In most cases, there will be very little difference to accuracy. In conditions where there is a limited view of the horizon (eg. a narrow valley), there may be times when your can see sufficient GLONASS satellites to get a positional fix while you can't with GPS (or vice versa), in which case accuracy is improved through having access to an alternative constellation of satellites.
Depends what you mean. For positioning yes, for things like running and biking not so great. With running, you're talking about pace estimations with a ton of smoothing so you don't see when things don't work how they're supposed to. In the Fenix 5 there's one type of workout where they replace your current pace with an average to cover their butts from you noticing this. I've said this a bunch but you'll see these GPS watches show how weak they are when doing speed intervals, such as 1 minute at 8-9 minute mile, :25 at 5:20 or faster. It'll take at least :15 for the watch to give you the current speed because it's so overwhelmed.
Also, the whole elevation thing has been around since day one. GPS doesn't do that well and the Barometric Pressure is a better but not until this recent update are we able to calibrate them. Ever wonder why cyclists use the speed sensor on their hub when they have a GPS unit? Just the fact that Garmin sells these is good enough evidence that GPS is the be all end all. What cracks me up is you can use their Elevation Correction via the Garmin Connect website, but you're distance stays the same? If the elevation recorded is modified, so will your distance.
What cracks me up is you can use their Elevation Correction via the Garmin Connect website, but you're distance stays the same? If the elevation recorded is modified, so will your distance.
What cracks me up is the complete ignorance of high school trigonmetry in this statement. At the gradients most people run or ride up, then the contribution of vertical to the overall distance covered is extremely small. It's not zero, but it's as close to as not to matter. For example, a climb with 1000 meters of vertical gain at a consistent 5% gradient would have a horizontal distance of 20 km, and a total distance covered of 20.025 km.
If you were talking mountaineering gradients, then things might be different. But you could always turn on 3D distance for that situation. Bear in mind of course that when comparing your route with an underlying map, the map will be horizontal distance only, not 3D distance.
What cracks me up is the complete ignorance of high school trigonmetry in this statement.
It's not zero, but it's as close to as not to matter.
Haha! Yeah, you're funny and most likely incredibly slow. Unlike you I'm not in the "most people" category so assume would mean you are the first 3 letters of that word.
Point being, when Garmin rolled out this GPS is the answer to everything campaign they hid a lot of details.
1. The GPS is they rolled out was a flat earth not accounting for elevation (although the tracked it via barometer).
2. People began to realize the barometer is easily freaked out and really isn't that reliable without constant calibration.
3. Because of user complaints regarding to those bad elevation numbers via barometer Garmin added the "elevation correction".
4. By now users realized it was a total scam. Garmin with their back to the wall rolls out 3D distance. (If it was such a MEANINGLESS MEASUREMENT, why?)
5. People that actually tried that 3D distance realized that the accuracy of this features is complete garbage. Just the fact you even brought up shows how little you know about the watch.
Keep in mind, when you're training at high levels you fight for every stat you can get and when a race course is long even by .025 it makes a difference. When I rode my bike to the top of Haleakala (10,000 elevation) I think it's fair to say I lost some distance? Even my recent 145 mile ride, yes.
Time to put your pen back in your pocket protector and enjoy this geometry. My 9.3 mile run on Sunday that included some nice elevation grades at the end. When you?re hitting a peak speeds like that at 8.5 miles we'll talk since I doubt lactate threshold and VO2 Max are in your vocabulary (believe it or not the watch does that too).
Way to play the victim. Didn't you throw the first stone? Calling someone "completely ignorant" isn't exactly killing someone with kindness. And to think I was hoping you'd use your high school trigonometry skills to figure out the actual numbers of my climb up Haleakala.
