Validation of a course! What is it's life?

I'll bite on this, but I'm not exactly sure what the question is.

If the question is whether the validation should be good for longer than the course is certified, I'd say that it shouldn't, since what good is the validation of a non-certified course?

If the question is whether or not the act of successfully validating a course should extend its certification, I'd say that it should. The course has already been measured twice, and RRTC's policy has always been to choose an "expert" measurer for a validation assignment. One of the reasons we measure courses twice is to lessen the possibility that an inexperienced measurer will make a mistake. That possibility is significantly lessened when an "expert" measures the course. I understand the reasons we no longer renew/extend certifications, but many courses do have a useful life longer than ten years.

As an aside, I'll generally make an attempt to be present at a validation if I'm invited and it's close to me. If the state certifier or even the original measurer measures the course at the same time as the validator and their measurements agree within the specified tolerance, you then have two measurements of the course, and can apply for a new certification.

I think on the whole I agree with Jay. My only question is what constitutes a so-called "expert" measurer?

In addition to Jay's aside, it's my opinion that the state certifier should always be invited as a matter of courtesy - this may be done already - not sure whether it is or not...

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

This discussion is beginning to resemble Congress. Much discussion to what end?

We have a ten year expiration policy. That’s not been found to be a problem.

It can be an undeniable work-saver to use old measurements of sections of a course when creating a new course. Many measurers do this. In my area the Columbus Marathon does it every few years. Race for the Cure routinely changes their course each year.

When I measure it’s usual for me to create reference points enroute. Hard experience has taught me that certain course segments are likely to be repeated, and these bits and pieces come in handy when piecing together a new course. Once I’ve combined the old bits and the new bits I have my first measurement done. Then a second, full-course, ride gets done to lay out the splits.

It has never crossed my mind that there is a defect in this procedure, and I cannot understand why the new course should have a life of ten years past the earliest measurement of any single segment. Is someone, somewhere, dreadfully afraid that I may be somehow cheating the system?

As the course measurer I know the course better than anyone, including whoever might be called upon to validate it. Is someone afraid that I may ignore road changes, some of which may be subtle enough that the course map does not show them, thus invalidating the measurement?

We have fewer than a dozen validations done each year. On the whole, I think a validation measurement is no better than the better of the two rides originally done.

I propose that we give this a rest. We are trying to solve a non-problem. I propose:

1) Treat any validation measurement as irrelevant as regards course life. If the course passes, leave it alone and let it expire on schedule. If it fails, de-list it, and let them do a brand-new measurement.
2) If a course contains elements from previous measurements, consider these elements as good as they were when the course was originally certified.

It’s certainly possible that someone could wind up using a twenty-year-old segment as part of a new course. I do not think it is likely to happen often enough to be considered as a problem we need to solve.

Let’s not make the cure worse than the disease.

I think validation and certification are different and probably should stay that way. Validation is done in reference to a specific running of a race and ideally involves information about how the race was conducted on race day, not just a check on the course distance. Anyway I've always thought of it as a one-time thing, not one with a "life". I see where the validations chairman may want to accept one year's validation as good for another year, but more as a judgement call on how to spend limited resources and time.
There's another point to remember: the procedures for a validation measurement are slightly different-- mainly in 2 ways: (1) requirement to use average calibration constant; and (2)validator should stay (30 cm or 20 cm) away from curbed/non-curbed edges, while original measurement is often done closer than that where feasible.