Postings of Certified Courses

I do as above, I think.

I send the VC two copies. I send the measurer (the person who I deal with) two copies. I also email them a copy of the certificate at the time of mailing.

I do not send the race director anything. I have always considered this to be the measurer's job.

A few complaints continue to arise because the course listing and maps, on the USATF course search engine, do not follow instantly upon certification of the course. It is claimed that the race does not have the required public credibility unless USATF instantly proclaims that the course is certified. RRTC’s position is that doing things right takes time, and correct is better than fast.

Each measurer who completes the work properly has a certificate and official map mailed or emailed to him as soon as the course is certified. It is the measurer’s job to forward this material to whoever tasked him with the job of getting the course certified.

The race organization can use the certificate, course number, and map in any way they deem will assure runners that the course is certified. If the runners aren’t assured by the course ID, they can post a picture of the certificate and the course map on their web site.

Fast publication of the status of the course is the responsibility of the race, not USATF. USATF has already sent all that is needed to the measurer.

As a complicating factor, a few measurers, having been burnt, prefer not to forward certificates to whoever hires them until they have been paid for the work. Instant publication by the USATF web site could make it difficult for measurers to deal with deadbeat employers.

If a race wishes to proclaim certification, and they really have it, it is within their power to do the publicity themselves. What’s stopping them?

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Riegel:
RRTC’s position is that doing things right takes time, and correct is better than fast.

Reminds me of a sign I saw once in a repair shop:

You can have it
FAST
CHEAP
DONE RIGHT

(pick any two)

Prior to 2006, course maps were uploaded to USATF every 60 days. Now it's every month. The simple fact is that it takes time to look over a hundred certificates each month (average for each VC), and then I have to do my thing with twice that number. After I'm done, the webmaster gets to link each image to the database manually.

This isn't Myspace. We don't just post up certified maps as soon as the urge hits us. And it's not the job of the USATF to do the pre-race publicity.

The problem of lack of instant gratification could be easily solved. Instead of the present date of certification, how about changing the date of certification to the time the course appears on the USATF web site?

The present method gives the race people a head start on the process, and it is ungracious to complain.

Stu
What does USATF receive besides the scanned map?

Every month I upload the Access database, and the new maps to the USATF site, and Keith Lively does the rest (checking for errors and doing the link-up).

The Access database is a condensed version of the information on the front side of the certificates.

Old habits die hard. Each month when Stu announces that a new list has been sent to USATF I go to the USATF search engine at

http://www.usatf.org/events/courses/search/

In upper right, under “advanced criteria” I select “any” for course status and “any” for course type.

Then I go to lower left under “Results.” I select “all fields” and “download” format.

Then I click “search.” Pretty soon I am asked whether I want to open or save the list. I save it, and soon I have a file called “courses.txt.” If I opened it instead of saving it, I would see it online.

I open “courses.txt” in Excel, but could open it in any word-processing program.

This gives me an up-to-date list of every course that has ever been certified. Distance, location city, state, course number, name of race, drop, separation, measurer – the whole shebang.

When people call for info it is handy to have.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Riegel:
Prior to 2006, course maps were uploaded to USATF every 60 days. Now it's every month. The simple fact is that it takes time to look over a hundred certificates each month (average for each VC), and then I have to do my thing with twice that number. After I'm done, the webmaster gets to link each image to the database manually.

Ouch. Seems like always naming the map to match the course designator would allow the links to be auto generated, but I digress.

I've noticed that even though I'm submitting electronically prepared maps (and have been since the 90's) they have all been printed and rescanned. Any way to skip that step for those already in PDF form?

Maps in Electronic Format

Part of the problem of doing everything electronically is that the certifiers and measurers all have different computing equipment, and various levels of competence in their use.

On the face of it, it would seem possible to have two ways of doing things – paper copies from the people who don’t have the equipment or ability to go electronic, and an electronic process for those who do. Paper is pretty foolproof, although the end product (the map) is generally less clear than a good electronic copy. Doing things electronically demands that each person in the chain produce a map that is not only in electronic form, but is in the SAME electronic form. All our online maps are scanned as png files with 2550 x 3300 pixel size.

I have never figured a way to assure that everybody produce exactly the same uniform product. One advantage of the paper system is that everybody understands how to use it. We achieve electronic uniformity because that work is done by one person – the course registrar.

Online maps began when Mike Wickiser, then RRTC Chairman and Course Registrar, got together with Keith Lively and got it started. When Stu Riegel became course registrar it seemed a good time to make changes and improvements.

Keith Lively, the person who runs the USATF web site, has worked out what he needs from the RRTC Course Registrar. Keith is not an RRTC member, and he has lots more to do than post our course list. He and Registrar Stu Riegel, along with Bob Baumel and others, worked hard for months to arrive at a format and method that would make the information transfer work. Once a month Stu sends Keith a big electronic burst of information. It consists of a course list which contains a single line of information for each course received, typed manually by Stu from information on the certificate. Also sent are map files, one for each new map.

As a result we are gradually becoming paperless. The paper files, containing in excess of 25,000 certificates, occupy four 4-drawer (maybe more) file cabinets. At present all active courses are entirely electronic and available online. There is presently no need to retain paper files of new certificates. At some point the old paper files may be discarded, after careful thought.

As a certifier, I prefer to deal with paper. I like to spread thing out, make notes on the papers, and have everything in front of me. When things are electronically submitted I wind up printing things out anyway. In theory this may be less efficient than doing things entirely electronically, but I find I can work better this way. When a measurer sends me an electronic map it is never in the format needed by the registrar. This would leave me the job of converting it into the proper format. Also, there are times when I need to make small changes to the map, as well as add the course ID and the expiration date. Thus producing the map in electronic format would become my job.

Paper, while seemingly archaic, is actually pretty easy to deal with. The maps, while varying in quality, are all easily scanned. The paper, once dealt with, is moved to another pile until ready for filing.

The key to the whole thing is uniformity. The question is “who produces the uniform product?”
Keith?
Stu?
The Vice-Chairs?
The Certifiers?
The measurers?

The idea of being all-electronic is attractive, but someone has got to figure out a way to get it done without making more work for everybody, and while retaining the checks performed by the vice-chairs, the certifiers, and the registrar.

Our present standard for a map is one sheet of paper, in black and white, suitable for clear copying. Some produce electronic maps full of color. These are not necessarily easily copied in black and white. Anyone producing electronic maps should keep this in mind.

The devil is in the details. It’s not enough to cry out for electronic maps. Instead, figure out exactly what will need to be done – at every level of the certification process – to get the uniform product that is needed. This is no small job.

I'm really not suggesting that we go paperless. I I agree it's really not practical for everyone.

It would just be nice if there was a way to avoid the scan and resultant loss of quality for those of us that have been trained well by our state certifier to produce one page maps that print well in black and white.

A little coaxing by the state certifier to those producing electronic maps should be all that's necessary. Hronjak didn't even have to hold me down and torture me with his cigar, although he may have been tempted.

I should also note that for many years I've used an Excel reproduction of the USATF Certification Forms which allows people like me with poor penmanship to produce forms easily read by, and emailable to the state certifier.

It still doesn't stop me from printing them out and eye-balling them before I submit them, and I normally find that to be a good cross check.

Keith, a PDF won't help me. We use PNG files, 3300x2550 pixels, 300 dpi, 2 colors. If you like, you can e-mail the maps to me when you submit them to your state certifier. stu-riegel<at>adelphia.net

There's very little loss of quality with the scanner I'm using. If I wanted to bust USATF's bandwidth, I could scan at 19,200 dpi. Even 300 is a little overkill for most maps. After they've been faxed the resolution is down to 72 or 150, and I see quite a few with fax tags on top.

I prefer to work with paper files, too. For me it's easier to walk over to the file cabinet and fish out a paper cert than it is to find the file on the hard drive. And you know exactly where it is once you have it.

Thanks for the info Stu, I'm curious on the choice of PNG vs PDF. Is that to avoid a reader, or because the source is always scanned and is in bit map already?

In any case could I resend some maps if I convert them to PNG? I've noticed that some of the maps I've done are quite poor quality on the site. They could be holdovers from the days I used to fax my maps in. I try to keep all my maps posted online at:

Course Maps

I will follow your suggestion of sending you the map when I receive the course number. I normally prepare the map with NC-07___-PH on it, then Paul writes in it. I then update the original map with the course number and try to remember to post it.

One thing I do like about doing maps electronically is Paul often has feedback on maps that I try to incorporate and resend them. Being able to incorporate changes from someone not familiar with the race location results in a higher quality map.

PNG vs PDF is largely a case of file size vs image quality. PNG (after extensive testing) turned out to be the best format available.

Go ahead and re-send the maps, as long as you can re-size them to 3300x2550, 2 colors, 300 dpi it won't be too much hassle for me. Name each file with the certification number so I don't get confuzzled.