Garmin elevations in crisis.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Simple. Accumulated from start to finish.
Chasing sections is a mugs game. (Too many cheats)
But many hills have some slightly down bits. Don't think you entirely took on board my point, which was essentially that it's not simple.
 

nogoodnamesleft

Senior Member
I appreciate for route planning, but this is looking at the device, and I don't pay too much attention as it's either for routing or just recording rides. When planning a ride, I will look at ascent if I don't know the area but that's with the mapping software.
The same also applies when you ask/allow sites to "correct" the elevation recorded from your ride. They can only use mapping and interpolation.
 

nogoodnamesleft

Senior Member
Right, and do all those routes take an elevation measurement at exactly the same locations every time? Trying to assess elevation gain is like fractals. A different number of trackpoints or measured at different locations and you will get different results regardless of gps or pressure derived.
Personal experience with cycle.travel is no. The calculated/estimated ascent for a route can change as you zoom in and back out. I've not experimented by start point, zoom in, zoom back out to original zoom and check again. But I have notices (at least on occasions) zooming can change total route ascent ... but not by enough to radically change anything.
 
OP
OP
Milzy

Milzy

Legendary Member
This has opened up my eyes. Our devices can be mega accurate with various data but struggles with elevation. Out of the 5 other people on the ride everyone had different.
Going forward I’m not going to not care about it anymore. Just go ride and get fit, don’t give a $h1t. 💩 ✌️
 

PaulSB

Squire
It's far from unusual for there to be significant differences between the elevation my buddies and I record on our various devices.

For this reason some of us use "adjust elevation" in Strava. I do this after every ride as using my own data I'm always comparing like with like. I've no particular interest in how much more or less climbing someone else has done.

All I won't is a base line for comparison. Using Strava this way achieves this. As an aside RWGPS usually underestimates the ascent on a ride, by a considerable amount in some instances. I presume RWGPS uses a different basic map to Strava?
 

nogoodnamesleft

Senior Member
I do this after every ride as using my own data I'm always comparing like with like.
My Garmin Connect site also gives me a "Calories burnt" number. I'm fortunate and don't have to watch me weight but I've always regarded that kcal figure an "unit-less" or some uncalibrated index ie yesterday 600 today 900 so today was a reasonable bit more effort than yesterday. When they add "kcal" after the number it's just "misleading". Same for "m" after an ascent number.
 

Dogtrousers

Lefty tighty. Get it righty.
The best that a handheld device can do is to use a barometric altimeter. It's way better than GPS altitude, which is too inaccurate, and better than triangulation from map elevation data, which is too coarsely grained.

The problem of barometric elevation is that it varies with local weather conditions, so it needs to be calibrated using map elevation data where this is available. Historically handheld devices with barometric altimeters needed to be manually calibrated with a known good elevation. Modern GPS do this automatically from map data and clever algorithms.

This combination of barometric altitude plus map calibration is the best you can get and it's provided by all leading brands.

This is not correct:
Garmin 1040 and other Garmin devices guess the elevation by atmospheric pressure: barometric height "measurement".
Therefore I don't trust them not as high as I could throw them.
Barometric elevation, as described above, is the best possible for consumer devices, and is not specific to any one brand. Brand-loyal yar-booism is the bane of threads like this.

Use of barometric height is not guesswork. It's the backbone of commercial aviation. Above a certain height (I forget what) it is used without calibration. At lower heights it's supplemented by radio altimeters (which gives height above ground, and thus needs to be corrected to give height above mean sea level) and local pressure readings.

This leads us on to why different GPSs and route planners give different total accumulated elevations for the same route. That's a story for another day, but in short: They just do, OK?
 
This combination of barometric altitude plus map calibration is the best you can get and it's provided by all leading brands.
Additionally - and I don't know which devices use this elevation deduction method beyond some Suunto watches, but probably several do - elevation from gps location data, whilst not terribly accurate at a point in time, is increasingly accurate when averaged over longer periods (since the computed figure oscillates around the 'correct' elevation). If horizontal location is not changing then these increasingly accurate data can be used to correct altitude and hence can account for changes in barometric pressure due to weather systems. Clearly, you need to stop for a while for this to be used.

In practice, this means that if I activate my Suunto watch for 'a while' prior to setting off, the starting altitude will be very close to the correct value for my house. (And there's no map in the watch, nor known waypoints, so it is only getting this via gps.)
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
This has opened up my eyes. Our devices can be mega accurate with various data but struggles with elevation. Out of the 5 other people on the ride everyone had different.
Going forward I’m not going to not care about it anymore. Just go ride and get fit, don’t give a $h1t. 💩 ✌️

Great attitude.
 
Top Bottom