January 2018 Running Challenge

Options
1…103105107108109

Replies

  • MobyCarp
    MobyCarp Posts: 2,927 Member
    Options
    MNLittleFinn wrote: »
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    MNLittleFinn wrote: »
    Somehow I missed it. When did Strava start reporting mileage decimals to the hundredths place?

    I just noticed this yesterday. I wasn't bothered by reports in tenths, but I didn't like the way Strava chopped insted of rounding. It was annoying to see something that rounded to 3.00 miles on Garmin show up as 2.9 miles on Strava.

    That was my issue with it. When a lot of runs show up as XX.Y8 or XX.Y7 on Garmin and get chopped to XX.Y, there's definitely some mileage loss in the long run.

    When I looked at the totals, it was apparent Strava was keeping the XX.Y7 and XX.Y8 in the background, because weekly or monthly totals would tie to corresponding Garmin totals, chopped to the tenth. That's what made the display so annoying; if you're going to give me credit for the distance Garmin says, then round. 2.998 miles is better represented as 3.0 miles than as 2.9 miles as Strava formerly displayed.
  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    Options
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    MNLittleFinn wrote: »
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    MNLittleFinn wrote: »
    Somehow I missed it. When did Strava start reporting mileage decimals to the hundredths place?

    I just noticed this yesterday. I wasn't bothered by reports in tenths, but I didn't like the way Strava chopped insted of rounding. It was annoying to see something that rounded to 3.00 miles on Garmin show up as 2.9 miles on Strava.

    That was my issue with it. When a lot of runs show up as XX.Y8 or XX.Y7 on Garmin and get chopped to XX.Y, there's definitely some mileage loss in the long run.

    When I looked at the totals, it was apparent Strava was keeping the XX.Y7 and XX.Y8 in the background, because weekly or monthly totals would tie to corresponding Garmin totals, chopped to the tenth. That's what made the display so annoying; if you're going to give me credit for the distance Garmin says, then round. 2.998 miles is better represented as 3.0 miles than as 2.9 miles as Strava formerly displayed.

    I looked at my older runs and they are all 2 digits now so they must have the info all along and just changed the display.

    For the same run:

    Garmin 10.01
    Strava 10.00
    Runkeeper 9.98

    So they are all playing some kind of games with the numbers :) I figure at the distances I am running. even .1 miles is not meaningful so I ignore it. *shrugs*
  • 7lenny7
    7lenny7 Posts: 3,493 Member
    Options
    The effect trees and buildings have on your GPS, and the pinging frequency the GPS is set to, means your total on Strava or Garmin will never be accurate to the nearest tenth of a mile or km, much less the nearest hundredth. The longer the run, the greater the error.

    If you want to geek out on real life testing of running GPS accuracy:

    http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy



  • ddmm2013
    ddmm2013 Posts: 38 Member
    Options

    exercise.png

  • RunsOnEspresso
    RunsOnEspresso Posts: 3,218 Member
    Options
    PastorVincent wrote: »
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    MNLittleFinn wrote: »
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    MNLittleFinn wrote: »
    Somehow I missed it. When did Strava start reporting mileage decimals to the hundredths place?

    I just noticed this yesterday. I wasn't bothered by reports in tenths, but I didn't like the way Strava chopped insted of rounding. It was annoying to see something that rounded to 3.00 miles on Garmin show up as 2.9 miles on Strava.

    That was my issue with it. When a lot of runs show up as XX.Y8 or XX.Y7 on Garmin and get chopped to XX.Y, there's definitely some mileage loss in the long run.

    When I looked at the totals, it was apparent Strava was keeping the XX.Y7 and XX.Y8 in the background, because weekly or monthly totals would tie to corresponding Garmin totals, chopped to the tenth. That's what made the display so annoying; if you're going to give me credit for the distance Garmin says, then round. 2.998 miles is better represented as 3.0 miles than as 2.9 miles as Strava formerly displayed.

    I looked at my older runs and they are all 2 digits now so they must have the info all along and just changed the display.

    For the same run:

    Garmin 10.01
    Strava 10.00
    Runkeeper 9.98

    So they are all playing some kind of games with the numbers :) I figure at the distances I am running. even .1 miles is not meaningful so I ignore it. *shrugs*

    This is my biggest issue with Nike. No matter what watch I use, it always is .01 less in Nike. So if I stop at 6.45, Nike posts it as 6.44. I will run/walk a bit more to get a nice number and Nike ruins it. Otherwise I'd have to stop my watch at 6.46 to get 6.45 in Nike but then my watch is all messed up. And yes, I may have some OCD issues.
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    @polskagirl01 Great picture and excellent accomplishment. You look amazing!
  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    Options
    RunsOnEspresso wrote: »
    PastorVincent wrote: »
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    MNLittleFinn wrote: »
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    MNLittleFinn wrote: »
    Somehow I missed it. When did Strava start reporting mileage decimals to the hundredths place?

    I just noticed this yesterday. I wasn't bothered by reports in tenths, but I didn't like the way Strava chopped insted of rounding. It was annoying to see something that rounded to 3.00 miles on Garmin show up as 2.9 miles on Strava.

    That was my issue with it. When a lot of runs show up as XX.Y8 or XX.Y7 on Garmin and get chopped to XX.Y, there's definitely some mileage loss in the long run.

    When I looked at the totals, it was apparent Strava was keeping the XX.Y7 and XX.Y8 in the background, because weekly or monthly totals would tie to corresponding Garmin totals, chopped to the tenth. That's what made the display so annoying; if you're going to give me credit for the distance Garmin says, then round. 2.998 miles is better represented as 3.0 miles than as 2.9 miles as Strava formerly displayed.

    I looked at my older runs and they are all 2 digits now so they must have the info all along and just changed the display.

    For the same run:

    Garmin 10.01
    Strava 10.00
    Runkeeper 9.98

    So they are all playing some kind of games with the numbers :) I figure at the distances I am running. even .1 miles is not meaningful so I ignore it. *shrugs*

    This is my biggest issue with Nike. No matter what watch I use, it always is .01 less in Nike. So if I stop at 6.45, Nike posts it as 6.44. I will run/walk a bit more to get a nice number and Nike ruins it. Otherwise I'd have to stop my watch at 6.46 to get 6.45 in Nike but then my watch is all messed up. And yes, I may have some OCD issues.

    Personally, I just go by my watch display and assume everything else is wrong. It may or may not be correct, but eh, its what I have when I am actually out there running.
  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    Options
    mamabear10717 wrote: »
    @PastorVincent thank you!

    New thread is up...click to go see it :)

    February 2018 Running Challenge
  • rusgolden
    rusgolden Posts: 1,337 Member
    Options
    My new goal for Feb is to attempt to do a better job at staying on top of the running group thread... that is going to be a lofty goal!! This month I have only had a chance to check in a few times and here I am now, selfishly looking for some advice...

    I am currently in week 7 of the Hal Higdon Intermediate 1 of his marathon training plan. Our church has also decided to start up a running group/club whatever you want to call it with group runs on Sunday mornings at 7. Sundays have also been my long-run day. I am training for my 1st full marathon in mid-April and don't want to jeopardize that, but I also would like to participate in the group runs. I was thinking about then doing my long run on Sat and use the group run as more of a recovery run... what say ye? If that sounds good, then trying to figure out how I should handle the rest of the week. Currently Mon and Fri are non-run days, Tues and Thurs are shorter 3-5 mile runs, Wed and Sat are 5-8 mile runs, and Sun 9-20 mile runs. If I am using Sun as recovery run day, would it be acceptable to make Thur a non-run day and move my weekend runs to Fri-Sat?

    Any help/insight would be greatly appreciated. :smile:

Categories