A measurer emailed VC Justin Kuo with the following question/comment:

"On my first measurement of a 5K (for ex.) I do NOT plot splits along the way. I want to get the total distance first and then adjust the S/F, before I do the 2nd measurement

The first measurement could be 2.96 miles for ex. So it seems to me it would be impractical to do the splits on FIRST measurement.

Then of course on 2nd measurement I am using the correct Start point and can proceed to plot the mile splits for real…….

Then compare overall distance and use the shorter , etc to make a small adjustment , if needed to the course….

Point it that I would only have ONE set of calibration #’s for the mile splits…..  would that still work on the new online form ?   or would I have to lay out the splits on the first measurement ."

In setting up Ride #1, the Layout Measurement, for a course where the desired distance is known in advance, the user selects intermediate splits in miles and/or kilometers which are then calculated automatically by the system based on the start count of the measurement and the working constant. 

The measurer is not required to use (i.e., to mark) these splits, opting instead to mark the splits he/she manually calculates for Ride #2, the Validation Measurement.  In the second ride the measurer is free to mark splits that he/she manually calculates at the beginning of Ride #2. In this way, the system allows the measurer to decide what is more "practical" for him/herself.

In the example described above, it would be impractical for the user to end the layout measurement at 2.96 mi, rather than measuring to the prospective desired finish at the 5 km mark.  But assuming that is the case, the protocol described in the Course Procedures Measurement Manual requires the measurer to conduct the validation ride on the 2.96 mi route, and then adjust the distance in determining the final length of the course as well as any intermediate splits that might have been affected. 

Where the desired distance of a course is not known in advance, using the above example, the measurer could elect to not calculate any intermediate splits in measuring to the "finish" at 2.96 mi. But again, in validating the layout measurement against Ride #2, the same protocol would apply, and an adjustment to a final course length of 5 km would have to be made subsequent to a measurement comparison of less than 0.08% (see below.)  However, in using the "Distance Unknown/Not Specified" method in measuring a road course, because the measurer opted to not calculate intermediate splits for the layout measurement, they cannot be added to the system in the validation measurement and would have to be manually calculated by the measurer outside the system.

Attachments

Photos (2)
Original Post

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×