Related
Options

Shift in GPS track depending on wrist

Former Member
Former Member over 5 years ago

As an avid heatmapper / run every street I'm particularly interested in more accurate GPS tracks.  I've been perplexed by why has appeared to be a shift of my GPS tracks to the left of where I run no matter what direction I run in.  So if I run an out and back on a road it looks like I've practically run a loop because its shifts it off the road on both sides.  In general my tracks are off the road and sometimes its more egregious than others.  I took to running on the wrong side of the road (with traffic instead of against) to get it more centered.  I then did an experiment and changed my watch to my right hand.  Low and behold my tracks started looking significantly better!  I figured there must be some sort of setting I was missing.  I found the wrist setting in my Fenix 6 and changed it from "left" (the correct setting) to "right" and it made no difference.  


Wearing the watch on my right wrist example here:

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/4692022516  - I ran on the side of the road against traffic and its shifted to the right, which is closer to the middle of the road

Wearing the watch on my left wrist example:

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/4488678027 - notice how all the tracks are to the left where you would be running against traffic off the road

Really neither of these examples are very accurate as they don't capture where I really ran but at least with wearing it on the right hand it will actually show on the road I was running on.   I don't know if this is an intentional shift or not.  Also I'm not a fan of wearing it on my right hand (again wrist setting seem to make no difference in my tests).  Does anyone have any info on this?  

Also this isnt a one off test. All my runs with my Fenix 6 are like this and I found many with my Fenix 5 as well.  Additionally I have done several runs with it on my right wrist and they consistently produce better results every time.

Top Replies

All Replies

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to RISBAC

    I repeated the test once more and just like you got much better results with inner wrist.

    To make things clear, we are not whining here nor criticising Garmin.

    We are trying to improve GPS performace of our beloved watches and understand why with less then perfect conditions GPS track gets worse then on some other/older devices.

    I have tried various settings (GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO), wrist changing, following satelitte cover etc.

    And now it seems a simple wrist turn solves everything and my Fenix records super accurate tracks better than ever before in very chalanging conditions. I couldn't be happier.

    It would be nice if Garmin could now use this info and fix for normal wrist position because we now know Sony chip is capable of performing great.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to 7162912
    7162912 said:
    This time I rotated the watch to the inside of the wrist

    I have an idea, when we usually wait for the fix we look at the watch. So the face is not in the same position when we run, have you ever tried to do the fix keeping the watch in the same position you have during running?

    It is only a theory...

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

    Yes I have, made no difference.

    Tried everything I ever read: extra long soak in, updating CPE before run, syncing time with GPS before run...

    That's why I was so surprised with this.

    Can it be something simple as this?

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to 7162912

    "To make things clear, we are not whining here nor criticising Garmin."

    I'm just saying possibly that X works and Y doesn't and changing wrists affects reading something 12.5k miles away seems .....

    Maybe your number of samples of use isn't large enough yet to say on balance it is more accurate within a natural accuracy of about 5m in any direction

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to MiniEggS
    MiniEggS said:
    I think before complaining your small wrist based device (of any brand) that is perpendicular to the sky most of the time is showing you are on the 'wrong' side of the pavement..... it is triangulating with many things twelve and a half thousand miles away to try to determine where you are

    I completely get what you're saying. It seems ridiculous to be obsessed with something like this. My buddy I run with is constantly ridiculing me for tinkering with my watch and its settings (that's been going on for years...not just this issue). We ran 10 identical laps in the neighborhood the other day with different watch orientations to try to figure this out. My brain just works that way, and I just have to endure the ridicule. I enjoy having the forum like this to know either A) I'm not crazy, or B) there are others out there just as crazy as me... I'm really good with either option.

    MiniEggS said:

    I'm just saying possibly that X works and Y doesn't and changing wrists affects reading something 12.5k miles away seems .....

    Maybe your number of samples of use isn't large enough yet to say on balance it is more accurate within a natural accuracy of about 5m in any direction

    That's what is completely bizarre about this whole thing... moving the watch a whole 3 inches by rotating to the inside of the wrist shouldn't make any difference whatsoever. Heck, moving the watch 18 inches from the left wrist to the right wrist shouldn't make any difference. And if for some reason it does make a difference, that one time should be an aberration and not repeatable. I completely agree that's what makes sense considering the size of the watch and the distance of satellites...

    But for some weird reason, I get very different (but very predictable) results depending on where I place the watch. I think the frustration some people are feeling (including myself) is that the track shift when the watch is worn on the outside of the wrist is a pretty consistent and predictable distance from the actual path taken. If it were moving around (5 feet to the left here, 6 feet to the right there, different on every run), I think it would be easier to accept as the inaccuracies that come with a 1.5-inch device tracking satellites thousands of miles away in difficult conditions. At this point, though, on a familiar course I can very closely predict the differences in final distance and GPS track just based on how I wear the watch.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to swtex15

    Why are you saying that changing the orientation of the watch by 3 inches shouldn't make any difference ? It's an antenna, and from what I read, the position and angle of the antenna is important for a GPS. By changing wrist, or switching it from outer to inner wrist, you completely change the orientation of the antenna. It would feel that surprising if there is a difference. 

    Of course, it's not the only factor. Wearing two watches with this sony GPS chipset on the same arm is still giving different results. But given how bike rides are giving much cleaner tracks, with a more stable watch (and antenna heading up), I would still say that the antenna orientation is a significant factor for the accuracy. 

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to RISBAC
    RISBAC said:
    Why are you saying that changing the orientation of the watch by 3 inches shouldn't make any difference ?

    Not quite I'm saying that change is probably an insignificant factor in the accuracy compared to other things. iI you move from the back to the front of a Jumbo jet you have changed the weight distribution but not so much that it affects the influence the elevators have

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to RISBAC
    RISBAC said:
    Why are you saying that changing the orientation of the watch by 3 inches shouldn't make any difference ?

    I guess my assumption is that the antenna(s) would be engineered in such a way that the GPS reception wouldn't be affected by watch orientation since running, swimming, and biking (and all the movement associated with each) are going to yield different orientations. That's why from my limited, non-engineering perspective, I would say it "shouldn't" make any difference. I'm just assuming the watch would be designed to account for that, but that's all it is...an assumption.

    The weird thing is that wearing the watch upside down on the outside of my wrist doesn't seem to make any difference. I figured, "Okay, when I turn the watch to the inside of my wrist, 12:00 is to the sky. Maybe that's the good antenna position. What if I turn 12:00 to the sky while wearing it on the outside?" (side note: putting a watch on upside down and then figuring out which button starts/stops your activity is more difficult than one would think). Anyway, the actual GPS track was still shifted to the outside. So it would appear from my limited testing that having the watch face towards the body is the primary factor in getting more accurate tracks for running. I don't know why, but that's just what my runs are showing.

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    Guys,

    Tried the wierd "fix" on my unit. Wearing the unit on the inside of my wrist resulted in minimal improvement (if any) and still offset to the left was observed.

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    Guys,

    Tried the wierd "fix" on my unit. Wearing the unit on the inside of my wrist resulted in minimal improvement (if any) and still offset to the left was observed.

    Maybe will give another try next time and let you know.