Course measurement for road racing records
Comments about this discussion:
Started
Section 4.1.1 says that "the course should be measured by an independent referee using the calibrated bicycle method with Jones Counter as accepted by the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations). The course should be measured twice along the shortest possible route, with the lower of the two measurements used as the official distance."
* It is not clear exactly where to find the description of this method. I did some Googling and found different descriptions, one of 66 pages, and another of 72 pages long. I think such a vague reference is not acceptable.
* The IUF Rulebook has a one-page description of a method that is acceptable for Unicons and other road races, and hence implicitly for world records set during Unicons. This method is based on the IAAF procedure, but more lenient in some respects. I know that because I was the author of the IUF Rulebook method.
* Combining the above two bullet points, I propose that the WRG refer to the IUF Rulebook on how to measure road race distance.
By doing so we would drop some requirements:
* The measurement must be accurate to the closest 1 m.
I think this is not realistically achievable, especially on a long course such as marathon or 100 km. (In the latter case, it is equivalent to 1 mm per 100 m, or 0.001%.)
* ... should be measured by an independent referee...
I happen to know that two French riders prepared for breaking the marathon record a few months ago (they failed, by the way). AFAIK, someone within IUF advised them to buy a Jones counter and measure the course themselves. This would not be acceptable by the WRG. Do we want to maintain the 'independent referee' rule?
* The course should be measured twice...
I can see why this would be desirable, but I am not sure this should be required. It is already troublesome enough to measure a marathon or 100 km once, with all these requirements.
If we want to hang on to point 2 and 3 (independent referee and measure twice), the Rulebook needs these requirements as well, for consistency. Or in fact, if the WRG refers to the Rulebook for distance measurement as per what I propose, the Rulebook would be the only place (within IUF) where these requirements are stated.
Comment
Agree with your point.
By the way I helped the French guys documenting their measurement and it took us more than two hours just to do all the paperwork (without measurement being done!). Plus they were doing the measurement with another guy who was not riding, so it would have been ok...
Would it be an idea to provide a short and overviewable document with all the necessary steps that could be downloaded somewhere? Because I also had a look at that document which is 72 pages long, it's ok but it's just too long. We need a short and clear version. And I also think we cannot expect such an accurate measurement. I mean in the end we are talking about 1cm, what does that change over 10 or even 42 km?
Comment
My suggestion is to refer to the distance measurement requirements as given in the IUF Rulebook. The Rulebook itself is perhaps not very overviewable, but the distance measurement section is just one page.
Comment
I completely agree that we should have a clear reference on how to measure the course. A reference to the rulebook is definitely more precise than the statement "the calibrated bicycle method with Jones Counter as accepted by the IAAF".
Basically, I like Mirjam's suggestion to create a separate document and give an overview of all necessary steps even more than just the reference to the rulebook. I think such a document offers more freedom than the rulebook - in terms of updating, adding hints and comments or practical tips for implementation. I don't think all this would fit in well with the rulebook or would not be possible there.
As far as the resolution of the measurement is concerned, 1 m seems to make sense to me, but I consider it unreasonable that an accuracy of 1 m can also be achieved. I think the required accuracy should be given with a percentage of the distance length.
For example, as is the case in athletics:
"The length of the course shall not be less than the official distance for the event. The uncertainty in the measurement shall not exceed 0.1% of the length of the course.
An independent referee for the distance measurement certainly makes sense and I personally would keep this rule - but you would have to define more clearly what independent means. You already mentioned something like this in another discussion Klaas...
If I have not missed anything, no double measurement of the course is necessary in athletics either - correct me if I am wrong. I could imagine to leave out the requirement of the double measurement as long as the one measurement is reasonably documented.
Comment
I agree with all of that, except the separate document for the distance measurement.
I think that the distance measurement for competitions that are done according to the Rulebook (from which records may emerge) should follow the same standards as the distance measurement for record attempts outside competition.
If we (IUF, that is) maintain the distance measuring procedure in the Rulebook and the WRG refer to it, we have an automatic coupling between the two. This strengthens the connection between Rulebook and World Records, and also we avoid version conflicts.
Comment
Of course the measurement for WR should be in accordance with the rulebook - and I completely agree that there should be a close and automatic connection between rulebook and WRG.
Nevertheless, I think that distance measurement is such a complex topic, where hints and practical tips are very helpful for the user, that in my opinion it may be better to create a separate document. And then of course to refer to this document in the Ruebook as well as in the WRG. I simply think that the topic with hints, comments and tips would then be too extensive for the rulebook - even if it currently only contains one page.
Comment
If a separate document is created to which both the Rulebook and the WRG refer, then how do we go about this? In that case it is not within the responsibility of the World Record Committee, nor within the responsibility of the Rulebook committee.
It could be our recommendation to the IUF board to go this way. The Board should perhaps appoint a special workgroup to create this document.
Organisationally it is probably more straightforward to implement, if distance measurement is part of the rulebook and the WRG refer to that.
Comment
Seeing the sub-optimal communication between the parties involved (WR committee, Rulebook committee and the IUF Board), I think it is best to leave distance measurement in the Rulebook, and refer to it in the WRG.
I would agree that the description in the Rulebook is short and does not give much background, but I still think all the essentials are covered.
Nevertheless, I could try to incorporate some enhancements into the description if we as WR Committee come up with such suggestions.
(That is, if I'll be in the Road Race subcommittee of the Rulebook once it gets going, which I have applied for.)
Comment
I guess this subject is "on hold" until the Road Race subcommittee of the IUF Rulebook gets going, and I or someone else from the WR Committee has the opportunity to work on this issue in the IUF Rulebook committee and align the Rulebook, the WRG and possibly a dedicated distance measurement document.
Comment
I agree the rulebook is a better place for the measurement accuracy requirements.
-In terms of measuring twice- I think it is not unreasonable- there will be substantial measurement error because every time you take a corner- there is variation in which line you take, even if you attempt to take the shortest possible route.
-The allowable measurement error should be a % of the course distance, eg 0.01%, rather than a fixed distance eg 1m.
-It is important to have a short course prevention factor, because of the error resulting from measuring the 'shortest possible route'.
As an aside, this amount of complexity is another reason I am against the idea of having three different IUF road racing world records- doing this for the 10km, Marathon and 100km requires a lot of effort from organisers (which they may not appreciate until they realise their course measurements are inadequate).
Comment
Regarding the interdependence between IUF Rulebook and WR Guidelines, the current approach (see Discussion 37) is that we will not wait for the IUF Rulebook to be edited, but finalise the content of the WR Guidelines first. Then we can decide what should be implemented in the IUF Rulebook and possible become 'locked' rules.
For the subject of this discussion (course measurement), I would like to agree on something simple and concise enough to fit in the Rulebook, if possible. This way, we avoid a separate course measurement document, to be referenced from both Rulebook and WR Guidelines.
Jan mentioned that a separate document offers more freedom in terms of updating. I'm not sure that that is an advantage. Updating the measurement procedure 'at any time' outside of the Rulebook update schedule might invalidate records 'at any time' when the distance was measured prior to the update. Conversely, I would prefer that the measurement procedure should be 'locked' in the Rulebook.
The current Rulebook (2019) prescribes race distance measurement in 3D.15.2. It's a nine-step, one-page procedure, basically a much simplified version of what IAAA/WA prescribe.
Do we want to continue allowing this procedure for World Records? Do we want to make slight improvements, but maintain the simplicity? Or is this simply inadequate and would we go towards copying the IAAF/WA-type procedure? (But perhaps not copy it in full.)
Separate question: is it allowed if a record rider has been involved in measuring the course that they broke a record on? (Currently it is.)
Comment
Regarding the last question- it depends on what you mean by 'involved'.
If it means organising a surveyor or IAAF official to measure the course, then that has to be allowed, otherwise it would be impossible to organise a record attempt.
If it means physically surveying the course or riding the shortest possible route with Jones counter, then there is a conflict of interest. Note that in previous Unicons the race director may have helped with, and/or did the measurements, while also being a competitor.
Comment
It's my turn to contribute.
It seems to me that it is the will of the runners and the WR committee members to have a course measured with a tool that has a low measurement error.
Indeed, the smaller the measurement error, the closer the course will be to the official length.
To put it simply, for a 10km, with a measurement error of 0.1%, you should measure at least 10.01 km. With a measurement error of 3%, one should measure 10.3 km, etc.
I believe that the method currently described in the IUF rulebook (3D.15.2.) is not acceptable for certifying a WR and I will try to demonstrate this to you.
1/ It seems to me that the following sentence has no basis in fact: "Example: if your cycle computer shows 10.15 km, the safety margin is 0.4% * 10.15 km + 0.01 km = 0.0506 km = 50.6 m."
How is the 0.4% safety margin calculated? Why do we add 0.01 km?
If the safety margin is considered to be 0.4%, it means that the measurement error is less than 0.4%. And I think that it is far from being the case with the described method.
2/ The measurement error of a measuring tool includes all errors that can be made at the time of measurement. A large part of the measurement error is human error.
The calibration step is the critical step of the measurement.
When measuring 100m with a steel measuring tape of 5 meters, there is a significant risk of measuring 95 m or 105 m (measuring 19 and 21 lengths respectively). It is better to encourage the use of a steel measuring tape of 20 or 50 meters to reduce this risk.
Another less serious but more likely error is to count one wheel revolution too many or too few at the time of calibration. And while it is accurate to count the partial turn at the end, I think it is precisely at this step that there is the greatest chance of making an error and it is something that cannot really be documented.
This error can be reduced by increasing the length of the calibration base.
If we are wrong by 1 wheel revolution (about 2m) on a 100m base, this corresponds to a measurement error of about 2%. To reach 0.4%, a base of 500m is needed.
This is why the Jones counter was created. There are about 24 counts per wheel revolution (on a 700 wheel, a count is about 9 cm).
With a Jones counter and a base of 300m, if during the calibration we are wrong by one unit, the measurement error will be 0.03%. There is no need to worry about counting partial wheel revolutions.
With a method like the one proposed in the rulebook (3D.15.2.), in my opinion, a safety margin of at least 2% (200m on a 10km) must be used and this seems unacceptable to me.
As for the measurement with a unicycle, the idea is nice but it is difficult to ride as straight as on a bike.
Therefore, I think it is better to refer to a separate document for the measurement of road races.
Concerning who does the measurement. You have to make sure that there are independent people. Ideally, there should be an independent measurer (I think a grade C measurer is enough), a non-competitor organizer (they should know where to position the start and finish). But I'm not shocked if a competitor is involved, but it can't be only competitors. Knowing that it takes at least 2 to make a measurement.
Comment
It seems to me that it is the will of the riders and the WR committee members to have a course measured with a tool that has a low measurement error.
Comment
Hi Simon and welcome to the World Record Committee
Thank you for your comments, which I think are very comprehensible and plausible. I think the things you mentioned regarding the suitability of the currently described procedure are important things for the discussion and based on that we should find a procedure that is suitable.
The topic of a separate document has already been discussed above and the possible unclear responsibility was an argument against it. I would like to point out that a separate document does not automatically mean that it no longer belongs to the Rulebook - the Standard Skill List was also moved to a separate document, but in my opinion it still belongs to the Rulebook and also falls under the responsibility of the Rulebook Committee. Maybe we should get rid of the idea that only one document can be the official rulebook.
Comment
I think that the method is very well detailed by world athletics (https://aims-worldrunning.org/measurement/MeasurementOfRoadRaceCourses.pdf).
I am not sure if it is necessary to make a 50 or 70 pages document replacing "IAAF" by "IUF", but there are some elements that should be taken as they are, such as appendixes 1, 2, 5 (documentation to be provided in case of WR) and 6.
But if a World Athletics qualified measurer is required, there would not even be a need to create such a document.
For me, the question is rather to know if we should train 1 or more voluntary measurers within the IUF. Measuring a course requires patience and discipline, but it is far from being unattainable.
Comment
The question is whether we want to refer to an external document in our rules. But I agree with you that if we require a WA certified surveyor, we might as well refer to the WA rules.
Regarding IUF's own surveyors: in principle I don't think the idea is wrong, the question is, according to which set of rules would you be trained by whom? Or can someone be found who will be trained in some "athletics surveyors program", which would probably be the easiest way.
Comment
Indeed, it will be necessary to be able to access the WA courses on the road races measurements. The problem is that access to these courses is only possible for people who have already followed other courses that are prerequisites...
The IUF and the national federations could perhaps help us to access them. These trainings would not be validating but it would be a good start to appropriate the method and validate our practices.
Comment
Hi Simon,
Sorry I didn't see this comment as it goes into a separate mailbox.
Regarding question 1:
1/ It seems to me that the following sentence has no basis in fact: "Example: if your cycle computer shows 10.15 km, the safety margin is 0.4% * 10.15 km + 0.01 km = 0.0506 km = 50.6 m."
How is the 0.4% safety margin calculated? Why do we add 0.01 km?
-- what the 0.01km is referring to is instrument error. For instance, if your cycle computer measures 10.15km (ie to 2 decimal place resolution), then the actual reading can be anywhere between 10.14 ≤ and ≥10.16km.
The 0.4% safety margin was one we felt in the previous rulebook committee to be sufficient to account for the other types of instrument and non-instrument errors. Remember, this method allows the use of cycle computers. How do you verify the accuracy of the device with the manufacturer (not the calibration)?
If you have a more accurate device like a Jones counter, then perhaps you can bring down the safety margin from 0.4% to perhaps 0.2%.
2/ The measurement error of a measuring tool includes all errors that can be made at the time of measurement. A large part of the measurement error is human error.
The calibration step is the critical step of the measurement.
--You are combining instrumental error and observation error. They are separate things. Even with a highly accurate, well calibrated instrument, you still have other types of errors which can affect the result. That's why we add a safety factor. Even with good intentions, this may not be sufficient. I can go into reasons why there were issues at Unicon if you wish to message me privately.
Remember, a world record stands as long as no one can prove that the race course is shorter than the competition distance (10.000km and 42.195km). The more resources you have to limit instrumental and observational errors, the smaller the 'safety margin' you need. The IAAF use a safety margin of 0.1%, which they call a 'short courses prevention factor', when measuring their race courses. Keep in mind they are much better resourced than unicycling.
https://www.helpyoubetter.com/measurement-error-and-types-of-errors/
Comment
Hi Ken,
There were some issues with notifications, but it seems to be fixed. Thanks for your reply.
I don't claim to be a specialist in the theory of measuring a distance. But there are many similarities with other sciences that I use on a daily basis.
In many fields, there is the value that one seeks to measure (the true value), the measured value and the difference between the 2, which corresponds to the error of measurement.
We could discuss the different types of systematic errors, but I believe that we must first understand the link between the measurement error and the short course prevention factor.
The WA measurement method corresponds to measuring 10.01 km and its 100% confidence interval has a lower bound of 10 km and an upper bound of 10.02 km.
In many sciences, a 95% confidence interval is preferred. In these sciences, one accepts to take a 5% risk that the true value is not included in the confidence interval around the measured value. But for a world record, it is not conceivable that there is even one chance in 1000 that the distance is too short.
To be 100% sure that the real distance is more than 10 km, the measurement error (the difference between the measured value and the real value) must be strictly less than the prevention factor.
The method described in the IUF rules (compared to the WA method) greatly increases the instrumental and gross error. It seems to me to be an illusion to believe that a prevention factor of 0.4% would be sufficient to make measurements with certainty. To choose the correction factor, we would have to make many measurements with this method with multiple people, look at their distribution... in fact it would take more resources to create our own less accurate method than to use an existing method.
A Jones meter costs less than $100 and all metering documentation is available online.
Since I have been interested in road WR and the measurement method, I have heard all kinds of contradictory things.
On the one hand, the requirement of an IAAF grade A or B registered surveyor for the certification of the measurement and on the other the method of the rulebook of the IUF.
A compromise proposal could be to have the possibility of using the WA method with a prevention factor of 0.2% rather than 0.1% if we don't have a registered surveyor.
Comment
I had to use surveyors wheel which is constructed in a similar way to a Jones wheel for checking a 500m track for Guinness. I was surprising we were unable to get much better than 2% accuracy (this may be lack of experience, but it is telling). We repeated multiple times and the errors were +/- 0.2% . This surprized me and it would suggest that a GPS computer with a speed sensor to calibrate it would be as accurate offering 0.05% accuracy over 1km may be a good solution for us over the longer distances. The final time we had Guinness in they had professional surveyors in to do it with digital theodolites.
Comment
Uh... 2% or 0.2%?
The last time I used the Jones counter with Samuel Coupey (hour record), we never had more than 0.05% difference between 2 measurements either on the calibration base (2 times x 4 measurements) or on the course (2 measurements).
What is the calibration process for bicycle speed sensors? Is it a wheel count or is it different?
Comment
sorry, "2% accuracy" should have read "0.2% accuracy". The track we were testing was a tarmac velodrome and we repeated the test using 3 people and each checked twice using 2 wheels. As the track had already been surveyed, it was pointless in my opinion, but was what they wanted. Interestingly our average was within 5cm of the surveyed figure.
From what I understand the auto calibration system used by a Garmin cycle computer when combined with a speed sensor detects the distance travelled via gps and corrects any discrepancy with the wheel size caused by tyre pressure, wear or weight. I do not know the sampling rate or when or how exactly it does it. I just checked it's claimed accuracy when used in combination.
Comment
I'm not sure we are saying different things.
The IAAF measurement system uses the Jones Counter and trained course measurement officials. I can't find information on how they derived the short course prevention factor. However, if I had the resources of the IAAF, I would have measured several marathon courses using the Jones counter along the shortest possible route, figured out a confidence interval, then apply a 'short course prevention factor' based on this.
They wouldn't be using 95% CI, otherwise 2.5% (1 in 40) of marathon courses would be too short. It's probably at least a 99% or 99.9% confidence interval they use to derive their short course prevention factor.
Switch to unicycling- we decided that we should allow cycle computers to measure courses to make it easier for hosts. We use unpaid volunteers with little or no training. So the safety margin has to be reasonably large. Where did we get 0.4% from? I'm pretty sure someone made it up (possibly Scott?). Either way, we can certainly improve on that- but we need someone to measure multiple marathon courses using a cycle computer (?any particular brand/model), multiple times, along the shortest possible route, then crunch the confidence intervals and apply a safety margin. Any volunteers?
If we adopt the IAAF method, our officials must be trained and certified in the Jones counter method. Otherwise their 0.1% safety margin will not apply.
Comment
Yes, we are talking about the same things. I figured that as a physician, a 95% confidence interval must speak to you.
I don't know how WA / IAAF determined their 100% confidence interval. Probably without the detailed method, and the training of the measurers, you would go from, say, 0% to 1% error with the same prevention factor.
In my opinion, the strong point of the WA / IAAF method is that it limits the risk of gross error as much as possible, and above all it allows the entire measurement to be documented. Finally, the biggest risk of error is that the cyclist does not take the shortest possible route when measuring the course.
IMO, the IUF method with the bicycle counter has at least 2 weaknesses:
- the method is inherently less accurate (1 count per wheel revolution, last count of the instrument is 10m, calibration base too short...)
- there are many risks of making gross errors (undocumented errors!) especially for someone who is not used to it (partial wheel count, calibration base measured with a too short tape...)
For example, with this method, it must be very frequent to measure the calibration base wrongly or to make a mistake of 1 wheel revolution when calibrating on the 100m base. I sincerely think that a prevention factor of 2 or 3% would be more appropriate, especially if you entrust the measurements to inexperienced people.
On the other hand, even for inexperienced people, it is much more difficult to make a mistake with WA. I was the first to be surprised to see that following the guide, one would systematically get differences of less than 0.05% (and more often than not one would find exactly the same measurement or 1 point difference, i.e. about 0.02%).
I think that if we use a prevention factor of 0.2% (instead of 0.1% recommended by WA) for untrained people using the WA method, this is more than enough.
But it is clear that the ideal is to have trained people.
Comment
I would agree with Simon that with the method currently described in the Rulebook, a safety margin of 0.4% might not be sufficient to be really sure that the measured course might not be too short. I think Simon has given numerous reasons for this, which I can all understand very well. In particular, I see the possible human errors during calibration as critical. Especially if there are no trained people required in any way, but theoretically anyone can do the measurement.
So I think we should definitely consider here what conditions we want to prescribe for surveying a WR course and then bring those to the Rulebook Committee. For smaller events, where no records can be set, the current uncomplicated procedure is sufficient I htink.
Comment
Hi!
Yesterday I was present at a meeting of the CNM (the "French unicycle federation" which depends on the Léo Lagrange federation called UNSLL).
We discussed about the road races measurement.
We are looking to integrate the courses offered by the athletics federation and we (the federation's technical staff who help the CNM) are looking for a way that this course can be recognised either by a departmental Olympic committee or by the UNSLL. This course will not be validated by the athletics federation because it is necessary to complete pre-requisite courses to access the course on road racing measurement.
This seems to me to be a very interesting possibility, as the measurement method of the athletics federation is reliable and documented. We have already acquired the equipment and the know-how, I think first of all of Samuel Coupey, who is the most experienced. He has already carried out several measurements. He is in the CNM board and president of the Rennes club, of which I am a member. He teaches mathematics at the high school, numbers have no secrets for him. If we are allowed to attend a course, he will go to that course. The aim is to be able to validate his competences.
Comment
Do I observe correctly that some of you are advocating a "hybrid" measurement protocol, where several types of course length measurement are allowed, as long as the Short Course Prevention Factor (by whatever name) is sufficiently large to be quite certain to compensate for the inaccuracy of the measurement? In principle this is fine, but I think we must be prescriptive in the magnitude of the SCPF, which is difficult to do in general terms. It's less complicated to require a single accepted type of measurement (Jones Counter and associated procedure?), for which we can "set" the necessary SCPF, with the added rule that another type measurement is allowed if it can be proven to be as accurate or more accurate.
Comment
Obviously, I am in favor of using the Jones counter method or a method at least as accurate.
In my opinion this method has several advantages:
- when you have read the method carefully, you have done some measurements and you are disciplined, it is difficult to make a big mistake with this method.
- all the steps are documented, so it is easy to find a mistake.
- For about 100€, we have all the material (Jones counter, nails, tape measure...)
But, when we organize an event, we rarely have several hundred euros to pay a measuring judge. That's why we are exploring the possibility of integrating the training courses proposed by the French athletics federation. I will keep you informed of our progress.
Comment
Let me try to summarise:
The athletics federation (is it the French national federation or World Athletics?) offer a course in using the Jones Counter method.
Some member(s) of CNM intend to take that course. These member(s) haven't completed the prerequisite courses, but following the athletics federation's Jones Counter course is still possible. However, even upon successful completion, they will not be certified by the athletics federation.
Still, the course will be useful. You are looking into having it recognised by the Union Nationale Sportive Leo Lagrange, under which the French unicycling federation is residing. If this recognition happens, the certified measurer will be "approved" to do course measurements for French national level unicycling events.
Do I understand everything correct?
Comment
That's about right.
In fact, last week, while browsing the website of the French Athletics Federation (FFA), I found the "measurement judge" course:
https://www.athle.fr/asp.net/main.clubs/orientation.aspx?TDip=&que=-1&qua=JUME&quefin=R70&Rep1fin=
It's possible that the FFA has revised its courses because there is no real pre-requisite for this course. In fact, it is a course composed of 2 general modules and 2 specific modules (the first one on the measurement method with the Jones counter and the second one on the measurement report).
It's a bit early to know the procedure to follow. It seems that option number 1 is to take a FFA license to register (for free) to the 4 modules and receive the FFA diploma. Option number 2 could be to organize the same course by the UNSLL, so that this course is recognized by the UNSLL and that one does not need to take an individual FFA license.
I don't know more about it, but I think it's a very interesting idea.
Comment
They way I understand it, it's interesting for unicycling in France. French national unicycling races (and possible national records) could have a certified course length. But I don't see if this is applicable world-wide. We need certified course measurements "around the globe". I guess these courses are in French, and not suitable (or even not available) to non-French individuals.
Comment
I don't think the World Athletics organizes training courses directly. I think it goes through the national federations. There must be measurement judge training courses in many countries. Did you check with the Dutch federation?
We missed the training sessions before the summer. I'm keeping a close eye on it, and Samuel Coupey and I are trying to get him a license with the French Athletics Federation and training sessions for juge mesurage at the start of the new school year (when there will be sessions).
Comment
I have no idea whether the Dutch athletics federation offers such course measurement courses. I've never been in contact with them.
Re-reading the whole conversation I'm not against using the WA method with trained measurers "of our own". But in order for your idea to work in the framework of the IUF Rulebook, such training should be available in many places worldwide, so that "anyone" can follow them. How are we going to check on that?
Comment
I must admit I'm missing something.
Back a few years ago, in the first discussions we had concerning the homologation of a course, there was talk of using a grade A or B registered surveyor, not "anyone".
It makes no sense to let anyone measure a UNICON course, and have to call in a grade A or B registered surveyor when you want to attempt a WR in isolation.
The World Athletics measurement method is available online to anyone. The documents include a form to be completed to document the entire measurement. But it takes several hours to measure a course, and not anyone has the motivation to do this kind of work.
I think we need to encourage people who are just starting out to take a measurement using this method, and those who want to take a training course. The idea is not to train everyone, but if we can get a few referents in the unicycle community, that might be good.
It's also possible to get in touch with an athletics club for help. Most road races organized by athletics federations around the world are measured using the Jones counter method.
Comment
>It makes no sense to let anyone measure a UNICON course, and have to call in a grade A or B registered surveyor when you want to attempt a WR in isolation.
I agree with that. From a Unicon race a WR can follow, and such a record must have the same "quality" as a WR done individually. I can't find it back right now, but I'm pretty sure I've held a plea to unify the requirements for the course measurement for both "types" of WRs.
Comment
I think by now we more or less agree here on the best approach to course measurement. Now it need to be rooted in the Rulebook as well. We now have the opportunity to create correspondence between Rulebook and World Record Guidelines.
Simon, would you be willing to start a discussion in the Rulebook Road Racing committee about course measurement, along the lines that you have been advocating above?