Related
Options

GPS Accuracy

Former Member
Former Member over 5 years ago

I am wondering the F6 performance dips when the battery is low. I have a 14 hours left and did a run. The GPS route is terrible. It has been through ponds and shrinks the run down massively. The black line is the route. I have the google gps  map too and it's no better. 

Is the overall distance based on the gps data as my 4 laps are quite a bit shorter than the reality. Is anyone else having gps issues? 

I really felt the F6 was the ultimate outdoor watch but I am a disappointed at the minute, especially given the investment. 

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to Simone.01

    Just hide it deep in sub sub sub sub menus Stuck out tongue winking eye

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to RISBAC

    I totally agree, that Garmin tries to compensate by accelerometer.

    Garmin F6xP 26,89km for a 28km-run! (1,1km to short!)

    Today it was my next run for training to the Paris Marathon. This time I ran 28km without any stop. (You cannot run the ideal route, because lap 1 and two are many people running theri 7 and 14km). Therefore it needs to be more.

    With all the calculations you need to take care! If you stop - the (GPS-)location needn't be the same when you start! Therefore you have to substract that. I don't know how Strava, etc. handle that problem. Today I didn't stop at all (except after the finish). But I always substracted time in rest. I didn't stop for drinking, ...

    4 laps to go.

    F5X displayed +40m/+40m/+40m/-160m (total 27,98). Determining the distance out of GPS-Data results: 28,62 km !!

    F6X dsplayed at the end 26,89km - Distance out of the track: 28,22km (Much more accurate than what Garmin dsiplays to  users!)

    In fact Garmin tries to compensate, but why? Deviations are not the same over several runs. Unfortunately it seems that when I run I race deviations are higher! Why?

    I didn't compare the GPS-track in Google earth, but I think that this time F6xP-track is better.

    The ratios to V800 (GPS for all of them F5x, F6xP and V800) are the lower lines in the following diagram. To the right are several runs this month. The last three are from today (warm up 2km; 28km race; 1km cool down).

    @RISBAC: How can I transfer files to you (beside this forum)?

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to beta-L-user

    @beta-L-user and @RISBAC today I had an idea to isolate "accelerometer". You could try to use another activity profile with GPS active and not running/walking/trailrun. Something like Track Me or Other.

    In general seems that the Fenix 6 is using a lot accelerometer for instant pace and distance calculation. Infant if you walk pushing a stroller the instant pace something is not shown. 

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to Simone.01

    There are not many other possibilities anyway, right ? The accelerometer is the only other choice to have another estimation of pace and distance.

    And there are cases when it's better than the GPS :   

    https://www.strava.com/activities/3104376993/overview

    6 times the same hill. Often with tree cover, so it was not optimal for GPS. The watch is saying 21km (20.99 to be honest). The GPS file is saying 21.9 to 22.2 depending on the tool. The hill was 1.7km and I added 700m at the end for an unfinished 7th loop. That's 21.1k. 

    So it's hard to complain about Garmin calculation here, Their distance is closer to the real one I think. Still a bit underestimated, but it's better than to have 22k. 

    So I can imagine how difficult it must be to find an accurate algorithm for the distance, It's working fine in different situations (like my runs in Paris). In others it's wrong. A real pain in the ass to adjust !

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to beta-L-user

    Even the V800 can have a significant bias... And it's one of the most accurate out here. So it's mostly saying that no watch is really that reliable. Anyway, I knew that, in fact I reminded how often with city runs, my Ambit was overestimating the distance and pace. Back then I wasn't complaining that much. But I guess that since watches are more expensive and should offer better, we are more demanding.

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    I ran with my girlfriend this weekend (25.23Km in 2 hours), she has a garmin 935 (blue line), the orange line is mine, a garmin fenix 6X Solar, firmware 6.10 GPS+GLONASS, recording every second.

    In mine opinion the GPS is pretty accurate. For accurate pace I use a stryd footpod.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to goosjuh

    Looks very similar, looks also like a flat course with mostly open view to the sky. I think it is not the point of this discussion that the 6 delivers good tracking under good conditions and also for faster activities like cycling. 

    If you want to see differences between watches, you might run in hilly and dense woods and without a Stryd to be able to compare the distances. Wink  An expensive watch like the F6 also has to deliver good results under tough conditions.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to RISBAC

    Yes. The V800 can deviate. My yesterdays run showed that one lap was (at one end of the course) really bad with the V800.

    Comparing the tracks within Google Earth brought new experience! The F6xP hat the best track, but did something wrong with the cheeting-software! The F5x is wobbling most. Therefore the "software-distance-improvements" are necessary for the F5x. Garmin should remove this "software-distance-improvement" for the F6xP. It seems that they have something done with the GPS-quality in the meantime. There were no severe deviations from the route I took! Even the straight lines are almost straight lines and out of four laps close together. - very similiar to V800. (it is not for the F5x!)

    The behaviour that Polar turns a little later and Garmin turns a litte before - is still there, but the (real) difference between V800 and F6xP is not there anymore. Garmin: please take the (more accurate) track than your "software-distance-improvement".

    same race (all three devices)

    V800 is blue / F6xP is red / F5x yellow (most wobbling).

    F6xP with Firmware 6.1

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to RunR
    RunR said:
    An expensive watch like the F6 also has to deliver good results under tough conditions.

    Alan this is not correct.

    The gps signal disturbed by environmental factors cannot be accurately tracked, not all the time at least.

    It's a limitation of the gps technology. It's nothing to do with the f6 and expensive watches. 

    Garmin has written articles about which is suggest to read to find out more. 

    quoting garmin:

    What are Environmental Factors?

    Any outside influence on the accuracy of your Garmin watch is an environmental factor and can cause degraded GPS signal. Environmental factors can range from using GPS downtown in a major city to running in a big group of people to trying to record a hike under a dense tree canopy. Using your watch to record GPS in those types of environments blocks the watch's ability to directly receive GPS signal. You can think of environmental factors as things that interrupt the signal path of a GPS satellite to your watch. 

    Reduce Environmental Factors

    The first step to recording accurate GPS data is to reduce distortion and degradation caused by environmental factors. GPS works best when there are no obstructions above 15 degrees over the horizon. Avoid the following when recording activities:

    • Tall buildings
    • Dense forest or canopy
    • Canyons
    • Using GPS in a dense group of people
    • Using GPS indoors
    • Using GPS under water 

    https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=CC5azODuBd9BhRbKvp82JA

    https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=CC5azODuBd9BhRbKvp82JA