Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Garmin Forerunner GPS

GeF
over 2 years ago

Hello, I'm using a forerunner 255 after running with a Polar vantage M2 and I find a significant difference in terms of distance (500m over a 10k run) I checked the track with an interactive map and the distance matches with Polar watch. Is there a way to improve Garmin GPS ?

Now I'm also using my forerunner for fitness and there are tonnes of settings and activities but why, when I choose a stationary bike, I cannot enter a distance?

Top Replies

All Replies

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    So how does the GPS trace from the FR255 look at the map? Can you see where it deviates from the actual path? Are the start- and endpoints correct?
    This watch should usually be more accurate than the Polar watch.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to ovekvam

    Thank you for the reply,

    Yes, the start and endpoints are correct.

    I downloaded the GPX Garmin connect path file and uploaded it to my 1:10,000 computer map to see where it deviates and really it looks to follow the path really well, but in the end, the result is that FR255 shows 350m less on a 10.2k course. Polar in that case is absolutely right.

    I ran with an FR245 for a long time and the FR255 records exactly the same distance for all my workouts.

    Thank you for your help

    Gerard

       

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    Do you have 3D distance and 3D elevation turned off (I am not sure if the 255 has these , but it was a reported issues on 955 which has similar base FW)

  • 0 over 2 years ago
    GeF said:
    I find a significant difference in terms of distance (500m over a 10k run) I checked the track with an interactive map and the distance matches with Polar watch.

    Of course I cannot tell, what might be wrong with your track.

    But from my experience with Forerunner 245 (two years) on my „reference track“ on a road through a forest, I never had more than 0,8 percent difference. The track is 10,3 km, measured with Google Maps and Openstreetmap, never had more than 80 meters difference.

    Now with the 255 and the better GPS chip it is even more spot on, never more than 20 meters difference on that 10,3 km.

    So 500 meters aka 5 percent must be kind of a bug.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to GeF

    Have you tried to upload the activity to a different sport tracker, like Strava or Runkeeper? It would be interesting to see if it reports the same distance.

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    Have you got recording every second turned on?  I don't believe it's default.

    This would likely be to solution if Garmin is reading short - it's "cutting corners" if recording less often.

  • +1 over 2 years ago in reply to S.M.R.

    Hello,

    Yes, I have both elevation & distance 3D turned off, furthermore, I set the GPS to All + multiband which is supposed to be the most accurate GPS system. This morning I did a 3k run nearby my hometown, meanly in the forest, I also recorded it with my iPhone and Strava. Here are the results: with Polar M2 = 3,2 k, Strava & iPhone 3,3k, FR255 3.08k, and the track on my 1:10,000map 3.2k.

    I also did several comparisons with different tracks in different areas. And I've realized that both Polar and FR show the same distance as long as I'm NOT running in a forest.

    In other words, Polar M2 is more accurate in the forest than FR 255. (so far)

    Thank you for your help,

    Gerard

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to GeF
    GeF said:
    In other words, Polar M2 is more accurate in the forest than FR 255. (so far)

    Once again: I don’t consider that representative as I have completely different experience with FR 245 and 255. I do run 90% of my tracks in the forest.

    I suppose you are experiencing a bug.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to GeF

    Did you turn on 1-sec recording?

    support.garmin.com/.../