Expiring/Expired Courses - Why Renew?

Jim, I sympathize with your view, and about the only answer I see is that they cannot advertise they are using a certified course. That could cost them runners, if someone who has not run the race before bases their decision on which race to run on the course being certified.

This is why there was a strong argument made for the original measurer being able to submit their original measurement paperwork, if they could confirm there were no changes, and the course is being used as originally mapped. That idea didn't stand up to the RRTC board, though. I would still advocate for this particular scenario being accepted, and only have the race pay $25, or something nominal, for the resubmission of paperwork for a new cert.

I think I piped in on this before. I don't understand how a measurement changes over time. If the original measurer confirms that the roads are the same, what difference does it make when the measurement was performed? This question applies to measurements of entire courses as well as to segments. It seems easy and logical to change the rule to something better than it was when a simple submittal was the only requirement, without ignoring actual historical measurements. The word of the original measurer and a request, by the original measurer for recertification, accompanied by the original measurement data should be sufficient. The integrity of the course certification program is diminished when race directors perceive that remeasuring an unchanged course is performed simply to generate money for the measurer. The rationale that a new map will be a better map falls into the same busy-work for extra money category, certainly as far as race directors are concerned.

I voiced my opinion on this last time this question was addressed. The RRTC decided then to establish a lifetime for measurements. I didn't agree, but followed the rule. Now it seems this may be addressed again. If so, the accuracy of historical measurements and the review of a course by the original measurer should be given further investigation.

First,Cerification of a race course provides more than an accurate course. I'm not a fan of insurance, but a certified course that's sanctioned provides insurance to the race and members of USATF particaptiong in the race.

You guys don't think landmarks change. Yes, maybe one measurement could be done, but a second measurement is no big deal. Cost, what is the actual cost to a race over 10 years? Say, you have 1000 runners over that time period. They pay an entry fee, which recovers the cost of certification in a very short time.

Do races make money? Some are there for a charity, while others are there strictly for making a profit. Why not have no entry fee? Just joking.

Jim, I suggest you look out for the people participating in the event and get the course certified.

Gene, I definitely plan to do that, even for courses I measured gratis in the past and will do so again. But my point is I have race directors saying, "So what if the certification has expired? The course is still accurate, and that's all 99% of the runners care about." You're right that it's a small expense over 10 years but most race directors look at the here & now and when the cost of timing, shirts, cops, etc. are all going up saving a couple hundred bucks by foregoing a recertification seems like a good move, even if it is penny wise and pound foolish.
In terms of insurance, it's possible to have an event sanctioned without the course being certified (or vice versa, thankfully) unless it's a USATF championship.

If all I had to do was one measurement of an expired course and submit only that data (no new map), I could charge very little.

As a certifier, if all I had to do was review one set of measurement data and then change the measurement and expiration dates on the certificate, I would also charge much less.

We could greatly reduce the cost of "re-certification" of an expired course if we take a careful look at what parts of the certification process aren't really necessary for expired courses.

To be honest, the biggest hassle in the certification process for me is making the map, esp. the S/F detail, rather than the ride itself, which I often find enjoyable (assuming the weather is nice).
Since I make all my maps electronically, all I have to do is modify the date(s) and any landmark descriptions that may have changed and it's ready to go.
That said, I wouldn't do a re-ride for next-to-nothing - probably not as much as a from-scratch measurement, but more than a nominal fee. And I wouldn't be surprised if some race directors, especially of small, shoestring budget events, decided to forego remeasurement to save money.

Here's an analogy (maybe not a good one):
Most of us renew our vehicle registration with little complaint because we can just mail in the form with the fee, and you get your new sticker in the mail a few weeks later (at least that's how it works in CT - I recall in NJ having to actually get your car inspected, which always meant long lines at the end of the month).
With driver's licenses, you have to appear at the MVD (or AAA in CT) and get a new photo taken. A little more onerous, but we still do it.
But imagine if you had to go through all the paperwork of registering a newly purchased car every time you had to renew the registration, or take a driving test (or worse, sit through hours of Driver's Ed classes) whenever your license expired. I'd wager a large number of people with expired licenses would be driving unregistered cars.
That's what the directors of most mom & pop races might feel - the odds of someone setting a record in their event is probably far lower than getting pulled over by a cop for driving without a license. It's a risk they're willing to take.

Jim, not a good one. This year we are at a record pace for certified courses. I guess those folks see value in getting the course certified.

Gene, good to hear. And I think new events recognize the value of certified courses.
I am just getting some pushback from directors of races whose certifications are expiring. When I tell them they need to have them redone, their response is, "Why? If the course hasn't changed, the distance is still correct, why should I pay a couple hundred bucks so I can put a 'USATF Certified' logo on the entry?" In fact, I've seen some races listing expired cert. numbers on their forms - most runners wouldn't be aware of the 10-year limit, and would think if a course was certified in 2000 it is still OK. And the majority would feel that if the distance is accurate, it's all they really care about.
I guess I'm echoing Mark, Pete & Duane's feelings here - we should make it easier and less costly for recertification, which would encourage race directors, not vice versa.

Jim,
Don't take this the wrong way, but, why do you care? If you believe the course is the same as the day it was measured and there is no point in remeasuring it to prove it is still accurate, what does it matter if the certification gets updated?
I realize that if someone sets a record on the course it won't count, but anyone who has a chance of doing that should know the 10-year limit on certifications, just like they should know the drop limit and the separation limit.
That being said, I think we really should find a way to change the "Record Eligible" status in our database of any certificate older than 10 years to "No"

Mark, I guess my point is that my main concern is that a course is accurate (which is how the whole course certification business got started years ago, thanks to Alan Jones, Ted Corbitt & others). But it is nice to have the official USATF Certified imprimatur as the "Good Road Running Seal of Approval."
There are a whole series of races in nearby NY state that are advertised as "certifiably accurate" meaning they have been measured to our standards, but the race director doesn't want to bother w/ the paperwork/fees to get the final certification. Do they lose runners because of this? I don't know.
I am and always have been a huge advocate of races being run on certified courses, and have measured at least 2 dozen low key events for free just so they can have that feature.
But, as you say, if I have to do 2 rides to confirm what I know to be true, I'm less likely to do so. To me, it falls in the category of bureaucratically induced busy work.
We want to encourage certified courses, and I think we are doing an excellent job of that, which Gene's note that we are on record pace this year bears out. But I worry we have a policy in place that deters, rather than encourages, recertification of expiring courses.
I'll admit to being unsure of what the current policy is, after all the discussion that went on. Two rides like a new measurement, one by the original measurer, or can the original measurer resubmit his figures from the original ride? I would favor a single ride, or even a statement by the original measurer attesting that he has driven the course and been able to locate all the salient landmarks on the original map.
Gene, can you clarify what, if any, consensus was reached on this issue? Thanks.

At the risk of being a broken record (does anybody else remember those?) I stand with Jim on this.

How do we, as certifiers, explain to a race director whose course has not changed that he has to have is course remeasured, and how do we defend this as something other than, as Jim says, "bureaucratically induced busy work" that simply generates fees for measurers and certifiers at the expense of race directors?

And who is the RRTC "board"?

This could be solved EASILY by allowing the original measurer to re-submit original measurement data. We impress on the measurers that they're on the hook if the course fails, and we leave it up to them whether or not they need think they need to re-measure the course- even once.

We need to make this consistent and easy to explain to our customers- the people who promote and administer road races.

Original measurer? What about IAAF "A" measurer? How about an IAAF "B" measurer?

Jay, why did the RRTC do away with renewals? Landmarks change - streets have name changes - curbing change-ect.

I can agree with one ride, but by who? I will put this out to the RRTC officers.

Gene, Jay, Jim, Mark, et. al.: Can we divide this discussion into 2 parts? One being the issue of a lifetime for a course certificate and the other, recertification of courses that have not changed. The latter seems to be the subject here. The only situation I am concerned with is where the original measurer has confirmed that there have been no changes to the course. In this case the original measurement is every bit as accurate as a new measurement and therefore the new measurement, whether it be one ride or more, is busy-work and only needed because a regulation demands it. Race directors realize this. When the RRTC officers discuss this, please discuss separately, the issue of recertification of an unchanged course. I realize this requires relying on the integrity of the measurer, but our whole certification system is built on that integrity.

I would tend to agree w/ Pete here. I've done remeasurements of several expired/expiring courses and found agreement with the original distance of a foot or less.
I have, however, found several instances where the landmarks have changed - utility poles and mailboxes renumbered, driveways and storm drains relocated, and in one case, the actual name of a road was changed. All of those, however, would be readily noticed during a drive or ride over the course, and would not affect its overall length.
So, I feel an on-site inspection might be justifiably mandated. But to treat an essentially unchanged course as a brand new one, except in the numbering process, is for the most part unnecessary.

Wow! Some discussions are like Lazarus. "Just when you think it's safe to go out at night", etc.

Okay, my two cents.

I think the key has been mentioned by Pete (Guido Bros.) and it is integrity. If the original measurer states that there have been no changes to the course I believe that we should be able to renew the course forever. If the original measurer is no longer involved, I would accept a single ride by an experienced measurer for renewal (assuming that the ride shows the course to be at least the advertised distance ... if it doesn't, a second ride would be required).

Fortunately, this does not yet seem to be a big problem in NC. So far this year I have certified 52 courses (well ahead of last year which set an all time record) and not one of them is a re-measurement of an expired course.

My biggest argument against the new policy is on calibration courses. Usually a calibration course is used multiple times by the original measurer during the course of a year (unlike a race course which is used once and usually not observed by the original measurer) and he/she would be immediately aware of any changes in the course. That being the case, why does it have to be re-measured after ten years?

As I recall, in the original discussion concerning this at an RRTC Annual Meeting, the main reason given for the change was basically mis-use of the renewal process by many people. Pete Riegel related that many times he would get a renewal request that swore that the start & finish nails were still in place and that there were no changes to the course but the person requesting the renewal did not even have the original certificate/map in hand when making these statements. Consequently, they may or may not even know what the original marks/route were. IF that is the main reason we did away with renewals, it could be fixed by requiring the original measurer be the only one who could request a renewal.

The argument that many (or even most) courses have road changes during ten years may or may not be true, but even if it is true, why should courses which DO NOT have changes be required to re-measure?

As a state certifier and vice chair, renewals are/were a pain in the butt; however, I am still in favor of them under controlled circumstances.

Paul, good points. When I was West VC renewals were the bane of my existence. To make life easier from a clerical standpoint, my thought would be that any unchanged course be resubmitted by the original measurer (he/she could use the original map, and original calculations) with an attached note stating that the current course is the same as originally measured. The VC would then issue a new cert. number as if it was a new course, noting the old course number in the "Replaces" field on the cert.
This would keep things a lot cleaner clerically for the VC's and Registrar.
So technically we would NOT be allowing renewals again, but rather allowing courses to be reCERTIFIED using the original paperwork and data, as Jay proposes, with the stipulation that some sort of in-person inspection be performed.

While I understand the race directors wanting to save money, the re-certification after 10 years is a confirmation to runners (and race directors) that, truly, nothing on the course has changed.

A popular race had to be re-certified when the city replaced curbing in one intersection on the 10k course. Most people wouldn't even notice, I think, but the measurer happened to drive by the intersection regularly. Had he not done that, a remeasurement by another measurer, would have shown the course to be short. This would have triggered a complete re-measure, which, in my book, is a very good reason to have courses expire.

While many race directors insist their course has not changed, I have measured a few in my 6 years of measuring, that are not what the original map showed. Yes, most courses for established races stay unchanged. But, I see no reason to not verify every 10 years. IAAF requires re-measurement every 5 years. Our 10-year policy is reasonable, I believe.

One measurement, by a measurer with at least 20 courses under their belt, to me would be a good requirement. If the measurement was at least as long as the stated distance, and the landmarks are as noted on the map, it is good, and the original map can be re-used. VC would have to download the map from the USATF site if the original measurer didn't submit the re-measure, and change the expiration info, but that is not hard to do.

Wow! First to allow a lifetime Certification is not a good idea in my view. Many have pointed out their experiences with change that occur on a course route that would effect the course distance. The original measurer or an experienced measurer may not even know of the changes.

To me again one ride should be done and the original map could be resubmitted. Justin Kuo has pointed out this ride could follow the process in place for validations. As for cost, that is really up to the measurer. Would it save money to a race? I doubt it!