Elevation Data UpgradeFORUMS HOME SEARCH FORUMS

Thanks for that.  I've got it now after playing around with it a bit.  

Liz

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.

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 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.

Thanks for flagging that up Gary. We'll investigate and report back asap.

We seem to have lost the elevation profiles for most but not all of my existing routes (50+) as well as total ascent details.  These are primarily routes in southern North Island, New Zealand.  Have tried remapping some of those routes but still no joy!

This loss of elevation information appears to significantly affect the estimated time figure to complete the route due to no adjustment being made for hills.  With some of our forest hikes this poses a safety issue due to hikes taking much longer than the current Plotaroute indicated time.

Can you restore the old elevation data please until your upgrade can be successfully implemented?  

Thanks

Gary D.

Hi Lucas - thanks for your feedback. The profile charts are generated in realtime but the elevation statistics on the View Route  and My Routes pages (Ascent, Descent, etc.) are generated when the route is saved and are then saved with the route, so hence the need to update these to maintain consistency.

Hello and thanks a lot - for Plotaroute and for this update as well!

For sure this is an enhancement for many routes. The more accurate the elevation data is, the less little unaccurancy in the GPS data of routes and maps can cause wierd effects. Especially in areas with a steep and changing landscape this makes a huge difference - when tracks are situated in the middle of a steep dliff along a valley for instance. 
So, I'm really curious about the effect on some of my routes...

There's still one question I have when thinking about the things you wrote here:
Some time ago we were talking about elevation profiles as I suggested using (barometric) elevation data of uploaded GPS trackes when the GPS device provides them. This could correct misleading elevation profiles which are produced by using global elevation data instead of a real measurement for example qhen the route uses a high bridge over a deep valley. Also tunnels are a real problem (perhaps we should really have the possibility to override the elevation profile in user defined bridge or tunnel segments and replace them by a linear expolation). But this is not the right place to discuss this.
At that time you told me that Plotaroute calculates elevation profiles on the way and that all routes would be enhanced at one time when new global elevation data is available. Now you tell that there's the need to calculate data for all existing routes again to take advantage of the elevation data update.
So I guess there's a difference between the elevation profile shown when using the elevation profile tool or opening the route's details page on one hand and the statistics in tables like "My Routes" or when using the search on the other hand. IS this right?

Best regards, 

Lucas

Hi Antonio - we're investigating, it looks like there may be a data void in your area with the new data. If so, we'll revert back to the old data for that area.

@Antonio Ratao

Click on "Hills"

[IMAGE REMOVED DUE TO SIZE]

Voila!

[IMAGE REMOVED DUE TO SIZE]

Now, plotaroute doesn't show elevation profile, and even does not inform total ascend

Thank you! On my sample climb of the Poudre Canyon in Colorado USA, the model is much better. While it still has sawteeth that don't exist, the timer model no longer predicts "time travel". More testing soon.

You can try https://www.itinerazor.com for that !!!

Enjoy :-)

Another great upgrade, thanks!

We are very pleased to announce a major upgrade of the data we use to calculate elevation profiles and ascent statistics. This has been made possible following our recent server upgrade, which has enabled us to implement data at a much higher resolution for the whole of North America, Western Europe and New Zealand. We have also implemented enhanced data for many other parts of the World. The new data will enable us to provide more accurate elevation profiles and ascent calculations.

To maintain consistency and comparability, we will be recalculating the ascent statistics for all existing routes, so you may notice some of these figures changing. This is a big exercise, as we have more than 1.5 million routes on our database, so we anticipate that this will take several months, but priority will be given to routes belonging to Premium members and those that are most popular. Until this has completed there may be some inconsistencies between ascent figures shown in different sections of the website for older routes, but any new routes you create will have ascent statistics based on the new elevation data.

Alongside the data upgrade, we have also implemented some enhancements to our Route Profile tool. This now includes an Ascent Filter, which gives you the option of ignoring small changes in elevation when calculating the total ascent over a route, and also a Gradient Filter, which you can use to smooth gradients that fall outside of a set range. These types of filters are sometimes used by other applications and GPS devices. While we always advise against comparing ascent calculations from different sources, as they are all calculated differently, you can use these filters to examine how different levels of filtering can affect ascent calculations.