GeoCaching with a 60Csx vs eXplorist 400

[+Span 24]

Purchased both units to compare. I will probably keep both but have yet to decide which is best. Here is my issue:

 

I won't start WWIII by stating that the eXplorist appears to be more accurate but will say that the eXplorist seems to have more functionality where loading geocaches are concerned. I mean although it is limited to 20 chars or so you can still load hints, notes, etc. Lots of nice info! The 60Csx seems to load only the name, coords, and not much else. I am using GSAK to load caches to both units...

 

Am I missing something or did i find a chink in the Garmin armor?

 

Is there another way to get this data to the Garmin?

Edited October 24, 2006 by Span 24

[+Red90]

Yes, you are missing something.

 

The waypoints take 14 characters in the name and 30 in the note fields. With GSAK, you can add any information that you want. You can also use Cuctom POIs which allow 44 and 88 characters.

 

And there is no way the Exporist is more accurate. In what way has this conclusion been reached?

[+Span 24]

The waypoints take 14 characters in the name and 30 in the note fields. With GSAK, you can add any information that you want. You can also use Cuctom POIs which allow 44 and 88 characters.

 

I'm not a GSAK expert here, hardly. I only know that I dumped downloaded pocket queries to the eXplorist and everything I noted above is there. I do the same thing with the Garmin and it does not include nearly the same data, at least not that I am able to find. As you may appreciate more succinct info I will document what I see under each units typical GeoCache entry:

 

60Csx

Cache ID

Note (cache id w/owners name)

Co-ords

Elevation

Depth

Bearing & Distance

 

eXplorist 400

Name

Cache ID

Owner

Type

Coords

Date Placed

Last Found

Difficulty

Terrain

Hint

 

Both units will map from here

The eXplorist will let you mark it as found from here

 

If theres a way to get the extra info onto the Garmin, then you quickly get to the meat of my question, thanx.

 

And there is no way the Exporist is more accurate. In what way has this conclusion been reached?

 

Wooaa there sluggo! I aint got any dogs in this fight, just lookin for data. I indicated that I did not want a toss here but I guess the thought of one being better than the other is enough to get some dander up eh?

 

I do not have enough data to make a fair comparison yet. I only know that I can put the 400 dead on three out of four caches (notably in bushes/open air) I have found and the Garmin is 15' off. Simple as that. But with 30' of acceptable error this is really splitting hairs. "No-Way"?? Perhaps you have done the research. I have not. Perhaps I just got a really, really good eXplorist build. I dunno, again just preliminary work! Care to share your data?

 

Thanx!!

Edited October 24, 2006 by Span 24

[+Red90]

Well, I have done around 500 cache finds with my 60Cx and have compared it to benchmarks. I have owned multiple units and have cached with dozens of people and compared their unit's performance. I also publish mapping data which comes from dozens of GPS users and have the opportunity to compare tracklogs from many different units of the same trails.

 

With all of this experience and testing, as far as I can see all recreational GPS units have about the same accuracy. Some have better signal reception under marginal circumstances. The 60Cx/Csx units are the best I have seen to date in this respect.

 

When you send waypoints to the GPS, you can add whatever information you want in the name and description fields using the GSAK smart tags. Refer to the GSAK help menus for details.

 

As far as using Custom POIs, do a search, there are many good topics on this forum.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

Skipping the whole Garmin vs. Magellan accuracy jihad, I will say that I have used a Garmin GPSmap 60CSx and a Magellan eXplorist 600 side-by-side on cache hunts. What we find is that both units have features that we like, but more often than not, one unit has a feature we want, but not the other.

 

We find that the Garmin makes it much easier to find the next "nearest" cache as all 2200 of our "local" (less than 75 miles) caches in one searchable database using custom POI's, whereas we have to keep changing files in the Magellan to go through all 11 or 12 files to find the next cache that is nearest to us at the time. As you noted though, once we find it on the Magellan it is marked found, and is omitted from the next search, this is not the case with the Garmin. To be somewhat fair, we still load the nearest 750- caches to home in the Garmin waypoint file as geocaches and we have that same functionality using the waypoints rather than the POI's.

 

We have Topo maps on both units, and the Garmin has some park trails that are not on the eXplorist, but the eXplorist has many roads that are not on the Garmin, so it is somewhat of a toss-up as to which is better in that aspect. We only have "street routable maps" on the eXplorist, so we can't compare there. What I can tell you about the maps is that the Magellan stores them in "segments" that can only be loaded one at a time (like the geocache files) but the Garmin appears to allow them to transparently transition from one segment to another so it all looks like one large map. This can be a problem for the Magellan if you are caching near the boundary of your map data.

 

We have two batteries for the Magellan and about 4 sets for the Garmin because we usually can't make it through a full weekend of caching with the Garmin before we have to change the batteries, maybe more than once. I'm not sure when the last time we actually had to change the batteries in the Magellan because it is connected to the charger/USB cable every night, so it's battery is almost always "full" when we start the day.

 

We have had twice when the Magellan lost it's satellite link due to tree coverage, but the Garmin hasn't lost it's link yet. Both units usually do quite well in our caching environment, but the Garmin usually reports itself as having a higher accuracy by a few feet. By this, the Garmin is usually estimating 10-12 feet epe, when the Magellan is usually around 16-23 feet.

 

A little of a "nit picking" is that the Garmin uses "microSD" cards for its storage, where the Magellan uses standard SD cards. When I last priced them, I paid about $30 for a 1GB microSD card, and only slightly more for a 2GB standard SD card.

 

If you are a cache hider, the Garmin waypoint averaging is nice as I was able to leave it set on a location for 20 minutes and come back to have it tell me the location accuracy was +/- 3.9 feet based on the 1200 samples it had taken in that time. I have not seen a way to get the Magellan to do this, but I have not really looked to hard for it either.

[+Span 24]

Well, I have done around 500 cache finds with my 60Cx and have compared it to benchmarks. I have owned multiple units and have cached with dozens of people and compared their unit's performance. I also publish mapping data which comes from dozens of GPS users and have the opportunity to compare tracklogs from many different units of the same trails.

 

With all of this experience and testing, as far as I can see all recreational GPS units have about the same accuracy. Some have better signal reception under marginal circumstances. The 60Cx/Csx units are the best I have seen to date in this respect.

Sounds like plenty of good experience to me. It also serves to substantiate my research in the forums. Chevy, Ford, Garmin, Magellan. They seem to be interchangable. From another posted answer to my question here I also agree that they each have their own feature and functionality sets which make them equally desirable for different reasons. If we believe in the universally accepted 30' error range then the accuracy I cited in my response means little. This is precisely why I was reluctant to address it. I was primarily concerned about the availability of GeoCache data on each unit.

 

When you send waypoints to the GPS, you can add whatever information you want in the name and description fields using the GSAK smart tags. Refer to the GSAK help menus for details.

 

As far as using Custom POIs, do a search, there are many good topics on this forum.

So any data beyond that listed in the comparisons above must be added to the notes sent to the Garmin? I suppose that this is just as good if one takes the time to learn how to do it. I will take the time. Is there a limit to the size of this data?

 

Thanx so much for your very qualified response!

[ossumguywill]

And there is no way the Exporist is more accurate. In what way has this conclusion been reached?

 

Um, actually, it is. I don't want to cause outrage in garmin users, but although garmins are very sweet, explorists have often given me more accurate results.

1. Using a government marker, the explorist said the position exactly correct while the 60CSx was about 12 feet off.

2.The explorist always gets me right on top of a cache while the 60CSx was about 10 feet off.

[+hogrod]

And there is no way the Exporist is more accurate. In what way has this conclusion been reached?

 

Um, actually, it is. I don't want to cause outrage in garmin users, but although garmins are very sweet, explorists have often given me more accurate results.

1. Using a government marker, the explorist said the position exactly correct while the 60CSx was about 12 feet off.

2.The explorist always gets me right on top of a cache while the 60CSx was about 10 feet off.

 

WOW.... thats allot of data you've accumulated to come to your conclusions.... looks like you've done 3caches. do you work for magellan?

 

I've owned more magellans than garmins and will say the garmins gpsr are way more accurate. wait till you've done more caches you'll probably see the magellans true colors. with my experience with magellan, 1/3-1/2 of all magellan GPSr seem to be defective/ buggy software from the factory.... now get magellan to give a crap when you do have issues.

[+Span 24]

I've owned more magellans than garmins and will say the garmins gpsr are way more accurate.

Please forgive me for perhaps sounding a bit argumentative but; Why would you own more of something unless you had determined that it was "overall" a better device? Does it go to what I am talking about (Geacaching functions) or the like?

 

Sorry, had to...

[+GOT GPS?]

I have both the eXplorist XL and Map60Cx, and find that when I have both units, I prefer the eXplorist due to it's large 240x320 pixel screen, but both do have there faults, and I had bought the Map60Cx in Feb and the eXplorist XL in May of this year.

 

The eXplorist XL still does have firmware issues, and Garmin is holding back on functionality of the units as far as what you can do with the data on the microSD memory cards while in the unit away from a PC.

 

What I love about the Garmin is that I can view all 20 saved tracklog memories at the same time on the map screen. The 20 track memories is compressed data only for viewing on the map and for backtracking forward or backward, but the 60Cx/CSx will save the tracks as *.GPX files on the memory card.

Edited October 25, 2006 by GOT GPS?

[ossumguywill]

And there is no way the Exporist is more accurate. In what way has this conclusion been reached?

 

Um, actually, it is. I don't want to cause outrage in garmin users, but although garmins are very sweet, explorists have often given me more accurate results.

1. Using a government marker, the explorist said the position exactly correct while the 60CSx was about 12 feet off.

2.The explorist always gets me right on top of a cache while the 60CSx was about 10 feet off.

 

WOW.... thats allot of data you've accumulated to come to your conclusions.... looks like you've done 3caches. do you work for magellan?

 

I've owned more magellans than garmins and will say the garmins gpsr are way more accurate. wait till you've done more caches you'll probably see the magellans true colors. with my experience with magellan, 1/3-1/2 of all magellan GPSr seem to be defective/ buggy software from the factory.... now get magellan to give a crap when you do have issues.

 

I agree magellan doesn't care about customers much and sorry if my data seems wrong to you, I'm just saying that this is what I have gleaned from tests. True, I don't cache much, maybe my opinion will change when I go and find more. Sorry if what I said was wrong.

[+Span 24]

I agree magellan doesn't care about customers much and sorry if my data seems wrong to you, I'm just saying that this is what I have gleaned from tests. True, I don't cache much, maybe my opinion will change when I go and find more. Sorry if what I said was wrong.

 

Maybe he just doesnt like the diminutive fella in yer avatar....

[ossumguywill]

I agree magellan doesn't care about customers much and sorry if my data seems wrong to you, I'm just saying that this is what I have gleaned from tests. True, I don't cache much, maybe my opinion will change when I go and find more. Sorry if what I said was wrong.

 

Maybe he just doesnt like the diminutive fella in yer avatar....

Hehehe...

[+geognerd]

If you are a cache hider, the Garmin waypoint averaging is nice as I was able to leave it set on a location for 20 minutes and come back to have it tell me the location accuracy was +/- 3.9 feet based on the 1200 samples it had taken in that time. I have not seen a way to get the Magellan to do this, but I have not really looked to hard for it either.

The eXplorist automatically averages. Unlike the Garmin, it won't say it's averaging or tell you the number of samples it has taken. Just let the GPSr settle for a while at the cache location and you will have an averaged coordinate pair. When placing a cache, I like to give it 10 minutes.

[+Rino 'n Rinette]

I don't want to sound antagonistic but............ How can anyoned make claims about dead-on accuracy when finding a cache. One must remember - the person placing the cache is using a ??? GPSr wich has an accuracy of ??? . Anyone who locates 3 caches dead-on at the coords given in the cache description should immediately do a search on his GPSr for the nearest lottery ticket seller and buy just one ticket. Sure to be a winner !!!!

[+pdxmarathonman]

I don't want to sound antagonistic but............ How can anyoned make claims about dead-on accuracy when finding a cache. One must remember - the person placing the cache is using a ??? GPSr wich has an accuracy of ??? . Anyone who locates 3 caches dead-on at the coords given in the cache description should immediately do a search on his GPSr for the nearest lottery ticket seller and buy just one ticket. Sure to be a winner !!!!

I am glad I read all the posts before replying, or else I would have duplicated what R-n-R said!

[+Span 24]

I don't want to sound antagonistic but............ How can anyoned make claims about dead-on accuracy when finding a cache. One must remember - the person placing the cache is using a ??? GPSr wich has an accuracy of ??? . Anyone who locates 3 caches dead-on at the coords given in the cache description should immediately do a search on his GPSr for the nearest lottery ticket seller and buy just one ticket. Sure to be a winner !!!!

I had to respond to this as I feel that what you are basically saying is that I (we) are, at best, less than truthful about our findings.

 

I can tell you that most of my (admittedly few) cache finds were exactly, thats right I said exactly, to within a foot or two, where the Magellan eXplorist 400 identified it to be. Not the case with the Garmin. Sorry if that does not sit well with the general populous. But it is my experience. I understand your point about the hiders GPSr. Don't ask me to explain it as I have been in the hobby only a short time, it just does. Now understand that these were out in the open. The 400 does move you around under medium or heavier cover.

 

So my Garmin navigates me to the cache area while in the car (has nav maps) and the 400 gets me to the cache. If I followed the Garmin to the cache I would be off by about 10-15' regularly (still acceptable) but the 400 (again 3 outta 4 times) puts me right on top of it! You don't have to believe it if your experience tells you that it cannot be, but for me this is how it works. I'm sure that there are people somewhere in this world who believe that aliens landed at Roswell.

 

No, I do not work for Magellan. This is only a beginners asessment.

 

Now: I had originally asked about Geocache data on the Garmin (or lack thereof) and I'd really like to know how to get more data into the Garmin from GSAK. I looked through the documentation and found little help. These forums would likely make it easy to find what others have done. Anyone out there got a good workable solution to adding more data to the Garmins GeoCache functionality using GSAK?

[+gpsblake]

Span,

 

You opened a can of worms questioning the 60CSx accuracy.... but that's okay.

 

I like you do the following experiment. Take your 60CSX inside a Walmart or a Mall turned on, walk around for 15 minutes and save the track. Then do the same with the Explorist 600. Then compare the tracks and see which units holds your track the best. Or go into the deepest part of your house, turn on the units and see which units gets more satellite fixes.

 

The owners of the 60CSx claim their unit is more accurate in difficult conditions like heavy forest or downtown areas because it is a more sensative unit. My question is that could the 60CSx be too sensative and be picking up on slightly reflected signals or multipath signals and not discarding them would make the 60CSx actually less accurate. I do know Garmin units will GUESS your location if it temporarly loses the signal while Magellans just stop recording the track.

 

As far as getting to the cache, any unit is going to get you there & the accuracy depends a lot on the accuracy of the person who placed the cache there. And there isn't a unit made that is going the make FINDING the cache any easier.

 

I like to see the results.

 

Cheers

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

If you are a cache hider, the Garmin waypoint averaging is nice as I was able to leave it set on a location for 20 minutes and come back to have it tell me the location accuracy was +/- 3.9 feet based on the 1200 samples it had taken in that time. I have not seen a way to get the Magellan to do this, but I have not really looked to hard for it either.

The eXplorist automatically averages. Unlike the Garmin, it won't say it's averaging or tell you the number of samples it has taken. Just let the GPSr settle for a while at the cache location and you will have an averaged coordinate pair. When placing a cache, I like to give it 10 minutes.

 

The difference being that as you let the Garmin sit at a location and "average" over those 10 minutes, you can see that it's epe is slowly going down to numbers less than 5 feet (I have seen it as low as 3.7 feet). I have never seen my Magellan give an epe better than 7 feet, no matter how long I left the unit sit at a location, and the epe is usually "bouncing" around more so than "zeroing in". I also have to remember to change the Magellan's "auto power down" setting if I intend to leave it sit at a location for any extended "averaging".

 

As for the Garmin vs Magellan accuracy, I can not say one is better than the other, both of my units perform about the same. Before I got the Garmin, I had several instances where the Magellan had me "dead-on" the cache when the display showed I was at the cache coordinates (ignoring the icon location on the map screen because there seems to be issues with that, possibly on both manufacturers units). I have seen caches where if I go to the screen which shows the GPSr coordinates, I am at the cache, but if you go to the "map screen" on the Magellan, or the "compass screen" on the Garmin, it wants me to go another 20-50 feet to get to the cache (I haven't checked both units on the same cache at the same time though). In both cases, the waypoint was selected from the list of geocaches, so I know that the correct coordinates were used for the waypoint, not a map coordinate near the cache...

Edited October 25, 2006 by GeekBoy.from.Illinois

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

Now: I had originally asked about Geocache data on the Garmin (or lack thereof) and I'd really like to know how to get more data into the Garmin from GSAK. I looked through the documentation and found little help. These forums would likely make it easy to find what others have done. Anyone out there got a good workable solution to adding more data to the Garmins GeoCache functionality using GSAK?

 

I find that neither of the GPSr units can hold all of the cache data I want with me in the field, so I don't rely that heavily on what is in the GPSr. Instead, I find that I load all of the cache data (except pictures) into CacheMate on my Palm, and use that for the extra data. Using that, I have the description, the hint (still encoded), and I even have previous logs so I can possibly get a helping hand from a previous cache finder (or hunter who failed to find). I already have the Palm and use it every day, so it was no major investment for me, just the $8 for a CacheMate registration. I have read of other people using GSAK to make VCF files for cache data and loading it into their iPod Address Book to use that in the field as well. There are a large number of options for "paperless caching" which might provide the functionality you are looking for at an acceptable price, although it might mean that you may need to carry an additional device with you...

[ossumguywill]

Span,

 

You opened a can of worms questioning the 60CSx accuracy.... but that's okay.

 

I like you do the following experiment. Take your 60CSX inside a Walmart or a Mall turned on, walk around for 15 minutes and save the track. Then do the same with the Explorist 600. Then compare the tracks and see which units holds your track the best. Or go into the deepest part of your house, turn on the units and see which units gets more satellite fixes.

 

The owners of the 60CSx claim their unit is more accurate in difficult conditions like heavy forest or downtown areas because it is a more sensative unit. My question is that could the 60CSx be too sensative and be picking up on slightly reflected signals or multipath signals and not discarding them would make the 60CSx actually less accurate. I do know Garmin units will GUESS your location if it temporarly loses the signal while Magellans just stop recording the track.

 

As far as getting to the cache, any unit is going to get you there & the accuracy depends a lot on the accuracy of the person who placed the cache there. And there isn't a unit made that is going the make FINDING the cache any easier.

 

I like to see the results.

 

Cheers

Testing the satellite lock won't do anything other than tell you how sensitive the antennae is. What really matters is the signal proccessing software. Magellan uses truefix and I don't know what garmin uses. Maybe span's comment on accuracy is correct just because truefix might proccess position better than garmin software (something someone should check). I have not gathered alot of data but for now I hve to agree with him. I have barely had a chance to go caching, but so far I have to agree with what he said about getting right next to the cache.

[+EScout]

From objective tests I have seen, it appears that the eXplorists and 60Cx are both very accurate, probably the same, and both are good for this sport.

Some points:

If you want to see how accurate your GPSr is, go to a super-accurate benchmark, do not use your experience in finding caches. Also, the "accuracy" stated on your GPSr's screen is not a valid measure nor should it be used to compare different models. The number should be used to give you an indication of the relative quality of the position reported.

 

The sensitivity of a unit as shown by how many satellites are shown or their signal bars is not a valid measure. There is no standard amoung GPSrs as to what signal strength will show up as received (noise floor) and no standard in the length of the bars shown (how many micro volts for full bar?) These are not accurate signal meters. If the signal is strong enough to be used, that is what counts.

 

Sensitivity alone is only one feature of a receiver, along with blocking dynamic range, IMD, etc. Sensitivity is not the most important feature for a high quality receiver. Regarding the signal processing, is the unit using "best of four" satellites for calculation of 3D position or an "over-determined solution?" Also relevant is the position averaging used by the GPSr.

 

What this means is that all of the above influence the feel of your GPSr and by using it often, you will learn the strengths and weaknesses in the field under various conditions. You may prefer the performance of one more than another......another way of saying that there is no best model for everyone.

[+hogrod]

I've owned more magellans than garmins and will say the garmins gpsr are way more accurate.

Please forgive me for perhaps sounding a bit argumentative but; Why would you own more of something unless you had determined that it was "overall" a better device? Does it go to what I am talking about (Geacaching functions) or the like?

 

Sorry, had to...

 

Two things, software and accessories.... Once I had accumulated lots of magellan stuff and knowledge using them I didn't see any reason to switch(till I noticed a few bugs & random possition errors). I used someones vistaC at an outing and could see the vast differences in the units software, so I sold the two meridian golds I had and bought a legendC.

 

Even after switching to a garmin I bought three other magellans(they are so cheap after all), a explorist 200, a 210 and a 400 wilderness bundle, ALL of which had one issue or another. I decided after the explorist 400 issues I would send it back to tigergps & spend allittle more for a 60cx.

 

The only thing that I miss magellan for is the great use of the SD card, its almost perfect. if waypoints could have more data for a note it would be perfect, instead magellan lists allot of useless info like cache owner, ect. Hopefully someday garmin will have a similar card setup, and not just use it for storing maps and saving tracks(can't even use tracks off the card). at least with garmins POI loader I can have unlimited waypoints on the card like I could with the magellan, though it could be made much better.