Wrong summary Information

[stevek]

I'm glad to hear that the development of Ascent is not 'dead" however there are many features I feel that it is lacking predominately in analysis of the data.
I should like to see many more options such as time spent in pace/HR Zones etc for the summary feature, as well as this being displayed on the Calendar/data display for week/month totals.

I have recently been doing a lot of activities in the gym and would love to be able to show record distance against the time splits I have recorded.
I have recorded the activities also using my polar watch where after downloading to the polar software I can add split distances, Ascent imports and displays the time splits ( which the FR305 import does not do, but does not add the polar split distances which are available in the .hrm file. Weight imports wrong too.)

In examining the summary information (why does it always go to the first activities 6 years ago, not the current weeks/months?), I have a very strange data for week 20th July of this year.
I have enclosed a window grab, (but is the biggest it would let me import(128 picells), i'm sure I have seen bigger images?)

summary2.tiff (53.84 KB) Viewed 405 times

Week 07-20 shows over 12 hours of moving duration, and well over 10000 Kcal burnt (I wish!)

The actual data is that the total moving duration from 6 cycle rides was 4:59:42 and the Kcal burnt 4415

Date/Time,Title,HR Zone1 Time,HR Zone2 Time,HR Zone3 Time,HR Zone4 Time,HR Zone5 Time,Activity,AvgHR,MaxHR,AvgPce,MovPce,Calories,Distance,Duration,ActiveTime
Week of 06-Jul-09,,00:59:11,01:03:58,00:46:59,00:45:13,00:00:00,,119,152,05:41,05:01,4216,69.30, 06:34:12, 06:02:56

Week of 20-Jul-09,,00:55:17,01:36:58,01:03:02,00:00:08,00:00:00,,118,141,03:47,03:14,4415,92.55, 05:51:08, 04:59:42
22-Jul-09 at 08:06:02,To IMG,00:04:16,00:19:02,00:23:40,00:00:00,00:00:00,Cycling,125,140,03:39,03:06,780,15.60, 00:57:05, 00:48:23
22-Jul-09 at 18:09:56,from IMG,00:19:11,00:17:45,00:04:15,00:00:00,00:00:00,Cycling,113,135,03:58,03:29,722,15.50, 01:01:31, 00:54:11
23-Jul-09 at 17:12:39,To IMG (R),00:00:00,00:00:00,00:00:00,00:00:00,00:00:00,Cycling,125,140,03:39,03:06,780,15.60, 00:57:05, 00:48:23
23-Jul-09 at 17:56:11,from IMG,00:15:11,00:17:19,00:09:17,00:00:08,00:00:00,Cycling,115,141,04:00,03:19,727,15.00, 01:00:06, 00:49:54
24-Jul-09 at 08:54:33,To IMG,00:07:33,00:20:13,00:17:45,00:00:00,00:00:00,Cycling,122,139,03:31,03:04,731,15.67, 00:55:07, 00:48:14
24-Jul-09 at 14:34:12,From IMG,00:09:06,00:22:39,00:08:05,00:00:00,00:00:00,Cycling,112,140,03:58,03:20,675,15.18, 01:00:14, 00:50:37

Week of 27-Jul-09,,00:23:26,00:47:02,00:25:09,00:00:09,00:00:00,,119,141,03:52,03:16,1555,31.82, 02:03:32, 01:44:24
Week of 10-Aug-09,,02:55:48,02:19:58,00:54:53,00:02:58,00:00:00,,114,150,04:11,03:40,6564,131.87, 09:12:03, 08:10:30


something is very wrong here!

[stevek]

A happy New Year to you all.

Is this forum still alive and well?, or just resting

Has no one else noticed that the summary info often can't add up?
Some weeks are fine others way out.

In week 28 Dec 2009 I did 7:36:12 duration, 7:14:15 active and burnt 4598 Kcal

The summary info gives approx 6500 Kcal and a moving duration of nearly 11 hours.

Last July is also too high as reported above. Does anyone else see this?

Steve

[axiom95]

I will take a look at my data over the weekend but I haven't noticed anything obvious. To be honest, I have given up on any of these programs being without issues. I am using Garmin Training Center, Ascent and rubiTrack as they all have different strengths and weaknesses. I keep a separate spreadsheet for my "official" totals. I would love a single program that does it all and does it all accurately. Do you find that Ascent reports your maximum speed as being way too high?

Bob

[stevek]

Has none one else noticed that the summary data is often wrong?

Week 12-28 last year shows on the summary data graph as over 10,000 calories burnt and a moving duration of 20 hours.

The actual browser view spreadsheet show 9 activities with a total actual value of 4598 calories and 7:14:15 active time.

looking closer...

On 30.12.09 Browser view gives 2 walks of 56min and 60 minutes with a combined calorie count of 900 calories, which is correct

If I switch to calendar view in addition to the second walk at 22:57 time I can see two cycles at the same time with the same walk distance and tracks
If I try to delete one of them I get the beach ball for a short time, then they are back!

Two other extra duplicate activities also show only in calendar view for the 23.7.09, not in the browser view, which gives a faulty summary graph for week 20th July.

Doesn't the browser view and calendar use the same data base? What is the summary using?

Steve

[stevek]

Has none one else noticed that the summary data is often wrong?

Week 12-28 last year shows on the summary data graph as over 10,000 calories burnt and a moving duration of 20 hours.

The actual browser view spreadsheet show 9 activities with a total actual value of 4598 calories and 7:14:15 active time.

looking closer...

On 30.12.09 Browser view gives 2 walks of 56min and 60 minutes with a combined calorie count of 900 calories, which is correct

If I switch to calendar view in addition to the second walk at 22:57 time I can see two cycles at the same time with the same walk distance and tracks
If I try to delete one of them I get the beach ball for a short time, then they are back!

Two other extra duplicate activities also show only in calendar view for the 23.7.09, not in the browser view, which gives a faulty summary graph for week 20th July.

Doesn't the browser view and calendar use the same data base? What is the summary using?

Steve

[axiom95]

Steve,

I did a "spot" check on some summary data and I didn't see anything obviously wrong. Sorry, but I can't be much help.

Bob