Thanks for flagging that up Gary. We'll investigate and report back asap.
Hi Gary,
It looks like it was only around the Wellington area where there was a problem - other parts of New Zealand appear to be OK, as far as we can tell. We've reverted the elevation data for this area and are recalculating the Ascent figures for affected routes. This update should complete over the next few days, but most of your routes should already now have the missing elevation data.
I have just caught up with this upgrade in the calculation of ascent statistics when I noticed that the ascents in my earlier routes differed from those I had recorded in my own records. No problem, I can correct my own records so that I can still compare across routes.
Can you explain what the difference is between the elevation interval filter and the gradient filter? Am I correct that if I want to capture all the undulations of a route in most detail, I should keep the filter sliders at their lowest level?
Finally, I notice when I set the ascent filter in the statistics above the route profile at its lowest level (1m or 3 ft), the Ascent (raw) and the Ascent (filtered) are the same. Is this the default?
Thanks
Hi Liz and Tom,
The Elevation Interval slider changes the gap between the elevation readings, so readings in between are ignored. If you change from "Chart" to "Data" you'll be able to see better how this works. You can use this to as a simple way to smooth the overall profile of the route.
The Gradient Filter sets the maximum and minimum gradient between the readings, so that small elevation changes below the minimum gradient are ignored and large elevation changes above the maximum gradient are reduced. You can use this to filter out unexpectedly steep peaks and troughs as well as ignoring sections that are almost flat.
To show the maximum detail, the Elevation Interval slider should be set to the minimum value, the Minimum Gradient Filter should be set to 0% and the Maximum Gradient Filter to the maximum value.
Regarding the Ascent Filter, yes, a value of 1m will not have any effect - when set to 1m, changes of 1m or more (the minimum it can change by) are counted in the Filtered Ascent figure.
Thanks for that. I've got it now after playing around with it a bit.
Liz
I am a fairly/very experienced user of plot a route. I use it for cycling, particularly planning long distance routes of 1000k or more. In my experience Plot a Route commonly overestimates total ascent climbed by 10 - 20% compared to my Garmin and Garmin Maps.
I have been playing with the "Gradient Filter" but I feel I have just got more confused. I understand its principals however I feel there should be at least be an advised range between 0 and 40% that will give you a more accurate total ascent. Some sort of "sweet spot".
Can anyone advise me of the ranges of the Gradient Filter they use to smooth out the gradients but also to make total ascent more accurate.
I'm with you Roger. Elevation is difficult - I get that. It depends on the DEM model they are using - and I realise they can be expensive to buy/use. The model is only as good as the data - say 10x10m average. Basically I export from plot a route straight into Garmin Express via the premium sync function. I get that route and elevation into my Garmin Edge bike computer. I share the gpx with my partner via Garmin Express and in doing so, Garmin overrides the elevation model with their own. We both have very different total elevation predictions and to be honest, probably neither is correct. I just live with it. And yes, I also do 1,000km rides!
I never picked up on the gradient filter you mentioned, so I'll go take a look. I can image it woudl be useful especially for bridge crossings which both PR and Garmin are woefully notorious at reporting a massing drop and climb when in fact the road goes flat across the valley! Let me know if you work it out!
Steve