If you're like me, your car measures more accurately while driving backwards. Write down your odometer reading. Start from the finish line, and drive BACKWARDS all the way to the starting line. Try to hit the tangents as well. Your odometer should read 13.1 miles less than when you started. If so, then you're good to go.
dukerdog wrote:
Keith Stone wrote:
The course must be measured twice on the same day.
You might want to correct that part.
Really? When did that requirement disappear?
Keith Stone wrote:
dukerdog wrote:Keith Stone wrote:
The course must be measured twice on the same day.
You might want to correct that part.
Really? When did that requirement disappear?
I'm sure you know this, but just forgot. As long as the calibration is done before and after the measurement ride, it can be done on different days. Marathon courses are often certified in segments, for example.
IllinoisMaster wrote:
Keith Stone wrote:You might want to correct that part.
Really? When did that requirement disappear?
I'm sure you know this, but just forgot. As long as the calibration is done before and after the measurement ride, it can be done on different days. Marathon courses are often certified in segments, for example.[/quote]
Yes, I know about segments, but my understanding is the measurement of each segment would need to be done on the same day. For purposes of record-keeping each segment is in essence a separately measured course. Question 33 on the form says "Did you perform both the pre–measurement and post–measurement calibration and the measurement of the race course on the same day?"
Forgive me for butting in here but if there is actually a question about that -- about performing them on the same day -- wouldn't that mean that it is possible NOT to do so and still have the certification be OK?
After all, if it were not, why bother with a question at all? A simple blanket statement would suffice, no?
Keith Stone wrote:
Yes, I know about segments, but my understanding is the measurement of each segment would need to be done on the same day. For purposes of record-keeping each segment is in essence a separately measured course. Question 33 on the form says "Did you perform both the pre–measurement and post–measurement calibration and the measurement of the race course on the same day?"
The question does not imply that 2 measurement rides must be made between the calibration rides. It just checks that a calibration ride was done both before and after the measurement ride(s) on that day.
For example I usually (1) Calibrate, (2) Measure, (3) Calibrate, (4) Measure and (5) Calibrate. You never know when a flat or leak is coming - those solid tires and Neville's tire pressure management apparatus look tempting sometimes. Plus, sometimes the temperature changes enough to throw off the readings between the 1st and last calibration ride.
Average_Joe wrote:
Forgive me for butting in here but if there is actually a question about that -- about performing them on the same day -- wouldn't that mean that it is possible NOT to do so and still have the certification be OK?
After all, if it were not, why bother with a question at all? A simple blanket statement would suffice, no?
The original statement was I said both measurements should be in the same day. Dukerdog said I should reconsider that statement so I asked if that rule has changed. I've personally asked for waivers of that in the past to calibrate in the evening, measure overnight, and recalibrate in the morning so it's entirely possible it's changed to be something like "within 24 hours" and I was not aware.
I don't consider the course segments an exception because I look at segments as separately measured courses. With proper documentation course segments can be reused many times in multiple courses, but I still would expect each segment followed the calibrate-measure-calibrate in a single day unless I learn of a change.
IllinoisMaster wrote:
For example I usually (1) Calibrate, (2) Measure, (3) Calibrate, (4) Measure and (5) Calibrate. You never know when a flat or leak is coming - those solid tires and Neville's tire pressure management apparatus look tempting sometimes. Plus, sometimes the temperature changes enough to throw off the readings between the 1st and last calibration ride.
I look at it somewhat differently. I expect I should get 2 rides within .0008 on one calibration and if not equipment or ride is suspect and I should recalibrate and do two more. If course length makes that impractical then multiple segments with calibrate-measure-measure-calibrate-measure-measure-calibrate are in order. If I got a significant variance in start and finish calibration I would redo them because I wouldn't trust either of the rides in between.
Keith, I review apps in MI. I wouldn't have a problem w/2 measurements of a course made on different days so long as they fell w/in the .0008 tolerance.
Regarding the OP comments...I regularly hear from runners that eagerly share their GPS & other measuring device #'s as gospel. I patiently explain why the USATF method of measuring/certifying course distance is superior to anything else out there - and I leave it at that. In the end, I don't care that they're so quick to call a certified course short or long based on their measuring tool. They'll think what they want regardless of The Truth of the Jones counter, the SPR, calibration, .1% extra, etc.
I'm supremely confident in our system.
scotth wrote:
I'm supremely confident in our system.
Scott, I'm confident too. It's just getting extremely tiresome to get emails after nearly every race our club does along the lines of "you need to correct the pace you display in the results because my Garmin said xx:xx" or "who do I need to contact to get the course corrected because my Garmin said xx:xx". I've started recommending that races disable the comments feature on active.com so they don't have to deal with the banter about "the course is short/long".
In the old days you had the occasional runner that would insist the course was wrong because mile marker X was wrong since they'd never run that fast/slow despite the downhill/uphill. Normally an explanation of gravity basics was enough and they went their merry way.
I like my Garmin, even use it on the bike to draw the starter map. I am smart enough to disregard the output when it occasionally tells me my max speed on a run was north of 1000 MPH. Based on things I see posted on message boards and comment postings I think a lot of Garmin wearers are going to expect to be in the Olympic Trials based on their readings they take so seriously.
A road course is measured by the "shortest possible route". You cant drive it the way you can run it.
Keith Stone wrote:
It's just getting extremely tiresome to get emails after nearly every race our club does along the lines of "you need to correct the pace you display in the results because my Garmin said xx:xx" or "who do I need to contact to get the course corrected because my Garmin said xx:xx". I've started recommending that races disable the comments feature on active.com so they don't have to deal with the banter about "the course is short/long".
Although I feel your pain, I say just let the Garmin Groupies think what they want. What they think won't change the accuracy of a cerified course. There's banter and gnashing of teeth but that won't affect how we certify a course. Having said this I allow there'll be directors that'll ask us to answer to the Garmin Groupies. Fine. So we do.
What's happened to date has been a scattershot education process where we explain the USATF certification process vs the accuracy of other measuring tools, particularly Garmin products. A couple years ago I asked on the measurement forum for USTAF to come up w/a 'position statment' regarding 'other measuring tools' and all the experts demurred. So we're left w/swatting down the buzz of Garmin flies when they make noise.
Having just found this thread, I'd like to thank Malmo, Keith Stone, Illinois Master and Scotth for correcting the misunderstandings that many people still appear to have, concerning course measurement. Unfortunately, it seems to be an uphill battle.
I'm a runner, land surveyor, race director and course measurer and I, too, get tired of other runners questioning the accuracy of courses, because their garmin gives a different distance. Garmins are wonderful training tools (I use one myself on a daily basis), but they are not suitable for course measurement (for one thing, they can't be calibrated).
On another note, to answer one of Keith's questions, here's an extract from the manual:
Measure the course. Ride the bicycle over the course, following the shortest possible route as it will be available to the runners on race day. At least two measurements over the course are required for certification. Use the first measurement to establish tentative start and finish marks. Use the second (and any subsequent) measurement to check the distance between those same marks. In particular, during the second measurement, simply record counts at the points already marked during the first measurement. Do not make new marks on the road during the second measurement. If you measure on different days, calibrate both before and after measuring on each day.
So, yes, you can measure on different days (and I have done so for marathons because I prefer to do the whole measurement in one day, rather than segment it, then come back on another day for the second measurement).
Also, as a surveyor, I would never use survey equipment for course certification, unless it was truly a straight line course on a consistent grade. To date, I have never measured a course that fits those criteria (I've been measuring courses for 25 years).
Dave
It's a continuing education process: last year I wrote an article for our running club newsletter, concerning the relative accuracies of the measuring wheel, Garmin and Jones counter. The newsletter went out to about 1300 members, but I don't know how many actually read and understood what I was trying to say: I still get complaints!!
Not a course measurement matter, but here's another issue that comes up from time to time: after a 5K race that I organized a couple of weeks ago, I received an email from a runner who insisted that I make a "correction" to the official results because her garmin time was one second faster than the published time and she absolutely knew she had started and stopped her garmin at the correct points! Needless to say, I declined her request.
Dave
Dave Hill wrote:It's a continuing education process: last year I wrote an article for our running club newsletter, concerning the relative accuracies of the measuring wheel, Garmin and Jones counter. The newsletter went out to about 1300 members, but I don't know how many actually read and understood what I was trying to say: I still get complaints!!
I'd be very interested in passing that article along to our club's newsletter editor if you would like to contribute it.
I did add the following to our FAQ page on the web site some time ago.
Question: According to my GPS watch the race I just ran wasn't the advertised distance. Who do I notify to have the course corrected?
Answer: GPS watches (or any GPS device) aren't considered accurate enough for measuring a course, so we don't recommend notifying anyone. If you are interested in how courses are measured we recommend the USATF web site.
Not a course measurement matter, but here's another issue that comes up from time to time: after a 5K race that I organized a couple of weeks ago, I received an email from a runner who insisted that I make a "correction" to the official results because her garmin time was one second faster than the published time and she absolutely knew she had started and stopped her garmin at the correct points! Needless to say, I declined her request.
Related to that, we have this FAQ:
Question: I just ran a race and according to my watch I should be 3rd in my age group. Can you fix that?
Answer: Races are scored by finish place, not time. The times are later matched to finish place by order they were recorded. In any case, we don't change results based on someone's watch, horoscope, fortune cookies or phase of the moon.
Re measure using a ruler for accuracy
Note you may need a longer one than the trusty 6" one on your bedside table
Keith Stone wrote:
Related to that, we have this FAQ:
Question: I just ran a race and according to my watch I should be 3rd in my age group. Can you fix that?
Answer: In any case, we don't change results based on someone's watch, horoscope, fortune cookies or phase of the moon.
Your answer made me smile.
Keith Stone wrote:
Answer: GPS watches (or any GPS device) aren't considered accurate enough for measuring a course, so we don't recommend notifying anyone. I
I can't believe their was ever any question about the accuracy of a Garmin, by ANYONE. The debate would begin and end by asking to measure from "here to that telephone pole with your garmin. If it's right I'll give you a hundred bucks, if not, you give me a hundred.
I can't believe that one anal retentive moron, who can't comprehend that his car odometer is not as accurate as course certification methods, could generate such a long discussion on such a completely ridiculous topic. As malmo first stated - just run!
On a similar note I find it absurd that some people with Garmins will measure their runs to the 1/100th of a mile so that they can round up to get ONE extra total mile per week...
AAAGGGHHH! Just run.
malmo wrote:
The debate would begin and end by asking to measure from "here to that telephone pole with your garmin. If it's right I'll give you a hundred bucks, if not, you give me a hundred.
How far away is the telephone pole and how "right" do I have to be?