• State Verified Answer
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 255 replies
  • Subscribers 1 subscriber
  • Views 49912 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
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

GPS accuracy very bad !!

falconeye75
over 7 years ago
Hi,

Tried yesterday the GPS for the first time (GPS + Galileo) and I was very disappointed but the quality of the trace. I am in Paris so in city but I ve never a so bad GPS. In the same area, my Ambit 2 is perfect and following my route but with the Fenix 5X plus, I have more than 40 meters error sometimes !!

I can't understand how a watch costing 4 times a GPS watch can be so bad !! Is there something to do ? I sync it with Garmin connect mobile to have last sat data.

May be it can be a technical problem with the watch... Is there a widget to check GPS accuracy ?

Thanks
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 6 years ago
    I've had the 5X+ since it came out, the GPS tracks are abysmal. I'm running in Chicago, Downtown in the high-rise canyons, I somewhat expect poor GPS performance. Along the riverwalk too, although I would say that it knows I am running, so don't show me like a drunk "Flash" jumping across the river back and forth at the speed of light. Also, while running next to Lake Michigan, don't show me skipping off into the lake. none of my previous Garmin watches were this poor, I've owned the 5X, the 235, the 225 and the 405 , all better. I have been using GPS+Glonass and GPS+Galileo.
    I've heard and read much about Galileo not being ready for prime time - if so, don't offer it as an option until it works. in any case, the software should be able to discard bad trace points, no way it should track worse than the 5X (classic)
    There's maybe a chance I've got a defective unit - I hope so, I like the watch in general, but the main feature needs to nail it, to be accurate.
    I did contact Garmin and they send me their tip sheet for accurate GPS ( let it lock on before starting...) I do all that.
    I am returning it for a new copy.
    ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1383706.jpg
  • 0 over 6 years ago
    Non + is also very bad. I'm am really disappointed in the fenix as it should be the highest end sport watch but it has the lowest end GPS accuracy.

    the track goes everywhere in the city and the forest.
    you need an foot pod is what they say, but that is nonsense. A foot pod is made for tredmail and has difficulty with different pace.
    there is an major hardware issue in these watches (GPS chip) and can't be fixed with software.
    as soon as there is a little bit difficulty is GPS reception it just sucks. My older far far far cheaper watches perform way better.
  • 0 over 6 years ago
    we can't view youre activities.
    I probably seems like the metal bezel stops the gps signals.
    thats why the same problem accurs on the 5x (non +)
  • 0 over 6 years ago
    I always thought the metal bezel was part of the antenna !

    Here a relive of my first walk this morning (before the heatwave).

    I have started without any fix. Meaning I got a very crappy first position and trace, then it get perfect.

    https://www.relive.cc/view/g23414411641

    And another one where you can notice while crossing bridges how straight the track is:
    https://www.relive.cc/view/g23416427373
  • 0 over 6 years ago
    Good news Nemo ! Then maybe it is just a software issue... I hope Garmin is reading this post and will solve this problem ASAP.
  • 0 over 6 years ago
    The description NemoSandman has given of the antenna working best in a specific (and impractical) orientation sounds entirely like a hardware issue.
  • 0 over 6 years ago
    Sometimes I wonder about the accuracy of the maps on which these traces are projected. Here is an example. One from Google maps and one from Here. Both screenshots from the connect website. Both are the same activity and roughly the same zoom level. When projected on the Google Map, the trace goes right over the bridge. When projected on the Here map, clearly there is an offset.

    I don't know if Google's satellite view is more "up to date," but i suspect it is given that the bridge appears to be more elaborate. Potentially the bridge position has changed since Here took a photo of this area. It is difficult to evaluate GPS accuracy when the maps don't agree with each other.

    ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1385849.jpg
  • 0 over 6 years ago
    The description NemoSandman has given of the antenna working best in a specific (and impractical) orientation sounds entirely like a hardware issue.


    Yes and I just got a new 5X Plus and it seems much accurate than my previous one.It is not the same batch.
    My previous one was numbered in the 000500 and this one is 0015600...
    It is just assumption but could be the GPS issues from the very first batch ?...

    Here my track this morning in my car:
    https://www.relive.cc/view/g23488032925

    and the relive of my walk... (At first I was not sure where to go, my fault !)
    https://www.relive.cc/view/g23490974296
  • 0 over 6 years ago
    nmyeti - That is interesting. The bridge seems to me to be in the same position on both satellite pictures in relation to other landmarks. The offsetting of the track on the Here pic also extends to the track before the bridge. I can’t imagine there is a systemic error in the Here data which hasn’t been spotted before so I wonder if Connect is simply misprojecting the track in some way. Very odd.
  • 0 over 6 years ago
    davidhurst I agree it is an odd one. I only pointed it out because I noticed it since I tend to look at bridges like this to spot check accuracy of my tracks. It is hard to judge a track accurate if the maps don't agree. The thing is, the error doesn't seem like it is with connect. Looking at the file in Runalyze shows the same offset. ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1386420.jpg