Track Code Changes

[TravisVOX]

Does anyone out there have a record of all the track code changes we've seen over the past 10-15 years?

I'm re-doing my database structure and want to correct all of these going in. I prefer to clean them to what they are today and should there ever be an updated code going forward (hopefully not), then I'll revert the new data back to the old. Here is what I have...

HOL -> OTH
HOL -> BHP
PHA -> PRX
OSA -> SA
CRC -> GPW
FPX -> BSR
PLN -> OTP

Anything I'm missing?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by TravisVOX

Does anyone out there have a record of all the track code changes we've seen over the past 10-15 years?

I'm re-doing my database structure and want to correct all of these going in. I prefer to clean them to what they are today and should there ever be an updated code going forward (hopefully not), then I'll revert the new data back to the old. Here is what I have...

HOL -> OTH
HOL -> BHP
PHA -> PRX
OSA -> SA
CRC -> GPW
FPX -> BSR
PLN -> OTP

Anything I'm missing?

I don't see any that you are missing, but just as a comment, this sort of thing is the Racing Form at its worst. They obviously feel that kissing up to sponsors is more important than serving the interests of their readers who pay $8 for the publication and who would be served by consistent track codes.

[cj]

Originally Posted by TravisVOX

Does anyone out there have a record of all the track code changes we've seen over the past 10-15 years?

I'm re-doing my database structure and want to correct all of these going in. I prefer to clean them to what they are today and should there ever be an updated code going forward (hopefully not), then I'll revert the new data back to the old. Here is what I have...

HOL -> OTH
HOL -> BHP
PHA -> PRX
OSA -> SA
CRC -> GPW
FPX -> BSR
PLN -> OTP

Anything I'm missing?

I think you have them all. Only things close to that are RD changing to BTP though the track isn't the same, and the "new" Los Al having the LRC code. You have to be careful, I've seen the "new" layout used at night a few times and it still gets the LA code. Only way to know is to watch.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't see any that you are missing, but just as a comment, this sort of thing is the Racing Form at its worst. They obviously feel that kissing up to sponsors is more important than serving the interests of their readers who pay $8 for the publication and who would be served by consistent track codes.

I think this is an Equibase decision, not the Racing Form. We all get our data from Equibase and have to use what they send.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

I think this is an Equibase decision, not the Racing Form. We all get our data from Equibase and have to use what they send.

Well, then Equibase is deliberately hosing handicappers to kiss up to racing's sponsors.

(Though I don't see why the Racing Form couldn't just change it back, either.)

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well, then Equibase is deliberately hosing handicappers to kiss up to racing's sponsors.

(Though I don't see why the Racing Form couldn't just change it back, either.)

Well, we could all do that, but it could also cause confusion. I'm also not sure we are allowed to do so per the contracts in place with Equibase.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

Well, we could all do that, but it could also cause confusion. I'm also not sure we are allowed to do so per the contracts in place with Equibase.

The second one is just an excuse, though. In other words, if such a contractual provision exists, the obvious reason for it is to protect Equibase's ability to force the sponsors' names on all of us.

Someone in the room should have said "we're a publication that serves horseplayers, they need consistency so they know what the track abbreviations mean, therefore we will not agree to that provision-- we don't care about sponsors".

I speak from a lot of personal experience-- when these sorts of things make there way into contracts, it's because nobody's looking out for the people who should really count.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The second one is just an excuse, though. In other words, if such a contractual provision exists, the obvious reason for it is to protect Equibase's ability to force the sponsors' names on all of us.

Someone in the room should have said "we're a publication that serves horseplayers, they need consistency so they know what the track abbreviations mean, therefore we will not agree to that provision-- we don't care about sponsors".

I speak from a lot of personal experience-- when these sorts of things make there way into contracts, it's because nobody's looking out for the people who should really count.

I'm not arguing with you, I hate the code changes. But I also know we have WAY more important things to worry about. I don't think any of these have happened since TimeformUS has been around so we didn't have a dog in the fight when they occurred.

[rastajenk]

I wouldn't be surprised by a change to Thistldown's code sometime soon to get their new JACK into it somehow. Or I could say, I would be surprised if they don't change it.

[TravisVOX]

Originally Posted by cj

I think you have them all. Only things close to that are RD changing to BTP though the track isn't the same, and the "new" Los Al having the LRC code. You have to be careful, I've seen the "new" layout used at night a few times and it still gets the LA code. Only way to know is to watch.

You're right. Thanks. Adding some code to catch these hopefully.

[ubercapper]

Businesses change names all the time. Time Warner and Charter are both going away and the companies are going to be known as Spectrum. Google is essentially Alphabet. Chrysler is known as FCA now that Fiat owns it. Kentucky Fried Chicken is KFC. Businesses, including tracks, may decide they want a different name, or brand (as in the case with PHA changing to PRX) and so they change it.

Unless the layout of the track changes (as in the case with LRC and LA) all the stats are merged, at least with Equibase data. I can't speak for what any resellers do.

[Tom]

But individual customers of the game - US - have to manipulate our own databases to merge the data.