Data quality

[SlaSh]

@cosmecosta Strava is filtering elevation data by their maps.

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

@cosmecosta 2 things. Strava recalculates and Suunto does not send the header in the strava format baro or non baro model

[cosme.costa]

@SlaSh said in Data quality:

@cosmecosta Strava is filtering elevation data by their maps.

yeah, I’ve thought that @SlaSh but why with the Bike GPS I got exactly the same value in the device and in Strava? And regarding my move in that case the difference is 36 m but sometimes is more than 100 m. I can understand some meters but not this amount and I’m not saying that is Suunto’s fault, I’m stating the fact that for some reason Suunto and Strava communicate different than Sigma and Strava. Maybe is the 3D distance? Another thing? I do not know…

[cosme.costa]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Data quality:

@cosmecosta 2 things. Strava recalculates and Suunto does not send the header in the strava format baro or non baro model

Thanks for the information @Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos . Now it is more clear to me. I really believe the values of the watch, more after I compared them with the Sigma GPS and they matched but I always thought that something was dealt different in Suunto and Sigma related to Strava and now I know why.

At least you have given me more info than Suunto when I contacted them one year ago about this issue.

[SlaSh]

@cosmecosta bike device is having barometer?

[cosme.costa]

@SlaSh Yes it has it: SIGMA ROX 10.0 (it has some years).

[Shrek3k]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos referring to the sharing mentioned above: could not see the shared ST-content on any available computer (using Firefox 62, Edge and the newest version of the old IE on Windows 10) without logging in (which IMO should not be necessary). Link shared from Android App.
Maybe a bug, maybe only me.

And yes - I agree, that there is absolute consistency in height between watch, SA and MC. Well done.

The difference in recovery times between watch/MC on one side and SA on the other side has been reduced, but does still exist and seems to increase the higher the intensity.

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

@Shrek3k you have differences in recovery time ???

[Shrek3k]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos my deepest apologies… the answer NOW (and obviously since the last update) is NO, NO LONGER ANY DIFFERENCES.
I keep a (kind of) training diary in my calendar, and got stuck with older entries. So once more apologies for the unnecessary and not fact-based fuss I created with the second part of my last post.

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

@Shrek3k its OK man. Even if it was so, believe me , I want this data quality issue to be closed.

[sartoric]

At a first glance, it seems that 3.45.1 fixed the OHR issue, as expected

[sartoric]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos
Unfortunately, at a second glance , I’ve seen that the moves done with 3.45.0 are now wrong. The issue is similar : watch Z1 is shown as Z2 in app and the graph is messed up. I’ll attach some images soon

I’ll try to unpair/full resync this evening

[Shrek3k]

@sartoric confirmation of this issue; by the way - the older activities have been “pushed up”, too, and are looking correct now.
Looking forward to new activities and to see how they are handled.

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

@sartoric mine are not

[sartoric]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos
Because you’re lucky you didn’t have the old issue too, isn’t it ?

[Václav Král]

Suunto 9 and latest beta app and same issue…

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

@sartoric I had the old issue for sure.

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

Hi can I have links of the moves that now have wrong zones ?

[sartoric]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos
Oh, I misunderstood.

[sartoric]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Data quality:

Hi can I have links of the moves that now have wrong zones ?

Sure.
http://www.movescount.com/moves/move242876523