GPS Upgrade - Is it worth it? Does accuracy improve significantly?
Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:45 AM
Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:50 AM
Accuracy shouldn't improve much. Most folks upgrade because of added features like paperless caching or raster map support.
Posted 10 April 2012 - 07:15 AM
We have both units in our household. Buffalo uses the eTrex Venture HC and I have a Colorado 300. I get all the features of paperless caching on my unit, but his accuracy is consistently better than mine. So much so that I am now wondering if I should get a different unit to improve my accuracy. (He also seems to have better cache sense than I do, so that also helps him zero in faster. )
Posted 10 April 2012 - 07:18 AM
There really are only two things that you can do to effect accuracy of your GPSr. Make sure your using one of the high sensitivity chip sets. Your eTrex Venture HC does use a high sensitivity chip set, the SiRFstarIII. Also, make sure that your are receiving at least 4 satellites. The rest you have little control over. Like satellite geometry and atmospheric conditions. When I say atmospheric conditions I am not talking about rain and clouds. I'm mainly referring to the condition (specifically thickness) of the ionosphere.
Posted 10 April 2012 - 10:52 AM
But 2Bdetermined is saying they are getting side by side accuracy differences. I assume the CO also has a high sensitivity receiver, so is the difference in the software?
Posted 10 April 2012 - 12:20 PM
Yes and No.
First off how are they determining accuracy. Are they looking at the Accuracy Readout on their GPSr or are they going by who is closest to the geocache?
I find it amazing that this all works as well as it does. As you know time and measuring time to the millisecond is the essential element that makes the whole GPS system work. There are a number of factors working against accuracy. Atmospheric effect, Multipath effects, Receiver clock error and Orbital error just to name a few. The software has to select what it "thinks" is the best satellites and then convert that data in to coordinates. If both GPSrs are using different satellites then one can be experiencing some factor that degrades it's accuracy that the other isn't.
Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:26 PM
Then cheap Colorado's reemerged on the market via Costco's and Target and other channels, many of them are used as paperweight now.
This doen't mean there are no good Colorado's, if you can find from a friend and you're SURE it doesn't have any defects you're fine, but remember, a gps generation is about 3 years on the moment and maps are expanding every update, they doubled in about 1.5 years so a Sd slot is a must and if I remember right they had a Colorado without a Sd slot.
You're better of searching for an Oregon if you want an older (cheaper) gps.
Once again, I know there are good Colorado's, but bet sure what you buy.
This post has been edited by splashy: 10 April 2012 - 01:35 PM
Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:30 PM
Good point, I never trust that accuracy readout except in as far as it's relative to other readings on the same device.
Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:30 PM
IMO a very nice upgrade would be to an Oregon 450 or 62S.
Posted 11 April 2012 - 10:12 AM
My mistake. I assumed that Garmin used the SiRF tech chip sets. Both brands make high sensitivity chip sets.