Hello Menion,
once again on this topic. I had some time to look into it over the weekend and found some inconsistencies and, in my opinion, a bug.
First of all, thanks for the update 4.15.2 (impoved computation of uphill/downhill distance) - this is more realistic now.
I am still not completely happy with the new calculation of the elevations. In my opinion, ignoring elevation differences of up to 5 metres is too strict. In relatively flat regions such as Berlin and the surrounding area, too many actually existing inclines and declines are calculated out, and the result is then not very realistic. If I go on a cycling or jogging tour and have several short but distinctive inclines, which clearly require effort when running and can also be seen in the altitude graph, and the result then shows 0 metres of altitude, this is not ideal.
In addition, there are sometimes strange results that make no sense from a purely mathematical point of view: A recorded track shows "Min altitude" 30 m, "Max. altitude" 66 m (a difference of 36 m), but only 30 m elevation gain is displayed. (Screenshot 1 and 2.) So 6 metres of altitude are "swallowed".
Then I noticed a faulty behaviour in the Track Analyzer, which might be a bug. A track section selected with the analyzer always shows exactly the same value for elevation gain and loss, even if it only goes uphill or downhill (screenshot 3 and 4). This can be reproduced everywhere.
once again on this topic. I had some time to look into it over the weekend and found some inconsistencies and, in my opinion, a bug.
First of all, thanks for the update 4.15.2 (impoved computation of uphill/downhill distance) - this is more realistic now.
I am still not completely happy with the new calculation of the elevations. In my opinion, ignoring elevation differences of up to 5 metres is too strict. In relatively flat regions such as Berlin and the surrounding area, too many actually existing inclines and declines are calculated out, and the result is then not very realistic. If I go on a cycling or jogging tour and have several short but distinctive inclines, which clearly require effort when running and can also be seen in the altitude graph, and the result then shows 0 metres of altitude, this is not ideal.
In addition, there are sometimes strange results that make no sense from a purely mathematical point of view: A recorded track shows "Min altitude" 30 m, "Max. altitude" 66 m (a difference of 36 m), but only 30 m elevation gain is displayed. (Screenshot 1 and 2.) So 6 metres of altitude are "swallowed".
Then I noticed a faulty behaviour in the Track Analyzer, which might be a bug. A track section selected with the analyzer always shows exactly the same value for elevation gain and loss, even if it only goes uphill or downhill (screenshot 3 and 4). This can be reproduced everywhere.
The following users thanked this post: freischneider