Elevation in metres everything else in miles/feet

Having distance in miles and elevation in metres is just such a nonsense and so, so unhelpful! Why on earth would you want to mix measurements?

But what really annoys me and also makes no sense at all (and which I have commented on several times) is that temperature is tied in with the distance/elevation measurements. We should have a separate selection under 'Settings' for Celsius or Fahrenheit. Then we would only need distance/elevation two settings, one 'Metric' using metres and kilometers and the second 'Statute' using feet and miles.

That would be much simpler than now (when I have to keep switching settings) and everybody would be happy.

Then we would only need distance/elevation two settings, one 'Metric' using metres and kilometers and the second 'Statute' using feet and miles......................................and everybody would be happy

Except for the people wanting distance in statue miles and elevations in metres. <grin>

Except for the people wanting distance in statue miles and elevations in metres. <grin>

Why on earth would anybody want to mix incompatible measurements?

Ok, point taken, but my point is about the temperature being related to the distance/elevation measurements when they are completely unrelated. Its plain daft and immensely frustrating.

(By the way, I really like the latest version of the event screen (or whatever its called!). But its a pity that the sector thing still doesn't seem to work properly.)

Statute UK (miles metres Celsius) is perfectly logical for the UK - OS maps give height in metres - UK road signs give distance in miles and most UK weather forecasts give temperature in Celsius (centigrade). :)

As I said: "Why on earth would anybody want to mix incompatible measurements?" UK road signs and OS maps don't mix miles and kilometers. Neither should Garmin. There's absolutely no logic to it.

But my argument is about the temperature display which has nothing whatsoever to do with height and distance. I use Celscius. Some might use Fahrenheit still. Fine. But they are nothing to do with height and distance and should be a separate individual setting.

As I said: "Why on earth would anybody want to mix incompatible measurements?" UK road signs and OS maps don't mix miles and kilometers. Neither should Garmin. There's absolutely no logic to it.

Well hang on here, you say it's illogical to 'mix measurements' but isn't that what you're suggesting? I agree it might be preferable to allow you to set everything how you want but there has to be some give and take, where would Garmin draw the line?

Statute UK is perfectly correct for the UK, UK road signs and OS (topo) maps demonstrate this, height on current OS mapping is in metres, our road signs are in miles, and we show temps as centigrade.

As I said: "Why on earth would anybody want to mix incompatible measurements?" UK road signs and OS maps don't mix miles and kilometers. Neither should Garmin. There's absolutely no logic to it.

But my argument is about the temperature display which has nothing whatsoever to do with height and distance. I use Celscius. Some might use Fahrenheit still. Fine. But they are nothing to do with height and distance and should be a separate individual setting.

I think that it could be you that is being inconsistent - a few posts earlier you complained about using miles for distance and metres for height - now you are talking about using miles and kilometres together although nothing has suggested that this would be a good idea.

With regard to the link between temperature and distance, they are joined by the "system" of units chosen i.e. metric, imperial, statute, SI, cgs or whatever. In other words, they come as a package.

I think that it could be you that is being inconsistent - a few posts earlier you complained about using miles for distance and metres for height - now you are talking about using miles and kilometres together although nothing has suggested that this would be a good idea.

I'm not proposing using miles and kilometers together! On the contrary. I repeat, it is totally illogical (and unhelpful) to mix imperial and metric measurements, which Garmin does on Statute UK by giving distance in miles and height in metres. That is not UK statute measurements: statute measurement is in inches, feet, yards and miles; metres and kilometres don't figure. And UK road measurements and OS maps do not mix imperial (statute) and metric measurements as SUSSAMB wrongly suggests. If you were so inclined, the calculation of a gradient would be mighty complex if you try to use mixed units!

So, Statute UK should show distance in miles and elevation in feet. That is the correct imperial measurement which we get with the 'statute' setting.

But my main argument is very simple, and that is that the temperature setting should be independent of the Statute/Statute UK/Metric setting. There is no such thing as a UK statute temperature. Most of us use Celscius, not Fahrenheit, but I do know folk in the UK who still talk in Fahrenheit. It should be little problem to include that in the next round of tweaks to Garmin Connect. Many of us would then be able to get the settings we want and there would be no need for 'statute UK', simply metric and statute would do.

By the way, it is interesting to note that other threads make exactly the same complaints, and Garmin's strange settings in this area are also discussed in threads on the Strava site: not good!

Once again you are confusing things by incorrectly defining "Statute UK" Your definition is for "Imperial" not Statute UK.
Statute UK is, by definition, miles (distance) meters (elevation) and Celsius or centigrade (temperature). This is used on OS maps as I stated earlier in the thread and SUSSAMB also correctly stated in her post.
Imperial is miles, yards, feet, inches, pounds, ounces, Fahrenheit and so on.

These are the facts but nobody says you, or the posters on Strava, have to like them.:)

If you read my earlier post carefully, you will appreciated that I have not suggested that you proposed using miles and kilometres together. I was merely commenting on the fact that you were the first person to introduce the concept as part of the discussion. The earlier points had referred to the use of miles for distance and metres for elevation/height, not mixing two units for distance.