Is WAAS needed on ETREX (yellow)

[+GPS Derek]

I have had a Garmin StreetPilot for a few yeas now for the car but looking at doing some Geocaching. THe SP3 will not do this well as it eats batteries and is big.

 

Looking at 2 Garmin ETREX (yellows), older one does not have WAAS but the other does.

 

Guy at store (that should know GPs's) says that on the newer GPS's that WASS only adds 1-2 feet of acuracy so if the price is right the older one could be better but if WAAS and newer unit adds more than the 1-2 feet described then I will go for that one and pay the difference.

 

Comments?

 

TIA

Derek

[+fireman121]

Well I have about 250 finds under my belt, and to this date I have not even turn the WAAS feather on. I have two units that I cache with. both are Garmins one is a GPS72 and the other one is a gray scale Vista.

 

But of course I cache near Minneapolis/ St Paul area and I dont see a need for it here. I am not sure if this helps you at all.

 

Also let me be the first to welcome you aboard to the world of Geocaching.

Edited August 30, 2006 by fireman121

[+GPS Derek]

Well I have about 250 finds under my belt, and to this date I have not even turn the WAAS feather on. I have two units that I cache with. both are Garmins one is a GPS72 and the other one is a gray scale Vista.

 

But of course I cache near Minneapolis/ St Paul area and I dont see a need for it here. I am not sure if this helps you at all.

 

Also let me be the first to welcome you aboard to the world of Geocaching.

 

thanks for the welcome. Your answer helps but was curious about the acuracy of the ETREX itself without WAAS.

[+budd-rdc]

I use an older eTrex Summit which is basically a Yellow with barometer and an electronic compass. WAAS is not supported on this unit. I've had no problems finding caches with it.

 

Unless budget is the primary concern, I'd go for the newer WAAS-supported unit. There may be other features and improvements that you can benefit from.

[+own6volvos]

WAAS is a joke geocaching. Unless you are looking in a field with no trees, you aren't going to be picking up the Sat needed for differential data. I have a big enough problem trying to get them in a clear opening, but I would be out of my mind trying to get them in a forest.

 

My new 60cx is better than my older Legend at getting it, but still almost impossible inside a forest or city.

[+fizzymagic]

WAAS is a joke geocaching. Unless you are looking in a field with no trees, you aren't going to be picking up the Sat needed for differential data.

That's only true if you are using an inferior GPS unit.

 

The WAAS satellites are generally quite visible, and trees should not have a big impact once you've acquired the corrections.

[NewZealand]

WAAS is a joke geocaching. Unless you are looking in a field with no trees, you aren't going to be picking up the Sat needed for differential data.

That's only true if you are using an inferior GPS unit.

 

The WAAS satellites are generally quite visible, and trees should not have a big impact once you've acquired the corrections.

Sorry, but I'm with own6volvos and the others with that.

WAAS is completely useless for geocaching and more globally said for landbased GPS navigation.

It was made for purposes where you have free sight to all directions, for air- and seabased navigation.

In the mountains or in the forests you nearly never have free sight to the WAAS satellites, which are located at the deep southern sky.

For handheld units it's just a marketing gag, which is now in all heads, but doesn't buy anyone anything.

Normal GPS without WAAS is more than accurate enough to find anything you want.

 

If you have WAAS reception, just go a route with WAAS turned on and then with WAAS turned off, and after that compare both tracks. You'll see that both tracks are nearly identical, and the very small differences will come from the different locations of the GPS-satellites at the different time of day, but not from WAAS on or off.

 

(I have a GPSMAP 60 CSX, and turned off WAAS, because I see no valueadd except that it consumes slightly more battery power when it is turned on )

Edited August 31, 2006 by NewZealand

[+own6volvos]

WAAS is a joke geocaching. Unless you are looking in a field with no trees, you aren't going to be picking up the Sat needed for differential data.

That's only true if you are using an inferior GPS unit.

 

The WAAS satellites are generally quite visible, and trees should not have a big impact once you've acquired the corrections.

 

Unless you consider the SiRF III a inferior reciever, I don't know what you are talking about. In WI, the 48/51 sat's are the only ones I can aquire in the area, both being close to the horizon. Unless I have a nice clear open view like a nice field, or a clear view that directon in a city... its completely blocked.

[Suscrofa]

When I use WAAS, I can see my location changing by just switching my GPS from my left hand to my right hand. Is it normal ?

[NewZealand]

When I use WAAS, I can see my location changing by just switching my GPS from my left hand to my right hand. Is it normal ?

Yes, absolutely.

And it's also normal if you are not using WAAS.

[+budd-rdc]

When I use WAAS, I can see my location changing by just switching my GPS from my left hand to my right hand. Is it normal ?

I can reproduce that with both my non-WAAS eTrex and WAAS Geko 201 although not all the time due to many factors. I'll say that it's not abnormal.

 

Here in California (just south of San Francisco), I can see Satellites 35 and 47 which are WAAS satellites. In Japan, I can see 42. I've managed to get WAAS lock inside light to medium tree cover in those locations.

[+fizzymagic]

WAAS is a joke geocaching. Unless you are looking in a field with no trees, you aren't going to be picking up the Sat needed for differential data.

That's only true if you are using an inferior GPS unit.

 

The WAAS satellites are generally quite visible, and trees should not have a big impact once you've acquired the corrections.

Unless you consider the SiRF III a inferior reciever, I don't know what you are talking about. In WI, the 48/51 sat's are the only ones I can aquire in the area, both being close to the horizon. Unless I have a nice clear open view like a nice field, or a clear view that directon in a city... its completely blocked.

The SiRF III is indeed inferior when it comes to WAAS, and the Garmin software makes it worse, especially since there is no way to tell with a Garmin unit whether WAAS is actually being used or not. No, the little D's on the satellite page do not indicate WAAS, even though Garmin says they do. In Wisconsin, neither 48 nor 51 is particularly close to the horizon, either. If you really have trouble picking up satellites that are over 20 degrees above the horizon, it's amazing that you can get a position lock at all!

Edited August 31, 2006 by fizzymagic

[+apersson850]

The satellites used to broadcast SBAS data (like WAAS and Egnos) are geostationary, above Europe and North America. By default, this places them 36000 km above the earth, but the ordinary GPS satellites are "only" 22000 km above you. So the signal has a longer path from the WAAS satellites. That's one reason for WAAS being more difficult.

 

The coding of the signals from the SBAS satellites is such, that it's more vulnerable to short omissions of the signals. This is the reason for that it's impossible to use battery save mode when using WAAS, since reception must be on every second for full benefit from the system. That's one more reason for WAAS being trickier than ordinary sats, even at the same elevation.

 

If you do get WAAS, or Egnos, I have experienced that even if absolute accuracy doesn't improve that dramatically, the typical wandering of the position report is reduced somewhat. Which could be beneficiary, when looking for a cache. Provided you do get any WAAS, of course. However, notice that the effect of WAAS will decay during a few minutes after loosing the WAAS satellite itself, so you may have some use for it, even if you can't get it exactly at the cache.

[+gpsblake]

WAAS is the most overinflated thing in the GPS world. It will not help you find geocaches any easier nor does it really give you any more realible accuracy that is important. It's useless in any environment where you can't get a direct view of the lowersky like in the woods or in a city.

[Suscrofa]

When I use WAAS, I can see my location changing by just switching my GPS from my left hand to my right hand. Is it normal ?

Yes, absolutely.

And it's also normal if you are not using WAAS.

Of course I knew it ! See the smiley ! I just wanted to point out how ridicule this obsession of wanting a .30m accuracy for geocaching (not even considering the accuracy of the location as it has been placed using a regular GPS too) !

[+own6volvos]

 

The SiRF III is indeed inferior when it comes to WAAS, and the Garmin software makes it worse, especially since there is no way to tell with a Garmin unit whether WAAS is actually being used or not. No, the little D's on the satellite page do not indicate WAAS, even though Garmin says they do. In Wisconsin, neither 48 nor 51 is particularly close to the horizon, either. If you really have trouble picking up satellites that are over 20 degrees above the horizon, it's amazing that you can get a position lock at all!

 

http://www.lyngsat.com/tracker/g15.html

 

According to that site, the Galaxy 15 (Garmin 48) is below the horizon, right below the equator.

 

It really doesn't appear you are helping much if any in this discussion, and just hear to bash Garmin handhelds. This was about someone asking if differential data is even needed for caching, which it clearly is not.

[+fizzymagic]

According to that site, the Galaxy 15 (Garmin 48) is below the horizon, right below the equator.

All the WAAS satellites are directly above the equator. That's because they are geostationary. The satellite to which you refer is at 133 degrees west.

 

From Madison, Wisconsin, it is 23.87 degrees above the horizon.

 

The other new WAAS satellite is at 107.3 degrees west; it is 37.12 degrees above the horizon in Madison.

 

Both are very visible.

 

It really doesn't appear you are helping much if any in this discussion, and just hear to bash Garmin handhelds.

Actually, I could care less about Garmin handhelds. What annoys me is people making completely false statements of "fact" about WAAS. Used properly, WAAS on a handheld GPS can make a significant difference for geocaching. Not so much in finding caches, but in getting good coordinates when placing them, which is more important.

 

I'm sorry that you got caught posting nonsense; perhaps in the future you might consider not posting "facts" you don't understand.

[+own6volvos]

 

I'm sorry that you got caught posting nonsense; perhaps in the future you might consider not posting "facts" you don't understand.

 

Not really sure how personal experience = fact. I am just telling the person how it has been working (along with basically every other person in this thread).

 

Basically your understanding right now is everyone in this thread is lying, and you are holding the golden book on geocaching?

[ImpalaBob]

Cache coordinates are only as accurate as the unit and person initially taking them. Plus or minus 30 feet on average. The GPS gets you to the area ..... your "finding skills" take over from there. WAAS is really all about flying and pilots. WAAS will help .... but the newer SRIF III chip set units are really a bigger advantage than WAAS because of their ability to lock on Sats in heavy cover. Buy what you can afford .... it's your "finding skills" that really count!!! ImpalaBob

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

According to that site, the Galaxy 15 (Garmin 48) is below the horizon, right below the equator.

All the WAAS satellites are directly above the equator. That's because they are geostationary. The satellite to which you refer is at 133 degrees west.

 

From Madison, Wisconsin, it is 23.87 degrees above the horizon.

 

The other new WAAS satellite is at 107.3 degrees west; it is 37.12 degrees above the horizon in Madison.

 

Both are very visible.

 

It really doesn't appear you are helping much if any in this discussion, and just hear to bash Garmin handhelds.

Actually, I could care less about Garmin handhelds. What annoys me is people making completely false statements of "fact" about WAAS. Used properly, WAAS on a handheld GPS can make a significant difference for geocaching. Not so much in finding caches, but in getting good coordinates when placing them, which is more important.

 

I'm sorry that you got caught posting nonsense; perhaps in the future you might consider not posting "facts" you don't understand.

 

For our recent first hide, we were actually getting WAAS on a Lowrance IFinder GO under moderate tree cover (amazing since it doesn't catch the WAAS bird often at all, and then usually in a very open area), then used the averaging feature to get the coords and no one has complained of the coords.

 

But it's probably pretty useless for finding for the following reasons:

 

1) Not all hiders have WAAS so even if you have pinpoint accuracy, they can be off

 

2) Even WAAS can have a few feet of error.

 

3) Isn't part of the fun having to look a little bit?

 

Given that the IFinder GO is so cheap to buy regardless of WAAS, we got one but WAAS wasn't our rationale in getting it. We have a Lowrance IWay 100M for the car, and though capable of it, it rarely gets the WAAS bird too.

Edited September 1, 2006 by HaLiJuSaPa

[dave and jaime]

 

The SiRF III is indeed inferior when it comes to WAAS, and the Garmin software makes it worse, especially since there is no way to tell with a Garmin unit whether WAAS is actually being used or not. No, the little D's on the satellite page do not indicate WAAS, even though Garmin says they do. In Wisconsin, neither 48 nor 51 is particularly close to the horizon, either. If you really have trouble picking up satellites that are over 20 degrees above the horizon, it's amazing that you can get a position lock at all!

 

http://www.lyngsat.com/tracker/g15.html

 

According to that site, the Galaxy 15 (Garmin 48) is below the horizon, right below the equator.

 

It really doesn't appear you are helping much if any in this discussion, and just hear to bash Garmin handhelds. This was about someone asking if differential data is even needed for caching, which it clearly is not.

 

i think the reference to garmins handling of waas is reasonable, at least in my non-waas area. the little 'd's' reference only the fact that the garmin unit is picking up signals from the waas sats, it doesnt consider whether there is an active base station in the area providing valid corrections and thus whether it should apply the corrections. in short waas is greatly overblown and to my mind provides little advantage for geocaching.

 

the handheld units in use here are little more than toys. they have no way of knowing what their accuracy is at any given time, no way of assessing system health, and due to various manufacturer algorithms different units may give different results when side-by-side at the same time.

Edited September 1, 2006 by dave and jaime

[+welch]

Well I have about 250 finds under my belt, and to this date I have not even turn the WAAS feature on. I have two units that I cache with. both are Garmins one is a GPS72 and the other one is a gray scale Vista.

 

But of course I cache near Minneapolis/ St Paul area and I dont see a need for it here. I am not sure if this helps you at all.

 

Also let me be the first to welcome you aboard to the world of Geocaching.

 

thanks for the welcome. Your answer helps but was curious about the acuracy of the ETREX itself without WAAS.

Yes, you can find geocaches with an basic etrex. 10-20ft accuracy (as reported by the unit) would be normal in places with good reception up to 40+ for places with not so good reception, and probably no reception if your in a dense pine forest.

 

As you can tell some people really like WAAS and use it all the time, others find WAAS totally useless. I personally never use WAAS, and would say its not that important. But others may say otherwise.

hope this helps

[+budd-rdc]

For our recent first hide, we were actually getting WAAS on a Lowrance IFinder GO under moderate tree cover (amazing since it doesn't catch the WAAS bird often at all, and then usually in a very open area), then used the averaging feature to get the coords and no one has complained of the coords.

 

But it's probably pretty useless for finding for the following reasons:

 

1) Not all hiders have WAAS so even if you have pinpoint accuracy, they can be off

 

2) Even WAAS can have a few feet of error.

 

3) Isn't part of the fun having to look a little bit?

 

Given that the IFinder GO is so cheap to buy regardless of WAAS, we got one but WAAS wasn't our rationale in getting it. We have a Lowrance IWay 100M for the car, and though capable of it, it rarely gets the WAAS bird too.

 

For the iFinder GO, I've observed that WAAS does make a difference on how quickly it locks onto the coordinates. I've checked this at benchmarks with "location is ADJUSTED" by turning it off and on, and also by waiting for WAAS lock first before approaching. The battery life is so long on this unit (30+ hours), that WAAS shouldn't be an issue.

 

I think it's important to use WAAS when one is hiding a cache, in addition of being methodical and careful in obtaining coordinates. Reducing uncertainty isn't a bad thing. Fizzy has posted lots of information and links on WAAS, so this might be a good time to use the search function in the forums. BTW, I'm often standing right next to, or on top of his caches... IF I can find them.

Edited September 1, 2006 by budd-rdc

[+GPS Derek]

Thank you all for your replies. If I can get WAAS then I will but if a deal comes without I won't hesitate to grab it. after getting my first 3 finds this weekend with a friend I have found that I want ot be close but the actual "looking"search is half the fun.

 

as it turns out the original Etrex's that I was looking at went for more than I wanted to pay for a used unit of this nauture. So back to looking.

 

Thanks again.

[NewZealand]

Thinking twice about my previous posts I believe I was too outspoken.

A short question needs a short answer.

 

Q: Is WAAS needed on ETREX (yellow) ?

A: No.