Location different now

The Garmin Connect team is continuing to discuss this topic. There were some changes in the map service that is used by Garmin Connect. This change is what caused the location names to become more accurate for some and less accurate for others. I will post back in the threads when there is any new information.

Please Ignore Garmin Joey just posted same time as me ( again lol)
ps..from uk to, same as JSRUNNER.....

Well, less precise, but not necessarily less true. Running around the Sydney Opera House, Royal Botanic Garden, Lady Macquarie's Chair and Art Gallery NSW used to somehow cause Garmin Connect to automatically name my runs “Australia Square Running” and “Queen Victoria Building Running”, even though I was nowhere near either landmark. Now the same routes or courses are automatically named “Sydney Running”, which happens to be more true/correct; in fact, the landmarks I actually run around are in the “suburb” of Sydney NSW (postcode 2000).

[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/goo.gl\/ZRfYNi"}[/IMG2]

Ergo, no, factually the location is not universally now much less accurate.

Not that I can see from ">your recent participation in this forum">your recent participation in this forum – which is ironic, given we're talking about information accuracy, and pages are as logically different to forums as suburbs are to cities – but I'll take your word for it.

i don’t know what my participation on this forum
has got to do with the other running groups and pages I’m part of but I don’t really think when I go for a run around Baulkham Hills or Castle Hill or Liverpool or any other suburbs in Sydney that it is more accurate to call them all “Sydney Running”....if, like you, i was running around the CBD I would be perfectly happy for it to be called “Sydney Running” but most people on other running group pages I’m part of have all found that Garmin is using nearby major city or town instead of the actual area like it used to say. I used the term accurate becauaethe Garmin admin response used the term. But it is all semantics really. And what is happening with the run locations seems not to be what Garmin intended. Their algorithms have
gone wrong somewhere along the line and I wanted to make sure Garmin was aware that this isn’t an isolated error.

@occbee: Regardless of why you chose to use the term “accurate”, you are using it and I can only assume you understand what it means. There are two aspects of accuracy, being trueness (or, in other words, correctness) and precision, with trueness being more important; pinpoint precision in reporting an result that is untrue does not constitute being accurate. Garmin's new automatic naming algorithm has, from what everyone seems to have observed, fallen far in terms of precision. However, since I used to get more precise but less true location information from automatic naming, and now the location information is more true but less precise, one must conclude it has become relatively more accurate for me; and, even just one counter-example (i.e. me) is sufficient to prove a blanket statement such as the one you made with the qualifier of “universally” to be wrong.

Unfortunately my naming is true and accurate but less precise, and also (whilst true) is not useful

The location naming issue is happening every ride despite the ride starting in different locations around Melbourne. The precision of the naming is the problem, not the general location. It all started happening after the last update.

In the Netherlands the locations were ‘upgraded’ from villages and towns to the much larger municipalities.

Yep mines the same now, it used to say Berwick Cycling or Scoresby Cycling now its all Melbourne Cycling! :(