Split descriptions

Duane, I think there's room for both here. I always try to get at least a couple of on-site references but sometimes it can help to give an approximate ballpark distance from a major landmark-- one you may not have measured to or you have no wish to stop at (as in you're hurrying across this highway before the light changes or something).

Of course there are times when I wish I hadn't been so specific (like when I say "west of" instead of "east of"!).

I have got in the habit, for major races that I expect to modify in the future (e.g. Marine Corps Marathon, Army 10 Mile, etc) of adjusting all the splits to certifiable accuracy. (I guess I should state that the splits are certified.) But I find when I do this that I can safely pick up from any marked point on the course and measure a changed portion. To do this (i.e. adjust all the points to be accurate) it's best to avoid writing any numbers or letters as you mark the tentative points; that way you don't have to go through and "erase" marks that you change.

Does that measurer think a race director is going to go out there with a metric tape (if he even has one) and measure off to a tenth of a meter? I consider runners lucky if the split points are located within a few feet either way. The main thing is to get them in the right general location, rather than a telephone pole or traffic sign away.
I generally tend to eyeball the distance from a landmark, but try to be very specific in my description of said landmark, so the split won't be placed 150 feet up the road.

A bit of a misunderstanding - I agree with Bob, that, if specific measurements are included, an "about 150 yards south of [somewhere]" is perfectly fine. I am referring to descriptions where the only description is "about 50 feet from [somewhere]". That, to me, shows lack of effort.

I don't tape my marks, I step them off. "30 feet east of phone pole 123/456" is fine, based on pacing. If they are within 3 feet of my mark, they will find it. If you (Jim) eyeball to the next phone pole, you will have the same situation - they will pace-off the distance you offered, and they will be very close to your mark. But you don't put "about" in your descriptions - that's what I am talking about. I don't want to see "about" in the description, if there aren't more-precise measurements listed.

A couple quick points. Jim's comment reminds me that there are a variety of "audiences" for the point descriptions. You're describing so that the RD or assistant can either find the points you marked, or put them in place based on the description. The course "marker" is the first audience, and it's probably good to give them a few things to go on-- they might not use all we give them but this will help for the times when the tree has been cut or the sign removed.

But the intended ultimate audience is the runners. They should get kms or miles that are pretty close, but as Jim says, a few feet either way will not make them any less useful.

A third audience is myself or another measurer, who may need to go to the course and modify some part of it. That's where I want the point really carefully placed and accurately described. Takes some more time at first but I think it's worth it-- if it's one of those longer courses that you're going to end up modifying somewhere down the road.

Don't want us to get too smug about these descriptions though-- there are lots of courses that run past woods or grass fields or whatever, and there just aren't that many great landmarks to use!

Oh sorry, I THOUGHT this was going to be "quick"!

I'm another one in favor of accurate descriptions, but when one is measuring on a bike path in a rural area or forest preserve, and there's not a landmark (like a utility pole- or even a culvert under the path) within a couple of 200' tape lengths, you do what you can do...

I sometimes wonder how we should identify points on courses that lack permanent reference points in the near vicinity of splits. That 4' diameter tulip poplar that was healthy when you measured may have been blown down by race day on a subsequent year. One race I measured had so few discernible features that I just took photos of all the timing points from 3 or 4 perspectives and marked them with bright lines and letters. I instructed the RD to print all 25 or so pages in color, which she did. After the race, she told me course layout went fine. This was more work than I usually care to do. However, the client paid me additional for my time, so it ended up being OK.

Duane, you record GPS split positions, right? These points should be plenty accurate for mile splits, shouldn't they? Since most phones will have GPS capacity soon f they do not already, is it worthwhile to use GPS coordinates on our maps to identify mile marks?

Another consideration - just between us measurer folks... for the big races that Dave Katz and Bob Thurston and others measure, near-certifiable accuracy of the splits makes sense to me, even though attaining that level of accuracy means re-adjusting these points after post-cal most of the time. However, when, after post-cal, I find I must lengthen my course by say, 20 feet, I rarely change any of the splits. I can guess this is how most of us operate for the garden variety courses we measure. There are only 2 runners in my region I know of who are compulsive enough to notice when a mile mark is off by a few feet or a couple of yards ("my mile one split was 5 seconds fast and my mile two was 5 seconds slower than it should have been"). I do not worry about these guys. I hear it from these guys sometimes about how the distance from the last mile mark to the finish is long (I usually notice this myself when I run a race). It happens frequently that we lengthen that last course segment without adjusting the splits, I assume.

So I suppose I am saying that the reality out here is that major races are measured to a higher standard in terms of splits than non-major races. This seems perfectly fine to me because I assume that most of us routinely measure splits to a degree of accuracy that is greater than the accuracy of tangent-running in races, as has been noted here.

Yes, I record GPS coordinates. Regarding the cell phone GPS coordinates - CAREFUL! If you don't have the GPS receiver turned-on, the phone gives you coordinates based on the cell tower(s) you are registered on. They may be a mile from where you are. Always check the GPS coordinates in GoogleEarth, if you are not getting them from a GPS-associated program that will put the waypoints onto a map or satellite image.

I still note distance to some landmark. I will note my clicks at that landmark, then I can accurately describe the distance, even if it is 400 feet. I always take pictures of each location, so that is a definite help to whomever is setting-out the course.

Lyman, I have to call you on this : If you are 20 feet off on a 5k, you shouldn't be adjusting the Start or Finish - you should be remeasuring. That is .0012 difference. Just sayin'.

I rarely have to adjust post-cal, as I do my pre-cal in the dark, when it is cool. When I measure, it has normally warmed-up, and my post-cal is almost always fewer clicks than pre. Maybe it is just because I always measure at dawn, but it sure would be beneficial to set out a local calibration-check course at the measurement, so you will know when you are still at the course, if you have to adjust it. If I routinely had to make adjustments, I would set marks out every time I measured.

I guess my point is that if you know you have to adjust while you are still at your course, it should be fairly simple to make the adjustments for a 5k or 10k course, so the splits are accurate. But, back to the .0008 factor; any adjustment of a course that is within tolerance will be minimal. Your two rides should show splits within a couple feet of one another, at worst.

Dave will chime in, but we generally measure most of the NYRR courses at night. It is generally impossible to ride in Central Park before 9 p.m. due to walkers, joggers and cyclists. After that (a bit later on a nice summer night) it slows down quickly and we have the place pretty much to ourselves (and the occasional raccoon).
Makes for some late night/early morning drives home, but we almost never have to adjust any of our marks. And yes, for some of the big races, intermediate splits are certified, since it's possible intermediate records might be set.

I almost always describe splits as "approximate" even though they are probably within few feet of a certifiable distance. I also describe the location of the start/finish (the certified points) as "exactly."

I take care to get a very accurate measurement between landmarks and the start/finish locations, using a steel tape and triangulation, or in some cases from the edge of a storm drain, when it's in a straight line along the path of the race route.

For splits, I measure the locations using a wheel, often starting on the road, adjacent to a utility pole and rolling up to the split. There is likely some parallax in determining the point adjacent to the landmark and maybe even a bit of wobble, rolling the wheel, hence the distance is "approximate." I'm fairly sure that the description is within one or two feet, but it's certainly not exact.

I also photograph all of the points of interest along the course.

If there is a landmark I will always get my tape out and measure the distance and i guess I expect too much but if the RD can not find the mark I do expect him to get his tape measure and measure the distance from the landmark to the split from the map also because I think the runners deserve to have the course as accurate as possible. If no landmarks I can measure from I will write no landmark or I will tie a ribbon to a tree and hope no one tears it down. Also I take pictures and write on them and give them the RD. I tried to put one of my pictures on here but didn't know how to copy it to this message. If anyone would like to see one give me your email address and I will send it to you.
I have an aerial view, street view and then a picture I take of the landmark and the split and I modify it to show the distance from the landmark to the split. I will tell you what though after seeing some of your fees and for what I do I need to raise my prices for sure.
As far as any adjustments if I make any I do not usually adjust the mile splits

Duane, if I was mentioning 20 feet off for a 5K, that would obviously necessitate a re-measurement. I do not think I specified 5K in my original post...? I do measure other distances, you know. I just measured a 10K where the 2 rides were off 5.3 feet. Considering all the traffic I had to dodge, I thought that was not bad. Not 1.4 meters in 42.5K like Dave, but good enough for the local high school race - right?

I was off 20 feet in a recent 20K measurement. That was more than I expected. However, this was one of those situations where I was measuring on a hot day and a thunderstorm blew in on the second ride. The temperature dropped 15 degrees in about 30 minutes. Less than ideal measuring conditions. I ended up leaving the mile splits as is. Make sense?

Lyman, yes, it makes sense. I was just pulling your chain about the 20 feet. I figured it was for a marathon, but I could not resist the 5k comment, since you didn't specify. (Plus, I want to make sure new measurers reading this realize that 20 feet is not an acceptable variance on a 5k.)

For intermediate splits that are not certified, I simply pace off the distance to the landmarks. I know from wearing my race director's hat that most RDs won't do more than that when they are marking the course themselves, even if the descriptions are provided to the nearest centimeter. My feeling is it's generally wasted effort.

I agree, with the exception of major competitive/money events or a race with a "preme" competition. Even pacing off some distance from a landmark to find a timing point seems too much for some RDs around my part of the country. "Can you freshen up the paint marks?" is the more likely level of effort.Seems to me the pursuit of "split perfection" is the enemy of "good enough".

I think RD are the same because even though I do expect them to get the map out or at the very least refresh the mile marks I have seen them put the mile marks 100 yards past where they were supposed to be at.

Just because some race directors are too lazy to pace a mile point, I don't think that should lead us to get lazy in our identification of the marks. If it is 240 feet from a point, indicate that on the map.

It is much more professional to supply proper information, and let them decide whether to use it or not, than for us to get lazy and not supply proper descriptions of splits, even when they are not certified. If we get lazy, we lose credibility.

Agreed Duane but do we need to get out a tape measure and indicate "24 feet 5 3/4 inches from storm drain" when the RD is going to pace it off to put down the mark (if we [and the runners] are lucky?). Too much precision might prove off-putting to most of them.

Jim it may prove off-putting to them but I agree with Duane in that we can not get lazy and just pace it off. We take the time to calibrate and then ride the course with the best precision we can why should we get lazy and not get the mile splits even if it is 24' 5 3/4" from storm drain?
Just maybe some runner will check it and see that the split wasn't in the right place so the RD would have to explain why it wasn't right according to the map instead of the RD saying the measurer did a bad job of locating whether the split was to be.

I am not saying to get out a tape measure. I am fine with pacing the distance. What I object to is using "approximately... from [a point]".

J.A., we use the SCPF, so I, in no way, advocate using a tape to measure distances that are fine when paced. I think less-than-foot precision is not only a waste of time, but also misleading. The inches noted are from one ride only, and would most-likely be different if described from the second ride. Unless you are certifying splits (most splits are not certified), you are not putting the split precisely between measured points. If you are not doing that, then putting inches, much less, fractions of inches, it overkill, and not really any more accurate than pacing.

All I was advocating at the beginning of this thread, is "stop using 'approximately' in our descriptions.

Again, I agree with Duane and Jim. I use pacing to locate mile split locations. A couple times a year, I "calibrate" my paces by walking the length of my 300-ft steel tape several times and averaging the count. I use that number of feet per pace to convert paces to feet for the mile split locations. My experience is that most race directors of smaller (<1,000) races would pace the split locations, or as many do, just guess.

It seems that 25-Ft 3-1/2-In from a storm drain is polishing the cannonball. It also begs the question "From the center of the storm drain, or the edge, which edge?"

I do try to remember to note (in my notes) the split location relative to the nearest intersection or feature that would show on a map. This helps figure out where, on the course map, the mile split identifier is placed. Duane's GPS coordinates would resolve this, but I forget half the time to note GPS.

Here's an example of why split locations are important.
At yesterday's USA 20 km championship in New Haven, whose new course was measured by Pete Volkmar, the leader Luke Puskedra went through the following splits (I was on the lead truck & can verify this):
5M 23:11 (4:39)
6M 27:54 (4:43)
7M 32:33 (4:39)

His 10 km split, recorded at a timing mat and on the truck, was 28:34. That would mean he ran the 2,000m from 5 mi (8+ km) to 10 km in 5:24, which computes to about a 4:20 mile pace.
Matt Tegenkamp, who caught Puskedra at about 15 km and pulled away for the win, set a national championship record of 58:30. Even though the second half of the course has a few more hills than the first, that would mean his second half was almost 1:30 slower than the first.
I did not have the certification map with me, just Pete's map without split locations, so was not able to check the placement of the 10 km split point. However, there are some who are questioning the overall accuracy of the course.
Fortunately, Kevin Castillo sent a masters AR, so the course will need to be validated. If I wind up performing the validation, I will check the split points, especially the 10 km.

Jim,

I suggest you ask Neville permission to do this Validation. Make sure the race is aanctioned and meets record standards.

Will do Gene. It was definitely sanctioned and meets timing and drop/sep standards for record purposes.
I'd like to do the ride while the marks are still on the road and before it gets too cold.

Good conversation. I'm just surprised to hear so much about pacing or using a measuring wheel etc to describe locations. I figure I'm riding on a measuring wheel so use that. So when I'm going through to put down mile or km points I will stop at good reference points that are near each point, either before or after and often both. Take readings and notes, later you can go back and translate all the differences to feet, meters, yards, whatever you want.

I usually take more reference measurements than I need, and later choose which ones to use. Kind of like not rounding until the end.

Yes I use pacing when convenient, as in when I've got to a point but need a distance from something I've already passed, etc. Also if I'm not on a bike for some reason.

Just to underline what several have said (re 3/4 inch etc), always good to remember that precision is not the same thing as accuracy.

By which I assume you mean "accuracy is not only good but necessary; precision is neither necessary nor necessarily good"...?

Accuracy is what we strive to provide: a measurement stated to a degree of precision that our method(s) of measuring will justify. But overstating our results using more precise units (nearest quarter inch, etc) is not a good idea-- as Duane said, it's often misleading, depending on the measurement method. It's just like writing down all the numbers we get from an operation on a calculator when the numbers that produced this result are not that precisely known. "Significant digits" is a good topic to explore along these lines.

My answer to your question would be that precision is absolutely necessary. But we should be aware of what degree of precision we can support with our methods.

All that being said, remember to round off at the end of calculations, not in the middle!

I spoke to the New Haven RD yesterday and he admitted he might have put the 10k split in the wrong direction from the described landmark.
The best laid plans . . .

Gene or Jim can you tell me what is involved in validating a course or how you go about validating a course? Thank you.

The course is ridden by an independent measurer, usually "A" grade. Only a single ride is done, and no SCPF is used. Thus the course should come out 0.01% long; however, if it is AT LEAST the stated distance it passes and any records set should be accepted. If it is short no records count, and distance must be added to bring it up to at least stated distance (and preferably to 0.01% over). This is more relevant if the course is pre-validated, so that any records set during the actual race can be announced at that time rather than waiting for a post-race validation, which can take several weeks or even months.

Jim Thank you. I am taking a more active interest in measuring courses and everything that is involved in measuring a course. Maybe I am wrong on this but I thought you had to talk to witness of the race to see where the runners actually ran because you can go by the certification map but if the runners do not run the way the map is setup and you measure that way if the measurer did a good job it should never be short. In other words is there more to it than just riding the course like you said?
Also I am wondering that every year there is some kind of seminar at some meeting with USATF? If so when and where is it at this year?

J.A., you are now referring to two separate processes.

Verifying the course length (previously referred to as "validating the course") is the process of re-measuring, as Jim describes.

Making sure that the runners followed the approved route is a different process, and is part of the Records Committee's responsibility. We, as measurers, aren't involved in ascertaining the runners ran the proper course.

In order to help prove a performance is an American Record, one of the items the records committee requires is evidence the course was run as measured. The course measurer can help on race day with that item. Here's part of USATF Rule 265 regarding the validation requirements of a record performance.

2012 USATF RULE 265
RULES APPLICABLE TO LONG DISTANCE RUNNING EVENTS

8. A national or world's best open class performance must be validated as follows:

(a) Witnesses to the actual race must provide to the Validation Chairperson of the Road Running Technical Council of USATF, or a designee, a complete and precise map or description of the shortest possible route that was available to the record claimant during the race and must verify that the course measured was the course covered.

(b) The actual course must be evaluated and approved as accurate by an expert designated by the Validation Chairperson of the Road Running Technical Council.

The IAAF has simlar reqirements for World Records but adds the requirement that the original course measurer, or another "A" or "B" grade measurer in possession of the complete measurement data and maps must validate that the course measured was the course run, normally by riding in the lead vehicle. (2012 IAAF Rule 260.28.d)

Thank you. -- Justin

I have been in the lead vehicle of several national-class races to observe that the course is run as measured, and I'm sure that's how David Katz got his catbird seat in the press truck in London last month.

Thanks Justin. I guess I probably need to read some of the rules this winter and get a better understanding what running a record curtails.
I see it says open class but is the same procedure followed for an age group record?

American age-group records do not require a witness that the actual course was followed. The record application, however, requires the race director or referee to sign a statement that the course was monitored to prevent course cutting and to the best of my knowledge all finishers ran the course as certified and in accordance with USATF Rules 243 and 244.

Thanks Justin, Does someone also validate the course also? Just wondering because the 24 hour loop course I measured an 81 year old set an age group record for most miles in 24 hours. I did not hear whether or not the course was validated.
Is the person that measured it notified if the course was validated that way he who know if the course was short or alright.

A course would considered for a post-event verification (ie. remeasurement), only after there was sufficient evidence that the performance matched or bettered the American Record. It often takes some time before the record application is completed with the required timing sheets, lap scoring sheets, signatures, etc. The RRTC Validation Chair would review the evidence and determine how and if a course is to be verified.

Active courses that have been verified have a status of AV. Those can be displayed in a search of the certified courses.

Thank you. -- Justin