My argument for requiring only a single ride for re-certifications of expired courses was based on the fact that the second ride serves no purpose in this case. You are already requiring the first ride to closely match (within 0.08%) the ride that someone else did of the course long ago.
But if you change the requirement of that one ride to be that it only has to confirm the course is at least as long as advertised, then my argument no longer stands. Someone who does a very poor ride of the course will always confirm the course is at least as long as advertised, even if it is a bit short!!
If we are going to allow a single ride to re-certify a course with the at-least-as-long requirement, we need to be very careful about who we allow to do that single ride.
I have an idea that might solve the problem without too much additional verbiage.
Suppose we said that a successful verification of a course results in a new certificate, good for 10 years from the date of verification ride. So for a race that had a record set in its third year, and received a verification ride courtesy RRTC, they get an extra 10 on their lifespan. If it's a course that is expiring or has expired, the 10-year meter begins ticking from that year. The requirements would be the same as a verification, including distance agreement and adjustment to bring the course up to the required distance (that would cover a course that had a "hidden" change such as the new curbing Duane referred to - if the new measurement came up 3m short, the distance could be added a the start or finish, without requiring any additional rides).
Most of the time this ride would be performed by the original measurer, but it would not preclude someone else riding it. If it's the original measurer, the ride shouldn't take very long, given familiarity with the course - the main point of such a ride would be checking the landmarks (I wouldn't even bother calculating and relocating the intermediate split points, just ascertaining that a landmark for locating them was still in existence).
Not sure if we want to require that he/she be a certain level measurer or at least "experienced" to preclude the scenario Mark laid out.
This would seem to be a good compromise between simply taking someone's word that there has been no change and requiring a full from-scratch remeasurement.
Suppose we said that a successful verification of a course results in a new certificate, good for 10 years from the date of verification ride. So for a race that had a record set in its third year, and received a verification ride courtesy RRTC, they get an extra 10 on their lifespan. If it's a course that is expiring or has expired, the 10-year meter begins ticking from that year. The requirements would be the same as a verification, including distance agreement and adjustment to bring the course up to the required distance (that would cover a course that had a "hidden" change such as the new curbing Duane referred to - if the new measurement came up 3m short, the distance could be added a the start or finish, without requiring any additional rides).
Most of the time this ride would be performed by the original measurer, but it would not preclude someone else riding it. If it's the original measurer, the ride shouldn't take very long, given familiarity with the course - the main point of such a ride would be checking the landmarks (I wouldn't even bother calculating and relocating the intermediate split points, just ascertaining that a landmark for locating them was still in existence).
Not sure if we want to require that he/she be a certain level measurer or at least "experienced" to preclude the scenario Mark laid out.
This would seem to be a good compromise between simply taking someone's word that there has been no change and requiring a full from-scratch remeasurement.
All good stuff.
I have mixed feelings about all of the above and I think it boils down to integrity.
Some thoughts:
There are many of us who not only measure the course(s) but also work at the races run on them. For those races run on these courses where the measurer has been out there every year since the course was certified, I say just submit a new Certificate with the old map. No additional measurements are necessary unless of course the measurer thinks there was a change. Any new notations due to changes in landmarks would be noted in an updated map.
If the original measurer HAS NOT been involved but is very familiar with the roads (hometown - traveled on them daily), then I say apply the above.
If the orginal measurer HAS NOT been involved and is not familiar with the area, then I think a single measurement should be required and new Cert and Map submitted.
If a new measurer (different then the original) is measuring the course for renewal, then I think that a single measurement is required unless it is greater then 0.08%. The two measurements should be required.
I have had situations where I went out to remeasure I course that I worked on over 15 years ago. I was sure that the roads were the same but I got a significant difference (40+ meters). I measured the course several more times - always coming up with the same difference. I was going nuts! I called my buddy Jim G. to come over to Long Island (Visa required) and fortunately he confirmed my measurement. After I contacted DOT and found out that a long stretch of the course (service road of the Long Island Expressway) had been altered about 10 years ago!
Just today, I went out to remeasure a 5k course that has expired. It was measured by another measurer who is no longer in the business. My measurement was 4 meters longer then the original! So, thinking we do I screw up, I measured it again, then again (total of 3 times) all measurements within a meter or two of each other.
Why bother?
There are several talented age group runners around here, I we owe it to them to get it right.
I have mixed feelings about all of the above and I think it boils down to integrity.
Some thoughts:
There are many of us who not only measure the course(s) but also work at the races run on them. For those races run on these courses where the measurer has been out there every year since the course was certified, I say just submit a new Certificate with the old map. No additional measurements are necessary unless of course the measurer thinks there was a change. Any new notations due to changes in landmarks would be noted in an updated map.
If the original measurer HAS NOT been involved but is very familiar with the roads (hometown - traveled on them daily), then I say apply the above.
If the orginal measurer HAS NOT been involved and is not familiar with the area, then I think a single measurement should be required and new Cert and Map submitted.
If a new measurer (different then the original) is measuring the course for renewal, then I think that a single measurement is required unless it is greater then 0.08%. The two measurements should be required.
I have had situations where I went out to remeasure I course that I worked on over 15 years ago. I was sure that the roads were the same but I got a significant difference (40+ meters). I measured the course several more times - always coming up with the same difference. I was going nuts! I called my buddy Jim G. to come over to Long Island (Visa required) and fortunately he confirmed my measurement. After I contacted DOT and found out that a long stretch of the course (service road of the Long Island Expressway) had been altered about 10 years ago!
Just today, I went out to remeasure a 5k course that has expired. It was measured by another measurer who is no longer in the business. My measurement was 4 meters longer then the original! So, thinking we do I screw up, I measured it again, then again (total of 3 times) all measurements within a meter or two of each other.
Why bother?
There are several talented age group runners around here, I we owe it to them to get it right.
Good points Dave. (You know I am always looking for an excuse to visit the Island Across the Sound).
Some of this has to do w/ the length of the course. I don't feel a big reluctance to do one or even two rides of a 5k course in the next town. If it's a 10 miler 100 miles away, it's a different story. And I know Rick Recker had no real desire to ride 26.2 miles on a busy highway full of speeding logging trucks to recertify the Grandma's Marathon course.
That said, the rules should probably be the same for all courses - the simpler we make them, the better, and the more likely they are to be understood and followed.
Some of this has to do w/ the length of the course. I don't feel a big reluctance to do one or even two rides of a 5k course in the next town. If it's a 10 miler 100 miles away, it's a different story. And I know Rick Recker had no real desire to ride 26.2 miles on a busy highway full of speeding logging trucks to recertify the Grandma's Marathon course.
That said, the rules should probably be the same for all courses - the simpler we make them, the better, and the more likely they are to be understood and followed.
quote:Originally posted by Gene Newman:
Original measurer? What about IAAF "A" measurer? How about an IAAF "B" measurer?
Do we require courses to be measured by IAAF rated measurers? We do not.
quote:Jay, why did the RRTC do away with renewals? Landmarks change - streets have name changes - curbing change-ect.
My understanding is that this is NOT the reason the RRTC did away with renewals. The RRTC did away with renewals because (1) the course list was getting long and letting old certifications expire was a way to purge it, and (2) enough applications for renewal were coming in from people who were not in a position to know whether or not the course has changed that the decision makers decided enough was enough.
quote:I can agree with one ride, but by who? I will put this out to the RRTC officers.
If we're going to have one ride, by someone unfamiliar witht he course, we need to move forward on a system for rating measurers.
Again, I’d recommend resolving one issue at a time. The issue is remeasuring an unchanged course. Here is a perfect example that can be used. We have a calibration course nearby, not in the hometown. The nails are in place from 10-years ago because they have been repainted each time the course is used and the course has been used at least once per year since creation. Why should this course be remeasured? Remeasuring it is busy-work.
Moving to a less definitive example, the New Haven 20K Road Race. It was measured 10-years ago by Jim G. and the Guido Bros. Under the current rules, it needs remeasurement. It has been validated once since the 10-year old measurement, but no new certificate was issued. We have measured at least one course per year in New Haven since the 20K was certified and can confirm anecdotally that the roads have not changed. Leaving aside the issues of cost, remeasuring time, number of rides, 0.8%, maps and intermediate landmarks, why remeasure? The original data is still accurate, the original measurer has it and is still active.
I think it would not be hard to specify conditions such as described above where recertification of an unchanged course, requested by the original measurer, based on original 10-year old data would be OK.
Moving to a less definitive example, the New Haven 20K Road Race. It was measured 10-years ago by Jim G. and the Guido Bros. Under the current rules, it needs remeasurement. It has been validated once since the 10-year old measurement, but no new certificate was issued. We have measured at least one course per year in New Haven since the 20K was certified and can confirm anecdotally that the roads have not changed. Leaving aside the issues of cost, remeasuring time, number of rides, 0.8%, maps and intermediate landmarks, why remeasure? The original data is still accurate, the original measurer has it and is still active.
I think it would not be hard to specify conditions such as described above where recertification of an unchanged course, requested by the original measurer, based on original 10-year old data would be OK.
I think a single ride for a road course, or a single tape measurement for a calibration course, should be be the absolute minimum acceptable, no matter who measured it. If the agreement is not within 0.08% then a second ride or measurement must be done to find out where the problem is to correct it. Stuff happens. Screw ups occur at one time or another even with experienced measurers. Doing a single ride or steel tape verification confirms that everything is good.
Paul makes a very good point - how big really is this problem? How many renewals were there before the end of 2011? From my experience it was about 1 - 2%. If this is the case nationally, let's not worry about it, move on and continue with the 10-year expiration rule.
Paul makes a very good point - how big really is this problem? How many renewals were there before the end of 2011? From my experience it was about 1 - 2%. If this is the case nationally, let's not worry about it, move on and continue with the 10-year expiration rule.
Matt, I agree w/ the 10-year expiration - from a clerical standpoint, renewals are a pain in the butt.
I'm simply saying that for courses that have been unchanged, we shouldn't require a from-scratch measurement. Basically, eliminate Renewals, but allow a simplified, streamlined Recertification process.
I'm simply saying that for courses that have been unchanged, we shouldn't require a from-scratch measurement. Basically, eliminate Renewals, but allow a simplified, streamlined Recertification process.
We have had some interesting thoughts on this topic. I refer all to look at the following link as to what was decided at this year's convention.
http://www.usatf.org/events/co...tion/adjustments.asp
Look at the bottom of the page concerning this topic. Basically, we decided that one measurement would be necessary for any expired courses.
At this point in time we will go with the established policy.
http://www.usatf.org/events/co...tion/adjustments.asp
Look at the bottom of the page concerning this topic. Basically, we decided that one measurement would be necessary for any expired courses.
At this point in time we will go with the established policy.
Gene, I followed the link provided, and read the policy on Adjustments. That is a different topic than re-certifying an expired course, but that isn't my concern.
The link to the Adjustment policy indicates it should be under the Certification topic, but nowhere on the Certification page is there a link to the article you have linked to. Where does one find the link, while using the USATF site? Is there some back-room path I am not aware of? I have found the link on the RRTC site, so are we just keeping it accessible through the RRTC site, and not visible on the USATF site?
The link to the Adjustment policy indicates it should be under the Certification topic, but nowhere on the Certification page is there a link to the article you have linked to. Where does one find the link, while using the USATF site? Is there some back-room path I am not aware of? I have found the link on the RRTC site, so are we just keeping it accessible through the RRTC site, and not visible on the USATF site?
Duane,
I will ask Bob if he can do something about the USATF site.
As for the topic of discussion, I feel this does address the concerns for an expired course that hasn't changed or has a minor adjustment where a 10 year extension would be granted.
Here is what I was referring to:
To obtain a certification with new 10-year life
If it is desired to extend the course’s expiration date then, after applying the adjustment procedure indicated above (including addition/subtraction of distance with intention of keeping the course length unchanged), the entire course must be remeasured at least once. Thus, all portions of the course not involved in the current modification must be given at least one new measurement. This will result in a remeasured length for the full course, calculated the same way as for any normal certification measurement (including the SCPF in riding constants). If portions of the course have been remeasured only once, the remeasured length must be within 0.08% of the intended race distance, and if it comes out shorter than the intended length, distance must be added to the course to bring it to the intended length. If agreement isn’t obtained within 0.08%, or if the measurer thinks the course should be shortened, then a second measurement is required, as for a new certification.
I will ask Bob if he can do something about the USATF site.
As for the topic of discussion, I feel this does address the concerns for an expired course that hasn't changed or has a minor adjustment where a 10 year extension would be granted.
Here is what I was referring to:
To obtain a certification with new 10-year life
If it is desired to extend the course’s expiration date then, after applying the adjustment procedure indicated above (including addition/subtraction of distance with intention of keeping the course length unchanged), the entire course must be remeasured at least once. Thus, all portions of the course not involved in the current modification must be given at least one new measurement. This will result in a remeasured length for the full course, calculated the same way as for any normal certification measurement (including the SCPF in riding constants). If portions of the course have been remeasured only once, the remeasured length must be within 0.08% of the intended race distance, and if it comes out shorter than the intended length, distance must be added to the course to bring it to the intended length. If agreement isn’t obtained within 0.08%, or if the measurer thinks the course should be shortened, then a second measurement is required, as for a new certification.
Duane and all,
The USATF site already includes links in two places pointing to the Adjustment policy, and I don't consider it such a "back-room" path. One place is the Measurement Tools page at http://www.usatf.org/events/co...tification/tools.asp in the "More Publications from USATF Road Running Technical Council" section, which also includes links to many other RRTC policy statements (validation guidelines, changing name of a certified course, expiration/renewal, etc.). The other place is the Committee News area at http://www.usatf.org/about/com...chnicalCouncil/news/ where the item from 2011-02-02 titled "Refinement of Certified Course Adjustment Policy" includes a link to the adjustment policy.
The USATF site already includes links in two places pointing to the Adjustment policy, and I don't consider it such a "back-room" path. One place is the Measurement Tools page at http://www.usatf.org/events/co...tification/tools.asp in the "More Publications from USATF Road Running Technical Council" section, which also includes links to many other RRTC policy statements (validation guidelines, changing name of a certified course, expiration/renewal, etc.). The other place is the Committee News area at http://www.usatf.org/about/com...chnicalCouncil/news/ where the item from 2011-02-02 titled "Refinement of Certified Course Adjustment Policy" includes a link to the adjustment policy.
Thanks, Bob. I had not looked at Additional Tools, which is why I didn't find the link.
I have no way of knowing whether most of the routes I measured 10 years ago have changed. I ran 10 K route ND02039PR this morning and run it often. It has not changed. I also often run 5 K route ND02038PR which appears unchanged. However, part of it was repaved last year and may have changed slightly. I only know this, because I saw the repavement being done. ND02038PR and ND02039PR expire in December. I plan to measure them again.
Dale, under the new policy, you'll only need to measure each course once, and as long as it's within 0.08% agreement with the stated distance, you just have to file new paperwork.