survey asks about acceptable distance‐range for GPS accuracy, but not about initial time‐latency.

[Victamon]

.

The recent Google‐themed survey (banner seen atop the Community homepage, since a few days prior֊to—at least thru date֊of﹘this post; approx a week-plus in toto, from c. 23rd–31st of Octo‧ now turning ᱀2nd of Novem‧ ber) asks several questions, the meaty ones being about ⦗the respective importances of ⦘certain functionalities. One said highlighted functionality is accuracy of its GPS‑receiver (built‑in to the Fitbit device, correlating to the one that you had selected which presumably is Sense 2), with the selectable options being： «within 𝑛 ft», where 𝑛≔⩒(15,50,100,200,500); ⩛ «other», with field for a free‧response ‘something else’ entry.

Hereʼs the thing. Obviously finer accuracy subsuming infinitely certain precision is preferable to coarser of the same; i.e., all other considerations being void (or else‑parameters being equivalently null), an accuracy of under 15ft is preferable to one merely of under 200ft. And perhaps a maximal tolerable/acceptavle cutoff distance could be assigned----upto 100ft might could be reasonable iff the precise contours be relatively accurate (save for slightly-too- abrupt adjustment at certain time in). BUT (here lies my gripe).. This seems to ignore the importance of having a location *at all*.

For too often my Sense2 fails to acquire a location within a reasonable amount of time (approx 30secs) so gives up and continues functioning essentially as merely a heartrate-tracker ⨳ pedometer (instead of as it should, a heartrate-tracker ⨳ course-recorder.. whereby the latter does subsume that of "pedometer" for practical accountings). One obvious remedy to this common shortcoming (which occurs sometimes even during clear overhead skies, usually when sufficient ≧4 GPS satelites are within range of any decently software‐imbued portable non-stationary receiver!) be to enable phone-assisted geolocating (like advertised for FW 194.61 since its failed deployment almost four months ago). The other sensible improvement that by itself could fulfill this need could come from **making the built‑in GPS sensors more robust** —even if this means sacrificing some some other hardware volume such as battery capacitance (at least as far as I am concerned; for very seldom do I encounter need to drain my Sense 2's charge to a "low" percentage of under 30 [thus the capacitance could be reduced by a quarter without appreciably hindering overall value, so long as not negatively impacting related battery metrics like charging speed.. with which presently so far i have been quite satisfied: 50 to >95 % in approx half an hour].. and likewise peak temperature during usage considering recall of Ionic due to alleged lowgrade tactile burns!).

Crucially, implementing an assisted (or so‑called "Dynamic GPS") ‐based location doesn't need necessarily to rely on the *assistance* continuously (as that seemingly would relegate the wearable_device's net benefit wrt location to that of relying on "Connected GPS", i.e. one with no built‑in satelites position‐detection); it conceivably could use the paired smartphone just on "start‑up" (i.e. for initial location-detection.. and perhaps until the built‑in radio receiver gets a close sans‑phone location determined).. which would be hugely preferred over having no whatso position (with potential for retroactive honing all the merrier)!, not only for start‑up but also during (i.e. after already having acquired geopositional locatlon).

[Guy_]

Hi @Victamon - the questions in the survey are weird/confusing, as to what the point of the survey is.

It even asks irrelevant questions (from the previous answer) and sometimes gives no option to opt out, so a meaningless answer must be given.

And why ask some of the questions where the answer is not optional. GPS should be accurate to within 5m,  full stop, that's it's job.