[NoboruWataya]

Out of interest, what is the argument for reducing resolution other than space concerns? Fitness data is not really space-intensive. I recently ran a marathon and the associated GPX file is less than a megabyte; the FIT file is about 180KB. I don't really think even 30 years of regular running data would come to much. I appreciate cycling data will take more space but not that much more.

My point is, it seems like once you have put in place the habits and technological solutions necessary to store fitness data, it actually takes more effort to reduce the resolution of older data. I'd rather have data and not want it than want it and not have it, but then I am an almost pathological hoarder so maybe it's just me.

[hvgk]

It’s mostly the ability to be able to locate it afterwards i.e. to improve the signal to noise ratio. I track hikes I do with a GPS and keep the GPX files afterwards but generally don’t refer to them unless uploading curated copies to OS Maps here in the UK for other people to use. So after a few years I nuke them. As for health data, it’s quite large. My apple health data is around 100 Meg compressed now and a lot larger, in the order of 1Gb, decompressed.

I am not a hoarder as a counterpoint. I am always looking at ways to reduce what I have and remain focused. I lived with a hoarder in a house full of trash and don’t want to be that person to someone else. He also had 4TB of photos and videos that needed to be dealt with.

I think at the end of the day my life can probably be compressed to a few images and a few paragraphs…