FINAL REPORT OF THE MEASUREMENT

of the

EDMONTON 2001 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS

MARATHON

and

RACE WALK COURSES

by Pete Riegel, IAAF Road Course Measurement Administrator, Americas

SUMMARY

The Edmonton 2001 World Championships Marathon and Racewalk courses were originally measured by John McBean. The marathon route was given Canadian certification of accuracy under the identification number AB‑2001‑010‑BDC. The racewalk route was certified as AB‑2001‑023‑BDC.

A group measurement of the courses was performed on May 26 and 27, 2001, under my supervision. Confirming my measurements were Bernie Conway, Canada’s chief course certifier and IAAF “A” level measurer, and six other Canadian measurers.

The marathon course had a measured length of 42214 metres, and it was recommended that 19 metres be removed at the start.

The 4 km stadium-to-stadium portion of the racewalk course had a measured length of 3985 metres, and it was recommended that 15 metres be added at the start. The 2 km loop had a measured length of 1998 metres, and it was recommended that the turnaround be extended southward 1 metre, bringing the loop to the desired 2000 metres.

The course adjustments will be performed by John McBean and checked by Bernie Conway when he comes to Edmonton in August as official observer of the events.

INTRODUCTION

The 8th IAAF World Championships in Athletics will be held in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, August 3‑12, 2001. There will be five events held on the roads outside the stadium and around the city: Men's and Women's Marathon, Men's 20 km and 50 km racewalk, and Women's 20 km Racewalk. These events will be held on two courses ‑ the marathon course and the walks course. As IAAF Road Race measurer, it was my responsibility to oversee the measurement of these courses.

After preliminary contacts with Edmonton 2001 organizers, the dates of May 26 and 27, 2001, were selected as the measurement days. Athletics Alberta arranged for a measurement seminar to be conducted concurrently with the measurement, assuring that the routes would receive multiple measurements.

MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE

Day 1 ‑ The measurement group met at 9 AM on Saturday, May 26, in a classroom in Commonwealth Stadium, the Games venue. After introductions and a brief overview of course measurement, the group affixed Jones/Oerth counters to their bicycles and moved outside. A calibration course estimated at about 400 metres was paced off, and nails installed in either end of the course. The measurers calibrated their bicycles, then moved to a reference point at the outside of the stadium access tunnel. From this point they measured the distances within the stadium, returning to the reference point. After recalibration they put the bicycles aside and measured the length of the calibration course.

When all stadium data had been obtained the group returned to the classroom, and measurers were instructed to calculate the distances they had obtained. The beginners were assisted by those measurers with some experience. The group compared their results, considering them preliminary. I asked for and received copies of everybody's data for later use in computer calculation.

Day 2 ‑ The group met again at 4:15 AM on Sunday, May 27, and calibrated their bicycles. The police arrived at 5:00, and the group rode from the reference point outside the stadium around the course, stopping at previously‑established 5 km points, and the halfway point. After recalibrating, the group measured the route of the racewalk. After the final calibration, the group again went to the classroom and calculated their measured values. Again data was collected for later computer calculation. This completed the data‑gathering.

DISCUSSION OF DATA AND RESULTS

Data and results of the group measurement may be seen in following pages. It is usual in discussing the results of group measurements to look for discrepancies and errors. Unfortunately for analysts, the results obtained showed such complete agreement, and so few anomalous values, that there is little material for discussion. Nevertheless, a few points may be made:

The track had no curbing in place, and no inner line was painted. The measurement used the inner peripheral drain as a reference “curb” during the measurement. Measured lap lengths showed that the error produced by this was acceptably small.

A few people made minor errors in choice of path along the route. I cut the corner at 95 Ave and 163 St, shortening this measurement by perhaps half a metre. Lacroix, Stilwell and LaMontagne rode a bit inside the line at the approach to the Groat Rd bridge, shortening their measurements by less than a metre. I got slightly off-course during the 4 km racewalk measurement, which I corrected with an offset maneuver. None of these minor errors was accounted for in subsequent calculation, as they were both minor and unquantified.

Calibration results showed steady riding, even among the less-experienced.

Close agreement was obtained on measurements of all course segments.

All things considered, it was one of the best results of a group ride I have ever seen.

CHOICE OF “OFFICIAL” LENGTHS

As IAAF measurer, it was my responsibility to establish the “official” lengths of the courses so that organizers would know what needed to be done. This is the part of the job that can lead to contention, as different people will use similar logic to arrive at differing results. I considered it desirable to present the Edmonton organizers with recommendations as early as possible, to permit them the maximum time to act on them.

The recommendations were made on Monday, May 28, after I completed the computer calculations in the Edmonton 2001 office. Recommendations were given verbally to Gary Tomick, and emailed and telephoned to John McBean, who will do the actual adjustments.

To make the final choice I graphed the results of the three course measurements, and determined by inspection that the most probable result lay within the span of the lowest four measurements, and I picked “official” distances that seemed to me to be reasonable. I have, in the past, employed various mathematical schemes to justify such choices, and have found none that agree exactly, and none that show a marked difference from simply inspecting the results.

Measurement results show that none of the “official” distances chosen was shown to be short of the nominal distance, by any measurer using any constant.

THE SEMINAR

The class. Left to right, front row: Laurent Lacroix, Bernie Conway, Pete Riegel, Kelcey Stilwell. Back row: John McBean, John Jacobson, Marcel LaMontagne, Gerry Dragomir.

A seminar was held concurrently with the course measurements. Organized by John Jacobson of Athletics Alberta, it consisted of myself and seven Canadian measurers of varying levels of experience, including Jacobson himself, and Bernie Conway, Chief Course Certifier for Canada.

The seminar was quite informal, with the principal goal being to give the measurers as much hands-on experience as possible within the two available days, and to provide them with copies of the Canadian course measurement manual for detailed study. Six of the eight measurers had previous experience, while Jacobson and Kelcey Stilwell were novices.

The students quickly grasped the fundamentals of proper riding. Later when data was being calculated, a small amount of one-on-one guidance in calculation helped them complete the first day. No such guidance was necessary on the second day, as they now had the calculation procedures clear in their minds.

The quality of the work, judging by the data obtained, was equal to that of the best group rides I have seen. There was no way to distinguish between the work of these relatively inexperienced measurers and that of far more experienced people. As they have a viable certification system in Canada, I am hoping to see them take advantage of their newfound knowledge and confidence to produce certified courses.

All measurers were told that this report would be delayed for two weeks to permit them, if they so wished, to contribute individual reports of their own, to be appended to this report. Two measurers, Laurent Lacroix and Bernie Conway, sent contributions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND THANKS

This measurement and seminar was a privilege and a pleasure for me, as well as a thoroughly successful technical exercise. I would like to thank the following people for their help:

Pierre Weiss and Sue Richardson of the IAAF office in Monte Carlo, who acceded to my request that I remain the course measurer, while Bernie Conway take on the responsibility of official observer at the Championships.

Gary Tomick, Acting Director of Competition, Edmonton 2001, who was my main contact in Edmonton, and who oversaw the general organization of the effort. Gary also made a computer available to me on the day following the measurement, so that I was able to complete the calculations before returning home.

John McBean, who provided us with an accurate course, in spite of being an inexperienced measurer. He followed the procedures, and they worked. John also procured for me an excellent bicycle to use, which I greatly appreciated.

John Jacobson, Executive Director, Athletics Alberta, who organized the seminar. John also had one of the best measurements, in spite of riding with a sore knee.

Laurent Lacroix, webmaster of the Canadian certification system, who has kept measurers abreast of our results. Laurent showed up with a large quantity of bicycle tools, which were a great help in getting us properly set up.

Bernie Conway, Chief Certifier for Canada, who, by being there to offer support and advice, helped strengthen the bonds uniting the measurers of Canada.

Tom Knight, US certifier, IAAF “A” measurer, and measurer of two Olympic marathon courses, who was kind enough to review my calculations and to show me several typographical errors.

2001 World Championships Validation

Supplemental Report

by

Laurent Lacroix

May 26 and 27, 2001

I. Participants

II. Calibration Course Measurement

III. Stadium Measurements

IV. Marathon Measurement

V. Effect of Temperature Variation and Riding Errors on the Marathon Measurement

VI. Adjustments for Temperature Variation and Errors to the Marathon Measurement

VII. Race Walk Measurement

VIII. Adjustments to the Race Walk Measurements

IX. Recommendations for the Marathon and Race Walk Courses

X. Cable-Driven Counters
XI. A Word of Thanks

I. The team consisted of:

Pete Riegel (PR), Columbus, Ohio – IAAF/AIMS Measurement Administrator for the Americas

Laurent Lacroix (LL), Winnipeg, Manitoba – IAAF/AIMS Grade B measurer

Bernie Conway (BC), London, Ontario – IAAF/AIMS Grade A measurer and Canada’s Chief Certifier

Kelcey Stilwell (KS), Edmonton – Novice measurer

Gerry Dragomir (GD), Vancouver, British Columbia – Measurer with a year of experience and 3 certified courses to his credit.

John McBean (JM), Edmonton, Alberta – IAAF/AIMS Grade C measurer, measurer of the Worlds courses and lead measurer for the validation rides.

Marcel LaMontagne (ML), Calgary, Alberta – Measurer with a few years experience and one certified course to his credit.

John Jacobson (JJ), Edmonton – Novice measurer

II. Calibration Course Measurement

The calibration course was situated on Stadium Road, adjacent to Commonwealth Stadium where the walks and marathon courses start and finish. Barricades and traffic cones were provided by the city of Edmonton so that we were able to close off one full lane for measurement of the calibration course and the calibrations. Pete opted to use the west end of John McBean’s 300 m calibration course and placed a nail east of the other end. Three teams measured the distance and obtained the following results: Team 1 (PR, BC): 415.250 m; Team 2 (JM, LL): 415.249 m; Team 3 (KC, JJ, GD): 415.300 m. To their credit, Team 3, who by their estimate was a couple of metres out at the 300 m mark, completed the measurement. Upon comparison of their “30 m” tape to my 50 m tape realized that they had measured 100 foot lengths rather than 30 metre lengths. Their measurement was salvaged once the source of their error was discovered. After temperature corrections at 24 degrees C., the calibration course distance was set at 415.27 m.

III. Stadium Measurements

Resurfacing of the track was commencing the weekend of the validation ride. The track surface was smooth asphalt at the time, though we had to contend with three obstacles: two hoses and a palette of bricks. One rider, KS, wiped out the first time she attempted to ride over a hose, fortunately she was unhurt by the ordeal. The workers didn’t know why we were there and weren’t exactly ecstatic about having a group of riders on the track. We did eventually complete the ride and the foreman, who knew about our task but wasn’t on hand for the measurement, apologized profusely upon his arrival.

The section of the route that traverses the stadium parking lot goes through the tunnel. This was measured immediately after the pre-calibration on May 27 to avoid having to ride around the cars that would be parked there later in the day. Use of the first calibration would more accurately represent the true distance of this segment, but the difference is minimal.

Summary of Marathon Stadium Measurements

	PR	LL	BC	KS	GD	JM	ML	JJ
Start to Point A	535.36	535.52	535.68	542.13	537.73	536.62	533.51	536.24
Point A to Finish	364.78	364.63	364.78	366.56	365.35	365.24	365.16	365.39
Total	900.13	900.15	900.46	908.69	903.08	901.86	898.67	901.63

Total of Stadium Parking Lot Lengths

	PR	LL	BC	KS	GD	JM	ML	JJ
Based on pre-calibration (m)	393.350	392.964	393.169	397.18	393.95	393.974	394.29	394.53
Based on average (m)	393.458	393.207	393.30	397.36	394.22	394.12	394.46	394.60
Difference (m)	0.108	0.242	0.127	0.186	0.269	0.141	0.169	0.075

IV. Measurement of the Marathon Course

The riders were placed in the following order in the measurement peloton:

JM, PR, GD, BC, KS, LL, JJ, ML

Each rider was instructed to follow the SPR and not exceed a distance from 30 cm from the curb. Measurers used their best judgement in following the SPR and did not blindly follow the leader. A police escort of four vehicles stopped traffic as we approached intersections, so we only needed to stop at every 5 km and the halfway point, whose locations had been established by JM on previous measurements. The blue line indicating the marathon route was already in place and it approximated the SPR, though not reliably enough to be followed by the measurers. The Edmonton Police did a superb job, making this the smoothest and most efficient marathon measurement in which I have ever ridden.

Total Length of the Marathon Course in Metres

	PR	LL	BC	KS	GD	JM	ML	JJ
Point 2 to Point 1	40921.47	40920.02	40922.09	40920.46	40950.01	40928.36	40930.50	40917.49
Stadium Parking Lot (cal avg)	393.458	393.207	393.2957	397.365	394.22	394.115	394.456	394.604
Stadium	900.13	900.15	900.46	908.69	903.08	901.86	898.67	901.63
Total	42215.06	42213.37	42215.85	42226.52	42247.31	42224.34	42223.62	42213.72

V. Effect of Temperature Variation and Errors

Pre-calibration was under way by 4:10 am on May 27^th. Fortunately, ground temperature readings varied minimally considering the amount of riding time - from a dark 12.5 degrees C. at the start of the pre-calibration to a sunny 14 degrees C. at the end of the post-calibration. The marathon measurement began at 5:08 am, with sunrise occurring at 5:18, according to Environment Canada. Before beginning the marathon measurement, we measured the route through the stadium parking lot before it was filled with parked cars. The values used in Pete’s calculations use the average constant, but it makes more sense to use the largest constant for these as it occurred immediately after the pre-calibration. The distance through the stadium parking lot is approximately 393 metres, and using the average constant rather than the largest results in a course that is shorter by about 16.5 cm on average. John Jacobson’s measurement of this section was the least affected with a difference of only 7.5 cm.

I was rather disappointed in the performance of the Specialized Fat Boy tire that I used for the measurement. The slick 1.25-inch mtb tire holds 100 psi and handles well. Unfortunately it expanded far more than most other tires over such a small temperature variance. BC used my extra wheel, equipped with a 1 inch Ritchey Tom Slick mtb tire. This tire also holds 100 psi but expanded significantly less than mine. Even though expansion varied greatly between tires, use of the average constant puts our results fairly close together,

Change in Counts from Pre-calibration to Post-calibration

	PR	LL	BC	KS	GD	JM	ML	JJ
First cal constant, counts/m	10.98004	16.00272	16.29454	12.23379	11.48112	10.95503	11.94815	11.13099
Second cal constant, counts/m	10.97401	15.98299	16.284	12.22234	11.46545	10.94719	11.9379	11.12678
Average of 1 & 2, counts/m	10.97702	15.99286	16.28927	12.22806	11.47328	10.95111	11.94302	11.12888
Change, counts/km	-6.0	-19.7	-10.5	-11.4	-15.7	-7.8	-10.2	-4.2
Change, parts per 10,000	-5.5	-12.3	-6.5	-9.4	-13.7	-7.2	-8.6	-3.8

Length of the Portion of the Course Affected by the Calibration Change on Day 2

	JJ	LL*	KS*	PR	BC	JM	ML*	GD
Pre-calibration	40909.748	40895.788	40902.307	40910.233	40908.857	40913.717	40913.945	40922.053
Average	40917.505	40921.021	40921.473	40921.451	40922.092	40928.363	40931.484	40950.016

* Adjusted for Groat Rd. Error, 1 metre added. See below.

*Adjusted for Groat Rd. Error, 1 metre added. See below.

Noteworthy Errors: Aside from small deviations from the SPR that I noticed among those ahead of me, from which I was not immune, there were two incidents of rider error worth reporting. The first occurred when an officer in the police escort chastised JJ for not riding single file. He tried to explain that he was merely following the SPR, and that everyone else was riding the incorrect line; his attempt didn’t go over too well. It later became evident that though this was JJ’s first measurement, his knowledge of the route and of Edmonton’s streets combined with a good riding technique and close adherence to the SPR resulted in an excellent measurement. JJ came up with a distance that was slightly ahead of the experienced measurers’ who were less familiar with the course. The second incident occurred when LL, KS, and ML rode to the inside of the cone placement on the curve at the bottom of the Groat Road hill, on the approach to the bridge, between the half way point and the 25 km mark. When I realized that I had chosen the wrong line on my approach, I maintained the distance I had already cut rather than pursuing the shortest path on the paved shoulder or rather swerving back to the designated route. I estimate, based on the other measurers’ recorded distance for this split, that the three riders cut 80 to 100 cm from the course, which would make my measured distance slightly longer than JJ’s. The overall effect of the error to the measurement is minimal. It is interesting to note that KS’s measurement on Day 2 was in close agreement with JJ, LL, PR and BC, while the sum of her stadium and parking lot measurements added 12 metres of separation to these measurers.

Distance from 21.1 km to 25 km, Where Groat Rd. Error Occurred