>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!
RA (which uses Google Maps) is generally going to be much closer to reality. GPS-based altimeters are notoriously bad.
Your Garmin is way off. Elevation is very inaccurate in GPS devices that do not have barometric elevation assist.
I would run down the lane and into the night; Run so fast I swear my feet would fly; But the smell of the world came into my lungs; The sound of the gravel when my legs went numb; And my heart nearly burst right out of my chest...
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.
HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer
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.
© 2014 RunningAHEAD, LLC. All rights reserved.
| Terms of Service