Strava or map my ride ?

[Fixed]

I am just starting to use these ,is one more popular than the other ?
Cheers :)

[sandyrs]

I don't have data to back this up but I have anecdotal "evidence" that Strava is much more popular. It definitely has more of a social aspect to it, and the inclusion of segment leaderboards seems to attract a lot of people to using it regularly. Some complain that Strava is ruining cycling but ultimately, you're the user and have the ability to ignore or pay as much attention as you want to the competitive aspects of the site. I like it because it allows me to keep track of time on the bike, including trainer rides, in a really convenient way, and being able to review my week of riding helps motivate me to keep pedaling (indoors or out) despite nice weather being a long way off in this part of the country.

[Lewis Moon]

I am just starting to use these ,is one more popular than the other ?
Cheers :)

Both have their "charms". I log with Strava and explore routes with MMR.
Performance data comes from the CycleOps freeware.

[sandyrs]

Ridewithgps is also great for mapping routes. Their interface seems to be faster on my computer but mileage may vary.

[henrypretz]

Another one to check out is ridewithgps.com

To me the route planning feature works better than the other two (although I haven't used the others for that in a while)

edit to add - sandyrs and I posted at the same time :)

[FlashUNC]

Strava. The segments alone are worth it for exploring new routes.

[Netdewt]

I have used both and like Strava better. There also seem to be more cycling people on it which is nice. Maybe MapMyRide does this too, but I like that Strava connects easily with Garmin data.

[GuyGadois]

Strava, and it keeps improving all the time. I like using it on runs and hikes too.

[kramnnim]

I hate MMR, the site is so bloated and frustrating to use. I use rwgps to plan/map routes, and Strava once they have been ridden.

[MattTuck]

I hate MMR, the site is so bloated and frustrating to use. I use rwgps to plan/map routes, and Strava once they have been ridden.

+1000.


The segment feature on strava is nice for planning, but I found their actual route planner tool less useful than ridewithgps

[foon]

Agreed with MMR being bloated and slow.

Ride with GPS automatically makes a nice cue sheet if you use their route planner, but their elevation calculations are much more exaggerated comparing to other mapping services.

Strava is decent. I'm not too interested in the social networking part, but it's a useful tool for logging and finding new routes.

[oliver1850]

I don't have GPS. I use MMR and RWGPS. Tried both a couple of days ago, MMR worked better for me. I have the "create" link saved to my browser, which helps get me to where I want to go with no ads. I just now went there, mapped a 50 mile ride, named and saved the route. I was done in 3.5 minutes.

I've never tried Strava. Does it have any advantage for someone without GPS that has no interest in how fast someone rode a segment?

[Mr. Pink]

So, what GPS unit are some using here to link up with these services? I'm looking at a Garmin 800. I'm guessing that the 800 and Strava is a nice marriage for finding new rides and downloading to my handlebar.
Right now I use MapMyRide to record rides, and research rides to download on paper, but the above combo seems to be the new way to go. I've noticed that some tour companies in Europe, especially the self guided tours, are offering loaded Garmins with the service.

[MattTuck]

I've never tried Strava. Does it have any advantage for someone without GPS that has no interest in how fast someone rode a segment?

Not really. One think that might be useful with their segment tool, is it lets you see other people that rode that segment and the rides on which they rode the segment. So, for instance, if you were looking at a particular climb, then you could see the routes other people took to get there, see what other climbs they may have done. Just helps with route planning a little.

Other than that, I'm not sure if the other sites have a similar segment search tool. I like being able to find new climbs in the area, and strava lets me do that.

[gmcampy]

I hate MMR, the site is so bloated and frustrating to use. I use rwgps to plan/map routes, and Strava once they have been ridden.

+10,000 used to use MMR solely till I got saved...LOL

[oliver1850]

Not really. One think that might be useful with their segment tool, is it lets you see other people that rode that segment and the rides on which they rode the segment. So, for instance, if you were looking at a particular climb, then you could see the routes other people took to get there, see what other climbs they may have done. Just helps with route planning a little.

Other than that, I'm not sure if the other sites have a similar segment search tool. I like being able to find new climbs in the area, and strava lets me do that.

I do like to search out hills, but I use the DeLorme Gazeteer for that. It's easy to look over a whole county or section of a state in little time at all, just look for where roads cross multiple contour lines. Can you view large areas on Strava and easily see where the steep and long grades are without additional mouse clicking?

[MePaleo]

I'm a big fan of Strava. The way the segments are set up make it real easy to track and compare your PRs. There is an estimated power output, but I'm not sure how it is calculated or how accurate it is.

[MattTuck]

What town are you near? I'll send you a link.

[kramnnim]

I'm a big fan of Strava. The way the segments are set up make it real easy to track and compare your PRs. There is an estimated power output, but I'm not sure how it is calculated or how accurate it is.

It's calculated based on weight, distance, elevation gain, speed, so it doesn't account for wind, the big guy pulling in front of you, etc...but it's somewhat accurate on long climbs.

[ais99spoke]

Another callout for ridewithgps effectively replacing MMR. Both are very different tools from Strava, but RWGPS just does it better. Either way, i find if i'm making routes more than 150-200 mi, i have to split em up into a few seperate ride segments too keep the browser from getting too bogged down...

[ceolwulf]

I'm a big fan of Strava. The way the segments are set up make it real easy to track and compare your PRs. There is an estimated power output, but I'm not sure how it is calculated or how accurate it is.


Can you do all that with the basic free account?

[oliver1850]

I joined Strava to have a look at it. Don't know where they get their elevation data, but some I looked at is grossly inaccurate. This climb:

http://www.strava.com/segments/5173621

shows the max elevation as 2539'. The highest elevation in the county is 877'.

[zmudshark]

I joined Strava to have a look at it. Don't know where they get their elevation data, but some I looked at is grossly inaccurate. This climb:

http://www.strava.com/segments/5173621

shows the max elevation as 2539'. The highest elevation in the county is 877'.
I think they messed up feet vs meters. You can report it to them and they'll fix it.

Strava is usually pretty good, it gives more in the free version than the others, and way more in the paid version.

[MePaleo]

Can you do all that with the basic free account?

With the free account, you get your own segments and PRs but can't compare them to other riders or previous segments without a little work. I don't see the power reading anymore for free, so that must be a premium feature now. The free version does have an activity summary page that shows your averages for rides, distance, time, speed and then you can get more granular looking at the segment details of any ride. I'm cheap, so still on the free version.

[kramnnim]

Hmm, I'm also using a free Strava membership, and am still able to view/compare personal and other members' efforts. The new ride summary page is a bit different, but I don't think they removed anything...I ride with a PM so I can't tell if the estimated power is gone, but from what I've gathered, the paid/premium features are mostly either fluff/not very useful, or available elsewhere with something like Golden Cheetah. (with premium, you can compare your times with others in the same age range and/or weight...and set goals for yourself, like riding 100 miles/week or 300w for 5 minutes)

I guess they did recently partner with Sufferfest, and have videos available to premium users?

The elevation data goofs are often from when a Garmin user stops the unit and resumes later on, after the atmospheric pressure has changed...the Garmin sees the change as a sudden climb. Strava automatically creates segments out of what it thinks are significant climbs. And as mentioned, they will fix it if you bring it to their attention...

Overall, the free service they provide seems to be worth a few bucks a month, not sure how they make money...unless there are more premium members than it seems?

[Davist]

Strava recently gave a month of the premium service as well. I took them up on it, but unless you have a power meter/hr meter/cadence, etc, it's lost on me (purely recreational guy, though raced mtb/bmx heavily in the past), though others might find it useful. The free features and social aspects are good in my opinion as others have stated. Use with iphone, others sometimes report discrepancies (like excessive high speed 70mph on flats) which I haven't seen or noticed, just an fyi.

[oliver1850]

I think they messed up feet vs meters. You can report it to them and they'll fix it.

Strava is usually pretty good, it gives more in the free version than the others, and way more in the paid version.

Doesn't seem logical, as the number should be higher in feet than meters. I've ridden that hill 50 times. When I mapped it on MMR, it shows as 70' gain in .3 miles, and the elevation data looks consistent with contour maps that were done by survey.

[zmudshark]

Doesn't seem logical, as the number should be higher in feet than meters. I've ridden that hill 50 times. When I mapped it on MMR, it shows as 70' gain in .3 miles, and the elevation data looks consistent with contour maps that were done by survey.Here's what I see:
693m
Lowest Elev
774m
Highest Elev
82m
Elev Difference

Substitute f for m and I bet it's close.

[kramnnim]

It's just bad data, for whatever reason. This looks like it is probably right- http://www.strava.com/activities/26568622#1509125553 (if the link works...it's Scott Johnson's ride data)

[kramnnim]

Okay, I was playing around with the route builder (http://www.strava.com/routes/new) and for some reason the elevation data in the Kewanee area is way off...it thinks everything is at 2k-3k instead of ~700. Not sure what topography data Strava is pulling from, but it's clearly off, so anything recorded with the Strava smartphone app or other GPS without an altimeter (like the Edge 200) is going to show incorrect data for the area. Weird.

[oliver1850]

Here's what I see:
693m
Lowest Elev
774m
Highest Elev
82m
Elev Difference

Substitute f for m and I bet it's close.

I see:

2350'
Lowest Elev

2615'
Highest Elev

264'
Elev Difference

Conversion doesn't seem to be the whole story, unless I've forgotten how long a meter is.

2350/3.281' = 716.3

2615/3.281' = 797.1

797.1 - 716.3 = 80.8

The first time I clicked on that climb it said .3 miles, average grade 16%.
This time it says .5 miles, average grade 10%.

Something screwy going on with metric conversion and default unit selection, as .5km x .6 miles/km = .3 miles. Looks like it's doing the conversion but not changing the units.

John, is your default setting metric? I haven't looked around for the setting, but assume it can be changed. Maybe if I changed to metric default, I'd see what you see, but that doesn't explain why they don't convert.

Mark: Yeah, I noticed the elevations are off for other climbs in the area. If you 30 miles or so east, over by the IL River, the elevations are right:


http://www.strava.com/segments/6136101

[OtayBW]

Ridewithgps is also great for mapping routes. Their interface seems to be faster on my computer but mileage may vary.

Another one to check out is ridewithgps.com

To me the route planning feature works better than the other two (although I haven't used the others for that in a while)

edit to add - sandyrs and I posted at the same time :)

Agreed with MMR being bloated and slow.

Ride with GPS automatically makes a nice cue sheet if you use their route planner, but their elevation calculations are much more exaggerated comparing to other mapping services.

Strava is decent. I'm not too interested in the social networking part, but it's a useful tool for logging and finding new routes.

Another callout for ridewithgps effectively replacing MMR. Both are very different tools from Strava, but RWGPS just does it better. Either way, i find if i'm making routes more than 150-200 mi, i have to split em up into a few seperate ride segments too keep the browser from getting too bogged down...
Yes, yep, yup, and uh-huh!
MMR is bloated. RideWithGPS much better, IMO.

[bloody sunday]

i use strava now. used to love mapmyride because they rate climbs in an easy to read/see way, but strava all the way because of my Garmin unit.

[bcm119]

I see:

2350'
Lowest Elev

2615'
Highest Elev

264'
Elev Difference

Conversion doesn't seem to be the whole story, unless I've forgotten how long a meter is.

2350/3.281' = 716.3

2615/3.281' = 797.1

797.1 - 716.3 = 80.8

The first time I clicked on that climb it said .3 miles, average grade 16%.
This time it says .5 miles, average grade 10%.

Something screwy going on with metric conversion and default unit selection, as .5km x .6 miles/km = .3 miles. Looks like it's doing the conversion but not changing the units.

John, is your default setting metric? I haven't looked around for the setting, but assume it can be changed. Maybe if I changed to metric default, I'd see what you see, but that doesn't explain why they don't convert.

Mark: Yeah, I noticed the elevations are off for other climbs in the area. If you 30 miles or so east, over by the IL River, the elevations are right:


http://www.strava.com/segments/6136101

https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20965883-Elevation-for-Your-Activity
Some helpful info above.

Major elevation errors you see on Strava and similar sites are usually a problem resulting from the altimeter in the collection device and failure to cross check the values with underlying digital elevation models (USGS DEM in the US). I use the Strava app on my phone to record rides and that method pulls elevation values from underlying DEMs, which I think is superior to elevation data collected from altimeters on GPS devices. In the lower 48, elevation data is available at pretty high resolution now, 10 meters in most areas, and I assume that's what Strava and RWGPS pulls from. Minor discrepancies in elevation (Z) values are usually a result of differences in GPS horizontal point locations (XY) or collection intervals.

[559Rando]

Can Siri launch/control Starva?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[bcm119]

Okay, I was playing around with the route builder (http://www.strava.com/routes/new) and for some reason the elevation data in the Kewanee area is way off...it thinks everything is at 2k-3k instead of ~700. Not sure what topography data Strava is pulling from, but it's clearly off, so anything recorded with the Strava smartphone app or other GPS without an altimeter (like the Edge 200) is going to show incorrect data for the area. Weird.

That looks like a unit conversion error. The actual elevation on that segment appears to range from about 690 to 765 ft according to older topo maps. My guess is that the underlying elevation data is actually in feet, but Strava assumes it is in meters, and converts it by multiplying by 3.28. Most elevation data is in meters, so it usually makes sense to do the conversion. They need to identify where their data is actually in feet and bypass the conversion. I'm surprised though, the latest 10 meter resolution DEMs are all in meters.

[oliver1850]

That sounds logical to me.

I did map it again to varify that it's in whatever database they use, and not the result of uploaded altimeter data.

http://www.strava.com/routes/126253

I got another set of figures, still way off from reality:

min elevation:
2293'

max elevation:
2461'

gain:
184'

[j_roe]

user friendly-ness strava for sure. used to used MMR but there is so much more support for strava which makes ease of use great.

[rzthomas]

Strava is where it's at. On a basic level, the software just works better. No bloat, no junk. The iOs app works wonderfully and doesn't drain the battery very badly (I got a six hour ride out of a full charge and had 10% left on my iPhone 5).

The social aspects are great, too. I've relocated a few times in the past years for jobs and I've used the service to meet with new riding partners.

Also, the route/segment explorer tool is wonderful for traveling or finding good places to travel.

[dgaddis1]

Another Strava user here. The new route planner is cool, but does need some work, as mentioned by others.

One aspect I like that no one has mentioned yet - tracking mileage per bike, and even components. It allows you to see how many miles you got out of a set of tires, chain, bar tape, cables, whatever.

And I do like the social media aspect, as far as keeping up with your buddies and seeing how much they're riding, where, etc.

[CDM]

Not really. One think that might be useful with their segment tool, is it lets you see other people that rode that segment and the rides on which they rode the segment. So, for instance, if you were looking at a particular climb, then you could see the routes other people took to get there, see what other climbs they may have done. Just helps with route planning a little.

Other than that, I'm not sure if the other sites have a similar segment search tool. I like being able to find new climbs in the area, and strava lets me do that.

I really dont get this. If you want to compete then just do it. If you want to test yourself just do that. But if you want to sort of compare yourself and sort of compete with people who sort of rode the same route...? Really?

[josephr]

additional questions - asked similar question before the holidays and just getting my stuff set up --- I remember someone mentioning before to use the open source maps as they have the elevation lines. Other than being free, are there othe bennies? any drawvbacks?
Joe

[kramnnim]

I really dont get this. If you want to compete then just do it. If you want to test yourself just do that. But if you want to sort of compare yourself and sort of compete with people who sort of rode the same route...? Really?

For me, there are a few local climbs, and there are no official hillclimb time trial type events that include them. But a lot of riders do go all out on these climbs, and it's interesting/fun to compare your efforts to theirs. It's not like I'd ever compete with these Pro/1/2 guys directly, anyway. It's just for fun. And like Matt said, Strava makes it easy to see how other riders got to the climbs by looking at the rest of their route. What's not to get? :)

[kramnnim]

additional questions - asked similar question before the holidays and just getting my stuff set up --- I remember someone mentioning before to use the open source maps as they have the elevation lines. Other than being free, are there othe bennies? any drawvbacks?
Joe

When I tried them, I could not get the unit to let me enter a target location. The store type points of interest were lacking, and the map detail was not great. But I live in the middle of nowhere.

I'd say it's worth trying them, and if they aren't for you, get the Garmin maps.