Exercise apps/gadgets in forest

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Sharp 17 Sep 2019

I've been wanting to join the cool kids and use something to track my running for a while but about 90% of that is in the woods with a varying density of tree cover. Am I right in thinking there's not really any point or have things moved on? Something which I could just put on and forget about and download data as and when would be ideal but if they're inaccurate in woodland then it's a bit of a non-starter.

I'm aware of the theory of why gps is inacurate in woodland but I'd be interested in anyone's real world experience. My phone's about 5 or 6 year's old and I know things have moved on a lot with sensors so I'm not sure if the modern devices are capable of aggregating cell tower, gps and motion data to give something usably accurate?

 jbrom 17 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

I regularly run and ride through Forested areas, predominantly large Beech pollards but definitely mixed woodland of varying thickness.

I don't have a problem with my phone (Samsung S9) wich provides a really accurate track when mountain biking, this has definitely improved as I have got newer phones.

Running I use a Garmin Forerunner 10, so pretty ancient, this doesn't give as an accurate track as my phone, it is still spot on with speeds and distance but the polling rate isn't the same and the points aren't always within 5 metre accurate which I would expect from my phone, but this evens out over the length of a run. I would imagine a newer watch would provide more regular polling and a more sensitive GPS antenna. It certainly is nowhere near a problem that stops me using it.

My phone and Garmin Edge 520 that I use on the road bike both have access to Galileo satellites too which help accuracy,  something to look for in a device.

 steveriley 17 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

Current GPSs are loads better than older ones. Just been zooming in on some of my strava tracks - a lot of mine are in the trees - and they're pretty damn good at a micro-nav level. I think you'll be fine. Dedicated GPS watch was a lot better than my older phone when I changed 5-6 years ago. No more weird outliers.

Roadrunner6 17 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

I don't find it an issue, occasionally I'll lose some accuracy but rarely lose signal and that's in the New England broadleaf forests, so pretty thick coverage.

 SouthernSteve 17 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

I have a Fenix 3 which is dated tech now - it is great in forest of all types, deep railway cuttings and trees however and I am doing all kind of speeds! It always seems to know where I am pretty well when I look at the map and the speed evens out in the end. It uses the Russian and US satellite systems. For on map accuracy the watch is better than my swanky new phone. 

 girlymonkey 17 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

I have one of the basic garmin watches and run in the forest a lot. It works perfectly. Sometimes it takes a little longer to find the satellites in the forest when you want to start tracking, but once it's tracking it's spot on. My phone was a little less accurate when I used it.

 mbh 17 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

I use a garmin 230 or an iphone 5something. Both of them are pretty old skool but the GPS on both is good enough for my purposes wherever I run, often in woodland.

 yorkshireman 17 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

A lot of the latest GPS watches supplement the satellite signal with accelerometer/pedometer data in the watch to fill in the gaps in GPS coverage. I suspect smartphones do something similar.

I've been using a Garmin Fenix 5 for over a year and mostly run in mountainous woodland and have few issues. Steep gorges seem to cause the biggest problems to be honest.

OP Sharp 18 Sep 2019
In reply to All:

Thanks for everyone's comments, I was expecting a firm "don't bother" so that's exciting to hear how things have come on. Might be a good excuse to upgrade my phone and give up with the map and string method of measuring my run distances! Thanks for sharing the experineces of specific devices, food for thought

Post edited at 06:24
 gazhbo 18 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

My Garmin 235 is pretty good.  In dense trees you might have to take the live pacing with a pinch of salt but it seems to recalculate pretty quickly.  

 Mick r 19 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

No need to upgrade the phone. I've been using a Garmin 35 for the last year and it's transformational.  £100 or so from Argos

 abcdef 19 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

For me (TomTom 3) I find it can cut off some corners and occasionally be a few metres off track (for example when I look back at the tracking on a map, which shows the footpath I was definately using). I tend to just assume that in the wooded area I run I will have done a few % more than was recorded.

 McHeath 19 Sep 2019
In reply to Sharp:

I also run a lot in the woods on curvy trails. I'd measured a couple of favourite runs years back with a professional surveyor's wheel, so I was able to judge the accuracy of my Strava app. It turned out to be +/- 8%, which is a lot, so I split my training; for intervals and tempo runs I'd use straighter routes more in the open, and for more relaxed stuff I'd use my beloved woods.

Just out of interest: the map and string method can be highly accurate! I measured my still favourite wooded and hilly course, half on mapped  trails and half on smaller ones, 25 years ago using a 1:15000 map and thread, and got 8.7km. Using the surveyor's wheel 5 years later I got 8.707km, which chuffed me no end!


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...