I am wondering what other people think about measuring a course using USATF guidelines but not certifying the course? Is this a good idea to start something like this?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
So, what do you not do here?
Do you not complete the documentation?
Do you not draw the map?
Do you not send the paperwork forward?
What is the difference in cost to the race?
I'm not seeing the point here...
Do you not complete the documentation?
Do you not draw the map?
Do you not send the paperwork forward?
What is the difference in cost to the race?
I'm not seeing the point here...
It is interesting that this questions has been raised now. I just finished measuring a half marathon where the race director said he just wanted to make sure the distance was correct and did't want it certified. I rather insisted it be certified and have sent the paper work to Bernie Conway. But what worries me is that I am not confident that on race day the course will be set up properly. They are already talking about extending the turnaround so it will be in front of a sponsor's store. I feel I am covered as I have a good map and have told them that the certification is void if they don't lay out the course in accordance with my map.
But, what is the point in getting it measured if you don't care about certification. It is the certification that is the assurance to all runners that the distance is accurate.
But, what is the point in getting it measured if you don't care about certification. It is the certification that is the assurance to all runners that the distance is accurate.
I've never understood why this statement exists in the course measurement and certification manual:
Certifying your Calibration Course: You are not required to submit a map for every
calibration course you measure. However, when you lay out a calibration course that you
think you'll want to use again in the future, or one that you think other measurers would
like to use, you may draw a map for it, and you will be issued a certificate that will simplify
future use of the calibration course.
If I take the time to measure a cal course, drawing the map of a straight line takes comparatively less effort. It would seem that the actual cal course used to determine the length of the road course would be something that should also be checked if the course needs to be validated.
Certifying your Calibration Course: You are not required to submit a map for every
calibration course you measure. However, when you lay out a calibration course that you
think you'll want to use again in the future, or one that you think other measurers would
like to use, you may draw a map for it, and you will be issued a certificate that will simplify
future use of the calibration course.
If I take the time to measure a cal course, drawing the map of a straight line takes comparatively less effort. It would seem that the actual cal course used to determine the length of the road course would be something that should also be checked if the course needs to be validated.
Jay, I've had a few of these myself over the years.
What I omit is the 2nd ride, no permanent marking of S/F etc., no map, no cert. It's usually for a one-time race, or shoestring budget event.
What I omit is the 2nd ride, no permanent marking of S/F etc., no map, no cert. It's usually for a one-time race, or shoestring budget event.
To everyone that responed. First Jay Wright I guess the point would be so that the runners have the correct distance to run in the race and it will not cost the race as much to just measure the course. I would charge half of what I normally charge. Unlike Jim Gerweck I would put down the start, finish and mile points.
Now to Paul Adams that is also one of the reasons I think all courses should be certified is because than there will be a map of how the course was measured.
But who is to say even if a course is certified the race director will set it up how it is supposed to be set up. Lets be truthful how many runners do you know who go online and either look at the certified map or even print it out and take it to the course and go over the course before the race and see that the course is set up how it is supposed to be. We all rely on the race director to set the course up correctly.
I do know of one person (Ron Legg – ranked 2nd in the 65 to 69 in running times) that does check it out but he is the only person I know.
I can see pros and cons for both but I guess the cons probably outweigh the pros.
Now to Paul Adams that is also one of the reasons I think all courses should be certified is because than there will be a map of how the course was measured.
But who is to say even if a course is certified the race director will set it up how it is supposed to be set up. Lets be truthful how many runners do you know who go online and either look at the certified map or even print it out and take it to the course and go over the course before the race and see that the course is set up how it is supposed to be. We all rely on the race director to set the course up correctly.
I do know of one person (Ron Legg – ranked 2nd in the 65 to 69 in running times) that does check it out but he is the only person I know.
I can see pros and cons for both but I guess the cons probably outweigh the pros.
I have done what Jim is talking about except that I provide a map. But the map just consists of a dark line over a google maps screen shot with detailed descriptions of the start, finish, and turn-arounds. I charge about half what I charge for USATF certification.
I do this when
1) The course is on not so well defined trails or trails with soft surfaces
and/or
2) It is obvious the RD is not going to pay what it costs to have it USATF certified. I figure it's better than him measuring it with his car.
I do this when
1) The course is on not so well defined trails or trails with soft surfaces
and/or
2) It is obvious the RD is not going to pay what it costs to have it USATF certified. I figure it's better than him measuring it with his car.
J.A. - I do note the start, finish & mile points, but I don't permanently mark the first 2 w/ PK nails as I do for a certified course. Also, I don't draw a diagram of those for the map I provide. For me that's the most time-consuming part of a map, so skipping that makes it much quicker.
Funny I got an inquiry earlier this week asking me to quote one price on measurement and another on measurement plus certification. If I've had an inquiry like that before, I don't remember it.
I gave a standard response on the certification cost but for measurement only I asked what they wanted done.
As a certifier, I think if they decide they want the course measured only, I'll suggest that they find someone else. I'm really not interested in cheapening the brand. Not sure what I'd do if I wasn't a certifier.
I gave a standard response on the certification cost but for measurement only I asked what they wanted done.
As a certifier, I think if they decide they want the course measured only, I'll suggest that they find someone else. I'm really not interested in cheapening the brand. Not sure what I'd do if I wasn't a certifier.
Jay, you aren't doing anything to 'cheapen the brand' by simply measuring a course accurately vs certifying it. I don't see the link. Heck, 99.9% of all runners have no idea how or who measured a course ... and they sure don't care.
I've measured courses for accuracy happily and charge a nominal fee. I'm happy because otherwise the proposed course would VERY likely be short measured by others and I make a little money. Since about 90% of all courses aren't certified, it's nice to add a few that are at least the distance they should be.
I've measured courses for accuracy happily and charge a nominal fee. I'm happy because otherwise the proposed course would VERY likely be short measured by others and I make a little money. Since about 90% of all courses aren't certified, it's nice to add a few that are at least the distance they should be.
Disagree on at least a couple of points, Scott.
First, at least in the Chicago area, I'd bet that far more than 10% of the courses are certified, largely because the local running organizations have helped race directors to see the value in certification, and there have been a few high profile examples of courses that weren't certified not even being close to the correct length.
Second, I'm not really sure I would much like what would happen if word got out among race directors that "the course isn't certified but the state certifier- the guy who measured the Chicago Marathon course- measured it for me so that's just as good and besides it's cheaper" or something to that effect.
When not enough people contact me requesting that I measure their courses for certification and more contact me just for an unofficial measurement, I might listen. For now though, I view one of my responsibilities as a certifier to be to sell the certification process, and to not encourage people to find a way around it.
First, at least in the Chicago area, I'd bet that far more than 10% of the courses are certified, largely because the local running organizations have helped race directors to see the value in certification, and there have been a few high profile examples of courses that weren't certified not even being close to the correct length.
Second, I'm not really sure I would much like what would happen if word got out among race directors that "the course isn't certified but the state certifier- the guy who measured the Chicago Marathon course- measured it for me so that's just as good and besides it's cheaper" or something to that effect.
When not enough people contact me requesting that I measure their courses for certification and more contact me just for an unofficial measurement, I might listen. For now though, I view one of my responsibilities as a certifier to be to sell the certification process, and to not encourage people to find a way around it.
I sort of agree with Scott that just because you measure a course does not mean you are cheapening the brand but I do think as a measurer you should push for any course to be certified instead of just measured (or as Jay says my responsibility). I would say when I first started measuring courses in 2003 not many runners knew about the certification process of getting courses measured and certified but since the first course I have done for Terry Lewis (he times almost all the races held in Stark county & surrounding counties) and the Subway Challenge Series (has over 60 races in it) all race directors are aware of certification and Terry has a race director's meeting every Sept for the following year in which I usually go and I was thinking maybe this year I could somehow show the video on how to measure a course at this meeting. Between me and Ron Legg we are always preaching to runners about certified race courses so at least in my little neck of the woods I would say we are close to 45% of runners know about certified course.
I also hope it never comes to where we have more measured courses than certified courses.
I also hope it never comes to where we have more measured courses than certified courses.
My 2-cents: I have measured courses that were on soft surfaces, or single-track trails through the mountains - too inconsistent of surface for a true certification, but I think I got a better measurement than if they measured it with any other method. I measured the course once, and created a map just like I would have for a certified course. I've done 3 of these.
I have also been asked to measure road courses, but not certify. I give them my price - full-price minus the $30 cert fee, and minus 1/6 of my normal fee, as I will only ride the course once. I then tell them what the full-certification cost is, and explain the benefits of certification, and everyone has gone ahead and had it certified. I would have included a map, so there is only the second ride and the cert fee that would be saved. I just don't cut the price very much.
I see why races want to "save money", but after I have the chance to explain the gain in runners, they normally see the investment is worth it. Much of the decision is how you sell the benefits.
I have also been asked to measure road courses, but not certify. I give them my price - full-price minus the $30 cert fee, and minus 1/6 of my normal fee, as I will only ride the course once. I then tell them what the full-certification cost is, and explain the benefits of certification, and everyone has gone ahead and had it certified. I would have included a map, so there is only the second ride and the cert fee that would be saved. I just don't cut the price very much.
I see why races want to "save money", but after I have the chance to explain the gain in runners, they normally see the investment is worth it. Much of the decision is how you sell the benefits.
Well ... I see what you're getting at Jay and, certainly, for every region, a different picture to understand. But, while it may be our 'responsibility' to educate runners & RD's about certification, I see no link between that & somebody using a Jones/Oerth counter to measure a course accurately. I'd be fine w/an RD telling runners that, 'Scott Hubbard measured our course for accuracy & he measurers courses for certification.' If nothing else, runners would have the idea the course is very likely accurate. If some might confuse what the RD said and think what I measured was certified, it wouldn't take much to set that right. A call to the RD would settle it. Would the affected runner be upset? Possible, but I don't see that they were misled. This scenario cuts the whole thing thin though ... the few that might get tangled up in accurate/certified are in a teeny, tiny minority to the 99+% who would never know how it was measured and are just happy to show up & get their exercise in.
We all know that pretty much every non-certified course is short. I'd be happy to make a little less money, less fuss, to make a course at least long enough. Would I tell the RD about certification? Yes. Where it goes from there is another matter - each case different. Some go w/certification, some balk at the fee.
I'll repeat - don't see that we're 'cheaping our brand' by measuring a course for accuracy vs certification. We aren't pretending to do something we're not, so there's no 'cheapening' involved. If others get confused, that's FAR easier settled than this confounding problem of runners w/GPS thingies complaining about certified course accuracy.
We all know that pretty much every non-certified course is short. I'd be happy to make a little less money, less fuss, to make a course at least long enough. Would I tell the RD about certification? Yes. Where it goes from there is another matter - each case different. Some go w/certification, some balk at the fee.
I'll repeat - don't see that we're 'cheaping our brand' by measuring a course for accuracy vs certification. We aren't pretending to do something we're not, so there's no 'cheapening' involved. If others get confused, that's FAR easier settled than this confounding problem of runners w/GPS thingies complaining about certified course accuracy.
I am with Jay on this. I am asked a few times every year to measure a course and create a map without certifying. I want to simply say "no". But this is not being a good businessperson, you know. So I simply tell them that the only difference is in submitting the paperwork, which is the simplest and quickest part of the process. I tell them this would save them no more than $30.00. I then ask them what the entry fee for the race is. "$30.00". I say, "OK, so consider the $600.00 I charge you to certify your 10K as costing you 2 entry fees per year for the next ten years. Those two entry fees and more are additional entries that you will get from runners who do not enter races with non-certified courses as a matter of personal pride, who will enter yours because it is certified. What are your thoughts?"
Works nearly every time.
Works nearly every time.
Pretty much my "sales pitch" to RDs. Once the cost is broken down over the ten-year span they're more interested (unless they're dealing with a local government who may tell them "can't use that course" in future years).
Hi. I just completed my first RD event. It was for a charity on a budget and it was decided not to spend the money for certification. I have a Paul Oerth counter and a EDM measured 400 meter calibration course. I went with the flow and simply layed out an accurate course. In hindsight I should have gotten it certified. I guess I didn't trust myself because I haven't gotten one before. For the second annual running of this event I will definitely certify the course. There is no reason why I can't do a accurate measurement myself and have it certified. Besides I think more runners sign up when you advertise as a certified course.
Here's a recent case:
Friday before a Sunday race I discovered the redevelopment people had erected a chain-link fence across one of the roads on the course (this was an alternate route, since the usual course was already fenced/gated).
Quickly mapped out a few "alternative alternates" for the police to view & OK, then Saturday evening went out to measure (I was at a cross country meet all day, and Friday it poured rain). Did a single ride of the course (although technically it would have sufficed as 2, since it was an out & back), marking the mile splits. Had to adjust the finish to get the proper distance and didn't want to go back to adjust splits (the course went through some dodgy neighborhoods, OK for an early Sunday AM race but a little scary on a Saturday night).
We announced to the runners before the race that the first mile would be off, but the overall distance was correct, and everyone seemed happy. Since the course will not be used again (I hope) I saw no point in making a map or creating a cert. The runners all ran an accurate course, and I knew there would be no records set, so I think this was a case where actual certification would have been overkill.
Friday before a Sunday race I discovered the redevelopment people had erected a chain-link fence across one of the roads on the course (this was an alternate route, since the usual course was already fenced/gated).
Quickly mapped out a few "alternative alternates" for the police to view & OK, then Saturday evening went out to measure (I was at a cross country meet all day, and Friday it poured rain). Did a single ride of the course (although technically it would have sufficed as 2, since it was an out & back), marking the mile splits. Had to adjust the finish to get the proper distance and didn't want to go back to adjust splits (the course went through some dodgy neighborhoods, OK for an early Sunday AM race but a little scary on a Saturday night).
We announced to the runners before the race that the first mile would be off, but the overall distance was correct, and everyone seemed happy. Since the course will not be used again (I hope) I saw no point in making a map or creating a cert. The runners all ran an accurate course, and I knew there would be no records set, so I think this was a case where actual certification would have been overkill.
Which gets us back to the "why do we do this" question.
If we are doing this so that runners are racing over accurate courses, what you did was entirely adequate.
Would it make sense to have an "accurately measured" level of certification and a "record quality" level? I would think that "record level" would be what we now do, and the lower level would be something less. I could also see the lower level certification never expiring, and the "record level" transitioning to the lower level at its expiration date.
Your thoughts?
If we are doing this so that runners are racing over accurate courses, what you did was entirely adequate.
Would it make sense to have an "accurately measured" level of certification and a "record quality" level? I would think that "record level" would be what we now do, and the lower level would be something less. I could also see the lower level certification never expiring, and the "record level" transitioning to the lower level at its expiration date.
Your thoughts?
Your making this way too complicated. Certification means more than a certificate. Certain standards are met. How does Jim know that no record would be set? Jim, do you
Know when I will win the lottery?
To have two types of certified courses would create much confusion. Why would USATF or the RRTC ever consider this?
Know when I will win the lottery?
To have two types of certified courses would create much confusion. Why would USATF or the RRTC ever consider this?
The question is "are WE making things much too complicated?"
If, as Jim and Scott argue, the vast majority of runners are well served by a course that is accurately measured but not certified, I think it's fair to ask what value is added by a lot of the steps in the measurement process.
Is there really a need to measure the course a second time? Do we really need to draw a course map and post it online?
We operate under a system which, if I remember correctly, was instituted by USATF (TAC at the time) that they could have accurately measured road courses so that records could be kept. We all know that records aren't set very often, and are set on only a small fraction of the courses we measure and certify.
We've essentially been doing things this way for 30 years now (the last 25 for me) and it's worked out quite well. But I don't see any harm in, from time to time, stepping back and asking if we're doing what the sport needs us to do.
If, as Jim and Scott argue, the vast majority of runners are well served by a course that is accurately measured but not certified, I think it's fair to ask what value is added by a lot of the steps in the measurement process.
Is there really a need to measure the course a second time? Do we really need to draw a course map and post it online?
We operate under a system which, if I remember correctly, was instituted by USATF (TAC at the time) that they could have accurately measured road courses so that records could be kept. We all know that records aren't set very often, and are set on only a small fraction of the courses we measure and certify.
We've essentially been doing things this way for 30 years now (the last 25 for me) and it's worked out quite well. But I don't see any harm in, from time to time, stepping back and asking if we're doing what the sport needs us to do.
Jay, the question then becomes - "would I drag myself out of bed on a Saturday and Sunday morning to make 20% less for my activity than I currently charge?"
Plus, what would our deliverables be? Rough map? Marked splits?
This will be a good discussion for Daytona Beach!
Plus, what would our deliverables be? Rough map? Marked splits?
This will be a good discussion for Daytona Beach!
The tiny possibility that someone might set a record is no longer an incentive for Mom & Pop to get their course certified, since Mom & Pop are almost certainly not going to have their race sanctioned.
True for record, but runners that are aware like the opportunity to see the race listed on the USTAF site with a map. Why cheapen a good product. Does a 2nd ride make extra work? Yes, but the comparison is nice to know the rides are within a certain amount.
I think we do all the steps to be as sure as reasonably possible that the course is at least as long as advertised. Maybe posting the map is not related to accuracy, but all the other steps are. "Measure twice cut once" as carpenters say. The whole process is a certification process, not just a measuring process. The extra steps such as calibrating twice, second ride, comparison of rides, map and checking of the data by a trained independent observer are all steps that ensure, again as far as reasonably possible, course length accuracy. To do only some of the steps reduces the assurance of accuracy.
Do we need a second tier of "certification"? I think not. Soon that tier would become using Map My Run or a cyclometer for a single, unchecked measurement, erasing 30-years of experience with producing an accurate product.
Do we need a second tier of "certification"? I think not. Soon that tier would become using Map My Run or a cyclometer for a single, unchecked measurement, erasing 30-years of experience with producing an accurate product.
I'm not advocating we institute an "economy class" of official course measurement. My point was merely that a single ride of a course is WAY better than mapping it out using online tools, which would have been the alternative in this case. But under 99% of the circumstances, we should follow the procedure.
I think it was David Reik who once told me, "having a certified course is one area where a local mom & pop race can be the equal of the New York Marathon." I think that's something we shouldn't forget, and is a good selling point to race directors (Jay, you might want to substitute "Chicago" in your pitch
)
I think it was David Reik who once told me, "having a certified course is one area where a local mom & pop race can be the equal of the New York Marathon." I think that's something we shouldn't forget, and is a good selling point to race directors (Jay, you might want to substitute "Chicago" in your pitch
)
Hi, guy. I'm newer, and i have a question: To get the certification of ISO/IEC 17025, what is the condition of a laboratory? Pls explain
- "it applies directly to those organizations that produce testing and calibration results" - Wikipediaquote:ISO/IEC 17025
It does not apply to us in any way, shape, or form. We are not involved in scientific measurements or testing.
Jim, those are words I use often when clients wonder what they are getting for their money. I explain; "It's exactly the same process that is used to measure the Olympic marathon". Never fails to get an "Oh, really? I see" - type response.