I suggest that the rules to get other devices approved are clearly posted on the GPSTC rules page. I just checked, and the only thing I could find was a link out to GPS-speedsurfing.com.

In less time than it takes to read all of vosadrian's posts on this thread, anyone who has soldered before can build an Openlogger GPS with a u-blox 8 chip that gives superior accuracy than a GW-60, for about $50. Validation would not need to be time-consuming, either, at least for anyone who has used GPSResults and a spreadsheet program before ... if there would be clear instructions of what needs to be done, posted on the GPSTC web site.

The rules should be quite simple: any device that has (a) doppler speeds, (b) numerical error estimates (not just "1-5" classifications), and (c) accuracy comparable to the GW-60 should be approved. For point (c), there need to be details on how to prove comparable accuracy.

It is very easy to get tracks where the numbers match. I'd actually expect the numbers for any device to typically match the GW-60 numbers closely; I have plenty of tracks from different Android phones to prove that point. You can actually run speed competitions with these data - the Germans run a couple of events where Windsport Tracker data from phones are permitted. However, this requires manual checking of every scoring track, since some tracks will have accuracy problems, overstating speeds by a knot or more. That's ok for a competition with 50 participants where the best track of the year counts in one or perhaps 3 categories. It's not doable for the GPSTC with more than 1000 participants, and up to 600 tracks each months that make up the rankings.

Select to expand quote

sailquik said..

Cocky2 said..
Why is much of the data from 2007 and 2008 allowed to be in the data base for GPSTC.
Data that does not contain SDOP and accuracy data you have stated can not be counted as you not can prove it is correct.
Based on all the rules all data in GPSTC without SDOP and accuracy should be removed.

You are kidding, right?

Actually I am not kidding.
From your earlier post:
"For all the reasons outlined so many times before. But particularly because allowing new non-'SDOP' devices is NOT a small change. It is a fundemental change and totally against the principles we work to, to maintain the integrity, validity and fairness of the GPS-TC rankings.

A gps that does not include Doppler data and Doppler error is not going to be approved for GPS-TC. There is just no reliable way to assess it's accuracy as a whole, and particularly, the validity of any single result. "


I only started GPSTC in 2015.
When I check data for all time rankings and distance their is no "integerity" in the early times with devices that do not meet the data requirements of GPSTC.

If I can not post data now with out SDOP and error data then how can any data from early devices be verified.

From my understanding the early devices were full of spikes and required a lot of modification before posting results .

It would appear to many that there are double standards for those which have done GPSTC from 2007.

Go easy on the guys and girls who do all this stuff for the sport on a volunteer basis, bash them up to hard and they will disappear then nothing will exist.

Be grateful for what you have otherwise it may go away.

Select to expand quote

boardsurfr said..
I suggest that the rules to get other devices approved are clearly posted on the GPSTC rules page. I just checked, and the only thing I could find was a link out to GPS-speedsurfing.com.

In less time than it takes to read all of vosadrian's posts on this thread, anyone who has soldered before can build an Openlogger GPS with a u-blox 8 chip that gives superior accuracy than a GW-60, for about $50. Validation would not need to be time-consuming, either, at least for anyone who has used GPSResults and a spreadsheet program before ... if there would be clear instructions of what needs to be done, posted on the GPSTC web site.

The rules should be quite simple: any device that has (a) doppler speeds, (b) numerical error estimates (not just "1-5" classifications), and (c) accuracy comparable to the GW-60 should be approved. For point (c), there need to be details on how to prove comparable accuracy.

It is very easy to get tracks where the numbers match. I'd actually expect the numbers for any device to typically match the GW-60 numbers closely; I have plenty of tracks from different Android phones to prove that point. You can actually run speed competitions with these data - the Germans run a couple of events where Windsport Tracker data from phones are permitted. However, this requires manual checking of every scoring track, since some tracks will have accuracy problems, overstating speeds by a knot or more. That's ok for a competition with 50 participants where the best track of the year counts in one or perhaps 3 categories. It's not doable for the GPSTC with more than 1000 participants, and up to 600 tracks each months that make up the rankings.

Agreed Peter. And as you know, such a document is already being refined for approval and publication, a draft of which I sent to you for comment in May. It won't happen immediatly but I am confident it will happen soon.

Select to expand quote

tbwonder said..
I have recently added a Garmin Fenix 3 to my collection of GPSs.
I have a Garmin 310XT, Two GT31s, a Canmore, the GPSlogit phone app and a GW60. Too many?

I bought the Fenix primary for running and cycling. But I have started to use it with the Windsurfing app whilst sailing. As Simon says it is a joy to use and the upload is automatic.

Some time ago I recall some discussion that the Garmin Fenix did actually use the Doppler method of calculating speed. However I cannot find anything to substantiate this. Does anyone have any proof that it is doppler?

95% of the time I post from the GW60 if that goes flat then I post from the GT31. I always carry them both in the arm bag.

During the session the Garmin gives very good information regarding each run and appears to correlate closely to the other devices. However when I have uploaded the Garmin GPX file to KA72 I have found that the 2 sec peak for the day can be quite different.

Hi,
You should upload direct from watch as a fit file from Activity to KA. The data in GPS results is good so long as you tick Doppler.
Make sure you have the latest version of GPS results. V6.160.
If you need to modify and remove drive home for KA data you can do so in GPS results "extras" "set time limits" and save track points as a GPX file.
Then upload GPX file to KA. ( Just don't post to GPSTC)

As for accuracy I have found from 17 000 km use beside GW52 and now GW60 it is accurate comparing files in GPS results however it normally reads less for as it is only 1000 HZ where as GW60 5000Hz.

Below is a comparison from GPS results from Monday session and all results from Garmin are within the error range that the GW60 produced.

Select to expand quote

Cocky2 said..

sailquik said..

Cocky2 said..
Why is much of the data from 2007 and 2008 allowed to be in the data base for GPSTC.
Data that does not contain SDOP and accuracy data you have stated can not be counted as you not can prove it is correct.
Based on all the rules all data in GPSTC without SDOP and accuracy should be removed.

You are kidding, right?

Actually I am not kidding.
From your earlier post:
"For all the reasons outlined so many times before. But particularly because allowing new non-'SDOP' devices is NOT a small change. It is a fundemental change and totally against the principles we work to, to maintain the integrity, validity and fairness of the GPS-TC rankings.

A gps that does not include Doppler data and Doppler error is not going to be approved for GPS-TC. There is just no reliable way to assess it's accuracy as a whole, and particularly, the validity of any single result. "


I only started GPSTC in 2015.
When I check data for all time rankings and distance their is no "integerity" in the early times with devices that do not meet the data requirements of GPSTC.

If I can not post data now with out SDOP and error data then how can any data from early devices be verified.

From my understanding the early devices were full of spikes and required a lot of modification before posting results .

It would appear to many that there are double standards for those which have done GPSTC from 2007.

It would appear that you have not really thought this through.

The posts from the distant past have ZERO influence on the current Team competition results.

Select to expand quote

sailquik said..

Cocky2 said..

sailquik said..

Cocky2 said..
Why is much of the data from 2007 and 2008 allowed to be in the data base for GPSTC.
Data that does not contain SDOP and accuracy data you have stated can not be counted as you not can prove it is correct.
Based on all the rules all data in GPSTC without SDOP and accuracy should be removed.

You are kidding, right?

Actually I am not kidding.
From your earlier post:
"For all the reasons outlined so many times before. But particularly because allowing new non-'SDOP' devices is NOT a small change. It is a fundemental change and totally against the principles we work to, to maintain the integrity, validity and fairness of the GPS-TC rankings.

A gps that does not include Doppler data and Doppler error is not going to be approved for GPS-TC. There is just no reliable way to assess it's accuracy as a whole, and particularly, the validity of any single result. "


I only started GPSTC in 2015.
When I check data for all time rankings and distance their is no "integerity" in the early times with devices that do not meet the data requirements of GPSTC.

If I can not post data now with out SDOP and error data then how can any data from early devices be verified.

From my understanding the early devices were full of spikes and required a lot of modification before posting results .

It would appear to many that there are double standards for those which have done GPSTC from 2007.

It would appear that you have not really thought this through.

The posts from the distant past have ZERO influence on the current Team competition results.

You have not answered the question about all time rankings and distance in GPSTC.

Select to expand quote

boardsurfr said..
I suggest that the rules to get other devices approved are clearly posted on the GPSTC rules page. I just checked, and the only thing I could find was a link out to GPS-speedsurfing.com.

In less time than it takes to read all of vosadrian's posts on this thread, anyone who has soldered before can build an Openlogger GPS with a u-blox 8 chip that gives superior accuracy than a GW-60, for about $50. Validation would not need to be time-consuming, either, at least for anyone who has used GPSResults and a spreadsheet program before ... if there would be clear instructions of what needs to be done, posted on the GPSTC web site.

The rules should be quite simple: any device that has (a) doppler speeds, (b) numerical error estimates (not just "1-5" classifications), and (c) accuracy comparable to the GW-60 should be approved. For point (c), there need to be details on how to prove comparable accuracy.

It is very easy to get tracks where the numbers match. I'd actually expect the numbers for any device to typically match the GW-60 numbers closely; I have plenty of tracks from different Android phones to prove that point. You can actually run speed competitions with these data - the Germans run a couple of events where Windsport Tracker data from phones are permitted. However, this requires manual checking of every scoring track, since some tracks will have accuracy problems, overstating speeds by a knot or more. That's ok for a competition with 50 participants where the best track of the year counts in one or perhaps 3 categories. It's not doable for the GPSTC with more than 1000 participants, and up to 600 tracks each months that make up the rankings.

Is that where we are going with this... people make their own devices since a variety of devices available complete for sale are either not accepted due to accuracy data or are poorly designed and supported so people are not willing to pay for them.

I am an Electrical Engineer of 25+ years. I have made many of my own products as well as cobbling together bits from others. Even with my skills and ability to do this, the last thing I want to take on the water with me is some cobbled together electronics that requires a custom battery solution and struggles to be waterproof. Even then, it would be difficult to get any feedback, and difficult to get the data out of it.

Have any of you guys actually used a modern smart watch like a Garmin watch? They are well priced, and offer a FAR superior user experience. After years of trying to keep my own electronics going in various things, it so much less stress free to use a product like the Garmin watch. I charge it 1-2 times a week depending on GPS activity. I wear it all the time except an hour or so when charging. When I want to do an activity, I simply press the side button and then the touch screen to select activity type and then the side button when I want to start recording (Takes < 5 seconds). I then just do my thing and can ignore it or check how I am going on the excellent screen. Then when I finish, I just press the side button and the screen to save or discard. That is all I do!! Then magically about 30 seconds later my phone dings to tell me my activity has been uploaded to Strava and Garmin Connect. From here for windsurfing purposes, I could export the FIT file from Garmin Connect on any device connected to the internet, and import it to KA72 and to GPSTC. All this can be done within about 2 minutes of getting off your board on the beach with no cables required.

Now having never owned a device with accuracy logging, can anyone tell me the work flow and how this accuracy parameter automates the checking of thousands of logged sessions per year?

Select to expand quote

Cocky2 said..

sailquik said..

Cocky2 said..

sailquik said..

Cocky2 said..
Why is much of the data from 2007 and 2008 allowed to be in the data base for GPSTC.
Data that does not contain SDOP and accuracy data you have stated can not be counted as you not can prove it is correct.
Based on all the rules all data in GPSTC without SDOP and accuracy should be removed.

You are kidding, right?

Actually I am not kidding.
From your earlier post:
"For all the reasons outlined so many times before. But particularly because allowing new non-'SDOP' devices is NOT a small change. It is a fundemental change and totally against the principles we work to, to maintain the integrity, validity and fairness of the GPS-TC rankings.

A gps that does not include Doppler data and Doppler error is not going to be approved for GPS-TC. There is just no reliable way to assess it's accuracy as a whole, and particularly, the validity of any single result. "


I only started GPSTC in 2015.
When I check data for all time rankings and distance their is no "integerity" in the early times with devices that do not meet the data requirements of GPSTC.

If I can not post data now with out SDOP and error data then how can any data from early devices be verified.

From my understanding the early devices were full of spikes and required a lot of modification before posting results .

It would appear to many that there are double standards for those which have done GPSTC from 2007.

It would appear that you have not really thought this through.

The posts from the distant past have ZERO influence on the current Team competition results.

You have not answered the question about all time rankings and distance in GPSTC.

Well for a start, the rankings you refer to are individual rankings. Not really the mainstay of, or main reason for the GPSTC, but I understand they are interesting and important to lots of individuals.

When we were using pre Doppler devices our normal proceedures were quite different. There was great emphasis on checking tracks individually for errors and spikes and quite a lot of cooperation beween sailors to help check each others results. In those days, there were far fewer participlants and many of the teams were quite close knit. From my own experience, I can say that very few tracks, especially PB's and team scores, were not scrutinised by at least one other sailor, usually a team member, or a respected scrutineers. Everyone had their own analysis software in those days (there was no KA72 - or other online apps) or they relied on team mates with the software to analyse their tracks. I personally got numerous requests after every windy weekend to help with file analysis from sailors all over the country. I know many others did too. Usually, it was not hard for the experienced checkers to spot, sort out and discard errors. Usually, as now, it was pretty obvious if people posted something that did not make sence, and similar proceedures as we have now applied to asking for a file check.
As soon as we switched to Doppler, the errors and spikes, and hence the workload of scrutinising and editing tracks, decreased dramatically.
This is just as well as the numbers of sailors and posts have increased exponentially. But also, the use of Doppler error and other filters in the processing software has also been refined a lot. The vast majority of the very small number of erroneus posts we see these days are simple user error, like leaving the gps on on the drive home, or wearing the GPS under their wetsuit or arm, or incorrect setup.

Yes, the ultimate accuracy of the legacy Trackpoint results is lower and subject to a greater range of error. It is not hard to confirm if distant past PB's were set with Trackpoint, although you will find very, very few still in the individual rankings from currently active sailors who have almost invariably topped those PB's with Doppler results. Would it be fair to remove the results of the past sailors, some of whom are not active now? (some who are legends in our sport). I dont think so, and ! am pretty sure that the vast majority of other sailors would agree.

Ian, if you see a sailor with a trackpoint result ahead of you by a small margin in the individual rankings, you can console yourself with the thought that you, just possibly, may have actually beaten them, But then, that also applies by even smaller margins (within the Dopple error margin of, say a few hundredths of a knot) of current results as well. Even the best measurements are never absolute.

I hope this puts you mind at rest.

And now, I need a rest from this. There are jobs I must attend to around the house etc, so I will not be back here for a while.

Select to expand quote

vosadrian said..

boardsurfr said..
I suggest that the rules to get other devices approved are clearly posted on the GPSTC rules page. I just checked, and the only thing I could find was a link out to GPS-speedsurfing.com.

In less time than it takes to read all of vosadrian's posts on this thread, anyone who has soldered before can build an Openlogger GPS with a u-blox 8 chip that gives superior accuracy than a GW-60, for about $50. Validation would not need to be time-consuming, either, at least for anyone who has used GPSResults and a spreadsheet program before ... if there would be clear instructions of what needs to be done, posted on the GPSTC web site.

The rules should be quite simple: any device that has (a) doppler speeds, (b) numerical error estimates (not just "1-5" classifications), and (c) accuracy comparable to the GW-60 should be approved. For point (c), there need to be details on how to prove comparable accuracy.

It is very easy to get tracks where the numbers match. I'd actually expect the numbers for any device to typically match the GW-60 numbers closely; I have plenty of tracks from different Android phones to prove that point. You can actually run speed competitions with these data - the Germans run a couple of events where Windsport Tracker data from phones are permitted. However, this requires manual checking of every scoring track, since some tracks will have accuracy problems, overstating speeds by a knot or more. That's ok for a competition with 50 participants where the best track of the year counts in one or perhaps 3 categories. It's not doable for the GPSTC with more than 1000 participants, and up to 600 tracks each months that make up the rankings.

Is that where we are going with this... people make their own devices since a variety of devices available complete for sale are either not accepted due to accuracy data or are poorly designed and supported so people are not willing to pay for them.

I am an Electrical Engineer of 25+ years. I have made many of my own products as well as cobbling together bits from others. Even with my skills and ability to do this, the last thing I want to take on the water with me is some cobbled together electronics that requires a custom battery solution and struggles to be waterproof. Even then, it would be difficult to get any feedback, and difficult to get the data out of it.

Have any of you guys actually used a modern smart watch like a Garmin watch? They are well priced, and offer a FAR superior user experience. After years of trying to keep my own electronics going in various things, it so much less stress free to use a product like the Garmin watch. I charge it 1-2 times a week depending on GPS activity. I wear it all the time except an hour or so when charging. When I want to do an activity, I simply press the side button and then the touch screen to select activity type and then the side button when I want to start recording (Takes < 5 seconds). I then just do my thing and can ignore it or check how I am going on the excellent screen. Then when I finish, I just press the side button and the screen to save or discard. That is all I do!! Then magically about 30 seconds later my phone dings to tell me my activity has been uploaded to Strava and Garmin Connect. From here for windsurfing purposes, I could export the FIT file from Garmin Connect on any device connected to the internet, and import it to KA72 and to GPSTC. All this can be done within about 2 minutes of getting off your board on the beach with no cables required.

Now having never owned a device with accuracy logging, can anyone tell me the work flow and how this accuracy parameter automates the checking of thousands of logged sessions per year?

I have now done 21 000 KM in GPSTC and never used SDOP or Accuracy data before posting. Every post has been public on KA so I am sure that over time others may have downloaded a track from KA to GPS results if they had concerns. I had a bad Alpha of 30 knots in KA from a GW60 which showed the same GPS results. Deleted the Data in GPS results then reposted to KA as to not give false Sailor Score or affect Kingdom Data.
Never have I been requested a file check from GPSTC admin as anyone see all my data in KA and download themselves.

From my quick check the GPSTC community is not growing and the aging Demographic will not help in the future.
Many of the sailors as their GT31 die may not bother with the IT complexity of a GW60.
I personally have spent a lot of time helping others in my and other teams locally showing how GW60 works.
Younger people want to use apps , blue tooth and now wireless charging. Who knows the Future.
By restricting this great Competition to difficult to use devices it hard to see how it will grow with the future generations.

Data restricted to any one who has posted over 10 KM in a session.

Select to expand quote

Cocky2 said..

vosadrian said..

boardsurfr said..
I suggest that the rules to get other devices approved are clearly posted on the GPSTC rules page. I just checked, and the only thing I could find was a link out to GPS-speedsurfing.com.

In less time than it takes to read all of vosadrian's posts on this thread, anyone who has soldered before can build an Openlogger GPS with a u-blox 8 chip that gives superior accuracy than a GW-60, for about $50. Validation would not need to be time-consuming, either, at least for anyone who has used GPSResults and a spreadsheet program before ... if there would be clear instructions of what needs to be done, posted on the GPSTC web site.

The rules should be quite simple: any device that has (a) doppler speeds, (b) numerical error estimates (not just "1-5" classifications), and (c) accuracy comparable to the GW-60 should be approved. For point (c), there need to be details on how to prove comparable accuracy.

It is very easy to get tracks where the numbers match. I'd actually expect the numbers for any device to typically match the GW-60 numbers closely; I have plenty of tracks from different Android phones to prove that point. You can actually run speed competitions with these data - the Germans run a couple of events where Windsport Tracker data from phones are permitted. However, this requires manual checking of every scoring track, since some tracks will have accuracy problems, overstating speeds by a knot or more. That's ok for a competition with 50 participants where the best track of the year counts in one or perhaps 3 categories. It's not doable for the GPSTC with more than 1000 participants, and up to 600 tracks each months that make up the rankings.

Is that where we are going with this... people make their own devices since a variety of devices available complete for sale are either not accepted due to accuracy data or are poorly designed and supported so people are not willing to pay for them.

I am an Electrical Engineer of 25+ years. I have made many of my own products as well as cobbling together bits from others. Even with my skills and ability to do this, the last thing I want to take on the water with me is some cobbled together electronics that requires a custom battery solution and struggles to be waterproof. Even then, it would be difficult to get any feedback, and difficult to get the data out of it.

Have any of you guys actually used a modern smart watch like a Garmin watch? They are well priced, and offer a FAR superior user experience. After years of trying to keep my own electronics going in various things, it so much less stress free to use a product like the Garmin watch. I charge it 1-2 times a week depending on GPS activity. I wear it all the time except an hour or so when charging. When I want to do an activity, I simply press the side button and then the touch screen to select activity type and then the side button when I want to start recording (Takes < 5 seconds). I then just do my thing and can ignore it or check how I am going on the excellent screen. Then when I finish, I just press the side button and the screen to save or discard. That is all I do!! Then magically about 30 seconds later my phone dings to tell me my activity has been uploaded to Strava and Garmin Connect. From here for windsurfing purposes, I could export the FIT file from Garmin Connect on any device connected to the internet, and import it to KA72 and to GPSTC. All this can be done within about 2 minutes of getting off your board on the beach with no cables required.

Now having never owned a device with accuracy logging, can anyone tell me the work flow and how this accuracy parameter automates the checking of thousands of logged sessions per year?

I have now done 21 000 KM in GPSTC and never used SDOP or Accuracy data before posting. Every post has been public on KA so I am sure that over time others may have downloaded a track from KA to GPS results if they had concerns. I had a bad Alpha of 30 knots in KA from a GW60 which showed the same GPS results. Deleted the Data in GPS results then reposted to KA as to not give false Sailor Score or affect Kingdom Data.
Never have I been requested a file check from GPSTC admin as anyone see all my data in KA and download themselves.

From my quick check the GPSTC community is not growing and the aging Demographic will not help in the future.
Many of the sailors as their GT31 die may not bother with the IT complexity of a GW60.
I personally have spent a lot of time helping others in my and other teams locally showing how GW60 works.
Younger people want to use apps , blue tooth and now wireless charging. Who knows the Future.
By restricting this great Competition to difficult to use devices it hard to see how it will grow with the future generations.

Data restricted to any one who has posted over 10 KM in a session.

So there is no automated track checking that occurs at all? All the accuracy data does is provide more information to use to determine (manually) if bad data has occurred in the very rare event that someone has flagged a suspect session data? So in normal use of the GPSTC, a very small percentage (I suspect a very small fraction of a percentage point ) of lodged sessions ever use anything to do with the recorded accuracy data. Nobody has every checked any of my session files, so the addition of accuracy data would have added nothing for me.

Meanwhile a large percentage of sailors could be enjoying their GPS user experience significantly more with a modern smart watch......

It turns out I am young windsurfer!! No wonder I am into all this new fan-dangled equipment despite my kids telling me otherwise!!

Windsurfing is in decline and therefore GPSTC will suffer also, but it certainly does not help growth to make it difficult and expensive to start being involved. Young people know how easy this stuff should be these days. They use a dozen apps that allow them to record information and post it to the internet in a few swipes. But GPSTC expects them to buy a particular device that requires connecting via a particular cable to a particular version of computer with particular licensed software where they must analyse the data before spitting out some numbers they must type into a website. All in the GPSTC philosophy of inclusiveness!

Does KA72 Kingdoms offer an alternative for GPS windsurfers?

Select to expand quote

vosadrian said..

Does KA72 Kingdoms offer an alternative for GPS windsurfers?

Kingdoms not really (as far as I'm aware) but dedicated groups for sure !!

The best part is you get to choose/ask Dylan to create the categories to suit your needs. (for example in my foiling group I asked for a 500 m cat) and you can get nice colour coding for gender/age/level riders !

Top stuff if you ask me ! (even if you don't ! )
here's a screen shot of the qld group (bunch of flatwater riding pussies when you see the scores, but still, you get the idea)
JOKING !!!!!! don't shoot !

Select to expand quote

Cocky2 said..
I have now done 21 000 KM in GPSTC and never used SDOP or Accuracy data before posting. Every post has been public on KA so I am sure that over time others may have downloaded a track from KA to GPS results if they had concerns.

Every time you analyze data using ka72.com or GPSResults, accuracy data are used automatically. Both use accuracy data to automatically identify artifacts, which are quite common in certain scenarios. They use other filters, too, but these catch only a subset of the issues caught by accuracy filters. All this happens "behind the scenes", so the casual user will never notice it. You have to specifically look for it, and even then it's often hard to find. You can see a few examples of artifacts at boardsurfr.blogspot.com/search/label/artifacts

Select to expand quote

vosadrian said..
So there is no automated track checking that occurs at all? All the accuracy data does is provide more information to use to determine (manually) if bad data has occurred in the very rare event that someone has flagged a suspect session data?

Wrong, WRONG, WRONG. All data analyzed through ka72.com and GPSResults goes through filters that automatically identifies "bad" points. The most useful of these filters (the one that detects the most problems) is based on accuracy data.

I would strongly suggest that you try to understand what's actually going on when GPS data are analyzed, rather than making incorrect assumptions, and coming to wrong conclusions based on these.

Select to expand quote

boardsurfr said..

Cocky2 said..
I have now done 21 000 KM in GPSTC and never used SDOP or Accuracy data before posting. Every post has been public on KA so I am sure that over time others may have downloaded a track from KA to GPS results if they had concerns.

Every time you analyze data using ka72.com or GPSResults, accuracy data are used automatically. Both use accuracy data to automatically identify artifacts, which are quite common in certain scenarios. They use other filters, too, but these catch only a subset of the issues caught by accuracy filters. All this happens "behind the scenes", so the casual user will never notice it. You have to specifically look for it, and even then it's often hard to find. You can see a few examples of artifacts at boardsurfr.blogspot.com/search/label/artifacts

So what accuracy data is used for Garmin and Canmore as there is none?
No need to write in bold or Capitals as we understand that is a lot of analysis in all these programs that happens automatically.??

Select to expand quote

Cocky2 said..
So what accuracy data is used for Garmin and Canmore as there is none?
No need to write in bold as we understand that is is a lot of analysis in all these programs that happens automatically.

You may want to check the GPSTC rules at gpsteamchallenge.com.au/pages/rules

Garmins are not listed as approved devices for the GPSTC, at least not for jellybean sessions or "individuals vying for the top positions".

I must say that the link out for "Info on other devices" is confusing, though, since GPS-speedsurfing.com allows posting from any device "capable of logging GPS Data with a sample rate of 1 per second and support the .GPX data format".

For the Canmore, it states:
"If you are posting results that are counted in the team challenge in a competitive team you should inspect the results closely in a stand-alone analysis program (GPS-Results/GPSAR-Pro/RealSpeed) for unusual results and errors. Preferably, team captains or the team 'tech guru' should help with this, and if there is any doubt the files should be sent to one of the GPS-TC technical advisors for a second or third opinion."

The most commonly observed problem with the Canmore are missing data points, which can lead to missing runs and understated speeds. That's one reason why it is not used very often as the only GPS. It probably would not have been approved if any other units had been commercially available at that time.

Select to expand quote

Cocky2 said..
No need to write in bold as we understand that is a lot of analysis in all these programs that happens automatically.

Why do you then write that you "never used SDOP or accuracy data before posting"?

You certainly succeeded in giving vosadrian the wrong impression that "there is no automated track checking that occurs at all".

Select to expand quote

boardsurfr said..

Cocky2 said..
So what accuracy data is used for Garmin and Canmore as there is none?
No need to write in bold as we understand that is is a lot of analysis in all these programs that happens automatically.

You may want to check the GPSTC rules at gpsteamchallenge.com.au/pages/rules

Garmins are not listed as approved devices for the GPSTC.

For the Canmore, it states:
"If you are posting results that are counted in the team challenge in a competitive team you should inspect the results closely in a stand-alone analysis program (GPS-Results/GPSAR-Pro/RealSpeed) for unusual results and errors. Preferably, team captains or the team 'tech guru' should help with this, and if there is any doubt the files should be sent to one of the GPS-TC technical advisors for a second or third opinion."

The most commonly observed problem with the Canmore are missing data points, which can lead to missing runs and understated speeds. That's one reason why it is not used very often as the only GPS. It probably would not have been approved if any other units had been commercially available at that time.

So what does SDOP and number of satellites and accuracy data used in Stand along programs affect results automatically? ( Garmin and Canmore fit files do not contain any)
We know the rules about Canmore and many people still post in GPSTC for jelly beans and PB,S never checking data.

Select to expand quote

sailquik said..

Cocky2 said..

sailquik said..

Cocky2 said..

sailquik said..

Cocky2 said..
Why is much of the data from 2007 and 2008 allowed to be in the data base for GPSTC.
Data that does not contain SDOP and accuracy data you have stated can not be counted as you not can prove it is correct.
Based on all the rules all data in GPSTC without SDOP and accuracy should be removed.

You are kidding, right?

Actually I am not kidding.
From your earlier post:
"For all the reasons outlined so many times before. But particularly because allowing new non-'SDOP' devices is NOT a small change. It is a fundemental change and totally against the principles we work to, to maintain the integrity, validity and fairness of the GPS-TC rankings.

A gps that does not include Doppler data and Doppler error is not going to be approved for GPS-TC. There is just no reliable way to assess it's accuracy as a whole, and particularly, the validity of any single result. "


I only started GPSTC in 2015.
When I check data for all time rankings and distance their is no "integerity" in the early times with devices that do not meet the data requirements of GPSTC.

If I can not post data now with out SDOP and error data then how can any data from early devices be verified.

From my understanding the early devices were full of spikes and required a lot of modification before posting results .

It would appear to many that there are double standards for those which have done GPSTC from 2007.

It would appear that you have not really thought this through.

The posts from the distant past have ZERO influence on the current Team competition results.

You have not answered the question about all time rankings and distance in GPSTC.

Well for a start, the rankings you refer to are individual rankings. Not really the mainstay of, or main reason for the GPSTC, but I understand they are interesting and important to lots of individuals.

When we were using pre Doppler devices our normal proceedures were quite different. There was great emphasis on checking tracks individually for errors and spikes and quite a lot of cooperation beween sailors to help check each others results. In those days, there were far fewer participlants and many of the teams were quite close knit. From my own experience, I can say that very few tracks, especially PB's and team scores, were not scrutinised by at least one other sailor, usually a team member, or a respected scrutineers. Everyone had their own analysis software in those days (there was no KA72 - or other online apps) or they relied on team mates with the software to analyse their tracks. I personally got numerous requests after every windy weekend to help with file analysis from sailors all over the country. I know many others did too. Usually, it was not hard for the experienced checkers to spot, sort out and discard errors. Usually, as now, it was pretty obvious if people posted something that did not make sence, and similar proceedures as we have now applied to asking for a file check.
As soon as we switched to Doppler, the errors and spikes, and hence the workload of scrutinising and editing tracks, decreased dramatically.
This is just as well as the numbers of sailors and posts have increased exponentially. But also, the use of Doppler error and other filters in the processing software has also been refined a lot. The vast majority of the very small number of erroneus posts we see these days are simple user error, like leaving the gps on on the drive home, or wearing the GPS under their wetsuit or arm, or incorrect setup.

Yes, the ultimate accuracy of the legacy Trackpoint results is lower and subject to a greater range of error. It is not hard to confirm if distant past PB's were set with Trackpoint, although you will find very, very few still in the individual rankings from currently active sailors who have almost invariably topped those PB's with Doppler results. Would it be fair to remove the results of the past sailors, some of whom are not active now? (some who are legends in our sport). I dont think so, and ! am pretty sure that the vast majority of other sailors would agree.

Ian, if you see a sailor with a trackpoint result ahead of you by a small margin in the individual rankings, you can console yourself with the thought that you, just possibly, may have actually beaten them, But then, that also applies by even smaller margins (within the Dopple error margin of, say a few hundredths of a knot) of current results as well. Even the best measurements are never absolute.

I hope this puts you mind at rest.

And now, I need a rest from this. There are jobs I must attend to around the house etc, so I will not be back here for a while.

Your answer is inconsistent with the statement you made.
I personally have no issue with legacy data or anyone posting from a modern Garmin as it is far more accurate than early Fortrex 101 and Canmore.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Go easy on the guys and girls who do all this stuff for the sport on a volunteer basis, bash them up to hard and they will disappear then nothing will exist.

Be grateful for what you have otherwise it may go away.

Many of us would love to volunteer our time and money to improve GPSTC.
We have 18 people posting less this year in Qld than last year.
My team has lost 4 members who still sail but will not post due to complexity of the only approved device GW60.

We still have great community group in KA72 in Qld with 56 sailors .

Select to expand quote

Cocky2 said..
We have 18 people posting less this year in Qld than last year.
My team has lost 4 members who still sail but will not post due to complexity of the only approved device GW60.

That's a bummer, and useful information.

Andrew, I think it is time to fast-track the Motion GPS! I'd love to help, but apparently, the device cannot be sold the the US at this time.

Select to expand quote

boardsurfr said..

vosadrian said..
So there is no automated track checking that occurs at all? All the accuracy data does is provide more information to use to determine (manually) if bad data has occurred in the very rare event that someone has flagged a suspect session data?

Wrong, WRONG, WRONG. All data analyzed through ka72.com and GPSResults goes through filters that automatically identifies "bad" points. The most useful of these filters (the one that detects the most problems) is based on accuracy data.

I would strongly suggest that you try to understand what's actually going on when GPS data are analyzed, rather than making incorrect assumptions, and coming to wrong conclusions based on these.

Fair enough and please accept my apology..... I made an assumption I should not have. It is difficult to find out what is going on under the bonnet here. Is there anywhere I can go to find out more?

I was not aware of the Canmore device. That adds another class of device accepted by GPSTC to my knowledge. My understanding is that the following is accepted:

* Locosys devices with accuracy logging for anything
* Canmore devices without accuracy data but with doppler speed for anything
* Legacy Garmin devices without accuracy data or doppler speed for posting but not contributing to Jellybeans

Is that correct?

You mention that the Canmore was accepted at a time when there was no alternative. Are we far from that right now? The GW-60 appears to be a dud product. I see many people complaining about various things from functionality to durability.

Select to expand quote

vosadrian said.. >>>> You mention that the Canmore was accepted at a time when there was no alternative. Are we far from that right now? The GW-60 appears to be a dud product. I see many people complaining about various things from functionality to durability.

It's hard to put a distance on that, but now the motion GPS looks to be a happening thing, that distance is receding.

But when the Canmore was approved, there was nothing at all on the market with both doppler data and SDoP. And there was no indication that anybody was going to replace the GT31. The Canmore seemed like a reasonable cheap temporary gap filler, until somebody did.

Although the GW60 has problems as you describe, there are still lots of people getting good use from them. Mine has been going now for close to two years and i love it. That's a big enough distance not to repeat our mistake in approving the Canmore. We don't want to open another can of worms, we're having enough trouble closing the last one!

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

vosadrian said.. >>>> You mention that the Canmore was accepted at a time when there was no alternative. Are we far from that right now? The GW-60 appears to be a dud product. I see many people complaining about various things from functionality to durability.

It's hard to put a distance on that, but now the motion GPS looks to be a happening thing, that distance is receding.

But when the Canmore was approved, there was nothing at all on the market with both doppler data and SDoP. And there was no indication that anybody was going to replace the GT31. The Canmore seemed like a reasonable cheap temporary gap filler, until somebody did.

Although the GW60 has problems as you describe, there are still lots of people getting good use from them. Mine has been going now for close to two years and i love it. That's a big enough distance not to repeat our mistake in approving the Canmore. We don't want to open another can of worms, we're having enough trouble closing the last one!

Ditto for nearly 2 years of trouble free use of my GW60, 2 1/2 years for my GW52 and 5 years for my GT31. For a so called dud device manufacturer, Locosys is doing OK.

Select to expand quote

vosadrian said..
My understanding is that the following is accepted:

* Locosys devices with accuracy logging for anything
* Canmore devices without accuracy data but with doppler speed for anything
* Legacy Garmin devices without accuracy data or doppler speed for posting but not contributing to Jellybeans

Is that correct?

That is my understanding, although both the Canmore and the Garmins are really just intended for anyone who has bought them in the past. You can't really go an tell people that their device suddenly should not be used anymore! The Canmore is cheap, but has quite a few disadvantages (in addition to no accuracy values), which include easy "death by water" and a screen that's too small to read on the water.

Select to expand quote

vosadrian said..
The GW-60 appears to be a dud product. I see many people complaining about various things from functionality to durability.

It's not a dud product, but neither is it perfect. I understand its limitations quite well - two of the three GW-60s I have cannot be used reliably anymore, and we have members in our team that are (a) very smart and (b) have used other GPS watches without problems who had problems with the GW-60. It took quite a few "help sessions", but they now are using the watch without problems.

The frustrations with the GW-60 and the poor responses from Locosys when problems arose have prompted me to spend quite a bit of time looking at alternatives. That said, I usually grab a GW-60 because it's so darn convenient, even though I have GW-52, Canmores, and various prototypes. The download can sometimes be problematic on a Mac, but once you know the little tricks, it's not bad. I wrote a little Automator app to copy the data which helps - I could make that available if anyone is interested.

Select to expand quote

John340 said..

decrepit said..

vosadrian said.. >>>> You mention that the Canmore was accepted at a time when there was no alternative. Are we far from that right now? The GW-60 appears to be a dud product. I see many people complaining about various things from functionality to durability.

It's hard to put a distance on that, but now the motion GPS looks to be a happening thing, that distance is receding.

But when the Canmore was approved, there was nothing at all on the market with both doppler data and SDoP. And there was no indication that anybody was going to replace the GT31. The Canmore seemed like a reasonable cheap temporary gap filler, until somebody did.

Although the GW60 has problems as you describe, there are still lots of people getting good use from them. Mine has been going now for close to two years and i love it. That's a big enough distance not to repeat our mistake in approving the Canmore. We don't want to open another can of worms, we're having enough trouble closing the last one!

Ditto for nearly 2 years of trouble free use of my GW60, 2 1/2 years for my GW52 and 5 years for my GT31. For a so called dud device manufacturer, Locosys is doing OK.

Hi John,
As you have not had issues you are very lucky however you know there are problems with GW52 and GW60.
(GW52 hard to push screen to use Start and stop , Battery only lasts 5 hrs, Data insufficient for Distance approx. 7 hrs sailing )
GW 60 I have already listed issues.
Broken band thread has had 7 915 views.
This thread is 3 960. Must be an issue for some?

I have had Salt water death on GT31, GW52, 2 Canmore and GW60.

My GW60 on water use is 170 Times for 11 800 KM gives myself some more use for a GW60 than yourself and the majority of GW60 users.
Time of ownership is not a good measure for trouble free use.

Garmins are not perfect either. I am on my 3rd, but I am fussy and the problems I have had have been advanced features. First one the garmin pay did not work, so I could not use the tap payment feature of the watch. The replacement had much worse battery life than the original, so was back for a replacement a week later. The final one I have had over 6 months without issue.

The key here is that with the Garmin, if something does not work, you just take it back to the shop you got it from, and they give you another. I bought mine from my local Rebel store. No questions asked. Swapped it for a brand new one off the shelf.

The garmin watches use generic type bands, so easy to fix bands out of warranty yourself. The waterproofing seems excellent on them. They have been doing water sports watches for a while. The connection systems they use to charge/data are custom designed to be compatible with a waterproof watch. No need for little rubber covers over USB connectors that were never designed to be waterproof.

I understand the reasoning why the GPSTC has the devices it has. I understand the need for Legacy devices to be supported, and I can see why they were allowed initially. It makes sense. It is just the relentless grasping at the accuracy data which puzzles me. A large portion of people are not fussed whether it is there or not, and the non-negotiable requirement to have it severely limits the allowed devices to pretty much only devices specifically designed for windsurfing. No company that wants to make money is going to allocate any resources to make a product specifically for the windsurfing market, as the volumes are too low now, and they appear to be declining. Particularly when the product is complex requiring a lot of well designed custom parts to make a waterproof watch case. It makes sense to leverage off another similar market that has much higher volumes to interest device manufacturers. This results in constant improvement of devices and reduced cost of devices. There are some great products out there that are missing just the one thing.

I never pushed to have devices without accuracy data accepted for all GPSTC parameters. I just pushed to have it allowed for non-competitive sailors, or anyone who is happy to have a mark against their session preventing it from be able to compete in whatever parameters are deemed important.

As an ex Garmin user and understanding what quality of the data we used to get before the Lycosys product was available, I found this old survey into different GPS types, it's out dated but well worth a read.

www.mikeg.me.uk/guides/GPS_Devices_-_Speed_Sailing_-_Feature_Comparison.pdf