Elevation off for anyone?

I wouldn't worry too much about Strava corrected data, that is usually fairly innacurate. It should be comparable with data direct from a 500 or 510 though. Where are you seeing the altitude data, on their devices or on Strava? If it's on Strava, are they "correcting" their altitude?

Yes the 520 consistently reports less elevation than my 500 - riding with both for comparison. Most likely due to the elevation change smoothing which the 520 does and which also causes another issue with gradient reporting which lags about 10 to 15 second behind the 500 and will report that you are going downhill when actually going up and vice versa because of this delay. Would be good it Garmin were to take a look at this, but not holding my breath - nor getting any Strava climbing challenges ;-)

I wouldn't worry too much about Strava corrected data, that is usually fairly inaccurate. It should be comparable with data direct from a 500 or 510 though. Where are you seeing the altitude data, on their devices or on Strava? If it's on Strava, are they "correcting" their altitude?

Somewhat agreed....there was one rider using only his phone w/ Strava and others using a 500.... but not sure they clicked on the correct elevation button on Strava.

Will look into it.

Yes the 520 consistently reports less elevation than my 500 - riding with both for comparison. Most likely due to the elevation change smoothing which the 520 does and which also causes another issue with gradient reporting which lags about 10 to 15 second behind the 500 and will report that you are going downhill when actually going up and vice versa because of this delay. Would be good it Garmin were to take a look at this, but not holding my breath - nor getting any Strava climbing challenges ;-)

So...I noticed that in comparison from my old 510 on an identical route, the 520 was showing about 300 feet lower for a 30 mile route. This was fairly consistent. Is this what you were referring to?

So...I noticed that in comparison from my old 510 on an identical route, the 520 was showing about 300 feet lower for a 30 mile route. This was fairly consistent. Is this what you were referring to?

Yes - you loose a little bit here and a little bit there and it all adds up. Of course there's no real way of know if the 500/510 were accurate; were they overestimating? It just feels like you are loosing out as the elevation numbers are lower with the 520. Probably best to just ignore it and enjoy the ride - that's what I'm trying to do anyway. The expensive alternative would be to buy all our ridding buddies a 520 ;-)

Yes - you loose a little bit here and a little bit there and it all adds up. Of course there's no real way of know if the 500/510 were accurate; were they overestimating? It just feels like you are loosing out as the elevation numbers are lower with the 520. Probably best to just ignore it and enjoy the ride - that's what I'm trying to do anyway. The expensive alternative would be to buy all our ridding buddies a 520 ;-)

Its hard to ignore when its so much lost. I run a 500 and 520 and the 520 is up to 25 percent off on some rides. That's a 1000 feet down on a 4,000 feet ride. I get the point about the 500 overestimating, and there are even differences between my 500 and my mate's 500 but the 520 is definitely down by some margin. Are there any settings that can be turned on or off to see if any gain is made?

I turned off GLONASS and it's fine now

That's weird, it uses a barometric altimiter, it should have nothing to do with GPS position...

I turned off GLONASS and it's fine now

That's very strange as the 520 should be using a barometric altimeter. Is this based on just one ride or over several with GLONASS off?

I'll run some tests too...