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

Floor counting only if moving slow and step by step (on a Sportswatch???)

Geroelltrampel

Hi,

I encountered a strange issue when looking at the floorcounter. Everytime I move slowly up the stairs, taking on step after another, nearly all floors are beeing counted.

But if I move quickly, taking two steps at once, the floor counting function fails completely. I mean, whats the point of a 500 bucks Sportswatch that has functions that only work if moving slow? Or do you have to start any action any time you take the stairs and stop it afterwards?

I tested that also with a Garmin Instinct Solar and a Fenix 6x, with the same strange result.

Floor counting doesn´t seem rocket-science to me, its just counting height/time that is significant faster rising than weather could. 

Sometimes I wonder if Garmins programmers are testing any of their products...

  • 0

    It is a known limitation so it is tested and documented:

    https://support.garmin.com/en-GB/?faq=LJ6vYF2phv7JUAOlsRRjC8

    "Do not skip stairs (walking up every other stair)"

  • 0

    As for interest. How would you reliably detect the difference when you are skipping stair or not?

    And couple of point to consider: Not all stairs have standard height. The watch is on your hand. 

    So now, tell me how to implement that, then we can wonder the Garmin's programmers testing.


    Ps. Also note all floors are the same height, and it's using 3m, why doesn't it know that these floors are 5m?!

  • 0 in reply to jmto

    It is probably using the step counter to see that you are taking steps and if you skip steps the step count might too low for it to think that you are climbing a stair. 

    It needs to avoid identifying floor climbing when you are using an elevator or an escalator. Lots of people are walking in escalators and that would probably be very much like when you are skipping steps for the watch. 

  • 0 in reply to e7andy

    Yes, it most likely is, but I was waiting for the original poster to think about the issue and tell us how he would solve the issue.

    I don't it's so trivial as he claims and he's probably also highly overestimating the accuracy standpoint on the elevation/height.

  • 0 in reply to jmto

    Funny you seem to think that I have to do Garmins work!

    But I already mentioned parameter height per time. How about combining it to hand movement in order to tell if walking/running stairs or using an elevator? Then take the event that height changes, also take height before and after that event and divide it through medium height of one floor. And there you are. Was it so hard? Have you been able to follow?

    So no point in asking me in that provocative way, implying that there is no better solution than Garmin found!!!

    And whatever height of floor you take, the outcome of the solution shown above is better than counting nothing, isn´t it?

    Sorry to scratch your godlike picture of Garmin, but there are many things to improve.

  • 0 in reply to Geroelltrampel
    Geroelltrampel said:
    But I already mentioned parameter height per time.

    And have you looked at your activities elevation charts? How accurate are those? And now you think it can get accurate elevations do some centimeter level if it can't even do meters right? 

  • 0 in reply to jmto

    Well, todays baro-sensors are very exact. They can measure meters right - on every meter. That also is no rocket-science. But perhaps you imply that its not possible. You should better inform yourself.

    Or do you just like yourself trolling around, without any constructive or helpful information? How embarrassing for you.

  • 0 in reply to Geroelltrampel

    No, I'm just saying that if you think that the Garmin engineers are really bad and it would just be easy to do I think you are the one here who thinks too much of oneself.

  • 0 in reply to Geroelltrampel
    Geroelltrampel said:
    Well, todays baro-sensors are very exact.

    But you don’t wear that level of accuracy  on your wrist. 

    Once again, we see unrealistic expectations from a small wrist watch.

    Quite a few posters have suggested things can be done better. Maybe it’s time these posters team up and produce the ultimate wrist watch that has millimetric accuracy for height, distance, and instant pace. 

  • 0 in reply to Dr Phil

    Dear philipshambrook, the FR945 measures the absolute height very exact, regardless whether I´m walking or running them upstairs.

    So it´s very obvious, that the baro-sensor is perfect good enough, isn´t it?

    It´s also obvious, that the watch can tell if a person is moving or not. So the simple task to devide measured height by any given floor height should lead to a result >0, shouldn´t it? Still rocket-science?

    Sorry, but your overdrawing of "millimetric accuracy" that nobody claims here is just unobjective.

    Funfact: The FR945 also counts floors when hiking or running in the mountains :-)

Copyright © 1996-2025 Garmin Ltd. or its subsidiaries