The word Replace on a Certificate.

I have never indicated a course "replaces" another for that very reason, even if a race is switching to a new course and has no plans to ever use the old one. Unless construction makes an older course unusable, I don't see the value in removing a course from the list.

Some races want to replace the old one because they prefer a different route. Hence, the old course will still show, but the new course asked to have the old one replaced.

The value in removing the course from the list is there is no confusion as to which course is being used. With the course list now being pretty much accessible to anyone who wants to look at it, I can see where such confusion would be possible, especially when there are multiple courses with the same name. We sometimes get around that by including the year in the course name, but not always.

That being said, I'm with Jim in my opinion that we shouldn't remove a legitimate course from the course list, even if it is no longer being used by the entity for which it was originally measured and certified.

I'd think the guidance to send out to measurers and certifiers is that if you put a course number in the "replaces" field on the application (and thus on the certificate), that course WILL be removed from the course list, so if the old course can still be run, that field should be left blank.

I'm with the "keep it if it's runnable" crowd. To do otherwise opens the "who owns the course?" can of worms.

I always add the year measured to the course name if it is for an existing race using an active, runable course. It is none of my business which certified course the race director decides to use. It is also none of my business if someone else (who didn't contribute to certification) uses the course.

Assuming for the moment that we are going to remove a course from the list only if it becomes unusable, "Replaced by" would be a lot more useful to the average runner than the current "Replaces." But it's more work for the registrar.

Mark, I'm confused.

On the certificate, the "replaces" field tells the Registrar to remove the named course from the active course list.

On the online course register, doesn't the replaced course simply drop off?

Where does "replaced by" enter into the picture?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the big picture here kind of boils down to "who should determine whether or not a course should remain on the active list- those who arranged to have it certified- or those of us who maintain the course list?"

I don't have strong feelings either way. With the course list now in the public domain, anyone can read it, and I can see how there could be confusion as to which edition of a number of courses with the same name was used for a specific event. I can see the argument for keeping as many courses certified as possible, but I can also see a race organizer's arguiment in favor of removing a course from the list if they are certain they will never use it again- even if someone else possibly could.

Removing courses from the couse list makes that list less cumbersome, but ading courses back to the list is more work for everybody involved. Not sure if the lighter weight is worth it.

I never remove a course as was decided by the RRTC a few years ago if one writes a course to be replaced by whatever.

If one states the course in unusable, then that course is removed from the active list.

I don't think we should remove a course from the active list as maybe next year the race will choose to use the old course.

Good point Gene. For instance, a race decides to change its course due to construction. Next year, the construction is finished (does that ever happen in America?) and they decide they want to go back to the original course. If that has been "replaced" it may be hard to document.

I have used Pete's system of adding a year to a course when it is changed. Several NYC courses also have years appended to their titles. It's a simple, easy solution.

I agree with you, Gene, Jim. I just measured a HM for certification whose route had to be changed temporarily due to construction. When the construction is complete, the old course can be used just as before. There will be no reason to measure it yet again, since its expiration date is still 5 years in the future.

Guys, if entering something in the "replaces" field on the certificate doesn't automatically generate an action from the Registrar, then why do we even bother with the field?

Maybe replace should only be used when a course is unusable?

Still the problem occurs when a race has a new course and they may want to use the old course in the future. Hence, it's replacing that course for a period of time.

If the old course is unusable, and we put the old cert number in the "Replaces" field, the old course is marked as inactive. If it is unusable due to construction, the course would have to be remeasured post-construction, anyhow.

I don't see how, if we only use "Replaces" when the old course is unusable, that would create any issue. The old cert cannot be resurrected post-construction.

But, as a certifier, it is not up to us to decide why the measurer populated the "Replaces" field on the application. We need to be sure that all measurers know what "Replaces" means - not that it is a new course for the event, but that the old course is no longer accessible as mapped, by anyone. Maybe, we could put a "Reason" field on the application, so that the certifier will know why the "Replaces" field is populated. Otherwise, it will almost always require communication with the measurer before we can complete the certificate.

There are numerous situations where construction makes a course unusable for a year or two, but does not change it.

If we're going to have the "replaces" field on the certificate, it should mean something. Current RRTC policy, if I understand correctly, is simply to ignore anything in the field. The only way a course is removed from the course list short of its expiration, is if it fails a verification measurement or if someone specifically asks for it to be removed.

If we're going to retain the field, then let's develop clear guidelines for when it should be used and what happens when it's used, and communicate them clearly to certifiers for communication to measurers.

The "Replaces" field doesn't mean anything in the sense that it is for information only, to help a user figure out which course map is currently being used for a race. But when you think about it, the same is true for the "City" field.

I think though, that the "Replaces" field is redundant information. The certification number can be used to figure out the most recent map for a course. The most recent map is not necessarily the one currently being used for a race, but it usually is, and trying to determine that using the "Replaces" field isn't any more reliable.

So I kind of agree with Jay. Maybe we should stop using the "Replaces" field.

The replace field needs to be addressed at our meeting. My feeling is we need to add a 2nd box on the certificate as "unusable". Hence, if one want to use a different course in a particular year, then they are replacing the old course. The old course is still usable. However, if the old course is no longer usable, then the 2nd box as well as the replace box would be checked.

How about "Replaces unusable course # CO11001DCR"? I don't like to use "Replaces" when the old course is still a viable course. The new course is but another of certified courses available for use.

As Mark says, races can use different courses each year. Just because a new course was certified in 2011, does not necessarily mean that course will be used in 2012 and 2013. They may revert to an older course for a year, or two.

Duane if you look at explanation of Fields, then you will see this definition for Replace as it's below.

Replaces - If this course replaces an older one, this column displays the ID number of the older course that got replaced. This does not imply the old course is unusable as it's still Active.

This was not always our way of dealing with replace. Prior to 2008, the registrar removed courses. In 2008, we decided that we should not remove a course unless it was deemed unusable. I do like your idea, but it goes against the definition.

Then "Replaces" is not accurate. To replace something means the other item is no longer around. The old course is still viable, and can be found in the list.

Someone else had suggested we only use "Replaces..." when the old course is no longer a viable course. To me, that makes more sense than keeping the old course on the list, but putting "Replaces..." in the table. That indicates to me, and possibly new race directors looking for a course, that the old course is no viable.

Semantics, but words have specific meanings, even if we put forth a different definition.

I agree with Duane 100%. I have worked with a couple races here that have changed their courses on an almost yearly basis (well, not quite, but it seems that way). And at least one has reverted to TWO of the previously certified routes.

In all of these cases, I have NEVER checked the "Replaces" box on the cert - I see little benefit, and a greater potential for harm, when doing so.

My feeling is it should be removed from the certificate form. And I'm not sure what benefit is derived from substituting an "Unusable" field. If the course is indeed unusable due to construction or act of God, the race organizers certainly know that. Is that something that helps the average runner? I don't believe so, and it creates more work and the possibility of error and inaccuracy for us.