Wow...the course stated "230" and you were at "232"... that's quite impressive.
Interesting also because I only counted 30 lines (or 150m) on the map itself. I wonder which process is more wrong. :-)
Also interesting is comparing the
brown gps tracks.... Walk claims 130 m, you and Charlie claim 230, and Cedarcreek claims about 90m and yet you all seem to have very similar tracks if you compare the tracks (selecting their names in the link). Gps is flaky
The link is for the Middle. Is that the run in question? Or the Long?
At the Long my Garmin is the instrument that "claims" 132m v the 230 stated for the day. On my route I count 25 lines or 125m, so adding in a few partial ups/downs between the same line it looks reasonably similar to the "claim".
OTOH - At Ransberg, Garmin "claims" 86m. I count 23 lines or 115m, while 150 was stated for the day.
All this confirms the shaky z measurement of a gps. Sometimes good
; sometimes a bit off.
On the sprint, too, my GPS-reported climb was half of that claimed on the map (maybe they forgot it was 2.5m contours). ;-)
I assume Glen will get the climb reasonably close? But don't let him use 1:7500, please.
George, why not 1:7500? I haven't heard the response from Sanctioning yet, so don't know what the print scale will be. The climb on the other hand will be exactly correct. :-)
Why 7500? 10 was fine this weekend and the last two times at Moreau.
Having everything a 1:10 the rest of the year and suddenly be thrown a different scale is in appealing. Guess I'll have to do Pond Mt similarly to get used to it?
And we're, well the rest of them, are still pondering. Was hoping it would go away.