Will the Colorado's ever average coords?

[+Life-Long-Ridger]

Hello to everyone out there

 

I have had the Garmin Colorado 400t ever since it came out and like any other GPS..I was not fully satisfied when it did come out due to some of the querks that are usually typical with a new unit coming out. I can say though that with the updates in the software package on the Colorado's I am now very pleased with it. There is however one thing that I am still not thrilled with. The fact that there is no way of doing an average of one specific spot when marking coords. The 60CSx has this ability and I would have thought that Garmin would have automatically put it in the Colorado's but apparently not. When I place a cache, I want to be able to have the most accurate coords for it as I can. Since the Colorados do not have this option, I feel like I can not get the best coords. I have a friend that has a 60CSx and his coords are always accurate within 5 to 8 feet of the cache locations because he always does an average of about 500 markings.

 

Does anyone know if Garmin plans on adding this feature with an upcoming software update? I think if I had this one feature, I would be 100% satisfied with the Colorado.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Life-Long-Ridger

[+Branky]

I feel the same way with the Oregon. I would like to see and external antenna on the Oregon series as well.

 

Other than those two issuses, it is a great unit for the way I use it.

I have gotten used to the UI, the touch screen has been good even with gloves, and the accuracy has been ok.

I like having the Heart Rate Strap adding the data to the current.gpx, it makes monitoring while walking, hiking and caching a lot easier. Now if only I did not have to use 3rd party tools to read the HRM data.

 

Ok there a three issues that iwould like to see fixed....

 

Cheers to the group

...Branky....

Victoria BC

Canada

[+Renegade Knight]

Fixing averaging would be a trivia update for Garmin to do with the Oregon. Lets hope they do.

 

That said most times averaging doesn't really give us better coords, it just makes us feel better about them. That's been my observation based on placing caches. Some I averaged, some I didn't. They all came out about the same. My worst complaints came from a cache where I averaged for a long time. The trees, cliff, and overhead power lines mucked up the signal more than averaging could compensate for. (Likewise finders signal were being mucked up).

[+Timpat]

I'm with you on wishing for averaging on the CO. But for now I have been using this terrific Wherigo cartridge called Build your own GPS by Geofellas. It works great after getting used to the button pushing, and is what I use when placing a cache.

[Braff-n-MandaRue]

I've used the "Build Your Own GPS'r" Cartridge with my Colorado, and the averaging function found on me eTrex Legend HCx as well. I'm not actually totally convinced that this is the best way to actually average a waypoint anymore though.

 

I've actually had much more success with the "old" or "manual" way of averaging. The one were you approach the cache from multiple directions, sometimes on multiple days, and take a new waypoint each time, then average the results to get the final coordinates. You can read about it HERE.

 

It seems to eliminate more of the error that may be involved with overhead trees, powerlines, cloudy days, etc.

 

I've always wondered if Garmin actually had that in mind when they didn't put the averaging function into the Colorado's.

 

I know I feel more confident when I take multiple separate readings, after approaching the cache from multiple directions, than I do when I just lay the GPS'r down and let it average itself.

[+Evshro & son]

Somone please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the coordinates given on the Colorado an average already? I thoought that the GPS averaged your location.

[+Life-Long-Ridger]

Somone please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the coordinates given on the Colorado an average already? I thoought that the GPS averaged your location.

 

 

Well that is what I thought but when I approach a place where I want to put a cache...about the best accuracy that I can get is about 15ft...it will not get anymore accurate then that...I would really like a way to get it under 10ft and I have seen time and time again the 60CSx do just that.

 

LLR