PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE

Pete, I'm a big believer in electronic maps. I do all mine that way, for several reasons. First & foremost, I'm a terrible artist, and it's the only way I can produce a map I'm not ashamed of and that can be understood by others. Second, it allows easy modification, and third, it can be output in various formats, e.g. for posting on a race wesbsite.
That said, I have no problem printing it out on paper and sending it along w/ the other certs in the weekly batch.
There are a few measurers who can and have produced the properly formatted electronic files, and I've accepted them and passed them along to the registrar, but that seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Bottom line, we should accept these, but not make it a widespread practice.

I make an electronic map for every course I certify. A good percentage of what I receive from measurers is in electronic format. I print out what they send, as I prefer to work with paper that I can scribble on. Also, when I’m done I have a paper backup file of what I did.

Most of the maps I get are deficient in small ways. Margins may be too small, points may be missing. I have the choice of asking the measurer to fix them, or I can do it myself, which is usually easier. I use an electronic map (either the sent original or a scan) for making corrections.

When the map is OK, I add the note including the certificate number and the expiration date. It generally exists as a MS Word file, which I convert to a .pdf file. After creating the certificate I scan it and save it as a .pdf file. I send the .pdf files to the measurer, as well as mailing hard copy.

I have no problem creating .png files of the proper format, but have made no effort to send them on to a vice chair. I don’t send .png files to the measurer because the resolution is less clear than I like. The format desired by USATF is a compromise between file size and clarity.

Off the subject a bit – I have NEVER had a mailed envelope full of certs go astray. I suppose they must, but my experience has been overwhelmingly positive.

I passed a link of this discussion on electronic course maps to my friend Steve Nichols. Steve and his boys measure most of the courses around here (Binghamton, NY). Steve feels that the maps should be electronic. Here is his letter to me. He attached a map he submitted and what it looked like after processing. Since I don't know how to use an attachment to the forum, I have uploaded his images and provided links below:

Alan,

I think the quality of the maps would be greatly improved if they went through the process in electronic form, assuming that the measurer creates the map in electronic form. There is a noticeable loss of quality at each step with the current system:

• When the map is printed by the measurer
  
• When the printed map is scanned in by the regional certifier (assuming they add their information to the map in electronic form)
  
• When the map is once again printed by the regional certifier
  
• When the map is once again scanned in to create the .png file for the website.
  
• When the .png file is created (at low quality)
  

Hers is a link to the source map file Fly with the Eagles original for a course that I measured recently, and the resulting map After processing file from the USATF web site for comparison.

With regard to some of the objections to an all electronic option:

• Software: If the map is submitted in a .jpg format, then there should not be an issue regarding software since all Windows, Mac, and Linux systems in the last 7 years or so have software to view and modify .jpg files. The final map on the website could either be in .jpg format or in .pdf format.
  
• File size on the website: This was probably an issue originally, but should no longer be an issue since a 1 TB hard drive now costs less than $100.
  

I think the benefits of an all electronic process are:

• Improved quality of the maps on the USATF website
  
• Faster certification processing since the files could be sent from measurer to regional certifier to USATF website maintainer via email rather than snail mail.
  

I don't think it should be a requirement to submit all of the files in electronic format, but I definitely think it should be an option.

Steve

With regard to Steve's observation that file size shouldn't be an issue for files submitted to USATF, I think the primary reasons for png files is that they take less bandwidth to both upload and download. I would like to see PDF files, but they are quite a bit larger, and could impact access to the files if many people are hitting the USATF site to view or download course maps simultaneously (don't really think that happens often).

That said, I also think that electronic files can be accepted as a general rule sooner, rather than later, if we establish clear guidelines and post them for all measurers to see and understand. I think this is a topic for the convention next week, outside of a formal meeting session. This discussion could take hours to cover properly, but needs to be done. As Jim said, electronically-created files are much easier to make look good. My artistic "talent" is along the line of Jim's, and I would not want my freehand maps published.

There is too much software available for minimal cost, so anyone who wants to create digital files should be able to be good at it in short order. Scanning hard-copies into png files takes more understanding, and should be done to specific guidelines, which are already established. Most importantly is the 300 dpi native resolution of all scanned files.

I would even volunteer to be a soutce for initial checking for any measurer or certifier who wants to go electronic. They would submit a sample file to me, and we would work through the process so they would create the proper files BEFORE any were sent to the certifier, vice-chair, or registrar. These initial files would not be for a pending certification, as it may take a while to get the proper format, and we don't want to hold-up a live certification. These would be sample files only, until it was judged that the person could submit their "final approval" file as a live map.

Let's talk about it in Indy.

Guys,

Is the example of the course NY09065JG that Alan uses comparing it to the USATF site really better. My opinion is no!

Again, there are way too many variable with allowing Electronic submissions. Does the measurer submit his map Electronically? Also, what form do they make their submissions? If they get it right then the Regional Certifier gets involved. They enter the Certification No. and Expiration date on the map and rescan in the format that USATF will allow us to use. Next, it would be sent to the VC in a electronic form who in turn checks thing over and if all is correct off it goes to the Registrar electronically.

If maps are done as we have requested, then all would show on the USATF site fine. The time saved would be small. As I have said all the checks must be maintained.

One way to make electronic submission available would be to create a second, electronic, registrar. If you did this you could create a process where everybody still did the checks that they need to, and nobody WHO DIDN"T WANT TO would have to change the way they did their job.

Here's how it would work:
1) The measurer would check with his certifier to make sure the certifier is willing to participate in the electronic submission process. If the certifier is willing, then

2) After the certifier has approved the map he tells the measurer what cert # and valid dates to put on the map. (This is the only step the certifier has to do differently.)

3) The measurer includes this information on the map, and also includes a small letter "e" in the top right-hand corner of the map. He then resends the map to the certifier.

4) The certifier prints out the map and sends it to the vice-chair just like today.

5) The VC receives the map and does everything exactly as he does today, finally sending the printed map to the registrar.

6) The registrar receives the map. If there is a small "e" in the top right-hand corner, he saves the map for his records, but he does not scan it in. (This is the only thing the registrar would have to do differently.) For maps with no "e" he scans them in as usual and sends the file to the webmaster.

7) In the meantime, the measurer sends the electronic map to the new electronic registrar.

8) The electronic registrar checks to make sure the certification has been approved, and then sends the map to the webmaster.

This is based on how I understand the current process works. But maybe there is something in the current process that I don't know about that would cause problems for this.

I’ve looked at both examples of the Fly With Eagles maps and can see a very slight degradation from the original to the final online .png document. Both maps are clear and easy to read. In my view both are adequate.

There is an aspect to this that has not been addressed. That’s the certificates. They contain the drop and separation information, and the contact data for the measurer. They also record the data that’s required for the registrar to make a proper data entry onto the course list. This information is needed by the registrar.

At present both the maps and the certificates are scanned by the registrar. The map files go on to USATF. The certificate files and map files are retained by the registrar.

There is presently only one scanning and file-naming operation done throughout the process, and it’s done by the registrar. Responsibility is centralized. Fragmentation of responsibility leads to chaos.

While we may wish to discuss this at the annual meeting, nothing official should be done until every certifier has been contacted and his or her abilities explored to see what the effect of the change will be on their individual operations.

As a state certifier, I think I can handle electronic submissions just fine. If I was a vice-chair I’d be less certain of this. I’d be depending on all the certifiers to send me correctly formatted and named files. I believe the vice-chairs will see a dramatic increase in their workload if electronic transmission becomes standard. The effect on the course registrar would be horrendous.

A paper certificate and map may seem old-fashioned, but its format is clear and unambiguous. You don’t even need a computer to tell if it’s OK. You can deal with the stack of paper when you are ready. Daily emails require daily attention.

As far as the public is concerned we are already electronic. What they see on the USATF site allows them to easily obtain maps and course lists, and find measurers and certifiers. The public does not care how the electronic files come into being. That’s internal to us.

As a certifier it would be slightly easier for me to deal only with electronic files. I can see myself emailing map and certificate files to the vice chair. How he files my material and that received from others I don’t know. I suspect it would be more complicated than simply stacking up paper certificates and mailing them off once a week. It would be a daily chore, not a weekly one. I think it would be more prone to error than what we do now.

I am reluctant to impose electronics on the vice-chairs and the registrar simply because it would allow me to have things marginally easier. I really believe that it would make their jobs harder, not easier.

It seems that the guys doing the work like paper. Why not give it to them. Measurers can work electronically, email the result to the certifier then print and mail the same stuff to the same certifier. Everybody's happy?

In the process I describe above, nothing changes for the vice-chairs.

The only thing the registrar does differently is that if the map has an "e," he does not scan it and/or send the file to the webmaster. He is still responsible for all record keeping of all the certifications and maps. The only responsibility he splits with the electronic registrar is sending maps to the webmaster.

The state certifiers can choose to participate or not. If they choose not to participate nothing changes for them.

In order for the USATF site to work properly, the course list must be updated to USATF just before the maps are sent to USATF. If this is not done the maps will not appear on site. The map files are linked to the course list in the Access files used by USATF.

So, electronic map filing saves very little time, as it is the physical data-entry of the information on the certificate that is the critical element timewise. The registrar must have the certificate on hand in order to do the data entry.

Mark,

It may seem easy for you and others to get the correct format in your scans, but I have had a few try without success. For me as the course registrar, I would still check to see if the Electronic map was correct.

It would be more work than me scanning myself. I just don't see the gain here.

Pete, if the webmaster puts a map file on the hard drive before the ACCESS database is updated, it shouldn't mess anything up, since there won't be any link pointing to it. Once the database is updated there will be a link to the map, so it will become available on the website. I assume there is a naming convention for the maps on the website.

Gene, it would be the responsibility of the electronic registrar to make sure the map is in the correct format before sending it to the webmaster. But that would be his only responsibility. He would have no part in updating databases or keeping records. That would remain the responsibility of the regular registrar for all certifications. The only change for the regular registrar would be that he doesn't scan maps that have an "e" in the top right-hand corner.

This process would not speed things up for getting the maps on the website, since the same approval process would still be used. The main advantage would be to the measurer who creates his maps electronically. He would be guaranteed that his map would appear on the website exactly as he created it.

Mark,

As long as the measurer follows the policy on map making then the scans will be fine. Your process involves an extra step, which will allow a measurer to do electronic submissions. That's nice, but again why.

First off, the only extra step would be by the measurer and state certifier. The extra step would be that after approving the map, the certifier would tell the measurer what certification number and expiration date to put on the map. The measurer would put that on the map and send it back. Pretty trivial extra step. But even so, the certifier would not be required to do it.

As for why, I see a a few reasons:

1) The measurer who submits an electronic map will know exactly what it will look like when it appears on the website. Most people think black and white means no color. They think it is OK to put grey in their maps. I know I did, and the result was that a lot of my early maps look horrible on the website. Here's a snippit from a map (not mine) I found on the website.

http://www.dukerdog.com/map_sample.jpg

I'm sure the measurer thought he was submitting a B&W map and the original probably looked fine. But what he actually submitted was a black, white, and grey map, and some of those grey dots scanned in as white. The whole map looks like that snippit and is completely unreadable.

2) It frees the measurer up to include things in his map that are not currently allowed. He could include color or grey scale images or whatever. As long as he can get his PNG file size under the size limit, there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to include these.

3) It is a small step that requires almost no change from anyone, and provides a small benefit. But the way big change happens(and pretty much the only way it happens) is through a series of small changes that each, on their own, provide only a small benefit.

If the website was the end of the chain there might be advantage to being able to post color maps and shaded B&W, to suit the desires of those who find our long-standardized format burdensome.

Decades ago the format of a clear and reproducible B&W copy was taken to be our standard. This allowed photocopying, which was necessary as we completed the chain of information all the way to the registrar. When copies were needed, the registrar would be contacted, and the requested map/certificate located in the paper files. It would be copied and mailed to the requestor.

This might be the end of the chain, but might not. The requestor might need to supply volunteers with maps, so they could go to various parts of the course and do their work. He would need to make further copies.

If it was the goal of the USATF website to simply produce pretty maps in color, it would not be very useful to those who might wish to download maps and make a pile of copies. We’d be regressing to the bad-old-days of maps that are illegible when copied.

We have a standard that has worked well for three decades. Yes, we do see maps on the web page that are pretty awful. This is not a failure of the map standard. It happens when a measurer submits a messy map, the certifier lets it slip by, and the vice chair doesn’t catch it. These errors will continue as long as we use humans to do the work.

Posting color and shaded B&W maps on the web site makes it difficult for the next guy in the chain to make clear copies, and is not a good idea.

Just noticed this convo after getting Gene's email today and clicking on the link to this board.

I have a question: What does the certificate look like? Who fills it out and what information are they providing on it?

Ann,

Since the certificates are being scanned and posted online along with the maps, you can see samples of these certificates simply by viewing the maps for recent certifications. For example, see http://www.usatf.org/events/co...p?courseID=OK09033DG and scroll to the bottom (you'll need to turn your head sideways to read the certificate).

The certificates are filled out by the Regional Certifiers who issue the course certifications.

Unless the certificate is formatted in a special way it will not appear with the map on the course search web site.

Usually the certificate is on one side of a piece of paper, and the map on the other side.

Here's a recent certificate

Thanks Bob!

I currently work with several state high school associations to streamline processes such as this.

My initial thought is that the only way to make the electronic process a PLUS for everyone involved is to reduce work and room for error.

If most of the maps are originally created using computer software (which seems to be the case, as opposed to hand drawings, but correct me if I'm wrong), there's no reason why the PRIMARY version of the map cannot remain as an electronic file, with the ability to print it by those who deem it necessary.

Then we have the issue of the certificate - it's a piece of paper right now. But why couldn't that be an online form that is filled out and submitted and connected to the map it pertains to?

This is what I would propose (I can also build it):

1) Measurer creates the map and saves it as some type of image (as long as it is some kind of image file - PNG, JPG, GIF or BMP, it can be handled)

2) Measurer LOGS IN to our system (to be built) with, say, their email address and a password. He or she then creates a new "Certification Request" (maybe that's not the right wording, but bear with me), where he or she will simply give the map a title, such as "Carlsbad 5000" and then upload the image of the map.

3) Certifier gets a notification that a Measurer has submitted a map (yes, we can give measurers and certifiers designations by region so that they only receive notifications pertinent to their region). Certifier can login right then or later and take a look at the submitted request. If the certifier wishes to print out the map and make scribbles, they can do so. They can also see the Measurer's email address in case they have questions or have to request that a change be made.

4) Once the Certifier is ready, he or she can then fill out a certificate form for the Measurer's request. It will look just like the certificate currently looks, except he or she will type into the fields right there on the screen. Instead of a pen-and-paper signature, he or she can simply type in their name as an "electronic signature" - and since they will be LOGGED IN to the system, their identity is already verified.

5) The Vice Chair receives a notification that a Map AND a Certificate are ready for review. He or she logs in to the system, reviews the Map and the Certificate (can be printed out if necessary or convenient) and then marks it as Approved.

6) The registrar receives a notification that a Map and Certificate have been Approved and logs in and pushes ONE BUTTON to email the Map (as a .PNG image) and Certificate (as a PDF or HTML, either one will be small in this case, since it's one page of text) to the USATF Webmaster. Since the certificate would be a separate file, there would just have to be an additional column added to this screen for "Certificate" next to "Map": http://www.usatf.org/events/co...t=view&submit=Search

Thoughts? We can further discuss this at the Annual Meeting but it sounds like too much time is being spent on this process the way it is and quality is being lost in the transmission. And with this process, NO scanning is done.

Ann! Where have you been the last year while we have been hashing this about???

I think you are on to the solution. It will take working with the USATF Webmaster to post the files and programming, but what you have outlined appears to be a very viable solution (I haven't had time to digest it entirely, yet, but the process seems to flow properly).

Not all measurers create maps electronically, and the current process can continue for them. Also, not all who create maps digitally have mastered the conversion to an 8½ x 11, 300 dpi, less-than-500k png file. We would still have to institute an approval process for each measurer, so they have to get approval of a test file before they are able to submit a live map for processing. But, that's not a problem.

What Ann is suggesting makes alot of sense, as long as we have the "pre-approval of file format" step. I would volunteer to be part of that process.

I definitely think this should be discussed in Indy, and will be ready to analyze all positions on the process. I really like that Ann says she can program the forms and pages to facilitate electronic file submission.

Ann we will discuss this, but it's not as simple as you make it. First, the workload will not be made easier. Most maps are not made up using computer software and I have found most measurer's don't have a clue about getting the size to match what USATF desires. Also, USATF doesn't have a person in charge to help us(they are looking). In my view our process is working well. 99% of the maps entered on the site are fine. This past year we have improved our timing for posting from a couple of months to a little over two weeks!

My comments to your points:
1. Measurer's will need much direction as well as our Certifiers in order to get it correct.
2. Measurer's need guidance and the Certifier is that person when the paperwork is submitted. I feel your idea will create a nightmare.
3. There is a lot more than the map that has to be submitted.
4. Certifiers in most cases do not use pen, they type in the info now.

6. There is a lot more than what you say here. The registrar also checks for errors(errors do occur). Next,the registrar must enter info in a data base for each course and then get the maps off to USATF. When recieved by USATF they do their thing and the Registrar then completes the process.

I look forward to seing you at our meeting.

If you would like to further discuss this please give me a call.

As Ohio certifier I have been doing things electronically for years. Some people send me mailed paperwork. Some send it by email. I don’t care how they do it.

When it is time for me to create the final certification map, which includes the USATF certification ID and expiration date, I use either the electronic map that was sent to me, or I scan the paper map that I got in the mail. If map corrections are needed, I contact the measurer, and either he sends me a revised map or he lets me know what change is needed. I make the changes electronically, and I add the ID and expiration date.

I make a .pdf of the map and certificate. It would be just as easy to make a .png copy in the format used for posting at the USATF web site, but I choose .pdf as it’s more universal.

I send the measurer an email informing him that he’s certified, and attach an electronic copy of the official map and certificate .pdf.

If my computer should malfunction, I’d still be able to process the paperwork I got by US Mail.

I also print out five copies of the double-sided map/certificate. Two are mailed to the measurer. Two are mailed to the vice chair. Mailing is done on the same day as the electronic notice is sent. One copy I file with the paperwork.

It would be marginally less work for me to use USPS for nothing at all, but I believe it would cause troubles down the line. Each vice-chair receives material from a dozen or more certifiers. For all of us to get everything in a uniform electronic format would be improbable. It would result in the vice-chair having to write emails about formatting that are presently not required. The paper copies are a uniform format. They also serve as a backup. They are understood by all.

We have seen that our registrar, Gene Newman, feels that an electronic option would add to his work. We have not heard either vice-chair express an opinion on the subject. I was briefly course registrar between when Stu resigned and when Gene took on the job. I can attest that it is a big help when there are no options nor complications. I had to deal with a few electronic submissions, and I found that it added a disproportionate workload to little advantage.

Paper is old-fashioned, but it is robust. It allows backup copies to be kept by the vice-chairs without the need for computers to do it. The same happens at the registrar. Data is secure all along the line.

No one has claimed that going fully electronic will significantly reduce the time between certification by the certifier and appearance on the USATF web site. The critical path is the time it takes the registrar to do the data entry, scanning and naming of files, and sending it off to USATF. This being the case, the only claimed advantage is a small improvement in map clarity.

It will be somewhat of a challenge to get everyone used to a new system. If it's not worth it, then it's not worth it. I agree that we have to make sure the benefits outweigh the initial adjustment to the new procedure.

For clarification, my system would eliminate the need to make sure the measurer uploads a file with exact dimensions, DPI, etc. My program could convert almost any image file to the correct format automatically.

I look forward to this discussion in Indianapolis! See you all soon.

Ann,

Good thoughts - but way too simple.

I have been following these strings about PDF and on line submission of maps and paperwork.

I have become convinced that USATF.org feels it is more efficient to:

Require all maps in black and white (like their TV's? :< ))

Require these maps and paperwork be printed (hopefully a good quality print)

Require measurers/regional to snail mail these items to USATF

SCAN the paper maps (and other paperwork) in to a weird format (.png)that requires the viewer to save or print for a decent view

Post the map on line - where it looks terrible on screen - and where some less-savvy RDs tell me they are unable to save or print

When my color PDFs of my maps are SMALLER in KBs than the same black and white map in .png on the site

This is the Road Running Technical Committee maintaining these procedures. So they must know more about these technologies than the rest of us, right?

(OK, no harm intended here - just having some fun )

Lyman Jordan

quote:

Originally posted by Ann Gaffigan:
Thanks Bob!

I currently work with several state high school associations to streamline processes such as this.

My initial thought is that the only way to make the electronic process a PLUS for everyone involved is to reduce work and room for error.

If most of the maps are originally created using computer software (which seems to be the case, as opposed to hand drawings, but correct me if I'm wrong), there's no reason why the PRIMARY version of the map cannot remain as an electronic file, with the ability to print it by those who deem it necessary.

Then we have the issue of the certificate - it's a piece of paper right now. But why couldn't that be an online form that is filled out and submitted and connected to the map it pertains to?

This is what I would propose (I can also build it):

1) Measurer creates the map and saves it as some type of image (as long as it is some kind of image file - PNG, JPG, GIF or BMP, it can be handled)

2) Measurer LOGS IN to our system (to be built) with, say, their email address and a password. He or she then creates a new "Certification Request" (maybe that's not the right wording, but bear with me), where he or she will simply give the map a title, such as "Carlsbad 5000" and then upload the image of the map.

3) Certifier gets a notification that a Measurer has submitted a map (yes, we can give measurers and certifiers designations by region so that they only receive notifications pertinent to their region). Certifier can login right then or later and take a look at the submitted request. If the certifier wishes to print out the map and make scribbles, they can do so. They can also see the Measurer's email address in case they have questions or have to request that a change be made.

4) Once the Certifier is ready, he or she can then fill out a certificate form for the Measurer's request. It will look just like the certificate currently looks, except he or she will type into the fields right there on the screen. Instead of a pen-and-paper signature, he or she can simply type in their name as an "electronic signature" - and since they will be LOGGED IN to the system, their identity is already verified.

5) The Vice Chair receives a notification that a Map AND a Certificate are ready for review. He or she logs in to the system, reviews the Map and the Certificate (can be printed out if necessary or convenient) and then marks it as Approved.

6) The registrar receives a notification that a Map and Certificate have been Approved and logs in and pushes ONE BUTTON to email the Map (as a .PNG image) and Certificate (as a PDF or HTML, either one will be small in this case, since it's one page of text) to the USATF Webmaster. Since the certificate would be a separate file, there would just have to be an additional column added to this screen for "Certificate" next to "Map": http://www.usatf.org/events/co...t=view&submit=Search

Thoughts? We can further discuss this at the Annual Meeting but it sounds like too much time is being spent on this process the way it is and quality is being lost in the transmission. And with this process, NO scanning is done.

Well you made your point,but it's not correct. USATF doesn't require B&W, it's the RRTC. Why? rather simple it will show fine on the web site. If one follows the procedures then all would be up and running on the USATF web site in about 2 weeks(not bad with snail mail). No matter what is done the checks and balances must remain, hence the time frame may improve by a couple of days-wow! There are many places to go wrong if we start all electronic.

There is no truth that a B&W map is poor on the USATF site. The poor maps are the ones that are not B&W. I have had some show me a color map as the way to go because it added clarity and this didn't happen.

Unfortuantely some people have fallen in love with google maps. I see these as a good map, but it is not B&W. There are ways to convert this to B&W.

The RRTC working with USATF have a good system and it is working well provided one follows the rules. Yes, it could be improved and we(RRTC) will work on this.

quote:

Unfortuantely some people have fallen in love with google maps. I see these as a good map, but it is not B&W. There are ways to convert this to B&W.

Actually there is not really any good way to convert the map images from google maps to B&W. I've tried. You can convert a color google maps image

http://www.dukerdog.com/color.jpg

to greyscale with good success.

http://www.dukerdog.com/grey.jpg

but when you try to convert to B&W you get something that looks like one of the following.

http://www.dukerdog.com/bw_80percent.bmp
http://www.dukerdog.com/bw_90percent.bmp
http://www.dukerdog.com/bw_95percent.bmp

depending on what you set as your black-to-white threshold.

Ah, but even with a "good" conversion to greyscale, the image is still only 72 dpi. The requirement is 300 dpi. This is a good example of what people should NOT try to do - convert a 72 dpi image to a 300 dpi image. A single dot of the image is converted to 17+ dots, which does not improve legibility a bit.

A Google Map is not of sufficient resolution to use for a png (or, for that matter, the map on the back of a cert, if the two images are created independent of one-another).

If I can read the map I really don't care if it is 72dpi or 300dpi. Every street name on that map legible. If you convert it to 300dpi every street name will still be legible.

300dpi is a huge overkill anyway. Any font that can't be read on a 8.5x11 page at 180dpi is not going to be able to be read at 300dpi. The font size where there is a difference in legibility is just too small. Here's an example. I scanned in the same page with two different formats. The first file is a 300dpi PNG, the second a 180dpi PDF.

http://www.dukerdog.com/busy_300bw.png
http://www.dukerdog.com/busy_180greyscale.pdf

If you save the files, open them, and then zoom in, you can see that the 5-point font is legible in both. The 4-point font didn’t happen to print out well on my printer, but this is exactly the kind of thing that happens as hardcopies get passed around. But even if you assume perfect printing and copying, the 4-point font would be eligible in both files. The 3-point font is legible only in the 300dpi file. Now print it on a single 8.5x11 page and take a look at the 3-point font. Do we really want people using 3-point fonts on their maps? Even with good eyes you’d need a magnifying glass.

In the example the PNG file was 560kb and the PDF file 452kb. The PNG file is larger than the PDF file in this case because the page is very busy. For a less busy page, like the following

http://www.dukerdog.com/notbusy_300bw.png
http://www.dukerdog.com/notbusy_180greyscale.pdf

The PNG file is 116kb and the PDF file is 468kb. In both cases the PDF file is less than 500kb.

I think we should change to scanning in at 180dpi greyscale PDFs. I think you would have a hard time finding any map on the USATF site that is legible in 300dpi B&W that is not legible in 180dpi greyscale PDF.

Pete,

Here is a map I just finished that I am submitting for certification soon. In .PNG: http://www.runscore.com/Downlo..._to_Children_PNG.png

And here it is in .PDF: http://www.runscore.com/Downlo...Children_4-Miler.pdf

The PDF is less than a third the size of the .PNG.

Both look fine in color to me.

Help me understand why I cannot submit either of these electronically (via email), and how it is we cannot display either one in color.

Kind regards,

Lyman Jordan

Lyman,

Your maps are great, but they don't follow the standards the RRTC has asked for. USATF has set standards that we must follow, hence your maps should be submittted as a B&W copy only. Sorry, but for now we must all live with it. Look at you maps on the USATF --> MD10008,9 & 13! Things could be missing because of you not following the standards. I suggest you do your maps as the RRTC has asked.

As for dpi, it's clear that we use 300dpi on a sheet 8.5 x 11(2550 x 3300). I'm not saying others can't produce great maps, but we must again live with it.

No problem, Gene. I will follow procedures. But it is moot because I email my map to John Sissala, who then prints it in black and white (loss of quality), and snail mails it to you, You scan it (more loss of quality) and post it.

It would be great if you or someone could explain why you limit creators of digital maps this time and resource-wasting process. I have heard not one cogent thought in explanation yet other than "this is the way we do it".

Lyman, the png file isn't to-spec. It is only 10.837" x 8.01", even though it is 300 (299.99) dpi. The file size is too large, as you noted.

The PDF, on the other hand, is the correct size, other than only having a ¼" border around the page, instead of the 3/8" that is the spec.

I don't know what program you used to convert your original to PDF and png, but the type got funky. I have had this happen, also, so I quit trying to use the program's internal PDF converter, and went to something else, like CutePDF maker.

I also have the latest version of Acrobat Standard (not Reader, as it is limited), and it makes good PDFs and png files. No, I am not encouraging anyone to make png files, but it does a good job, if you use them elsewhere. It is not free, but for anyone who makes lots of maps, and wants to make PDF files from them, it is worth the investment (besides being a write-off). Once you "reduce file size", they work great online, if you give them to the race to use on their Website. You can also give them a png file for their Website, if they so desire.

Lyman said:

"It would be great if you or someone could explain why you limit creators of digital maps this time and resource-wasting process. I have heard not one cogent thought in explanation yet other than "this is the way we do it".[/quote]"

The best explanation is this. USATF has decided that the png format is what they want, as they must fit the map files onto their site. We must follow this format.

We have one person who sends the map files, electronically, to USATF.That's the registrar.

We have hundreds of people measuring courses and producing maps. In order to maintain the sanity of the registrar, the format he receives must be consistent. It is easy to specify a certain format. It is less easy to assure that everybody follows it exactly. If all do not use a common format, the job of the registrar becomes chaotic. He will spend lots of time corresponding with people who don't send quite what they should. I was registrar for a few months, and doing things two ways drove me nuts.

Paper copies are understood by all. Everybody can produce them, even those those who don't use a computer to draw maps.

I receive material in both paper format and electronic format. I send pdf copies of the certificate and map to the measurer. My output to the vice-chair is paper only. Although this is a bit more work for me, I know that the uniform format makes the job of the registrar easier.

Instead of complaining about why RRTC is stuck in the dark ages, why not come up with a way that will accommodate all users of the system, computerized or not, and which will keep the job of information flow as simple as possible?

Complaining is easy. Solving the problem is a bit harder.

I agree, Pete. Complaining doesn't help.

Here's what I have recommended in the past, but not previously all in one coherent flow. So here is an attempt. I believe this methodology accommodates all users of the system:

[LIST]

Measurers submit his/her maps and paperwork to his/her regional in either paper or PDF. I realize most will submit on paper.

Regional requires that maps are submitted in black and white or if in color, in a version that prints clearly in black and white.

After regional obtains any corrected copies as needed, he/she scans the map and paperwork into .PDF format if not already in .PDF.

Regional emails the package to RRTC (Gene) as either . PDF attachments to the email or as an attached .zip file.

RRTC emails Regional if any requirements for corrections and forwards the corrected/approved map to the USATF webmaster for posting in .PDF.

Since I do not work within USATF, I obviously cannot vouch that every benefit of this system can be readily appreciated here. The apparent benefits from where I sit:

[LIST]

Measurers have the option of bypassing hard copies and snail mail for submissions to the Regional. Some will use email.

Regionals need not copy or print anything, lick envelopes, or apply stamps. He/she emails everything to RRTC. Applications arrive a couple of days sooner than at present.

RRTC does away with scanning, since all scanning has already taken place. As RRTC becomes accustomed to saving these emailed files rather than scanning, time savings accrue.

Maps experience no loss of quality from printing or re-scanning in the submission process.

No need for paper files. Electronic files are backed up, as all important data. Saves trees.

Maps display better, print better, and are more readily accessible to the general public.

Lyman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Duane Russell:
Lyman, the png file isn't to-spec. It is only 10.837" x 8.01", even though it is 300 (299.99) dpi. The file size is too large, as you noted.

The PDF, on the other hand, is the correct size, other than only having a ¼" border around the page, instead of the 3/8" that is the spec.

I don't know what program you used to convert your original to PDF and png, but the type got funky. I have had this happen, also, so I quit trying to use the program's internal PDF converter, and went to something else, like CutePDF maker.

Hey, Duane.

You are right. These maps are not yet a finished product - John Sissala has been away for a while, so I have not sent them to him yet. I will fix the margins in the final version.

I saved these images out of Corel Draw, which I use to create the maps. The type is funky because I was attempting to apply an effect I am not familiar with. I was too lazy to undo this effect before posting. Sometimes I use PrimoPDF since it is quicker to save a compressed file.

I would not save or send in a .PNG in any event, because I feel .PDFs serve the general audience of measurers, regionals, and the general public better.

I also submit my measurement data to John in .PDFs. I referenced the USATF paper forms and created Word forms out of them. So I just fill in the blanks. I hope I am using up to date USATF info on these.

Here are .PDFs of the 3 forms (customized for my use):

http://docs.google.com/filevie...BlMDM1YjY2MmEz&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/filevie...c2MzJlZmE4NGYy&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/filevie...A5YTRmMGM4OGVm&hl=en

Lyman

Lyman,

Sorry, but you don't understand our system of checks and balances. There our Vice Chairs, who are a vital part of what we do. Do you really think most certifiers can do what is suggested.

The RRTC has decided to continue what has been working well, hence this issue is off the table at this point in time.

quote:

Originally posted by Lyman Jordan:
Pete,

Here is a map I just finished that I am submitting for certification soon. In .PNG: http://www.runscore.com/Downlo..._to_Children_PNG.png

And here it is in .PDF: http://www.runscore.com/Downlo...Children_4-Miler.pdf

The PDF is less than a third the size of the .PNG.

Both look fine in color to me.

Help me understand why I cannot submit either of these electronically (via email), and how it is we cannot display either one in color.

Kind regards,

Lyman Jordan

We have gone over this many times. You may have the skills to submit the maps as required by USATF( I think - 8.5 x 11 at 300 dpi and less than 300kb as a png), but most don't. As I have said before, our system works and if you want to make maps for your race people then do it, but your submissions should be made as the USATF requires.

I handle over 2000 maps each year and I suggest you find a way to convert your color maps to B&W. Exceptions should not occur for any of our measurer's as it would create problems for our check and balance system. As for PDF submissions, that's been explained that USATF works with a png format only. Bob Buamel has explained the problems with PDF and other forms of scans,here it is!

First, the question of raster or vector formats. To the extent that we need to scan hard-copy maps, raster is the only option. Vector formats are possible only for computer-generated maps.
There's also an issue of file formats for vector graphics. Most vector graphics are produced in proprietary formats, such as Adobe Illustrator. We certainly won't adopt a proprietary format of that sort as our standard.
Anyway, given that we needed to choose a single format as our standard, and given that we definitely need to support scanned hard copy maps, it had to be a raster format. Given that we needed to pick a raster format, the optimal choice was clearly PNG, which is superior to older raster formats such as GIF, JPEG and TIFF. The PNG format is lossless and non-proprietary -- and among all lossless raster formats, it provides the best compression.
Note that aside from choosing PNG as our format, we also made choices involving color and resolution; it needs to be monochrome (black & white) and 300 dpi resolution, so an 8.5" x 11" map is 2550 x 3300 pixels.

JPEG is a "lossy" format, which loses quality every time the image is edited and re-saved. JPEG tends to be best for photographic images, not maps. Our choice was definitely the lossless PNG format.

What about PDF format? Every time somebody suggests PDF, I must emphasize: PDF IS NOT A GRAPHICS FORMAT. It's a file format that can contain all sorts of stuff, including text, vector graphics and raster graphics. Simply because a map was saved in a PDF file doesn't mean that it's scalable. The graphics inside that PDF may be raster images, of any resolution (so when you "zoom in" within that PDF, they may look terrible, full of "jaggies"). Thus, if we simply say that we want maps in PDF format, we haven't said anything about image resolution.
People often produce PDF files by initially generating a document in some proprietary format (such as Microsoft Word for text) and then "printing" to a PDF file. In the same way, if they start with fully scalable graphics generated in a proprietary program such as Adobe Illustrator, and then convert to PDF, they will indeed get a PDF with fully scalable graphics. But even in this case, if a measurer sends such a PDF to a Certifier, I suspect that many of our Certifiers will have a difficult time adding the necessary annotations (Remember that the Certifier needs to write in the assigned course number and dates of certification validity) and then preserving it as a fully scalable PDF.

Another issue involving PDF files is that our maps are posted on the USATF site where they must be easily available for both screen display and printing. If we post PDF files, screen display can be problematic. Web browsers cannot display PDF files directly, but require a plug-in (usually Adobe's PDF plug-in) to display them in a browser window. Displaying a PDF file this way (using PDF plug-in) tends to be slower than direct display of a PNG graphic by the web browser. More seriously, the required plug-in isn't even available for all web browsers on all platforms. For example, on the Macintosh platform, people running the popular Firefox browser cannot view PDFs in a browser window (mainly because Adobe hasn't seen fit to provide its PDF plug-in for any Mac browser except Safari); thus, Mac users running Firefox would be forced to download the PDF file for every map they wish to view. PNG files are handled directly by all modern browsers and work well for both screen display and printing.’


Best Regards,
Gene