End of the day I don't get what you're worried over? The 67 is over reading on the firmware you're on now, so what's it matter if you upgrade to the new firmware? Not exactly anything to lose... Stop being a Noddy.
Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
-
Backstreetbob
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:07 am
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
-
Backstreetbob
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:07 am
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
21m is still around 60 feet, surely there should be barely any rise in ascent or descent if it's flat right next to the sea?JungleJim wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:07 am Earlier tests with 7.60 on a quite flat hike around sea level led to Total Ascent values of 70-80m. The same hike with 8.30 and Auto Calibration set to the same value as the earlier test (Once) led to Ascent value of 21m. But again as there are many variables this single test is not conclusive and no proof of anything having been fixed by Garmin.
-
JungleJim
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2022 3:45 pm
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
I didn't say it was next to the sea, just that it was mostly at sea levelBackstreetbob wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 1:44 pm 21m is still around 60 feet, surely there should be barely any rise in ascent or descent if it's flat right next to the sea?
I'll continue to do more tests, hopefully that will provide more insights.
Current: GPSMAP H1, inReach Mini 2 - Previous: GPSMAP 67, inReach Messenger, GPSMAP 66sr, Oregon 700, Dakota 20, Edge 1040, Edge 1030 Plus, Edge 1030, Edge 520 Plus, Edge 520
-
Backstreetbob
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:07 am
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
There's not a correct amount. You do the same walk same distance over and over and the ascent and descent will be different everytime. But should be within 20-30 feet of each one..
-
Backstreetbob
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:07 am
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
Any more walks done with the 67 and reports on the ascent/descent since the new firmware?
-
RunnerAndrew
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2023 11:16 am
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
I will test again on the weekend on the same.route that I did on Monday that had a much more accurate ascent descent reading than previous runs on the same route.
I would get out and test your unit as well to see if any improvements
I would get out and test your unit as well to see if any improvements
-
Backstreetbob
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:07 am
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
Anymore info as to whether the new firmware as fixed the issue?
-
Domi93CH
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:17 am
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
I took it with me on a car ride yesterday and it actually seems to be better
-
mimichris
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:59 am
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
When I look at the altitudes of a trace and the altitudes of the points on the IGN map at 1/25000 which are very precise, I have a maximum error of +15%, otherwise, it's more around 8%, my total ascent is 147m and if I correct it with the DEMs accurate to 5m, my corrected total ascent is 96m, or about 50% difference.
GPSMAP66sr, GPSMAP67, GPSII+, Twonav Cross.
-
Backstreetbob
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:07 am
Re: Total Ascent Values Exaggerated by 50% [Bug 29]
So it's still not working correctly?mimichris wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2024 9:07 am When I look at the altitudes of a trace and the altitudes of the points on the IGN map at 1/25000 which are very precise, I have a maximum error of +15%, otherwise, it's more around 8%, my total ascent is 147m and if I correct it with the DEMs accurate to 5m, my corrected total ascent is 96m, or about 50% difference.
