I would strongly agree w/ Jay that an in-person eyeball of the course be performed by the measurer. The start/finish/turnaround needs to be accurately located, whether through finding the survey nails or measuring from the indicated landmarks (which can and do change). And it's good, although not required, to check the intermediate points as well.
If those, and/or road names, have changed, the map needs to be updated.
To sum up, is the current policy to be as follows:
A course expires after 10 years. At that time, the original measurer can apply for a new certificate. He/she can submit the original measurement data and map, or verify the course length through one ride, which must agree within 0.08% with the originally certified distance. Otherwise, a second ride must be performed, as if it was a new measurement. In all cases, a new certificate and course number will be issued.
Is this clear and acceptable to everyone?
I would change Jim's proposal to "A course certification expires after 10 years...". The course can still be used, but records would not be recognized.
If a race director decided to not get a new certificate, but everyone knew the course had not changed, everyone who has been involved in the race, whether runner or committee, would likely be accepting that the course is the correct length. However, our certificates indicate the length has been properly measured, and is the correct length. Since many courses change over 10 years, a 10-year expiration nudges the race director to have the course confirmed after 10 years. This is a reassurance to the runners that the course has indeed not changed, and they don't have to just take the race director's word for it.
If a race director decided to not get a new certificate, but everyone knew the course had not changed, everyone who has been involved in the race, whether runner or committee, would likely be accepting that the course is the correct length. However, our certificates indicate the length has been properly measured, and is the correct length. Since many courses change over 10 years, a 10-year expiration nudges the race director to have the course confirmed after 10 years. This is a reassurance to the runners that the course has indeed not changed, and they don't have to just take the race director's word for it.
Jim,
Thanks for thoughts on this. As I stated I will get this out in the near future.
Gene
Thanks for thoughts on this. As I stated I will get this out in the near future.
Gene
Good catch Duane - let's hope the course measurer hasn't similarly expired! 
Gene, thanks for being open to allowing this discussion to be conducted. I think we've arrived at a good compromise.
Gene, thanks for being open to allowing this discussion to be conducted. I think we've arrived at a good compromise.
quote:A course expires after 10 years. At that time, the original measurer can apply for a new certificate. He/she can submit the original measurement data and map, or verify the course length through one ride, which must agree within 0.08% with the originally certified distance. Otherwise, a second ride must be performed, as if it was a new measurement. In all cases, a new certificate and course number will be issued.
What would RRTC's "official" position on this be? Is a "confirmation measurement" suggested? Are there circumstances under which it would be required?
Will we adopt (or continue?) a policy that courses whose certification has expired are no longer in the online database (and thus their course maps are not accessible)?
Is there a way to tie together sanctioning and couse certification?
In response to Duane's post I think it makes sense to formalize the relationship beteween a certified course and record eligibility. If, as Jim mentioned in a previous post, a record can be set on a course whose certification has expired (assuming the course hasn't changed and it passes a verification measurement), there is little or no incentive for race directors to go through the process to extend their course certifications.
Jay,
Records can't be set on expired courses as far as I know(I will check on this).
As for tying sanctioning/certification together, we have discussed this and feel it's not a good idea. It is up to the race to know that a record will not be accepted unless the race is sanctioned and certified. We have asked our certifiers to inform the measurers of this.
As for the Policy, this will updated soon as I have been buried with maps/certificates the last couple of days.
Records can't be set on expired courses as far as I know(I will check on this).
As for tying sanctioning/certification together, we have discussed this and feel it's not a good idea. It is up to the race to know that a record will not be accepted unless the race is sanctioned and certified. We have asked our certifiers to inform the measurers of this.
As for the Policy, this will updated soon as I have been buried with maps/certificates the last couple of days.
Jay, I'm not sure what you mean by "tying together" of sanctioning & certification.
When I was sanctions chair for CT-USATF, I included an info sheet with every sanction request explaining the course certification process and its value to races. Most sanctioned races are run on certified courses, but not all.
OTOH, there are many certified courses used by races that are not sanctioned. Most of these are smaller events, who often obtain their insurance through a town parks & rec department or RRCA.
One thing I think we should push is enforcement of the existing rule that any USATF championship be run on a certified course. This is the case for all national championships, but I have heard of Association level championships whose courses are not certified.
As for maps/certs staying online, can't expired courses be accessed now by changing the search parameters? I feel this should continue, since expired courses' maps can be useful for historical purposes (I'm personally fond of citing the Pines to Palms Marathon as perhaps the most aided course ever designed.)
Finally, working back to front on your points, I would think it should be up to the discretion of the state certifier was to whether a confirmation measurement be required. I'm not sure whether this can or should be written into the policy without muddying things up too much. Common sense, although not very common these days, should be used here.
When I was sanctions chair for CT-USATF, I included an info sheet with every sanction request explaining the course certification process and its value to races. Most sanctioned races are run on certified courses, but not all.
OTOH, there are many certified courses used by races that are not sanctioned. Most of these are smaller events, who often obtain their insurance through a town parks & rec department or RRCA.
One thing I think we should push is enforcement of the existing rule that any USATF championship be run on a certified course. This is the case for all national championships, but I have heard of Association level championships whose courses are not certified.
As for maps/certs staying online, can't expired courses be accessed now by changing the search parameters? I feel this should continue, since expired courses' maps can be useful for historical purposes (I'm personally fond of citing the Pines to Palms Marathon as perhaps the most aided course ever designed.)
Finally, working back to front on your points, I would think it should be up to the discretion of the state certifier was to whether a confirmation measurement be required. I'm not sure whether this can or should be written into the policy without muddying things up too much. Common sense, although not very common these days, should be used here.
The point of my question was that I think we need to provide as many incentives as possible, positive and negative, to encourage race directors to keep their courses certified.
The race directors who put on long standing, low key events may not see any advantage to getting someone out to extend their certification. They know their course is the correct length and that it hasn't changed, and they may not want to invest in a new piece of paper that tells them what they already know. That's their call.
But if the benefits of having a certified course include such things as eligibility for sanctioning, eligibility for records being set, and the posting of the course map on the USATF web site, that's value added that we can continue to sell.
The race directors who put on long standing, low key events may not see any advantage to getting someone out to extend their certification. They know their course is the correct length and that it hasn't changed, and they may not want to invest in a new piece of paper that tells them what they already know. That's their call.
But if the benefits of having a certified course include such things as eligibility for sanctioning, eligibility for records being set, and the posting of the course map on the USATF web site, that's value added that we can continue to sell.
I too agree with Pete on every point. I've been quietly watching this discussion and have yet to see any solid statistics that support the statement: "many courses change."
Also, Jim is correct, certification is not a requirement for sanctioning. On the sanctioning application the certification number is "optional."
Also, Jim is correct, certification is not a requirement for sanctioning. On the sanctioning application the certification number is "optional."
While many courses may not change over 10 years, enough do, and enough race directors vary from the map during setup, that I believe re-measurement or verification every 19 years is warranted.
Most of us don't murder, but there are laws against it, and penalties. Many courses don't change, but enough do to warrant a policy to verify that a course is still being run as originally measured. At least, that's what I think.
Most of us don't murder, but there are laws against it, and penalties. Many courses don't change, but enough do to warrant a policy to verify that a course is still being run as originally measured. At least, that's what I think.
Why 19 years? How about 16 year or 12 years. There is no magic number for doing a one ride check. That's why at this years meeting we all agreed to 10 years.
Now, we have had some complain this was a wrong decision. I just don't know the magic number, but feel at some point there needs to be a ride check.
Jay offered a compromise and at the time it seemed reasonable. I do have some 2nd thoughts based upon some of the emails I've received.
This is never ending.
Now, we have had some complain this was a wrong decision. I just don't know the magic number, but feel at some point there needs to be a ride check.
Jay offered a compromise and at the time it seemed reasonable. I do have some 2nd thoughts based upon some of the emails I've received.
This is never ending.
I think some people fear this compromise will open the floodgates for hundreds of certifications to be "renewed" (not the right word, but the meaning is there).
I don't see this happening at all. The number might be a dozen or so a year. Maybe that's not worth opening a "loophole," but there are enough highly regarded and experienced measurers who have expressed the opinion that they have courses that haven't changed that we should allow them alternatives to a complete remeasurement with 2 rides.
Duane, your analogy with murder laws isn't the best. Those are laws to prevent something ; what we've come up with here is a rule to allow something.
No one is forcing a race director or measurer to make the determination that their course is unchanged. Instead, we're allowing them to use their best judgement and observation of the immediate situation to do that. If you have some doubt one of your courses is unchanged, do a single ride, which will either confirm or deny the fact. At worst, you'll have to do a second ride, but the new rule will allow a single ride to suffice for a new certificate as well as putting your mind at ease. And if Pete Volkmar or Dave Katz are certain their course hasn't changed, they can resubmit the original measurement data.
The absolute worst effect of this I can envision is that a record gets tossed because an "unchanged" course is shown to be short on validation. Considering the small number records set each year, and the even smaller number of courses likely to fall under the new rule, I think the likelihood of that occurring is miniscule. As Pete wrote,
The new rule allows us to meet that goal.
I don't see this happening at all. The number might be a dozen or so a year. Maybe that's not worth opening a "loophole," but there are enough highly regarded and experienced measurers who have expressed the opinion that they have courses that haven't changed that we should allow them alternatives to a complete remeasurement with 2 rides.
Duane, your analogy with murder laws isn't the best. Those are laws to prevent something ; what we've come up with here is a rule to allow something.
No one is forcing a race director or measurer to make the determination that their course is unchanged. Instead, we're allowing them to use their best judgement and observation of the immediate situation to do that. If you have some doubt one of your courses is unchanged, do a single ride, which will either confirm or deny the fact. At worst, you'll have to do a second ride, but the new rule will allow a single ride to suffice for a new certificate as well as putting your mind at ease. And if Pete Volkmar or Dave Katz are certain their course hasn't changed, they can resubmit the original measurement data.
The absolute worst effect of this I can envision is that a record gets tossed because an "unchanged" course is shown to be short on validation. Considering the small number records set each year, and the even smaller number of courses likely to fall under the new rule, I think the likelihood of that occurring is miniscule. As Pete wrote,
quote:The ordinary runner is not as picky as USATF. He or she merely seeks assurance that the course is reasonably accurate.
The new rule allows us to meet that goal.