Is it accurate?

Based on a sample of 1 (me) the F5X is accurate and performs much better in terms of GPS lock speed and accuracy than my old F3.

The following run had everything: tree cover, rapid pace changes, tight corners. You be the judge regarding accuracy.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1675997916?share_unique_id=2

The thing about all these accuracy threads is that sample size is usually 1 or 2 and people use this to make huge generalisations about the entire polulation of these devices, which I don't think is fair.

Ah, but if you zoom in really closely, so close that you can see the colour of a gnats hair, you'll some minor deviations from the track. Clearly that makes the track unacceptable and the accuracy questionable.



Personally I think it's ok (when not zoomed in). But then I've never zoomed in that closely to look at the tracks I've recorded with any device over the years. I accept that these device provide reasonably accurate distance and track depiction. Some don't.

Ah, but if you zoom in really closely, so close that you can see the colour of a gnats hair, you'll some minor deviations from the track. Clearly that makes the track unacceptable and the accuracy questionable.



Personally I think it's ok (when not zoomed in). But then I've never zoomed in that closely to look at the tracks I've recorded with any device over the years. I accept that these device provide reasonably accurate distance and track depiction. Some don't.

My other hobby is photography. In photography forums there is a term called "pixel peeping" where people do 500% zoom on photos taken with flagship cameras to nitpick on sharpness, vignetting, etc.

These "Is my GPS watch accurate?" threads remind me of the running version of "pixel peeping" :)

Btw, the example you posted is a deviation to run into a park on Wicks Road to refill water - so not a GPS issue :D

" />">

The only watch I have owned that made a track you could be happy with was the RCX5 with shoulder mount GPS Receiver but it was quite limited other than making good courses for others to use

" />">

My F3 has a horrendous looking track BUT the distance pace navagition and many other features are really useful

Fair is not the issue

Based on a sample of 1 (me) the F5X is accurate and performs much better in terms of GPS lock speed and accuracy than my old F3.

The following run had everything: tree cover, rapid pace changes, tight corners. You be the judge regarding accuracy.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1675997916?share_unique_id=2

The thing about all these accuracy threads is that sample size is usually 1 or 2 and people use this to make huge generalisations about the entire polulation of these devices, which I don't think is fair.

Thanks for posting. I agree that nobody should make sweeping generalizations based on any one track or any one user. But it would be extraordinary of anyone accumulated sufficient sampling under a sufficiently wide range of conditions and locations (to account for GPS satellite positioning, which is locally dynamic anyway). It is perfectly reasonable to judge the quality of a single track as long as there is some basis for "ground-truthing" the track. Was it within a person's personal tolerances or not? That is an individual judgement. But only by accumulating enough individual (n=1) tracks can the world know if a device is consistently good enough or how often it generates excessively wobbly tracks. That to me is the value of all the n=small sample size individual-user posts. So thanks for adding to that!

btw, my standard is when I am exploring in unfamiliar areas, how well can I match a breadcrumb trail to where I am in the real world and can I use it to loop back around, know which turn to take, etc. This is when I'm trail running, not on roads, and don't want to hand carry a bigger GPS unit (of which I have several good mapping models). That's not pixel peeping to me.

Fellrnr's conclusion- not good! I hope Garmin can up their game and fast!

Fellrnr's conclusion- not good! I hope Garmin can up their game and fast!

Unfortunately, I doubt it can happen within its current design. I believe they missed the target again. Garmin needs a completely different case design that incorporates a better designed antenna. I'm sorry if it bothers anyone for me to expect products to improve with each new model year change. For example, car manufacturers don't come out with newer models that are less efficient than the previous model they replaced, for the most part.
The F3 is a great watch, which could have been a lot better, with a better designed antenna. Which is what I was hoping for with the 5 series. But it looks to be the same, which is just a shame. IMO

DC Rainmaker seemed happy with the accuracy of both the GPS and optical HR and was tested in multiple environments.

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/03/garmin-fenix5-5s-5x-review.html

My other hobby is photography. In photography forums there is a term called "pixel peeping" where people do 500% zoom on photos taken with flagship cameras to nitpick on sharpness, vignetting, etc.

These "Is my GPS watch accurate?" threads remind me of the running version of "pixel peeping" :)

Btw, the example you posted is a deviation to run into a park on Wicks Road to refill water - so not a GPS issue :D

Apologies if my first comment came across as serious. My intention is to poke fun at those individuals who do just what you discuss in terms of pixel peeping. I agreed, your track looks good as it is displayed, just like the majority of mine have done over the years. But people will insist on zooming in to unrealistic levels to illustrate their point. Here's some more fuel for their fire from your same track. My god that overshoot on the corner is monstrously massive!