Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

how to calculate average gradient of a hill

  • 11-06-2012 04:30PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭


    I want to calculate a hill i recently cycled....how do i work out the gradient for it?I have standard cateye micro wirless comput but it doesn't have a gradient feature on it...can some recommend a wireless computer with a gradient feature that is not too expensive?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,764 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    You need a gps to get gradient.

    The only way to work it out is if you know the distance cycled and the height gained.

    Ride with gps, or strava might be able to give you the answer also.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,510 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    Bike route toaster.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,313 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    Ye Olde Fashioned waye with OS map and a ruler.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,764 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    BX 19 wrote: »
    Ye Olde Fashioned waye with OS map and a ruler.

    Have you seen the price of OS Maps? :eek:

    Does the local library have them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,313 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    Inquitus wrote: »
    Have you seen the price of OS Maps? :eek:

    Does the local library have them?

    They're 8.50 in easons. They used to be 9.50 a couple of years ago but the price has dropped a little bit. I do a lot of hiking/potholing so I've amassed a collection of them by now.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,246 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    BX 19 wrote: »
    Ye Olde Fashioned waye with OS map and a ruler.

    Like, OMG. Can you do morse code too?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,313 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    Lumen wrote: »
    Like, OMG. Can you do morse code too?

    Don't disregard the traditional map, they're very useful.

    And no, I can't do more code, I don't have the patience.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 183 ✭✭Scuba_Scoper


    Lumen wrote: »
    Like, OMG. Can you do morse code too?

    --- ..-. -.-- --- .-. ... . ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,147 ✭✭✭Morrisseeee


    Inquitus wrote: »
    You need a gps to get gradient.

    The only way to work it out is if you know the distance cycled and the height gained.

    Ride with gps, or strava might be able to give you the answer also.

    ..........or a bike computer with an altimeter ;)

    Try Ciclosport, they have models that do gradients or have an altimeter.
    I got lucky with my model, it was on sale on bike24.com and for €110 I got:
    bike computer with altimeter/speed/temperature/cadence/heart-rate-monitor/power,
    and it can be all uploaded to the PC for (ahem cough "expert") analysis.

    Example of a cheap Ciclosport.

    Websites that could help you:
    www.osi.ie
    www.ridewithgps.com
    www.strava.com
    http://bikeroutetoaster.com
    www.mapmyride.com


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭gman2k


    Recreational GPS is unreliable for altitude, BX19 is correct that map and ruler is the best way!
    Altimeters (non GPS) are unreliable also, as they are air pressure dependent, and should be regularly checked against map for accurate altitude fixes based on position.
    Map and compass is not a difficult skill, but not needed for road cycling. I do use map and and compass for reccy on new terrain, with GPS as back up only.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭pc11




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,505 ✭✭✭macnab


    Mapmyride is great for gradients, or just divide the elevation gain by the distance travelled and multiply by 100 for a percentage......simples


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,313 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    gman2k wrote: »
    Recreational GPS is unreliable for altitude, BX19 is correct that map and ruler is the best way!
    Altimeters (non GPS) are unreliable also, as they are air pressure dependent, and should be regularly checked against map for accurate altitude fixes based on position.
    Map and compass is not a difficult skill, but not needed for road cycling. I do use map and and compass for reccy on new terrain, with GPS as back up only.


    Yep, GPS units are totally useless for any accurate altitude fix. The unit itself has to do a load of math on the fly with several factors (google reference ellipsoid for the nerdy explanation) and any interference can throw the height way off. And if you go under a few trees on a wet day? Forget about it. If your only available GPS sats are on your horizon? Your altitude is going to be wildly off. Phones with built in GPS fall into this category.

    The Edge 500 afaik has a barometric altimeter which is accurate enough but is air pressure dependent which can throw it off by a fair amount. I've not a clue how to adjust it. Usually in aircraft etc, it can be adjusted for the air pressure on the day. If you listen to the sea area forecast you can hear it been read out - eg. Belmullet, North-Northwest, 12 Knots, Fair, 26 Miles, 1008, Rising Slowly. The 1008 is the air pressure in Hectopascals. That's what's it dependent on.

    OS map. Old reliable.
    If you don't have them you can use the http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer and zoom into the 1:20,000 scale and screengrab what you need and print it out.

    See what years of mapping does to you? :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Rob A. Bank


    --- ..-. -.-- --- .-. ... . ;)

    I didn't know they allowed foul language like that on the boards !!!

    :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,764 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    BX 19 wrote: »
    Yep, GPS units are totally useless for any accurate altitude fix. The unit itself has to do a load of math on the fly with several factors (google reference ellipsoid for the nerdy explanation) and any interference can throw the height way off. And if you go under a few trees on a wet day? Forget about it. If your only available GPS sats are on your horizon? Your altitude is going to be wildly off. Phones with built in GPS fall into this category.

    The Edge 500 afaik has a barometric altimeter which is accurate enough but is air pressure dependent which can throw it off by a fair amount. I've not a clue how to adjust it. Usually in aircraft etc, it can be adjusted for the air pressure on the day. If you listen to the sea area forecast you can hear it been read out - eg. Belmullet, North-Northwest, 12 Knots, Fair, 26 Miles, 1008, Rising Slowly. The 1008 is the air pressure in Hectopascals. That's what's it dependent on.

    OS map. Old reliable.
    If you don't have them you can use the http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer and zoom into the 1:20,000 scale and screengrab what you need and print it out.

    See what years of mapping does to you? :D

    You can set altitude reference points on your Garmin, like your front door for instance, so it gets an accurate barometric reading at the start of a ride based off you factual altitude.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,313 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    Inquitus wrote: »
    You can set altitude reference points on your Garmin, like your front door for instance, so it gets an accurate barometric reading at the start of a ride based off you factual altitude.


    Now I know. You would have to do that every ride when the weather is different though for it to be dead accurate. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭gman2k


    Inquitus wrote: »
    You can set altitude reference points on your Garmin, like your front door for instance, so it gets an accurate barometric reading at the start of a ride based off you factual altitude.

    You may be ok starting out doing a recalib at a known spot height for example, but that does not mean a constant as a change in pressure over the course of the trip will result in errors.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    gman2k wrote: »
    Recreational GPS is unreliable for altitude, BX19 is correct that map and ruler is the best way!
    Altimeters (non GPS) are unreliable also, as they are air pressure dependent, and should be regularly checked against map for accurate altitude fixes based on position.
    Map and compass is not a difficult skill, but not needed for road cycling. I do use map and and compass for reccy on new terrain, with GPS as back up only.

    What he said, but also...

    If you don't have the OSI maps to hand, you can explore them free on-line by clicking the explore map tab on www.osi.ie (direct linking doesn't work well). This will give you something like the following;

    208583.jpg

    The grid interval (horizontal and vertical blue lines) is 1km, and the contour interval is 10m. The contour at the bottom of ballinagee (the Wall) is 170m and 240m at the top. The plan distance is 625m. The mean gradient as a percentage is 100*(Height difference/plan distance) = 100*((240-170)/625) = 11.2%, though as anyone who has cycled up the wall will tell you the steepest gradient is way more severe than the mean gradient in parts. If you carry out the same exercise at the two contours closest together you see they're 100m apart which yields a 20% gradient for than section. There are very few roads in Ireland that go over this gradient for anything other than a short distance, other than the likes of roads up to masts like Kippure and Mt Leinster. When scaling gradients from contours a rule of thumb is that the accuracy is plus or minus half the contour interval, so using pairs of contours over short distances is not going to be accurate.

    OSi used to have a leisure mapping digital product called TrailMaster which I still use but the coverage is patchy in parts. Most of the other free on-line maps with elevation are based on the SRTM data set, though there are others. The OSi data is still the most accurate data that's readily available.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Inquitus wrote: »
    You can set altitude reference points on your Garmin, like your front door for instance, so it gets an accurate barometric reading at the start of a ride based off you factual altitude.

    Best way to get height data from a portable GPS is to use one that includes contoured base mapping, such as this. You can buy the discovery series for the Garmin 705 and 800 but IMHO they're overly expensive for cycling purposes. A great looking free option would be to put the open street maps on but alas my old Garmin 76cs doesn't have the capacity for these. I wouldn't trust the barometric data from a GPS without same day calibration through two or more points at the range of altitudes involved, and unfortunately my unit only allows a single reference height.

    Oh, and love the new evil logo BTW. Fair play to you boy, gradients need not be of any concern to the likes of you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    Inquitus wrote: »
    You can set altitude reference points on your Garmin, like your front door for instance, so it gets an accurate barometric reading at the start of a ride based off you factual altitude.
    BX 19 wrote: »
    Now I know. You would have to do that every ride when the weather is different though for it to be dead accurate. :)
    If your garmin is on as you leave the house, it'll get an altitude reading and will automatically recalibrate so you don't need to do anything. Dunno if you have to start it recording for this to work or if it just needs to be on.
    gman2k wrote: »
    You may be ok starting out doing a recalib at a known spot height for example, but that does not mean a constant as a change in pressure over the course of the trip will result in errors.
    I wonder does the garmin use multiple readings at reference points to adjust the data in between. So, if you leave the house at 1008hPa and return 3 hours later at 1012hPa, does it adjust the intermediate values to fit? Incidentally, that pressure change equates to 40m of altitude.

    Just having a look at the data for Dublin Airport, the average annual pressure change over 3 hours is 1.1hPa (or 11m) while the average annual max pressure change over 3 hours is about 12.0hPa (or 120m). Highest ever 3-hour change was 18.5hPa (or 185m) on 12th Nov 1991 in the midst of a howling gale (so you probably weren't out on the bike at the time)...


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Garmin reckon the accuracy of their barometer is 10 feet. For the crack, I calibrated mine about 3 hours ago, and sitting on the desk here in my office I've dropped 11m since. Fine if you're measuring big height differences but not great if your trying to measure total distance climbed over a rolling course.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭maloner


    smacl wrote: »
    Garmin reckon the accuracy of their barometer is 10 feet. For the crack, I calibrated mine about 3 hours ago, and sitting on the desk here in my office I've dropped 11m since. Fine if you're measuring big height differences but not great if your trying to measure total distance climbed over a rolling course.

    For my purposes, cycling about the place, I think that is good enough. If you consider that you'd likely do at least 60km in that time, that sort of accuracy is pretty good I think. Given its a consumer product for cyclists and not designed for any sort of professional geographic work.

    I always find that after my loops, the height gained never equals the height lost, but is usually with a few %. Anything less than 5% difference I think is ok. So if I climbed 1000m and descended 950m that'd be ok in my book. Not ideal, but good enough.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭thebourke


    thats for the feedback guys..i just signed up to maymyride.com
    I put in a few climbs i have done...
    Cycle from dalkey to killiiney hill
    Is this a category 5 climb..see the attachment..
    what does the value 7.39 mean?

    I see a few people make reference to a climb called Ballinagee...is this quite tough?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,147 ✭✭✭Morrisseeee


    thebourke wrote: »
    thats for the feedback guys..i just signed up to maymyride.com
    I put in a few climbs i have done...
    Cycle from dalkey to killiiney hill
    Is this a category 5 climb..see the attachment..
    what does the value 7.39 mean?

    I see a few people make reference to a climb called Ballinagee...is this quite tough?

    I wouldn't worry about the 7.39 figure, more about the Cat 5 or 1.4km @ 6.2% !

    Here is the Ballinagee climb on Strava. The nice thing about the link there is you get to see the avg gradient as you progress up the climb.

    Slightly off topic but the OSI maps are good for searching for roads that have potential for climbing, ie. I found Shanrahan Hill and many other steep hills this way. The trick is to find a road that has a load of black lines accross it !! :pac:

    Also on the OSI maps website you can click on the Historic tabs, as seen above on smacl's picture, it has benchmarks BM's of exact height in feet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    smacl wrote: »
    Garmin reckon the accuracy of their barometer is 10 feet. For the crack, I calibrated mine about 3 hours ago, and sitting on the desk here in my office I've dropped 11m since. Fine if you're measuring big height differences but not great if your trying to measure total distance climbed over a rolling course.
    That fits the pressure changes going on at the moment.

    From the rolling course thing, I wouldn't expect you'll lose out much on accuracy. Given 11m over 3 hours, you're going to lose/gain ~1m on a 15 minute climb which should be small change compared with how far you'll climb in that time.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    thebourke wrote: »
    I see a few people make reference to a climb called Ballinagee...is this quite tough?

    Depends on your fitness and gearing. Personally, I find it difficult but doable, largely due to the fact I have some very low gears on my bike. Even then, I'm puffing and panting at the top. Significantly longer and steeper than Killiney hill, but more of a short sharp shock than a serious slog.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭thebourke


    that climb looks scary.....i definitely must try it...


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Slightly off topic but the OSI maps are good for searching for roads that have potential for climbing, ie. I found Shanrahan Hill and many other steep hills this way. The trick is to find a road that has a load of black lines accross it !!

    I've done the same a fair bit, though exploratory trips down lesser used L-roads can lead you onto some very dodgy surfaces. The hill beside the church at Clara vale comes to mind, along with the backroad to ballinagee, and these are practically highways by comparison to some of the smaller Cork and Kerry roads where the term L-road means 'was mostly paved at some time in the past' ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 393 ✭✭-K2-


    Here is the Ballinagee climb on Strava. The nice thing about the link there is you get to see the avg gradient as you progress up the climb.

    Stepaside Lane is very similar to Ballinagee but with an excellent surface.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    cdaly_ wrote: »
    That fits the pressure changes going on at the moment.

    From the rolling course thing, I wouldn't expect you'll lose out much on accuracy. Given 11m over 3 hours, you're going to lose/gain ~1m on a 15 minute climb which should be small change compared with how far you'll climb in that time.

    After some head scratching, and related discussion on the WW200 forum...

    Cumulative error does not equal total error when you are sampling at a regular interval and only counting change in one direction. If I leave my Garmin turned on sitting on my desk for a number of hours where the weather is changing, the barometer reports changes is elevation based on fluctuating pressure. Sampling at a regular interval, positive changes are added to total ascent, whereas negative changes do not affect total ascent. The net result is that the total ascent (cumulative height gained) increases with time, even though the unit has not moved.

    Basically, you have a measurement that includes a certain amount of error, which can be positive or negative. Under normal distribution if the error is random, positive and negative errors balance out, so that the total error and cumulative error are the same. This is not the case if you're only looking at change in on direction, and this would have to be corrected for in software. To be accurate the correction requires multiple calibration points.

    Way easier and more accurate to scale height differences of a map or terrain model.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,889 ✭✭✭feck sake lads


    thebourke wrote: »
    I want to calculate a hill i recently cycled....how do i work out the gradient for it?I have standard cateye micro wirless comput but it doesn't have a gradient feature on it...can some recommend a wireless computer with a gradient feature that is not too expensive?

    inclinomentro_menu.jpg&sa=X&ei=vkjXT4ChLqTAiQfIpYyGAw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHeXxjlwOcZ4cBJPIa87zbU4Vwtrwthere you go.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 138 ✭✭CillianL


    Gradient is the distance traveled on the slope divided by the height so therefore if you travel 100m and gain 1m then the gradient is 1%.

    Also trigonometry helps.
    sine(angle of slope)= height/horizontal distance


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    CillianL wrote: »
    Gradient is the distance traveled on the slope divided by the height so therefore if you travel 100m and gain 1m then the gradient is 1%.

    Also trigonometry helps.
    sine(angle of slope)= height/horizontal distance

    Nope, gradient is the distance you travel in plan over the height you gain. See http://www.mathsisfun.com/gradient.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,889 ✭✭✭feck sake lads


    Just buy that gizmo for feck sake:D:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭manwithaplan


    smacl wrote: »

    If you have to be told that something "is fun", it most probably isn't.

    Nonetheless, that's kind of important about progress being "in plan". Do gps yokes give you your progress in plan whereas yokes calculating wheel revolutions give you a measurement along the jaggedy line of the earth's surface?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,246 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    If you have to be told that something "is fun", it most probably isn't.

    Nonetheless, that's kind of important about progress being "in plan"

    I take your "not fun" and raise it to the power of "not important".


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Do gps yokes give you your progress in plan whereas yokes calculating wheel revolutions give you a measurement along the jaggedy line of the earth's surface?

    Yep, though you need to be hitting some serious hills for it to be a cause for concern. Also, rumour has it that the world is not flat as previously thought, which can lead to yet more complication.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Lumen wrote: »
    I take your "not fun" and raise it to the power of "not important".

    I'll need to call on someone from the labs to explain that one to me ;)

    lyle_beaker.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭sy


    smacl wrote: »
    Nope, gradient is the distance you travel in plan over the height you gain. See http://www.mathsisfun.com/gradient.html
    under ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,246 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    smacl wrote: »
    I'll need to call on someone from the labs to explain that one to me

    fg5d2e5ebf28099fi000a0000770bd020.png

    Source: me


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭Sundy


    smacl wrote: »

    Way easier and more accurate to scale height differences of a map or terrain model.

    Are you saying its more accurate and easier to scale the altitude change off a map rather than use a GPS unit like a Garmin 500?

    Im not so sure really, the mark on a ruler that your would use to measure the distance would represent anywhere from 2 to 20 metres depending what scale map you are using.
    The contour lines them selves are also going to represent a line on the ground of a similar width.

    When you pull all those errors together I think the GPS would win every time.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Sundy wrote: »
    Are you saying its more accurate and easier to scale the altitude change off a map rather than use a GPS unit like a Garmin 500?

    Depends very much on the distances involved, the type of map, the type GPS and corrections used, and the other sources of error at play. For short distances, e.g. 20-30m, or small heigh differences, they'll both be crap. Without decent surveying equipment, I'd say your best bet to measure gradient with the kit you have for shorter distances is to use the magnet and wheel for distances and barometer for height. If you have one of FSLs inclinometers, better still. For height measurement, the quality of the result from the GPS will vary based on satellite availability and geometry, and interference factors such partial blocking of the sky by trees etc... Consumer grade GPS tends to be very poor for height measurement, hence the inclusion of a barometer in the Garmins. The barometer is good for measuring height differences over short periods of times and stable weather conditions, but weaker over long time frames.

    a 1:25,000 map will theoretically let you measure plan position to about 2.5m if you can pick a point to the nearest mm, and height to about 5m or half the contour interval. So for a plan distance of say 1km and height difference of 100m, the main part of my error will be height (e.g. 10m in 100m) or 10% as opposed to 5m in 1km or 0.5% for plan. It is also very repeatable, in that different people will get the same results with the same map on different days.

    The barometer coupled with plan GPS could well do better on average, but how do we know? Maybe some keen mapping / cycling types can keep GPX files from the same circuit over the course of a year and see how the results pan out.
    When you pull all those errors together I think the GPS would win every time.

    You could well be right, though I'd be tempted to try and measure this rather than guess it. With that many boardsies uploading Garmin 500 data to strava and the like, I wonder how easy it would be to pull a bunch of files for the same segment and compare them for variance. A quick search on google doesn't show as much contemporary data as I'd expect.

    FWIW, chatting to another lad on the WW200 forum showed different measurements for total height ascended ranging from 2511m to 3117 m for the same circuit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭Sundy


    Do devices like the Garmin have the ability to receive DGPS corrections? Even then height is still going to be pretty crap.
    Best way to measure elevation is level and staff :-)

    Theoretically 2 two similar gps devices viewing the same satellites on the same point at the same time should get the same location. do garmins output to csv?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Sundy wrote: »
    Do devices like the Garmin have the ability to receive DGPS corrections?

    The receivers can theoretically pick up WAAS and EGNOS corrections but given corrections only went live in June 2011 for Europe, I'm not sure whether they're in common usage.
    Even then height is still going to be pretty crap.
    Best way to measure elevation is level and staff :-)

    Yep, but levelling some of the roads in Wicklow would be a major task. This was the method used to establish the control for most of the older mapping. These days, much easier to borrow a NRTK GPS which will give you about 25mm in 3d for short occupation times.
    Theoretically 2 two similar gps devices viewing the same satellites on the same point at the same time should get the same location.

    Yes, but the results are prone to vary significantly if taken at different times / conditions.
    do garmins output to csv?

    Yup, you can get a GPX file out which is ASCII including WGS84 coords. My older 76CS also can output NMEA0183.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭Sundy


    Are you a surveyor also?

    Haha levelling the roads is exactly why I wouldnt like to have lived when the only option available was theodolite.

    6 months ago I wouldnt have had to borrow a RTK, I could have just done it at the weekend. But even then lack of repeatability used to nearly make me cry!
    I've (thankfully) givin up the field work route :-)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭Sundy


    Can the Garmin be set to receive the Marine DGPS from the Irish lights? Would improve the plan accuracy somewhat.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Sundy wrote: »
    Are you a surveyor also?

    Developing land survey and surface modelling systems for the last 28 years for my sins. Only get out to the field these days for the odd bit of testing, hence getting out on the bike more.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    Lumen wrote: »
    fg5d2e5ebf28099fi000a0000770bd020.png

    Source: me

    Those are interesting slopes/curves, I wonder how you could measure the gradient of them?*

    *Welcome to your Groundhog Day thread


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Donelson


    Could you compare your distance traveled versus you change I'm latitude and longitude, then take the distance traveled as the hypotenuse etc etc etc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭manwithaplan


    Donelson wrote: »
    Could you compare your distance traveled versus you change I'm latitude and longitude, then take the distance traveled as the hypotenuse etc etc etc

    If you did a hill running directly from south to north, you would have a gradient of infinity or something. I'm not sure I could manage that, even on 34-27.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement