It would be extremely nice to be able to configure the y-scale on charts for any given workout. I have an activity where I gained ~100ft elevation and lost about the same, yet it looks like a straight line because it is scaled 0-1200ft.
I wrote a script to filter and properly plot pace data without the f-ing stupid Y ranges. Really Garmin it is not that hard, do it intelligently or give me manual control. Full website redesign but still cant make a simple time history plot. Am really happy with everything else, I just want to see how wast I went!
+1 for sorting the scaling... it's ridiculous to start elevation at -100m on a run that has a minimum elevation of+174m! I could almost understand it starting at 0m though I'd still ask for it to be changed to scale between the minimum and maximum elevations of the activity plus say 10% above and below to give a bit of context.
I've complained to Garmin a few times about this issue - it seems the scaling is bike oriented, since small elevation changes are more noticeable when running. Sure, an elevation range of 0-40m doesn't sound much, but if it's a hilly path the pain of running it is much more than it appears if the scale is -200 - 200 (basically showing a flat line). It really makes the graph useless and very hard to compare to the pace.
One of the more demanding terrain races in Sweden is 30km and very hilly. I got an elevation gain/loss of +-500m, with min/max at -2 / 62m. That's a lot of running up and down... but the scale in Garmin is -300 - 100m, which basically makes it look like a walk in the park. The same graph in Strava shows every darned hill, which is much more pleasing to see post-run. ;)
Sure, I can zoom. But when I zoom I loose the scaling... which doesn't help at all. I'd rather see the graph fitted to actual min/max (rounded up/down to a nice value) and be able to zoom out if I want to, than the current failed implementation.
This isn't rocket science, just ignorance. It's like graphing the stock price for Apple for the past 3 years, using min/max of -300 - 300. You wouldn't get many visitors to your stock analytics website if you tried that.
This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to Garmin that they haven't developed an manually adjustable y-axis for the Connect graphs, yet. Figure it out, already!
I have not tried the new Garmin Connect yet, but can you not use your pointer to drag a selection box over the portion of the graph you want to see work any more as it did in the old GC?
The size and shape of the selection box you drag out very effectively changed scaling for me in the old GC.
You lose the y-axis scale, it doesn't follow when you zoom so you have no idea of what your graph is actually showing.
And why would I need to manually zoom every time when the computer should be able to do that automatically for me? What's the purpose of showing a graph with a flat line in it?
well trying to display a ride that may be a 100 miles long and only have a 100 feet plus or minus elevation change in three or four inches of space is a challenge. When I drag out a selection window on mine, I don't loose the y axis. I also get a flyout box with the x,y data for the particular point on the graph my pointer is hovering over.
And as Garmin Connect now takes me to the modern GC, I find this does work in the modern. Personally I have no issue with how they show. It gives me a good overall view of the profile of my rides. If they scaled the y to a lower value, it would be so 'spikey' that I'd get the wrong impression of what I did.
In the past on the old Garmin Connect, I did notice that when I changed my units to metric, I didn't like the way my graphs displayed. Why it made a difference I'm not sure, possibly they applied the statue/metric conversion at the wrong time in the graph generation.
I am using metric, haven't checked if it's makes a difference.
OK so you don't lose the axis, but you lose the scale. A bike ride might have greater elevation changes so you might not notice it as much, but in todays run elevation was between 22 - 43m, which made GC (modern) use three scale lines: -50, 0 and 50. Which is ridiculously bad to start with. And if I zoom into the interesting part, ie between 22 and 43m, I don't get any scale line or y axis value at all since it is still fixed at 0 and 50. Besides, if I want to show the graph to someone, why should I need to pass along instructions to how to see the elevation correctly and not as a straight line? ALL other sites out there manages to scale elevation properly...
And as to your assumption that it would be difficult to display in three or four inches... that's just false. For starters, the axis are not correlated - you can have anything you want on X against the elevation on Y. For instance, you can choose time or distance on X, neither of which have anything to do with the scaling on Y.
But lets make an easy exercise. Imagine my latest run with elevation between 22 - 43m, which made GC scale it between -50 and 50. Then take my heart rate for the same session, varying between 140 - 188 bpm (which by the way makes a very decent graph in the three or four inches of screen space despite using the same X axis values), imagine that you plot that in the elevation graph instead, applying the elevation graph scaling algorithm. That probably would make the bottom scale line at -100, one at 0, one at 100, and one at 200. My heart rate would basically be a flat line in the upper region, free from scale lines, just like my elevation graph is.
Would you be equally satisfied with that? And happy when I tell you that you can bloody scale it yourself if you're not happy? And just swallow the fact that every bit of information that can be seen without actively hovering the mouse over the graph has disappeared?
To see an even more exciting elevation graph, look at http://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/549288860 - elevation between 24m and 65m, elevation scale lines at -200, -100, 0, 100, elevation curve basically flat despite this being a rather hilly track. I don't know if I should be scared about the 200m deep hole that Garmin foresee in my path. Would it be extremely difficult for Garmin to NOT start plotting 200m below sea level when there is nothing in my exercise that indicates that I went scuba diving in the nearby sea? And yes, I have contacted support for similar situations, and yes, I got the "But you can scale it yourself" answer. Twice.
Regarding the pace graph, which also is screwed if you happen to press Start before you're up to speed and gets one reading of 18:38 min/km causing the (more interesting) fluctuations between 4 and 5 min/km to flatline.. here Garmin uses a linear scale starting at 0 min/km (like that would ever happen) and ending at 20. Endomondo seem to use a very clever algorithm that focuses the scale around the average pace, meaning that 10-15 min/km takes up as much vertical space as does 5-6 min/km resulting in a much more interesting graph that actually shows information. Strava on the other hand seem to just cut out the out of bounds reading, which also results in an informative graph.
The Garmin Connect pace and elevation scaling is flawed and have been for several years now, at least for running.
BTW, if you think 3x4 inches is too small to make an informative chart, google "sparklines".
It's a matter of personal preference I think. For HR, Cadence and other data, seeing huge spikes is okay and desirable. However, on the elevation graphs, for me at least they currently give a fairly accurate perception of the elevation profile of my rides which typically have a low point around 250 feet MSL and a high of 350 feet MSL. The y axis of these graphs are usually display 500 feet in 100 feet increments. To have them only show the 300 feet that is necessary would make the high points munch more exaggerated than they really are giving me a worse perception of my ride profile.
The issue for Garmin is that there are those of you that don't like the scaling and those like me that are okay with the current scaling. For sure those that don't like it will be much more vocal than those that do like it.
I'd really like to see what the elevation chart you want looks likes and be able to compare it to your track over a map.
I personally have no incentive to look at sparklines or such as everything is currently okay with the graphs for me. The only thing I wish they'd do is when I hover my mouse over a graph, that the map and every other graph show me the equivalent point and data values. Likewise if I hover over the map track, the graphs show me that point on the graph with the data values.
I guess there's a difference between how a runner and a biker wants their graphs. Like in my previous example, a 30km track with an elevation gain/loss of +-500m, with min/max at -2 / 62m - that wouldn't be too hard to bike, but to a runner it's really tough (that particular race is about as tough as a normal marathon, despite being just 30km, precisely due to the elevation profile). The toughness gets completely lost when the elevation chart turns out to be basically a flat line between -300 and 100m.
I guess the same goes for running pace vs biking speed - there's quite a difference to run at 4:30 compared to 4:45 min/km, at least for me :), and as a runner I would like that to show in my graph. But when Garmin only places the scale lines at 4 and 8 min/km, which basically is my fastest run speed down to walking, it gets really hard to see anything at all (without hovering of course). If I would translate 4 and 8 min/km running pace to my bike speed, it would probably be something like 10 and 40 km/h - but the bike speed charts do have lots of more scale lines.
That is what "at least for running" in my previous post meant. And I still can't find anything useful in the elevation or pacing charts for running, no matter how much I hover or zoom. A chart is supposed to visualize something; an almost flat line doesn't visualize anything at all.
BTW, if your elevation profile for a ride is 250-350 feet and you get y axis scale lines at 0 - 500 with 100 increment, then I understand that you're a happy camper. Translated to how my charts are scaled, I would have them start at -500 going up to 500 in 250 feet increments. Perhaps there's something with the feet / metric conversion after all.
...and yes it is. The run linked in my previous post, elevation 24 - 65m, scale lines at -200 - 100 in 100m increments.. when viewed with British (feet), I get scale lines between -200 - 100 with 100ft increments. That's a very large difference.... scale lines every 30m instead of every 100m, and the scale starts at -60m instead of -200m. Ie, charts viewed in feet look acceptable, but viewed in meters they just fail.
There might be a very easy bug there at Garmin, they fix the bottom scale line at -200 without looking at unit, and also they layout scale lines without looking at unit. There's a difference between every 100ft and every 100m...
