GPS accuracy very bad !!

Hi Jim,

It is not just about the correct side of the street but when I am training I would like to have a reliable watch that is describing perfectly my run like other watches do. I agree it has thaer carto (and that is why I chose it) but I don't find it normal that when I am running on a running track, I have about 30 or 40 metters errors on 200 or 300 meters.

Example : I am running a 5Km run on a 200m running track. In theroy and what I had on previous watches, my 1km was ate the same place each 5 laps (5x200). With the Fenix 5x plus, my 1 km race is dispatched on all the running track. I can admit some errors, yes but not so much !

If we are lost, I am sure this watch can help but for me it's a multi activity watch and when running or even hiking, I would like to have a precise watch. Maybe on hiking it cannot be very important but like our previous friend says with its trip at Kilimandajro, I like to have a precise souvenir of my trip.

I think also our expectation was great because it was said to have Galileo compatibility, which means accurate GPS. So you cannot market a precise GPS device and letting your customer with a below average GPS, or tell it.

What do you use the track recordings for since it has to be so accurate? Or is it just the steep price that makes you have these expectations?

(GPS accuracy is also better than what I experienced on the Edge 705 and 1000, and F5X.)

Price of course, it's been said so many times but it's so expensive it's just not justifiable for most people. £700, that's a big chunk out of a very well specced new bike...in other words optional purchases will always lose out to 'essential' ones at non negligible price level.

And in any case, for most the bar on GPS accuracy is set by the smartphone, which costs nothing extra. This isn't fair on hardware ( antenna) considerations, but fairness is irrelevant here...

When I'm rich enough to have my 3 nice bikes and the other half is happy with her lot, then I'll buy...

I respect that others may have a different needs, goals and purpose for their watch but for me the Fenix plus line is an outdoors watch with navigation as its distinguishing feature. I think the combination of maps and the follow course or routing options are what make this watch (at this time) beat the competition.
I only view the recorded tracks to see where I was within a 25-50m radius and what trails I used. On occasion I may follow a previously recorded track. But in the field, the watch GPS accuracy is at the accuracy level needed to navigate the surroundings. (I usually zoom map in to around 80-120m for the details and overview I need and under these viewing setting the position lock is always spot on.)

In this tread there are a lot of complaints, so I thought I might share a success story. Yesterday I was trail running in the woods along a single track course. It was pitch black and (with headlights) I could see around 5-10 meters ahead. A maze of single tracks making it under these conditions a place easy to get lost. I had to cut the run short and instead of continuing the course or back-track which I knew was not the fastest options, I used navigate to start. Voila. The watch calculated a new course which I could follow and I made it back without any detours or wrong turns. I have never gotten lost or made a wrong turn with this watch. This is what I paid for. If I didn’t need/want this, there are many other cheaper options from Garmin and competitors.
From this perspective I struggle to agree with the conclusion that GPS accuracy is horrible just because the track recording doesn’t show track on the correct side of the road/street or when in challenging environments (tall reflective buildings, thick forests, etc.) show tack in parallel to the path taken.

What do you use the track recordings for since it has to be so accurate? Or is it just the steep price that makes you have these expectations?

(GPS accuracy is also better than what I experienced on the Edge 705 and 1000, and F5X.)

what is the point of the distinguishing navigation feature if the GPS location is wrong? lol

Knowing how GPS works should make one understand how many factors contribute to GPS position errors and general accuracy. If anybody has expert knowledge on the subject, please step in and enlighten us. (We will understand if you do not have inside information on Garmin’s proprietary design choices. :) )

I just think it is time we remove any misconceptions that feed unreasonable criticisms or perhaps blind praises. I don't doubt I have them also ;)

I believe any solution chosen by Garmin will be a compromise.

- Antenna solution
- Casing thickness and material (and its possible effects on signal reception) Robustness vs function.
- Positioning algorithm (Trilateration and maybe even selecting which signals to discard to reduce errors)
- Smoothing out track/eliminating gps jumps (or should this be a post activity processing task in Garmin Connect? But how would it distinguish between right vs wrong GPS position locks?)
- Battery consumption of processing such algorithms above in realtime
- Other features that take processing power away from such algorithms above…
- Other design factors…

???????Then there are factors influencing GPS accuracy that is outside Garmin’s control. Reflective surfaces, obstacles, atmosphere, number of GPS satellites at any given time and their proximity to each other.
???????
I for one am impressed with what Garmin has been able to fit into such a small device, but I want of course the best GPS tracking possible without compromising the features that I want such as battery life, robustness, maps, and navigation.

Moo5e: LOL. Are you suggesting that if the GPS position is off by lets say 25meter, one can't navigate? ;) On your Kilimanjaro climb, did you navigate a course and was your gps position in map view off the trail?

We are aware that a lot of parameters can impact GPS performance. But if these paramters are external they also impact any other GPS. The drunk man syndrom (and it's not me who found this expression for information) is not affecting other GPS. We are not comparing with military GPS. On Fenix 5 Plus forum they are just comparing to an Apple watch 4.

Why Garmin customers (who are not buying this kind of tool for a luxuary jewel) should accept having a device that is performing less than a watch that GPS is not its primary function ?

Garmin was also marketing its GPS watchwith Galileo and we can all see that Galileo brings nothing more than GPS only.

This watch has the most impressive functions you could find but unfortunately all these functions are not well implemented. It's like Spotify, the app is perfect, well done but I always have micro cuts while playing music. Is it acceptable ? For me music is the cherry o the cake so no probelm if it does not work well. May be I will ask more advices in another post but it is not mandatory for my activities. If I want an MP3 player, I can have another one. But for training I am expecting an acceptable level of this watch.

Price of course, it's been said so many times but it's so expensive

Yes, it has, and I am so tired of seeing these statements of "This is unacceptable for a a xxx$ watch."

Why? Because most of the stuff that people complain about have nothing to do with price.

When an advertised function like "Race an activity" doesn't work, we should expect it to be fixed, no matter if the watch was cheap or expensive.

When the GPS is off, it is mostly a matter of the chosen chipset. You find the most precise chipsets like SirfStar in both cheap and expensive watches. And you find the less precise chipsets like MediaTek* in both cheap and expensive watches. So this is not a matter of price either.

I almost never see complaints about anything where the expectations should be different because of price. So please stop the "This is unacceptable for a a xxx$ watch." complaints.

(*: Garmin has used MediaTek for all their cheap and expensive models during the latest years. Before that, they used SirfStar for all their cheap and expensive models. None of us know the reason. My guess is power consumption, since SirfStar has always been a quite power hungry chipset.)

But it also depands on the needs of the users. Of course I wish, I would not see the drunken man syndrom for my (slow) hikes and walks (and I know Garmin can/could do this much better). I use my device for following a course or track to a destination and it is not very important for me, that the track is spot on and if the distance is a houndred meters longer or shorter...
But for other people it is much more importand (and I can understand, why they are not satisfied...). Just my 2c:p

Here is a link to my Apple Watch 4 and 5X run tonight. I wrote a long review but for some reason it will not post. Here is the short version: the AW4 is a game changer. I have been a Garmin fan for years (735, 3HR, 5X), but the GPS tracking and instant/rolling pace from the AW4 is consistently accurate and reliable. I am hoping that Garmin can sort out its GPS issues and come up with GPS performance that is comparable to the AW4. That would be my perfect watch. If you are frustrated by GPS performance, I recommend giving the AW4 a trial.

Pretty impressed by AW4 on that track recording. I previously owned a AW2 and never saw that kind of accuracy.

Just a few questions;
- Was this a LTE version and do you know if LTE assist in positioning accuracy? Did you run with an iphone? Just wondering how AW4 would perform in an area without cellphone reception.
- What was the battery drain on that run? Apple claim up to 6 hrs for outdoor activities with GPS only, and 5 with LTE.

Thanks.