Raysism wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
GPS is not accurate at all. Overhead mapping is also not absolutely accurate as it typically does not take into account elevation, only point to point on a flat surface.
Alan
Modern GPS devices are actually quite accurate -- their reported margin of error is what you'd expect of someone hand/wheel measuring a course if they weren't using humidity controlled steel tape with super careful measurements.
I promise you that if you take someone with 2020 GPS technology and put them against someone who isn't a perfect wheeler (especially on bad surfaces for wheeling), they can be just as accurate (or equally inaccurate, as it were).
Keep telling yourself that. Any certified or legit course I’ve run on ends up being significantly long according to GPS.
The reality in comparing XC courses commonly run in the 90s and before to now is currently the trend seems to be “how short can I make the course and still call it 8k?” I know that Wisconsin changed their 8k for pre-nats and then kept the new layout so I don’t know how short it is now, but previous editions of adidas/Nuttycombe were definitely short. First 7k were accurate and then everybody runs 2:40 (slight exaggeration) for their last k.
Also, as evident in this thread, there has become an obsession with XC times. Probably a result of the Dyestat/Milesplit generation. I grew up taking XC times with a grain of salt. Track was for time and XC was for beating people. I remember in HS and college being excited to run “cool” XC courses that included something different…Unusual hills, trails through the woods, etc… I think it is funny that people claim Terre Haute is a challenging course. C’mon! It’s gotta a few slight inclines.
Oh well. Old man rant over.