Data quality

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

@sartoric clear its a regression issue fixed asap (expect a soonish beta)

[Shrek3k]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos @sartoric you are obviously in a much better shape than me … SA added 2 secs in every move for me … and really “pushed down” all zones, so that the lowest is no longer visible in the app. Waiting for the fix, no problem.

… Share-button by the way i) works ii) rather laggy iii) the share option does not disappear automatically after sharing the “sporttrack”-link

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

@Shrek3k in the share option getting laggy its android. I bet you have a lot of apps that can capture links.

Same happens also with other apps. Try sharing a text with maps and then again with sa and notice if there are speed changes

[Shrek3k]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos yes, Android - and 23 apps are listed in the menu. Sharing menu appearance in (Google) maps is faster (approx 0,5 secs) than in SA (approx 1,5 secs).
And I am not quite sure what and how successful sharing is, as I have sent it from one Android device to another - and both currently available browsers on that device (Firefox and Cliqz) are showing the ST website and endlessly rotating loading circle. I have to try again at home with other browsers and on the PC.

[Dimitrios Kanellopoulos]

@Shrek3k thanks

[cosme.costa]

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos Ascent/descent is corrected, finally!! Good job!

What is still faulty is the shown value in Strava. As I said in another post some time ago, with Suunto I always have more elevation in Strava than in the two watches that I have had and have. With the bike GPS (it also has barometric altitude) I have the same values in Strava and in the device. If I do the same route with the SSU and the bike GPS I got, more or less, the same values of ascent/descent but when it goes to Strava values are higher with the watch in Strava. I’m not sure if it’s a Strava issue.

Anyway, nice to cross this bug from the list!!

[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