GPS accuracy very bad !!

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.)

Of course expectations should be different on price for all functions even basic ones....i.e. Garmin justify the price with the large number of 'extra' features like music but don't do the core stuff (GPS/alti/battery/connectivity) well.

Regards GPS chips, I think Sirf were dropped by everyone due to a combination of legal, commercial and power consumption factors. Also, GPS performance is only partly down to chipset, antenna size/design being as if not more important.

“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.)”

As Halldrine hinted it was partly due to legal reason. To be precise it is very likely that the real reason was only the patent case between Broadcom and Sirf, see eg https://www.edn.com/Pdf/ViewPdf?contentItemId=4327175

And as regards power hungriness of Sirfstar. Just buy a 310XT or 910XT and enjoy its battery life of 20-22 hours.

I have 2 910XTs, one of them was produced 1-2 years ago, the other 6 years old, and both can operate at least 17-18 hours with GPS on, speed, cadence, HR and powermeters sensors ON. And its chipset is evidently not the latest design, but almost a decade old one.

It is my contribution about the battery life question of Sirfstar.

Well.. what would the batterylife then be with MediaTek chip inside the 910xt?? Or did I missunderstand your post?

yes, you did
the chance that the swap from sirfstar to mediatek was due to the better battery life of the latter is negligible

As far as I remember, the change from sirf to mediatek was made for legal reasons...

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?

What do you think? Are you happy with a navigation system that thinks you are in a river, or in the middle of houses, or in a forest rather than on the road or on the trail?

Of course expectations should be different on price for all functions even basic ones....i.e. Garmin justify the price with the large number of 'extra' features like music but don't do the core stuff (GPS/alti/battery/connectivity) well.

Your examples show that you did not understand a word of what I wrote.

I am NOT talking about expectations for more features or more advanced features. Of course one can expect more of this kind when buying a more expensive watch. (But one can also check features out before buying the watch.)

What I am talking about is expecting the features of the watch to actually work. This is a fair expectation no matter if the watch is cheap or expensive. Consequently, using the price of the watch to justify one's critique of features not working is simply stupid.

Do I need to express myself even more clearly?

What do you think? Are you happy with a navigation system that thinks you are in a river, or in the middle of houses, or in a forest rather than on the road or on the trail?

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?

Btw. have you tried the "lock on road" setting?

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.

I also had the AW2 and AW3 LTE versions and did not see the GPS performance that I am now seeing with the AW4. I have the non-LTE version of the AW4. I had the LTE version of the AW3 and did not find the cellular connection to be beneficial vs. cost. I initially purchased the LTE version of the AW4 as well, thinking that the cellular connection would improve GPS. However, my comparison of the non-LTE and LTE AW4 showed the same GPS performance, so I kept the non-LTE AW4. I do not run with a phone - just the AW and my 5X. As for battery life, I have not really paid attention but would guess that I lose about approximately 10% every 30 mins while running (simultaneously using GPS and streaming music on my bluetooth headphones).