GPS Issue... and Fitbit community guidelines..

[xxSTxx]

A short time ago I posted the following post. In this post are no breaches of any of the information in the community guidelines or terms of use however after less than 10 minutes it was removed. I presume this speaks a 1000 words and answers the question indirectly. If I have breached anything here please politely inform me and I will remove the post myself!

I have been using the Ionic since the beginning of December and been giving it time to see if I’m missing something.
 
Previously I’ve used Garmin and Tom Tom devices, since getting the Ionic my distances on runs always fall short of what is shown on the Garmin and Tom Tom.
 
Today I have been out with a group on a route I know is precisely 8.5km. After the run Garmin shows 8.5km, others in group the same and my Ionic 11.2km..... as a result I spoke to live chat and was told the following -
 
“Fitbit trackers calculate distance by multiplying you walking steps by your walking stride length and similarly for running stride length and steps, the GPS   Is only used to map a route of your activity not the distance”.
 
Now I may have missed something however the Ionic is advertised as having “Industry Leading GPS” however clearly this is not the case when basic models of other brands will accurately track distance.
 
The solution I was told is to accurately input your stride length however this will vary depending on gradient and if running in roads or cross country etc so it seems the Ionic will never be truely accurate.
 
I feel now that the Ionic clearly isn’t as advertised and the GPS especially is not as one would expect. Have I just missed something? Or been told the wrong information on chat? And if so are all the other users I have seen posting questions in relation to inaccurate distances aware of this? 

[SimonRJ]

Interesting response from the chat support, considering the Fitbit documentation celarly states that GPS is used for measuring distance, and also tweaks your stride length automatically if you've activated the feature in your settings.   

Not to mention there are apps in the app gallery which clearly use GPS to measure distance and speed.   

[xxSTxx]

I can’t work out if the chat advisor has just got it wrong however after reading the entire “GPS Inaccuracy” post this could shed some light on the issues discussed there, perhaps the GPS really is just tracking a map and not working out or tracking distance.

if this is the case it certainly isn’t what I was expecting. Overall I’ve been fairly happy with my Ionic, not had some of the common issues I’ve read about on here etc however if it isn’t actually going to be accurate and track distance in terms of GPS I don’t see why it’s even on there just to track a route.

A minor point (and other issue) but after having a Charge 2 for around 18 months before getting the Ionic my heart rate is always 10-20 bpm higher on the Ionic in comparison to the Charge 2 and at rest has jumped from 48 to 66 bpm.... is this another inaccuracy...

[N8teGee]

If that was the case how would the Ionic track distance whilst cycling (which it does) as there are no steps or stride length involved. It clearly uses the GPS data. As @SimonRJ points out the Ionic can automatically set stride length using the GPS, so the data is there anyway, why not use it. Sounds like the CS agent was confused or just doesn't have the correct knowledge for the product.

Also you could put this to the test by starting a GPS enabled run/walk but running on the spot for a few minutes to get some steps, then see what the distance is reported as being.

[xxSTxx]

That’s a good point about the cycle distance tracking, I hadn’t considered that. This suggests then the agent was wrong and it clearly does track distance (as I would hope!)

Doesnt explain though why the distance is inaccurate in comparison to Garmin and Tom Tom (which match and are accurate to the distance travelled)

My stride length is set to automatic and is the same as it was using the charge 2.

I hope whatever the issues are they get sorted with the next update etc. A little frustrating that Fitbit themselves never seem to respond as and you point out some of the agents it seems clearly don’t know the products and most likely just follow a troubleshooting chart whilst chatting.

i really do like my Ionic Just (like everyone) want it to work correctly. 

[gdeloia]

Unfortunately, the mapping of GPS isn't accurate either.  I ran a 4.6 mile loop yesterday and the map showed the mile 1 and 2 markers, but skipped three and the mile 4 marker stopped a mile and 1/2 before my end destination.

[bbarrera]

---

@xxSTxx wrote:

I hope whatever the issues are they get sorted with the next update etc. A little frustrating that Fitbit themselves never seem to respond as and you point out some of the agents it seems clearly don’t know the products and most likely just follow a troubleshooting chart whilst chatting.

---

@xxSTxx and @N8teGee

There is a user @bmw54 that has done a lot of testing to confirm that Ionic uses stride to calculate running distance during manually tracked GPS runs. Fitbit support eventually admitted to bmw54 that stride was being used, and they update stride every 10 minutes during a run. See here:

https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Ionic/Ionic-GPS-Inaccuracies/m-p/2405945#M24775

What is frustrating is that Fitbit appears to be publishing misleading information, and hiding the fact its using stride for running distance. 

[xxSTxx]

It sadly seems again then that the agent could well be correct and Fitbit despite advertising the “market leading GPS” is actually falsely advertising and not using GPS (on runs anyway) for anything other than tracking a route.

Im sure a lot of people who have bought the Ionic have got it with this as one of the main features in mind, sadly false advertising as you point out seems to be  at the forefront. 

[bmw54]

Thanks for Noticing my research.  I’ve decided to back out a bit from the ‘community’. Too many posters find some need to defend Fitbit while those of us who need actual pace and distance have to deal with inaccuracies whenever we really need ionic to help execute our racing strategy. Maybe they’ll correct the problems before race  season starts up again.

[xxSTxx]

I hope so, I’m no race runner, I play badminton and runs are just a part of training with that said even for me it’s important to know what distance I’ve run and pace.  

I would expect with the cost and way the Ionic has been advertised this would be standard however it seems sadly not. Must be extremely frustrating for the 1000’s Of club and competitive runners who have bought one and are having issues. 

Just seems a product that on paper paper is good and could be excellent is going to lose out to competitors through simple issues and not listening to the community. 

[mkronborg]

This seems to be because these markers are placed based on the step count as well. It would be weird to see a total distance on a run, and notice distance markers above that distance on the map. I ran a 10k, which upon checking was actually just over 11k, and unsuprisingly, there was no 11k marker, and the 10k marker was about a kilometre later on my route than it should have been.

I got a hold of the TCX file produced by the GPS, which was almost dead on, and when I used a different program to analyse it, it turns out that the file actually had the correct distance of 11.15k logged. So it seems that the fitbit simply overrides a rather accurate GPS route with whatever result it calculates from the step count, whether it is right or wrong.

[bmw54]

---

@mkronborg wrote:

I got a hold of the TCX file produced by the GPS, which was almost dead on, and when I used a different program to analyse it, it turns out that the file actually had the correct distance of 11.15k logged. So it seems that the fitbit simply overrides a rather accurate GPS route with whatever result it calculates from the step count, whether it is right or wrong.

---

That's what many of us learned over the course of the past couple years. And that's why I held onto the Ionic for so long; it seemed like a problem with a very simple solution.

But there must be reasons Fitbit doesn't make improvements - my guess is that the hardware reliability is so sketchy (GPS connection frequently fails) that they've papered over it with their flawed step-count strategy. Or they don't want to pay for the GPS logic and can't write their own.

Whatever; since I dumped my Ionic and replaced it with a real tracker, I've enjoyed everything I wanted from a sports watch: accurate pace, heart rate, cadence, mapping, solid reliability (throughout my entire 600 mile marathon training block and 4 races my tracker has not once lost GPS connection) and 8-day battery charge.

Plus, its display is bold and readable, always on (no flick-wrist while I should be pumping my arms). No crazy interruptions when I'm wearing layers of sleeves over it - the buttons are not on the screen.

Plus, hands-off, it syncs to my phone (and on to strava) while I'm in the shower. No syncing drama!

This is the first I've been to the fitbit forum in a very long time. It's a nice reminder of the crap I'm not dealing with any more.

[HansRT]

Does that means that for example Strava show the correct distance? It uses the tcx file, right?

[mkronborg]

@bmw54 wrote:

---

@mkronborg wrote:

I got a hold of the TCX file produced by the GPS, which was almost dead on, and when I used a different program to analyse it, it turns out that the file actually had the correct distance of 11.15k logged. So it seems that the fitbit simply overrides a rather accurate GPS route with whatever result it calculates from the step count, whether it is right or wrong.

---

That's what many of us learned over the course of the past couple years. And that's why I held onto the Ionic for so long; it seemed like a problem with a very simple solution.

But there must be reasons Fitbit doesn't make improvements - my guess is that the hardware reliability is so sketchy (GPS connection frequently fails) that they've papered over it with their flawed step-count strategy. Or they don't want to pay for the GPS logic and can't write their own.

Whatever; since I dumped my Ionic and replaced it with a real tracker, I've enjoyed everything I wanted from a sports watch: accurate pace, heart rate, cadence, mapping, solid reliability (throughout my entire 600 mile marathon training block and 4 races my tracker has not once lost GPS connection) and 8-day battery charge.

Plus, its display is bold and readable, always on (no flick-wrist while I should be pumping my arms). No crazy interruptions when I'm wearing layers of sleeves over it - the buttons are not on the screen.

Plus, hands-off, it syncs to my phone (and on to strava) while I'm in the shower. No syncing drama!

This is the first I've been to the fitbit forum in a very long time. It's a nice reminder of the crap I'm not dealing with any more.

---

I think you are right, and that's what bothers me the most, the data is there, they are just not using it.

I have made the same decision now, I am changing brands to something that will give me more useful information while running.

It's too bad because I quite liked my fitbit, and I have the same desire to keep giving it a chance as it sounds like you had.

[mkronborg]

---

@HansRT wrote:

Does that means that for example Strava show the correct distance? It uses the tcx file, right?

---

Actually strava also shows the incorrect distance, but if I use sites like http://www.graphmyrun.com, or other tools for interpreting the file then they show the 11.15km I was expecting. I suspect this is because strava accounts for the step data or something that fitbit has in the file whereas the other sites simply use the gps data.

[SunsetRunner]

@mkronborg Strava utilizes the distance from the TCX file. One of my findings long time ago was that the distance is updated when the GPS coordinates stayed unchanged. I ran TCX data through several distance computing algorithms from less to most accurate and none of it was giving me results as bad as the "distance" field in the TCX file. Even algorithms giving worst approximation were more accurate. Seeing the distance value increasing while standing on the spot was also an indicator of using steps. There is one more thing to the distance computation. When you pause activitiy the GPS doesn't stop but the distance computation does. When I uploaded the TCX file into mygpsfiles the distance based on the GPS data was this time way off because GPS was going crazy while I paused activity taking a break. In Fitbit app the distance excluded my break but raw GPS data from TCX file showed something else.

[bmw54]

---

@HansRT wrote:

Does that means that for example Strava show the correct distance? It uses the tcx file, right?

---

I never uploaded to Strava while I was using Fitbit; too often the data was incomplete and/or contained gaps (like when the map would show you crossing a waterway). And heart-rate data was never reasonable. There's no way I would want to explain to other athletes why I was using fitbit.

But garmin and strava seem to agree regarding distance; my experience tells me they interpret GPS equally. Strava seems to detect and exclude short periods where I stop for traffic lights - so its pace sometimes records as slightly faster than garmin connect - especially when comparing splits.

After dealing with ionic for 16 months, these issues seem so minor I'm not even interested in analyzing them; I'm happy to spend my time training instead of fretting about fitbit and dwelling in these forums.