In the tech era, can marathon course measurers be replaced by AI? ·…

World Athletics recently updated the list of international course measurers, among themA- and B-levelChinaA total of eight are listed，the country's only A-level measurerremainsYan Juntao; the other seven are all B-level.

Although this list looks like a routine announcement, among the more than 360 people worldwide on the list it inevitably raises a thought-provoking question, namelywhether marathon measurement that depends heavily on human involvement is still feasible。

After all, in an era when，technology can already deliver high-precision positioning,why is marathon course certificationstill reliant on human measurers— and what does this heavy reliance on manual measurement and the absence of technology actually imply?

An expanding list of measurers

Where does the confidence come from?

Before examining the measurer system, let's first look at how many measurers worldwide are involved in calculating marathon distances.

According to World Athletics' international measurers list updated in May of this year,there are currently 364 A- and B-level measurers worldwide,with the United States having the most — 86 A- and B-level measurers — and in Asia Japan leads with six A-level and fifteen B-level measurers.

Measuring marathon course distances depends on certification by professional course measurers.

Currently there are eight course measurers in China; Yan Juntao remains the country's only A-level measurer, while the other seven are B-level.，Compared with the previous list, the total number published worldwide has risen slightly, butthey remain in short supply in a marathon market that has a large number of races.。

Returning to the measurers themselves, their mysterious work often leaves the public in the dark.，What "magic" they perform on the course.

The "measuring counter" is an important tool for measuring distance.

When it comes to the work of course measurers, they can be considered the soul of the course.，After all, before the eventthe measurement of distance affects many key factors.

First,，before measuring they need to usethe "measuring counter"mounted on a bicycle for calibration,and variables such as tire pressure and temperature will greatly affect measurement accuracy.After completing those calibrations, they repeatedly ride the full marathon course to measure and record data, sometimes stopping multiple times to calculate.

Finally they write an English report of more than twenty pages, detailing every point and the measuring process, and submit it to World Athletics for review. Only after passing this process is the course certification considered complete.，It alsoensures the records are traceable, so every step can beverified and inspected.

The course measurer's work involves extensive calculations and a wealth of accumulated experience.

While this system helps ensure a race's fairness and authority, runners' experience raises a different question.

“In an age where technology is ubiquitous, why does marathon course certification still rely on manual methods?”

Faced with technology feeling more immediate at the personal level and more in tune with runners' intuition,one can't help but wonder whether it's possible in the future to establish a technology-based measurement standard, allowing humans and technology to jointly safeguard a race's fairness and credibility.。

Technology is highly precise

but its application is still limited

In fact, looking back at many parts of marathon events over the past few years, many areas had long since completeddigitization—for example, chips in bibs, timing-mat sensor systems, and the real-time network transmission of results; technology has long since replaced manual check-in and timing methodsand has become the mainstream toolset for marathon events.。

But when the topic returns to “official distance measurement,” the situation is completely different.

As mentioned at the start, modern surveying technology is already very precise—for example, positioning systems used in engineering can reach centimeter-level accuracy, which in theory is fully sufficient for marathon course certification; at the same time, centimeter-level RTK real-time kinematic positioning，can extend to millimeter-level distance measurements with total stations, and to 3D laser scanning capable of fully reconstructing road spatial structures.

In experimental environments, these all exhibit astonishing precision and stabilitytechnologies。

But the key issue isn't whether the technology is powerful enough, it's that in real course environments,“the conditions for application are actually far more complex than in the laboratory.”。

in real citiescomplex race environments such as consecutive turns and open city blocksEven with stable base‑station signals, considering that errors accumulate over each measured segment, this generates massive amounts of data and complex post‑processing, preventing a unified certification process.

Another key problem is that these technologiesare "unable to actively select their route"。

It's like technology can measure, but technology cannot run. When measuring, course measurers hug the inside of bends, run straights and tangents, ensuring the route is the shortest.

©rwenzorimarathon

This is also explicitly required in World Athletics' measurement rules: measurers must proceed along"the theoretical shortest route", which is usually shorter than the route a runner actually takes, because runners in a race will take on supplies, avoid others, divert around crowds or be obstructed, making it almost impossible to run the absolute shortest path.

Course measurers, through training and accumulated experience, can get as close as possible to that theoretical shortest route.

©rwenzorimarathon

Technology records the position of the device, not the theoretical shortest route; therefore, no matter how high the technological precision,if it records the actual trajectory, it cannot be used directly for course certification.。

So although technological precision is already sufficient, there are unavoidable limitations in real‑world stability, traceability, path definition and operational complexity.，Course measurers are the key role capable of addressing what technology cannot handle.

Operation of the institutional safeguard system

Certification is irreplaceable

Besides real‑world conditions being more complex than in the laboratory, the reason a marathon course's official distance is accepted worldwide also relies on a system established by World Athletics"A system of traceable procedures"。

Tracing World Athletics' course certification system back to its origins, you can see that from the very beginning，it was not set up to chase the highest possible technical precision; rather, the reason manual processes have been retained is because theypossess complete calibration, field-measurement, and verification mechanismsthat give each step clear operating procedures, ensure details can be audited and checked, and produce the most correct results.

The manual process includes full calibration, on-site measurement, and re-check procedures.

Additionally, this ensures any course can be re-measured at any time, by any measurer, using the same method and yield consistent results.

A look at World Athletics' official documents shows the rules explicitly require course measurement to include three steps: pre-measurement calibration, on-site measurement, and post-measurement verification; omission of any step will prevent certification.

©Yahoo Sports

After measurement is complete, the measurer must prepare a full report in English containing the calibration data, measurement route maps, coordinates of key points, verification results, and all environmental factors that could affect the measurement; the report only becomes official after review by World Athletics.

The value of the system lies in its verifiability: anyone with the report and the course maps can re-measure and obtain the same result. This traceability is something no current technological method can provide.

©World Athletics

At the same time, within the system，there is another, most critical rule:"Route-Shortening Prevention Coefficient"In essence it requires adding an extra 0.1% length to every kilometre during measurement — that is, each kilometre must be measured as 1,001 m, and a full marathon must be 42.195 km plus an additional 42 m.

This rule is written in World Athletics' course measurement guidelines and must be followed by all certified courses worldwide.

You may be curious about its meaning — after all, it increases the distance.

But consider World Athletics' design carefully: if marathon course error must not exceed 0.1% — that is, within 42 metres — andthe error can only be positive, not negative。

then this rule guarantees that runners everywhere — in any city, any race, any year — compete over the same distance, preventing unfair results or record disputes caused by courses that are short.

lies inEnsure the course is never short — it can only be slightly long., a negative error is absolutely impossible.

Technology may be more precise, buttechnology-based measurement currently lacks a unified verification standard, and there is no traceable process. Different devices, different algorithms, and different environments all produce discrepancies; World Athletics cannot apply a single system to review the results of technology-based measurement, nor can it guarantee consistent tech measurements worldwide.

Therefore, even if technology can achieve higher precision, it still cannot replace the course measurer system — the system’s existence guarantees fairness in competition and the authority of records, and this is the fundamental reason World Athletics insists on manual measurement.

Technology does have a role to play.

The course measurer system has been used for decades; its value is to ensure fairness and the authority of records. But the system has its limitations: it relies on manual processes, is time- and labor-intensive, and updates slowly, whiletechnology is advancing rapidly, yet the system remains unchanged.。

While World Athletics continually updates its list of course measurers, perhaps we can rethink whether future marathon course certification mightshift from manual to technological methods, or whether manual and technology will form a new coexistence model.。

In fact, during course planning for marathons, satellite positioning technology is usually used to design the route initially to ensure the course length is roughly compliant, and then course measurers perform precise measurement using traditional methods.

When working on site, course measurers also use electronic devices to record points, take photo archives, and even employ digital tools to draw course maps, but the sole basis for final certification remains the bicycle measurement method.

This actually shows that high-tech methods，are not being completely excluded from the work of course measurers, they simply have not entered the core of the system.

So perhaps in the future we can imagine,an integration of manual work and technology.。

For example, attempting to employ technology incourse planning, data archiving, and auxiliary verification, helping course measurers improve efficiency, reduce repetitive work, and even establish new standardized procedures in the future.

Human roles will continue tocarry the core of the system, ensuring traceability and upholding the baseline of fairness。

Perhaps in the near future, marathon distance certification will no longer be about technology replacing humans, but about a new coexistence model of humans and technology—allowing technology to operate within the institutional framework while keeping fairness and authority unshaken.

[End-of-article interaction]

#Are you curious about the work of course measurers?#

Text/Editor: Jim

Image source: Paoye Dabaozha

Visuals: Max