Got inquiry on a 2015 course that needs a partial redo. I know an expired course can be "rejuvenated" with one ride. So can't I get them a full 10 year extension if I ride whole thing once and the partial part twice? In other words, why would you have to wait till it is fully expired?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
If I understand you correctly you are asking if you do an adjustment on a course, and then do one measurement of the entire adjusted course, does it get a new 10-year life?
The exception that was made for expired courses is very simple and straight-forward. If you measure the original, unaltered course, and your one measurement is within 0.08% of the certified distance, it can be re-certified with a new 10-year life. If your one measurement is not within 0.08%, then you have to do a second measurement.
IMO what you are asking is a VERY broad generalization of that very specific exception, and it should require an agreed upon rule change.
Not trying to game the system. But for a revision, you are already there, calibrated and charging a pretty good chunk for all the paperwork. Why not be able to offer say 5 years more of life for the course?
I have tried two "one ride redos" this year and both were so poorly marked that I gave up and did two rides anyway.
I didn't mean to suggest you were trying to game the system at all. What you asked is a legitimate question, and I can certainly see the logic behind it. It just seems like a stretch to me.
What I could see as a possible extension that is less of a stretch would be to allow a single measurement of an existing course to give a new year 10-year life even if it hasn't expired yet. This would have a similar simplicity of the current expired course exception. After doing that, an adjustment could be made, and then there would be an adjusted course with a new 10-year life. You may say that this is essentially the same thing, but I see one big difference. That one measurement that is being made is of a very well defined and documented course. I still think this would need to be an agreed upon rule change, but it seems more likely.
The plot thickens. Preliminary GE plot shows segment to be revised in mid course and is about 150' longer than the old course so some end point will have to be moved. Still, the part which would be avoided is either busy or littered with parked vehicles requiring offsets.
I sympathize, Oscar. I encountered a similar thing attempting to replace a small segment of a marathon course recently. It turned out OK, but it was a challenge to locate & verify old timing points where the "fixed" objects were no longer present. Fortunately, I had a turn around for which there was plenty of room to adjust. Otherwise, it would have been a real pain to get accurate. I concluded that it may have been nearly as easy to measure the entire thing all over again. I am becoming averse to the "erector set" methodology for marathons. I might even recommend some kind of rule about this - if more than - say, 25% of a marathon course - or perhaps as little as 6 miles - is to be changed, the course must be measured all over again.
For this Thanksgiving Day race and the need to get certification process in motion, any decision is likely not going to be in time. But for future similar circumstances (15 degree angle across two 40 mph lanes to double yellow and back, etc. ) it would be nice to know the options.
Lyman you could write up a new rule proposal and it would be considered. But I think it's going to be difficult to come up with a general rule about adjustments that makes sense. Using the number of adjustments doesn't work because some adjustments are simply moving the start 30 feet and then moving the finish 30 feet to make up for it. Using the total distance doesn't really work because some adjustments might be using a straight parallel road that goes on for miles. What really matters, in the sense that it can result in errors, is the complexity of the adjustments, and that's a hard thing to objectively define.
I know. It is not a simple problem.
In your example of moving the Start and the Finish by equal amounts, which method of re-recording the mile splits would you be in favor of:
1. Adding or subtracting, as the case may be, the delta from each split? Or,
2. Re-identifying the splits using the elevation profile from GE?
Confident of GE elevation profile measurement but was going to step off both old and new from a common point. Problem was when I went back to do that, there was a great big Komatsu actively digging in the old path!