Two courses, one cert number?

Any closed-loop course, if certified at the minimum loop length, is valid for every multiple of the base distance. This can be noted on the certificate if desired.

The notations of "0,0" for drop and separation give notice that the course is a closed loop.

This doesn't answer your question. Perhaps referring to the certificate number in race advertising would help. Another possibility is to add "multidistance loop" to the course name.

Thanks Pete. I’ll add a note on the certificate that the course is certified for all multiples of the 5-km distance.

John,

Better put it on the map too. That's what people download.

This raises more procedural questions for the certifier.

It is well-established that integral multiples of a certified loop course are also considered certified. That is not necessarily the case with out-loop-back courses.

This course, however, is an out-loop-back course with a common start/finish point. Should the certificate call it an out-loop-back course, or does this particular combination of circumstances make the course a loop?

Or should the course map show the start/finish point as a "multi-loop turnaround" or something like that and the course thus be described on the front of the certificate as a loop? One could make the same argument about a straight out and back course.

I realize I'm nitpicking here, but I think the example raises questions about why we list the course configuration on the front of the certificate.

This may be a tangent but there's something else about multiple out-back courses that I just became aware of. I certified an out-back 10K course, intended to be doubled for a 20K. I assumed you put a cone on the start line and runners go around it for their halfway turnaround. But the guy doing the timing (using chip-timing) wanted that turnaround moved away from the start line so that runners wouldn't go over the mats and register a false finish. I didn't budge as this was the night before the race, I told him to use one half of the road for the turnaround and keep the mats on the other side for the finish. That's what he did. If I had measured for his layout preference, it seems that the course would lose its adaptability for various multiples of 10K. I wonder if others are finding that chip-timing is putting weird constraints on course layout? I also wonder if others share my impression that RD's are prone to just make "little" adjustments on their own when they can get away with it? (I ran this race so they had to do it right.)

Bob, I don't think your post is tangential to the original post at all. It is important that the timers know that they must leave room for a turnaround for those continuing.

When making the map, John, you could add the turnaround area next to the Start/Finish in your Start/Finish detail. That would also show runners that the certification is considered for multiple-lap distances.