Renewall vs. Remeasurement

We are finally coming to the end of the Renewal process. Your point is one that was considered, but the RRTC policy is all courses(including Calibration Courses) after 2010 will only have a 10 year life.

I see your point, but how many courses last 10 years? Also, after 10 years it may be difficult to find the PK nails. I believe that IAAF/AIMS courses only a 5 year life.

Hence, the answer to your question is no. You may find it interesting to see how your work of 10 years ago compares with the new measurement.

Whoa!

Maybe few races last ten years, but some do. I believe that if the original measurer has been in frequent contact with the course, and has seen it remain unchanged, he or she ought to be able to submit an application for certification based on the original measurement. Not a renewal, but a new application.

I have two cases in point.

I have a calibration course in front of my house that has remained unchanged for 19 years. It was remeasured once when the street was repaved, and recertified.

The Upper Arlington 5 mile race was measured in 1984 and the course has remained unchanged. It has been renewed.

I will remeasure these if it is the price to be paid to retain certification, but I believe it to be wasted effort, and I am not a fan of wasted effort.

I see no slippery slope here, as the original measurer has kept both courses under observation and has seen no change.

I would allow only the original measurer to make such an application. Let’s reconsider this.

The beauty of this approach is that it requires no new edict of any kind. There is no present time limit between the time of measurement and the time of application for certification. So, if I measure a course I don’t have to immediately apply for certification. As long as the course is what I measured, I could apply five or ten years from now. Normally, why would I want to do this? Expiration of an unchanged course which I originally measured would be a good reason. Of course, it would be helpful if I still had all my data.

Nobody except the original measurer is in a position to do this.

It's not that I disagree with Pete and I feel this question should be discussed at the Convention. I just don't see it as what was suppose to happen in 2011.

I don't see this as replacing expiration. I see it as a brand-new application for certification, with a brand-new number being issued.

I also see it as something that will be quite rare, as it requires application for certification by the original measurer.

This makes a lot of sense.

Some courses don't age well. Others do. Many measurers don't do this for more than ten years. Others have been at it longer than that.

I probably renew a handful of courses a year. Very few of those meet the criteria Pete has proposed.

It's silly for us to require that a course that hasn't changed be remeasured to remain certified.

If the original measurer can find the points that define the course and is willing to testify that the rest of the course is as it was originally measured, let's accept the original measurement and issue a new certification number.

I concur with Pete and Jay.

If the course is maintained (I put refreshed marks on some of my more-popular courses each year), and there is no change to the course, the original measurement is still valid. A new app. 10 years from date of measurement should not invalidate the measurement and app.

I believe that what is supposed to happen in 2011 is that every course expires after 10 years. The intent is to make sure the course is certified as the race is currently using it. Most will have to be remeasured, due to the original measurer not being around. Without the original measurer, the measurement data is only on-file with the Registrar and Regional. No one will vouch for the measurement in that case.

But, if the original measurer still has his/her measurement data, and verifies that the course is still being used as previously certified, what is the reason for duplicating measurements? The measurer will have to spend time verifying the use of the course either way. No time-savings for that aspect, unless the measurer is involved with that race each year. If the measurer finds the course is not used as certified, a re-do is in order. Otherwise, why remeasure? Like Pete, I despise wasting time, and this situation seems like bureaucratic busy-work.

Rick Recker's not going to like this if he remeasured Grandma's Marathon this summer. But if he hasn't he'll be ecstatic.

New England is famous for courses that don't change for years, even decades. The Falmouth Road Race is perhaps the most famous. Closer to home, the Westport Summer Series consists of 10 progressively longer races, and is now in its 47th year. In that time, two of the courses have never changed, but of the remaining 8, 3 changed their start/finish location by a few hundred meters, 3 others were rerouted to avoid increasing traffic on Rt. 1 (but more than 15 years ago). I certified all but one of them beginning 9 years ago, and was about to begin remeasuring them all this year as their certifications expired. I actually rode one last week - came out w/in a few inches of the original distance (note that these races are odd distances, with S/F points established over a long history).

I'd have no problem remeasuring them, but would prefer not to, especially on the longer ones. There has been no road change other than repaving, so a remeasurement would doubtless yield virtually the exact figure as the original ride.

I think Pete's proposal is a good one, and would find favor here among New England measurers.

Another angle from which this makes sense:

From time to time a course is changed but portions of it remain the same from the previous configuration. Thus it is not necessary to measure the entire course- only those parts that have changed.

My recollection is that RRTC guidelines on situations like this were that the measurement was only as current as the oldest part of it. If the guidelines were followed to the letter, the course would be considered certified for less than 10 years because the 10 year window and this the certification of the oldest sections would expire before the window on the new sections would.

If this change were implemented, there would be no question about this. The certification would expire 10 years after the last measurement, as long as the measurers were the same.

The impetus for "what was supposed to happen in 2011" was, if I remember correctly, the experience that people who knew nothing about the courses were trying to get their certification extended. There will still be instances of this, but including the original measurer in the process at least provides some validation that the course is, indeed, the same.

Let's make sure the discussion continues on this.

Jay and all.

We must discuss this at the convention as Pete has brought up a good point. Pete and others have expressed something that's not the policy posted on the USATF site. Here it is:


USATF Course Certification - Expiration/Renewal Policy

Because courses degrade over time, the USATF Road Running Technical Council decided in 1992 that all certifications would expire automatically 10 years after the year of issue. Initially, however, expired courses could be renewed upon testimony that the course was still in use and had not been altered. Then, in 2000, RRTC decided that such testimony is not adequate to overcome the uncertainty that inevitably creeps into every course. Therefore, all courses will simply expire after 10 years, without any possibility of renewal, and must then be re-measured in order to be recertified.

I will throw another situation into the mix - calibration courses.

If nothing has changed on a calibration course, and it has been maintained and used throughout the 10 years after it was initially measured, why can't that be certified using the original measurement data? Cal courses are simple to determine if anything has changed, and being straight lines, you cannot possibly alter the course. If the original landmarks are still there, I see no reason not to re-submit the original data, as Pete suggested.

The key to credibility in this discussion is that only the original measurer can apply using old data.

Gene:

Agree that this merits discussion at the convention, and just want to ensure that it stays on the radar screen.

A couple of things to remember here:

As the current policy does not address how long it can be from the time a course is measured until the time an application is submitted, this really doesn't require a change in policy
This nicely addresses the situation where a course has not changed since it was measured and it seems silly to conduct another measurement on it.
This just doesn't come up that often, but it appears it's the right solution for when it does.