Validation adjustment

I'd leave the course alone. If you shorten it, what do you do when the next guy measures it at 10006 meters? Lengthen it again? Finding a 10 km course at 10019 meters is not all that unusual, considering the effect of using the larger constant in addition to the SCPF.

The course passed validation and the measurement was not significantly different from the layout.

Pre-validation of any course is a great idea. More of the bigger events should seriously consider course pre-validation as a part of normal pre-event activities. Why wait until after records are set?

Post validation is equally important but simply doesn’t allow for pre-event adjustment if needed. Event directors don’t want their courses to validate short of the 0.9995 standard. Most courses pass validation, but when they don’t it is naturally a messy issue. Who wants to tell the event director their course is short and pending records will not be ratified?

The validation process, either pre or post, is completed by an experienced course measurer – an expert course measurer. The pre or post validation measurement outcomes are always considered the final word based on a single measurement. Remember, validations are performed by expert measurers. Courses that validate longer than 0.9995 standard are said to pass validation. The validator offers to adjust the course up to the full 1.001 advertised distance and a new certificate is issued. With the course adjusted up to 1.001 it is no longer subject to future validation measurements and will be elevated so that all future records will automatically be approved upon documentation that the course was properly set up and run.

It is my suggestion that a special Validation Measurement Certificate be issued for any course passing validation. The wording at the bottom of our measurement certificates is not appropriate for courses passing validation. Why not rightly recongized the higher level of course measurement?

Now what about those courses that are found by the expect measurer to be longer than the stated distance and the SCPF? Should the same course adjustment standard be applied by shortening the course to 1.001? Remember, validations are performed by expert measurers. Validation measurement outcomes showing a course to be short are never questioned. The same adjustment should be applied to courses found to be longer than 1.001.

What if the validator’s measurement yeilds a measurement result within outside 0.0008% comparison of the orginal measurement? Can’t we still rely on the expert measurer’s result? Is a comparison to the orginal measurement even relevant? Remember, validations are performed by expert measurers.

If a course is validated, 3 measurements ( 2 of the original measurer and 1 of the validator ) indicate that it is long enough. If a course fails validation and the validator extends it, 3 measurements ( 2 of the original measurer and 1 of the validator ) indicate that it is long enough.

However, if a course is validated and the validator shortens it, at most 2 of the 3 measurements could indicate that it is long enough. In some cases only the validator's 1 measurement would indicate that it is long enough. This procedure doesn't seem reliable.

Dale Summers

In the US to certify a course more than one measurement is required. That which gives the longest course determines the certified distance. Therefore, based on the single validation measurement and that of previous measurements, a new course may be certified for a longer but not a shorter distance.

Neville, I know what you mean, but to be clear, you mean that we use the shortest rides for the length. The shortest ride gives an adjustment that makes for the longest course.

Any old fool can ride a long ride by wobbling all over the road. Long rides don't show us anything useful.

When you say the measurement "that which gives us the longest course", you are not referring to the longest bike ride, but the course that is then derived from the shortest bike ride.

For it is the shortest ride, or the sum of the shortest segments, that we use to calculate the adjustment to the course to produce the certified distance.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
Here's the scenario:
If the validation ride comes out several meters longer than the stated distance..... so should the course be adjusted to make it exactly the stated distance?

NO - Because we work on the idea that the shortest ride, or the sum of the shortest segments is correct, not the longest wobbeldy ride. The certified course is derived from the shortest ride. (giving us the longest course)

Therefore if the verifcation ride shows the course was long, then the prior ride is shortest (least adjusted counts), and that measurement is the controlling measurement used to adjust the distance.

On the other hand, should the verification ride prove to be shorter, then it becomes the controlling measurement, not because it was done by a more senior measurer, but because it was the shortest ride, or the sum of the shortest segments.

If the verification ride shows the course is long, the original stands, if the verification ride shows the course is short, the original is adjusted down.... BECAUSE we always use the shortest ride (least adjusted counts) to derive the certified distance. QED

James:
In the "official" method for course measurement both rides are of exactly the same length, so that your use of the terms "shortest" and "longest" is confusing. At the end of your last post, however, you do explain that by "shortest" you mean that giving the least number of counts. Using your definition of the shortest ride then this indeed produces the longest course.

I have long criticized the "official" method as being unnecessarily complicated. In my method I calculate the number of revolutions for each ride from the calibration factor at the time of each ride. The end point for that ride which is the longest (goes the most distance) then immediately fixes the finish for the certified course.

quote:

Neville

I think the terminology is confusing. One naturally tends to think that if a ride between two fixed points ended up taking more counts it is longer. This is true, the wiggly line between two points is longer than the straightest line, the shortest route.

It is the ride that is most efficient, the one that goes the shortest route, that produces the correction to find the longest course.

If you have not fixed your temp finish mark when starting your measurement rides then it will lead to terminology confusion. That's why the "official " method gets a set of preliminary marks down before the measurement rides take place. So you know the point from which you make the adjustments.

I think understand your solution, ride from the start and when the total counts get to the pre-calculated finish, mark the first finish. Then ride again and if the second finish mark is beyond the first mark that becomes the finish. Trouble is you don't have two rides between the same two points. I am not at all sure how you would show that on the measurement forms.

No matter what you do, you still have to allow that your post measurement re-calibration may force an adjustment to the length.
So you can't fix the marks until you have run the re-calibration rides.

quote:

Any old fool can ride a long ride by wobbling all over the road.

But to wobble all over the road twice, and be within 0.08%, ain't so easy (or likely).
That's the main reason two rides are required.

I think understand your solution, ride from the start and when the total counts get to the pre-calculated finish, mark the first finish. Then ride again and if the second finish mark is beyond the first mark that becomes the finish. Trouble is you don't have two rides between the same two points.

James:
On my second ride I take a reading for the end-point for the first ride and calculate the percentage difference. Thus, I also have a second measurement between the same two points.

No matter what you do, you still have to allow that your post measurement re-calibration may force an adjustment to the length.

I use pressure-monitoring to calculate the precise calibration factor at the time of each ride. Therefore, I never have to make "adjustments".