Ride with GPS

[Oldhippy]

Holistically or good old paper maps.

 

[Baldy]

I use RWGPS. I find it gives me all I need to know. Some of the stats are a little off, such as 'max speed 560mph' but by and large it's an easy site to use.

You mean you can't get 560mph on your bike, slacker!

 

[yello]

A timely, coincidental bump.

I was looking at Strava for the 1st time in ages a few days back and it seemed to me that much of what I used back in the day is now only available with a subscription. Then I went to look at other sites I used and a number of them have gone, or become something else; Endomondo, GPSies, MapMyRide...

It actually seemed to me that there is pretty much only Garmin Connect these days that offered a fuller and free site, beyond simple collation.

Times have changed eh? Before Strava etc, I used both Garmin Training Centre and another package (name of which currently escapes me) on Windows (and still do!) as local solutions. Then I switched to Linux and started using Pytrainer and Turtlesport. Then Strava etc came along and cloud based storage seemed where it was at. Now it seems those (free) options are disappearing and maybe people might turn back to their own software solutions, be it Windows, Mac or Linux. Then we'll go full circle and it'll be papers maps and hand written ride journals!

 

[Alex321]

I use RidewithGPS more for planning routes than anything, I use Strava for post ride analysis and sharing. My Wahoo handles routes created from RidewithGPS better than routes created by Strava.

 

[yello]

As an aside, I was always (mildly) fascinated as to how the different sites calculated climbing stats. You could get some quite sizeable differences in uploading/creating your ride on the different sites.

 

[Dogtrousers]

All my rides are logged on rwgps and I use the route planner a LOT.

I use the app for navigation help/browsing when stopped while out on a ride as the phone is better for scrolling and zooming than a bike computer.

Once you've chosen something like that you build up familiarity and data and tend to stick with it.

I've forgotten why I chose it originally, way back when ... over 10 years ago ... possibly before this thread was started. I think at the time it was better at setting/keeping things private and providing offline backup than Strava was. Something like that.

A year or two ago I played around writing some software using their API but I don't have the time for hobby coding even though I have some ideas.

I now pay for premium membership.

@yello I did manage to figure out how RWGPS comes up with total elevation. I think it's a smoothing algorithm. I managed to write something that gave the same result from the same raw data. Forgotten the details now.

I do have a Strava a/c but I don't often upload anything to it. I use it for staying in touch with a handful of cycling acquaintances.

 

[yello]

I did manage to figure out how RWGPS comes up with total elevation. I think it's a smoothing algorithm.

One the sites (I don't remember which) did actually have a FAQ on their methodology, as it was obviously a question that came up.... frequently.

Odd innit? You kinda think climbing/elevation figures must be matters of fact. How could they be open to interpretation?? Then when you think about how a ride is logged, as points with intervals, then you begin to realise what's required (and how it needs assumptions) to work out what happened between those points, in that interval.

 

[Dogtrousers]

One the sites (I don't remember which) did actually have a FAQ on their methodology, as it was obviously a question that came up.... frequently.

Odd innit? You kinda think climbing/elevation figures must be matters of fact. How could they be open to interpretation?? Then when you think about how a ride is logged, as points with intervals, then you begin to realise what's required (and how it needs assumptions) to work out what happened between those points, in that interval.

I've thought long and hard about this. And had many discussions on here with people who say "what is the most accurate" (what do you mean by accurate?)

I just take RWGPS to be my gold standard because that's where all my rides are kept. My Edge 530 will probably give me a higher figure on screen while riding, and Strava will probably give me a lower figure. If I calculate it directly from the raw GPX data I'll get an even higher figure.

 

[matticus]

Odd innit? You kinda think climbing/elevation figures must be matters of fact. How could they be open to interpretation?? Then when you think about how a ride is logged, as points with intervals, then you begin to realise what's required (and how it needs assumptions) to work out what happened between those points, in that interval.

Anyone who knows about the "how long is the coastline" problem should realise that even measuring the exact *distance* of a ride is non-trivial.
Climbing is clearly a harder metric (there isn't even agreement on the heights of most mountains), so: no, it's not odd that the different estimates are all different :P

(People think that their GPS measures how far they've gone: no, it doesn't. The clue is in the "P" bit.)

 

[yello]

so: no, it's not odd that the different estimates are all different :P

You've interpreted me differently to my intention. No, it's not odd that the estimates are different, agreed, not if one can glimpse the reasons. It's odd that we make these assumptions and then only realise, like a dawning light when we do spy the glimpse, that there's actually more to it. I like those 'dawning light' moments.

 

[Roseland triker]

Holistically or good old paper maps.

That's the way. The laminated ones are good .

 

[yello]

I remember when Strava introduced segments (I don't know whether they were the first) Boy did that create a whole new game, quite a divisive one too as as some fell in love with the competitive/motivational tool and others reacted against it.

I used segments btw, I had no axe to grind, to compare my own performances, out of interest, on the same section. Not that I have much choice... around where I live, I'm about the only one who logged rides, so I couldn't compare myself to others. Well, other than occasionally perhaps an elite club rider would grace the region with their presence.. . and put me firmly in my place!

If I was going well, I might take seconds off my best time. They they'd come along and take minutes off of it. Humbling is perhaps the word.

 

[Mo1959]

I remember when Strava introduced segments (I don't know whether they were the first) Boy did that create a whole new game, quite a divisive one too as as some fell in love with the competitive/motivational tool and others reacted against it.

I used segments btw, I had no axe to grind, to compare my own performances, out of interest, on the same section. Not that I have much choice... around where I live, I'm about the only one who logged rides, so I couldn't compare myself to others. Well, other than occasionally perhaps an elite club rider would grace the region with their presence.. . and put me firmly in my place!

If I was going well, I might take seconds off my best time. They they'd come along and take minutes off of it. Humbling is perhaps the word.

Must admit when I first started and was fitter, I got a bit obsessed with them but age and injuries have slowed me down so much I have pretty much stopped bothering. If I knock a few seconds off occasionally I am happy enough. It can get a bit addictive and silly at times.

 

[Roseland triker]

Must admit when I first started and was fitter, I got a bit obsessed with them but age and injuries have slowed me down so much I have pretty much stopped bothering. If I knock a few seconds off occasionally I am happy enough. It can get a bit addictive and silly at times.

Definitely. Why be connected up all the time just go ride...

 

[yello]

Thanks @SydZ I'd not heard of Komoot.