Diameter of Monaco Track is Short by 60 cm (Approx.)

I'm not sure what IAAF says, but NCAA measures the distance in lane one 30cm from the inside if there is a curb, 20cm if there is no curb. So for Monaco, you would add 60cm....Google looks pretty legit right now.

"In races around a curve, lane one, and all distances not run in lanes, shall be

measured 30 centimeters outward from the inner edge of the track if designed for

and surveyed based on the existence of a regulation curb. If not so designed, lane

one shall be measured 20 centimeters from the left-hand lane line."

Are you measuring from the center of the lane? If I remember right that’s where the distance is measured from. If you’re measuring from the rail probably going to be short.

Ok so cats may always walk a straight line, but then what happens when it gets to the turn? So this road course method is not useful for tracks.

Internetsherlock wrote:

forcerunner wrote:

LOL at trying to measure with google maps.

I believe google maps use the same scaling variables factors on all map locations . Also if you measure something today on the map , the distance wont change if you measure again next month or next year, no such thing as a GPS signal interference

That's not true. Mapmakers would like to have everything the same scale, not sheared, not rotated, not offset... but if you check where tiles are stitched together pretty often it isn't smooth.

The distance you would measure on Google Maps is silly. If you are measuring, you would need a raster map, Google doesn't allow you to zoom to that level. You would need to fetch the appropriate areas from an aerial imagery tile server so that you could measure accurately.

Also the distance can change year to year. If the imagery is updated each year and restitched a little differently then you would also find the distance to have changed.

dfjkdfbsvbv wrote:

I'm not sure what IAAF says, but NCAA measures the distance in lane one 30cm from the inside if there is a curb, 20cm if there is no curb. So for Monaco, you would add 60cm....Google looks pretty legit right now.

"In races around a curve, lane one, and all distances not run in lanes, shall be

measured 30 centimeters outward from the inner edge of the track if designed for

and surveyed based on the existence of a regulation curb. If not so designed, lane

one shall be measured 20 centimeters from the left-hand lane line."

+1

This is true, and means that cats like Cheptegei can run shorter than 5000m by running 10 cm from the curb around the turns.

So one of the big problems here is that your digital measurement of a google map is limited by (1) the resolution of the satellite photo, which is good-not-great (can you read signs and license plates? How big is the smallest object you can identify? Can you see other objects in the picture that are 60 cm?) and (2) the resolution of your monitor - ultimately you are clicking on a pixel that represents some fraction of the measurement of the highest resolution of the photo. I would be shocked if you could correctly measure an object to the nearest 1/10th of a meter on Google maps.

mathemaggician wrote:

I used calculus and found that they had allowed for latent heat capacity of the surface. In warm weather the track expands. Even in cold weather it is more than 400 meters. So, given that Cheptegei ran his 12.35 in warm weather, he actually ran more than 5000 meters.

that is not true, the surface would only expand vertically, at the most, 5-10cm because of the other parts of the stadium that are surrounding it, like the rail, field, and the concrete on the outer edge which prevent it from expanding horizontally. however, the surface could theoretically contract into something smaller therefore proving the point that the track is too small.

Even if it was 60cm short it would work out to 7.5 meters over the entire distance which at his pace would be worth 1.15 seconds and still under the WR.

doesnt matter its not the right time

It is ridiculous that people think they can get really accurate measurements from photos. I have worked in mapping my whole life. If you want to know how far it is around the track you will have to put a trained surveyor on the ground with electronic surveying equipment.

YOU CANNOT GET ACCURACY FROM PHOTOS.

dfjkdfbsvbv wrote:

I'm not sure what IAAF says, but NCAA measures the distance in lane one 30cm from the inside if there is a curb, 20cm if there is no curb. So for Monaco, you would add 60cm....Google looks pretty legit right now.

"In races around a curve, lane one, and all distances not run in lanes, shall be

measured 30 centimeters outward from the inner edge of the track if designed for

and surveyed based on the existence of a regulation curb. If not so designed, lane

one shall be measured 20 centimeters from the left-hand lane line."

Replying to my own post here. The data suggests that one, Google Maps/Measuring is very accurate and two, that the Monaco track is 400m. Isn't this, by far, the most likely scenario? What is still being discussed? The OP said 60-70cm short, the NCAA has 60cm (2x30cm). That is vey close. End of thread.

The OP measured the "diameter" of the track. Guffaw

Katz made the best post, imo.

The original poster doesn’t understand that curves on tracks are not semi circles and that google maps doesn’t have the resolution to accurately measure to the precision he is attempting. The image is also inaccurate due to atmospheric distortion as well as lens distortion.

Next you’ll try to tell us that the track at Penn Relays is short. Everyone knows the only short tracks are BU indoors and Stanford and that track in China that they used for their national games in the 90s. Stanford’s track is well documented to be 8 meters short.

Nobody has commented yet on the orbital path of the photo satellite or the curvature of the camera lens in the satellite. How do we know if the satellite was in a perfectly circular orbit for the images of the two stadiums or at different altitudes for each photo. Do we even know if the photos came from a single satellite or multiple satellites with different altitudes and orbital trajectories. We need more data!

This is one of the world's greatest athletics tracks whichvwas been the venue for numerous world records and other incredible times. Don't you think it's likely that at some point, somebody from the IAAF went to the track to measure it and certify it? And you can be pretty sure they weren't doing it using a pixelated image from Google Maps. Its just a fast track in a location where the weather is good.

Since most tracks only have an accuracy of +-.000007%, every track and every record is invalidated. It's the end of track and field! LOL.

I am sure our Internetsherlock didn't take into account the curvature of the earth.

Sir George Everest wrote:

I am sure our Internetsherlock didn't take into account the curvature of the earth.

Or Plate Tectonics!

The IAAF Track and Field Facilities manual (2019), section 2.2.1, says the line of running for lane 1 is 30 cm outside the kerb. A "standard" 400m track is 398.116 m along the kerb and 400.001 m along the line of running. However, you measured the inside long axis on both tracks (Monaco and FBK), so why are they different?

A. Bad image quality. The google map view of Monaco track has mis-aligned overlaid images - see screenshots. Left screenshot shows the white lines on the field that don't align - therefore distances to the edges are suspect. Right screenshot shows shifted lanes at one end of track, which also prevent accurate measurement.

[img]

https://i.ibb.co/Jn4HZsx/Monaco-Stadium-google-map-views.png[/img

]

B. IAAF-approved 400 m tracks are allowed to have variable dimensions (within specified ranges), as long as the length along the line of running in lane 1 is 400.000 to 400.040 m. The ends, when semicircular, may have radii from 35 to 38 m. The ends are not required to be semicircles. They may have multiple radii of curvature (IAAF T&F Facilities Manual, section 1.2.3). These "double-bend layouts" are used to fit a soccer field or US football field or rugby field inside a 400 m track. Therefore you must carefully map out the entire track, rather than assume semi-circularity, to get an accurate length estimate. The Monaco track encloses a soccer field, so there's a good chance that it is a double-bend layout.