I do not follow your meaning. I wrote that many riders use their phones as bike computers, which, I thought, requires the GPS functions. You called that a 'silly assumption.' I pointed out that the statement was not an assumption; rather, the statement was based on data. (BTW, you can check the data with the search function.)

My argument that GPSes are less reliable than sensors for distance and speed is based not on my difficulties but on data. You can't check the data about my rides, but you certainly can find lots of authoritative warnings that consumer-level (and probably military) GPSes don't do well under canopies of leaves, and leaves aren't the only obstacles.

That argument is pretty clear, and pretty clearly not silly or inane. If you disagree, fine ... come back with some facts and logical interpretations of those facts..

You started this dialog with an insult. You followed with 'silly,' 'inane,' 'please pay attention', and with 2 sentences that I find incomprehensible. I might respond if you post something on topic and understandable. I won't respond to more posts like #113.

And please don't quote me again. I really don't like the notifications.