Completed

Display distances to two decimal places

Strava - please display distance measurements to 0.01 of a km/mile, instead of the current limitation of one tenth.

The existing granularity of just one tenth of a mile makes it very difficult to meaningfully compare activities, especially for runners where it takes some time to cover that distance.  I'm sure cyclists would also appreciate the change.

This limitation has been identified in a number of threads as the reason people use other apps so should be of concern to Strava.

102

Comments

167 comments
  • Well, the pinned official update is from April, but Elle originally responded in Dec 2016.

    Why someone can't change

    sprintf("%.1f")

    to

    sprint("%.2f")

    is a bit beyond me.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Dear Strava Support, Please enable the displaying of two decimal places on your otherwise great app.  I wear a Garmin 935 and sync it to Garmin Connect.  I also sync Garmin Connect to Strava.  The Garmin watch and Garmin Connect app both display distance in two decimal places but Strava does not.  This is disappointing and would seem to be a straightforward update to improve user experience.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Just laziness at this point?  GPS and GLONAS aren't accurate enough?  C'mon, add a decimal, join the accuracy revolution!

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • This needs to be updated on the android wear app. I find running to a tenth of a km so frustrating when tracking using my watch and the strava app.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • So much better for track interval training! Thank you!

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Thank you, I appreciate the additional digit on the web site.  It is an improvement, and definitely nice when reviewing workouts, AFTER the fact.  We still need the additional digit on the app for real time.  Think of it this way.  Let's say you are a walker and walk at 4 miles per hour.  The first indication you get, on the app, that it is actually recording distance comes in 1.5 minutes.  Now assume the same level of notification for someone riding a bike at 20 miles per hour.  The only distance updates they would get would be for each half mile.  Do you think this would be acceptable? 

    It is also worth noting that 1) more accurate distance is being used to update "Split Average Pace" which is displayed on the app and continually being updated and 2) there is plenty of space on the display to show the hundredths digit.  So, since the data is available, PLEASE share it with us in real time.  

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • @Mark 8RiderI am not sure what kind of device you use but I get very consistent mileage with my Suunto Ambit3 which is one of the best in terms of accuracy, if not the best, GPS watches currently available. I do the same few routes regularly and the mileage usually comes within 0.01-0.02 miles. There are outliers occasionally but I find the distance to be consistent in general. 

    But the main problem with not displaying hundreds of the mile was the way Strava rounded the result. It was quite annoying to see e.g. exactly 3.00 miles on my watch and then see that run displayed as 2.9 miles on Strava because the actual distance measured by the watch was something like 2.997. At least now Strava would display it as 2.99.

    The right solution that I doubt Strava would implement is to display a varied precision depending on the distance - 0.01 for distances up to 10 miles, 0.1 miles for distances above 10 miles. I think that would satisfy everyone. And while Strava is at that it should finally do the proper rounding. 

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Missed a 10k pr by .01 miles because the mobile app still only shows to one decimal place. Changing it on the website doesn't help people who rely on their apple watch display to determine when their run is over. 

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Has anyone noticed despite over 100 posts complaining there is very little action and even fewer responses. Whilst I enjoy using Strava it is very limited in suitable functionality and they appear unwilling to deal with the issues.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I'm disappointed this hasn't been added. I've now downloaded RunKeeper on the advise of a previous post.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Badly need this in the app, and for manual activities. Can’t believe this is taking so long and requires so much feedback.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Making it available on the website only is pointless - I can't see that until I get home! The time I need the 100th is when I'm out running. The distance between 10th of a mile - or a kilometre - is just too big. Mapmyrun/endomondo don't seem to have any problem showing that level of 'granularity' on their app.  

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I can’t imagine what would warrant so much caution about making this simple change.

    First of all, not having feature parity between different versions of your app (web app and mobile app) is confusing at best; but really it’s just plain annoying. Either way, it leads to a bad user experience.

    Next, it’s not as if that additional decimal would introduce any wild inaccuracies. Showing 1.19 when the actual distance was 1.22 or 1.16 would be more accurate than showing 1.1. To guarantee that truncating was more accurate than the recorded distance, you’d have to know that phone GPS receivers overshot by more than .05 miles or kilometers every time, which is absolutely not the case and would be proportional to total distance anyway.

    Besides, since you’re willing to show two decimals on the website, that tells me accuracy isn’t what you’re worried about in the first place. So clearly you have another reason for hiding the second decimal in the app. I just don’t see how it could possibly be a good one.

    Now consider this scenario of a former couch potato who’s just decided to run their first 5k. Due to GPS inaccuracies and various other factors, the recorded distance ends up being 3.099 miles. Right off the bat, that’s a disappointment. But Strava chooses to take it one step further, telling that user/customer that they ran .11 miles short of a 5k, thus stripping them of their sense of accomplishment, possibly discouraging them, and generally making them feel bad about themselves. They were looking forward to bragging about it, but now they don’t want to share their activity on social media, because a 5k isn’t 3 miles. Well done, Strava.

    Is that an unrealistic exaggeration? You can already see from this thread, it’s not uncommon for people to get upset over missing .1 mile. So why risk alienating your user base, when you have nothing to gain from your decision? People don’t use products that make them feel bad about themselves, period.

    Lastly, and perhaps most tellingly, just about every fitness app out there shows distances to the second decimal. I’ve *never* seen anyone complain, “I really wish this app only showed a single decimal!” Now look at Strava. Pages upon pages of complaints about the missing decimal, spanning years.

    If this isn’t a no-brainer, I don’t know what is. At the very least, round to the nearest tenth.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • As a Strava premium member, I am very disappointed that Strava does not show .01 on the mobile IOS app or AppleWatch.  After so much time and so many users requesting this feature enhancement, it's left me wondering whether Strava cares about what their customers want.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I think it took them 5 years to add the second decimal on their website, then another year to add it to their phone apps. Just be patient and I’m sure in another year or two they’ll find time to add it to their watch apps as well.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I thought I had seen recently that you changed the decimal showing to the hundreth.  Eager to FINALLY get this, SO HAPPY that Strava listened to us (going back to 2015 on this thread!), I updated my iPhone and...alas...still just to the tenth. 

    What is the matter?  Is your GPS software so inferior that it's not accurate to the hundreth?  Did you hire programmers who failed math?  Have you been aquired by Adidas and this is just a cynical ploy to get us all to switch to Runtastic? Did your R&D department forget their login password?  I agree with Derek above: FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY....THIS IS HOLDING YOU (and your loyal fitness enthusiasts) BACK!!!

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Mine shows hundredths on iPhone XS Max. Maybe they only found time to add the extra digit on iOS or on larger screen sizes (because a single digit takes up so much space).

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I have given up waiting for Strava to update to two decimal places so I am going to try Runkeeper which does offer two decimal places in distance.   

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Sorry, but the issue has NOT been resolved.   I downloaded the latest Strava app update just yesterday (April 4, 2019) and it’s still only one decimal place in the app!!!!

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I agree that distance should be reported to 0.01 miles on the Apple Watch.  Also, it would be great if the font for distance and heart rate were a little larger so that they're easier to see while running.  The font for the pace could be shrunk a bit to make more room.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • +1

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I agree with this. For that reason I'm ditching my Strava Premium and going back to Runtastic.

     

     

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Strava definitely stores the information to 2 decimal places. If I export a GPX of the activity and import into another service it reports the correct distance to 2 decimal places.

    Please fix this!

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Oh yes, please! If that gets changed, Strava will be fantastic! Thank you for your work and happy new year to the Strava team!

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I decided to check the accuracy of my GPS watch (Epson SF-810) for several of my recent runs, mostly about 5 mile runs. In every case, the distance given by the watch was within about half a percent of the actual distance. Another article I read, using data from thousands of marathons run by people wearing GPS watches, showed the vast majority measured the distance about 0.2 miles long. Much of that error was probably not running the ideal tangents. Even so, the measurements were within 1% of the actual distance on certified courses.

    There is plenty of evidence that most GPS watches will be accurate within 1% on typical routes. Two decimal places is reasonable for that kind of accuracy. You are basing your decision making on incorrect and outdated articles. You need to stop making excuses and fix the problem.

     

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Here's another link showing that GPS watches are generally accurate within 1% of the total distance:

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2016/apr/15/course-accuracy-why-your-gps-watch-isnt-infallible

    Scroll down to the two charts. The chart near the end shows data on nearly 7,000 runners who did a marathon. Probably 90% of them showed a distance within 1% of the marathon distance. Keep in mind that most of those runners were running in a crowd and were not able to run the shortest distance on the course, the one measured when certifying the course.

    I take partial exception to the earlier description of the error of each GPS reading. Consider two possibilities. First, if each GPS reading has a small random error from your actual position, that will lead to some segments being long and some segments being short. Those errors will cancel over time. Or perhaps the GPS errors at each reading will be off systematically, perhaps always showing you 10 meters further north than you actually are. Those kind of errors will not have much effect on the measured distance.

    Based on the data in this article and my own checks of my runs, it seems reasonable to assume that under normal circumstances, GPS will measure within 1% of the actual distance run. If that is the case, that would allow two decimal places for distances under 10 miles.

    What I want to see from Strava is:

    1. Lap distances should show 2 decimal places and should be rounded to the nearest hundredth. What they do now results in huge errors when I do a fartlek workout, things like .29 miles showing as .2 miles.

    2. Total distances under 10 miles should show 2 decimal places. GPS is accurate enough to support this under most conditions. Do not penalize everyone for the worst case scenarios like running among skyscrapers or in a dense forest.

    3. Round all distances. When I emailed support they said they truncate so distances match goals. That makes no sense. They should show the most accurate number.

    These suggestions seem reasonable. I would like to have someone from Strava respond.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Please add two digits! That is the only drawback I have seen so far on Strava

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I don't know how I can trust Strava numbers anymore. It is not just the distance - it is also the time and the pace, and calories, and vertical ascent. 

    Today's run - 3.10 miles on my Suunto Ambit, 3.10 miles in movescount, 3.0 miles on Strava. However when I look at splits on Strava activity there is an extra 0.1 mile split, so according to splits it is 3.1 miles.

    Furthermore - time on movescount is 28:24. On Strava - moving time is 28:17 and elapsed time is 28:21. How come elapsed time is different?

    Pace is 9:09/mile on movescount and 9:08/mile on Strava.

    Calories is 381 on movescount and 504 on Strava.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Another +1. Two reasons - frustrating to reconcile data since Strava truncates and over 20 or so activities in a month, it's off by a mile, give or take, causing me to wonder if I have a goof somewhere. Also, comparing individual efforts creates too much variance.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Didn't find what you were looking for?

New post