Problems with single point descriptions

I would definitely recommend using two points of reference even though I don't most of the time. Besides increasing the odds of a reference point being available, it would also be useful for the person trying to locate the correct location with a 2nd reference to confirm the correct location has been selected.

Something like "2 meters E of light pole and 5 meters W of manhole cover" - then if person inadvertently measured 2 m W of LP that point would not be 5 meters W of manhole cover.

I think it's always a good idea to describe the start, finish, and turn-arounds relative to two different landmarks. But there are some cases where requiring it would be overkill. If the start is right at a fire hydrant there is no possibility of confusing east/west, and a fire hydrant is very unlikely to move or be removed. Or on a full loop course where the start finish is the same line (runners going the same direction when they finish as they did when they start). In this case a misplaced start/finish line makes only the first and last miles inaccurate.

Maybe the answer is to make two landmarks a requirement unless, based on the judgement of the certifier, the single landmark is very unlikely to move, disappear, or cause any confusion.

I would agree with making this a strong recommendation. I've seen quite a few "permanent" landmarks go missing.

I also think it's good practice to try to get different kinds of references-- e.g. one tie-in to something nearby like a post or a sign or a hydrant, and also a distance to a nearby intersection. (Surveyors used to call the latter a "map reference", but that was before GE has made lots more things identifiable remotely.)

I agree with Mark that we should allow for exceptions, and I think "strong recommendation" is better than a requirement that we make exceptions to. Just my thoughts.

Question for Ken: do RD's "get it" when you state those distances in meters? I have stuck with feet and yards because I think many folks are more likely to "know" those units. Except that military folks are apparently taught all about meters so they can use them.

GPS coordinates are good for mile markers. While they aren't accurate enough for Start , T/S, or Finish lines, I am thinking there is no harm in adding this GPS info when the GPS readings are away from tall buildings and thick over head canopies.

I never include GPS coordinates for the start, finish, or turn-arounds because I'm afraid some people will use that to locate them, and ignore the landmark descriptions.

quote:

Question for Ken: do RD's "get it" when you state those distances in meters? I have stuck with feet and yards because I think many folks are more likely to "know" those units. Except that military folks are apparently taught all about meters so they can use them.

Surprisingly, no one has expressed a concern in regards to my using metric distances. Over 360 courses measured/certified in last 7 years. Guess the Oklahoma Race Directors are just extra smart!!!

Oh that's right, Oklahoma, the state that Bob Baumel single-handedly wrestled into metric usage! Well good, maybe more of our states (and the RD's) can aspire to that.

On second thought, it looks like Bob had an able accomplice, Ken!