Stupid Question

[+stites1]

I was wondering... Does a GPSr have an easier time getting reception at higher altitudes? I live at sea level and am going to the mountains this summer. I was just curious.

[+Mach2003]

Clear path to the sky, and angle of view to the horizon are the biggest factors, so mountains, better at the top, worse in the valleys.

[+mbharpman]

The only stupid question is the one not asked...

[+JimyLee]

I was wondering... Does a GPSr have an easier time getting reception at higher altitudes? I live at sea level and am going to the mountains this summer. I was just curious.

I don't think altitude would affect it, but keep in mind while you are in the mountains that tree cover can cause difficulties. Looking for caches under tree cover can lead to inaccurate readings, so don't expect your GPS to put you right on top of all caches. Sometimes it takes some hunting.

[+imajeep]

You might actually get a bit better reception, depending on where you are located. WAAs satellites are low on the horisin, and in the northern, we often have difficulty getting good WAAS signals. If you I am on top of a mountain, I get better WAAS coverage. Last weekend, on top of Kennesaw Mountain in Georgia, it was awesome!

[+BlueDeuce]

You'll get better reception but the accuracy is purposely limited. So you aren't gaining that much.

 

The best thing if you are traveling over 200 miles, (without turning on your gps), is to let it 'bake' for 30 minutes.

 

Meaning leave it on under open sky, like on a dashboard of a car, so that the Almanac can be updated. This will help with faster satellite...detection.