- Questo topic ha 5 risposte, 2 partecipanti ed è stato aggiornato l'ultima volta 12 mesi fa da
.
-
Post
-
I like the new update, but the elevation climb/decent is way off. For this hike, for example: http://www.hikerly.com/mono-lake-south-tufa-navy-beach/ The climb was less than 100 ft (about 97 feet), but when I turned on the the summary, it said the climb was a whopping 744 feet! There’s no way there was a climb anywhere close to that. It was a flat hike.
Hi, it looks weird even to me.. these values are simply the difference from the elevation of each point and the previous one.
I checked also in this site http://utrack.crempa.net and the result is the same..It can be a problem with the GPS and the precision of the track. For example Garmin Basecamp allow you to repair this problems using DEM data.
For clarity: the problem cannot be seen on the given post because I turned off the inaccurate summary. The GPS track is accurate (the actual code when viewed in a text reader, as well as when looked at in Basecamp or even uploaded to trails.com) shows 97 feet of elevation gain. Even this plug-in shows the accurate elevation in the chart view. BUT when I turn on summary set to “feet” it shows completely outrageous numbers for elevation gain and loss — 1000 feet wrong nearly.
I turned summary back on again and viewed a few other tracks and saw similar problems: The altitude graph chart is right, but the summary data it displays is completely inaccurate.
Examples of the discrepancy in the summary chart (this is comparing with base camp’s reading of the GPS file which seems to mirror trails.com very closely):
* 97 ft per the GPX file/Basecamp appears as 744 ft. in the summary table.
* 717ft per the GPX file/Basecamp appears at 1543 ft. in the summary table
* 2386 ft per the GPX file/Basecamp appears as 2733 ft. in the summary table
* 1600 ft shows up as 3753ft. in the summary table
etc.
I’ve turned summary back off again, since the numbers are so clearly wrong and not matching any other reading of the GPS files when I try them in other software.
I see the issue – looking at the track here: http://utrack.crempa.net there are a few jumps/hiccups in the GPS data where the elevation skyrockets for one pinpoint. It appears all the other software I’ve been looking at knows to disregard these and provide a more accurate reading.
For now I’ll have to stick with my manual summary table since it’s faster than trying to edit every GPS file.
Thanks!
Hi all, I also notice this issue, but I don’t think it is wrong. All tracks are always up and down. The GPS records all these up data and accumulate them, the descent does the same thing. Just like you climb two 200m high hills, the total climbing must be 400m, of course much more as there are lots of micro climbing inside.
