When I only use one device in the tracking list, everything seems to give me correct data. The problem is when I add a second device into the mix like this:
Other info: HA getting location data of the phones from life360 and the data in HA for both phones show the correct coordinates for the phones’ current locations. The zones in question are 10 miles apart.
Using the above configuration and with phone1 physically in zone1 and phone2 physically in zone2, the system correctly says the distance to zone2 is 0 miles, and lists phone2 as the nearest device.
However, the distance to zone1 is incorrectly listed as 10 miles, while phone2 as the nearest device.
I would have expected the zone1 state to have been zero with phone1 as the nearest device. Is there some reason the system is using the wrong device to evaluate against that zone?
Also, the value to the “tolerance” field, is it always meters or does the unit_of_measurement affect the unit of that field?
Then lower your threshold so that the sensor updates at a higher frequency. With a position of 50, you’d have to have a device tracker that moves quite a bit for the calc to reoccur. If that doesn’t work, file an issue on github.
I thought maybe the phone not moving for a while may have caused the issue. So I took a walk with phone1 so that I went outside zone1. Once I left zone1, the sensor correctly showed phone1 as the closest phone with a value of 0. However, once I walked back into the zone, the sensor switched back to phone2 as being the closest at 10 miles away. What else is interesting is that phone2 in zone2 is not seeing this behavior (that is, it doesn’t seem to be ignored when in the target zone).
One difference I did look at is that phone1 is actually tracked via the Android HA app, while phone2 is tracked with life360, but I’m not sure that makes any difference.
To close the loop on this problem. I finally just deleted all the zones and all the proximity entries involved. When I recreated the zones I used different names than the first time, then redid all the proximity entries. After that, everything worked as expected. Don’t know why.
