Welcome to MountainViews
If you want to use the website often please enrol (quick and free) at top right.

Site Feedback Site announcements, requests for features, bug reports about the software of the service.
Sort by >

More controls

<< Prev page 1 .. 18 19 20 21 22 23 .. 38 Next page >>
Post details Post   (Expand pics)
Context of comment:   (Show all posts)
Context of comment:   (Show all posts)
Context of comment:   (Show all posts)
simon3
2012-04-19 13:44:54
Re Automatic Calculation of Ascent
Context of comment:At least two people have queried the ascent / descent figures created by the track system. I have also noted a number of anomalies in results with test gps tracks from various sources including ones I made myself.
Message:Anomalies include a) usually an apparently high estimate for height gain b) a different figure for ascent and descent. Captain V's apparently lower estimate is a further exception.

The current algorithm used to determine the height gain or loss is extremely simple: it looks at the height recorded for each trackpoint (of which there can be typically between 500 and 5000 for a track). It then adds a positive increase in height between heights reported to the total ascent and adds a decrease to the total descent.

There are several ways of calculating height gain and each have pros and cons. The "spreadsheet" way that I used years ago was to use a spreadsheet accumulating height gain/loss between waypoints. This has the advantage of being self consistent, but the disadvantage of not recording minor ascents/descents between waypoints.

Then there is the way it is done by the GPS units. However two GPS units going over the same route do not always seem to produce the same figures and are often different by 10% as well as being often 10 to 15% higher than the "spreadsheet" method.

The most consistent method I have seen is that employed by Trailmaster which uses an accurate DEM (digital elevation model) of the land, however this DEM is not at present public and the public versions that are available would not necessarily improve the situation enough to be worthwhile using.

The reason for choosing the current method is that it is transparent. No smoothing or calculation other than addition or subtraction is done, however I would consider a different approach if necessary.

(Note: for speed estimation as used for estimating the users speed and colouring the track an elaborate smoothing algorithm IS used which seems to work well.)
Additional points:So I would be happy to make changes however based a. on evidence and b. on a clear argument as to why another algorithm would be better.

Call for voluntary help. I could use help from someone with statistical ability and some appreciation of what can and cannot be done using numerical methods to analyse sample tracks and devise a proposed, better method of calculating height calculation.

In the meanwhile, here are some known things you can do to improve accuracy.
a. turn on gps in advance of walking, for example in your house but in view of the sky, to allow the unit to figure out its position ("finding the ephemeris"). Turn it off after not more than 12 minutes. When you then turn it on at or immediately before the walk starts let it have a good view of the sky (reduces high initial errors in readings)
b. when carrying the gps position it so it always has a good view of the sky. This reduces trackpoint height measurement errors, which can accumulate and give spuriously high figures.
c. in general leave the gps on and in good view of the sky for the whole walk. (reduces start errors)

Remember also that no matter what solution is arrived at, there is no perfect answer as the problem is similar to that notorious one of measuring the length of a coastline, which depends on size of the ruler. However that said, there could be a better algorithm with an explicable rationale.
Context of comment:   (Show all posts)
Context of comment:   (Show all posts)
Context of comment:   (Show all posts)
Context of comment:   (Show all posts)
Context of comment:   (Show all posts)
Context of comment:   (Show all posts)


RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS 1 2 3 .. 24 Next page >>
Forum: General
Welcome back Crá
aidand an hour ago.
This Forum has been a dull place for a long time. Great to have Crá's passionate and well written views.www.logainm.ie is a fine website dedicated to Irish placenames. Maybe it doesn't cover the n...

  
Track
Forts, a monster, invasions, rocky walls and limestone.
simon3 7 hours ago.
D

  
Summit Comment
Rosgalliv Hill: Coastal Hill
sandman 4 days ago.
For the Mountain View members who will be joining Liz50 for her walk on 7/10/17 why not get there a few minutes earlier in order to visit this small hill with its Megalithic Tomb . Parking is avai...

Summit Comment
Rostoohy Hill: Coastal Hill
sandman 4 days ago.
The summit area with its hill fort and views across the bay.

  
Track
Spanish Sierra Nevada: Mulahacen
Onzy 4 days ago.
Route to Mulahacen from Alto del Chorillo returning on a lower track to the west. Route takes in both Mulahacen I and I walk, Len: 12.7km, Climb: 782m, Area: Unid, Unid ()

  
Track
Lanigans Ball and the Slieve Mish Mountains
GSheehy 5 days ago.
?What in the name of Jaysus are you on about with your ?Lanigan?s Ball??? ?This is hillwalking lad. Not danc walk, Len: 27.3km, Climb: 1557m, Area: Caherbla, Slieve Mish (Ireland) Caherb

Forum: General
in yer pants ....
BleckCra 3 days ago.
I turn my attention to mountainviews.ie. So much for focus.I see that its English translation of Irish hill names remains - and in remaining, (for the Mountains of Mourne at least) .... , remains ...

  
Summit Comment
Rostoohy Hill: Coastal Hill
sandman 4 days ago.
Parking where appropriate make your way the short distance along the foreshore to L9531390160 where ascent to the hill exists as shown in the photo. You will encounter a small stone drinking well ...

  
Track
Le Taillon via la Brèche de Roland
David-Guenot a week ago.
walk, Len: 16.1km, Climb: 1013m, Area: France, Occitanie ()

Summit Comment
Gubacarrigan: Coastal Hill
sandman 4 days ago.
Your options for parking are numerous but a lay-by is located at L7648192513. It only takes a few minutes to reach the cliff edge and on to the summit but as evident from the tracts along the edge...

  
Forum: Suggestions
Change to Local 100
simon3 4 days ago.
The Local 100 list and completing it is one of the most popular lists that MV has. It allows the time-poor to get out and do some interesting hillwalking but with minimal travel time. It encourage...

  
Summit Comment
Claggan Hill: Coastal Hill
sandman 4 days ago.
Although the trig is clearly visible from where i parked for Roscahill a double fence lies in wait from there. Easy access is via the field gate located at L9409289344 with ample parking 50 meters...


RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS 1 2 3 .. 24 Next page >>