None.
Recently, tracking devices have become readily available. Most utilize the Global Position System (GPS) to determine their location. A tracker will, at the very least, record the user's position, and time at that position. The recording is done at set intervals.
Depending on the application, the device may also record other key performance statistics at each position. Cyclists, for example, may record the location along with speed, distance traveled since start, elapsed time, heart rate, pedaling cadence, power output, temperature, etc.
As one travels a route, recorded positions are collected to form a track. The track may represent a run, hike, bike ride, drive, etc. It may also represent a sub-segment of such activities.
Some users want to compare their recorded tracks to others. Take, for example, a competitive cyclist. The rider would like to compare their ride, over a set course, to another rider's. They may also want to compare to their own ride from another time.
There are many software applications available to view a recorded track. Trackers provide a list of numbers, additional software is necessary to make the information meaningful. The software may display the track on a map and/or plot an elevation profile. These applications take a single track and allow one to dissect different properties of that single track only. They do not allow for direct comparisons between tracks.
On Apr. 14, 2009, Strava Inc. released an Internet based application, found at http://www.strava.com, for comparing tracks. The application compares total performance statistics over user defined intervals. It allows one to see how average statistics differed over an interval. However, the application does not allow one to compare specific points along the route, such as at the top of a hill.
Also, Strava's application does not allow one to see how much they were ahead or behind the other user at specific points, also known as a time or distance gaps. For example, rider A reached the top of a hill 15 seconds before rider B. Strava's application only provides a global summary of a track, or track segment.
On Dec. 16, 2009, Peaksware, LLC released a software package known as TrainingPeaks WKO+ Version 3.0. The software allows for the comparison of tracks based on elapsed time only. One can see how they compared after 5 minutes. But it may have taken a different amount of time to reach specific points. Using this software, one can only compare their performance statistics after a given amount of time. They can not compare statistics at specific points or locations, such as the top of a hill or at a given turn on the route.
The elapsed time comparisons approach taken by TrainingPeaks WKO+ Version 3.0 also makes it difficult to compare the same sections of road among tracks. One needs all trackers to start recording at the same time/place. For example, rider A starts their tracker 10 minutes before the start of their race and rider B starts their tracker at the actual start. There elapsed time is now off by 10 minutes and there is no way to realign them without extra information. Location data provides this information and eliminates the need to start the trackers at the same time.
On Aug. 28, 2009, Paul Mach, the inventor, published graphs produced by an early embodiment of this invention on his website. The information can be found at the world wide website http://paulmach.com/090828/195022/. Only the results were provided, no details of the embodiment of the invention were provided.
On May 15, 2010, the inventor again released information about the invention. No details of the embodiment were provided, just the end results produced. This embodiment was different from the one released on Aug. 28, 2009 by providing users a way to interact with the data.
In accordance with one embodiment this invention computes a location based alignment of two tracks. Once aligned, a comparison of performance statistics is made at each position along the track. Time and distance gap information is also computed. The results are then displayed in a table or graph format. This allows the user to see how time and distance gaps changed and how performance statistics differed as the route was traversed.
This embodiment of the invention is described in the context of cycling. However, all the ideas apply to any application where one wants to compare two tracks over the same route. These other applications include, but are not limited to, running, triathlon, hiking, or driving.
In the context of cycling, a track represents a bike ride. Such tracks are collected using a tracker that travels with the cyclist as they ride. The tracker may also record a number of other performance statistics to better analyze the ride. The position, latitude and longitude in this embodiment, and time are the only required items. Speed, distance traveled and elapsed time can be estimated from the position and time.
This invention compares two tracks based on location. If two people ride the same route, we align their tracks so we can compare their performance statistic at physical locations along the route. The location based alignment allows one to also compute time gaps at each location, ie. the difference in time it took each rider to reach a certain point. After time gaps are computed one can then determine the distance gap between the two riders at a given time.
We will consider two different types of comparisons between tracks. The first is called an individual event. For this event each rider starts at a different time and covers the same course. The second is called a mass start event. It involves all riders starting together. In both cases riders strive to complete the course in the shortest amount of time.
The invention consists of three main parts: the alignment of the two tracks (I), the comparison of aligned points (II), and the display of the results in a useful manner (III).
To conclude, the invention takes two tracks, aligns them, compares them and displays the result to the user. This comparison provides up to a second by second comparison of the tracks. Such a detailed analysis is unique to this invention and is useful in many contexts, including cycling, running, hiking, and triathlon.
From the description above, several advantages of one of more aspects are as follows:
Accordingly, the reader will see that the comparison of performance statistics by location has many advantages. By comparing at all locations on the route, one can visualize on a plot where the compared performance statistics changed. A location based alignment is necessary to keep the information in sync. Synchronization of trackers is unnecessary, the location provides that information.
Location based comparison is the pure comparison. For example, at the top of the hill, rider A was traveling 5 mph faster than rider B. This eliminates differences in terrain and weather and ensures both riders have covered the same amount of the route up to that point. Just the riders' abilities are being compared.
Although the description above contains many specifics, these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the embodiments but as merely providing illustrations of some embodiments. For examples, the tracks can represent any case where one wants to compare performances over a set route.
Thus the scope of the embodiments should be determined by the appended claims and their legal equivalents, rather than by the examples given.
This application claims the benefit of provisional patent, application No. 61/377,669, filed 2010 Aug. 27 by the present inventor.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5552990 | Ihara et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
6366927 | Meek et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6453235 | Endo et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6853917 | Miwa | Feb 2005 | B2 |
7080065 | Kothuri et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7454002 | Gardner et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7662064 | Lee et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7756639 | Colley et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7828697 | Oberrieder et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7901292 | Uhlir et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7931562 | Ellis et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7953549 | Graham et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8108139 | Pylant | Jan 2012 | B1 |
8112251 | Case et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8121785 | Swisher et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8271497 | Ikenoue | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8326532 | Kmiecik et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
20010027373 | Bates et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20050033515 | Bozzone | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050049765 | Chetia et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050137871 | Capman et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050250458 | Graham et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050288154 | Lee et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20070208469 | Wille et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070271036 | Atarashi | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070288157 | Peterman | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080033633 | Akiyoshi | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080082254 | Huhtala et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080096726 | Riley et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080167813 | Geelen et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080262717 | Ettinger | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080262721 | Guo et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090043495 | Hattori et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090070035 | Van Buer | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090088962 | Jones | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090204597 | Mani et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090326809 | Colley et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100042427 | Graham et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100062817 | Seydoux | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100062905 | Rottler et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100063904 | Ronen et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100088023 | Werner | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100099437 | Moerdijk et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100131184 | Stanton | May 2010 | A1 |
20100153348 | Perczynski et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100185386 | Hess | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100210421 | Case et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100279825 | Riley et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110003665 | Burton et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110032105 | Hoffman et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110137546 | Roesser et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110208429 | Zheng et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110243431 | Sangappa et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110289031 | Zheng et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110307165 | Hiestermann et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320156 | Oohashi et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120004845 | Kmiecik et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120028761 | Dorogusker et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120095578 | Tchao et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120158668 | Tu et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120209518 | Nowak et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120253488 | Shaw et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120265432 | Ashby | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130006925 | Sawai et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130031049 | Watanabe et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130166049 | Werner et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20140058661 | Choi et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140350850 | Kmiecik et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2008105651 | Sep 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Huang, Weichun, “Accurate anchoring alignment of divergent sequences”, Bioinformatics vol. 22 No. 1 2006, pp. 29-34. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 1), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 2), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 3), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 4), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 5), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 6), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 7), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 8), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 9), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Author Unknown, “RouteBoxer Documentation: Examples” (Step 10), accessed from Archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20100826025922/http://google-maps-utility-library-v3.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/routeboxer/docs/examples. html, archive date Aug. 26, 2010, accessed Jul. 23, 2014. |
Collecting, Processing, and Integrating GPS Data into GIS, 2002, NCHRP. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120053896 A1 | Mar 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61377669 | Aug 2010 | US |