Skip to main content

I have been telling measurers that they need to put the mile or kilometer mark descriptions on the same page as the map unless the course is a half marathon or more, which I thought was kind of the unwritten rule. One measurer pointed out that the manual said you should put the descriptions on a separate page to avoid clutter on the map. I mentioned this to Bob, and he changed the wording to say it is preferred to put them on the same page.

But then I started thinking, is there really much of reason anymore why we prefer splits on the same page? What are people's thoughts on this?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I usually do not include splits on the map unless they help me define the course. Without a detailed location of the split I don't think they add any value especially since the certification does not include splits. My maps are cluttered enough with all the data needed to clearly define the route.

I prefer to keep the map focussed on the course and give the race director adequate information in a separate package so he/she can accurately locate all splits. I used to use a photo file with distances from physical structures, like power poles, marked on the pictures. Now I record a split waypoint using my GPS when I measure, adjust that using Google Earth, if needed, and give a GPS file to the race director. This saves me a huge amount of time and allows the split to be quickly located using a hand held GPS to within a few metres. It also means no paint marks on the road and the crew putting out the signs find it much easier and quicker than looking for paint marks or reading a split manual.
My strong preference is to have the descriptions on the map page. One page while trying to set out the course is easy to deal with. Two pages are not as easy to handle repeatedly.

If the split locations are described properly, anyone can find them. Race directors lose maps and paperwork. If the map has split descriptions, anyone can download the map fro the USATF site, and have all the information they need to set out the course properly. I dislike maps that do not show splits, and do not have a split-description page with them. To me, that's an incomplete product.

Sorry Paul, but I feel that we should put on the course map all the information required to properly set out the course for a race. A runner that wants to preview the course, or do his training runs on it, should have the split descriptions. If we only did the paperwork for the race director, we wouldn't have a site where anyone can download the course information.
Agree, although one must weigh whether in order to get the splits for a half or full marathon on the map they are so small as to be virtually illegible. But in most cases, I'm w/ the majority here.
That said, I just did a half marathon that required a separate page for the split points.
BTW, Pete might have a slightly easier time fitting all those splits on the map since kilometers don't seem to exist in Eastern Connecticut Wink
I like to include split descriptions on the map when there is sufficient room. My rule is not to use a smaller font than 9 points for these descriptions.

I personally do not care for maps that cram in the splits in tiny fonts. As someone who does a lot of course layouts, I find that I must digitally clip out tiny timing point descriptions, enlarge them, and then print them to make the text useable on race day. There are some fine maps on that, to me are marred by too much barely readable text and too little map. Including all of the splits for nearly any marathon map seems counterproductive to me.

When I cannot fit all the splits on the map, I prepare a separate document for the organizer. It contains full descriptions of all the timing points, course directions, and any needed course restrictions and layout instructions. I use 14-point font. I get appreciative comments from my clients for this.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.