I cycled for about 37 km today, and according to MyTracks, my altitude went up and down between 180 m below sea level, to 150 m above, and my total altitude gain was just over 3000 m.
In fact, I cycled in flat as a pool table Holland, probably between 5m below and 5m above sea level; I'm sure my total altitude gain was far below 100 m.
Apparently, the Galaxy Nexus doesn't use the barometer to improve the GPS altitude calculation.
So why is it there? Not just so you can install a barometer app, I presume?
(Also, it might be my imagination, but it seems like GPS reception is worse since 4.0.4. During this trip, apparently I lost GPS reception 25 times, I don't think this used to happen.)
Thanks,
– Michael
Its there to improve location with GPS.
it just to help you to lock on gps faster.
I think the GPS has wild fluctuations at first which maybe skewed your altitude readings. Just like how when I run the my tracks app, before it gets a full lock it approximates my location from the cell site. Then when the GPS fully locks, my location zooms over to the proper spot very fast, and my tracks logs my speed at like 200 MPH cause it incorporates that false data. Could this be what happened with your erroneous altitude readings?
But yes the barometer is supposed to help the GPS location.
Also, your altitude via GPS is not determined by your height above sea level but rather by a geodesic that is the average of the earth's mass. At sea level in California my altitude will often read in the negative. There are reference maps that you can use to determine where the geodesic is in your area.
Sent via Galaxy Nexus
Related
I found a odd app thats only out for SGS today. TawkOn . Said to tell you if its safe to use your phone.
http://www.tawkon.com/
Get it free from Market
I personally don't believe in it but Its cool to show off to friends
interesting... Myself I don't believe in this bs lol. How long you usually talk on your phone? 5 min, 30 min, an hour? If there was radiation I would guess it wont affect you very much, there are radiation everywhere, some are stronger, some are lasting longer etc.
I am interested in how it figures out the radiation lol
same though here,
to measure that kind of thing, you'll need a real external sensor to measure radiation which the phone doesn't have anyways
And even if it would be possible to measure it directly with the phone, it wouldnt make any sense. Who needs to make a call, makes the call anyway. For all other paranoic people: dont use a mobile phone, stay away from a microwave oven, don't look directly in tv, etc. could continue here until my battery dies. XD
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
I think it takes the signal strength you have (dB) and how many cell towers are in your vicinity, that's how formulates the radiation, when you're close to a cell tower the radiation should be much higher than normal, thing is I personally half believe in this, I pitty the people who have on theyr buildings like 10-20 antennas for TV, radio, cellphones ..... they will get many affections and the immune systems is weaker that others, That is a proven fact, plus other problems, it depends on every persons, where his weak points are
I just like it as it's eye candy I'm a sucker for shinny blinking things. I uninstalled this app anyways as I can't see a use for it other then to get people paranoid.
A mobile phone emits less radiation when connection quality is good than when it is poor.
Connection quality is, for example, better outdoors than in a building or areas with connectivity interferences (basement, elevator, car, etc)
Connectivity improves with proximity to a cellular base station
Connectivity can be reduced by phone usage such as antenna orientation (if the phone is held vertically or horizontally), travel speed, etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It polls all this, and then determines some value that supposedly represents mobile radiation.
It's not fake, it's just slightly pointless, as you can determine most of this by looking at your reception.
Dunno how this works, but the SGS has a very low SARS rating (radiation level) which is super good
Hello boys and girls
I would like to buy this smartwatch, but I am on half way between Moto 360 and SW3.
This thing can decide, so I have really important question:
as I am playing soccer/football a lot (outside) I would like to track my distance and top/average speed and things like that. Is that possible with this piece of tech?
Thanks
Yes the SW3 will let you track your distance, tune, etc since the watch has built in GPS. The measurements you record would likely be determined by the app you use.
One caveat is the potential GPS errors people have gotten (including myself) once they start to sweat. There's something about moisture on the back of the watch that can cause the GPS to go haywire. I have alleviated the problem by wearing the watch over a wrist sweatband while running. Check out the ghostracer app thread in original Android development under this SW3 list of forums. The app is great and there's a lot of discussion on the sweat/GPS problem.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Free mobile app
Thanks for replay, I don't sweat that much, only problem about that GPS is accuracy. When I am playing/running I make short fast runs 10-20 meters. If you have watch if there is chance check GPS location accuracy please. Also I am concern about refresh time of GPS location, because that's key factor to get accurate speed in "real-time".
Maybe I will try tracking with with Ghostracer and my Nexus to see how that looks like.
edit:
I find app called "Wear GPS Status" that can get data about GPS accuracy. Please check that for me
I've heard of the wear gps app but have never used it. As far as accuracy goes, in my few runs I've had with it, I'd say the watch is as accurate as my Nexus 6. Yesterday I had a 4 mile run. I intentionally ran 2 miles and turned around and took the same course 2 miles back. The distance and map tracking were both almost identical. This route had quite a bit of heavy tree coverage and I didn't lose gps. I haven't yet tested it in heavy cloud coverage.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Free mobile app
I would add, that AFAIK, the moto360 does not have built in gps.
I was in a similar position as you between moto 360 and Sony SW3 - I've had the SW3 for 3 days and I've gone for 2 jogs with it ( around 4.5 km each). I'm using Endomondo for tracking and Google Play Music for tunes while I jog (with a Blueant Ribbon bt for my headphones). So far I love it! The GPS tracking is really good so far - I have to turn on Endomondo on the watch for about 2 minutes to get a good GPS signal and then I start my music and GPS tracking and start jogging.
It uses about 15% battery during my jog. Also, if you do decide to buy the SW3 and think you'll eventually want the metal band (I do!!) then I would suggest getting the metal band version of the SW3 and then buying the silicon strap extra. The reason being that it's almost impossible to buy just the metal band afterwards...
I can update you with my experience after a week or so if you like.
Thanks for all info. I would like to see accuracy of GPS. I test GPS tracking on my Nexus 5 and it's impossible. Accuracy is 15 meters... It's really bad. Everything above 2 meters is bad.
Many apps change the settings on gps to be less accurate in order to save battery power. Backcountry navigator allows you to adjust the sensitivity and the refresh rate, but as of now, it does not run standalone on the watch. I have not tried ghostracer, but it may allow that too.
Ghostracer will run standalone on the watch or from the phone. It does allow setting the recording interval for time and distance. Time allows for 1 second up to a minute. (app recommends 2 seconds as default) . Distance allows intervals of 1 meter up to 100 meters (10 meters is the Rev recommend default) .
I've never changed the default recommendations and have had good results for GPS accuracy on Watch standalone mode.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Free mobile app
I'm using Ghostracer with my Sony Smartwatch 3 for running, cycling, and hiking.
I've found the altimeter is not accurate. During my hikes the maps show actual altitude and the SW50 shows nearly 100 ft lower altitude. I've also compared with the altimeter on my Samsung S6 and it provides results much closer to the maps.
Does anyone know how to adjust or calibrate the altimeter on the SW50? I googled this and didn't see any info
geekdaddy said:
I'm using Ghostracer with my Sony Smartwatch 3 for running, cycling, and hiking.
I've found the altimeter is not accurate. During my hikes the maps show actual altitude and the SW50 shows nearly 100 ft lower altitude. I've also compared with the altimeter on my Samsung S6 and it provides results much closer to the maps.
Does anyone know how to adjust or calibrate the altimeter on the SW50? I googled this and didn't see any info
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
there is no altimeter... it uses the GPS on watch
The specs say there is one. And I use my GPS in standalone when hiking so I don't think it could estimate altitude without internet.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using XDA-Developers mobile app
With GPS the altitude can be interpolated. Requires at least 4 sats.
All since I got my watch active 2 during the automn 2019 the puilse measurement has been extremely unreliable. I have tried a total reset of the watch and also been hoping that there is a SW error that will be fixed in next firmware update (but there ARE no updates).
I have also read on the web and experimented with where on the wrist to carry the watch. Nothing helps. During sleep it often gives "OK" readings and most of the times also if I watch TV or work at the office. However. part of the whole idea of having a "Galaxy watch ACTIVE 2" is to use it during training and as a fitness tracker. A few examples from the last 48 hours.
1) Watches TV and I know that the pulse is somewher between 55 and 70. All of a sudden during a period of maybee 10 minutes the watch says my pulse is around 140.
2) At the gym. Doing squats (5 repetitions/set). The watch gives a max pulse of 210 bpm (real valute is somewhere between 100 and 120).
3) Goes and to some hight intensity interval training, real pulse 170 -180 in the peaks and in bestween 150 - 160. Watch says 82 - 94. AFTER doing the interval training when stretchingh the watch all of a sudden (this is 5 minutes later) starts to say 150- 160 as pulse but by then the real pulse is around 80.
The real measurements above is measured both by "pulse-band" around my chest and with the cycle (samre readings) and that is also what a manual count shows.
SO: The watch gives sometimes MORE than 100% error which make "pulse zones" completely useless. IT also adds an extra dimension of uselessness that it is not even consequent in the way that a higher reading corresponds to a higher actual pulse.
Question:
Are your GWA2's equally useless when it comes to measuring pulse during activity?
Are you using continuous hr monitoring?
Actually, I have tested mine compared to a professional blood pressure monitoring device and both heart rate and blood pressure (BP lab app) were pretty close.
I cannot confirm tho that it gives good results throughout the day, only when tested. Some times I find the peak values of the day to be high enough, yet I am a guy with high resting hr, compared to other people.
Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk
thanito said:
Are you using continuous hr monitoring?
Actually, I have tested mine compared to a professional blood pressure monitoring device and both heart rate and blood pressure (BP lab app) were pretty close.
I cannot confirm tho that it gives good results throughout the day, only when tested. Some times I find the peak values of the day to be high enough, yet I am a guy with high resting hr, compared to other people.
Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi and thanks!
Yes I use continous HR monitoring.
Mine often gives accurate HR readings if I try when sitting still at my desk or just testing in the kitchen. It is during activity it is extremely unreliable. Did you test at any time during any type of excercise?
(mine is sometimes unreliable even when sitting still or watching TV but in thoose case the "normal" is that it gives correct measurements on HR)
Hi, I handled it in to Samsung and a few weeks later I got it back, they said some hardware was bad and had been replaced (so I lost the info in Samsung Pay and the LTE-connection). Reinstalled everything and started using it for training.
While stretching it constantly showed a puls between 140 and slightly above 160 (actual pulse was below 70). Did thereafter some training with cycle indoors and did intervalls and then Watch Active 2 said the pulse was aorund 90 BPM (actual value here was from 160 to 178 in thoose intervalls).
That leaved me with a "fitnesswatch" that only gives correct readings when watching Netflix so I have now handled it back to Samsung and claimed my money back. There is a lot of good things to say about the watch but there is a limit to how bad a key function of a product can be.
I would still be interested to see if other people have made it work fine during training or not.
BR
Hi! I've done some cycling and running with the watch active 2 (high accuracy enabled) on one arm and a garmin vivoactive 4 on the other arm. The garmin is basically just as accurate as the GPS on the phone but the galaxy watch seems to have a much slower update-rate, cutting corners quite aggressively. Samsung seems to try to adjust for this in software by simply adding some extra random distance, so even if GWA2 shows a shorter distance on the map, its reporting a longer total distance than both the phone and the garmin.
Is it possible to get the watch to update the gps-position at an even higher rate? Does using another app than samsung health give a higher accuracy?