Minimum Segment length ?

[Ian]

I noticed that someone recently asked that the minimum length of mountain bike Segments be decreased and the post was quickly archived by an admin on the basis that reverting Strava changes could not be discussed.

I have some sympathy for the poster - I was also somewhat frustrated by the recent increase in minimum length of bike Segments from 300m to 500m.  In my area there has been some good competition over Segments about 400 to 450m in length but such Segments can no longer be created or edited (the change happened as I was working on a new Segment of about 450m - it now finishes closer to a T junction than I would like but editing is no longer possible).

I don't remember seeing any requests from Strava users for such a change in the previous Strava Support forums so I wonder if someone at Strava could give some background to their reasons for making the change and their methodologies for determining minimum Segment lengths for each Activity type ?  Clearly measurement accuracy is a factor on shorter Segments, but even on a 300m bike Segment the accuracy should be within a couple of % which seems OK.

[MakeStravaGreat]

Why are we now paying for Strava yet getting features taken away? This is ridiculous. Minimum length should be 100m at the least. My local mtb trail network consists of about 20 trails all under 500m in length. Its really disappointing that i cant make segments on them. Surly u can bring this feature back Strava. This is a huge reason why me and my friends use strava. So we can vs each other.. now we cant even do tha

[MakeStravaGreat]

Why are we now paying for Strava yet getting features taken away? This is ridiculous. Minimum length should be 100m at the least. My local mtb trail network consists of about 20 trails all under 500m in length. Its really disappointing that i cant make segments on them. Surly u can bring this feature back Strava. This is a huge reason why me and my friends use strava. So we can vs each other.. now we cant even do that. 

[tmac]

Add me to the list of frustrated users.  I was wondering why a short but steep road segment (400m and 90-160 seconds to complete for most riders) wasn't listed and wanted to see how I was progressing but was foiled by the length rule.  I fear Strava is slipping back to the dark days from a few years ago where they did everything they could to alienate their most loyal paying customers.

[DerekJ]

Most of the earlier replies to this thread say it all. From an mtb perspective, many potential segments are short in length but not in time taken to complete due to the technicality and skill required to ride them. The 500m rule is crazy and only encourages new segment makers to artificially change the start/end points to meet the requirement. This devalues the segment. 

[Wvv]

Sad evolution. Some streets are 400 meters long where a 300 meter sprint is perfectly possible. Such as the street where I'm moving to later this year. Wanted to make a segment to honour it, sprinted all out, but I can't even create the full street as a segment anymore since it's too short. And yes, for off-road cycling it's even worse.

I hope the Strava board will turn this decision around. Sincerely.

[dogofob]

As a mtbr myself I'm wondering where all these poor people live with only 300m long trails to ride.  That's sad.  Even here in backwater NC we have cities with MTB trails longer than that!  As for the idea making exceptions for MTB and ceding to "downhill" road segments being a challenge.  1.)  MTB trails are often obscured from the sky by trees and   2.) MTB trails are often much more convoluted, introducing more error in the track.  3.)  Sprinters rarely see anything close to 500m in the close of a race so we're screwed if we use Strava for performance tracking.  Rather than use this as another opportunity to segregate ourselves like newbs, lets just agree this decision is a huge fail on Strava's part.  There is nothing preventing Strava from recording segments under 500m other than pure stinginess.  By lengthening the segments minimums they have to maintain fewer segments.  It's a purely finance-driven decision.

[dogofob]

This new minimum length has nothing to do with "accuracy of timing" but it certainly does degrade riders' safety when they can't shorten an unsafe segment that ends right at an intersection.  Fwiw - modern GPS units can track speed over 100, 200 and certainly 300m very well.  No, the change likely has to do with the execs wanting to save money on infrastructure overhead required to track a lot of short segments.  I wish they'd just say so if that's the case instead of lying to their customers.  I came upon this post after trying to create a safer version of a favorite hill whose segment ends right at a busy intersection.  Often I sit two meters from the end of it waiting on the light and cars in front of me.  I tried to shorten it by ten meters and found out I can't make anything close to this segment anymore thanks to their unilateral change.  With recent price hikes and other unsavory corporate behavior recently, I'll certainly be on the lookout for Strava's competition.

[dswest]

i'm not certain that your premise is correct. On Garmin, yesterday, I created an uphill sprint segment that I calculated to be 482m long. Today, someone clocked that segment at 48.5mph. This is clearly a recording error. Two other people broke 40mph. If you look at those people's rides, most did not even break 30mph even going downhill. So, perhaps there is some merit to timing accuracy claim...i'm going to have to do some research.

[anchskier]

@dswest - Are you sure it was a recording error and not just a case of someone not turning off their GPS after getting in the car and driving the segment?  Usually, when I see speeds in the 40-45mph range, it is simply because they had forgotten to turn off the GPS when they finished their ride and drove home.