Is the Course Measurement Bulletin Board Dead?

What required login?  I simply click on the bookmark and bada-bing, I'm in.

I agree that participation seems slim, but isn't that on us?

You have always had to login if you wanted to post anything. Now you have to have to login even if you just want to view. GUIDOBROTHERS it's possible that your login information is being saved on your computer, so when you go to the forum URL it logs you in automatically.

We moved to this new platform mostly because we were required to due to new European privacy requirements. The old platform did not adhere to all of the requirements of that new EU law. Apparently one of those new requirements is a login for everyone. 

The link to get to the forum on this new platform is the same as it was for the old forum, so there is no reason anyone should have trouble finding it.

Right you are! I made a bookmark at the page after the login page and it’s been working fine.

Pete
GBES

I certainly hope not. I'm a new measurer (only 2 courses so far) and I'm sure I'll have plenty of questions in the months ahead.

I tend to jump in as I get projects or run into interesting situations.

Michael:

I’ve got some.  

We had a 10K and half marathon, starting and finishing at the same line, both with a turnaround, both on the same course.   It took some calculations and a lot of attention to detail, but we measured it with one ride to the half marathon turnaround.

Another, a 5K and 10K, same course, different starts and finishes.  We did it in one ride of the 10K.

Kind of neat, the way our process works.

Any new (or old) measures interested?

 

Why don't you post certification #s so people can see the courses and figure out how they would go about measuring them before you say how you did?

Guido - that's an interesting one. You've got to be borderline CDO (that's when you're *so* OCD you alphabetize) to pull those off.
I'm a single-rider provider, so all my jobs are two-ride jobs.

The latest learning curve (for me), as Justin will tell you, is racewalking courses.
The project was initially for a 1500-meter loop, which got turned into a 500-meter loop and the event coordinator went "radio silent" right after confirming the project. I waited a week, tried contacting the EC for a week, then courtesy-copied the AAU Track/Field director for FL on the communication. He was a little perturbed that the EC had not contacted me to say the event was postponed; the local CVB hadn't been in on the plans. So I "wasted" an entire morning of driving for two rides (40min) of a loop which was never going to be used. Last contact with the AAU director was two weeks ago...AAU says they'll pay for the job; I told them to reimburse me for my drive time.

(As for the portal change/log-in
Changing portal is the difference between me checking on news during quiet times in my work day - between curriculum modifications and test-taking crises - and checking during my own time. I'm certain you all appreciate the fact I'm no longer wasting your hard-earned tax dollars at the price of me no longer being able to pop in at will.

Not dead, as far as I am concerned.  Still a source for lots of good information, especially for new measurers.  

I came here tonight to find the written process for certifying splits, and how to show on the cert.  However, the link to the example certificate that Gene posted is broken, so I can't send it to the measurer with a question.

I keep looking at the forum, but I see very few questions posed, so not much to say.  Wish more new measurers (are there any new measurers out there?) would post, but maybe they don't have questions.  I have been looking for someone in Denver to replace me, but they don't want to get up before dawn on weekends.  Millennials!  Am I right??? 

Sorry, I could have posted the course numbers for the half and 10K measurement that were completed with one ride to the half turnaround, but the maps don't really illustrate the unique nature of the job.  The courses are CT18031JHP ( http://www.usatf.org/events/co...?courseID=CT18031JHP ) and CT18032JHP ( http://www.usatf.org/events/co...?courseID=CT18032JHP ).  The 5K and 10K aren't certified yet and again the maps don't really illustrate the point.  However, I'll post them soon.

 

 

I am a new measures and just reading all of the posting. I love this site thanks for all the great information.  

I am wondering on the turn arounds did you measure to a point or did you take the extra distance to go around a cone in the road?

Jaw:  For this race, and most others we measure turnarounds to a point.  We had a race that had 2 turnarounds that were used multiple times (CT16063JHP and CT16064JHP), for these we used a semi circle (arc) type turnaround.  There is a pretty complete discussion of laying out this type turnaround in this forum at: https://measure.infopop.cc/top...7#585516546019979007

Thanks Guidobrothers I will take a look at the semi circle (arc) type turnaround. I usually measure to a point also for turnarounds.

duanerussell posted:

Not dead, as far as I am concerned.  Still a source for lots of good information, especially for new measurers.  

I came here tonight to find the written process for certifying splits, and how to show on the cert.  However, the link to the example certificate that Gene posted is broken, so I can't send it to the measurer with a question.

I keep looking at the forum, but I see very few questions posed, so not much to say.  Wish more new measurers (are there any new measurers out there?) would post, but maybe they don't have questions.  I have been looking for someone in Denver to replace me, but they don't want to get up before dawn on weekends.  Millennials!  Am I right??? 

I too would like to see the process for certifying splits, Duane.

I sometimes hesitate to post a question or a comment on a particular subject here. The reason is, frankly, that my posts sometimes seem to annoy some folks, who on occasion respond on this board in what feels to me like a less-than-sympathetic way.

It's not difficult to see, I think, that a wide variety of backgrounds are represented by our membership. Some of the posts by our engineers are informative and helpful for me. I can learn from them and from anyone else here, too. I love STEM, but my background doesn't include nearly as much STEM post-secondary education as some of us. I doubt we expect that all new measurers are going to have engineering skills.

A great way, IMHO, for us non-engineer types, to understand the science and practice of certification measurement, is to pose "devil's advocate" or "straw man" questions or statements. How these questions do or do not get knocked down can be very informative. I don't believe that, when anyone posts these questions, they are being argumentative. I believe they are both part of the educational process and the valuable exercise of a perennial revue of what we do. It seems to me that if we are interested enough to respond, we should do so respectfully. What may seem "settled science" to me may seem like an open question to you.

Roads and paths change as communities change. Security demands place new restrictions on course designs. Runner demographics change. New technologies offer new opportunities. I don't think that our established practices will change at a fundamental level anytime soon. I do believe that affordable technologies will one day provide an alternative to or even replace our calibrated bicycle method. But this day is surely many years and maybe many decades in the future.

In the meantime, I consider that I stand on the shoulders of some true greats in our profession, for which I am forever grateful. My education and experience n measuring has afforded me the opportunity not only to work with some outstanding individuals and some world-class events, but also to explore beyond our established parameters. I for one find no harm in "pushing the envelope" from time to time in the topics we discuss. I wish we were a little more open to such discussions here. We know no one has a monopoly on all the good ideas, or good questions.

I would encourage all who read this and who may feel reticent to join in because of some feeling of discomfort or even intimidation to give it another try. I do not believe this listserv was developed for the sole purpose of experts making pronouncements and not for newbies questioning what we do and how we do it.  I hope we agree that it was and always will be a place for open discussions. In our continuing quest to always improve what we do, I feel we should be able to enjoy a more lively, informative, inclusive, and vital discussion format.

In this spirit, I would like to express my gratitude to all who contribute here, especially for Mark Neal, who volunteers his valuable time to do a wonderful job of maintaining this resource.

Happy New Year to all.

 

 

 

Race Resources, welcome to the Forum!  

"valuable exercise of a perennial revue of what we do".  Well, right there you are rocking the boat.    Change comes slowly to a process that seems to have worked well for decades.  But, I am happy to have served on the Council, and to have been part of the discussion for some changes that occurred, and others that were denied.  I know there are discussions that take place, and many on the Forum don't see anything about the discussion, so they are not aware that change has been considered.

One of the changes I believe I had a part in, is color maps being posted.  I started making and submitting them when I started measuring, and that set off a years-long discussion regarding if they should be allowed, or not.  Happily (in my opinion) we found a way to accommodate color maps.  Now, there are many measurers who are talented at making color maps, and many maps are now easier to follow.

I have not felt that very many posts have been scornful, but I do agree that, taken the wrong way, some may initially seem scornful.  Some of us are not good at communicating in a diplomatic manner, so some of our replies may seem a bit rough.  Knowing many of the members on this Forum, I know they don't intend to be rough, but, due to time constraints for a reply, perhaps, they compose the message in an abrupt manner.  I just look at the message, and not the delivery.  Anyway, I hope no one fails to post, based on fear of a response.  All questions are good questions, so they should be asked.

Now, back to the question I raised in my initial comment in this thread - Intermediate Splits.  In more research, I found that we are to put each intermediate split at the bottom of the certificate, with the length of the split, the separation (distance and %), and the drop, from the start of the course to the split location.  This is not a problem if one is only adding one or two intermediate splits, but it will be cumbersome to do if one wants to certify every split.  However, as I typed this, it occurred to me that if one is certifying every split, I believe we simply note that each split is certified, meaning that the split location is between the two locations identified in each of the two measuring rides.  Drop and Separation are not a concern in this situation.

The Drop and Separation needs are for courses (say, a marathon) where someone may set a record for a distance shorter than the main event, or the event wants to have a shorter distance also certified for some reason.  I have measured a half-marathon where they also wanted the 25k location certified, as they anticipated a record being set for 25k, but the runner also was going to finish the Half (which is a requirement for a record set in this manner).  In this case, indicating the distance, drop, separation, etc. at the bottom of the cert for the 20k location is the proper method.  (Thanks, Race Resources, for the correction!)

I hope this explanation helps anyone else that had the same question as me.

Happy New Year!

Thanks for your comments, your help, and for all you do, Duane. HNY!