I'm no expert but...
was it not designed for cycling originally? The moving time function is good for cycling as you do inevitably spend time not moving due to traffic lights, etc.
If you want elapsed time, just look at your watch :-)
Alternatively, if you're interested in your time over a set route, why not set up a segment? They only allow elapsed time AFAIK.
I guess a creating a segment is an option. My issue is that comparable runs are not comparable so that would do it, although in reality I just look at AP instead.
It would be better if the not moving time was at all related to reality, but it appears to just be made up.
What is the plot like for speed? Presumably the speed it was getting was at some point below some threshold they have.
In IpBike I spent quite a bit of time tweaking the thresholds and adding in an altitude component so for running / walking it did not have me stationary when walking up a steep hill slowly with my Mum and Dad. Sadly when I upload to Strava they ignore the times I give them and work it out wrongly themselves...
Average speed for the run is about 5 mins/k. There are a couple of not very steep hills where I slow down to about 5:45/k. There were no hold ups for traffic.
last week I did the same run at more or less the same speed and moving time is the same as elapsed time. It doesn't make any sense.
But what is the speed plot like when uoi look at the analysis in Strava? is that a nice consistent speed like you think you were doing or is it actually all over the place...
That’s odd, doesn’t happen for me on a normal run (eg today has same time on Garmin Connect, Strava, and AP....latter two were an auto upload from the first). Are you manually uploading to Strava or auto-uploading from Garmin Connect?
The speed plot is generally ok but does funny things in places I guess. Auto uploading from Suunto movescount. I'm not that bothered.
Strava is not perfect.
And do you care really what Strava says. How did the run feel?
I think we're too obsessed with all the tech.