Height average on planned course

Matteo Mascardi shared this idea ago

Planned

Hi everybody

This is my concern since the early time of Locus development.

I always found that, when planning a route, altitude gain computation is still not satisfactory and gives overestimation often over 20%. This is true especially in the Alps in courses that climb over a steep side of a mountain.

I think this is due to the many curves that a road does when climbing on a hill: while the slope is almost steady and there are not segments that go downhill, since SRTM data are somewhat simplified, every time the road makes a curve to overcome a ridge without a steep climb and a steep descent, tha algoritm count an up hill and down hill.

I think thet a simple averaging on the altitude prifile would give much more accurate results.

I think many other planner have similar problems: trying to do the same route with Locus, Garmin, Strava and Brouter web client I get good results with strava and Brouter, awful with Garmin, with Locus in the middle.

I tried a simple averaging over 5 to 9 points of a track and I get results very similar to the track recorded with barometric cycle computer.

Please give us a way to remove "noise" from altitude profile!!

Also the altitude graph will give better indication on slope gradients

I like this idea 0

Replies (2)

Menion ●

Hello Matteo,

thanks for your post. "In the middle" ... this is exactly how we set parameters for our algorithm. Elevation gain/lost, generally all-around elevation is quite a hard and sensitive topic. We are well aware, that app should produce a little better value and we definitely plan to work on this topic at the start of the next year.

So if you do not mind, I'll mark this topic as planned because the voting process is not necessary ... we will work on it ;). I'll inform you here, once there will be any progress.

Thanks for understanding,

Menion

Reply URL

Matteo Mascardi ●

thank you very much Menion for your answer .

I'm happy to know you are working in it.

I recognize that some optimization is already done and could be difficult to adapt it for every kind of landscape.

So an option could be give a manual option to do a stronger averaging on the course gaining better general result despite loosing precision locally.

I'm ready to test any developing here.

Reply URL