from a data standpoint you just cannot say "this mile was covered in 5:xx" because the data source does not capture that information right now.
I don't know, I'm pretty sure the data captures the breaks. Or, more precisely, it shows the inverse: periods where we can be very confident that there were NO breaks. Not in the per-mile split averages that Strava calculates, but in the much-richer pace graph.
Every GPS-based tracker I've ever used (and even things like wheel-based cyclocomputers) has some hysteresis built in, where, even if you suddenly come to a dead stop, it says "hmm, I'm not sure if the person has actually stopped, or just slowed down, so I'm going to gradually reduce the speed that I'm reporting. Then, IF I don't detect any more movement for a long enough period, I'll say that the user has 'stopped' and turn off the tracking until they start again".
So any time he comes to a stop, I would expect the pace graph to show a significant dip, with the stop hidden within that valley. If there are no dips, there are likely no stops.
The 8.1 mile track has dips at the beginning and the end, which is likely where the 7:09 differential between 'moving time' and 'elapsed time' is hiding.
I've never used a TomTom watch of any sort, so I suppose it's possible that it has some sort of "instant stop" capability that would prevent stops from being visible in Strava data, but that's not what all his other tracks lead me to believe.
I certainly agree that it would be nice if they were converted to "Race" type, but would that affect the pace graph at all, or just the per-mile split times?[/quote]
I manually pause my watch a ton I've times when I run, and you would never tell from the graph.