This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

What are .fit files for?

I don't use .fit files. For me they are a nuisance that take up space on the 66i internal storage and have to be deleted with Windows File Explorer because Basecamp cannot delete them. But I'm curious about the rational for the feature that must have some use to someone. Indeed, 66i designers must have thought so. There's a binary option on the 66i to record either .fit files or. fit and .gpx, as if .fit would be the preferred choice for track recordkeeping and .gpx was an afterthought possibly useful to only a few people.

0 Like2Hike over 1 year ago in reply to jlg2

Do fit and gpx store the same data to the same precision? If a single GPS measurement is calculated to be 1.1111 miles do both fit and gpx record that information as 1.1111 miles? Or does one record it as something like 1.11 and the other as 1.111? For a single measurement, the difference is trivial, but for many measurements it adds up.

0 jlg2 over 1 year ago in reply to Like2Hike

I don't know with certainty, but I have to assume that since both .fit and .gpx are recording formats, I have to assume they are capable of recording whatever precision the source provides. If there is a precision limit, I assume it would be in the .fit format since .gpx is just an ascii file with no size constraints.

0 Like2Hike over 1 year ago in reply to jlg2

I don't know either, I'm just attempting to suggest ideas to explain Garmin's statement. Another factor could be the inputs to the recording formats....how is altimeter data used in each format? Does both gpx and fit incorporate altimeter data the same way? I don't know. Traveling a mile on a flat plateau is different than traveling a horizontal mile while also going uphill.

I'm just saying there may be substance to Garmin's claim, or maybe not.