
- 60-Csx-elevation-anomaly-
- 08-20-2010
![]() Re: 60 Csx elevation anomaly ?
| Gene E. Bloch | 08-20-2010 |
![]() Re: 60 Csx elevation anomaly ?
| Art Warner | 08-20-2010 |
![]() Re: 60 Csx elevation anomaly ?
| Heinrich Pfeife... | 09-08-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() Re: 60 Csx elevation anomaly ?
| Heinrich Pfeife... | 09-09-2010 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Re: 60 Csx elevation anomaly ?
| Heinrich Pfeife... | 09-09-2010 |
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On 20.08.2010 23:28, JF Mezei:
So, did you check the minimum elevation?
> How do those barometric altimeters behave in wind, changing weather
> conditions , and big gusts from psssing trucks ? Are they immune or does
> this change the results significantly ?
> conditions , and big gusts from psssing trucks ? Are they immune or does
> this change the results significantly ?
A passing truck will never show as a significant elevation change. I
have in mind that a fast train in a narrow tunnel looks like a 100 or
200 m altitude peak, and you feel a hard pressure on your ears which you
don't by a passing truck.
--
Heinrich
http://www.gartrip.de
mail: new<at>gartrip.de
Heinrich Pfeifer wrote:
> So, did you check the minimum elevation?
Nothing recorded in the track. But I have track sampling every 30
seconds, so it would be easy for an "anomaly" to happen between track
samples which would show on the GPS elevation page, but not be visible
in the downloaded track.
Am 09.09.2010 01:06, schrieb JF Mezei:
> Heinrich Pfeifer wrote:
>> So, did you check the minimum elevation?
> Nothing recorded in the track. But I have track sampling every 30
> seconds, so it would be easy for an "anomaly" to happen between track
> samples which would show on the GPS elevation page, but not be visible
> in the downloaded track.
> seconds, so it would be easy for an "anomaly" to happen between track
> samples which would show on the GPS elevation page, but not be visible
> in the downloaded track.
I didn't mean checking the recorded track. In your OP you said:
> GPS indicated a plausible maximum elevation of 116m
so I meant: did you check the minimum elevation readout on your 60CSx?
--
Heinrich
http://www.gartrip.de
mail: new<at>gartrip.de
Heinrich Pfeifer wrote:
> I didn't mean checking the recorded track. In your OP you said:
>
>
> > GPS indicated a plausible maximum elevation of 116m
>
> so I meant: did you check the minimum elevation readout on your 60CSx?
> so I meant: did you check the minimum elevation readout on your 60CSx?
In the Altimeter display, it shows the maximum elevation and total
climb. I don't recall seeing a minimum elevation being shown.
Am 09.09.2010 12:04, schrieb JF Mezei:
> Heinrich Pfeifer wrote:
>> I didn't mean checking the recorded track. In your OP you said:
>> > GPS indicated a plausible maximum elevation of 116m
>> so I meant: did you check the minimum elevation readout on your 60CSx?
> In the Altimeter display, it shows the maximum elevation and total
> climb. I don't recall seeing a minimum elevation being shown.
> climb. I don't recall seeing a minimum elevation being shown.
oh my. This is up to you.
Press the menu button, then select "Change data fields". Select one of
the data fields, and use the pulldown list to select "Elevation - minimum".
The same is possible on many other pages as well.
--
Heinrich
http://www.gartrip.de
mail: new<at>gartrip.de
- Elevation
- Garmin GPS
- 2010-08-29
- PRN12 Anomaly found at IGS Ultra-Fast Product (igu15772_18.sp3.Z, Starting at at epoch 2010 3 30 18 0 0.00000000)
- Satellite Navigation
- 2010-03-30
- More about PRN01
- Satellite Navigation
- 2009-06-29
- MapSource Elevation Question
- Garmin GPS
- 2010-08-12
- Fixed elevation Pints
- Garmin GPS
- 2009-10-23
- Garmin 2720 and elevation info
- Garmin GPS
- 2008-04-14







> based on barometric pressure, is it possible that the wind gust from a
> passing truck would have sent the elevation down to -500 and after the
> wind gust, it would have risen back to normal ? This would not register
> on the maximum elevation, but would raise the total climb by 500m, right ?