Running with Series 3 Cellular? - Improved Accuracy?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by musicpenguy, Sep 15, 2017.

  1. musicpenguy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    #1
    One of the complaints of the series 2 has been the map that it generates from GPS only runs. Is it likely the cellular data added into the GPS will make the Apple Watch that much better at mapping and tracking run data?
     
  2. IJBrekke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    #2
    If it's similar to an iPhone then yes, it will definitely be more accurate. They'll be walking a tightrope with the battery life vs. LTE use, so we won't really know until people start using it in a week.
     
  3. perezr10 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    Location:
    Monroe, Louisiana
    #3
    I didn’t know there were problems with distance on the Series 2.

    I would have thought the GPS measures distance and the cellular only draws the map.
     
  4. jhfenton macrumors 6502a

    jhfenton

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2012
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    #4
    There aren't. The GPS tracks and measurement are as good as or better than my Garmins.
     
  5. musicpenguy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    #5
    Most of the reviews I see note the map isn’t as accurate it’ll create a straight line when the runner crossed to the other side of the road and things like that, while the distance is accurate, the map isn’t what a lot of runners want.
     
  6. Bob190 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    #6
    That has more to do with the app you are using and how it processes the data. For instance Nike downsamples the data to 10 second intervals, others apps use smart recording that use intervals from 1 to 5 seconds.

    And no, having cellular won't impact GPS accuracy. If you are referring to A-GPS that was/is used with phones, all that does is help the device more quickly acquire the satellites by triangulating its position using cell phone towers. It is the GPS chip in the device that determines your track and the accuracy/inaccuracy of it, along with how the data is used by the app.
     
  7. xDKP macrumors 65816

    xDKP

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Location:
    Denmark
    #7

    I've been a runner for many years and just completed my second marathon this year with my AW S2 - this is the first time I've heard that there is issues with the GPS in the S2, besides the missing elevation tracking
     
  8. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #8
    The S3 should fix that issue, hopefully
     
  9. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #9
    Ooh, hopefully the addition of LTE will mean no more waiting for satellite connections before I start my runs. My Garmin is good so long as I sync it to a computer every couple of days, but it's something I have to be consciously be aware of.
     
  10. xDKP macrumors 65816

    xDKP

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Location:
    Denmark
    #10
    Yeah and something I would have loved - If I go on a elevated run I sometimes bring my phone if I want to track the elevation, but most of my routes I know fairly well and for that the S2 nails it ... Apple isn't releasing any SS watches in Denmark yet (no LTE deals apparently) so they have just saved me some money :)
     
  11. The Mercurian macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    #11
    I had Garmin GPS watch once. Simply every other device I've had since - including HTC, Samsung and Apple phones - were a) more accurate and b) picked up GPS signal far quicker than that garman expensive turd.
     
  12. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #12
    I will be very surprised if the newest Apple watches are anywhere near as good as my Garmin for tracking my runs. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised, but there are good reasons why Garmin/Suunto/et al have the vast majority of the serious running market. I have tracked thousands of runs and races with my Garmins, most of them on heavily wooded trails and have never had more than a minor discrepancy with the expected distances (short of a hardware or software bug which they have their fair share of when devices are new). My iPhone/Watch combination has significant errors with at least 10% of the runs I do with them.
     
  13. The Mercurian macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    #13
    Maybe there was something wrong with the Garmin I had - took 10mins to pick up satellite and would easily be off on distance by 20% with alot of variance run to run. Got rid of it years back however but I'd never buy another one because of this experience
     
  14. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #14
    Garmin has released plenty of bum devices - my Fenix 2 has significant bugs that were never fixed to the point that I don't rely on it. However their newer devices tend to be excellent, and importantly, very reliable.

    Long times to acquire satellite positions and bad distance is typically a result of not syncing with your computer often enough to update the satellite position caches.
     
  15. xDKP macrumors 65816

    xDKP

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Location:
    Denmark
    #15
    Just the fact that the end user needs to sync with a computer to be able to pic up connection is bad user experience. It should just seamless get data when loading off via your phone or something like it.

    Might do that today compared to back in the days but must say that short of top detail data/statistics needing runners, the AW is a great companion
     

Share This Page

14 September 15, 2017