Question 28

Matt,

Diagrams would be great, but in some cases a description can do the job. I feel the Certifiers need to be more careful on what's accepted. The VC's do a check as well as me(the registrar). Things do slip through the cracks, but that's not an excuse.

Just this weekend, a Certifier approved a course map that shouldn't have been done. After a conversation with the Certifier, it was discovered that he really tried to get a better map. However, because of a short window of time he approved the course because he felt it was accurate and the runners would be short changed as not running on a certified course.

I have given noticed to the race director and measured to submit a better map to be placed on the USATF web site. I feel if it's not done in a few months, then this course would be marked as unusable. Does anyone have any feelings about this approach?

The certification is effective on the date the certifier receives acceptable measurement data, right? So there is no reason to rush a questionable map through the system before race day. If the measurer wants an actual certificate by race day, then he needs to submit an acceptable map at least a few days before race day.

Mark is correct, but unfortunately the map was accepted. Now the problem is what do we do. As I stated, I requested the race people and measurer to make a better map or I will remove the certification.

Gene, the scenario you presented is difficult. The event contracted to have their course certified. They hired a measurer to do the job, but the measurer failed to meet the standards. That is not the fault of the race director. To invalidate the certificate due to laziness of the measurer doesn't seem right. The measurer is who dropped the ball, not the event.

This is precisely where the de-listing of the measurer comes into play. The measurer should be given a set amount of time (one month seems like more than enough) to submit a proper map, or he will be de-listed. If he doesn't submit a good map, maybe we can create a basic map to be posted. If we have the proper descriptions, we should be able to work with the race director to get a map for posting. Not ideal, but if the measurer won't comply, should the event be penalized?

I agree, but the RD isn't returning calls and the measurer did a poor job in other areas. This race should never have been certified because of two reasons; map and funny numbers. The Certifier knows he made a mistake and says this will not happen again.

The measurer will be delisted if he doesn't get me a map. As for us making the map, good luck as I have tried, but there are too many questionable areas.

The race will not be uncertified, unless I don't get a map. I will continue to try to contact the RD as they have two months.

Gene,

I volunteer to create an acceptable map if the measurer can provide me with turn-by-turn directions and if it helps this situation get resolved.

I spend as much (if not more) time creating the S/F/TA diagrams on a map as I do for the rest of the map, including route, road names, mile marks, etc. I was taught by David Reik (CT certifier when I started measuring) that said diagram had to include a written description as well as a visual one, to eliminate any doubt as to where these critical locations are. I've found this to be helpful on more than one occasion when a utility pole has been renumbered.

Jim, Thanks for coming back to my original post about question #28. I think that the start/finish/turnaround diagrams should be mandatory as they're the most critical points on the course and some measurers have a hard time giving good written descriptions.

Matthew, while I agree it seems they should be mandatory, I have let some through that have very clear descriptions, and no chance for error.

"3 feet north of center of traffic-light pole on SE corner of intersection" is pretty precise. But, I agree that if the description is not sufficient, a diagram is needed. Most maps I get have diagrams. I will occasionally ask for a better diagram, also, if the description is lacking.

The map specs in the manual do state that diagrams are required for S/F/TA locations. Should not have a problem getting them, if descriptions are not precise.

I always include a written description with the diagram. That way there should be no confusion.
You'd be surprised how many people can't tell compass directions. I get confused on a twisting course myself sometimes, which is why I've adopted Hugh Jones' method of describing points in relation to the running direction, e.g. "20 ft. past mailbox #130 Main St."

And I, on the other hand, don't like "past" or "before" in descriptions. These descriptions assume that the person setting out the course is following the course as a runner would. I have set out many courses where I don't follow the direction of the runner. I just get to the point where a sign is needed. Now I have to figure out which way the runners are coming from. If I happen to get that wrong, then I set out the sign incorrectly.

No one solution. I like compass directions, but my car and GPS have a compass in them. Even if I get disoriented, my car knows which way I am going.

Duane, Hugh's maps always have a note indicating that those terms refer to the direction the runners will follow.
That said, I've made the same kind of error you describe.
Still, I think RDs or their workers would be better able to figure that out rather than compass directions. I was a Boy Scout, but I don't trust that everyone else was.

A major "money race" laid out a mile marker in the wrong place a few years ago because the map drawing did not indicate the location of the split, and the text description of this location failed to record the direction of runners at that point. The layout team placed the marker on the wrong side of the road, facing the wrong way. Since this mark was on an out-and-back section, it caused momentary confusion for a lot of runners.

Since seeing this, I have got in the habit of prefacing every split description with the run direction. As in "Going northwest on Elm Street". Since many course layouts are done from vehicles, who must approach a mile split going the opposite direction from the runners' path, I find this extra bit of wording helps.

My Android has a good compass app. I have a good sense of direction, but like most of us, I can get turned around on a cloudy day. This is when I pull out the compass. Alternately, I just look at the on line imagery when I get home to establish the compass directions.

I agree that most people have poor compass direction awareness. But, as Duane says, vehicles and GPS devices have reliable compasses. Smartphones have compasses. There is little justification for a course layout worker not being able to use compass directions for timing points. I tend to use "before", "after", the # of feet from fixed objects, and the compass direction because of feedback from people doing course layouts. Even for some large races, as most of us must know, course layout is often delegated to volunteers who may have little experience. They need all the help they can get.