My local middle school track is dirt and it's like a 30 sec walk from my house and it is always open, compared to the high school track which is often closed and a couple miles away.
the middle school track I want to know about can be found by searching "George A. Buljan Middle School". It's in Roseville, Ca. I want to know the circumfrence of the inside "lane". It can be perhaps compared to the official 400 meters track found at "roseville high school".
I've measured a standard 400m track using Google Earth and it comes out pretty much dead on.
Does your computer not load GMaps pedometer properly?
roseville, ca resident wrote:
My local middle school track is dirt and it's like a 30 sec walk from my house and it is always open, compared to the high school track which is often closed and a couple miles away.
the middle school track I want to know about can be found by searching "George A. Buljan Middle School". It's in Roseville, Ca. I want to know the circumfrence of the inside "lane". It can be perhaps compared to the official 400 meters track found at "roseville high school".
Google Earth, GPS devices, etc, are all fun devices that will give you measurements "good enough for government work". They are NOT accurate.
That depends of course, on your definition of accurate.
dukerdog wrote:
That depends of course, on your definition of accurate.
If a 400m track comes up as .18 miles, that's not accurate, but "good enough for governmemt work"
If google earth shows an elevation increase of 6 meters and a decrease of 5 meters on a perfectly flat measure mile, it is not accurate.
These devices are fun toys, they are not scientific measuring devices.
Do you own stock in Garmin or Google, dukerdog?
malmo wrote:
[quote]roseville, ca resident wrote:
Google Earth, GPS devices, etc, are all fun devices that will give you measurements "good enough for government work". They are NOT accurate.
In NC, on Interstate 40 going from Wilmington to Raleigh, there used to be a sign that said "Raleigh 35 miles." Down the road about 5 miles was one that said "Raleigh 37 miles." Close enough for government work!
On this Malmo you are extermely wrong. I looked at the Roseville High track using gmaps and got 400 meters and for the middle school I got 306 meters. That is accurate, end of story. Check it yourself. Once again you are speaking about things which you don't know but pretend to be an expert.By the way what is with the stupid phrase, "good enough for government work." If anything the government uses much more exactly standards. On this once again you sound silly. Give me one good example of what you mean by this. NASA for instance needs extremely high standards to do any of their work. There are a few examples of mistakes but by in large they are amazingly precise. Please stick just to giving advice about running.
malmo wrote:
dukerdog wrote:That depends of course, on your definition of accurate.
If a 400m track comes up as .18 miles, that's not accurate, but "good enough for governmemt work"
If google earth shows an elevation increase of 6 meters and a decrease of 5 meters on a perfectly flat measure mile, it is not accurate.
These devices are fun toys, they are not scientific measuring devices.
Do you own stock in Garmin or Google, dukerdog?
malmo wrote:
If a 400m track comes up as .18 miles, that's not accurate, but "good enough for governmemt work"
You've kind of missed the point. It isn't a 400 m track.
In my experience, with care, gmap-pedometer/Google maps is accurate to within a percent or two. I understand that there are some known peculiarities within their data and no doubt some unknown ones, but in the absence of a better way to measure that track, 0.1883 miles to a lap is the best guess you've got.
Well trolled, sir. Well trolled indeed.
roseville, ca resident wrote:
the middle school track I want to know about can be found by searching "George A. Buljan Middle School". It's in Roseville, Ca.
A quick GE measurement of the inside lane of that track gives slightly over 300 meters. It is unlikely that measurement is off by more than 2 or 3 meters. But keep in mind that the circumference of a "400-meter" track along the inside edge of lane 1 is only slightly more than 398 meters.
As a GIS professional I would argue that Google Earth provides distance measurements that are good enough for running purposes. Are they good enough for shooting a fruit fly with a 0.17 caliber slug from a mile away? No. Good enough for running purposes? More than good enough. Any errors you find will be the result of human error (your mouse clicks) rather than any shortcoming in Google Earth's base data. Just my opinion.
Aghast wrote:
On this Malmo you are extermely wrong.
I looked at the Roseville High track using gmaps and got 400 meters and for the middle school I got 306 meters. That is accurate, end of story.
Check it yourself. Once again you are speaking about things which you don't know but pretend to be an expert.
There have been some many postings about the inaccuracies of Google Maps and GPS devices it would make your head spin. I remeber someone posting the results of a Google maps course around a track. The elevation showed at net change of about 4 meters, 2 meters each way. Which we all know, is impossible.
GPS devices are toys. They are not scientific devices. The fact that they were built from the cumulative collaboration of scientists, engineers and mathematicians, doesn't make them any less of a toy than a Gameboy or a PS2.
You got 400 meters becasue that's the result that you want. Tracks are measured on a nominal 400 meter count - the actual distance is less, about 2 meters
2π(0.30) = 1.88
One GIS dude wrote:
Any errors you find will be the result of human error (your mouse clicks) rather than any shortcoming in Google Earth's base data. Just my opinion.
Actually, I have measured a track with a calibrated wheel and then compared the result to a careful Google Earth measurement (lots of points around the turns). At least at that location the Google Earth imagery itself resulted in an error of about 0.5%.
Here's my measurement of that Roseville track. You have to view it in Google Earth, rather than Google Maps, to see the real track that was used. Aghast, maybe you could compare it to your measurement path in GE to see why we got different results.
Aghast wrote:If anything the government uses much more exactly standards. On this once again you sound silly. Give me one good example of what you mean by this. NASA for instance needs extremely high standards to do any of their work.
Yup, worked great for the Mars lander...
http://articles.cnn.com/1999-09-30/tech/9909_30_mars.metric_1_mars-orbiter-climate-orbiter-spacecraft-team?_s=PM:TECHmalmo wrote:
There have been some many postings about the inaccuracies of Google Maps and GPS devices it would make your head spin. I remeber someone posting the results of a Google maps course around a track. The elevation showed at net change of about 4 meters, 2 meters each way. Which we all know, is impossible.
GPS devices are toys. They are not scientific devices. The fact that they were built from the cumulative collaboration of scientists, engineers and mathematicians, doesn't make them any less of a toy than a Gameboy or a PS2.
You got 400 meters becasue that's the result that you want. Tracks are measured on a nominal 400 meter count - the actual distance is less, about 2 meters
2π(0.30) = 1.88
Gmap Pedometer (not talking about Google Earth, which I don't use, so I don't know about it) is in my experience quite accurate. I just measured my local track to be 398.8 meters. Would it be acceptable to use Gmaps to verify a course for WR ratification? No. Is it good enough to give you the distance of the run you just did so you can estimate your average mile pace (+/- 5 sec)? Yeah, I would say so. If you think otherwise then prove us wrong.
Aghast wrote:
I looked at the Roseville High track using gmaps and got 400 meters and for the middle school I got 306 meters. That is accurate, end of story.
Something no one has yet noticed or commented on - the imagery is not taken from directly overhead.
Have a look at the neighbouring houses. They are seen from an almost 45 degree angle.
Did anyone take into account this distorted perspective when pronouncing what was an "accurate" measurement?
Continuing an asinine argument doesn't make you any more correct. Gmaps isn't a scientific measurement (true) but it is much more than a toy. For the purposes that the OP stated it is MORE than accurate enough. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. You do not help your argument by pointing to inaccuracies in the elevation measurements. Everyone knows that these are just estimates with much less accusatives than the distance calculations. To conflate elevation with distance in these maps is to unfairly maligning the service. To conclude:1) Gmaps is accurate enough for the OP and more than accurate enough than to be considered a toy2) Elevation information is comes from a different database than the distance information and is just an estimate3) To conflate gmaps with gps watches is ridiculous.4) Malmo can only be trusted for information about training and racing. On all other topics he has shown himself to be lacking fundamental knowledge but act like an expert nonetheless.
malmo wrote:
There have been some many postings about the inaccuracies of Google Maps and GPS devices it would make your head spin. I remeber someone posting the results of a Google maps course around a track. The elevation showed at net change of about 4 meters, 2 meters each way. Which we all know, is impossible.
GPS devices are toys. They are not scientific devices. The fact that they were built from the cumulative collaboration of scientists, engineers and mathematicians, doesn't make them any less of a toy than a Gameboy or a PS2.
You got 400 meters becasue that's the result that you want. Tracks are measured on a nominal 400 meter count - the actual distance is less, about 2 meters
2π(0.30) = 1.88
You lot give nerds a bad name
Aghast wrote:
1) Gmaps is accurate enough for the OP and more than accurate enough than to be considered a toy
No disagreement with the first part. GPS are still toys on par with gamboys and Ps2.
Aghast wrote:
2) Elevation information is comes from a different database than the distance information and is just an estimate
Really, citations, please?
Aghast wrote:
3) To conflate gmaps with gps watches is ridiculous.
There is no conflation. Gmaps and GPS devices are each inaccurate on their own.
Aghast wrote:
4) Malmo can only be trusted for information about training and racing. On all other topics he has shown himself to be lacking fundamental knowledge but act like an expert nonetheless.
Opinions differ.