Skip to main content

Here is the agenda for our meeting. Comments are welcomed and your attendance would be appreciated.

RRTC Agenda for our 2013 Meeting
9:30am till 12:40pm Sat. Dec. 7th, 2013

*Note all reports will be listed on USATF web site by
NOV. 7th

Vice Chair Reports

Course Registrar Report

Data Officer’s Report and BUDGET

Validation Report

Webmaster information

RRTC Bulletin Board Report

Workshop Reports

Chairman’s Report

Discussion Topics

A. Changing certificate to allow smaller font sizes

B. Part (c) of Rule 265.5 needs to be removed, as it's misplaced within a rule that begins "For all road records." The language in 265.5(c) should be moved into Rule 265.3, which would become a more extensive statement on re-measurement requirements, including world & national records as well as "other" records. And for the world & national records, it should include the IAAF exception (original measurements by two "A" or "B" measurers

C. Annual Award for an individual who has given outstanding service to the RRTC in honor of a person that has passed away?

D. Should we remove from our Application for Certification of a Road Course and from our Certificate the statement about configuration of a course(loop, pt. to pt, ect)

E. What is the allowable difference between two tape measurements of a Calibration Course.

F. New Policy for Certifiers with them becoming USATF members.

G. Should we establish a policy to require a measurer to be a member of USATF.

H. Entering units of measurer on the certificate and Database-How should they be entered?

I.If a course listing is over a month old and the cert gets revised or changed ie: original errors or the race wants the contact changed, then a new number should be issued and the filing fee should apply.

J. Should we modify the Application for Certification of a Road Course, so that the measurer supplies the name and certificate # of the calibration course, instead of mailing the cert and map for the cal course?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

If changes are being made to the application anyway, I would suggest that we also add to the statement in calibration data section that says the counts should not be more that 3 different on rides in the same direction. I would add an explanation of what to do in case the counts ARE more than 3 different. This is not something people are going to ask about until they are out on the roads faced with the situation.
J is interesting, I thought we did that over a decade ago. I'd been just sending the Cert # for the calibration course to Paul Hronjak for as long as I can remember. That was one of the reasons I was asking for the calibration courses to show upon the web site search years ago. So based on that if we haven't done it, I'd recommend we do. ;-)
I can't attend this year, but here are my comments:

A - Yes
B - Ok
C - No, it eventually becomes awarded to whoever's next.
D - I don't have a problem with the course description field as it is now.
E - I've never had a difference of more than 1/2 inch. But, if we introduce an allowable difference, we should describe a remedy for occasions when the two measurements are out of range.
F - I don't have a problem with Certifiers being USATF members.
G - No. Is USATF that desperate for membership?
H - I thought this was already established.
I - I don't have a problem with a fee, but if it's just a clerical correction, I don't see a need for a new cert number.
J - Yes. I know the applicaiton has always asked for copies, but I doubt that certifiers have enforced this one. I do think that the application should show the cert number for the cal course that was used when measuring a course.
Yes, that's the box. It's clear from it what is required, but it's not clear what to do if the requirement is not met. It should say you need to continue to make calibration rides until you get 4 that meet the criteria and discard the ones that do not. Perhaps an asterix with a footnote would be the best way to handle it.
It's important because measurers won't even think about it until it happens to them on the course. I've gotten a couple apps with bad calibrations, and the forms they sent included that box with the note. They did nothing about it, and I have to believe part of the reason was there are no instructions about what to do.
I won’t be at the USATF meeting, and I no longer hold any position in USATF or RRTC or IAAF. Nevertheless, I offer my position on the RRTC agenda items for what value they may have.

A. I’m for making smaller font sizes available, as long as it is handy and adds no confusion.

B. I have no position on Rule 265.5.

C. An annual award sounds nice, but I can recall a meeting of another committee which was discussing to whom to award their award. They had already nominated their high-flyers in past years, and were stuck. They finally came up with somebody, but by the time they did no one really cared. The award was meaningless. Our work is its own reward, and I have no enthusiasm for an annual award.

D. This is a good idea in my view. The course map gives all the necessary information. No need to put the course configuration on the certificate.

E. This is not a bad idea, but after thirty years of not doing it, do we really gain anything? Few layout errors in a cal course, aside from bungling, are likely to cause a problem.

F. Other committees may object if we don’t require our certifiers to be members, and an argument could ensue. I feel that what we do is a large benefit to USATF, though, and some certifiers may have zero benefit from membership. When I was a certifier I was a member, but I would rather not have been, as I had no interest in USATF outside of course certification. I resented being taxed for the privilege of helping.

G. Requiring measurers to be members of USATF would be seen as bullying. Measurers are valuable people, and this would discourage some from participating. If F and G are are adopted, will we need to create a new RRTC position of Membership Overseer to see who is complying?

H. Units of measurement have been dual for as long as I can remember. I can see no need for change. It will add to the certifiers’ burden as they work with the measurer to get things straightened out, an in my view nothing significant is gained.

I. No opinion.

J. Mailing the cal course map insures that the measurer actually has seen it.

All in all, our end product is a system which provides information about certified courses. Changes in what we do should be evaluated on their effect on our product. If it adds work, the benefit should be significant. Otherwise it’s just busywork.

Here are two proposed additions to the agenda:

1. Eliminate the 10 year expiration date for a course, and replace it with not showing the map on the online database.

2. When a course has a small change, or a series of them, give the course a number which reflects the current year. People searching for the latest course are likely to become confused when they search for the latest version.

3. Eliminate oversight by the vice-chairs on the certificates they receive, unless a discovered error is glaring. Sending a certificate back to a certifier once he has issued the certificate should only be done in extreme cases. I know of one certifier who resigned over being micromanaged.

I recognize that these views are unlikely to be adopted, but I have always adhered to the KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid).
The reason for the maximum allowable difference between measurements of calibration courses is really more for information purposes rather than actual enforcement. New measurers don't have any idea what a reasonable difference is. A statement on the app that says a half inch difference is typical and no more than 2 inches is allowable would be good. Right now there is no guidance, and by the time the measurer gets back home and talks to the certifier, it's too late.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.