This topic is insane. You want something ? You believe your idea is the best ? You believe that others haven't tried this before and stopped for good reasons ? Well stop asking others to do everything for you and get to work. Nobody owes you anything.
I decided to make Motion. I decided to spend years on it. I decided it would privilege technical stuff over current offers. It suits plenty, it suits record holders, it suits champions, it suits racing/records organisations, it suits users. The few whining here don't have one yet will make extravagant claim. Get on with it and buy something else. I'm very fine with it, it wasn't made for your specific taste, but to solve a problem.
Select to expand quoteJulienLe said..
This topic is insane. You want something ? You believe your idea is the best ? You believe that others haven't tried this before and stopped for good reasons ? Well stop asking others to do everything for you and get to work. Nobody owes you anything.
I decided to make Motion. I decided to spend years on it. I decided it would privilege technical stuff over current offers. It suits plenty, it suits record holders, it suits champions, it suits racing/records organisations, it suits users. The few whining here don't have one yet will make extravagant claim. Get on with it and buy something else. I'm very fine with it, it wasn't made for your specific taste, but to solve a problem.
Julien ,I for one in no way meant to belittle what you are doing ,I think it is admirable to take on producing a new product and I am sure it will be a product that is ideal for the purpose and extremely accurate, all we are asking is for a category in gpstc to allow the competition to be more inclusive to people who want to have a choice about the style of gps device that suits their lifestyle, and even happy as we have said not to have tracks count in comp as the committee has raised the point that the data cant be checked for errors.. We aren't racing for sheep stations. Its seems a win win to me , more people back in the comp even if at a social level and you never know they might get the bug again and buy an approved device so they can get some jelly beans....
Select to expand quotekato said..
I'm a bit late to this thread BUT didn't we do this already!!!!!!!!!!!!.
BTW lm on the advisory committee.
No error file , no use for GPSTC.
Yes, we did do this already, Kato, (different people seem to keep re-igniting the discussion) but the GPS/Speed forum needs a good blue! Things have been mighty quiet here since the foiling "fad" took hold and all the action seems to be over on the foiling pages. But, all the foilers are so buggered and blissed out from sailing all the time that they haven't got the energy to argue over semantics or attack each other. 
It's a bit boring. (although I am considering starting a race foil v free foil feud. I think it needs it. Particularly, the ever so slightly smug, Slingshot crew..
)
Select to expand quotemikey100 said..
My watch has worked well ( I care for it like its my child) and the only problem I have encountered is sometimes it won't connect to the utility. My simple fix is- clean the 4 stainless terminals on the back of the watch with a little stainless appliance cleaning powder (for cleaning stainless sinks and kitchen utensils) and a cotton bud. 20sec and problems with connectivity solved.
Might be of help to some.
Yep just tried that, connected up the watch, got going, then
again. My watch worked really well too, no probs at all, then suddenly
Still planning on sending it back to Locosys but just waiting to see if anything is resolved on this thread.......
Oh and blame me for reigniting this topic, I haven't been reading much on the gps/speed forum and didn't know the topic had been brought up before, please excuse my ignorance. The tech talk on this forum is a bit over my head so I leave it to the masters.
Select to expand quoteBoston! said.. . I think it needs it. Particularly, the ever so slightly smug, Slingshot crew..)
Ever so slightly smug Slingshot crew - surely you jest? 
Do the super-duper accurate GPSs take into account time, tide, current to make it a levelled field to compare speeds? Surely ignoring these make all your accuracy redundant?
Select to expand quoteRob11 said..
Do the super-duper accurate GPSs take into account time, tide, current to make it a levelled field to compare speeds? Surely ignoring these make all your accuracy redundant?
Of course!
Time to the nanosecond. Tide current is definitely measured with the same accuracy as speed. 
Select to expand quotevosadrian said..
I am really perplexed as to how someone crashing could not be easily identified from a speed plot and nothing else. Erroneous GPS data will result in acceleration/decelerations that are just not possible on a windsurfer and the speed would go close to zero in close time proximity to the high speed spike. A simple algorithm that identifies implausible speed data and then masks out a period before and after would surely catch 99% of crashes. It could be developed further to look at position. We could identify a function that has the minimum radius for the current velocity that a highly skilled sailor can achieve and if the position plot is outside of plausibility we invoke a similar masking. Likely this would catch most errors automatically and at least flag them for a human to decide upon.
My point being that with some smart heads working on it, I believe that data errors could be detected in most cases without the requirement for accuracy data.
Let me re-phrase what you are saying here: either the people who have developed GPS analysis software are not smart, or they did not work on this.
You are displaying arrogance and ignorance. "Simple" algorithms already catch a lot of spikes and crashes in the existing software. It's is a trivial exercise to sketch out ideas for improvement, as you did. But it is considerable work to test algorithms on hundreds to thousands of files to characterize their performance. A couple of the ideas you mention are very easy to disprove: "masks out a period before and after" would eliminate lots of top speeds that end in a crash; there are plenty of PBs that were followed by a big crash when running into chop. To "lag them for a human to decide upon" is nonsense, since the goal is to have accurate data automatically.
If it's really as simple as you say, then just go ahead and prove it.
Very lively discussion, it seems.But really just one or two responses saying "a two-tier system sounds good", overshadowed by a couple of louder guys re-iterating what they said many times before ("simple algorithms would fix this", "my watch is accurate"), with a few deliberate distortions thrown in. Plus a few "Oh we've done that already".
I'm out, back to the foiling forum. More zen-like and more fun.
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..Boston! said.. . I think it needs it. Particularly, the ever so slightly smug, Slingshot crew..)
Ever so slightly smug Slingshot crew - surely you jest?
Of course! 
Select to expand quoteboardsurfr said..vosadrian said..
I am really perplexed as to how someone crashing could not be easily identified from a speed plot and nothing else. Erroneous GPS data will result in acceleration/decelerations that are just not possible on a windsurfer and the speed would go close to zero in close time proximity to the high speed spike. A simple algorithm that identifies implausible speed data and then masks out a period before and after would surely catch 99% of crashes. It could be developed further to look at position. We could identify a function that has the minimum radius for the current velocity that a highly skilled sailor can achieve and if the position plot is outside of plausibility we invoke a similar masking. Likely this would catch most errors automatically and at least flag them for a human to decide upon.
My point being that with some smart heads working on it, I believe that data errors could be detected in most cases without the requirement for accuracy data.
Let me re-phrase what you are saying here: either the people who have developed GPS analysis software are not smart, or they did not work on this.
You are displaying arrogance and ignorance. "Simple" algorithms already catch a lot of spikes and crashes in the existing software. It's is a trivial exercise to sketch out ideas for improvement, as you did. But it is considerable work to test algorithms on hundreds to thousands of files to characterize their performance. A couple of the ideas you mention are very easy to disprove: "masks out a period before and after" would eliminate lots of top speeds that end in a crash; there are plenty of PBs that were followed by a big crash when running into chop. To "lag them for a human to decide upon" is nonsense, since the goal is to have accurate data automatically.
If it's really as simple as you say, then just go ahead and prove it.
Actually I think you got me wrong here. I started that paragraph with "On an aside" with my intended meaning that this was not part of the current conversation. I was really just trying to engage in discussion on algorithms. I was not suggesting anyone should do anything I presented. I was hoping for a friendly discussion on algorithms.
And it would be a combination of both ignorance and arrogance. The ignorance is in that I have no idea if the GPS software available has attempted filtering specific to windsurfing problems. The arrogance would be that I have developed many algorithms in the past (mostly related to processing sensor data on race car engines) that had limited noisy data available that had to be processed to get an accurate representation of what the measured variable was actually doing. Also I use GPS in sports often for Cycling with Strava. There are GPS errors all the time and sometimes they result in people taking a Strava achievement they did not deserve. There is no accuracy data on Strava, but it is very clear to anyone when GPS data is inaccurate. Just looking at a speed plot combined with a positional plot and you can see implausible data. Windsurfing is different for sure, but when I have had crazy results with my track based GPS windsurfing due to a crash, it has been easy for me to see the data was not real. I have no intentions of trying to develop such an algorithm, but I was interested in a discussion with someone who had some experience, but it appears I have burned that bridge.
If people dont want to have a level playing field, then fine.... lets allow any device.
Other people with the ability to build their own gps, will do so... and they will be allowed to make those devices report higher numbers than everyone else.
Select to expand quoteJulienLe said..
Yes, and I'm all for it.
This is the thing. Any discussion on algorithms from my side was an aside unrelated to the topic at hand.
Many people have indicated a desire for a two-tier system. The only reasonable argument against it is that this involves work to modify the system. I think this could be overcome if some thought was put into ways to manage this work. Other than that I don't see of the people who prefer the current single tier system, any credible reason why a two tier system would not work for them. It addresses any competitive issues by simply not allowing unapproved devices to be competitive.
The current single tier system supporters have not addressed the topic of the inclusiveness philosophy of the GPSTC. The best they can do is say you can post in the comments. They fail to recognise that people are leaving the GPSTC because this is an unacceptable solution for them. If 100 people who have been members of the GPSTC in the past are faced with having to buy a device to continue but cannot for whatever reasons (cost, reliability, availability) but they have an unapproved device. Any estimate on how many would find it acceptable to post in the comments? I reckon well under 50, and in my mind that is exclusive... not inclusive. Is anyone actually posting results in comments for an unapproved device?
If a two tier system were able to be implemented, this is the way I see that it would likely work. Those who use an unapproved device would post their results and they would either be noncompetitive or competitive. If noncompetitive, their team would be able to see and discuss their results and provide support encouragement etc. so they are included. Also they can monitor progress through PRs etc (which is not available if posted in comments). If a non approved device competitive result was posted, the above would also apply, but the team would then encourage the user to get an approved device so that they can contribute to team results. If they were highly competitive, the team would be badgering them to get an approved device. If they are regularly competitive, they would be likely to upgrade to an approved device so they can then be involved in the competitive side of GPSTC.
Select to expand quotemathew said..
If people dont want to have a level playing field, then fine.... lets allow any device.
Other people with the ability to build their own gps, will do so... and they will be allowed to make those devices report higher numbers than everyone else.
Can I have one of those please
Select to expand quotevosadrian said..JulienLe said..
Yes, and I'm all for it.
This is the thing. Any discussion on algorithms from my side was an aside unrelated to the topic at hand.
Many people have indicated a desire for a two-tier system. The only reasonable argument against it is that this involves work to modify the system. I think this could be overcome if some thought was put into ways to manage this work. Other than that I don't see of the people who prefer the current single tier system, any credible reason why a two tier system would not work for them. It addresses any competitive issues by simply not allowing unapproved devices to be competitive.
The current single tier system supporters have not addressed the topic of the inclusiveness philosophy of the GPSTC. The best they can do is say you can post in the comments. They fail to recognise that people are leaving the GPSTC because this is an unacceptable solution for them. If 100 people who have been members of the GPSTC in the past are faced with having to buy a device to continue but cannot for whatever reasons (cost, reliability, availability) but they have an unapproved device. Any estimate on how many would find it acceptable to post in the comments? I reckon well under 50, and in my mind that is exclusive... not inclusive. Is anyone actually posting results in comments for an unapproved device?
If a two tier system were able to be implemented, this is the way I see that it would likely work. Those who use an unapproved device would post their results and they would either be noncompetitive or competitive. If noncompetitive, their team would be able to see and discuss their results and provide support encouragement etc. so they are included. Also they can monitor progress through PRs etc (which is not available if posted in comments). If a non approved device competitive result was posted, the above would also apply, but the team would then encourage the user to get an approved device so that they can contribute to team results. If they were highly competitive, the team would be badgering them to get an approved device. If they are regularly competitive, they would be likely to upgrade to an approved device so they can then be involved in the competitive side of GPSTC.
Maybe make your own GPSTC and use whatever rules and devices you want .
But here's the issue AGAIN
Sailor A spends yrs chasing 30 kts and finally achieves it with an approved device.
Sailor B used unacceptable devices and has 30 kts recorded.
ARE THEY THE SAME
Yes, it's not just about PBs and jelly beans, it's about the whole database. There is still competition out side those two more important aspects.
Select to expand quotekato said..
But here's the issue AGAIN
Sailor A spends yrs chasing 30 kts and finally achieves it with an approved device.
Sailor B used unacceptable devices and has 30 kts recorded.
ARE THEY THE SAME
Nope..... one has a (D) next to it and the other does not.
vosadrian if you don't mind me asking, what team are you in and what name do you go by there.
Cheers Bob
I love how the state which has the most accusations of cheating come out of it, loves to push inferior equipment
Select to expand quotekato said..Maybe make your own GPSTC and use whatever rules and devices you want .
But here's the issue AGAIN
Sailor A spends yrs chasing 30 kts and finally achieves it with an approved device.
Sailor B used unacceptable devices and has 30 kts recorded.
ARE THEY THE SAME
But by the same argument;
Sailor A gets 30 knots on the ocean and sailor B gets 30 on weedy mirror-flat water.
Are they the same?
Or Sailor A has heaps of dough, all the go-fast gear gets 30 and Sailor B short of cash, old crappy gear gets 30.
Are they the same?
Select to expand quoteDarrylG said..
So is the new Fenix 6 suitable for posting??
There's a new Fenix out?
So after sitting here reading this thread it seems that three issues are rearing their heads.
1. the accuracy of non approved devices,
2. creating a separate area for non approved devices on GPSTC site
3. improving non approved devices ( ie, garmins)
issue 1 is simple --- non approved devices at not accurate enough to be reliable and reviewable data for posting results (at the present time see issue 3). So to keep the playing field level only approved devices should be used for the GPSTC site for rankings, PBs and jelly beans. We've got to compare apples with apples. You are faster than me and you can prove it.. you win this month
issue 2.. Not all contributors of the GPSTC site want to be that competitive. They just want to post their data and see if they are improving or if the gear they're riding can be tweaked to go faster. IF they post from a non approved device AND its does not affect the team's rankings by having a pull-down tab "NONAPPROVED" does it really affect the teams that want to use the approved devices? If Joe blog does 32 knots on his garmin watch. he post to his team, selects appropriate "NON-APPROVED" tab and sees he had a great day. His score does not effect team rankings in any way and keep the competition of teams with approved devices in a level playing field. Joe blogs goes into his results and sees that this is the fastest he has ever got that particular set up to go and is happy and has a beer. His teammates post with approved devices and move up the results chart ( and have a beer) and my teams falls further down the chart (and ill have two beers). Joe blogs can get drunk after his beer and post that he's the fastest sailor in the world but we know that because he posted with a NON-APPROVED device they only person that will believe his is his significant other ... once again does not effect the integrity and accuraccy of competitors who post with approved devices.. So we go back to comparing apples with apples ( approved devices vs approved devices) and we included Joe Blogs into the GPSTC in a capacity for seeing how he can improve (being aware that his non approved device may throw up some weird data to him) but he'll eventually want to part of the fold and will upgrade to an approved device.
issue 3. unless the big smart watch manufacturers listen to our minority not much will get done in improving the accuracy of said watches. Sailors should be encouraged to take their first steps in speed sailing using these devices as long as the limitations are explained and the GPSTC site adapts to have a NON-APPROVED tab.
So.. the smart watch users have to be aware that their watches don't meet the standards for accuracy and reviewable data needed to run a fair competition BUT the GPS purists also need to show some adaptability to have these sailers taken into the fold of the team challenge as long as they are aware that the NON APPROVED devices dont meet the standard for rankings.
Just my 2 cents...
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..
But by the same argument;
Sailor A gets 30 knots on the ocean and sailor B gets 30 on weedy mirror-flat water.
Are they the same?
Or Sailor A has heaps of dough, all the go-fast gear and gets 30 and Sailor B short of cash, old crappy gear and gets 30.
Are they the same?
I see what you are getting at here Azymuth, but I think we (speed sailors) inherently understand the difference and do not expect to compare results with such different parameters, just like say a BMX and Road bike would not expect to have the same speed results. Whether or not we all have 'velodromes or 'bush tracks' to ride on is intentionally not addressed in GPSTC. ( Hardie discussed this in a previous post on this issue - hopefully, someone might dig it up and re-post:- ) But a GPS with error data does give us a verifiable and precise point of measurement wherever we chose to ride. I think Dylan/Ka72 has addressed the location differences very nicely with his Sailor Score algorithm and it does a great job of comparing apples and oranges if so desired.
Select to expand quotefiriebob said..
vosadrian if you don't mind me asking, what team are you in and what name do you go by there.
Cheers Bob
gpsteamchallenge.com.au/sailor/view/561
Just for interest sake (probably been discussed before
) has anyone worn an approved device & an unapproved device for a session and compared results?? Is there a difference
And if so which one is faster
I noticed my GW60 had faster results than the GT31 and they're both approved.
Select to expand quoteBoston! said..kato said..
I'm a bit late to this thread BUT didn't we do this already!!!!!!!!!!!!.
BTW lm on the advisory committee.
No error file , no use for GPSTC.
Yes, we did do this already, Kato, (different people seem to keep re-igniting the discussion) but the GPS/Speed forum needs a good blue! Things have been mighty quiet here since the foiling "fad" took hold and all the action seems to be over on the foiling pages. But, all the foilers are so buggered and blissed out from sailing all the time that they haven't got the energy to argue over semantics or attack each other. It's a bit boring. (although I am considering starting a race foil v free foil feud. I think it needs it. Particularly, the ever so slightly smug, Slingshot crew..)
C'mon Boston I admire you race boyz who are great in a straight line but when it comes time to gybe and go down wind ya can't ?? ( by exception of the true professionals) and us Slingshot crew gybe around you whilst drinking a cup of tea lololol ??
Select to expand quoteTinlyds said..Boston! said..kato said..
I'm a bit late to this thread BUT didn't we do this already!!!!!!!!!!!!.
BTW lm on the advisory committee.
No error file , no use for GPSTC.
Yes, we did do this already, Kato, (different people seem to keep re-igniting the discussion) but the GPS/Speed forum needs a good blue! Things have been mighty quiet here since the foiling "fad" took hold and all the action seems to be over on the foiling pages. But, all the foilers are so buggered and blissed out from sailing all the time that they haven't got the energy to argue over semantics or attack each other. It's a bit boring. (although I am considering starting a race foil v free foil feud. I think it needs it. Particularly, the ever so slightly smug, Slingshot crew..)
C'mon Boston I admire you race boyz who are great in a straight line but when it comes time to gybe and go down wind ya can't ?? ( by exception of the true professionals) and us Slingshot crew gybe around you whilst drinking a cup of tea lololol ??Select to expand quoteTinlyds said..Boston! said..kato said..
I'm a bit late to this thread BUT didn't we do this already!!!!!!!!!!!!.
BTW lm on the advisory committee.
No error file , no use for GPSTC.
Yes, we did do this already, Kato, (different people seem to keep re-igniting the discussion) but the GPS/Speed forum needs a good blue! Things have been mighty quiet here since the foiling "fad" took hold and all the action seems to be over on the foiling pages. But, all the foilers are so buggered and blissed out from sailing all the time that they haven't got the energy to argue over semantics or attack each other. It's a bit boring. (although I am considering starting a race foil v free foil feud. I think it needs it. Particularly, the ever so slightly smug, Slingshot crew..)
C'mon Boston I admire you race boyz who are great in a straight line but when it comes time to gybe and go down wind ya can't ?? ( by exception of the true professionals) and us Slingshot crew gybe around you whilst drinking a cup of tea lololol ??
We might look fast, Lyds, but it's just our unapproved devices. ??Select to expand quotered said..
So after sitting here reading this thread it seems that three issues are rearing their heads.
1. the accuracy of non approved devices,
2. creating a separate area for non approved devices on GPSTC site
3. improving non approved devices ( ie, garmins)
issue 1 is simple --- non approved devices at not accurate enough to be reliable and reviewable data for posting results (at the present time see issue 3). So to keep the playing field level only approved devices should be used for the GPSTC site for rankings, PBs and jelly beans. We've got to compare apples with apples. You are faster than me and you can prove it.. you win this month
issue 2.. Not all contributors of the GPSTC site want to be that competitive. They just want to post their data and see if they are improving or if the gear they're riding can be tweaked to go faster. IF they post from a non approved device AND its does not affect the team's rankings by having a pull-down tab "NONAPPROVED" does it really affect the teams that want to use the approved devices? If Joe blog does 32 knots on his garmin watch. he post to his team, selects appropriate "NON-APPROVED" tab and sees he had a great day. His score does not effect team rankings in any way and keep the competition of teams with approved devices in a level playing field. Joe blogs goes into his results and sees that this is the fastest he has ever got that particular set up to go and is happy and has a beer. His teammates post with approved devices and move up the results chart ( and have a beer) and my teams falls further down the chart (and ill have two beers). Joe blogs can get drunk after his beer and post that he's the fastest sailor in the world but we know that because he posted with a NON-APPROVED device they only person that will believe his is his significant other ... once again does not effect the integrity and accuraccy of competitors who post with approved devices.. So we go back to comparing apples with apples ( approved devices vs approved devices) and we included Joe Blogs into the GPSTC in a capacity for seeing how he can improve (being aware that his non approved device may throw up some weird data to him) but he'll eventually want to part of the fold and will upgrade to an approved device.
issue 3. unless the big smart watch manufacturers listen to our minority not much will get done in improving the accuracy of said watches. Sailors should be encouraged to take their first steps in speed sailing using these devices as long as the limitations are explained and the GPSTC site adapts to have a NON-APPROVED tab.
So.. the smart watch users have to be aware that their watches don't meet the standards for accuracy and reviewable data needed to run a fair competition BUT the GPS purists also need to show some adaptability to have these sailers taken into the fold of the team challenge as long as they are aware that the NON APPROVED devices dont meet the standard for rankings.
Just my 2 cents...
A gold star for you, Red. Perfectly sumerised!
