How does the Colorado/Oregon compare to the 60csx on accuracy?

[ZeMartelo]

Hi,

 

I know that both the Colorado and Oregon beat the bush around the 60csx on the geocaching features but how do they compare accuracy wise?

 

I have a 60csx which I am a bit disapointed with it and I am wondering if the new models using newer chipsets are more accurate or at least dont drift as much as the 60csx especially when getting too close to the cache?

 

Anyone compared the accuracy on these three units?

Thanks

[+richsnake]

The 60csx is very good for accuracy. although the Oregon and Colorado are

very good units for geocaching. I do not think they beat the 60csx for accuracy.

[+Tequila]

Hi,

 

I know that both the Colorado and Oregon beat the bush around the 60csx on the geocaching features but how do they compare accuracy wise?

 

I have a 60csx which I am a bit disapointed with it and I am wondering if the new models using newer chipsets are more accurate or at least dont drift as much as the 60csx especially when getting too close to the cache?

 

Anyone compared the accuracy on these three units?

Thanks

 

Why are you disappointed with the 60CSx? IMO, it is the best GPS out there in terms of acquiring and maintaining a signal. And it is the most accurate commercial unit available, IMO.

 

It does not have the paperless caching functions of the Oregon.

 

I have both a 60CSx and an Oregon. I now use the OR almost exclusively. But if I had to stake my life on a unit, it would be the 60CSx.

[+Red90]

From testing the 60csx and the Colorado are very close. The Colorado still has a rare "drift" problem where it gets confused about the multipath, but like I say, it is very rare to see.

 

The Oregon is noticeably less sensitive, but most people are happy with it.

 

You won't find anything better than the 60csx, so either your expectations are too high or there is something wrong with your unit.

[+Prime Suspect]

Reports I've read show the 60C(S)x has slightly better sensitivity. It's the sort of thing that you need the proper instrumentation to detect. The average person won't really see any difference.

[+StarBrand]

Can you more pecisely describe your "drift" issue with the 60CSx??

 

If your are within about 25 feet of where the GPS thinks ground zero is - some erratic and shifting readings are to be expected on just about every unit - at least under many normal conditions.

[+Tequila]

The Oregon is not "less sensitive" and NEVER has the "rare drift" problem.

 

Prime Suspect is correct. You would need instrumentation to measure if the 60 is better than the OR.

[+g-o-cashers]

I own and use all three and I would agree with Red90. BTW, the Oregon does have rare drift issues -- about as frequently as the Colorado (both with the latest GPS firmware). I've recorded 2 on each unit in the last several months. None have been nearly as bad as the original Colorado drift problems but it happens. I wouldn't consider this a deciding factor given that it is relatively rare, although I can't say I've ever seen one on the 60csx.

 

While I don't have special equipment I have walked all three GPS's over the same test course 40-50 times each on different days, recorded the results and compared them to a hand averaged track. The CO and 60CSx produce almost identical results and are the most accurate, if you accept that the average track is accurate. The Oregon is more heavily averaged than the other two. If you compare a series of averaged OR tracks to a series of averaged 60CSx or CO tracks you'll see that the OR cuts corners. The OR is also more stable when stopped which is both good (because the tracks tend to be cleaner, the CO and 60csx create lots of "spiders") and bad (sometimes at very slow speeds, like when you are searching for a cache, the unit feels sluggish). I believe that this is why compass users think the compass on the OR is better than the other two. Since the GPS position is less sensitive the OR isn't subject to the erratic swings you get on the CO and 60csx when you get near GZ.

 

As a geocacher I think all three are going to be similar, especially if you let the Oregon settle for 20-30 seconds near ground zero. Personally, I gravitate toward the OR because of the ease of use (it trumps any differences in GPS accuracy 90% of the time) but I still find myself using the CO or 60csx under dense cover, areas with difficult reception or if the OR is just acting sluggish.

 

If you are going to be recording tracks for trail mapping projects, I think the 60csx or CO would be a better choice.

[+Red90]

I've spent a lot of time comparing the 60csx to the Colorado. As I make trail maps, I have access to a lot of track data from different units for the same location and you can make decent evaluations of unit sensitivity based on that. There is no need for special measuring equipment. I don't have any Oregon data as none of my contributors use one.

 

For the question of this particular topic, g-o-cashers has done exactly what is needed to give a solid scientific and unbiased evaluation.

[Glenn W]

A properly functioning 60CSx is capable of very good accuracy; a good way to test this is to record the position of a precisely surveyed point (USGS benchmarks work well). Garmin's on-screen maps are not as good as they should be, and cannot be trusted to test the accuracy of the receiver. Similiarly, the accuracy of a geocache location is a subject to several variables.

 

When I tested my 60CSx against a surveyed point (an environmental monitoring well location), the reported coordinates were only about 3 feet off from the surveyed coordinates. This was with an open view of the sky and favorable PDOP conditions. At the time, the 60CSx was displaying an estimated error of 9 feet.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Glenn W

[MtnHermit]

a good way to test this is to record the position of a precisely surveyed point (USGS benchmarks work well).

How does one know the coordinates of a USGS benchmark? Here's one from the south rim of the Grand Canyon. It shows the elevation, not the coordinates.

 

[+g-o-cashers]

I'll make one comment about the accuracy of GPS's related to a single well known point (ie. horizontal control mark). I've found that just about any high sensitivity receiver does a good job marking a known position, especially if it is averaged and PDOP is reasonable. I've done these types of tests with the three units being discussed here and I couldn't pick out any significant differences amongst the three other than if I didn't let the OR settle for 20-30 seconds it would tend locate the position toward my direction of approach (again the averaging thing).

 

I find that tracking accuracy is a much harder thing to accomplish and a better test of a unit's capability especially if you do it under cover.

[+Timpat]

How does one know the coordinates of a USGS benchmark? Here's one from the south rim of the Grand Canyon. It shows the elevation, not the coordinates.

Search on the NGS (National Geodetic Survey) site Data Sheet page, or go back a step to their home page for more info. I have found that some monuments at the Grand Canyon have been placed by other agencies and will not be listed on the NGS site. The one pictured doesn't have an ID (PID) stamped to help identify it. We have a virtual cache along the South Rim and I couldn't find data on it.

[+g-o-cashers]

@MtnHermit

 

This is OT but the mark above this this one: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=GP0514

 

It is a Vertical control mark which means the altitude is very accurate however there may be error in the lat/long, not a good one to calibrate against. Coords can be found in the datasheet here: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/datasheet.aspx?PID=GP0514

[ZeMartelo]

One of the things I like about the 60csx is the data fields that can be customized on almost any page.

Is it the same with the Colorado/oregon?

Can I have the compass with 2 to 4 data fields that are customizable like the 60csx?

[+Red90]

One of the things I like about the 60csx is the data fields that can be customized on almost any page.

Is it the same with the Colorado/oregon?

Can I have the compass with 2 to 4 data fields that are customizable like the 60csx?

 

Yes. Normal compass and map screens have adjustable fields. The geocaching application screens have fixed fields, but there are a bunch of them.

[+SALUKIS97]

The Oregon is not "less sensitive" and NEVER has the "rare drift" problem.

 

Prime Suspect is correct. You would need instrumentation to measure if the 60 is better than the OR.

 

Dude, get a grip. Seriously, your fanboy attitude is bordering on pathetic. The 60 is a good unit. The Oregon is a good unit, and guess what..........THE COLORADO IS A GOOD UNIT.

[+Prime Suspect]

One of the things I like about the 60csx is the data fields that can be customized on almost any page.

Is it the same with the Colorado/oregon?

Can I have the compass with 2 to 4 data fields that are customizable like the 60csx?

All the modern Garmin handhelds have customizable data fields.