So we just live with the fact that the Fenix 6 Pro's GPS has issues?

7162912 said:

In my opinion it has more to do with the watch (antenna) position, while on a bike you hold your hand so the watch is facing upwards. 

Haha, you were some seconds faster than me

7162912 said:

After beeing frustrated for a while I now accepted there will be no software patch for this. As i mostly use the watch for running it was hard to accept. Wearing the watch on the inner wrist helps a lot, but feels akward.

Same here. I haven't tried the inner wrist yet, as even the idea seemed to be weird, but I'll give it a try. Still, I will get rid of the watch as soon as possible (which can be several months, still).

Niterider4 said:

I suggest this because most of the time people report GPS problems, it seems to be with running or walking rather than faster activities.

And yet... I continually get excellent GPS tracks with my 6xPro on my (almost) daily 3-mile walk at a pace of about 18:30 min/mile.  GPS recording is set to Every Second, and GPS + GALILEO.  Auto Pause is OFF, 3D Speed and 3D Distance are also OFF.

Here's the whole route:

With a yellow "doughnut" mark every time a GPS data point is recorded:

Zoomed in so the individual data points are distinguishable:

At 18:30 minutes/mile, and Every Second recording, that would record a data point every 4.76 feet (1.45 metres).

So... At least at walking speed, GPS accuracy can be excellent.

HTH

Edit to add:

Here's the whole route, but enhanced color for increased legibility:

And the Hike Activity was used.

It was a long time ago I tested to run with the Bike activity but it sure produced a smoother and more responsive pace when i tested. The accelerometer data is/was probably not used so much (not at all?) when using the Bike activity. 

Im convinced that some watches are faulty, as it’s surprisingly how bad some of the tracks are that are post here. 

I also wonder if how “loose” the 6 or 6x is and how much that plays a part due to how heavy the watches are causing the algorithm to filter out the noise differently with it bouncing around, then add in how good the runners arm action compared to expected arm action for the pace - that’s without poor signal strength and not waiting until the pace is zero before started moving. Hence why the lighter watches have better tracks - despite this being meaningless for pace or distance.

i wonder if Garmin would get better results/less complaints if they did a “arm swing” calibration. The runners I see that I see locally have a varied actions from not wrists held by their nipples, to held at the hips, to tiny movements back and forward, to driving their arms forward  to super exaggerated backward for their pace.

Niterider4 said:

As a mountain biker, I have found the GPS to be excellent for my purposes.

I wonder if the speed has anything to do with it. As in going faster leads to a better track. So mountain biking produces a better track than running, and running produces a better track than walking or hiking.

I suggest this because most of the time people report GPS problems, it seems to be with running or walking rather than faster activities.

I think the main reason for running or hiking issues is that there are additional algorithms used for determining position and speed based on built-in sensors - gyroscope and accelerometer. When GPS signal quality drops the algorithm engages and prioritizes data from those sensors over GPS data. I think that leads to the over-smoothed tracks, distance shortening, and biased (too slow) speed when running in woods. On an open terrain that is much less noticeable. 

I think all of the above is actually needed at very slow speeds; otherwise GPS position wobbling relative to slow speed would make the track too jagged and the distance too long.But at faster running speeds it has an opposite effect. Overall, I think Fenix tuned up for walking speeds rather than running speeds.

In most other sports those algorithms don't apply.

ejdzsin said:

subra said:

When I look at the pics I don't know what OP expects in the mostly urban canyons. Even an open area and a clear sky are useless when the antenna points to the side or ground.

I expect the watch to be accurate under any circumstances. Even in urban areas. The reasons for this are that a.) every other watch, including other Garmin watches, are able to do this and b.) Garmin stated nowhere that the GPS accuracy will be miserable if I buy their product.

But other than that, I literally included pictures of crop fields and other places where no building, but not even [ ] trees are in a radius of dozens, if not hundreds of meters :D

---

ejdzsin

Moderator: Approved moderated post, but edited for profanity. Voicing our dissatisfaction is welcome as long as we are civil and on topic. Thank you.

a)  I think you should lower your standards a bit. Your expectation is rather wishful thinking. Currently there isn't such a watch in the market, isn't it?

I'm really curious to see what kind of watch you'll be using in the street canyons of NYC.

b) It's one of Garmins many statements about GPS accuracy:

"In the example below, the device was recording an activity in an area known as an "Urban Canyon". Urban Canyons cause degraded signal due to poor visibility of the horizon and GPS signal refraction caused by windows on taller buildings. When the signal is very degraded, the GPS accuracy of your device goes down and the track of your activity may not show anywhere near the actual path you took. "

https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=z0n0KE1XVF0Pe4Su8QiZgA

c) As I've already mentioned above that when the watch points to the side GPS fixes mostly the satelites from this side. This may affect the trilateration of the position because satellites near the horizon with a small angle to your current position results in poor accuracy. In addition if you train with HRM and not OHR, then during running often the watch slides on the wrist so that it may point to the ground, which makes the accuracy even more worse.

ejdzsin said:

It was really funny to be told that I'm just holding the watch wrong!

Please remember that most inventors were initially laughed at for their discoveries, mostly from people with a lack of understanding of the technology.

ejdzsin said:

"... when riding a bike, you usually have your wrists turned in the direction of the sky." 

Oh, looks like you've understand it.

subra said:

О, похоже, вы это поняли.

GPS in my old 735xt are lost technologies of ancient ancestors.

You'll need a foot pod if you want real time pace accurate enough to get value from Pace Pro. Maybe that shouldn't be necessary but it's the reality today.

subra said:

a)  I think you should lower your standards a bit. Your expectation is rather wishful thinking. Currently there isn't such a watch in the market, isn't it?

Well, I know no other watch which isn't capable of recording accurate GPS signal. Even Garmin can produce such watches, even in the same family there are models which are much better in this regard (6s, 6X Pro). So I don't know, is there?

subra said:

I'm really curious to see what kind of watch you'll be using in the street canyons of NYC.

Me too!

subra said:

b) It's one of Garmins many statements about GPS accuracy:

We both know, that such statements are only at place because companies try to save themselves from lawsuits etc. As a matter of fact I mentioned this article earlier in this thread; so just to recap, Garmin even allows 180 meters of inaccuracy per minute while standing still in the middle of a desert. Would that be acceptable for *any* activity? No, but they can later point to this support article and tell me that I should be happy as it's just 10 meters and not 180.

subra said:

c) As I've already mentioned above that when the watch points to the side GPS fixes mostly the satelites from this side.

Nobody suggested the opposite. I'd rather assume that the position of a watch is a known factor to every human who even wore a watch, and that includes Garmin's engineers too. So they can plan with this, right.

subra said:

Please remember that most inventors were initially laughed at for their discoveries, mostly from people with a lack of understanding of the technology.

Please remember that the outcome of the iPhone 4 antennagate was Apple redesigning the antenna, and not that suddenly a million people recognised that they were holding it wrong  

subra said:

Oh, looks like you've understand it.

I understood it the whole time; now I checked it again and no, there is no "bike watch" text on the packaging of the watch, it says "sports watch". Also, last time when I checked, running was a sport.

ejdzsin said:

subra said:

Oh, looks like you've understand it.

I understood it the whole time; now I checked it again and no, there is no "bike watch" text on the packaging of the watch, it says "sports watch". Also, last time when I checked, running was a sport.

The Fenix series aren't pure running watches. They are rather "swiss knife" watches for a large number of activity types. And the number of activities and features rise continuously because of user wishes. And in the activity types the watch may be weared differently, as you've already detected, e.g. cycling, rowing, hiking, flying, ...

Take a look at the currently available activities

developer.garmin.com/.../Activity.html

So if your sports is mostly running I think you're better wit a FRxxx.