Trivia: What are the nicknames for the sports teams at Bessemer High School (in the U.P.)?
NEW POSITION. Twice this summer I received mail from race directors who themselves had received notes from runners who'd covered their race courses wearing global positioning system units. In both cases, mileage totals compiled by the units exceeded the advertised race distance.

Since I'd measured the courses for certification, the directors wanted my take on the GPS-generated numbers. At first I cringed because I knew this could or would become a widespread problem, then groaned because I knew how the "wow" factor of new technologies can blind users to their limitations.

Having measured courses for certification for 25 years, I have every confidence in the process and my ability to get things accurate. There aren't any better, more practical ways to certify a course than those adopted years ago by USATF.

When a course I've certified gets questioned, I usually dismiss it, although I did remeasure one 5K to appease a race director who'd heard from a disgruntled "elite" runner and the course turned out to be just fine.

Unless a certified course is run differently than it was originally measured, people are pretty much wasting their time questioning the length. Uncertified courses are another story.

We've all run courses that made us question the real distance. If the course wasn't certified, it probably isn't accurate. Some uncertified courses are more accurate than others, but only a small percentage are PR-worthy. Most uncertified courses are short.

A certified course is a guarantee your PRs count for something, although I'll accede what you count as your best is your business. It's instructive to point out records can only be set on certified courses. But I digress.

GPS units are big kids' toys capable of providing lots of useful info. Numbers generated lean toward scientific interpretation vs. an artsy approach that operates more on feel and instincts. The makers of GPS units acknowledge a plus/minus accuracy variance, affecting pace and distance.

Although I admit to being impressed with their accuracy, I've heard about too many instances where, for reasons known and not, the distances recorded weren't right. While it's fair to herald their overall value, some figures should be viewed with a degree of flexibility.

Longtime columnist, observer and author Joe Henderson teaches a running class at the University of Oregon. "In my little world (of teaching) GPS's are alternately making me laugh and scream," Joe says.

"I haven't measured courses for certification, but by using a calibrated bike they're close enough for training purposes," he continues. "Yet the GPS-wearers in my groups tell me their own distances as if they're accurate and mine are wild guesses. Funny thing is, three different GPS's can yield three wildly-varying lengths - for the same course, the same day and time.

"For instance, yesterday's marathon training run was a few hundredths over 17 miles by my count. A GPSer insisted it really was 16.56 miles and I'd cheated him out of a half-mile. He hadn't accounted for trees and bridges disrupting his signal. Another example of too much faith placed in technology."

A major reason GPS units measure long on certified courses is because the wearer failed to run the shortest possible route - the path course-certifiers are required to follow. Imagine a string laid loosely over an entire course, then pulled taut against road edges and curbs, and you have an idea how tightly certified courses are measured.

David Howell, who sells a good number of GPS units at his Total Runner stores, came up with 10.09 miles for the recent Crim 10-mile course. That's pretty good agreement and demonstrates how accurate the technology is. It's very good. You would, however, be way wrong to think the course is .09 long because it's been validated for accuracy at about 50' long (a difference of 425').

In general, I'd guess current GPS units are accurate to within about one part in 100. As an example, if you came up with 5.63 miles at an average pace of 8:10 per mile, the course was probably between 5.57 and 5.69 miles and your pace was between 8:05 to 8:15 a mile.

What numbers you accept as reality are up to you, but you'd be wise to view GPS figures less as gospel and more as reasonably accurate. ONE DAY AT A TIME. Three weeks into my 40th year of running, I reached my 1,000th consecutive day of running and/or cycling in late September. The streak started Jan. 1, 2004, and I've biked 17,400 miles and run 2,350 miles since then. There've been several stretches of a month or more where the bike was my sole exercise and preservation because I couldn't run.

In a column earlier this year I described how I'd evolved into more and more cycling after many years of running. The cycling has complemented running nicely and I'm sure time in the saddle will prolong and enhance the quality of future run miles. The kind of aches that prevented running were tolerable on the non-weight-bearing bike.

Another streak, all run miles, ended more than 15 years ago at just over 2,000 days. Since streaks seem to have lives of their own, growing as much by plan as luck, I make no predictions how long this one will last. CYBER SITES. There are a couple Web sites I've enjoyed following and happily endorse here.

Alphabetically, the first is by Amby Burfoot, longtime executive editor at Runner's World, 1968 Boston Marathon winner and all-around good guy. I was initially introduced to Amby's "Ambling Along" at Ambyburfoot.blogspot.com and discovered he also contributes good stuff at Rodale.typepad.com/footloose.

The second site, by 1996 U.S. Olympian Joan Nesbit Mabe, can be found at Runningland.com and is called "Songs of experience." Joan ran in five Olympic track trials between 1984 and 2000, coaches a moms-only team called "See Jane Run" and has three daughters.

Both sites feature pieces about friends, family, philosophical and political musings, and assorted topics that strike the authors as important enough to share. Each has an experienced and discerning eye and more than capably translates what they see into words. Joan has been at it for two years and Amby since summer 2006.

I mentioned Joe Henderson above. Those who'd like to catch up with the respected and humble running writer and coach can do so at joehenderson.com. Nobody sees and describes the sport for it's worth like Joe.

Answer: The Speedboys and Speedgirls. Bessemer's track has an unusual configuration: a square with rounded corners. MR