not
not
Not true for hills on straight roads. Its a bit counter intuitive but visualize a 45 degree hill. More points will just give you more right triangle hypotenuses to add versus the shorter leg of the triangle.
another banned poster wrote:
The accuracy of elevation of course depends on the density of waypoints. It draws straight lines between waypoints so if you're manually plotting a course it's up to you to zoom in close enough and click every few meters if you're running in hilly terrain. If you use the "follow roads" feature it does it for you.
Google maps seems way more accurate than my Garmin based on the waypoints.
If you need to include elevation data I believe google maps (or maybe google earth) has this. If not you can get it from various sources...I have used the USGS data and found it to be fine for my purposes. Basically you draw out your route in google maps/earth copy and paste that link, and it will return a spreadsheet of all the points (lat, lon, and elevation). You can then plot in 3d, compute distance, etc. to your heart's content.
For simple web route mapping, I use
, which uses google maps.
Google earth's also is accurate and flexible. Correlates well with GPS with clear sky.
another banned poster wrote:
Depends on how accurate you are. If you're mapping out a trail run you'll probably map some straight lines where you're running a curve. So it'll be too short. If you're mapping out a run in the city it's probably too long since you'll be cutting some corners when you run.
It's worse than that. Charting waypoints on google maps isn't equivalent to wayz.
If OP is seeking accuracy, a stopwatch and landmarks is your best bet.