I wonder if examining the history of record validation rides may help shed some light on this. Most validation rides that I have heard of show that the course was at least long enough. I am interested to know how much longer than the exact stated distance these validation rides show these course to be on the average. If a validation measurement of a 10 mile course shows that it is 40 meters long, then any equal time 10 mile record on this course will in reality be "better" than a record on another 10 mile course that validates at 5 meters long. Yet, a runner who is a few seconds slower will take away the record from a runner who actually turns in a faster performance. This is where I feel having no standards for "too long" can cause a problem. In fact, from what I have learned, it may have already caused a problem that no one outside of USATF knows about.
Obviously, the "slower record" problem affects a small percentage of the courses we certify. I have no suggestions as to how we would change the record books to award the record to the faster runner. Probably impossible. IMO, we should avoid creating this problem with measurements that are too long on courses that are record-eligible and that host events where records are likely or at least possible. I am referring to mostly high-profile events, on relatively flat courses.
For non-record-type races, I like the idea of adding the measured distance to the map. Maybe just below the effective dates. Maybe something like "Measured at 5,075 meters" or something similar.
Lyman, I would imagine that any RD that thought they may have a record performance, would be smart enough to let the measurer make the course the correct length, and not insist on specific Start and Finish locations, with no method for adjustment.
If a record performance was run on a course that didn't anticipate it, the record would likely not stand, as there were not proper observation/recording process in-place on race day. At least, that's how I see your scenario shaking-out.
If a record performance was run on a course that didn't anticipate it, the record would likely not stand, as there were not proper observation/recording process in-place on race day. At least, that's how I see your scenario shaking-out.
Duane, I know of at least one high-profile money race where the RD trusted the measurer to do the right thing. There was a record set a couple of years ago, one of many on this course over the past 3 decades. The validation ride showed that the 10-mile course run was 45 yards long.
Was it long because the RD wanted specific Start and Finish locations, or because the measurer was not diligent in his methods?
Back a few years ago, there were validation reports posted here and in "Measurement News". Those reports usually indicated that the race director was informed that the course, if long, could be corrected to the advertised distance or left "as is", but the performances on the course would stand.
If someone sets a record on a "long course" there should be no affect on the record. One purpose of certifying courses is to allow comparison of performances on different courses. If it is set on a short course, the record clearly does not stand.
In Lyman's example the performance on the "long course" was not a record, but might have been if the course was the advertised distance.
In a practical sense, isn't the problem here that we never know that the course is long until after a record performance and a course validation? A non record performance, "slower record", would not initiate a course validation. Additionally, the original measurement was checked and certified at the advertised distance, any "too long" standard wouldn't be applied until after validation when the record would be recognized, even on a long course.
If someone sets a record on a "long course" there should be no affect on the record. One purpose of certifying courses is to allow comparison of performances on different courses. If it is set on a short course, the record clearly does not stand.
In Lyman's example the performance on the "long course" was not a record, but might have been if the course was the advertised distance.
In a practical sense, isn't the problem here that we never know that the course is long until after a record performance and a course validation? A non record performance, "slower record", would not initiate a course validation. Additionally, the original measurement was checked and certified at the advertised distance, any "too long" standard wouldn't be applied until after validation when the record would be recognized, even on a long course.
Setting or not setting records is a very small part of this question. The real issue is that when the general public sees that a course is certified, they expect it to be accurate. They don't expect a certified 5k to be 50 meters long. When it happens our credibility takes a nosedive.
Maybe this kind of case points to another reason for certain events to seek a "pre-validation". The Cherry Blossom Ten Mile has done this a number of times. It seems that if you discover an extra 45 meters before the fact you may be able to adjust the course (if there is enough time, always a little dicey!) But I agree that for most courses there won't be any way for folks to discover if they are too long. Except for their GPS devices :-).
Mark: Leaving records out of the discussion, for now, I agree that the general running public expects accuracy, in fact, for most of us that is the only reason for course course certification. If a 5K is measured at 5.05K and certified at 5K there is something wrong with our system. The submittal made by the measurer should indicate the length of the course, the certifier (vice chair and registrar) should not certify a 5.05 K at 5K.
If the submittal indicated that the course is 5K and later found to be 5.05K then a measurement mistake was made and our system needs to be fixed such that the certifier is able to discover the mistake. Is that what we're talking about here, figuring out some way to question the measurer such that measurement (not counting arithmetic) mistakes can be discovered during the review process?
If the submittal indicated that the course is 5K and later found to be 5.05K then a measurement mistake was made and our system needs to be fixed such that the certifier is able to discover the mistake. Is that what we're talking about here, figuring out some way to question the measurer such that measurement (not counting arithmetic) mistakes can be discovered during the review process?
Guido, this discussion is about what to put on the map and certificate, if the measurer turns in paperwork that indicates the course measured longer than the advertised distance. Accuracy of the paperwork/methodology was not the catalyst for the discussion.
I think we should put the measured distance on the map, and definitely the cert. For the name of the race, I would put Joe's "5k", appearing exactly as I typed it. This is an indicator the "5k" is a claim, but the map and cert would show the correct length.
I think we should put the measured distance on the map, and definitely the cert. For the name of the race, I would put Joe's "5k", appearing exactly as I typed it. This is an indicator the "5k" is a claim, but the map and cert would show the correct length.
Mark: I was responding to Mark's post of 7/12, which was a response to Lyman's post of 7/11. I agree that the measured distance should be on the map and on the certificate.
When I originally saw the title of this thread the first thing that came to mind was the opening line of this sketch
How Long Is It?
How Long Is It?
I suppose it does feel like that, sometimes, Jim. Might as well be discussing anatomy as course layout with some RDs.
I have gone to including cone icons and little course marshal figures on the maps I send to clients, and sometimes I include them on the certification map. Here's one example: - click on the small map image at the bottom of the page to enlarge.South Lakes 10K Map. I recognize that some measurers seeing this map may or may not like the look of these things on a certification document. As has been said, our courses don't always get run they way we measure them. For me, it is often an educational process to get the client/RD to realize there is little justification for certifying a course if our map is to serve as little more than a rough outline of the race path. If it takes crayon drawings to bring them up to speed, I say "OK".
I have gone to including cone icons and little course marshal figures on the maps I send to clients, and sometimes I include them on the certification map. Here's one example: - click on the small map image at the bottom of the page to enlarge.South Lakes 10K Map. I recognize that some measurers seeing this map may or may not like the look of these things on a certification document. As has been said, our courses don't always get run they way we measure them. For me, it is often an educational process to get the client/RD to realize there is little justification for certifying a course if our map is to serve as little more than a rough outline of the race path. If it takes crayon drawings to bring them up to speed, I say "OK".
I agree that we need to indicate the real distance on the certificate. I dunno 'bout putting it on the map. In the instance of my 5K that is 60 feet long, I see no benefit and lots of potential for unnecessary confusion on the part of the RD. That RD was gonna' have a her 5K with a contiguous start-finish, by golly, and no excuses. Didn't matter to her what I had to do to make it so. Since I was fundamentally opposed to routing the course across an untracked field with waist-high weeds just to make it 5.000K, she got a slightly long course.
Putting "5.028 K" anywhere on that map would have opened the proverbial can of invertebrates. I see no value to anyone in doing that. If asked about the number on the certificate, I could just say something like "Well, that's just a USATF RRTC technical detail that has no relevance to the race" or some equally plausible if mildly disingenuous canned response.
Now, what if it had been 300 meters long over ~ 5K? I feel confident in asserting this is back-to-the-drawing board different. I am going to hazard a wild guess that no one will disagree with this. Alright, so what about 300 feet? On a curvy, hilly course, who would know the difference? As Bob says, the GPS-wearers already "know" the course is long, no matter if it is actually exactly 5K. I am not much concerned about them. .018% doesn't sound like a big difference. But, as Mark says, our credibility is at stake if we just measure extra long to ensure we aren't submitting a short course (not that I know anyone who does this) or we accommodate some special need for a particular event and then in essence advertise the distance falsely. On a flat, record-eligible course, an extra 300 feet in a 5K could result in the "slower record" we discussed earlier.
Knowing that other weird scenarios like mine, or the Pi races, may continue to come about, it may or may not be helpful for us to have guidelines. I am trying to make up my mind if and how. In the situation with my 60-feet long 5K, I have to wonder if I could have got past the contiguous S/F requirement with my client by referencing a USATF rule that required me to not advertise the race as "5K" on the map in this instance. It wouldn't hurt to have the imprimatur of USATF/RRTC behind us when we have to draw the line somewhere. I believe I would like to have some room to make a judgement call on how to deal with these anomalies on a case-by-case basis. I don't expect this to come up often. But , maybe it is a consideration that is out there that isn't discussed much. I can understand why. So, maybe I am sorry I brought the whole d*mn thing up.
Please excuse me now, I am retiring to a dark corner to sob quietly for a while.
Putting "5.028 K" anywhere on that map would have opened the proverbial can of invertebrates. I see no value to anyone in doing that. If asked about the number on the certificate, I could just say something like "Well, that's just a USATF RRTC technical detail that has no relevance to the race" or some equally plausible if mildly disingenuous canned response.
Now, what if it had been 300 meters long over ~ 5K? I feel confident in asserting this is back-to-the-drawing board different. I am going to hazard a wild guess that no one will disagree with this. Alright, so what about 300 feet? On a curvy, hilly course, who would know the difference? As Bob says, the GPS-wearers already "know" the course is long, no matter if it is actually exactly 5K. I am not much concerned about them. .018% doesn't sound like a big difference. But, as Mark says, our credibility is at stake if we just measure extra long to ensure we aren't submitting a short course (not that I know anyone who does this) or we accommodate some special need for a particular event and then in essence advertise the distance falsely. On a flat, record-eligible course, an extra 300 feet in a 5K could result in the "slower record" we discussed earlier.
Knowing that other weird scenarios like mine, or the Pi races, may continue to come about, it may or may not be helpful for us to have guidelines. I am trying to make up my mind if and how. In the situation with my 60-feet long 5K, I have to wonder if I could have got past the contiguous S/F requirement with my client by referencing a USATF rule that required me to not advertise the race as "5K" on the map in this instance. It wouldn't hurt to have the imprimatur of USATF/RRTC behind us when we have to draw the line somewhere. I believe I would like to have some room to make a judgement call on how to deal with these anomalies on a case-by-case basis. I don't expect this to come up often. But , maybe it is a consideration that is out there that isn't discussed much. I can understand why. So, maybe I am sorry I brought the whole d*mn thing up.
Please excuse me now, I am retiring to a dark corner to sob quietly for a while.
quote:Originally posted by Duane Russell:
Guido, this discussion is about what to put on the map and certificate, if the measurer turns in paperwork that indicates the course measured longer than the advertised distance. Accuracy of the paperwork/methodology was not the catalyst for the discussion.
I think we should put the measured distance on the map, and definitely the cert. For the name of the race, I would put Joe's "5k", appearing exactly as I typed it. This is an indicator the "5k" is a claim, but the map and cert would show the correct length.
Sorry Lyman, I'm sticking with my opinion that a course measured, following our process, at 5.028K, should be certified at 5.028K. Explanations can be anything, but our process is about accuracy, that includes honest and accurate labeling.
I agree with you Guido. A course that is measured to be 5.028km long should say it's that long on the map.
But what if a measurer manages to find a loop course that starts and ends in the same spot, and his measurement tells him it's 5003 meters long? Are we going to require him to put 5003 meters on the map? It's likely his measurement is not accurate to within 3 meters.
This discussion is about where we draw the line.
But what if a measurer manages to find a loop course that starts and ends in the same spot, and his measurement tells him it's 5003 meters long? Are we going to require him to put 5003 meters on the map? It's likely his measurement is not accurate to within 3 meters.
This discussion is about where we draw the line.
A simple solution is come up with a percent over the distance certified and place that number on the certificate and map. My choice would be .5%. Hence, if one submits a 5k application that's 5025 meters, then show it as certified at that length.
Lyman I'm not sorry you raised this question, it's a good conversation!
I agree with stating the measured distance on both map and cert (use small print on the map if you like!). They can still call the course a 5K I would think.
As for the 5003 m course, Mark, I think I'll go back to my suggestion that we start at 2 x SCPF. In other words 5003 m doesn't need mentioning for the reason you already stated-- but if it's 5005 I think, if we trust our measurement system, that we know it's likely to be more than 5 km by something on the order of 5 meters. I'm assuming they already increased their "raw" constant by adding 0.1%, so a "5.005 km" course was actually measured to be 5.010 km.
I agree with stating the measured distance on both map and cert (use small print on the map if you like!). They can still call the course a 5K I would think.
As for the 5003 m course, Mark, I think I'll go back to my suggestion that we start at 2 x SCPF. In other words 5003 m doesn't need mentioning for the reason you already stated-- but if it's 5005 I think, if we trust our measurement system, that we know it's likely to be more than 5 km by something on the order of 5 meters. I'm assuming they already increased their "raw" constant by adding 0.1%, so a "5.005 km" course was actually measured to be 5.010 km.
I really like Bob's suggestion of 2 x SCPF. I was in the process of posting the same but he got there first! As others have already pointed out, as measurers and certifiers it's our credibility that's on the line here - the course should not be short and not too long either.
BTW, if race organizers want to call a race a 5K and it's not within whatever the final specified limit is agreed to be, then why bother certifying it in the first place??
BTW, if race organizers want to call a race a 5K and it's not within whatever the final specified limit is agreed to be, then why bother certifying it in the first place??
2x SCPF is not a good option as I see it. For a 5km, that's 10 meters! Not much of a factor for the runners time. I will bring this up at the annual meeting.
Sorry to keep harping, but I go back to the Measurement Data Sheet. 8 or so lines up from the bottom, the form asks "Measured course length" and "Desired course length", it then asks how much was added or removed and where. Additionally, the Application for Certification, question 13 asks for the exact length of course. After all arithmetic is complete and adjustments are made, where is the latitude for applying another tolerance to the actual measured, corrected and adjusted distance? If the distance on line 13 is 5003 meters and the Measured course length (Measurement Data Sheet) is 5003, without further adjustment, how can the course be certified at anything other than 5003 meters? It is way beyond our authority to require a particular name for a race. The 5003 meter race could be called "The Imaginary 100-Mile Classic", but it should still be USATF Certified at 5003 meters. We have a relatively simple system that produces extraordinarily reliable results, why would we want to relax our standards with the addition of additional wiggle room (tolerance)?
It is beyond our authority to require a particular name for a race. It is definitely within our authority to require that the name at the top of the certification map and the name on the certificate agree with the measured length of the course. You can call your race whatever you want. You can't put whatever you want at the top of a certification map.
One argument for allowing some wiggle room is that we don't really know if the course is 5003 meters or 5000 meters. Our methodology is not that accurate.
But I agree with your argument that the wiggle room we allow to still say the length of the course is 5000m should be small. I don't think 2xSCPF is too small. But even if the measured length of the course is 5030m, maybe we should still allow the name at the top of the map to include 5k. If the measured length of the course is 6000m we should not allow the name at the top of the map to include 5k. Where do we draw that line?
One argument for allowing some wiggle room is that we don't really know if the course is 5003 meters or 5000 meters. Our methodology is not that accurate.
But I agree with your argument that the wiggle room we allow to still say the length of the course is 5000m should be small. I don't think 2xSCPF is too small. But even if the measured length of the course is 5030m, maybe we should still allow the name at the top of the map to include 5k. If the measured length of the course is 6000m we should not allow the name at the top of the map to include 5k. Where do we draw that line?
Guido Brother makes a good point I think. It's not presumptuous to put 5003 even when we know it could be 5000 or 5006 when checked; it's just full disclosure.
Regarding names of races or courses, I sincerely doubt we could all agree on where to draw a line. Let's use our own judgement as to when to push the organizers to change their name, when to put the distance in quotes, and when to leave the name issue alone.
Thinking about "full disclosure" reminds me that Bob Letson at one point resolved to put ALL the measurement information on his maps-- calibration numbers, counter readings etc. Small print of course but right there on the map where anybody could check the math. (For those who don't know, Bob was one of the early pioneers of measuring, guided by Ted Corbitt, and among other accomplishments he produced some of the finest hand-drawn course maps around.)
Regarding names of races or courses, I sincerely doubt we could all agree on where to draw a line. Let's use our own judgement as to when to push the organizers to change their name, when to put the distance in quotes, and when to leave the name issue alone.
Thinking about "full disclosure" reminds me that Bob Letson at one point resolved to put ALL the measurement information on his maps-- calibration numbers, counter readings etc. Small print of course but right there on the map where anybody could check the math. (For those who don't know, Bob was one of the early pioneers of measuring, guided by Ted Corbitt, and among other accomplishments he produced some of the finest hand-drawn course maps around.)
We already do this. Occasionally a measurer will tell me he moved the turn-around out an extra meter to make sure the course is long enough. I don't tell him to go back out and move it back, and I don't put 5002 meters on the map and certificate. I think most certifiers do the same.
I am happy when a measurer tells me he added some extra like that, I keep explaining why it doesn't make much sense to add 7.5 inches and the like!
OK. So, Mark, for my 60-foot long 5K, if I put the race name "XYZ 5K" in the map title, then in the space where I put the certificate number on the map, I enter "USATF Certified 5.028K MDXXXXLMJ, Effective ...", I think this will keep me out of trouble with the RD. If I put "XYZ 5.028K" in the map title, I will surely again be forced into a battle of wits with a poorly armed individual.
Comments?
Comments?
It's completely up to you Lyman. But I think what you plan sounds good.
My whole thing with this is I think we need SOME definition of what is allowed when the measured distance is greater than the advertised distance. Something like "full disclosure" that Guido and Bob suggest, and you implemented, would be fine with me.
My whole thing with this is I think we need SOME definition of what is allowed when the measured distance is greater than the advertised distance. Something like "full disclosure" that Guido and Bob suggest, and you implemented, would be fine with me.
All, I will put this out to the RRTC and see if we can come to a conclusion. At this point in time, I say proceed as usual.
51 years ago the town of Westport (CT) started a series of 10 progressively longer races that spanned the summer as a training regimen for HS athletes. Still going, they are the second oldest races in the state (Pete Volkmar may dispute this, but I think I can prove my claim).
Anyway, when they were originally laid out, the courses were measured as 3, 3.5, 4, 5 miles etc. by the police chief's car.
Years later when the courses were more accurately measured the course turned out to be different than the nominal distances (oddly, both over and under, depending on the course). The distances were then listed as 4.1, 5.9, etc.
Subsequently I measured all 10 for certification and found the distances to be different once again, mainly due to following the SPR.
To solve the problem of what distance to title the race, we simply numbered them: Summer Series #1, 2, 3 etc. The actual distance, e.g. 3.08 miles, is what is listed on the cert.
I think races would do well to use a generic title such as "Run for Hope" and then list the actual distance on their entry materials, rather than include it in the race name.
BTW, when calculating the pace when processing the Westport results, I generally round up the distance to the next higher 1/10 of a mile, since I have never observed a runner to be able to follow the SPR due to traffic.
Anyway, when they were originally laid out, the courses were measured as 3, 3.5, 4, 5 miles etc. by the police chief's car.
Years later when the courses were more accurately measured the course turned out to be different than the nominal distances (oddly, both over and under, depending on the course). The distances were then listed as 4.1, 5.9, etc.
Subsequently I measured all 10 for certification and found the distances to be different once again, mainly due to following the SPR.
To solve the problem of what distance to title the race, we simply numbered them: Summer Series #1, 2, 3 etc. The actual distance, e.g. 3.08 miles, is what is listed on the cert.
I think races would do well to use a generic title such as "Run for Hope" and then list the actual distance on their entry materials, rather than include it in the race name.
BTW, when calculating the pace when processing the Westport results, I generally round up the distance to the next higher 1/10 of a mile, since I have never observed a runner to be able to follow the SPR due to traffic.
Okay, Jim, what about when they have multiple races of varying distances? Run for Hope 5k, Run for Hope 10k, Run for Hope Half-marathon would all just be called Run for Hope, in your scenario.
I support putting the distance in the name, especially in this situation. Your Run Series example is very good, and handled properly. But, when the distance is a standard distance, but measured a bit off, I still prefer Run for Hope "5k", with a note of the actual measured distance.
I support putting the distance in the name, especially in this situation. Your Run Series example is very good, and handled properly. But, when the distance is a standard distance, but measured a bit off, I still prefer Run for Hope "5k", with a note of the actual measured distance.
Good point Duane. For multi-distance events I see where that could be an issue.
But here's a question about this issue no one seems to have addressed: What race director, having been informed that his course measured out a few meters long, wouldn't want it to be adjusted to the absolute minimum required distance? They all want runners to come away with PRs so they'll tell their friends how fast the course was, and come back in the future.
But here's a question about this issue no one seems to have addressed: What race director, having been informed that his course measured out a few meters long, wouldn't want it to be adjusted to the absolute minimum required distance? They all want runners to come away with PRs so they'll tell their friends how fast the course was, and come back in the future.
As I told Duane, it may work for one to search for a course and Identify the course in a search. However, if one knows the length then they can do a search with that length.
The conclusion to this topic as based on the majority of the Council and a few others!
First, for us to decide how many meters over a certain length (like a 5 km) would it be considered to be called a 5 km is not for us to decide. The course distance on the measurement certificate is the distance as measured.
Hence, take a 5 km race and it’s measured at 5.001 km then the Certifier should place 5.001 km as the course distance on the Certificate not 5 km. Common sense should be applied as to the distance to be placed on the certificate. Certifiers would make sure of the following: for metric races km would be used (not m or meters) and for imperial distances mi. would be used (not ft.).
Hence, Certifier’s should encourage a meaasurer to make sure an event is measured at the advertised distance.
First, for us to decide how many meters over a certain length (like a 5 km) would it be considered to be called a 5 km is not for us to decide. The course distance on the measurement certificate is the distance as measured.
Hence, take a 5 km race and it’s measured at 5.001 km then the Certifier should place 5.001 km as the course distance on the Certificate not 5 km. Common sense should be applied as to the distance to be placed on the certificate. Certifiers would make sure of the following: for metric races km would be used (not m or meters) and for imperial distances mi. would be used (not ft.).
Hence, Certifier’s should encourage a meaasurer to make sure an event is measured at the advertised distance.
quote:Originally posted by Gene Newman:
The conclusion to this topic as based on the majority of the Council and a few others!
First, for us to decide how many meters over a certain length (like a 5 km) would it be considered to be called a 5 km is not for us to decide. The course distance on the measurement certificate is the distance as measured.
Hence, take a 5 km race and it’s measured at 5.001 km then the Certifier should place 5.001 km as the course distance on the Certificate not 5 km. Certifiers would make sure of the following: for metric races km would be used (not m or meters) and for imperial distances mi. would be used (not ft.).
Hence, Certifier’s should encourage a meaasurer to make sure an event is measured at the advertised distance.