|T O P I C R E V I E W
||Posted - June 04 2012 : 21:51:15
For those who did Running Water on Saturday, I checked my GPS watch against the course certification linked on this site, and it looks to me like we went 0.1-mile too far! A bunch of us felt like it was a long race at the finish line and I think we were right.
|10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
||Posted - June 10 2012 : 13:54:36
hi, my garmin also showed the course 3.34 miles or .24 over which was the same as several others, first mile marker was 1.11 miles, still a nice course and if the proper corrections are made, I'll run it next year
||Posted - June 05 2012 : 21:37:40
Not a problem -- I'll show up next year. Personally, I like running courses on bike paths more than roads, so the location is very good. As long as I know the distance was long for sure, I'm happy. I felt like I was running pretty fast and my legs are still a little sore, so I feel better knowing it wasn't a slow day!
||Posted - June 05 2012 : 20:59:05
Mega-kudos to this race director for caring enough to follow up. Props also to all the alert runners who helped identify this problem and shared it with us.
I'd like to point out that this race exhibited high quality from day-one. It resisted bad advice and certifed their course for its very first year, 2011. Unfortunaely the physical placement of the Finish Line this year was delegated to a 3rd party supplied with the map. What could go wrong? That's not likely to ever happen again.
Here's a video from the 2012 Running Water 5K event in Amherst. Its a fun video to watch, and it coincidentally shows that the finish line was inexplicably set up too soon, before the prominent, almost 90 degree turn on the Bike Path, that marks the finish -- just as Kelp53 described.
Check it out :) http://vimeo.com/43501409
||Posted - June 05 2012 : 19:26:44
Hi, my name is Kate and I am the coordinator of Running Water 5k, and the director of the charity let them LOL.
I would like to apologize to the runners, as after looking at the video clips, and our certification, the finish was indeed set up a bit too far back. I understand that this affected times and we are very sorry for that.
We strive for excellence in all we do, and want to make this a great race for both serious and fun runners. I can assure you that this will be corrected for the 2013 race.
Thank you for the feed back so we could discover this error and make adjustments, we hope you will give us a try again in 2013
||Posted - June 05 2012 : 18:31:32
Yes, I also reserved judgement until I got home and downloaded the data off my watch. The GPS does accumulate errors over long distances (mine said 3.23 miles), but the start and finish waypoints should be accurate to within 10m or so like Admin said. Garman's website overlays the data on a satellite map.
If I read the course certification right, the correct end point should be at the 1/10th mile path marker that is at the sharpest point in that final curve right in front of the bench. It turns out you can see the bench and the markers (which show up bright white) on the satellite photo, and my GPS watch stops at the next marker down past the curve, exactly 1/10th mile too far. Of course, you all have to take my word that I stopped my watch at the finish line, but it seems to make sense. My GPS start line looks pretty close to what the certification says.
I've got screen captures of my GPS/satellite overlays for anyone who is interested.
||Posted - June 05 2012 : 09:52:16
Not to cloud an important issue... but here's one from the meaningless stats department:
This race is in its second year. 27 runners ran it both years. Of those runners, 14 ran faster in 2012 and 13 ran slower. Total and average times clocked for this subset of the population favored a faster performance in 2012.
Interesting, but not definitive. Perhaps it tells us that if there is a problem it was not humongous.
I saw photography from the 2011 race and the start and finish were correct in 2011. We have not seen any photos yet from 2012. Anyone got photos that show the start or finish?
||Posted - June 05 2012 : 09:40:49
There is no question that GPS is a valuable tool. But it is far from ideal at delivering precise road course distance info -- its not designed for that and can not be used for measuring a course according to the USATF and the IAAF/AIMS. Unaugmented commercial GPS is not accurate enough for that function. Also, you might actually run 3.2 miles in a 5K, legitimately, but that does not mean the course is wrong -- it usually means you did not hug the tangents.
But if anyone captured their track from start to finish that would be real helpful and is what GPS is real good at. If you had a valid signal then your points should be within 3 to 10 meters accurate -- that's not good enough to measure distance in this context but it is excellent for determining if the course was set up properly or not.
Anyone capture their track?
||Posted - June 05 2012 : 08:12:42
GPSs are pretty accruate, but i dont think they are 100% all the time
||Posted - June 05 2012 : 08:12:32
I did not run the race. I was there watching and supporting my girlfriend. Her GPS measured the course at 3.25 miles. We looked at the course map on this site and the finish line was definitely in a different spot making the course longer.
I did not see the start line but from what was described to me and after looking at the course map, it seems like that was in the wrong place too making the course longer.
A couple of other people had the course around 3.3 miles on their GPS.
||Posted - June 05 2012 : 00:30:33
Was the course not set up properly? That is the biggest threat to accurate distance on a certified course.
This course is at particular risk because the finish line is relatively far from both the start line and the venue in a remote location.
Where did they put the finish line? Did they follow the map?