Hi y'all new here. Just wondering what people's thoughts are in strava as a verification for runs. Sure it's been discussed here before so a quick response will suffice I don't have a laptop to make it easy to scroll back a ways. Thanks.
A couple cyclist friends of mine use it all the time, but it doesn't seem to have caught on much among runners, possibly because a GPS watch is bulky, high-maintenance, and expensive compared to a good old digital one. I kind of wish it *had* caught on, because it would provide a source of ideas for new routes and a sense of who the fast locals are.
I don't worry much about verification, because there isn't all that much incentive to cheat. Verification-wise, I think Strava is about the same as uploading a GPX file: while you certainly *can* cheat by hand-editing the file, doing so isn't worth the trouble. It's similar to photos, which I use for "verification": sure, I could combine photos taken on multiple outings into a single sequence and edit their EXIF data to be consistent, but I would have to be crazy to waste my time doing that when I could be out running and climbing instead.
Post by Peter Bakwin on Dec 7, 2015 12:37:48 GMT -5
Strava / movescount / garminconnect, etc., are all fine. Many FKTs are reported here utilizing these services. As seano points out they are just ways of displaying a gpx file. My only annoyance with Strava is that it often reports "moving time", whereas an FKT is of course total time. To get the total time I have to log in to Strava, download your gpx file and look at that. Please do not just post a link to your track and leave it at that! Post your total time, start and end times, and, heck, why not tell us how it went for you? Your details and story do help with the issue of "believability". Also, if it's a new route consider giving some info and background on the route to help people understand what you did without having to search all over to find out about the route. Ultimately, setting an FKT is about your experience as much as it is about your time.
Post by Aaron Bakula on Feb 10, 2016 13:44:08 GMT -5
Do the other watches (Garmin, etc) report total time or moving time or both? I am weighing options on g.p.s. devices so any imput is much appreciated. I am interested in a device for verification purposes but the more functions the better, so a watch with time,alarm, elevation,etc.would be ideal.
Post by Peter Bakwin on Feb 12, 2016 11:24:56 GMT -5
A gps unit / watch records position and time at frequent intervals. This information is stored in a text file with a "gpx" extension. The unit will also display a variety of information - the displays are usually user-configurable. You have to read the manual for the individual unit to find out what you can display and how to set up the display. I'd be shocked if any unit could not be set up to display the total time of the track. However, this is irrelevant for verification. What is needed for verification is the gpx file itself, which is a detailed record of what you did. This file can be exported in its native (text) form, which is frankly what I prefer because it is most flexible. But, what most people do is use online services such as Strava, movescount, Garmin Connect, etc. You hook your watch up to your computer (either by cable or WiFi) and Strava (etc.) know how to take your gpx file and put it into your account in their system. Then they display what they want to display, not what's necessarily the best for verification purposes. It's not a huge deal, but if a person wants to see the gpx file itself they will have to login to a Strava account to get the file. Further, if at some point in the future you decided to disable your Strava account, or if Strava went out of business, the file & info would be lost. The gpx file can be loaded into a wide range of things, such as GoogleEarth, caltopo, gpsvisualizer, etc., or a person could open it as a text file and examine the data line-by-line (e.g., by using Notepad in Windows). The gpx file can also be loaded into someone else's GPS unit so that they can follow your track on the ground.
As a text file, a gpx track is definitely falsifiable. But, loading it into Strava or whatever doesn't change this.
Post by oldskool70 on Jun 13, 2017 15:27:11 GMT -5
Well, I’m glad I read this post…kinda. I’m just a pokey-slow hiker, ultrarunner, MTB, etc who just bought his first GPS watch ( Garmin Fenix 3) & have been mucking with it for ½ a year. I’ve emailed my ‘public’ outings to friends & family and didn’t pay much attention to “the gpx file itself”. I just joined here so I could post a ‘project’ I start on Sunday. Now I am a bit leery as I don’t want to get roasted right off the bat. I did notice on a hike in Cascade that the watch would drop off from the satellite & stop the clock. Ugh! Yeah-it was wasn’t an accurate depiction of the day. I’m am just doing it for fun & thought it would be neat to throw it out there for the speedsters to do as it is a unique trek that someone else could do ‘for-realz’.
Hi, I think we need a bit of clarity here. Is a Strava track (gpx)is ok then is a gps tracker like SPOT really needed? I know GPX files can be messed with but then again who is going to watch a GPS live track for the duration of an attempt. I'm just in the planning stages of a FKT for a local trail thats around 100k its not been run before and as such I would be the first. I would fully expect someone else to then try given it'll be a realistic time. I can understand the need for live tracking with the likes of Bob Graham or R2R where the is real records to be broken but for these "smaller" efforts is it really needed. Lets not forget almost all of the early records like the BGR were only witnessed not tracked.
Post by Peter Bakwin on Jun 16, 2017 13:00:33 GMT -5
It's up to you. I'm trying to give the best guidelines I can. If you report a gpx track after your run and someone decides to question you, well, it will be much less defensible than a real-time track such as SPOT, DeLorme, or one other real-time tracking apps for your phone (which will only work when you have cell coverage). Personally, I don't understand why some people are resistant to using a SPOT or DeLorme tracker. The safety aspect alone makes these inexpensive (I mean, how much do you pay for your phone?) devices extremely worthwhile.
I think it depends on the place your running. In my case a area that is close to settlements most of the way as its a river trail it not really worth my while. I expect the resistance is the cost and I can absolutly see the need out in the wilds. As a interesting side point to this and along the whole Strava line. If you take photos with a gps enabled device, i.e your smartphone it geotags them and when you upload them with your GPX file so Strava it places them on the route. So if you take a photo of yourself say and your watch showing say the date and the distace it would add more validity to your track. Just a thought. I think I'm getting a bit over excited on the whole proving it thing! I've got to run it first!
Post by Peter Bakwin on Jun 16, 2017 15:03:40 GMT -5
Real time tracking has a major advantage (assuming the track is provided to an objective third party at the time of the event) in that it would be hard to falsify. Robert Young showed you *can* cheat on a highway, but on trail, well I guess you'd have to have someone carry the tracker for you. A gpx file can be modified or even flat out faked. Any geolocated picture is also just a file that can be modified, photoshopped, have its attributes changed, etc. In short, a file on your computer or phone isn't as good as something that goes to the internet in real time. If you don't want to use a satellite tracker, and if you're in cell service, use a tracker app on your phone.
My personal opinion - having a live track, publicly posted beforehand, allows others to come verify what you are doing out "in the field". Just knowing that someone might be watching should provide incentive to be legit. It's another measure of verification that you're actually doing what you say you are (someone else isn't carrying your tracker, e.g.). One downside is the weight of the thing. But if everyone carries one, then it's more fair.
Most of what I do is in the wilderness, often in places where it would be awhile before anyone found my bleached bones. I recently started carrying an emergency rescue beacon, but I would be creeped out carrying a public real-time satellite tracker. I would probably carry one if I were trying to set an FKT for one of the popular through-hikes, which attract professionals and money, but fortunately I don't do those things.