Originally Posted by
njkayaker
This illustrates it better. I'm assuming your "samples" are every 1 second.
I pointed the same thing a couple of days ago.
GPS Distance errors
Real measurements would not be quite as neat. The real locations hop around quite a bit.
I don't think this would help much. The variation is going to be constant. You'd just get more noisy points with increasing the sample rate at a lower speed.
It would be better to have smaller location variation.
right, illustrated at one second with perfect accuracy. on modern GPS devices with a clear line of sight to the sky i actually don't see much of the wandering that used to characterize GPS paths. the accuracy drifts for sure relative to the actual location but the points are quite good relative to each other.
if you were going very fast and turning, more samples would help. looking at actual traces, i see quite a few chamfered 45 degree corners which cut across an area which is not road, even through the air sometimes on a winding mountain road. at 100 feet per second, lots can happen between samples. but typically the smoothness of the path increases as speed goes up, which is why my example is from a low speed u-turn.
it would take a VERY windy and fast path to get even close to an overall 1% variation though; a very steep ascent and decent (10%?) would give you another half a percent at best.