Jump to content

Am I expecting to much?


Recommended Posts

Been geocaching for 2 years using my phone and c:geo. While I'll grab urban caches I've found myself leaning towards more caches that are in the woods. I know that a gps only gets you close, then you put it away and just look but after being frustrated by the bouncing on my phone I bought an eTrex 20x. Not top of the line,but all the budget could afford. Turned on waas and glonass then went out to test it. I loaded up 4 caches that I knew were hidden by someone that used a GPSr to test. The eTrex walked me up to the two that were under open sky, but it bounced as bad as my phone when under a canopy. Did I miss a setting in the unit or will there always be major bouncing under a canopy?

Link to comment

In my experience GPS enabled smart phones can beat a handheld GPSr hands down in an urban environment with tall buildings - mainly because the phone will also use cell triangulation to enhance its calculations - and urban environments with tall buildings tend to have lots of cells which help this process.

 

I find that a handheld GPSr tends to do better in rural environments and under tree canopy but anything around you that is tall will tend to throw off the signal - tall trees, quarry faces etc.

 

The worst environment for me seems to be a wooded area with lots and lots of densely packed, tall, thin trees - GPS can be next to useless, but in an established woodland with well spaced mature trees GPSr performance is always pretty good in my experience.

Link to comment

Been geocaching for 2 years using my phone and c:geo. While I'll grab urban caches I've found myself leaning towards more caches that are in the woods. I know that a gps only gets you close, then you put it away and just look but after being frustrated by the bouncing on my phone I bought an eTrex 20x. Not top of the line,but all the budget could afford. Turned on waas and glonass then went out to test it. I loaded up 4 caches that I knew were hidden by someone that used a GPSr to test. The eTrex walked me up to the two that were under open sky, but it bounced as bad as my phone when under a canopy. Did I miss a setting in the unit or will there always be major bouncing under a canopy?

 

 

my experience with bounce has been only near large obelisk type land formations, or deep in valleys next to flat surfaces. it's a condition of multiple reflective signals with the same time stamp, and the GPS not sure how to handle the variations in them.

 

in heavy tree cover, while moving, i have not seen bounce. i would imagine (speculation) that there are large rocks/similar that are giving repeated ping reflections , and causing the bounce.

 

what you've discovered is that BOTH stand alone and smartphones suffer from bounce exactly the same, when it's caused by land formations.

 

look at the devices, neither of the hand held GPS devices you mentioned have a two meter antenna sticking up through the canopy, so when you see similar results, you're basically verifying what testing has shown:

there is no difference in accuracy between modern devices, stand alone or smartphone.

 

 

the really bad thing to realize is that the cache placer also likely saw that kind of bounce! did they average, or just toss the cache and record the cords after half a minutes effort? you'll never know.

 

what you can do to verify your location matches the caches listed cords(correct or not) is to use waypoint averaging. your stand alone should have a function for averaging, and i know your smartphone does. you can average two or three times, if you like, to make sure you had be reliable cords, and then move in the direction you think you need to, average again, repeat. this has gotten me to within a cache that was more than forty feet off, on more than one occasion. making a note about bad cords didn't have a result, so i gave up on the process.

 

you can end up within 4-5 feet, or less, depending on land masses, with averaging. give it a try. :-)

Link to comment

Been geocaching for 2 years using my phone and c:geo. While I'll grab urban caches I've found myself leaning towards more caches that are in the woods. I know that a gps only gets you close, then you put it away and just look but after being frustrated by the bouncing on my phone I bought an eTrex 20x. Not top of the line,but all the budget could afford. Turned on waas and glonass then went out to test it. I loaded up 4 caches that I knew were hidden by someone that used a GPSr to test. The eTrex walked me up to the two that were under open sky, but it bounced as bad as my phone when under a canopy. Did I miss a setting in the unit or will there always be major bouncing under a canopy?

 

 

my experience with bounce has been only near large obelisk type land formations, or deep in valleys next to flat surfaces. it's a condition of multiple reflective signals with the same time stamp, and the GPS not sure how to handle the variations in them.

 

in heavy tree cover, while moving, i have not seen bounce. i would imagine (speculation) that there are large rocks/similar that are giving repeated ping reflections , and causing the bounce.

 

what you've discovered is that BOTH stand alone and smartphones suffer from bounce exactly the same, when it's caused by land formations.

 

look at the devices, neither of the hand held GPS devices you mentioned have a two meter antenna sticking up through the canopy, so when you see similar results, you're basically verifying what testing has shown:

there is no difference in accuracy between modern devices, stand alone or smartphone.

 

 

the really bad thing to realize is that the cache placer also likely saw that kind of bounce! did they average, or just toss the cache and record the cords after half a minutes effort? you'll never know.

 

what you can do to verify your location matches the caches listed cords(correct or not) is to use waypoint averaging. your stand alone should have a function for averaging, and i know your smartphone does. you can average two or three times, if you like, to make sure you had be reliable cords, and then move in the direction you think you need to, average again, repeat. this has gotten me to within a cache that was more than forty feet off, on more than one occasion. making a note about bad cords didn't have a result, so i gave up on the process.

 

you can end up within 4-5 feet, or less, depending on land masses, with averaging. give it a try. :-)

 

The first cache was under the canopy near large rock formations. The hider mentions in the cache description that they averaged the coordinates over 600 times and that there would be problems with GPS signal. The second one had no large formations, but was in the middle of a densely packed wooded area and the hider made no mention of averaging. I had similar results with both caches, constantly being moved over a 60 foot radius. I'm not expecting 4-5 foot but when you're looking for a micro in the woods it would be nice to get within 15 feet. I'll try averaging, thanks for the tip.

Link to comment

Been geocaching for 2 years using my phone and c:geo. While I'll grab urban caches I've found myself leaning towards more caches that are in the woods. I know that a gps only gets you close, then you put it away and just look but after being frustrated by the bouncing on my phone I bought an eTrex 20x. Not top of the line,but all the budget could afford. Turned on waas and glonass then went out to test it. I loaded up 4 caches that I knew were hidden by someone that used a GPSr to test. The eTrex walked me up to the two that were under open sky, but it bounced as bad as my phone when under a canopy. Did I miss a setting in the unit or will there always be major bouncing under a canopy?

 

 

my experience with bounce has been only near large obelisk type land formations, or deep in valleys next to flat surfaces. it's a condition of multiple reflective signals with the same time stamp, and the GPS not sure how to handle the variations in them.

 

in heavy tree cover, while moving, i have not seen bounce. i would imagine (speculation) that there are large rocks/similar that are giving repeated ping reflections , and causing the bounce.

 

what you've discovered is that BOTH stand alone and smartphones suffer from bounce exactly the same, when it's caused by land formations.

 

look at the devices, neither of the hand held GPS devices you mentioned have a two meter antenna sticking up through the canopy, so when you see similar results, you're basically verifying what testing has shown:

there is no difference in accuracy between modern devices, stand alone or smartphone.

 

 

the really bad thing to realize is that the cache placer also likely saw that kind of bounce! did they average, or just toss the cache and record the cords after half a minutes effort? you'll never know.

 

what you can do to verify your location matches the caches listed cords(correct or not) is to use waypoint averaging. your stand alone should have a function for averaging, and i know your smartphone does. you can average two or three times, if you like, to make sure you had be reliable cords, and then move in the direction you think you need to, average again, repeat. this has gotten me to within a cache that was more than forty feet off, on more than one occasion. making a note about bad cords didn't have a result, so i gave up on the process.

 

you can end up within 4-5 feet, or less, depending on land masses, with averaging. give it a try. :-)

 

The first cache was under the canopy near large rock formations. The hider mentions in the cache description that they averaged the coordinates over 600 times and that there would be problems with GPS signal. The second one had no large formations, but was in the middle of a densely packed wooded area and the hider made no mention of averaging. I had similar results with both caches, constantly being moved over a 60 foot radius. I'm not expecting 4-5 foot but when you're looking for a micro in the woods it would be nice to get within 15 feet. I'll try averaging, thanks for the tip.

 

if you save that cache owner to your list of favorites, you'll probably have good results searching for their caches.... they realized that some areas are going to have poor triangulation, tested it themselves, and will likely be happy to help out if/when needed. go hiders do that kind of thing, and let you know about problems in the description. i know WE appreciate that when we read about problems they had when hiding because of land formations. :-)

 

good luck

Link to comment

Just as a point of correctness, it's trilateration, not triangluation....

 

DyverDown

 

Been geocaching for 2 years using my phone and c:geo. While I'll grab urban caches I've found myself leaning towards more caches that are in the woods. I know that a gps only gets you close, then you put it away and just look but after being frustrated by the bouncing on my phone I bought an eTrex 20x. Not top of the line,but all the budget could afford. Turned on waas and glonass then went out to test it. I loaded up 4 caches that I knew were hidden by someone that used a GPSr to test. The eTrex walked me up to the two that were under open sky, but it bounced as bad as my phone when under a canopy. Did I miss a setting in the unit or will there always be major bouncing under a canopy?

 

 

my experience with bounce has been only near large obelisk type land formations, or deep in valleys next to flat surfaces. it's a condition of multiple reflective signals with the same time stamp, and the GPS not sure how to handle the variations in them.

 

in heavy tree cover, while moving, i have not seen bounce. i would imagine (speculation) that there are large rocks/similar that are giving repeated ping reflections , and causing the bounce.

 

what you've discovered is that BOTH stand alone and smartphones suffer from bounce exactly the same, when it's caused by land formations.

 

look at the devices, neither of the hand held GPS devices you mentioned have a two meter antenna sticking up through the canopy, so when you see similar results, you're basically verifying what testing has shown:

there is no difference in accuracy between modern devices, stand alone or smartphone.

 

 

the really bad thing to realize is that the cache placer also likely saw that kind of bounce! did they average, or just toss the cache and record the cords after half a minutes effort? you'll never know.

 

what you can do to verify your location matches the caches listed cords(correct or not) is to use waypoint averaging. your stand alone should have a function for averaging, and i know your smartphone does. you can average two or three times, if you like, to make sure you had be reliable cords, and then move in the direction you think you need to, average again, repeat. this has gotten me to within a cache that was more than forty feet off, on more than one occasion. making a note about bad cords didn't have a result, so i gave up on the process.

 

you can end up within 4-5 feet, or less, depending on land masses, with averaging. give it a try. :-)

 

The first cache was under the canopy near large rock formations. The hider mentions in the cache description that they averaged the coordinates over 600 times and that there would be problems with GPS signal. The second one had no large formations, but was in the middle of a densely packed wooded area and the hider made no mention of averaging. I had similar results with both caches, constantly being moved over a 60 foot radius. I'm not expecting 4-5 foot but when you're looking for a micro in the woods it would be nice to get within 15 feet. I'll try averaging, thanks for the tip.

 

if you save that cache owner to your list of favorites, you'll probably have good results searching for their caches.... they realized that some areas are going to have poor triangulation, tested it themselves, and will likely be happy to help out if/when needed. go hiders do that kind of thing, and let you know about problems in the description. i know WE appreciate that when we read about problems they had when hiding because of land formations. :-)

 

good luck

Link to comment

Just as a point of correctness, it's trilateration, not triangluation....

 

DyverDown

 

Been geocaching for 2 years using my phone and c:geo. While I'll grab urban caches I've found myself leaning towards more caches that are in the woods. I know that a gps only gets you close, then you put it away and just look but after being frustrated by the bouncing on my phone I bought an eTrex 20x. Not top of the line,but all the budget could afford. Turned on waas and glonass then went out to test it. I loaded up 4 caches that I knew were hidden by someone that used a GPSr to test. The eTrex walked me up to the two that were under open sky, but it bounced as bad as my phone when under a canopy. Did I miss a setting in the unit or will there always be major bouncing under a canopy?

 

 

my experience with bounce has been only near large obelisk type land formations, or deep in valleys next to flat surfaces. it's a condition of multiple reflective signals with the same time stamp, and the GPS not sure how to handle the variations in them.

 

in heavy tree cover, while moving, i have not seen bounce. i would imagine (speculation) that there are large rocks/similar that are giving repeated ping reflections , and causing the bounce.

 

what you've discovered is that BOTH stand alone and smartphones suffer from bounce exactly the same, when it's caused by land formations.

 

look at the devices, neither of the hand held GPS devices you mentioned have a two meter antenna sticking up through the canopy, so when you see similar results, you're basically verifying what testing has shown:

there is no difference in accuracy between modern devices, stand alone or smartphone.

 

 

the really bad thing to realize is that the cache placer also likely saw that kind of bounce! did they average, or just toss the cache and record the cords after half a minutes effort? you'll never know.

 

what you can do to verify your location matches the caches listed cords(correct or not) is to use waypoint averaging. your stand alone should have a function for averaging, and i know your smartphone does. you can average two or three times, if you like, to make sure you had be reliable cords, and then move in the direction you think you need to, average again, repeat. this has gotten me to within a cache that was more than forty feet off, on more than one occasion. making a note about bad cords didn't have a result, so i gave up on the process.

 

you can end up within 4-5 feet, or less, depending on land masses, with averaging. give it a try. :-)

 

The first cache was under the canopy near large rock formations. The hider mentions in the cache description that they averaged the coordinates over 600 times and that there would be problems with GPS signal. The second one had no large formations, but was in the middle of a densely packed wooded area and the hider made no mention of averaging. I had similar results with both caches, constantly being moved over a 60 foot radius. I'm not expecting 4-5 foot but when you're looking for a micro in the woods it would be nice to get within 15 feet. I'll try averaging, thanks for the tip.

 

if you save that cache owner to your list of favorites, you'll probably have good results searching for their caches.... they realized that some areas are going to have poor triangulation, tested it themselves, and will likely be happy to help out if/when needed. go hiders do that kind of thing, and let you know about problems in the description. i know WE appreciate that when we read about problems they had when hiding because of land formations. :-)

 

good luck

 

a small army could stay busy correcting my daily mistakes.

 

you probably already gathered that. ?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...