 Poster: A snowHead
|
zellmaniac, no more than could go wrong squinting down at the gps goggles that are out there 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I've used ski tracker last year. Had anyone used both and which is the best. Steve - you can't answer this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Hi Corecoders!
I accidentally left ski tracks running after I left the slope, so it is counting part of my drive home as run #4. Is there a way to edit the last run to stop at a certain point? That would be ideal. Or, possibly delete the last run?
Thanks and cheers,
Mark Smith
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Haha...I did that last year. When I looked back at Skitracks, I had skied 270kms and done a top speed of 92mph!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Just got back from Soelden today and used this app for the first time for the week and many thanks Steve it is brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Using the app on my iPhone for the first time this week, in Tignes. My partner has it installed on her Android phone as well and comparing notes leads me to question its accuracy. Straightlining it down the finish of Trolles I clocked 68 kph, she clocked 100.2! That's a big difference given that we were doing approximately the same speed. I've had one more run recorded than she has over the same day as well. And she consistently gets different max slop angles to me.
The app's brilliant for recording your route around the mountain, especially off-piste runs on top of the satellite images - there's enough detail and accuracy to plot your routes back onto an OS-type map. But I'd treat the stats as 'just for fun'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not accurate in the slightest, but it's good fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, top speed is never overly accurate. However the overall picture of your day and track geographically is very good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
It may be innaccurate, but I've always found it to be consistent. It uses the same gps chip and processor as all the other navigation/tracking apps and I have always found them to be extremely accurate. When I compare the speed to my car speedo it is always about 1% faster, which is exactly where it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just discovered another difference between the iPhone and Android versions - but this one is probably Apple's fault rather than Core Coders'. Looking at the map of the day's runs, not suprisingly, the Android version seems to use Google Maps - so you get the names of pistes and lifts; while the iPhone version uses Apple's Maps, which has far less detail. Anyone know a way of getting the app to use different maps to the defaults set on the phone?
Despite this, I have to say that it's great fun using the app to work out where the day's off-piste routes actually were! (Before any smart-alecs jump in with a sermon, we were guided; by and large  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Stevo: max slope angle is so inaccurate that you might as well consider it made up. It's relying on the GPS giving a measure of altitude, and GPS is far less accurate at vertical than horizontal separation.
Likewise, max speed could be easily thrown by a couple of data points that are just off the side of the piste for example. I found Alpine Replay to be far more accurate in this respect as it would filter out data points where you'd accelerated faster than physics would allow you to, and also report a "sustained speed" measure where it was smoothed over a longer time period rather than being a simple maximum. If the simple maximum was a lot higher than the sustained speed on a run like trolles then you'd know something was wrong.
No idea how to change the maps it uses I'm afraid. You can of course download the data when you get home and play it through Google Earth or project it onto whatever map you like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
kieranm,
| Quote: |
Likewise, max speed could be easily thrown by a couple of data points that are just off the side of the piste for example.
|
Are you suggesting that Ski tracks assumes you are always on the piste and that if you cut the corner it will assume you went around the full distance? I'm not sure that's correct.It does its best to work out what piste you are on, but I don't think it uses that info to calculate max speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everything on it is miles out. Been using it for 3 weeks and it's clocked
95 kph - don't believe that at all
Skiing a 55 degree slope - nothing anywhere near that here and I wouldn't ski if there was
Vertical metres skied is usually 20% more than the barometric altimeter on my watch
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Are you suggesting that Ski tracks assumes you are always on the piste and that if you cut the corner it will assume you went around the full distance? I'm not sure that's correct.It does its best to work out what piste you are on, but I don't think it uses that info to calculate max speed.
|
No, I'm not saying that, and you're right it's not using piste details to calculate speed. I wasn't very clear, sorry.
What I was trying to say was something like this: let's assume you're being tracked using three data points over the course of 1 second. The first is accurate, the second is 10m to one side of where it should be, the third is accurate and 10m in front of the first. Instead of your distance travelled being 10m it's measured as approximately 22m give or take a bit of trigonometry. So instead of your speed being 10m/s it has instead suddenly increased to 22m/s. Because gravity can only increase your speed by 10m/s each second, it's clear that the acceleration it has measured (an increase in speed of 12m/s) is wrong, and those data points should not be used to measure speed. Some of the apps filters that sort of thing out to make the data presented more accurate, but not all do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
kieranm, OK, that makes sense. I have a suspicion that SkiTracks is actually more accurate than we give it credit for (in terms of speed and distance, if not altitude and slope angle). I might do some experiments in my car over the next few days to see if it throws up any anomalies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
foxtrotzulu, all GPS applications will be accurate to a degree, but difficult to say how accurate. I've used SkiTracks on my phone and carried my Garmin (Edge 500), both units said different things. Then when I uploaded the data to a few different GPS training websites (I'm sad like that) they all gave different information. Which was most or least accurate was very difficult to say. Some of the data was only out by less than 1%, other data was out by a lot more (vertical m is usually varies quite dramatically between different apps).
It's all down to the coding and the way the data is interpreted and smoothed out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
FWIW, I've got Bike Tracks (same company) and have checked it against a normal (calibrated) Cateye bike computer (the type that uses wheel rotations rather than GPS to measure) and there is hardly any difference in the distances recorded (e.g. 25.6 vs 25.54 miles) and that seems to be down to roundings. The top speed looks to be in agreement but I'm still working up to see what it records on the local 17% hill (I need to lose a few Kg first).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
hammerite, agreed. As we have said, the horizontal component pretty accurate but the vertical component is far less so. I gather that Ski Tracks does take both into account when calculating speed, so there is room for error there, but IME my top speed on a given schuss is remarkably consistent and leads me to suspect that in most situations the speed calculation is 95% accurate or better. There will always be moments when it all goes horribly wrong, but not too often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
foxtrotzulu, that's my experience too. I.e. it's consistent (but I can't comment on the accuracy having done nothing to check it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
jtr, The bike computers using wheel rotation are likely to be inaccurate. Just pumping up or letting air out of your tyres can make a difference to distance, unless you calibrate it by measuring the distance of a wheel rotation before every ride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
hammerite, Yes, I know that may be the case in many circumstances which is why I said "(calibrated) Cateye bike computer". This has been checked over a 10 and 25 mile TT course with the front tyre pumped up to 95psi using the same track pump. The difference in "measured" distance over a frequent short run I do is 20.60 miles at 95 psi and 20.62 at 85 psi and that is repeatable. The bike computer vs Bike Tracks comparisons were done with the front wheel at 95 psi each time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
