Same Certified Route - Different Start/Finish

As long as they run the course covering the same distance it's certified. Of course the mile splits will be different.

Thanks, Gene.

Lyman, you are correct. This question is arising often. Today, I once again have to deal with a "mofification" request and would appreciate any input.

In the case you present I presume that by contiguous you mean it is a circle or closed-loop course. Then certainly, it should not matter where we place the combined start-finish line. But if that's not the case then we need to discuss further.

Here is one link to a discussion started in 2008! https://measure.infopop.cc/eve/...8102977/m/6221000882

Please read the topic and share your thougts. Remember -- "We certify courses, Not races"!

Thanks for directing me to that discussion, Jeff.

My current position on this topic with clients is: "If we modify the course, we are starting all over. USATF requires a new certification measurement".

If there are guidelines as to when exceptions to this are made, I am still not clear on the what, how , and especially on the why. There still will be work involved in a modification - re-recording and marking splits, a new map.

With respect to the course in my question, I convinced my client that it would be to their benefit to finish the race in their parking lot near their main entrance, rather than a point on the existing course. Knowing that this client had net revenues of $475 Million in 2011, I failed to be concerned about billing them for a totally new course.

Thanks to a tip from my state certifier, I've discovered a new and very nicely written “policy on adjustments to certified courses”.

For better or worse, the policy leaves a lot to certifier/measurer discretion, i.e., it does not clarify exactly how much “adjustment” , or where, is to be considered acceptable in lieu of making a new course.

Also, I suspect in some cases, an "adjustsment", which always requires a new certificate sequence number under the policy, will also define a "new course" in the event the "old" course is otherwise still valid. So that blurs the lines between "new course" and "adjustment"!

The policy can be found here: http://www.usatf.org/events/co...tion/adjustments.asp

re: the policy on adjustments at
www.usatf.org/events/courses/c...tion/adjustments.asp

A pertinent question has arisen: Since the policy appropriately demands a "new sequence number" be issued for the altered course, then what, if anything, happens to the "old" course?

In the two cases I'm working on now, there is no problem with the existing courses. If the "old" course remains valid then the distinction between "altered" course and "new" course is moot. The altered course is in fact a new course with a new certification number.

It might be less work for the measurer, but to the external world we have created a new course. Is this right?

Jeff,
I think you are stating it correctly. In a number of cases I have had to go back to a prior year, and put in a number higher than any that were used that year. I think you're hinting that this could get folks confused and I agree. Once or twice I've been smart enough to put the current year in the title of the course, as in "2011 Woodrow Wilson Half Marathon", which nevertheless has a cert number starting with VA10.

Thanks for posting this link to the RRTC polcy. This clears up a lot of questions I had on modifying a course.
The question of "how much “adjustment” ... is to be considered acceptable in lieu of making a new course" should be left to the discretion of the measurer in consultation with the state certifier, I believe. One cannot establish a hard and fast rule to address all situations. I have modified many race courses over the years. If the modification is very simple, such as moving the start line so that only the last, say, 200 meters of the course is affected, then an adjustment is clearly appropriate. However, there have been situations where I have had to adjust the beginning, the middle, and the end of a course. In that case, re-measurement of the whole thing is probably advisable.
So a rigid policy is not really appropriate. Perhaps some flexible guidelines could be put in place, like:
<10% of course length changed = adjustment
10-25% changed = up to certifier
>25% changed = new course (must be re-measured )
-Don Hughes

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff:
Thanks to a tip from my state certifier, I've discovered a new and very nicely written “policy on adjustments to certified courses”.

For better or worse, the policy leaves a lot to certifier/measurer discretion, i.e., it does not clarify exactly how much “adjustment” , or where, is to be considered acceptable in lieu of making a new course.

Also, I suspect in some cases, an "adjustsment", which always requires a new certificate sequence number under the policy, will also define a "new course" in the event the "old" course is otherwise still valid. So that blurs the lines between "new course" and "adjustment"!

The policy can be found here: http://www.usatf.org/events/co...tion/adjustments.asp

First, the old course may or may not be valid. If it is unusable, then it's taken off the list as Active. Otherwise, it is still Active.

As for what % of course is adjusted is going to be allowed for the policy. That would be difficult to define. I will bring this topic up at our Meeting.

I feel when a section of a course needs to be changed or maybe two section, then that fits the policy. Multiple changes are adjustments, but this to me doesn't fit the policy in my view.

Again, thanks for bring this up for discussion.