Skip to main content

21 replies

Question to Regional Certifiers Regarding Point Descriptions

nathanporchnathanporchMember
Hi Everyone,

I wanted to get some feedback from the other RC's regarding what we are accepting regarding point descriptions.


My message has been this to Measurers: When recording Start/Finish Points, it's important to remember that you are recording a description to a POINT as opposed to a LINE. It is from that POINT that your Start/Finish LINE will extend from. A nail should be placed at the POINT if possible but in all cases, there must be two measurements to that point from fixed objects in the area. Measurements should include feet/inches, fractions of inch are not required. Additional information can be included to further clarify beyond the measurements. However, an inset detail of the measurements is generally sufficient.


I recently assumed responsibility of a new state and sent this message to the Measurers in that state. I was asked by one of them to clarify this statement and told that they generally use descriptions such as: In line with the SW corner of the storm drain. Since a storm drain is a pretty permanent structure, I can see the reasoning in accepting this as a valid description. What are the thoughts concerning this?

Along the same topic, I often find descriptions of S/F & T/A points that all seem to fortuitously fall perfectly even with fixed objects. Experience has shown me that this rarely happens with anything other than a fixed and shared S/F but almost never if they are offset from each other. Has anyone discussed this concern with their Measurers?

One more thing that I'm seeing a bit of in the maps in this new state are S/F & T/A points with descriptions that include words like "approximately", "about", "almost" etc. This could be acceptable if they are in reference to additional descriptions regarding a point outside of the measurement descriptions but are we in agreement that these words should never be used in regard to a measurement of verified points (not mile/km points)?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

K keithstoneMember
On the point of "seem to fortuitously fall perfectly even with fixed objects" I can say in my case it's not fortuitous at all. I very deliberately look for easily identifiable fixed objects to use for course points, particularly turnarounds, and adjust other points accordingly. I always try to have some not likely to relocate object (fire hydrant, manhole, utility box, etc) as start or finish. I do this to increase the odds the course is laid out properly on race day. I'll confess I even lengthened a half marathon by a few feet to put the start by a fire hydrant and leave the finish at two telephone poles because I knew the race organizers would never put it by the nail anyway. If you're within SCPF I think the priority should be do make sure the course can be documented as laid out and markings placed on race day accurately by someone besides the measurer. That means documenting using points that can be found even if the nail goes missing.
R robfrenchMember
This brings up something that I was going to ask my state certifier, but I might as well post here. I have seen essentially the same descriptive statement "X feet from the manhole cover" (or some fixed object, e.g., hydrant, post, etc.) apparently pictured in three different ways on map details: measured from the near edge, the center, and the far edge of the permanent object. Given the lack of scale to the maps and the imprecision of the drawings themselves, I would want the text descriptions to stand on their own, e.g., "X feet from the center of the manhole cover" or "X feet from the southernmost edge of the manhole cover." I rarely see this level of specificity. If everyone understood that distances should be expressed as between objects, i.e., not including any of the object itself, then we'd be okay, but the mapping doesn't indicate a universal interpretation or application of "X feet/inches from ____." If I express something as being X feet from a parking meter, and I've measured from the side closest to the destination mark (start, finish, turnaround) by pushing the end of the tape up against the meter post, I can see an RD on race day hooking a tape to the far edge of the meter and measuring it that way. Unless the text specifically directs otherwise. Granted in this example the difference is in the weeds, but nevertheless it's a preventable source of error. Another issue is trees, especially fast-growing ones like white pine, which could easily change a measurement by several inches over the course of a certification's lifetime. Or am I overthinking the inches?

Perhaps this should have been posted elsewhere - given (a) I'm not a regional certifier, and (b) it's not directly responsive to the original post. Sorry about that - realized after the fact.
genenewmangenenewmanRRTC Chairman
Your not overthinking this. Your point about the manhole cover is good. Either state a specific description of the manhole cover(middle or edge) is best. However, if it's not opposite this then a second point would be best.

Now, I agree about trees. They are never a good thing to use. Not only to they grow, but the really aren't permanent. You have a new State Certifier and I am sure he would agree.
jimgerweckjimgerweckMember
This is why you should landmark from at least 2 points. If someone else measures from the wrong side of, say, a manhole cover, their measurement from the storm drain on the other side will be off by the width of the cover (actually more, since they'll probably measure from the wrong side of that object as well).
Speaking of storm drains I always wonder whether to measure from the edge of the metal grate or from the edge of the concrete the grate sits in. I almost always opt for the former and make that very clear in my detail inset.
AdminAdminMember
Yes it's important to be specific about where on wide landmarks you are referring to, edge or center. And I always try to avoid trees. Not only do they disappear, but your description of that "small" tree may not be very accurate in 6 years.
But I do think we need to be careful about not seeing the forest for the trees. Saying just the manhole rather than the center of the manhole might result in an "error" of a foot. (Error in quotes because we aren't that accurate anyway. That "error" might actually make the course more accurate for all we know.) I think it's far more important to, as Jim says, describe the location of start/finish/turn-arounds relative to 2 landmarks rather than one. And also to show a diagram of the start location as well as give the description. Taking those actions prevents an inadvertent "east" rather than "west" in a description from a being a disaster to being a question from the certifier when he sees a contradiction between the description and the diagram.
nathanporchnathanporchMember
I agree, the text descriptions should stand on their own. I try to consider the variations of how my map might be interpreted and address that in the description. However, because of being so specific, sometimes the text description can become very wordy and the insets provide good reinforcement. Software produced, color mapping has really helped me better represent the area that I'm describing. You're correct that many maps are lacking specificity in this regard. It's important for RCs to work with measurers to "up the bar" in this regard.

Trees are, in my opinion, horrible choices to pull measurements from. They grow, they fall down and from what point on them do you measure is open to interpretation.

quote:
Originally posted by Rob French:
This brings up something that I was going to ask my state certifier, but I might as well post here. I have seen essentially the same descriptive statement "X feet from the manhole cover" (or some fixed object, e.g., hydrant, post, etc.) apparently pictured in three different ways on map details: measured from the near edge, the center, and the far edge of the permanent object. Given the lack of scale to the maps and the imprecision of the drawings themselves, I would want the text descriptions to stand on their own, e.g., "X feet from the center of the manhole cover" or "X feet from the southernmost edge of the manhole cover." I rarely see this level of specificity. If everyone understood that distances should be expressed as between objects, i.e., not including any of the object itself, then we'd be okay, but the mapping doesn't indicate a universal interpretation or application of "X feet/inches from ____." If I express something as being X feet from a parking meter, and I've measured from the side closest to the destination mark (start, finish, turnaround) by pushing the end of the tape up against the meter post, I can see an RD on race day hooking a tape to the far edge of the meter and measuring it that way. Unless the text specifically directs otherwise. Granted in this example the difference is in the weeds, but nevertheless it's a preventable source of error. Another issue is trees, especially fast-growing ones like white pine, which could easily change a measurement by several inches over the course of a certification's lifetime. Or am I overthinking the inches?

Perhaps this should have been posted elsewhere - given (a) I'm not a regional certifier, and (b) it's not directly responsive to the original post. Sorry about that - realized after the fact.
K keithstoneMember
The basic point is reproducible measurements. If a single point is easier to identify and describe it should be used and described with adequate clarity. If "10 feet north of the edge of the drain in front on 456 Bumpkin St" is clear to the observer adding "75 feet diagonal of the south edge of the driveway to 475 Bumpkin St" as a 2nd measurement adds little value. If you have to move the finish line 8 feet because the turnaround is 4 feet away from an easily identifiable point in the middle of the road you should do it.

The description can't just be for us geeks, and us geeks need to make a conscience effort to lay out and document courses in ways the people that will be marking them without our assistance will understand. The poor schmuck looking for the turnaround or mile marker likely won't have a 100ft tape or an assistant.

I once went out early to a race and took my wife as an assistant so could make sure it was laid out properly because the race had a history of inaccurate distances. The turnaround on the course was measured from three points, and we meticuously moved the start and finish with steel tape to account for a new registration area. During registration someone took the turnaround cone to help with parking because there was no obvious reason for a cone to be sitting where it was, and the volunteer turned everyone at the guard shack which was obvious and we had a 2.9 mile race instead of a 5K.

Do I now alter courses to whenever possible to align perfectly even with fixed objects? Yes I do.
duanerussellduanerussellMeasurer
Keith, I disagree with altering courses to align with landmarks. We try to be accurate, and moving to a landmark removes accuracy. I know we are not precise, but if the movement adds or subtracts 1 second from someone's time, it may make a difference to them. I don't believe in dumbing-down a process. I want people to step-up and do things right. Call me Pollyana. But, I would rather describe a point as "8' south of light pole 123/456" than move the point to be next to the pole.

Just me. But, I could not train a measurer to move to a landmark just so someone didn't have to guesstimate 8' from a pole.
kevinplucaskevinplucasMember
A push for additional course map documentation does NOT seem to serve a purpose of greater accuracy. Is “greater accuracy” really needed more than the current accuracy? Undoubtedly the accuracy of a course measurement is communicated thru the course map drawn. Over the course certification history, course maps examined for verification have held up pretty darn well. If I remember correctly there are less than 4% of all courses that fail - verification measurements naturally begin by referencing the course map. Course maps come from a wide range of styles with varying end point details. Yet, course “accuracy” nevertheless holds up.

Have any scheduled verification measurements NOT been able to be performed because of the failure of end point detail on a course map?
K keithstoneMember
Duane, my point is if your turnaround is 8 feet from a landmark, move your start or finish 16 feet because odds are on race day the cone is not going to be in the right spot. Try to make at least two of the three points (start/TA/finish) located at easy to find (and document) locations. If that means altering the course so be it. You'll preserve the accuracy of the race day layout by intentionally looking for landmarks to use instead of just putting things where they fall. Now if something's 8 feet that's not too big, but I've seen maps with "153 feet diagonal from point X and 77 feet diagonal from point Y". Accurate as hell, but unless someone has a wheel or long tape around how they going to find that race morning if the nail is obscured?

To Gene's point I wouldn't get upset if a certifier asked for a better description. Paul Hronjak always used to tell me the course must be able to be found by someone from out of town that doesn't know it. I would get upset if a certifier questioned my critical points ending on key landmarks after I go through the trouble to put them there intentionally.
duanerussellduanerussellMeasurer
Keith, if a certifier questions your critical points landing on landmarks, instead of nearby, once you explained your method, it would likely be accepted.

Certifiers see shortcuts from beginning measurers, and sometimes from experienced measurers. It is better to ask and have it explained, than to not ask and have something not stand up to verification. Certifiers try to be sure the course and descriptions are accurate, so there is no reason to have doubts about future work from a measurer. Understanding a measurer's methods, such as yours, helps them understand the measurement and the map.
B bobthurstonMember
Good discussion. I want to defend trees as landmarks: sometimes they are all we've got, and at other times they are really prominent aids to finding a point. Yes sometimes they die or are removed but hey, other things change too. That's why we collect a bunch of reference points not just one or two.

I also think for most purposes we can discuss distances in the direction of the course, so that if I say the turnaround is 58' past a fire hydrant, you would measure 58' from the point in the road that is even with the fire hydrant, not get out a tape measure to measure diagonally from the hydrant to the point in the center of the road. An exception might be where you are prohibited from placing any marks at all on the road.

I agree with Keith, that it is better to select points that are really easy to find, even if you have to lengthen the course a bit. By how much is the question; I'm fine with 2-4 feet but I would not want to add 16 feet for example.

Start point vs start line? On a great big avenue I usually try to give reference points on both sides of the road, recognizing that it is a line.
pastmemberpastmemberMember
I agree, Bob. Except, few clients are as up on botany as you. Do you really think they'll be able to tell the difference between a willow oak and a white oak, even with your fine little sketches?

For a start, finish, or turn around, I like to identify it as a point - the intersection of at least two lines, with all of the start or finish line outside of that point. Seems the simplest solution to me.
B bobthurstonMember
Maybe not between the oaks. But most can tell the difference between a 5-foot diameter tree and a 2-foot diameter tree, and in later years folks can even guesstimate how much the tree might have grown in x years since the measurement.

On the point vs line question, I don't think it's a big deal either way. As a practical matter, for someone trying to locate a point when setting up for a race, I think we want to keep things simple, which is why even with a definable object has a great advantage, and why I would still prefer measurements in the direction of running rather than taping from landmarks and determining where the arcs cross.

I do think it's important to be encouraging to the folks who are spunky enough to try measuring courses-- we need more of them! Yes, nudge them into being more complete, or ask them to fix their maps as needed, but put the critique inside a "praise sandwich" if you can!
B bobthurstonMember
Maybe we should explain more of what we mean. I am not against cardinal and intermediate directions, N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW-- and I try to use them most of the time. But I don't think using these is the only way to be precise.

I think (but not sure) we are talking about the same kind of marks, ones that lie along the course we are running, and Duane's point is to use directions like east, north, etc rather than "before" or "past". One reason cited is that in setting the course you may take shorter ways to get places other than following the course as the runners do. I get that (although I'd think a good map would show you the direction of running).

My advice to measurers is to get at least two references for points whenever possible. It's helpful if one reference is to a major, easy-to-find landmark like a road intersection, and another is a more local reference once you're nearby. (e.g. 100 yards past this intersection, 13 feet before a storm drain). Something else I do, and will try to do it more often based on Duane's point, is to "double-label" points: "35 feet past (west of) the signal light", etc.

Being somewhat redundant is a good principle, I think. Give folks plenty of chances to get things right. Lyman noted that not everyone knows types of trees, and in the same vein I'd guess that not everyone is good with compass directions, and some may not know which way the runners are going . . . anyway let's give the information in a few different ways.
pastmemberpastmemberMember
To your point about timing point directions, Bob, my experience is that very few of my clients over the years have much appreciation for cardinal/primary intercardinal (compass) directions. Of course, we'll always use and record them for additional clarity. But we are always providing maps with directional arrows. So, if we say "50.5' AFTER the green and white hydrant on the right side, anyone performing course layout can grasp that these directions are given in the "coursewise" or running direction.

I have had clients call me while performing course layout to ask such questions as whether the hydrant that I recorded as on the east side of the road means the right side or the left. When I have the space on the map, my habit is to record as follows: Mile 1: On Elm Street going N. 50.5' past (north of) the green and white hydrant on the right (east) side of Elm in front of 123 Elm Street". This seems to help.

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×