That doesn't work at all - as far as the site is concerned, the only place it's ever heard of with the same name as my village is a town in the US.

It's hardly a disaster, but I think it would quickly start to irritate me that I can't just go straight to my home, without dragging the map around. I think I'll stick to walkjogrun for now - it does everything I really need it to do and at least it's heard of where I live

__________________
Cautiously potter-along puddy

I use map-my-run, and the same thing happens when I key in the post code... nearly 2 miles out! But it only takes a couple of seconds to navigate back to where I need to be. The advantage that this system has over the ordinary Google Earth site is the fact that as you plot your route, each mile marker is shown on the map, and the map automatically scrolls ahead of you as you approach the edge of the screen. Doddle.

__________________
GONE RUNNING

I must try these websites, at the mo I do my run then clock it in the car.

Oh dear! I'll hide this thread from Mrs Scr8pe, she'd be able to feed off that for weeks. Shes even found a way of recycling egg shells!

I've not come across this one to date. I like the timing checks and the ability to change your pace. It's a pity it doesn't self centralise (er spelling!) and it doesn't follow roads like mapmyrun.

A combination of the two sites would be the perfect alternative to satellite watches

I've used mapmyrun but it measured my usual easy road route at about 1/4 of a mile shorter than it read on my Garmin ... not too sure that its terribly accurate to be honest!

I'd trust mapmyrun over a garmin any day!

I wasn't sure about the accuracy of Google-related measurements, so I found the nearest running track on the map, and measured a lap of that on the inside lane. 400m spot on.
Accurate enough for me.
There does seem to be something of a grey area with regard to how, or if, Google takes into account the amount of climbing and descending that may be involved in a measurement. To all intents and purposes, the Google measurements appear to be done on a flat surface; as it appears on the computer screen. If the elevation isn't considered, then I think that a hilly run will actually be longer than the distance registered. I'm not certain if anyone has come up with a definitive answer to that question (though I may be wrong... But if they have, I've not come across it).

I suppose it's possible to compare two measurements as they appear on the screen, with one being a straight line on a known flat road; the other being a straight line on an incline. Measure a mile (or whatever) on each surface and compare the actual lengths of the lines as they are represented on the screen. If elevation is taken into account, then the inclined measurement should be shorter on the screen.

Maybe I'm wrong. It's a bit early for this kind of stuff, anyway!

__________________
GONE RUNNING

With Garmin data, if you're unsure about it's accuracy, export the data into google earth and it'll show your route as tracked by your garmin - you'd be surprised how distances can vary when you start taking into account things like which way round the roundabout you ran, which side of the road you were on etc... may sounds trivial but it all adds up!

There's also a feature on the Garmin that should tell you to what accuracy it can pinpoint you based on satellite strength... mine got me to within 33ft whilst in the bedroom last night - which I'd say isn't too bas considering I was inside - I'm yet to look at it while running though!

__________________
www.richardsimkiss.co.uk - Site re-launched!

I remember a thread quite a while ago where I'm sure we looked into the various measurement methods and looked at whether they include elevation or not...

thread is at Measurement

To quote myself

__________________
www.richardsimkiss.co.uk - Site re-launched!