Skip to main content

23 replies

Interpreting SPR: road restrictions

B bobthurstonMember
I am interested in how folks handle SPR issues relating to road restrictions. I recall that years ago some measurers adopted a hard-nosed approach of just measuring as if the runners had full use of the road. Argument for this is that you have no assurance that the course will actually be monitored to enforce the restriction, and even if the RD gets it right for the first year, what happens in subsequent years with a new race management team? Another argument: many races pay scant regard to the official certified course map, relying increasingly on non-technical maps designed to make a good impression rather than to convey key information.

Years ago I was pretty impressed with this point of view and I pretty much followed that advice. I recall an early course I measured using a "left side only" restriction, then running the race and seeing runners cross over to the other side anyway. For me that put me more solidly in the "measure the whole road" camp.

I've moved away from that hard-nosed approach and I am much more willing to measure with restrictions-- generally with lots of conversation with the RD as to what that means: you have to observe and enforce it, not just put down cones; you have to ensure that runners go outside of specified control points (e.g. left turns if you're running on the right). But in most cases I don't know if they actually follow through and I don't know where the runners actually go. I gotta say with all the squawking from gps wearers I feel a bit more pressure not to make the course "too long".

Another question is whether restrictions are following existing lines on the road or not. I used to routinely measure the entire road if it has no center stripe. But a couple years ago Lyman Jordan and I measured a course to be run on the right side only-- they assured me that the fire department puts out "thousands" of cones, the permit says right side only, and both of us felt that we could see the paving seam along the centerline. Recently Pat Brown and I measured a marathon and half marathon that included artificial "lanes" of specified width along one side of a road. The lanes had to be marked off with hash marks (luckily someone else was willing to do the marking!).

I hope to hear how others handle some of these questions. Happy Fourth to all!
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

guidobrothersguidobrothersMember
Good question! The Guido Brothers has measured a handfull of courses where there are restrictions requiring the runners to follow a route that is not the shortest possible. These routes are always a race director requirement and always noted on the maps. As I see it, the USATF responsibility ends there. There is no way USATF, certifiers or measurers can monitor or enforce route discipline.

A story, years ago we measured our first course with a restriction to the shortest route. It was a short stretch of about 50-ft where the shortest route crossed a raised median in a two-way road with oncoming traffic. The race director assured us that there would be a monitor on the median directing the runners not to cross it and the map showed where the monitor was to be positioned. Race day came and I ran the race. Curious as I approached the monitored median, I noticed a person standing where the map indicated he should be. As I got closer I heard him yelling, at me, not at the runners, "Where's the monitor?". It was David Reik, the certifier. Never again will I trust that the race director will follow the written instructions on a map.
genenewmangenenewmanRRTC Chairman
I strongly suggest the measurer measurers the shortest possible route. Use the whole road for your measurements, but if restriction are necessary then show them on the map. If one follows the map, then we will have a long course. However, I have see too many times the restrictions are not followed.

Just the other day, I received an email telling me the RD moved the start line and ask if the RRTC can do any thing. Simple answer is "NO". This probably happens way too often. I wish that RD's use the course they asked to be certified.
B bobthurstonMember
I'm pondering all this for a course I'm getting ready to measure. Remembering Lyman's challenge from a little while back I tried using Google Earth to measure the differences between measuring on right side only vs measuring with full width of the road, for a 5K in Fairfax, VA.

The difference is 15 meters, about 3 times the SCPF (i.e. if I measure the whole road and they manage to keep runners on the right side then they run an extra 15 meters).

To me the best solution is convince race managers to give the whole road to the runners-- RD already said there's hardly any traffic on those roads during the race. But the other solutions bother me-- either risk a short course if restrictions aren't sufficiently enforced, or make them run too far if restrictions are enforced.
duanerussellduanerussellMeasurer
With police more involved recently, it seems that the restrictions the police place on lane/road use will be better enforced than in the past. At least, I think they police will enforce it better. I see plenty of police on road courses in the Denver area.

I think it depends on the course, the race director, and the town. If there is traffic in the area where runners are not supposed to go, then runners will normally stay where they are supposed to be. If there is no traffic, and no monitor, then runners may cut the corners.

All we can do is properly map the way we measured. If the map shows restrictions (based on the race contact's instructions), and the restrictions are not enforced, we are not responsible for that. Maps must clearly show restrictions! That is our responsibility.
jimgerweckjimgerweckMember
Dave Katz is the expert on this, having measured most of the courses in Manhattan's Central Park. I've assisted on a few of the more major ones, and it can be tricky.

In the old days, runners were restricted to the "rec lane" of the Park's outer drives; that was pretty straightforward (although my own observation was that beyond the first 20-30 runners this was never enforced; I would never recognize an age group record set there by a midpacker unless there was a video of that person completing the whole race). That was pretty straightforward, as painted lines deliniated the lane.

Anyway, as the races in the Park have grown to more than 5,000 for the average event, the restrictions have been relaxed to "Rec Lane Plus One" for the first mile (or two) which again is fairly easy. After that it gets dicier: "Rec Lane Plus One Half a lane." Exactly where that halfway point lies is a judgement call, made trickier when riding at night. There is usually a seam in the pavement that corresponds to it, but not always. So generally, we eyeball it, and the course set up folks do the same, and it generally agrees.
B bobthurstonMember
Jim the Central Park reference brought back memories from way back, I'll have to look up the year but I was sent to NYC to validate a couple of ten mile records that were set in that "Couples" race they had in Central Park. Before measuring I got a chance to look at a video of the race and it was clear that not even the front runners were adhering to "Rec Lane Only". Based on that I measured using the entire roadway and sure enough the course came out too short by a significant amount. I'm glad they are getting a better handle on how to deal with Central Park races because it is really a terrific place to run!
pastmemberpastmemberMember
It is a terrific place to run. I think one of my few unfortunate running experiences there years ago, must have been an anomaly. I was mugged by a group of about 15 teen thugs on bikes. Came up behind me while I was running and knocked me to the ground, for no apparent reason. Bloodied, I sprinted to the nearest policeman, who tore off after them in his cruiser. Haven't been back to run there since. Hopefully it is safer there now.
guidobrothersguidobrothersMember
Back to the book!
"The line representing the measured path indicates the very shortest route that runners may be permitted to take during the race. If the race director chooses to restrict the runners' path in such a way that they have to run farther, that is OK. But the runners may not be permitted to run any shorter than the measured path or the certification will be invalid.

If your measured path was not always the shortest possible route that a runner could run
using any part of the street or road, then traffic barricades or cones must be set up to ensure that the runners cover at least the distance you measured. Your course map must indicate exactly where such barriers are to be placed and also show where monitors are to be
stationed. If this seems like too much trouble, just measure the shortest route assuming no
barricades and you'll be safe."

The above sections of the Measurement Manual are pretty clear. I would maintain that the maps made by David (and possibly Jim) don't meet the requirement to show exactly where barriers and monitors are to be placed. Leaving aside the Central Park Difficulty Factor, I doubt that a world record could be validated on such a course.

Bob's original question remains a good one. How do we handle courses with restrictions? The Central Park example is an extreme, but good test of whatever rules or policy we have. We certainly don't want to refuse to certify these extremely well used courses and it would be beyond reasonable to determine or show on a map exactly where all the restrictions are. Additionally, it certainly is beyond the scope of the RRTC or USATF to monitor every race on such a course.

I think we should continue to measure the SPR, make the maps as precise as we can, with regard to restrictions on the SPR, no rule changes needed. Certifiers continue to require accuracy, including identification and descriptions of restrictions. Beyond that, we can only hope that the powers of authority will be hard nosed regarding validation of records set on courses with restrictions.
B bobthurstonMember
Thanks for pointing us back to the manual. That wording is good and sets a high standard. I guess I have been remiss in describing just how any restrictions are to be enforced. Might be good to place some kind of symbol at every spot where a monitor must be stationed in order to enforce restrictions-- such as at any leftward bend when runners are restricted to the right side, etc.

I also make a point to specify "control points" when there is any turn opposite the runners' side of the road, and I struggle to make my measurers locate and map those points as well.

Anyway good food for thought!
jimgerweckjimgerweckMember
I measured a few courses yesterday that have "virtual" restrictions - runners would have to cross a busy road (and survive!) to run the tangents. Having run in this 51-year-old race series for many years, I can attest that no one in my sight ever runs the SPR. But I can't swear that some faster, more adventurous/foolhardy runner hasn't. Therefore, I braved the oncoming beach traffic on my bike and rode the SPR. The resultant map indicates such a route.
However, in a concession to reality, when I process the results, I round up the distance in calculating the pace; thus a 3.08 course is calculated at 3.1, etc. And in reality most of the runners are probably running even longer than that.
jimgerweckjimgerweckMember
And here's a flip side of the topic. In the culminating race of this series, runners are not only allowed to cut across a corner on a footpath that follows the hypotnuse of the triangle, they are directed to do so by the organizers. Someone unfamiliar with that might well measure the course using the standard "edge of the paved road" convention and come up with a longer distance. So things like that need to be indicated on the map as well.
B bobthurstonMember
Jim that "virtual restriction" rang a bell for me: the Washington's Birthday Marathon in Greenbelt and Beltsville, MD, is measured using the entire roadway-- but one of the roads, Powder Mill, is pretty busy and may effectively restrict runners to one side. I've been told that the runners pretty much stay in the shoulder on one side. This raises the possibility that I could specify that restriction for the next go-around, keeping the course pretty much as the runners run it, but giving them more of the credit for what they run!

The down side would be that the organizers would have another batch of volunteer monitors to recruit. Since they have trouble getting enough volunteers as it is (not that many folks are eager to stand somewhere for many hours in mid-February!)I think we'll just leave it as it is.

About the footpath issue, it points up the need for pretty extensive conversations about how the race is (really) going to be run. And it reminds me that every time I've been present at a race I've measured, I learned something and usually a lot about how race managers interpret or misinterpret the course-- and also about how runners negotiate it.

I have been stunned to see that some RD's do not even bother to station a person at turnaround points, what is that about?
jimgerweckjimgerweckMember
This isn't about road restrictions per se, but it does illustrate how race directors can ignore course setup instructions from a measurer. It's from CT measurer Bob Stephenson in his monthly Milford RR club newsletter. It's a little long but his droll humor makes it worth the read:
quote:
The CT Roller Girls are the female component, comprised of two teams, the Yankee Brutals and the Shoreline Salty Broads. It turns out they put on a 5K road race in Derby last year but had a few problems with the course. I was contacted by Dee Nasty to certify the race course for them before this year’s event. The competition is held on the Greenway in Derby, and I went over on my day off to meet with Banana Slam-Her and check out the course.
The Greenway starts next to a parking lot adjacent to the Housatonic River and heads off towards Ansonia. It continues along the Naugatuck River into Ansonia, which would be very scenic for the race, except it would involve crossing a busy four lane highway. Twice actually, since it was out and back. Picture having a race cross Route One in Milford by the CT Post Mall. The heat (60’s term for the fuzz) would never have allowed it so there was a definite stopping point at both ends of the course.
Banana Slam-Her did mention that there were a lot of complaints last year about the 5K course being a little short, so I took the precaution of g-mapping the course before I actually rode the calibrated bike over it. It did turn out to be a little short, but what’s four tenths of a mile among friends. It actually was that short last year. There must have been a whole bunch of PR’s set, possibly even a world record by the winner.
After agonizing over the situation I suggested doing a 4K, which fit nicely onto the course. After a team meeting it was decided that was the way to go. The pre-registered people were notified and it turned out nobody really cared. I was going to run, not one to turn down a comp entry, and looked forward to setting a PR for the distance. I was pretty confident, since I had never raced 4K.
I went back a few days later with the calibrated bike and marked and measured the course. The 4K fit in nicely and the turnaround was about 100 meters from the busy street. You ride the bike over the course twice to do a certification. The difference between the two rides was four inches, so it was totally accurate for this year’s competition. Nothing they can do now to screw this baby up!
The actual race was one week later, so I showed up bright and early, got my free number and was ready to go. The entire contingent of roller girls was there so I got to meet them all. Five or six ran the race and the rest of them were helping out. Among other athletes present were Puke Skywalker, Scorn Muffin, Revengella,Eleanor Brusievelt and Luciana Pulverotti. I’m not sure if those are their real names or not, but I was afraid to ask. A couple of them had multiple piercings and there was a preponderance of tattoos.
I was pleased to see that there were only about 50 people there for the race, including the Derby Middle School girl’s team. I was confident I could beat most of the little chicks but the roller girls were looking challenging. At least they weren’t wearing their skates. The horn went off and we were on our way. After the first quarter mile I was eighth or ninth and breathing hard. I figured I wasn’t going to do as well as I hoped, but manfully kept up the pace. After about a mile people started to crap out and I was moving up. I was still behind two of the middle school girls but I could sense they were intimidated.
As two Kilometers neared I was looking for the turnaround. I knew there was a large white dot on the pavement with a giant white arrow around it. I’m not clairvoyant, I was the one who had painted it. As I arrived at the turnaround I noticed that there was a water stop set up 100 meters ahead, just before the main road. All six of the people in front of me had continued going straight ahead, meaning they were going to go about 200 meters too far. I was faced with an ethical dilemma which I had about five seconds to solve. I could either turn around at the correct spot and cut in front of the six athletes ahead of me, or go down to the water stop and turn there.
I opted to keep going in fairness to the others, also being worried that Puke Skywalker would kick my ass if she was one of those ahead of me. At least I got some water. The competition up ahead was slowing down and I had moved up to second place overall with a half mile to go. The leader was some 13 year old boy but he was looking strong. I put on a manly kick but so did the kid, leaving me still in second at the end. That was by far the best I had finished in a race, although I did keep in mind that the field was pretty weak.
I broke it to the Roller Chicks that they had the turnaround in the wrong place and the course was 2 tenths long, which actually made it 4.17 kilometers. They were a little chagrined but never did get around to telling the competitors, although the regular runners were suspicious. I didn’t say too much more because I was afraid of getting my ass kicked by Babe Vigoda. The bottom line for the faux pas was they paid $200.00 to get the course certified and still screwed it up. They weren’t even writing down finishing times, so naturally the results never showed up on line. That meant that I still had no PR for 4 kilometers, although I was able to figure out the mile pace, and I didn’t get squat for my greatest performance. At least let me know that you feel my pain!
D davidkatzMember
Starting about 8+ years ago the NYRR became much more diligent about their race courses in regards to measurement, certification and set up.

They have over 20 full time staff members directly dedicated to race logistics. Included in this group are a few course measurers (+ myself) who's job it is to ensure the proper course set up. The courses are checked by a staff member and usually double checked by another independently.

Presently, I measure the majority of courses for the NYRR. The measurement always includes another NYRR staff measurer- usually Matt Swartz (an excellent young measurer). Matt is often responsible for the course set up. If he isn't for that particular race, the staff member who is will join us for the measurement.

Also, for several of the more high profile races, courses have been measured by two IAAF "A" measurers (myself and usually Jim G. For those races, I or Jim would be on site to help verify the course set up as required by USATF/IAAF Rules for the ratification of a record. In addition, a USATF LDR Certified Referee -usually Phil Greenwald or Alan Steinfeld , both with decades of experience in LDR rules and race management ride on the lead vehicle watching the competition and confirming the course measured was the course run.

After years of using the same roads in the park, it has become very easy and routine to measure and maintain the courses described on the map.

But the obvious key to success is that the NYRR logistics team works closely with the measurer to ensure that the course measured will be the course run.

I welcome any measurer (and I'm sure Jim would as well) to join us for one of our measurements, then be at the event to see the course set up. FYI- we do all of our Central Park measuring in the middle of the night. Forget the muggers, have you ever met a New York Raccoon?
B bobthurstonMember
It is great to hear that you guys have got a better handle on the Central Park courses.

After a little more marinating I went back to the course in Fairfax VA that prompted these questions in the first place. I asked my contact person to persuade his son (h.s. rising senior, runs cross country etc) to try out some of the turns on the course, to see if they were runnable with the restriction to one side. He reported back that it was fine to run around the corner even with a restriction.

So this time I measured what I'm calling "interior" streets with the restriction that runners have to stay to the right of all yellow lines. The result was that I moved the finish line back 20.8 meters. Oh BTW this was a course I had measured in 2002 so it's now expired-- but at that time I was told that runners wouldn't be restricted at all in the interior streets.

I was surprised by the size of the difference. That's worth almost 4 seconds even for a 15 minute 5K runner and more for the rest of us. I measured using "sum of shortest splits", and using the average constant. (Had I used longer constant the adjustment would have been closer to 18 m; and if I had taken full advantage of the average constant the adjustment would have been 21.5 meters.)

I've included these last details as an illustration of Bob Baumel's point that there is not just one simple answer to the question, "How long is the course?". And the whole story is a reminder that how we ride the course can make a pretty big difference.

The tricky side, for the race committee, will be that now they must be sure that they have monitors at 3 spots to make sure runners follow the restrictions.
D davidkatzMember
Transponder timing has made my race courses more accurate!....only for me!
Besides for course measuring, my business involves finish line set up/timing and scoring.
When I started to use transponder timing, it gave me more time to help with course set up. Now I find that I spend a considerable amount of time placing directional arrows, cones and mile markers. I tend to be very anal (along with most of the other members of this board) when it comes to cone placement -even to the point that any logos on the cones are facing in the same direction.
jimgerweckjimgerweckMember
Bob's post makes me wonder just how much longer "virtual" or "effective" restrictions - e.g. not being able to follow SPR due to traffic - makes a course. I've gotten a handle from some GPS-wearing runners who give me the distance their watches determined. I suppose I could remeasure the course that way, but I don't see the point. Every runner is going to run a course slightly differently. That's why we got away from Shortest PROBABLE Route years ago.

Oh yeah, I can totally believe Dave makes sure his cones are facing the right way.
pastmemberpastmemberMember
OK, Dave, that's great. But, do you take time to align all the cone bases so that they are all square with each other? Razzer I (understandably) get quizzical looks from bystanders every time I square up course or finish line cones at races.

A more recent setup consideration related to timing systems has come about with the advent of bib chips. By necessity, these chips are more sensitive than foot chips. If sufficient barriers do not keep bib-wearing spectators away from the finish line, their bibs will register in the mat antennas. Ipico bib chips, for instance, register 100% (in theory) within 4 feet of mats. In practice, I have seen bibs register from closer to 6 feet away.

quote:
Originally posted by David Katz:
Transponder timing has made my race courses more accurate!....only for me!
Besides for course measuring, my business involves finish line set up/timing and scoring.
When I started to use transponder timing, it gave me more time to help with course set up. Now I find that I spend a considerable amount of time placing directional arrows, cones and mile markers. I tend to be very anal (along with most of the other members of this board) when it comes to cone placement -even to the point that any logos on the cones are facing in the same direction.
pastmemberpastmemberMember
Yes, you can set up "Last Seen/First Seen" in the readers, and/or in some scoring software. But the more reads you get per second with any system the more likely you are to get missed reads for newly-arriving finishers. If you are not using starting mats, a bib-wearing runner who decides to spectate instead of running that day will show up in your race results if they get within 6 feet or so of the finish line. If they get there before the first finisher, it is easy to deal with. If they come later, well, good luck.

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×