Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.
-
No new posts
| Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2008-10-22 2:39 PM |
Regular 408![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Subject: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.I am about to pull the string and buy a Garmin Edge 305. After reading about it I am really excited. I want it for altitude more than anything. I am curious of the experience others have had with the accuracy of altitude? I also would like to save courses I have done and then change them and then have the device take me on the course. I would also like to do the virtual racing but race against a course that I have done before but change how fast a hill is climbed. SO maybe when I recorded it took 3 minutes and now I want to change the virtual race to do it in 2:30. I would like to do this to push myself. Is it possible to do this with the 305?
|
|
2008-10-22 3:04 PM in reply to: #1759723 |
Master 1651![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.bartturner - 2008-10-22 1:39 PM I want it for altitude more than anything. I am curious of the experience others have had with the accuracy of altitude If by "accurate" you mean how much climbing you do on a ride/run it's very inaccurate, worthless IMO. All GPS and Pressure-based altimeters have the same problem with elevation gain, accumulated error. The device can't tell the difference between a true X foot climbing gain and a X foot error in its attempt to determine the current elevation. That error adds up big and severely overstates actual climbing gain. I've found that the Route Tracker feature of this site is very accurate for accumulated climbing gain for a route. Edited by breckview 2008-10-22 3:07 PM |
2008-10-22 3:14 PM in reply to: #1759723 |
Not a Coach 11473![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Media, PA | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.Anywhere from OK to awful. You can usually download the course to another software program and "correct" the altitude which will give something at least closer to reality. |
2008-10-22 3:17 PM in reply to: #1759800 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.The faster you move, the more acurate it seems to be with accumulated climb and descent. I found it to be within a couple precent of what any kind of mapping program will give you for a bike ride. When viewed, the profiles look similar to what I rode. However, during a run, not so much. I look back and see lots of peaks and valley, when it was a flat route, or a steady climb or descent. It's not worthless, but it's not spot on. For general ball park, it's great. And I enjoy looking at the data and using it. |
2008-10-22 3:18 PM in reply to: #1759834 |
Champion 5575![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Butler | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.JohnnyKay - 2008-10-22 3:14 PM Anywhere from OK to awful. You can usually download the course to another software program and "correct" the altitude which will give something at least closer to reality. Agreed. What shoes up on the unit itself is bad. I load the route to BT and then it will adjust the climbing. As far as changing routes I have had no luck with this or even planning a new route and uploading. I have searched the web and it seems difficult. You can redo the exact course but I am pretty sure you can't adjust the time. |
2008-10-22 3:25 PM in reply to: #1759849 |
Not a Coach 11473![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Media, PA | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.Aikidoman - 2008-10-22 4:17 PM The faster you move, the more acurate it seems to be with accumulated climb and descent. I found it to be within a couple precent of what any kind of mapping program will give you for a bike ride. When viewed, the profiles look similar to what I rode. However, during a run, not so much. I look back and see lots of peaks and valley, when it was a flat route, or a steady climb or descent. It's not worthless, but it's not spot on. For general ball park, it's great. And I enjoy looking at the data and using it. Ditto this. For biking the corrections are often modest. For running, it often shows me climbing 2-4x what I actually did. |
|
2008-10-22 3:29 PM in reply to: #1759723 |
Master 2202![]() ![]() ![]() Canton, Michigan | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.Sometimes it is real close, other days there's a 500 foot difference doing the same loop. I just downloaded my wifes trainer ride from yesterday, she managed to climb 634 feet and descend 650 feet in our living room. |
2008-10-22 3:35 PM in reply to: #1759800 |
Extreme Veteran 510![]() Falls Church, VA | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.breckview - 2008-10-22 3:04 PM bartturner - 2008-10-22 1:39 PM I want it for altitude more than anything. I am curious of the experience others have had with the accuracy of altitude If by "accurate" you mean how much climbing you do on a ride/run it's very inaccurate, worthless IMO. All GPS and Pressure-based altimeters have the same problem with elevation gain, accumulated error. The device can't tell the difference between a true X foot climbing gain and a X foot error in its attempt to determine the current elevation. That error adds up big and severely overstates actual climbing gain. I've found that the Route Tracker feature of this site is very accurate for accumulated climbing gain for a route.
I'll disagree with this. The garmin has both the gps and pressure sensor so, in theory, one method will correct the built in error of the other. You mention two methods, gps and route tracker, one accurate , one inaccurate, what do you hold as the gold standard. What do you hold as absolute so that you can call one accurate and not the other? I haven't played with route tracker much, but IIm pretty sure the back-end is google maps and gis, which is the basis of other programs I have used extensively. Take the route you create and output it to google earth and look at it in exagrated 3D and you'll see the route jumping valleys and cutting through the tops of hills. If you use a gps on the same route multiple times and the ascent comes out close that would infer accuracy. (Now I'll have to go digging through my messy pile of datafiles and check this hypothosis) I believe there's alot more variablity in the reported ascent do to the software you choose, ie. load the same gps data file into four different programs and get four diffent, sometimes wildly different, answer. This is from the the software using different algorithms to decide what is ascent and what isn't, ie how long/high must you climb before it's added to the ascent total. Of course the same is true between various routing software. |
2008-10-22 4:06 PM in reply to: #1759929 |
Master 1651![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.StarGazer - 2008-10-22 2:35 PM I'll disagree with this. The garmin has both the gps and pressure sensor so, in theory, one method will correct the built in error of the other. That doesn't occur with my Garmin. It's wildly inaccurate. You mention two methods, gps and route tracker, one accurate , one inaccurate, what do you hold as the gold standard. My routes are long multi-mile climbs with almost no rollers. I've computed the gains on my climbs using point elevations on the peaks and valleys from USGS benchmarks if available and otherwise a best guess interpolating between the USGS contours. I've also mapped the point elevations using GPS, pressure, and with my Garmin. The numbers from Route Tracker are very accurate compared to every other method I've tested. I used pressure in mountaineering before GPS was available, then I used both in separate devices for many years. Lastly, I've used my Garmin on many climbs. I've never once seen an accurate measure of gain compared to the USGS benchmarks on the peaks. The other post with the 650' gain on a trainer illustrates the problem well. Every time I've used my garmin running on a flat track, I've had signficant false gain. Edited by breckview 2008-10-22 4:07 PM |
2008-10-22 4:06 PM in reply to: #1760033 |
Master 1651![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience. |
2008-10-22 4:14 PM in reply to: #1759929 |
Master 1651![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Breckenridge, CO | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.StarGazer - 2008-10-22 2:35 PM Just guessing but I think the way engine behind RT works is that sat photos are used to increase the resolution between (and above) the USGS 40' contours creating estimated high resolution contours. Simply stated, if your GPS route crosses a contour from below, you've gained. Edited by breckview 2008-10-22 4:17 PM |
|
2008-10-22 4:41 PM in reply to: #1759723 |
Master 1325![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Lake Oswego, OR | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.I'm amazed how much climbing I do on my trainer. Either I'm delusional or my 305 is inaccurate. You pick. (OK maybe both) |
2008-10-22 6:22 PM in reply to: #1759723 |
Extreme Veteran 438![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Surprise, AZ | Subject: RE: Garmin 305 altitude accuracy? Like to hear experience.I also will ride the same route and it will vary + or - around 1500 ft. My girlfriend and I will ride the same route come home and have very different data. I might have to try that route tracker. |
login




2008-10-22 2:39 PM




Breckenridge, CO

View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK