Jump to content

Grasscatcher

Members
  • Posts

    1114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Grasscatcher

  1. "Argh............ please read what I wrote.".......???????? What's that all about? An algorithm just does mathematically what can be done in other ways....but never mind ...I'm through...
  2. Not exactly. Usually the DEM data is quite coarse and will miss small changes and the exact peaks and valleys. A GPS with barometer should be much more accurate. I easily could be wrong, but I would think that the "exact peaks and valleys" in the GPS data is exactly what data that would get eliminated in the "smoothing". ....and every GPS that I own has a barometer......
  3. What I have found, doing this before. The best results are using a unit that has a barometer as GPS elevation can be very erratic in poor reception conditions. Next, the best results are thorough smoothing of the data while determining the proper peaks and valley points. I don't know if any programs have this more advanced functionality. I use spreadsheets. By plotting the trackpoint location from the GPS data, and getting the elevation data from the map DEM data, isn't that doing the same thing as "smoothing" the track data as you would do in a spreadsheet?
  4. You're correct on both counts RMB. IMHO aggregate ascent would be total ascent. Yes, TC is Garmin Training Center The difference between total ascent and total descent should be the difference in elevation between start and finish. That is approximately what it shows on the trail I did.
  5. I just used TC on a hiking trail file and also used TOPO to do a Profile...same file. TOPO says 1448 Ascent-248 descent TC says 1725 ascent-531 descent Topofusion says 2162 ascent -995 descent all on exactly the same file data................so......? I think that the TOPO profile is the closest to actual.....here's why ...the different softwares are using the GPS trackpoint data with all it's small, point to point variations. The TOPO plots the coordinates of all the trackpoints but takes the DEM elevation data from the digitized map data.
  6. Look on my profile and send me a PM with the track file attached. GPX file? I'll plug it to NG TOPO and do a profile that I think will be pretty accurate. Only you will know if the answer passes the "smell "test. (does it make sense, seem accurate ?) Hey, look at post above. That may be the easiest. I'm still happy to do it also for a comparison.
  7. Are you wanting to determine this info strictly on your Oregon or is it acceptable to determine this info after you get home ...on your PC? As RMB said above, you can do it on your unit but you sure have to be careful to "clear" before you start, and read data immediately when complete. Otherwise, other data ( like"trip to" or "trip home" or ??? )may get included and confuse the issue. I haven't done a comparison in accuracy between Unit results and Software at home results, and it sounds like RMB has. Hey Red, How do /did you determine which method is most accurate? .....i.e. closest to "actual"?
  8. Go to main menu, tracks, enter. At the top of the Track list page, look to see which Track Log option (on / off) has the bullet in it. If it is in the "on" position, tracks should log automatically .
  9. Everybody loves a WA............ Notice the date on that one? I was hoping , with the passage of time, that someone else may have come up with a new idea. I guess the answer to that is now obvious.
  10. I already have a second antenna , a Garmin 25C, so I don't want or need yet another. Neither do I want to throw away what would be a perfectly good antenna except for a mickey mouse broken connector.....which ought to be easily replaced. I guess I'm just from the old school and think that broken things should be repaired if possible instead of thrown away. The key there is "if possible".......
  11. I thought this would be a simple task......was I ever wrong! I need to find a 90 deg. MCX connector end to replace a damaged one on the coax of a Garmin 27C external antenna. Radio Shack says Huh? What's that? No listing ... Garmin says, Duh, we don't know....Try Radio Shack....yeah right! I can only find bulk wholesale places that have them on the internet. Anyone got an idea where? Anyone ever have to replace one? It would probably take about 2 minutes to whack the coax and crimp a new one on with the correct size crimpers. Coax is 174a I believe.
  12. Eneloops......the only way to travel. Always charged and ready to go. No surprises... 1 MH C9000 Charger & total of 20 Eneloops for 3 GPSs, 1 Digital camera, 2 Ham Radios with AA Packs (6+4)
  13. Note the words "Quad Helix" antenna in the specs..... Missing in the 78 specs.....
  14. Solid 51 or hollow? Take it outside turn it on and let it "soak" for a new almanac. After the update my 550 first started up with a blank almanac. Then acquired a full new one from left to right full screen width. Others had no WAAS either until after "soaking"
  15. 3.51 b on my 550 and it looks like it also went to 4.46 GPS firmware I don't remember what FW was previously
  16. Forget the WAAS on the Oregon beta.......HOW DOES WAAS PERFORM ON THE 78 ????? How quick does it lock and does it maintain lock when moving and under any cover?
  17. No pics true, but there are pics of the back of the unit and arrows pointing to the two "flaps" and identifying what's under what.
  18. Here's an experiment that anyone can do for themselves. On an Oregon , after power on, watch the EPE drop lower and lower while sat signals are required, and it will level off and settle at some value before WAAS lock is attained. As soon as WAAS lock is acquired , the EPE number will immediately /or at least very quickly drop by 1-2 ft or 1 meter more. Also, IMHO the unit logs a "smoother" /more repeatable track while receiving WAAS corrections. (with WAAS lock) That is pure opinion, no scientific tests done. The above can only be done with a Oregon/Dakota etc because a 60 / 76 series (side by side with the O/D )acquires and maintains a WAAS lock so quickly and solidly that it's a moot point. Note: in the new 78Series manual, it refers to WAAS accuracy as being 3-5 meters(95% of time). Elsewhere in Garmin info you'll find it describes expected accuracy for "WAAS compatible" units to be <3 m. Just watch....."they" are laying the groundwork to eliminate the reference to improved accuracy with WAAS.
  19. Where and when did they say THAT? From what I recall reading here, someone called Garmin tech support and that's what they're told. Having worked with tech support folks (both supporting them from engineering, as well as from the receiving end when dealing with my ISP), all I can say is take what tech support tells you with a grain of salt. They don't always have the full story. And it is possible that this particular tech support guy got his story from a firmware engineer I'm the "someone"...... In a 20+ series of e-mails with Garmin ...me complaining and B-ing about lack of WAAS.... and doing a direct comparison with my 76CSx side by side. In one of their responses they (CS) said, that the Engineers said, it was due to "Antenna Design". I have previously posted that e-mail. They also tried to say that if the accuracy was <45 ft then the user was receiving WAAS and all was working...BS. (By Garmins own data on accuracy for WAAS capable units) They also said that with today's high sensitivity chips, the you really didn't need WAAS. Whatever accuracy you were getting was good enough. (how do they know that????) That's when I told them that they sounded exactly like Delorme. That's the way Delorme fixed WAAS.....if we (Delorme) don't have it, then you don't need it. I go BM hunting with my Oregon (WAAS ON but essentially NO "working" WAAS), side by side with my 76CSx (excellent WAAS reception), and while approaching a high accuracy BM, my Oregon is reading 38ft EPE and my 76CSx is reading <10ft EPE. What does that tell you?
  20. I wonder why 2 Hrs Less on predicted battery time than the 78...... and different amount of memory than the 78? We will soon find out.......but not soon enough......
  21. Oregon 550 w 3.40 /3.70 works correctly. Added a wpt, Saved and Edited coordinates Checked Wpt Mgr- OK, it was shown there Turned unit off and back on Checked Wpt Mgr----still there, and on map
  22. Mtn Hermit, Feathers not ruffled at all. I'm just not very "couth" with some of my descriptions / replies. We're both on the same page. I'm adding as many missing trails as I can.
  23. Why is WAAS such a big deal? Yes, I understand it provides a more accurate position, but you're not a GCer setting/finding caches. From my perspective, the WAAS-less signal is already much more accurate than the typical scanned trail on the typical map. But, that scanned trail provides enough info combined with what my eyes see to make correct decisions. Even with WAAS these are not $2000 Trimble's doing land survey. It seems you only want the accuracy because it's possible, no meaningful application. If I'm wrong, I'm all ears. "Yes, I understand it provides a more accurate position, but you're not a GCer setting/finding caches." Well, ....DUH...., then you understand why WAAS is a big deal. ......because it is supposed to be more accurate. And, no, I'm not a GCer, playing a game, but that is probably one of the LEAST important uses for a GPS. I was using GPS in my work long before "the GC game" was even started. " the WAAS-less signal is already much more accurate than the typical scanned trail on the typical map" The operative word in that sentence is "typical", and if you are satisfied with that level of "non quality" , fine. If you buy a "WAAS capable" GPS unit you should expect an accuracy level of <3 m......you paid for it. Oh yeah, do your own checking and you'll find that the map making tolerance for the official USGS 7.5 min Quads is 40 ft. That's just one of the reasons I laugh when a GCer whines about "my GPS is inaccurate, it won't get me closer than xx ft" (while ignoring all the other possible sources of errors /variations) "It seems you only want the accuracy because it's possible, no meaningful application. If I'm wrong, I'm all ears." Here's where you are wrong. My hobby is mapping trails. (Hiking, ATV,Snowmobile) I want / expect a GPS that will accurately record it's position (and log trackpoints) and repeat with it's own previous results to "prove that accuracy". Repeat with itself.....a really simple request right? Not anywhere as easy as it sounds when mapping in less than ideal conditions. (under canopy and in canyons) FORGET the map, compare the data with itself, and know that it is accurate. If the data is accurate then all the visible errors when that data is displayed on any map are map errors. It's not a matter of getting lost or making bad decisions. You would be surprised how many newer model GPSs (even some "serious tools") cannot repeat with themselves on a "out and back" single track trail .
×
×
  • Create New...