How to Measure Hole Distances

[cc0049]

I am wondering what is the best line to measure for the distance of a hole. Should the straight line distance from tee to basket be used always, or is the fairway distance sometimes more appropraite? I'm curious because there are many holes where you don't have a straight shot at the basket. It seems in those cases, that the straight line distance isn't what you want to know.
I'm curious what others out there think about this.

[Olorin]

As a starting point see this DGCR thread (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=345&highlight=measure) on measuring holes. (Make special note of post #9 ;))

[PhattD]

I've seen that thread and it is very long with lots of view points. The cliff notes version is there is no right answer. First of all each hole is different so on one hole it might make more sense for a straight line measurement and on others it would make sense to measure fairway distance. And on some holes the most useful measurment is going to change depending on who is throwing. For example # 10 out at Riverbends in Utica, MI (it's been quite a few years since I played it so bear with me if this info is out of date) Fairway distance is 450' following a curve in the river. Straight line distance is 350' but it is all water. What do you put on the sign? I think that when you set up a course you need to use your best judgement as to how the course will be played and as long as you make it clear which path is being measured that you are probably doing better than most.

[cc0049]

The reason that I bring it up is that I have entered hole distances on this website for courses in my area that did not already have the distances listed. I used a wheel to measure the distance. I took the straight line distance on holes where there was line of sight and there was the opportunity to throw straight at the basket. I took "path of the disc" distance when there was, what I considered, to be a "preferred" line to get to the basket and a straight shot was not an option. I feel that was the best method to use, even though, the distance measured was surely not 100% accurate...it is very close and gives the thrower enough information to choose the right disc to throw. I recently became aware that some others do not share this viewpoint.
Thanks for the link to the past DGCR thread and for those that are responding to this thread. I'm glad to see that at least some others do share my viewpoint on this.

[Donovan]

timg,

Well, I guess this brings up a good point then. Maybe you could add a comment section in the Hole Info page. That way we can add this kind of information. It could have the date, the measuring device, and a place where we can add how it was measured (intended fairways, straight line of sight, and so on).

It seems to me, that if there is no standard way of measuring a course, at least who ever measures the course last, can share how they measured it.

Obviously, there is a huge difference between using GPS, Laser, Wheel, Measuring line/tape. This is due to the many physical changes as we have in our sport...elevation, intended fairways, rocky terrain, and so on. So if we post on how it was measured, then everyone can figure out how to adjust those measurements to suit their situation.

PLUS, the date will let everyone know how current that info is. That way if someone went out and GPS'd all the holes on a course and 2 days later someone decides to change it all by wheel, at least the wheel person will know that this course was just updated recently. And to either not delete the work ahead of them, or add a separate tee color with the wheel measurements and just make that an added note in the comment section.

[PhattD]

Another question on the "How to measure" debate is when the hole goes down in a gully and then back up. A laser gives a measurement that is quite a bit shorter than the wheel in this case. I've seen a gentle down and up be 10% different between the two.

[PhattD]

Oh cool! Par member lol. Just noticed.

[Olorin]

I used a wheel to measure the distance. I took the straight line distance on holes where there was line of sight and there was the opportunity to throw straight at the basket. I took "path of the disc" distance when there was, what I considered, to be a "preferred" line to get to the basket and a straight shot was not an option. I feel that was the best method to use, even though, the distance measured was surely not 100% accurate...it is very close and gives the thrower enough information to choose the right disc to throw. I recently became aware that some others do not share this viewpoint.


I think your approach is the correct one. It makes sense to me.

After you get your measurements, because of all the inaccuracy and estimation I'd suggest that you round your lengths to the nearest ten. That's better than the accuracy you can really get and all that players need. You could even round to the nearest 5 ft., but IMO, to round to the nearest foot is misleading and unnecessary. I say it's misleading because it suggesting a level of accuracy that doesn't exist. And I say it's unnecessary because I bet that when 99% of players see a length of 284 they just convert in their head to 280 anyway. Rounding just makes it easier from the start. Even if an exact measurement does exist who can throw so precisely that it matters down to the nearest foot?

[Olorin]

OK, this is picky, but here's another link to the "Measuring a course (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=345)" thread that doesn't have red highlighted words. (The word "measure" was my search term, and at least for me it shows in red every place it's used when I click the other link.)

[Olorin]

Another question on the "How to measure" debate is when the hole goes down in a gully and then back up. A laser gives a measurement that is quite a bit shorter than the wheel in this case. I've seen a gentle down and up be 10% different between the two.

This is a good point. Again the flight of the disc is what's important.

[garublador]

IMO, inidcating how the hole was measured on the tee-sign in more important than the actual method you use.

[DeafDiscGolfer]

I think the hole should be measured by measuring the fairway path from the tee to the basket, not the direct straight-line measurement.

Why? Well, what if there's dogleg hole? You can't throw direct path unless you make it pass the dogleg mark. There's one hole that requires dogleg shot and you can see the basket directly like 175 ft away from the tee but the actual fairway path are about 260 ft around the dogleg tree.

Or what if there's a fairway which the tee starts from the top and leads down and curves to the right side of the hill where the basket are located? You can see the basket directly down the hill through very thick woods at about 200 ft but there's only openings on the fairway which is measured at 300 ft to the basket.

So...the measurements should be made based on fairways, not the direct line-of-sights to the basket from the tee area.

Hope it make sense to some people...:confused:

[PhattD]

I think the hole should be measured by measuring the fairway path from the tee to the basket, not the direct straight-line measurement.

Why? Well, what if there's dogleg hole? You can't throw direct path unless you make it pass the dogleg mark. There's one hole that requires dogleg shot and you can see the basket directly like 175 ft away from the tee but the actual fairway path are about 260 ft around the dogleg tree.

Or what if there's a fairway which the tee starts from the top and leads down and curves to the right side of the hill where the basket are located? You can see the basket directly down the hill through very thick woods at about 200 ft but there's only openings on the fairway which is measured at 300 ft to the basket.

So...the measurements should be made based on fairways, not the direct line-of-sights to the basket from the tee area.

Hope it make sense to some people...:confused:

What if direct "line of sight" is a viable option for a throw? Like over water where big arms can go right at it but shorter arms will need to follow the fairway? What if the "fairway" goes around some trees that can be thrown over with a thumber. If by "fairway" you mean whatever route you would expect the hole to be played I would be inclined to agree with you, however I cringe when people say "this is how it should be done." (ie holes should be measured down the fairway from the tee to the basket) Because there basically never one way to do things that fits all situations. Although as a general rule I think you're exactly right.

[cc0049]

It would put the debate to bed if the course designer would mark on the tee what line was measured. I don't care about 100% accuracy either. I just need to know that the measurement is at least within 25 ft of being accurate.

IMO, inidcating how the hole was measured on the tee-sign in more important than the actual method you use.

[Donovan]

This is like I stated before. Not every hole has an intended fairway or one path only to reach the basket. It really doesn't matter how a course is measured, only that the knowledge is available so that people can make their own assessments. Consistency is the key.
We just can't assume that there is only one way to measure a course, and that everyone knows how it was done.

Hopefully timg will want to add the changes to the hole info pages, like I suggested on post #5. This will give us the ability to really know how a course is laid out, at least if we get the info from here.

If you took the time to go out and GPS an entire course that had no measurements, only to show up on here a week later to find all the holes have been changed again a week later, it can be very frustrating. Obviously nobody knows that they are walking over someone else's hard work, but without this info, it will continue to happen. I really think this will help with that too.

[ERicJ]

If you took the time to go out and GPS an entire course that had no measurements, only to show up on here a week later to find all the holes have been changed again a week later, it can be very frustrating. Obviously nobody knows that they are walking over someone else's hard work, but without this info, it will continue to happen. I really think this will help with that too.
I've laser measured just about every course I've played and have updated DGCR with all that information. I tag all the course descriptions with:

"[Distances reported on DGCR are laser measured and accurate +/- 3ft. Please do not change DGCR numbers despite what tee signs may say.]"

Hopefully that prevents someone from walking all over my work.

ERic

[ERicJ]

I think the hole should be measured by measuring the fairway path from the tee to the basket, not the direct straight-line measurement.

Why? Well, what if there's dogleg hole? You can't throw direct path unless you make it pass the dogleg mark. There's one hole that requires dogleg shot and you can see the basket directly like 175 ft away from the tee but the actual fairway path are about 260 ft around the dogleg tree.
You fail to specify if the dogleg turn is a MANDO or not. If the hole does not have a MANDO then I still advocate line-of-sight measuring. You cannot predict how all players will approach the hole. Line-of-sight distance is the only universally consistent measurement.

If a hole has a MANDO then the distance should be measured, line-of-sight from the tee to the MANDO, then line-of-sight from the MANDO to the basket.

My $0.02,

ERic

[ERicJ]

As a starting point see this DGCR thread (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=345) on measuring holes. (Make special note of post #9 ;))
I kinda like post #11 (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3133&postcount=11)... ;)

[ERicJ]

Well, I guess this brings up a good point then. Maybe you could add a comment section in the Hole Info page. That way we can add this kind of information. It could have the date, the measuring device, and a place where we can add how it was measured (intended fairways, straight line of sight, and so on).
Tim,

I give a big "second" to this suggestion! I'd love to see a text comment box added to the Hole Info page. It's a very logical place to put that type of information that wouldn't clutter up the main Course Info's "Description" box.

I would find it very useful for explaining courses with different layouts, like Spring Valley (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1858&mode=ci).

ERic

[ERicJ]

Another question on the "How to measure" debate is when the hole goes down in a gully and then back up. A laser gives a measurement that is quite a bit shorter than the wheel in this case. I've seen a gentle down and up be 10% different between the two.
A wheel will over-report the relevant distance in that case.

This does bring up another relevant point of discussion: whether or not the reported distances have been adjusted for elevation. The PDGA guideline for that is to add or subtract 3x the vertical elevation change to the "horizonally" measured distance. (Source: http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf) That adjustment can make a big difference in the number on the tee sign (or DGCR page). That'd be something else useful to note in a comments box on the DGCR Hole Info page.

ERic

[PhattD]

A wheel will over-report the relevant distance in that case.

ERic

Unless the hole is too long to throw across the dip. If the hole is 300' down and then 300' back up but 540' across it's gonna play way longer than 540'. Well for me anyhow.

did ya like how I made the difference 10% like in my other post? ;)

[Olorin]

I kinda like post #11 (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3133&postcount=11)... ;)

I kinda sorta like #11 too. :)

I really like that I learned a new trick from that link- how to show just a single post. :D

[Olorin]

This does bring up another relevant point of discussion: whether or not the reported distances have been adjusted for elevation. The PDGA guideline for that is to add or subtract 3x the vertical elevation change to the "horizonally" measured distance. (Source: http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf) That adjustment can make a big difference in the number on the tee sign (or DGCR page). That'd be something else useful to note in a comments box on the DGCR Hole Info page.

ERic

Eric,

That's an excellent point that everyone needs to be aware of. The adjusted length is called "Effective Length" and it's key for determining par and hole difficulty. I think, however, that tee signs should only post "Actual Length", the length that can be measured. Effective length should be kept separate, especially since most people aren't even aware of the concept. I've played lots of holes with elevation changes of 30 ft or more. Imagine a new player on the tee of a 305 ft actual length hole and a 35 ft elevation drop. If the sign listed the length as 200 ft. (effective length) that player would be saying, "What??? This is messed up! That's not 200 ft."

Now, if some really ambitious people were to add the Effective length, clearly marked as such, under the Actual length on their tee signs, that would be ultra cool and earn points in my book. (Blue Valley in KC lists the elevation change on each hole, so they could do it pretty easily.)

[ERicJ]

I've often wondered if some courses tried to list effective length. E.g. hole #8 at Lincoln Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=342&mode=ci) is a decent uphill shot, 260' by laser, but the tee sign lists it at 320'. But then #18 is a decent downhill shot, lasered at 383', but the tee sign lists it at 401'... so who knows?

[Olorin]

ERic,

I also forgot to mention that I also have a handy dandy spreadsheet that I use to keep hole by hole information on the courses I review. Among many features, it calculates effective length from the actual length. It's also got a bunch of ways to calculate course difficulty too. (One of these is "Comparative Length" but that's a whole 'nother subject.) As with all my resources, I can post it to the DG Resources yahoo group, or feel free to drop me an email at playdiscgolf(at)gmail.com if you'd like a copy.

[Olorin]

lasered at 383', but the tee sign lists it at 401'...

I find it humorous that their lengths don't seem to be too accurate, yet they list it to the foot, as 401 not just 400. They're implying that their measurement is more accurate than it really is.

[ERicJ]

I think that course may have been installed before lasers were invented ;)

[Donovan]

IMO, inidcating how the hole was measured on the tee-sign in more important than the actual method you use.

I am sure gald you can state in one sentence, what I was trying to say in 3 paragraphs. :) Someday I will learn to me more breif. Thanks for that post bro! :cool:

[sidewinding]

I find it humorous that their lengths don't seem to be too accurate, yet they list it to the foot, as 401 not just 400. They're implying that their measurement is more accurate than it really is.

Those could be accurate laser ranges of alternate pin positions. It seems like a lot of courses around here have multiple pin positions but only one set of posted ranges. And I've only played one course that has a sign at Tee #1 that says which position the pins are in.

In other words...Even if you had accurate ranges for all possible pin positions, if you don't know what position the pins are currentlty in, the data is not very valuable.

[ERicJ]

Speaking specifically of Lincoln Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/../course.php?id=342&mode=ci), I'm pretty confident there are no alternate pin positions on that course.

ERic

[Donovan]

timg,

Are some of these suggestions below, looking like good additions?

[timg]

Tim,

I give a big "second" to this suggestion! I'd love to see a text comment box added to the Hole Info page. It's a very logical place to put that type of information that wouldn't clutter up the main Course Info's "Description" box.

I would find it very useful for explaining courses with different layouts, like Spring Valley (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1858&mode=ci).

ERic
So like a hole info.. info box? Just a basic text box to enter additional info or are you envisioning something more elaborate?

[Donovan]

So like a hole info.. info box? Just a basic text box to enter additional info or are you envisioning something more elaborate?

My post is clear at the beginning, but we were looking for a date the last time the "hole info" was edited (just like the date field for posting scores), the kind of measuring device (maybe a drop down with: GPS, Laser, Tape/Line, Wheel), and a comment box where we can add how it was measured (intended fairways, straight line of sight, and so on) or whatever else the person who measured the course might want to add to help everyone. It might be good if we can put who measured the course last too, so we can ask them questions if need be.

[timg]

Well, the last edited time and who did it can already be seen in the change log. I can try to add the other stuff although I'd imagine most people wouldn't know what to put unless you're the one doing the actual measuring.

So for options:

GPS
Laser
Paced out
Scorecard
Tape/Line
Tee Sign
Wheel

I figure tee sign and scorecard would be fairly popular options to start. Anything to add?

[Donovan]

Well, the last edited time and who did it can already be seen in the change log. I can try to add the other stuff although I'd imagine most people wouldn't know what to put unless you're the one doing the actual measuring.

So for options:

GPS
Laser
Paced out
Scorecard
Tape/Line
Tee Sign
Wheel

I figure tee sign and scorecard would be fairly popular options to start. Anything to add?

Heck, no I think that is a great list!

I still think the edit date on the hole info page is still kind of important. It reminds people and tells them right there how current the info is before they decide to change things, in case they didn't know to look on the main course page or just forgot to consider it.

[ERicJ]

Well, the last edited time and who did it can already be seen in the change log. I can try to add the other stuff although I'd imagine most people wouldn't know what to put unless you're the one doing the actual measuring.

So for options:

GPS
Laser
Paced out
Scorecard
Tape/Line
Tee Sign
Wheel

I figure tee sign and scorecard would be fairly popular options to start. Anything to add?
You may want to change "Scorecard" to "Scorecard / Course Map". You're correct that along with "Tee Sign" those will be the most popular choices as they're the most easily accessible. I think there should be a drop-down box for device for each set of tees. I know when I'm playing/measuring a course I don't always have the time to get all the tees; I'll end up just laser'ing the tees I played and entering map/tee sign numbers for the other tees.

There should definitely be a free-form text box, a la Course Description, on the "Hole Info" page. That's the place to describe the measurement methodology. Also, information like how different layouts are listed under different tee colors can be explained there. E.g. The LINKS (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2576) and Spring Valley (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1858). The date the values were updated can be noted there too.

Thanks for considering,
ERic

[Donovan]

Until this is implemented, I have already started putting this info in the Course Description box, so I don't lose any of the info.

[PhattD]

Is there a hierarchy of measuring methods? I mean obviously if the distances are listed as paced out and you have laser measurmets yours are better but what about score card vs tee sign or gps vs laser. Scorecards are easier to replace so more likely to be up to date. And gps is typically very accurate but it disregards elevation change.

[timg]

You may want to change "Scorecard" to "Scorecard / Course Map". You're correct that along with "Tee Sign" those will be the most popular choices as they're the most easily accessible. I think there should be a drop-down box for device for each set of tees. I know when I'm playing/measuring a course I don't always have the time to get all the tees; I'll end up just laser'ing the tees I played and entering map/tee sign numbers for the other tees.

There should definitely be a free-form text box, a la Course Description, on the "Hole Info" page. That's the place to describe the measurement methodology. Also, information like how different layouts are listed under different tee colors can be explained there. E.g. The LINKS (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2576) and Spring Valley (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1858). The date the values were updated can be noted there too.

Thanks for considering,
ERic

The plan is to have a drop-down box and then an open text field for comments. I think per tee might be overkill. You can always make a mention in the comment field. I'm guessing 90% of the people that visit this site will care little for this particular information so I don't see a need to get that detailed. I rarely look at the hole info myself and don't have a great deal of interest as to its origins but this site isn't all about me :)

[timg]

As long as you go back and edit all the course info/hole info when I get this going I'm cool with that. I just don't want duplicate info on all those courses. The comment field in the hole info will be limited so you might want to be a little more concise with your hole info descriptions.

[Donovan]

Yeah, a commnet box is all that is needed...period. We can say what we did and put our own date in there and everything. Thanks bro for thinking like that!

[timg]

The measurement info stuff is now active. The fields are at the bottom of the update form and the info will also show at the bottom along with dates.

[Donovan]

What time zone is this registering in? I updated hole info at 2100 (0900 PM) CST on the 2nd and it posted it as the 3rd.

Otherwise it is looking great bro. Thanks so much.

[ERicJ]

The comment field in the hole info will be limited so you might want to be a little more concise with your hole info descriptions.
Need more characters please. Disk space is cheap these days right? I mean compared to the GBs you must have allocated for pictures what's a couple hundred more characters? :)

ERic

[timg]

It's currently 255. It wasn't really disk space that was my concern, I just didn't want people getting too wordy with it.

[ERicJ]

I got cut off at 237:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1264&mode=hi

I don't think that's too wordy, but I need more characters to finish off.

I was planning on using that text area for more than just measurement details. I was going to describe hole specific layouts there. I'd need more characters to accurately describe the holes at courses like Spring Valley (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1858) and Missouri City Community Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/../course.php?id=938). Would you prefer that info to stay in the "Course Description"?

ERic

[timg]

That level of detail is probably better in the course description since it's describing the course in a fairly detailed way. I always thought hole info should just be the pars and distances. I guess I could re-do the hole info area and break out the comment/measurement type into a new box to separate it from the pars/distances.

I really wish there was some standard when it comes to course design so we wouldn't need all these additional "note" fields :) I'll break it out now..

[timg]

Hole Info. Notes is now a separate box without the size restriction. Also, there is no need to add your own date stamp when you update it since the site keeps track of and lists that information.

[ERicJ]

Thanks Tim. I'll try to strike the right balance between info in "Course Description" and "Hole Info Notes". E.g. First Colony Aquatic Center (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/../course.php?id=1264).

ERic

[ERicJ]

What time zone is this registering in? I updated hole info at 2100 (0900 PM) CST on the 2nd and it posted it as the 3rd.

@ Tim,

I'm still seeing this behavior as well. Changes made today (Nov 10) are reporting as made tomorrow (Nov 11).

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q193/ejubin/dgcr_hole_info_bug.jpg