the Track needs to be remeasured, no way in HELL! Every single runner had PB by over 20 seconds.

they obviously used the same clown who measured that short Beijing track in the 90s.

I did. Two tracks that I train at and know are 100% accurate came in at 400.6m and 399.8m. The descrepancy in those are probably just due to that it is hard to get the curves perfect.Rio definitively short.

Chubs wrote:

Mapplet wrote:

I measured it on maps.google.com and it can out to be 396.2m. So, yeah, I'd say it is a bit short.

Measure other tracks to establish possible error in your measurement.

triangulation wrote:

The earth is not flat thus you cannot come up with an accurate measurement using google maps. GPS has a decent margin of error as do satellite images.

A track does not curve. They are completely flat. This has nothing to do with GPS.

citius5000 wrote:

There really isn't that many big time/deep 10ks out there like other events so its possible and did happen!

Yep. The 10000 might as well not exist at the elite level outside of maybe 2 or 3 races each year.

Porter wrote:

A track does not curve.

Then how do you end up back where you started at the end of a lap?

Google Maps wrote:

Preliminary measurements are coming in at 394.72 meters.

That was the measurement for your peepee. Unit are off. Should 3.947 inches.

You are all clueless. Everyone knows that southern hemisphere races, when run the day of a meteor shower and during a period of global warming, are invalid.

While we're at it, let's measure that London track as well. No way in HELL 7 runners could set PR's in an 800m olympic final.

my track has curves wrote:

Porter wrote:

A track does not curve.

Then how do you end up back where you started at the end of a lap?

Learn the difference between curves and turns.

Mapplet wrote:

I did. Two tracks that I train at and know are 100% accurate came in at 400.6m and 399.8m. The descrepancy in those are probably just due to that it is hard to get the curves perfect.

Rio definitively short.

Chubs wrote:

Measure other tracks to establish possible error in your measurement.

Google accuracy discriminates against the 3rd world.

Blood dEPOr wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

The proper authorities are the IAAF who is pleased that another WR has been set.

Brilliant. Also because it is true

They'll be livid when all the hurdlers smash into the barriers with their steps being off.

800 On Pure Hate wrote:

triangulation wrote:

The earth is not flat thus you cannot come up with an accurate measurement using google maps. GPS has a decent margin of error as do satellite images.

The track is not the surface of Earth. The track is level.

I looked on Google maps and the track is downhill so the times should not count.

Wodak was 12 seconds slower than her Canadian record

fred wrote:

Wodak was 12 seconds slower than her Canadian record

And still looks fine.

I once ran a race with her and Marchant..... couldn't stop staring at dat a$$.

You guys do realize that the earth is more curved at the equator, right?

Well we have to toss in that gravity is reduced and that the atmosphere is thicker nearer the equator. Oh and the rotational speed is slower.

http://researchbin.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-shape-of-the-atmosphere.html#.V64sVZgrLIU

So apparently wrote:

You guys do realize that the earth is more curved at the equator, right?

It's flatter at the pole, true, but at the equator it's only more curved in the N-S direction and I'm pretty sure the construction engineers double checked their calculations when they had a strike break for not getting their paychecks

800 On Pure Hate wrote:

triangulation wrote:

The earth is not flat thus you cannot come up with an accurate measurement using google maps. GPS has a decent margin of error as do satellite images.

The track is not the surface of Earth. The track is level.

But which way is it rotating? If it is rotating in the same direction as the runners are racing (counter-clockwise) then it could substantially impact times.

Porter wrote:

triangulation wrote:

The earth is not flat thus you cannot come up with an accurate measurement using google maps. GPS has a decent margin of error as do satellite images.

A track does not curve. They are completely flat. This has nothing to do with GPS.

There's a whole scientific discipline of processing imagery so you can take accurate measurement: photogrammetry. They remove the distortions of perspective, height etc and create orthophotos so measurements can be made on the images like a map. GPS/GNSS is an essential part of this because the XYZ of ground control points establish scale. To my knowledge, Google hasn't disclosed their exact processing steps or the resulting error measurements. Years ago for a surveying class we compared the accuracy of the Google imagery with known ground control... I think they were within a meter or so of their XY in the images. I would expect urban areas with recent imagery to measure tracks as 400m +- 1m. Survey grade photogrammetry projects can get horizontal error down to a couple centimeters, depending on the quality of ground control and resolution of the imagery...