Measuring an out and back course.

For anyone interested, the course in question has a T/A close after a 90 degree turn.
It is my opinion that to measure or certify a route SPR in both directions is wrong. It indicates a path that cannot be open to both outbound and returning runners due to the close proximity to the T/A. Measuring this way insures the course will be long enough but it creates an unsafe runners path or shortcuts the actual path available to runners.
Both of those situations do a dis-service to the runners and the sport of Road Running.
Needless to say, I will not certify any such course.

Wish I could see it. But (without seeing it so this may be misguided) on most unrestricted out-and-back courses I think you have to measure the SPR. You don't really know that the SPR will NOT be available at any given point, even though you suspect runners won't be able to follow it all that well.

I try to keep remembering that we are measuring the shortest POSSIBLE route, not where we think the runners will PROBABLY run.

But sometimes the situation gets ridiculous. At the USATF 12K last fall, I was first told that there would be no restriction on the very winding and snakey GW Parkway, so I measured SPR both directions. But felt bad about it, knowing I am tacking on a lot of extra distance that would not likely be run. I was happy to remeasure the course once we established that runners would be kept on their own right side of the road in both directions.

In cases like that I think a measurer is right to insist that certain restrictions be placed on the course-- this is so the runners can run reasonably close to the measured course, as contrasted with restrictions imposed due to traffic or other considerations.

I agree with Bob here. Suppose Haile Gebrselassie is vacationing in that town and decides to hop in that race for fun? He'd be so far ahead at the turnaround that he could easily take the SPR without encountering the next outbound runner. Unless it's measured AND set up as a restricted route his time ultimately wouldn't count. And I really don't trust anyone below the NYRR or BAA to set up and enforce course restrictions.

I agree with Bob and Jim. Unless the race director says they will cone the centerline of an out-and-back course, one cannot assume the runner won't take the SPR. Haile may take the SPR for a mile after the turnaround before encountering anyone. Then, after staying on the right-hand side of the road/trail for a couple miles, the oncoming runners thin out, and the SPR is again available.

You must measure SPR, unless cones are to be used. Don't try to "enforce" lane restrictions by putting "cones must be used" on the map, if the RD has not said they are going to cone the course.

Jim’s course route seems very straight forward to measure, mark and certify. My recommendation to measure this course would be using the whole road from curb to curb. Use the SPR for the entire course. The issue of a restricted course is a race director’s nightmare to enforce. The center line of a road is NOT an enforceable restriction unless the event is willing to invest in traffic cones and barriers along with official course monitors. Runners will and do run wherever they are allowed to run irrespective to traffic cones or even police screaming at them to run within the controlled lane. Restricted courses are a nightmare to document for the course map, especially right to left turns.

I'm in agreement with Bob, Jim G. and Duane.

The USATF Rule Book makes it clear; Rule 240 Course Certification, 2. Definition of course:
(a) Path: A running course shall be defined as the streets, roads, paths, marked paths on grass, gravel or dirt, and/or paths using established permanent landmarks or benchmarks which is intended as the runner’s path for any type of race; and
(b) Shortest possible route: The measured running course shall involve the course noted above and the measurement shall follow the runner’s shortest possible legal
Further; Rule 243 COURSE MARKING AND MONITORING, 1. Running courses shall be adequately marked at strategic points to keep the competitors on course. (a) Each turn and intersection shall be clearly marked in such a way that there will be no doubt as to the direction the runner should go to stay on course. (c) The measurement line should be marked along the course in a distinctive color that cannot be mistaken for other markings.
2. Turns and major intersections on the course shall be monitored. (a) Monitors shall always be standing and shall be located at or before the change of direction, not after it occurs on the course.(b) Scorers shall keep a record of the runners and their running times at specific points on the course. (c) Whenever possible, the route of the competition should be free of vehicular traffic or nearly so. All dangerous intersections should be staffed to provide for traffic and spectator control.
4. Any competitor who has been found by the Referee and/or Jury of Appeal to have gained an unfair advantage by intentionally shortening the route of the race ("cutting the course") shall be immediately disqualified from the competition. See also Rule 163.6.

[URL= ]5k course[/URL]

First, The Shortest Possible Route is always best to measure. I can understand that it's important to tell the Race director their choice of running an event could be a problem. In this case the runners would be running into each other becuase after the 90 degree turn it's a very short distance. Hence, this could be a problem and it may be best to have a restriction after this turn.

However, as Certifiers we can only do as asked by the Race.

A few comments:
1. Looking at the route, that turn doesn't necessarily look to be too close to the turnaround (if there are thousands in the race, it's too close. If there are <100, then it doesn't).
2. Jim raises an important point. We can talk about how this or that restriction is needed, but we need to look at the actual race operation capability of the organization. Many smaller races don't tend to put out enough monitors, no matter what is on the map. Some very large races don't do it either.
3. Thanks Kevin for citing those rules. I certainly know some race organizations that need to go over and incorporate them!
4. I would push back just a bit on Gene's comment that we can only do what the race organizers ask-- I still think we do this for the runners' benefit, even though we are paid by the organizers. If something seems like a bad idea, I will definitely say so and tell them why. Usually they listen. Not always.

Bob this will be a small race at the most I will say 130 people. I have been measuring over 10 years (little bit of time compared to some of you) but in all that time if I measure with restriction even after the race director tells me what they are runners still run where they want because the RD doesn't set the course up the way they tell me it will be set up. Only the Beach City 5k sets it up the way I measured with their restrictions.
I think this might be a good subject to bring up at the yearly meeting. How can some certifiers tell you they will not certify the course unless you have restrictions around the corner and others will?
I can see both set of ideas for the restrictions because the lead runner may not get to cut short to the edge of the road because of runners running out to the T/A but than you have the RD not marking the restrictions and lets just say the lead runner does get to run the inside now he has just run a short course. So which is better to measure with restrictions and hope the RD puts the cones where there are to be or measure unrestricted and the lead runner may have to run a little wide around the corner?

It's the leader(s) who is most likely to set a record, even it's just a PR. If the runners further back run long that is not a problem IMHO - our mandate is to ensure they run AT LEAST the shortest distance.
To turn this discussion on its head, in Central Park runners are restricted to the inside 2 or 1.5 lanes of the roadway. While this is enforced for the front runners it becomes somewhat lax for the mid packers (where I find myself if I'm having a good day). For this reason I would be very hesitant to accept any age group records set there unless the person was wearing a GoPro to document that they followed the restricted route.

J.A., I know what you mean about RD reliability. I think you're right to discount what they say, unless you have good reason to believe them. I keep saying, it's very instructive to be there when they actually run some of these races.

Interesting to hear about the current Central Park situation. I went to do a validation there after some 10 Mile records were apparently broken (early 90's I think?). Turns out the NYRRC actually had video of the running of the race, that was supposed to stay within the biking & jogging lane. It didn't; the runners were all over the road at turns. So I had to measure that way and the course didn't pass. This is somewhere in Measurement News.

Bob makes a good point. DO we serve the sport (runners) or does the sport serve the measurer. If a measurer is willing to measure a course that cannot exist for the leaders as well and the rest of the field just to insure that any record will stand what does tat say. In today's world of GPS watches I would not want to explain why a runner had to run through or around other people just so the measurer felt good about his measurement.
Regarding course set up, I have seen runners jump curbs and cut corners. This happens but those runners know they are short cutting.
Records don't exist just for the overall leaders. The same course accepted for an open record is accepted for age groups as well.
My concern is a course that can't really exist due to two way runner traffic DOESN'T EXIST. Such a course without at least a cone to divert runners at hard turns close to a t/a is not safe or a fair playing field for runners.
As for the statement that Rd's won't set up the course speaks volumes about the value of a Certified Course. Measuring cheap means the product is cheap.
Pete Riegel told me after I had measured a few courses that I should charge to the point here the race hurt. I thought this concept was way off. I wanted to benefit the sport and charge as little as possible. That concept held until I ran a club race that I had measured no charge the year before. The t/a for that 8k course was long by about a quarter mile. The RD hadn't paid anything for the measurement so there was no value associated with it. When you measure cheap, the value of a certified course is cheap.
Now I charge healthy fees and don't discount except for about one Soldier Memorial course a year.
When I tell a RD he has to have runners go around a cone especially for safety reasoning, I believe the runners go around that cone. Otherwise why document start, finish or a t/a point if the RD "won't follow the map"?
In summary, the course set up is the RD's responsibility. If the RD disregards the map, he simply doesn't present a certified course.

Welcome to the world of road racing or better know as the wild west!
The real question comes down to our responsibility. Are we the judge and the jury?
With a track meet the measurer is not responsible for the ensuring that the athletes are not starting at the appropriate starting line or running the required laps.
This all falls under the role of the officials of a "sanctioned run". Obviously many road races do not have officials but races need to do better.
I believe our responsibility stops with the the race director. As with any contractor, they must work with their client to find out exactly what they want. As a measurer, we must advice our the RD as to the pro's and con's of the measurement and should explain the consequences of what could happen if a record is set and not validated due to the course not being set up correctly.
Maybe it's time to amend the "Certificate" to further explain that the accuracy of the course is dependent on it being correctly set up.
I am a big fan of having a race hire the measurer to help set up the course. In fact I am confident that everyone here knows USATF Rule 260 (IAAF Rule 260.28(d) which requires the measurer (or his designate) to be at the race where a US Open or World Record is set.

Mike,

From the Introduction to Course Measurement and Certification Procedures on the USATF site:
"Specifically, we try to make sure that the shortest possible route (SPR) through the available roads is at least the stated race distance".

It is not about the measurer feeling good about the measurement, it is about following the guidelines - SPR and still be on the course. There is no mention of the presence of, or lack thereof, oncoming runners on an out-and-back section of a course. One cannot assume that there will always be oncoming runners. Thus, we must measure as if there are no restrictions, unless the RD specifically says there will be. Then, the map must indicate the restrictions.

If a record is set and restrictions as indicated on the map were not in place, the record will not stand.

It is up to the measurer to properly indicate on the map the required restrictions. If none are indicated, it should not be measured as if restrictions are in place.