Forum rules
Please always provide all needed information to identify your problems. Screenshots and detailed descriptions makes it easier for us to help
elske
Runalyzer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue 6. Sep 2016, 17:32

Race results for inexact distances

Sun 15. Mar 2020, 16:22

Many small races do not have a distance that corresponds exactly to one of the major distances, e.g. a 5k might be 4.9km or 5.1km long.

What's the best way to deal with this with regards to the race results? The options I have found so far are
  1. Enter the exact distance into the race results. Disadvantage: the race is not shown as a PR in the "competition" view
  2. Enter the rounded distance into the race results. Disadvantage: The times are not quite comparable.
  3. Enter the rounded distance and an estimated time for the correct distance into the race results. Disadvantage: the real time gets lost
Is there any other option I have missed?

If not I would like to see a feature where the times of races which are almost one of the major distances are estimated for the major distance in the competition view.
0 x

User avatar
laufhannes
Core developer
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon 29. Jul 2013, 20:59

Re: Race results for inexact distances

Sun 15. Mar 2020, 19:22

elske wrote:
Sun 15. Mar 2020, 16:22
Enter the exact distance into the race results. Disadvantage: the race is not shown as a PR in the "competition" view
My personal point on this: A 4.9k result is not a 5k race and thus not a 5k pr. If I want to run a pr, I only select races that are 'officially measured' or where I'm sure that the distance is really 5k.

If a race is officially stated as 4.9k (or 5.1k), do you really think that distance is 'exact'? Measuring the distance by gps or with a bicycle will never be exact, so you don't even now if 4.9k is right or if it's only 4.8k. That's why I - personally - won't estimate a 5k pr from a 4.9k race.
0 x
User help -- short questions via Twitter, Facebook

elske
Runalyzer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue 6. Sep 2016, 17:32

Re: Race results for inexact distances

Sun 15. Mar 2020, 20:03

laufhannes wrote: My personal point on this: A 4.9k result is not a 5k race and thus not a 5k pr. If I want to run a pr, I only select races that are 'officially measured' or where I'm sure that the distance is really 5k.
While I absolutely see your point, for me that would leave a few races each year at most. The main thing I'm missing is seeing my actual shape compared to the prognosis in the graphs as well as seeing my yearly progression in the competition tab. It's not about an exact PR, but rather seeing my approximate shape in that year at a glance.
laufhannes wrote: If a race is officially stated as 4.9k (or 5.1k), do you really think that distance is 'exact'? Measuring the distance by gps or with a bicycle will never be exact, so you don't even now if 4.9k is right or if it's only 4.8k. That's why I - personally - won't estimate a 5k pr from a 4.9k race.
I do know that you will never know the exact distance when the race is not measured according to the official guidelines. By collaborating the distance from GPS, rebuilding the course on a map and looking at the times of other participants it is still possible to get a best estimate. There is clearly some margin of error, but I think it is still good enough to get an impression of what your own performance was.
0 x

Return to “Discussion, Feedback & Questions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests