color maps look nice! Also, a good black white map can look pretty good. The USATF site is good for people to look up info about the race(map and course information).

If the race wants to have a great map, then they could have their own web site or place it on their race application.

Yes,maybe USATF could give me permission to have greater size maps. I have tried! What do you want me or any of the RRTC members to do?

Why don't you write the National Office and ask what the problem is with having limits placed on the registrar to post the maps? Contact either Jim Estes or Andy Martin.

My limits are as follows: Maps must be in png format on a 8.5" x 11" page at 300dpi and less than 400kb. It would be nice if they could increase the limits! Maybe you could have some success?
I understand the limitations RRTC works under. It is clear now that other members and I feel that these restrictions are unnecessary and wasteful. And that there is a worthwhile upside to changing.

We know that one of the downsides of the questionable USATF size limitation is that it effectively prohibits measurers from submitting maps in greyscale or in color. Printouts of the few greyscale and color maps that made it to the site that I have seen run from poor to atrocious in appearance. I just came across one of my maps that I produced in greyscale before I understood our limitations. It is posted on a large corporation's Web site for one of its races. Unknown to me, they had lost the original map copy I produced for them. They went to the USATF site to find the map, which they then posted on their race site. This map looks like someone spilled water over it and then wiped it off. Unfortunately, my name is readable on it. Out of curiosity, I printed this map from the original and then scanned it to a little over 400KB. Then, I printed it from the scan. It did not look great - just OK. But, it still looked much better than the mess on the client's site.

Some posted black and white maps from our site also print poorly. I have compared dozens of USATF-posted maps to pre-submission versions of these same maps, including my own, and those of 5 other measurers. The difference in printout quality runs from noticeable to unacceptable. Again, USATF requirements mandate scanning to such a low resolution that some otherwise fine maps appear washed-out or pixilated when printed from USATF. Then there is the matter of the file type requirement. I have not done a rigorous study, but when I compare .PNG images to .PDF images of the same size, the PDFs almost always look better on screen and print better. Since, once submitted, map images are not manipulated, there is no need for maps to be submitted in a graphics format - right?

If we allow .PNG maps and PDF maps to be emailed to RRTC, we save time, money, postage, trees, scanning labor, and they arrive in a ready-to-post format. It will be difficult to convince me that whatever USATF checks and balances protocols may exist cannot be supported by electronic images just as well or better than by paper printouts. No corporate procedures that I can think of could possibly make it more efficient for certifiers to mail in paper maps (some of which had to be printed from their original .PNG or .PDF format), only for them to be re-scanned at any resolution into any electronic format. We are in effect printing an electronic image which is then snail-mailed and then re-scanned (with loss of clarity) into an electronic image to again be re-printed by users when there can be no obvious justification for creating this extra work - unless Gene is underemployed - which I doubt.

The upsides to supporting larger map file sizes and formats are many. Among them: better quality maps on USATF that view and print well; maps that are easier for users to understand and to use; maps that reflect well on USATF, RRTC, certifiers, and measurers and which present a more professional image to the public.

Upsides to supporting the submission of maps electronically: time, labor, and money savings - no paper printouts, no envelopes, no stamps, no trips to the mailbox, fewer trees wasted, much less time spent scanning at RRTC; no loss of image quality due to printing/scanning/reprinting.

Alternatively, perhaps we can just keep doing things the old way without anyone in USATF caring. We can let technology pass us by indefinitely. We can waste our time printing, snail-mailing, and scanning and producing crappy representations of our meticulous field work. If this is what we want, I will go along to get along.

I'm not good on the png thing vs pdf's. However, you may have missed Bob's posting on some of the history of why USATF uses png as opposed to any other format(see at end of this responce).

Maps that I scan depend on the Certifiers making sure they are done well. I have told several that the maps sent in are poor and must be redone. I feel as a whole things have improved.

The West VC has gone all electronic and I'm working on the East VC going in that direction. I have some Regional Certifiers in the East doing electronic, but it's a work in progress.

Here are Bob's comments about why PNG's are the best format!

From: Bob Baumel
Re: Format used for our maps on the USATF site and how it came about!

First, the question of raster or vector formats. To the extent that we need to scan hard-copy maps, raster is the only option. Vector formats are possible only for computer-generated maps, but only if the map is generated with the specific intention of making it fully scalable (I'm sure that, in practice, a lot of computer-generated maps aren't fully scalable, but contain combinations of vector and raster elements). And for a map to remain fully scalable, it must remain in electronic form throughout the process. If it ever gets printed out, requiring us to scan the hard copy, the result will be a raster image, and we'll have no way to get back to the vector graphic.

There's also an issue of file formats for vector graphics. Most vector graphics are produced in proprietary formats, such as Adobe Illustrator. We certainly won't adopt a proprietary format of that sort as our standard. There is a non-proprietary vector format that's been under development for many years called SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics), but I doubt that it's supported widely enough to consider using it as our map standard.

Anyway, given that we needed to choose a single format as our standard, and given that we definitely need to support scanned hard copy maps, it had to be a raster format. Given that we needed to pick a raster format, the optimal choice was clearly PNG, which is superior to older raster formats such as GIF, JPEG and TIFF. The PNG format is lossless and non-proprietary -- and among all lossless raster formats, it provides the best compression.

Note that aside from choosing PNG as our format, we also made choices involving color and resolution; it needs to be monochrome (black & white) and 300 dpi resolution, so an 8.5" x 11" map is 2550 x 3300 pixels.

JPEG is a "lossy" format, which loses quality every time the image is edited and re-saved. JPEG tends to be best for photographic images, not maps. Our choice was definitely the lossless PNG format.

What about PDF format? Every time somebody suggests PDF, I must emphasize: PDF IS NOT A GRAPHICS FORMAT. It's a file format that can contain all sorts of stuff, including text, vector graphics and raster graphics. Simply because a map was saved in a PDF file doesn't mean that it's scalable. The graphics inside that PDF may be raster images, of any resolution (so when you "zoom in" within that PDF, they may look terrible, full of "jaggies"). Thus, if we simply say that we want maps in PDF format, we haven't said anything about image resolution.

People often produce PDF files by initially generating a document in some proprietary format (such as Microsoft Word for text) and then "printing" to a PDF file. In the same way, if they start with fully scalable graphics generated in a proprietary program such as Adobe Illustrator, and then convert to PDF, they will indeed get a PDF with fully scalable graphics. But even in this case, if a measurer sends such a PDF to a Certifier, I suspect that many of our Certifiers will have a difficult time adding the necessary annotations (Remember that the Certifier needs to write in the assigned course number and dates of certification validity) and then preserving it as a fully scalable PDF.

Another issue involving PDF files is that our maps are posted on the USATF site where they must be easily available for both screen display and printing. If we post PDF files, screen display can be problematic. Web browsers cannot display PDF files directly, but require a plug-in (usually Adobe's PDF plug-in) to display them in a browser window. Displaying a PDF file this way (using PDF plug-in) tends to be slower than direct display of a PNG graphic by the web browser. More seriously, the required plug-in isn't even available for all web browsers on all platforms. For example, on the Macintosh platform, people running the popular Firefox browser cannot view PDFs in a browser window (mainly because Adobe hasn't seen fit to provide its PDF plug-in for any Mac browser except Safari); thus, Mac users running Firefox would be forced to download the PDF file for every map they wish to view.

PNG files are handled directly by all modern browsers and work well for both screen display and printing. Along these lines, it's interesting to recall some history. Pete referred below to discussions between Stu Riegel, Keith Lively, myself (and Pete), in which we chose the current PNG format. Those discussions took place in early 2006. However, as Mike indicated, I had extensive correspondence with Keith several years earlier regarding the methodology for posting and displaying maps on the USATF site. Interestingly, even at that early date, we decided to post only PNG files on the website (which might have been considered somewhat "bleeding edge" at the time, since some of the browsers still in use didn't support PNG very well). The techniques adopted then weren't as efficient as possible: Keith posted two PNG files for each map -- a low-resolution version for screen display and somewhat higher resolution version for printing. Also, RRTC wasn't sending the data to Keith in PNG format. As Mike described, he scanned maps into very high resolution TIFF files, which (I believe) weren't compressed at all, so were huge files. Mike sent those big TIFF files to Keith, who ran a script to convert them into the two PNG files that Keith posted on the website.

When several of us revisited the issue in early 2006, we simplified the procedure greatly, by selecting a single PNG format that could be scanned directly by the RRTC Registrar, posted on the USATF site without any conversion, and used for both screen display and printing. At 300 dpi, this new PNG standard was somewhat higher resolution than both of the files Keith was posting previously, but it was a single file that replaced two files, and by keeping it monochrome, file sizes were small enough to work well on the web.

The format selected in 2006 is probably still optimal, given that we can't avoid working with scanned hard-copy maps, which require a raster format -- and PNG remains the best raster format. People periodically say we should use some other format, and the format mentioned most often is PDF. But as I've said, PDF isn't a graphics format. PDF files can contain all sorts of things. PDF files are extremely useful for transmitting information, precisely because they can contain so many things. But we can't base our map standard on the PDF format. Saying that a file should be in PDF format says nothing about the nature or resolution of the graphics inside the file. It may contain scalable graphics, but it might contain nothing but low-resolution raster graphics. And for screen display of maps on the website, we must remember that not everybody can view PDF files in a browser window.

Bob Baumel
Hey, Gene. Admirable work on going all electronic.

As to the file type: in 2006, I would have taken issue with some of Bob's analysis. The difference today is that I take issue with every single part of it. If anyone wants me to go through it point by point, I will.

Alternatively, anyone can dismiss my assertion and stay in the past. I feel confident I can persuasively make my case. And I know I have tech-savvy friends reading this here who agree.

Gene, Bob: things have changed in the last few years. I have never heard of a personal computer anywhere in the U.S. that does not have the free Adobe reader. Most phones have it these days. PDF images display far better at any zoom level than .PNGs. They print cleaner maps. There is no such thing as a scanner that does not scan to PDF. PDF is coin of the realm for document distribution around the world. Vector/raster considerations are no longer relevant if they ever were. Users often don't know what to do with .PNGs. Any schoolchild over the age of 10 can handle PDFs to his/her heart's content these days.

Technology marches on.
Bob wrote:

Saying that a file should be in PDF format says nothing about the nature or resolution of the graphics inside the file. It may contain scalable graphics, but it might contain nothing but low-resolution raster graphics.

Considering the poor quality of some of the maps I've seen, I don't see that as being such a big loss, although one could make the counterargument that given poor quality maps we should retain as much of that poor quality as possible.

As to submission format: I feel the biggest holdup in going to electronic submissions is getting the map in the right format, dimensions, and file size. Even working with an advanced graphics program like Illustrator or FreeHand, I have to go through some additional steps to massage the map to make it acceptable for posting. In contrast, I could generate a PDF version with one or two mouse clicks. And I would agree with all of Lyman's points on PDF vs. PNG format.

While I'm sure the USATF web people have bigger fish to fry than RRTC maps, perhaps this is an area that should be revisited.
My contention: if the original map is NOT garbage, the state certifier can readily get it into the right format, whether hand-drawn or digitally-created. I do not know if a new tutorial is required to do this. If so, it seems to me it will be short and simple. My old $95.00 scanner allows me to convert any hand-drawn map into a PDF of the right size for Web display (or any other size) and the right margin size for printing.

For maps submitted as .PNGs, JPGs, or in any other electronic format, is is usually easy to modify the size and formatting. Just open any .PNG, .JPG, Bitmap, .TIFF or .GIF with Microsoft Office Picture Manager or any other basic image manipulator to adjust the size, resolution and margins. Then use any free PDF creator to save the image as a PDF. With some free PDF creators, you can adjust the image to the desired formatting without the Picture Manager step.

"Mediocre in/good-to-excellent out" or better is thus enabled.
Lyman, I have been working with the East Certifiers and have found your some can do all correctly. However, there are some that just keep making mistakes. I will continue to gradually get all willing to try this electronic stuff. Some are not interested!

Have you talked to your State Certifier. He is going to give the electronic submissions a try. Also, you should be able to submit color maps as png's with the correct size if you are good with different programs. Duane Russell is able to do this. I suggest you confer with him if you have problems.

Also, you should contact me as to how to identify your png's for Bob to send off to both Paul and I.
I agree with Lyman and believe that a PDF map format would give better detail and be a good step toward full electronic submission. I have been using an electronic submission setup in Alabama for almost two years. It is working well with all the regular measurers and with new measurers if they contact me before the submission. It easily beats the old USPS process until the certificate and map are ready to publish. I print those and send two copies to Paul via USPS.

All the application forms are sent to me in PDF format. Some are scanned copies of hand input forms, but completed Adobe forms are the most common.

The majority of the map submissions are of digital origin. So far this year, thirty-nine of forty-two maps are digital. As you know the quality can vary, but the prints are usually good. The measurers use a variety of software including Illustrator, MS Publisher, Open Office and Auto Cad. I use Turbo Cad. All of these can save in PDF format and most measurers use that option.

An electronic signature on the PDF certificate/map could complete the process. And I could then make an electronic submission to Gene and Paul for approval.
Very simple to make a signature for use on the Cert form. 1) Sign a piece of paper. 2) Preview the scan, and crop to only the signature. 3) Scan and save as a file, whether jpg, png, or pdf.

Now, open Acrobat (not Reader, as Reader does not have this ability). Create a Rubber Stamp (Tools, then different spot for different versions - just look it up in Help>Tools for your version) of the file. Save it. You can now insert the Rubber Stamp of your signature on your Cert form template, and not mess with it again. Simple way to completely digitize the certificate process.
Yes, if you have a scan of your signature. I scanned mine, scanning only my signature, itself. I just had to make the scan window the same size as my signature (do this after "preview" on most scanners).

Once you have a file (pdf or png) of your signature, you can Create a Stamp (versions differ, but under Tools>Comments and Markups>Stamps>CreateCustomStamp (version 9).

Once created, you can Stamp your Cert template doc, and it will always be on your Cert. I always work from my template, so I don't have to insert my signature every time.

Hope this makes it clear enough. Version 10 is slightly different, but if you search for "Create custom stamp", it will tell you how.
Hypothesis - Color maps can only be converted to a png of appropriate file size if the map is always in a file format - NEVER scanned.

I have been wrestling with some color maps that were sent to me as pdf files. The pdf files were created from scans of hand-drawn maps. I could not convert the pdf files to png files of acceptable size. So, I scanned them.

The scanned files are always too large, no matter what sequence I use to get to png files.

Has anyone found a way to scan a color map, and create a png file of small-enough size? I think we may have to say that only digitally-created maps can be in color. I imagine it is the "white" background that adds too much image information into the file, making the png file too large.

Duane, I took a 980 Kb PDF and saved it as a PNG. The PNG is viewable here: . The PNG is 376 Kb.

Having said this, I am confused about "appropriate file size". Are we still concerned about shrinking map sizes? I do not know how much better posted maps may appear if we use file sizes of 1 Mb or larger. But it cannot hurt.

I also contend that a better scanning procedure, regardless of file size, can help. I had to research some USATF online maps over the weekend. Some of them are scanned with the orientation rotated 90%. Fine for printing, but an annoyance to view on screen or to "PDF" them to send to a client.
Lyman, have you helped your Regional Certifier getting on board with doing electronic submission? He has a go to start and maybe you can help.

As for file sizes, USATF is having major problems with their server. They deal with many more people than us. I don't feel they will allow us to increase the size of what is submitted. Their site is going through a change. It seems to me there web person is having a difficult time. The RRTC hasn't been able to get any maps up for at least a week.

The purpose of the site is to have all courses show online. It's not design for you or any race to use it as an advertisement for their event. Yes, we want a good product and I feel it has improved over the last couple of years. If the map has a wrong orientation for viewing, then print it out. I don't think maps can viewed clearly unless printed out.

As for sending your product to client, use what you have produced. If your concern is the certification number appearing on the map,then write it on the map. Also, send them the certificate. Again, the site isn't design for what you send to a client.
Last edited by genenewman
Gene, yes, I have spoken to John about this and he is all aboard with electronic submission. Like most of us, he prefers to deal with PDFs rather than PNGs.

As I write this, I am viewing, on another browser tab, videos of track meets on Do you have a good feeling for how much more server space and bandwidth these many streaming videos use than our puny little cache of on line maps? Since other parts of seem to me to be working fine, what conclusions might we draw from the server issues you refer to?

You say the purpose of the site is "to have all courses show online". Yet, since some maps are scanned into the system at a 90-degree rotation, they show online poorly. This is on top of us using the wrong file type for our maps and certificates, which causes them to appear grainy, pixilated, or just plain washed-out. It seems to me no one would use these poor-quality images to advertise.

If we start handling our maps in the appropriate file format, not only will they print well, they will display just fine, Gene. As an example, check out this PDF posting on for the Prefontaine Classic: [] . This is a PDF image that looks good on the page, on my screen, and just peachy printed out in color.

I never send my clients to for maps whenever there is any alternative for the reasons just mentioned. Yet, clients often seek information about the availability of multiple existing courses, hence their visits (or mine) to the site. Isn't this prominent among the reasons for maintaining these maps of courses we have entered into the public domain via our certification process? If we do not need to post good quality maps on line at all, If we simply list the course name, city, certification number, and expiration date without a map, how useful would the site be?

As for printing maps from, my experiments at home scanning printed maps with the same process, e.g. <400 Kb PNGs, then re-printing, reveal a far higher-quality image than from every time. With electronic submission and no excessive file size constraints, perhaps the scanning problems will cease to be an issue. I know I would not want to scan thousands of pages every year. This is a huge amount of work. Hopefully, we are now on track for scanning to become a thing of the past.

I always send PDFs of my maps to clients. They never have any issues viewing them, posting them on the Web, or printing them. I do not send them certificates unless they ask. In my 26 years of doing this, no one has ever asked me for a certificate.

Checks and balances considered, it seems to me as though our Web site for certification maps may be little more than an afterthought for some folks in authority at USATF based on the recent reports on the apparent inattention to our issues. I have to wonder how much better our system could be if some day our concerns rise to a level of relevance to them.
Lyman - first, you should always send the certificate to your client. If they ever need it, they would already have it. Certification includes the certificate. I have run across a couple races that claim "certified" courses, but they were unable to produce the certificate. They never had one, and that is the point. Always send a cert to the client.

Now, about file size. How was your 980 kb PDF created? Did you scan it? Was it color, or monochrome?

My observation has been that black-and-white PDFs convert to small png files, but PDF files produced from color scans don't convert to small png files. That is what I am trying to discover - if others can take a PDF created from a color scan, and make a small png file from that PDF file.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.