I'm trying to figure out how accurate the 220/230 is with elevation changes. I think they both get elevation corrections after you upload them to garmin connect. Is that right? It's just, they always so wayy less elevation change than it does when I put my route into http://runningahead.com/maps. For instance, I just ran 11.7 miles and it was quite hilly. Garmin only shows about 300 feet elevation gain whereas runningahead shows almost 650! I have also found a website that you can draw your own routes using Google Earth mapping/elevation data and it shows very similar to runningahead. So I feel like that is more accurate than Garmin. But, I've noticed that it seems like most people trust the Garmin elevation data. I just have a hard time believing I only had 300 ft elevation gain on a route that was that hilly and long. I wish I had a watch with an altimeter to see what it would show. Any opinions?
