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 !!

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

Top Replies

Garmin-Heath over 5 years ago +1 verified

If you are continuing to have this issue, follow the steps in the Support Article below:

Improving the GPS Accuracy, Distance and Speed Readings of an Outdoor Watch

After trying those steps and you…

All Replies

0 MOO5E over 6 years ago

Navigating in the field to your destination and examining the recorded track with a magnifying glass later on are 2 different things and I must confess that I spend less time on the latter. When navigating... how zoomed in on the watchmap are you to be bothered by a 25m discrepancy (to continue with the example)?

I have recorded tracks that are not exactly on the mark in cities, think forests, etc, etc. And yes if they are at times 25+m off on a Garmin connect map, I'm not bothered by it. No strava segments have ever been missed, never any confusion on which trail I took. And from my experience with using the watchmap in the field, current position always looks spot on and match the actual surroundings with 80-120 m zoom.

With all due respect, I'm just trying to give you another perspective. For me this whole discussion is a little like complaining that the speedometer of a car show 5km/t faster than actual speed of 90km/h. The car still gets you to your destination, no?

With all due respect, you don't exactly need a magnifying glass to see the shockingly bad GPS tracks. And even though you say you don't spend any time looking at the tracks afterwards, the track is what is used to measure your run/cycle/swim/other workout. So if you're not bothered about your workouts being significantly inaccurate, when that is the main function of the watch, then good for you.

I understand your perspective. For me, this whole discussion is like buying one of the most expensive and feature-rich cars on the market, only to find that it can't do the most basic function of a car very well - such as getting from A to B. (your analogy doesn't quite work as measuring speed isn't the main function of a car, and transporting you to your destination isn't the main function of a sports-tracking watch. lol.)

0 jimoestman over 6 years ago

Okay Moo5e. Where did I say that measuring speed is the main function of a car? :)

And since we now jump to sports-tracking, gps position is not the only thing that is measured. My apologies if I was unclear, but I was speaking about not paying to much attention to recorded track points on a map (post activity)... HR, cadence, power output, running dynamics, lap pace, time from A to B, etc. is a different story. Yes, current pace/speed, distance moved and such will be somewhat affected IF gps is inaccurate. I get your perspective as well. We just have different views on what is shockingly bad and significantly inaccurate.

I hope that there is some FW update along the road that increases gps accuracy to such a degree that this watch becomes usable for you. But I fear you will be disappointed.
Best of luck.

0 AllanOlesen67 over 6 years ago

We just have different views on what is shockingly bad and significantly inaccurate.

My immediate pace on my F5X+ is off by up 2 minutes/km as soon as it sees some trees or 2 storey buildings on one side of the road.

Which of your categories does that fit into - "shockingly bad", "significantly inaccurate" or acceptable?

0 jimoestman over 6 years ago

(I didn’t come up with those categories.) I would categorize it as not uncommon for a gps device.

0 Tangmu over 6 years ago

jimoestman - every time I drop by to see what's new on this gps accuracy thread, I see a bunch more posts from you confirming that you consider the GPS tracking accuracy acceptable, and re-iterating that you would prefer that others also consider it acceptable.
That's not adding anything to the discussion. Everyone has figured out your position by now. Please consider starting a new thread "GPS Accuracy Very Good". You and others who are pleased with GPS performance can discuss it there, and leave this thread to those looking for improvement in GPS tracking accuracy.

0 jimoestman over 6 years ago

Hello Tangmu

If someone asks me a question directly, then I answer. I hope that is ok with you.

I'm positive Garmin has heard you by now and are looking into if anything can be done with the firmware to improve GPS Accuracy. Any real news would show up in a FW (BETA) update thread.

I am all for constructive discussions with questions, suggestions and hopefully solutions or at least explanations to a perceived negative behaviour from the device. That is the only motivation behind my posts.

This thread does not belong to any one group. You claimed the right to complain as much as you want in an earlier post, so I will use the same right to post what I think will help other users if not you.

0 falconeye75 over 6 years ago

I agree that this thread should be used to have feedbacks to improve GPS accuracy and make Garmin communicating with us about why we have a so bad accuracy whereas other GPS are doing well like the AW4. That means that the problem is not about atmosphere, buildings, GPS sats,... If others GPS can do it well, we can expect having the same quality, especially when the device is marketed to be more accurate because of Galileo. Even at 5000m this GPS is not accurate and erratic !!! And I understand Moo5s when he said it ruins its trip.

We are not willing to accept just a good GPS, we want the best in class GPS, because yes, we spent a lot of monney and it does count but also because when you acquire this kind of device you are exepecting the best in class product. Otherwise, go to Aliexpress and you will get a common GPS device for 30$ (that maybe could be better than our Fenix 5x Plus).

We are not here to bash Garmin but also not here to just defend them blindly. It’s obvious that there is an issue with GPS accuracy and even if we have hundreds posts claming that GPS is good, we will not be convinced. I think anybody saying that GPS is good is not fullfaith.

I am exchanging a lot with Garmin about it and I hope they will find a solution, but if it was just a bug they should have found a solution… I am affraid it’s an hardware issue. However, we are here to test all solution Garmin will provide us.

0 MOO5E over 6 years ago

For those who think that analysing your track is pointless and never do it (jim), this demonstrates how tracking is relevant to measuring your activity. I did a run and measured it on Strava as well as on my F5X Plus. Strava measured 3.2 miles. The F5X Plus measured 3.41 miles, and measured my 1st mile as taking 7.07 minutes (I wish!). ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1424334.jpg

0 jimoestman over 6 years ago

I said in an earlier post that Pace IS affected by GPS accuracy. I never claimed otherwise.

And since we now jump to sports-tracking, gps position is not the only thing that is measured. My apologies if I was unclear, but I was speaking about not paying to much attention to recorded track points on a map (post activity)... HR, cadence, power output, running dynamics, lap pace, time from A to B, etc. is a different story. Yes, current pace/speed, distance moved and such will be somewhat affected IF gps is inaccurate. I get your perspective as well. We just have different views on what is shockingly bad and significantly inaccurate.

This is an instance where GPS accuracy failed you. And I agree that this is not as good as it should be. (Happy? ;)) I don’t know the reason, but since it was in the beginning of the run I can only speculate that it could have something to do with acquiring enough GPS signals. How much time from when you selected the activity until you pressed start? Could you share four FIT file or link to the activity in Garmin Connect?

Strava does also do some processing of the data, with some pros and cons… all explained here;
https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/...-is-Calculated
But in this instance I don’t think that is the reason for the difference in distance (assuming you ran on somewhat flat surface.) But it is something to be aware of…

0 HrLover over 6 years ago

Should I use GPS or GPS plus glonass or GPS and the other thing (forget the name of it) ?