Posted in City Run, Gear Review, GPS watch, half-marathon, Marathon, Review, running, running event, Trail run, trail running, Valley Trail Challenge

Accuracy or Fu*K-uracy: A non-professional observation and analysis of GPS devices for running…

In the early days, runners use the stopwatch feature of their watches to check their Finish Time and it is assumed that the distance of the race route is accurately measured by the event organizers. Today’s generation of runners rely on the GPS functionality of smartphones and watches making it an essential feature. But, how accurate are the GPS of these devices? are they reliable?

I am not an electronics expert or engineer, I don’t know how GPS works technically, so don’t expect me to explain everything with scientific detail. I’m just a runner who relies on my GPS watch and smartphone app to record my performance and this observation and analysis is based on my experience in using them during training runs and running events. I use a Soleus GPS One watch and Samsung S7 Edge for tracking my runs.

The race course was said to be 5 kilometers. My GPS watch said it’s 4.88 kilometers.

Which is more accurate, a GPS watch or a smartphone app?

–  Starting both devices and standing still, my S7 Edge using Nike Run Club app connects faster to GPS satellites than my GPS One. It usually takes less than a minute for the S7 to get a good signal, whilst the GPS One can take as long as 1-3 minutes to find a signal. The GPS One may also receive an unstable connection and deliver very unbelievable results like a running speed of 40-70 kilometers per hour which is impossible considering that Usain Bolt can run at a top speed of 44 km/h. The GPS One also has a tendency to lose signal in places where only a few tall buildings surround the area. There are times that the GPS One can yield better results than the smartphone like the time I ran the 2nd Philippine Marine Corp Marathon. When I entered the famous Kaybiang Tunnel, both devices lost connection, but the watch re-connected faster and delivered a more accurate distance. It should be noted that I was using a mid-range smartphone at the time, an Alcatel Flash 2, and not the S7 Edge that I’m using now. I mentioned this because high-end smartphones and GPS watches with superior hardware may be able to deliver more accurate results than entry-level like the GPS One and mid-range devices.

UPDATE (07-23-2017): I accidentally activated the mobile data of my S7 Edge instead of the GPS. Nike Run Club app relied on internet connection and due to the weak signal and speed, it resulted to a big miscalculation, counting 600-800 meters as 1 kilometer.

According to my GPS One, I ran a maximum speed of 72.9 km/h some time during my run. Wow! Good thing Usain Bolt is retired. I should probably go after Eliud Kipchoge then.

Distance Discrepancy?

–   Distance discrepancy between the two devices is not unusual. Sometimes it can be as short as 100 meters to as long as 2 kilometers with the GPS watch very likely to be inaccurate. One example of this was during Run United Exceed half-marathon last April, GPS One recorded the total distance of 23.45 kilometers, whilst the S7 showed 22.5 kilometers. The race route in Bonifacio Global City is surrounded by tall buildings and locking on to the satellites takes time, but I was able to get a signal for both devices before the gunstart. But, I’m very sure that the GPS One was inaccurate because it showed me that I passed the first kilometer in 4+ minutes whilst the smartphone app told me that I ran it at 5 minutes and 45 seconds. I’ve also seen social media posts from runners and most of them also covered 22+ kilometers. Others got results of less than 21 kilometers, but it’s very likely that they started their devices while it was still trying to get a signal and only got one after several kilometers (i.e. 18 kilometers of total distance was likely the result the device receiving a signal after 3 kilometers of running). During my usual Wednesday and Friday morning runs, it’s often that I get distance discrepancies and most of the time, the GPS One delivered inaccuracy.

3 minutes and 15 seconds in the first kilometer. If only I can really run this pace. I know for a fact that when I run below 4 minutes and 30 seconds, I start feeling cramps about to hit me. So, yeah I have never ran a 3-minute per kilometer pace before.

GPS devices or just trust the Organizer’s Race Route?

–   What you see in your GPS devices can also match the race course distance if you get a very good signal. But, the race route can be more or less of the total distance as advertised. It depends on how the organizer of the event measured the race route and there are some instances that could force the organizer to shorten distance like unfavorable weather or last minute changes due to traffic and other road-related incidents that is beyond their control. Other organizers will add extra kilometers as a bonus  or a slight change in the race route. If you really want a distance accurate race route, then look for an event sanctioned by an athletics organization like Philippine Athletics Track And Field Association (PATAFA).

It was supposed to be only 34 kilometers, but a small change in the race route added 3 extra kilometers.

Comparison with Car Odometer (FINAL UPDATE)

I did an experiment to compare if the distance displayed on a car’s odometer will yield the same or close results with the GPS devices. I did a quick google search and found out that GPS is much more accurate than car speedometers when it comes to measuring speed because it is affected by tire size and condition. But, I’m measuring the distance and disregarded speed, so we focus on the odometer. Stopping the car at 1, 3, and 5 kilometers, the distance difference is somewhere between 30 to 200+ meters.

Trial 1: Stopping at 1 kilometer with the GPS devices connected with good signal, the Nike app recorded a 40-meter difference, while the GPS watch showed a much bigger number at 110 (or more) meters.
Trial 2: I reset the odometer and stopped at 3 kilometers. Similar results from the 1 kilometer run with 30-meter difference on the app and 110+ meters on the GPS watch.
And just for comparisons sake, I did keep the car’s speed at 40+ km/h most of the time and sped up to 80+ km/h once to overtake a vehicle. I think the GPS watch got it right with the average (41 km/h) and maximum speed (83.2 km/h) reading.

This experiment should be taken with a grain of salt since gps reading is affected by the position and availability of the satellites (take note that the experiment took place on a road devoid of tall buildings). It’s likely that distance discrepancy will increase if I travelled farther.

The verdict: Accurate or Fu*k-urate?

–   So, are GPS devices like smartphones and GPS watches accurate when it comes to measuring distance and pace? the answer is yesbut, only if you get a good and stable signal. The advance technology in these devices assures you accuracy, but not always. There will be times that you will get unstable signal and even lose the signal especially in places surrounded by tall building or trees and that guarantees fu*ked up results. The reason why I use both a GPS watch and smartphone app is for cases when one fails, the other won’t (hopefully). A small distance discrepancy (like 100-300 meters) between both devices is acceptable, 500 meters or more is where you start to question accuracy and pick the one with less distance. In my usual training routes, I can tell which one is giving me the likely accurate distance because of the numerous times I ran on that place. Even if that devices failed to connect with the satellites, I remember where the kilometer points are.

My Personal Bests in Nike Run Club app. Guess which ones are fu*k-urate. Hint: I can’t run an elite marathoner pace.
Posted in Gear Review, Photo Shoot, Photography, Review, travel

Photography Weapon of Choice!

I started photography as my first serious hobby back in 2010. It was the time when DSLR cameras were the rage and everyone who had the big, black, bulky thing hanging on their necks made the impression of looking like a professional photographer. A couple of years later, the smaller and lighter Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) burst into the scene to take a slice of the digital photography market. Over the years, MILC camera sales are growing and some consumers ditch their huge DSLR cameras in favor of a more compact camera with the same image quality. It’s the same reason I bought a 2nd-hand Sony NEX-5n camera, so I can travel with a camera without worrying too much about the weight and size.

I love my NEX-5n so much that I chose it over my DSLR camera as my photography weapon of choice when I was invited to be a blogger at a marathon event in Phuket, Thailand. Though I am aware of its limitations, I know how to work around them and I was able to get some good shots despite using only an 18-55mm kit lens.

Size comparison. Just look at the significant difference between my 1000D (with 18-135mm lens attached) to my NEX-5n (with 18-55mm lens).
I prefer small and light over huge and bulky any day, especially when I travel.

These days, I rarely use my DSLR camera, I prefer my NEX-5n. But, it’s already an old system and feels obsolete as it lacks some of the essential features like WiFi or NFC connectivity for my smartphone. Wireless connectivity is important in the age of social media and there are times when the image quality of a smartphone camera is not enough and I want the superior image quality I can get from a camera with an APS-C sensor. I want to take photos from an MILC camera and access it immediately on my smartphone for editing  and uploading. And this is why I did my research to find the ideal MILC camera with the features I need at an affordable price. And the best choice I found so far is the Sony A5000.

The Sony A5000 (photo from

A look at the specs.

20.1MP CMOS sensor
Sensor size: 23.2 x 15.4 mm (APS-C)
BIONZ X image processor
ISO Range: 100 – 16000
Shutter speed range: 30 sec to 1/4000
25 AF points (Contras Detect)
Built-in flash, 4m at ISO 100
1/160 max Flash Sync Speed
3.5fps burst mode
460k-dot 3-inch tilting display
Full HD video recording @24fps
WiFi 802.11 b/g/n
MPEG-4 or AVCHD video format
NP-FW50Li-Ion battery (420 shots CIPA)
110 x 63 x 36 mm

On paper, it doesn’t have significant size and weight difference from my NEX-5n, and some of the capabilities like high ISO range (16,000 max on the A5000 vs 25,600 max on the NEX-5n) and burst rate (3-4 fps A5000 vs 10 fps NEX-5n) are a step down. But, I rarely use those functions, I rarely go above ISO 6400 and 3 fps burst is enough for me because I’m not a sports shooter. The important feature that the A5000 have that I want is the Wifi and NFC connectivity. I want to take photos with the camera and use wireless tethering for uploading on the web. The improved autofocus, extra 3+ megapixels, and the 180-degree LCD screen tilt (for selfies because the NEX-5n can only go up 90 degrees) of the A5000 are good bonuses as well. Compact, excellent image quality, wireless connectivity, and good value for the money, those are the reasons why I think the A5000 is the ideal camera for travel and hobbyist photographers like me. That’s why I really want one.