Unstable GPS Track on Run Profile

I will say that some Garmin watches (not FR165) do have the multiband GPS feature which optionally allows for greater accuracy at the cost of battery life. Neither Venu nor FR55 have this feature tho.

Since you mentioned running dynamics, I guess I should backtrack. Yes, it’s possible that certain sensors (like a garmin chest strap) or even data sources (like running dynamics) *could* cause smart recording to record more data than it normally would. I seem to recall someone saying that when they used a garmin chest strap, it caused smart recording to record data once per second. (I think this was before you could get “running dynamics” — other than cadence — from the wrist.)

So yeah, you might’ve been on the right track with that theory. Sorry I doubted you.

All I can say is I do think more data is better, even if it makes your GPS track look “rough”. I think that if you configure FR55 or Venu for “Every Second” recording (instead of smart recording), then you’d see a similar “rough” GPS track.

FlowState said:

So yeah, you might’ve been on the right track with that theory.

It seems to me that RD cannot be the cause of problems with GPS accuracy, on the FR55 RDP had absolutely no effect on GPS accuracy when running, I don’t think that with the 165 the situation is worse. Another thing is what accuracy value is meant, in my case at 5 km the discrepancy could be up to 20-30 m, in my opinion it is quite normal.  

I’m not saying that RD is the cause of problems with GPS accuracy. That’s what I originally misunderstood OP to be saying, too.

What I’m saying is that, in some cases,  the presence of running dynamics (or external sensors) can cause smart recording to record more frequently than it otherwise would (e.g. once per second instead of, say, once per 5 seconds.)

I think OP isn’t complaining about GPS accuracy, they’re complaining that the GPS track looks “rough”. My point is the “rough” GPS track is precisely a result of having more frequent data. Indeed, they artificially removed like 80% of the data, and the track became artificially “smooth” (because sites like Strava and Garmin will fill in the blanks with straight lines.)

Again, I don’t think there’s a problem here, I think OP has expectations for the watch recording less data on demand, by selecting smart recording. And I’m saying it’s not always going to record less data, and I don’t think less data is better, unless all you care about is a pretty GPS track.

FlowState said:

And I’m saying it’s not always going to record less data, and I don’t think less data is better, unless all you care about is a pretty GPS track.

Sorry, I mistakenly understood that the complaint was about overload 165 due to the processing of additional data, which causes gaps in GPS data.

4684381 said:

I mistakenly understood that the complaint was about overload 165 due to the processing of additional data, which causes gaps in GPS data.

Same. But reading the OP again, it seems that it's actually the opposite complaint: the additional RD data causes more GPS data to be written to the activity FIT file. Funnily enough, it's probably true, but most ppl wouldn't consider that to be a major problem.

Afaik, the only reason smart vs 1 second recording is even an option is because 10+ years ago, Garmin devices had very small amounts of storage for activity files, so smart recording could make a difference in how quickly your watch fills up with activities. In 2024, there's really no reason to even have an option for smart recording, let alone have it as the default, imo.