Skip to main content

Here is an email I received from Bernie Conway(see below). The first idea expressed was discussed by the RRTC and our conclusion was to use the date of the submission of the data.
The 2nd idea expressed is handled in a similar way by us. However, we don't record the number of times a course is adjusted and use a different ID#.


The 2012 IAAF-AIMS Meeting in Kavarna, Bulgaria saw a few changes to the IAAF certification numbering which I have also adopted for Athletics Canada and you may want to consider.

The first is that the year in the certification number is the year that the course was measured. As an example if a course was measured in 2010 but not certified until 2012 the 2010 would be the year showing up in the certification number.

The second change is that if a race undergoes a partial change (large or smaill) and only part of the course is measured, then the new certificate will retain the original certification number but an "a" will appear after the number to indicate a change to the course. For example I measured a 10 km course in 2009 (ON-2009-160-BDC). Last week I measured a new finish from the old 9 km mark, the rest of the course did not change. I sent a new certificate ON-2009-160a-BDC to the Race Director. If another change occurs I can use "b" and then "c" if needed.

These changes enable me to keep tabs on how many years before the course needs to be recertified by an overall ride once the 5 (IAAF) or 10 (Athletics Canada) year limit has been reached. It also allows me to place the new certificate in the same file folder as the original. Finally it allows me a more accurate tally of the number of road races in existance.

It looks like measuring is finished here until Spring. The temperature is in the single digits Celcius during the day and the weather man is indicating rain with the possibility of snow. If you need a measurer for some warm location think of me. Best of health.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I think the way we keep track of the number of changes is by how often they show in the database. While I see some value of adding the "a", "b", etc, I don't know if our online db is set to allow that.

I see value in numbering as Bernie does, as we don't really know if a course is adjusted, or completely changed, just by looking at our db. A new cert number does not mean the entire course changed, nor does it necessarily mean the course was adjusted. If we are concerned with how many times a course is adjusted, we would need to use the "a", "b", etc. Otherwise, our system works well for us.

The policy for placing a date on the certificate can be found at the following link:

Since you are the certifier in these cases the date you place is when you send the certificate to the next level not when you measure the course. However, this should be reasonably close to your submissions.

Now for others who review someones work please see the actual policy. It is clear that the date is not when the certificate is signed.
I understand the role of certifier in these situations and didn't imply that a certifier should delay certification for an application from another measurer.

However if a measurer were to ask about how to submit an application for a course under these same circumstances, I would suggest that the measurer submit the application after the first of the year.
I used to assign certification numbers based on the year the course was measure. If it was measured in year X but not submitted until year X+1, I would give it a year X number until I received the first course measured in year X+1.

Now once I receive the first course submitted after the first of the year, regardless of exactly when it was measured, it gets the new year's number. At the end of last year I gave the same guidance that Ron gave, and when I woke up on New Year's Day, I had applications in my in-box.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.