Forums >Gears and Wears>Elevation Accuracy - Garmin vs. runningahead
This might be a silly question, but...
Which is more accurate at elevation, my Garmin 405, or mapping the route through runningahead? For example, I have a route that my Garmin says is +/- 289 feet, and runningahead says is +/- 506 feet.
My gut tells me Garmin is more accurate...but I thought I'd see what you all have to say!
Thanks
- Anna
I want to be famous in the way a pulley is famous, or a buttonhole,
not because it did anything spectacular,
but because it never forgot what it could do.
- Naomi Shihab Nye
RA (which uses Google Maps) is generally going to be much closer to reality. GPS-based altimeters are notoriously bad.
Runners run
an amazing likeness
Your Garmin is way off. Elevation is very inaccurate in GPS devices that do not have barometric elevation assist.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
The elevation profile from RA will be much more accurate. However, the +/- calculation seems to typically be high by 2x or so. Depending on terrain.
Options,Account, Forums
Someone had a nice post showing their garmin recording the elevation going up and down, whilst it was laying stationary on their couch.
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
I've got a fever...
While not as fancy as jog-mowing, my couch does has some serious hills. Here's a HR chart of me laying on the couch when my Garmin was still a shiny new toy.
On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office. But you will wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.