better GPS = less bounce/better reception?

[+taylor12k]

we have a Legend HCx GPS, it's our first, and have been caching for almost exactly a year. it's done well for us and i know my way around it... however, my biggest complaint is that it has a LOT of bounce. in the woods (where most of our caching takes place) and on foggy/rainy days, the signal bounces everywhere.

 

i don't really need more features, but do better units, in general, provide better reception and less bounce?

 

i'm looking at the Oregon series.. 200 or 300 and wondering if these would provide more reliable positioning.

 

thanks.

taylor12k

Edited June 13, 2009 by taylor12k

[+StarBrand]

Can you better describe what you are calling "bounce"?? How close are you to caches when you see it? Describe in detail what the "bounce" causes you to do (or not do)? How do you carry the GPS?

 

Finally - what would a GPS have to display for you not to call it bounce??

 

I think we all need to know the answer to these questions before we can give very much advice. For the most part, under even demanding conditions, the Legend HCx is a top performer - or at least should be (mine is - only my Garmin Colorado 300 is better at maintaining signal lock in tough conditions). So I think a little more information is in order..........

[+taylor12k]

sorry.. by "bounce" i mean the cache target on my screen jumps around when i'm under tree cover.

 

i'll be walking towards the cache only to find the GPS screen shows a suddenly different direction that the cache is in... or i'll stand still and the cache target on the screen moves around. (sorry i'm not using more technical terms here, not sure if i'm up on GPS lingo.. and there may be another word for "bounce" that i don't know (although i see in people's logs use the term "bounce").

 

i'm basically wondering if better GPS units have better reception and tracking under tree cover or perhaps in more overcast weather conditions.

 

it's frustrating to be near a cache, with the GPS pointing me one way... starting walking towards it, and then all the sudden it points the opposite direction...

 

this happens when i've zoomed in enough where the cache is withing 30 or 50 feet.

 

hope i'm making it more clear.

 

Can you better describe what you are calling "bounce"?? How close are you to caches when you see it? Describe in detail what the "bounce" causes you to do (or not do)? How do you carry the GPS?

 

Finally - what would a GPS have to display for you not to call it bounce??

 

I think we all need to know the answer to these questions before we can give very much advice. For the most part, under even demanding conditions, the Legend HCx is a top performer - or at least should be (mine is - only my Garmin Colorado 300 is better at maintaining signal lock in tough conditions). So I think a little more information is in order..........

[+taylor12k]

here's a link to someone who describes "bounce" if you're unfamiliar with the term:

 

http://grigoriirasputin.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/gps-bounce/

 

maybe that will explain better than i can (and now i assume i'm using the right term)

 

just wondering if the Oregon 200 (or another model) would do this less than my HCx

[Ken in Regina]

I have to echo StarBrand. I have a Legend HCx. I have done some testing to compare it to other GPS receivers using GPS navigation software on my laptop and my netbook. I have tested using Garmin Mobile PC, Garmin nRoute, MS Streets&Trips, DeLorme Street Atlas and iNav iGuidance. I tested using the Legend HCx, a Garmin GPS10x, i.Trek M7, the Pharos 500 that came with Streets&Trips, and a GlobalSat BU-353.

 

All of these receivers have modern GPS technology in them. The Legend HCx is the best of the bunch at acquiring and holding a location fix in good or very difficult conditions.

 

...ken...

[+taylor12k]

thanks.. yeah, maybe this is just going to be a common problem in any GPS. since most of my caching is in forests i'm often under heavy tree cover and just want to make sure there's not something better out there that won't jump around so much.

 

I have to echo StarBrand. I have a Legend HCx. I have done some testing to compare it to other GPS receivers using GPS navigation software on my laptop and my netbook. I have tested using Garmin Mobile PC, Garmin nRoute, MS Streets&Trips, DeLorme Street Atlas and iNav iGuidance. I tested using the Legend HCx, a Garmin GPS10x, i.Trek M7, the Pharos 500 that came with Streets&Trips, and a GlobalSat BU-353.

 

All of these receivers have modern GPS technology in them. The Legend HCx is the best of the bunch at acquiring and holding a location fix in good or very difficult conditions.

 

...ken...

[+StarBrand]

Ok - thats kind of what I thought you were talking about.

 

What you are describing is perfectly normal behavior for most consumer grade handheld GPS units. The general accuracy of these things is around 15 to 25 feet. Ignore the EPE reading on the unit as that is a low confidence scientific guess as to how far off the reading is. Figure the actual "error" to be anywhere from half that value to over twice it. Add in any possible errors the hider had on the date/time it was placed and you could easily find yourself 40 - 60 feet from the cache. Typically you will find the cache within about 20 feet of where your unit says ground zero is. However, you should be prepared to widen the search.

 

What your unit is doing is a few things. First, you are getting inside that accuracy circle so it is struggling to know what direction is the most accurate to point to the cache. Especially on the map page. I suggest using the compass page that show direction to the cache and a countdown of the remaining distance. Second, your unit is noticing that you have slowed down or stopped so it is trying to get a good fix on your stopped location and sort of compensating for the fact you are not moving. Sometimes that takes it a minute or so. Give it that minute to settle down.

 

Finally, my best advice of all is to put the GPS away once you get within 30 feet or so and start looking for likely hiding spots. Struggling to find the ever shifting ground zero doesn't help locate a cache. Back off 100 feet or so and/or approach from a different angle to make certain you are at the right spot if need be.

 

Almost all handheld units will behave the way you descibe in challenging conditions. Trust the Legend HCx - it really is a fine unit. If you decide to get another - look for something with a quad helix anntena instead of a patch anntena like the etrex series. That gives you a little extra boost in signal strength.

[+taylor12k]

thanks, StarBrand... great informative answer!

 

you know, i've never used the compass page on the unit.. at least not to look at a countdown distance to the cache. always, as you said, have i been following the main screen and watching it struggle to find ground zero. i do often walk away and re-approach and try to get it to lock better which helps sometimes for sure.

 

the bounce has rarely caused me to not find a cache, so at the end of the day it's not a massive problem, but it does lead me in the wrong direction quite a bit (of course, only by 20-30 feet).

 

i'll definitely take a look into the compass page and continue to use my instincts when i get close.

 

thanks again for the info and your confidence in the HCx!

Edited June 13, 2009 by taylor12k

[Andronicus]

Ok - thats kind of what I thought you were talking about.

 

What you are describing is perfectly normal behavior for most consumer grade handheld GPS units. The general accuracy of these things is around 15 to 25 feet. Ignore the EPE reading on the unit as that is a low confidence scientific guess as to how far off the reading is. Figure the actual "error" to be anywhere from half that value to over twice it. Add in any possible errors the hider had on the date/time it was placed and you could easily find yourself 40 - 60 feet from the cache. Typically you will find the cache within about 20 feet of where your unit says ground zero is. However, you should be prepared to widen the search.

 

What your unit is doing is a few things. First, you are getting inside that accuracy circle so it is struggling to know what direction is the most accurate to point to the cache. Especially on the map page. I suggest using the compass page that show direction to the cache and a countdown of the remaining distance. Second, your unit is noticing that you have slowed down or stopped so it is trying to get a good fix on your stopped location and sort of compensating for the fact you are not moving. Sometimes that takes it a minute or so. Give it that minute to settle down.

 

Finally, my best advice of all is to put the GPS away once you get within 30 feet or so and start looking for likely hiding spots. Struggling to find the ever shifting ground zero doesn't help locate a cache. Back off 100 feet or so and/or approach from a different angle to make certain you are at the right spot if need be.

 

Almost all handheld units will behave the way you descibe in challenging conditions. Trust the Legend HCx - it really is a fine unit. If you decide to get another - look for something with a quad helix anntena instead of a patch anntena like the etrex series. That gives you a little extra boost in signal strength.

 

Not sure I would agree. My new gps (GlobalSat BT-821) usualy has me within about 5m (17 feet) of the cache (more than half the time within 2m (7feet)). When I am in trees, as long as I hold it with the antenna pointing sky ward, I get very little "bounce".

 

The problem with Garmin is that they don't like to publish their sensitivity rating. They just say "Super Sensitive". Great... What does that even mean.. Some of the new ones from other manufacturers are now getting well into the -160dBm range. i have seen one at -165dBm. That is going to do you a world of good in trees. What is Garmin's super sensitive (-155dBm used to be super sensitive, is that what they mean?). My BT-821 is listed at -158dBm.

 

Maybe I am way off. Maybe this has nothing to do with receiver sensitivity. I find that when I can't get the WAAS signal, I get 'bounce' Maybe that is the issue. I think the WAAS signal levels are even lower than GPS signals. Cloud cover or tree cover could block that out. If that is the problem, use your GPSr in a clearing for a bit (untill you get a WAAS signal), then head out into the forest. I think a WAAS signal is good for several hours, or more. Not sure of the exact details of that.

[+Styk]

we have a Legend HCx GPS, it's our first, and have been caching for almost exactly a year. it's done well for us and i know my way around it... however, my biggest complaint is that it has a LOT of bounce. in the woods (where most of our caching takes place) and on foggy/rainy days, the signal bounces everywhere.

 

i don't really need more features, but do better units, in general, provide better reception and less bounce?

 

i'm looking at the Oregon series.. 200 or 300 and wondering if these would provide more reliable positioning.

 

thanks.

taylor12k

 

I'll ask the obvious question, what version of software/firmware is loaded. I bought one fpr my wife shortly after they were released and have witnessed it jump about too. I use a 60Cx and still find it to be the best unit i've ever had. Don't even think about a Colorado, pretty sure with the leak about the Dakota units that Garmin has tossed the Colorado in the coffin and are preparing to bury it. If you live in the states, you have a lot of choices unlike us Canucks as far as manufactures go.

[yogazoo]

All of the above said, the most reliable, stable, sensitive under challenging conditions is the 60CSX.

 

I've owned an etrex, vista, 60csx, Colorado, and now two Oregons and I still consider the 60csx to be the gold standard for signal stability. Something about that Quad Helix antenna and that SirfIII chip that excels under handheld GPS conditions (slow movements, challenging tree cover). The quad Helix antenna doesn't appear to be a part of Garmin's future based on the most recent unit releases so the 60CSX may be the gold standard for signal reliability into the foreseable future.

 

I'll pay extra for a new GPS unit designed for stable, reliable signals and WAAS; instead we get pinhole cameras. The market drives everything. Just like the megapixel race in digital cameras, the more pixels the better right? Consumers get caught up in the trivialness of gadget features and the boardroom marketers respond. We get gadgets and not tools. Words like "touchscreen" and "digital camera" sell more units than "accuracy" and "improved WAAS reception" even though the entire point of a GPS is to find yourself or some point as accurately as possible.

 

Bah humbug, I digress.

Edited June 16, 2009 by yogazoo

[roybassist]

I still consider the 60csx to be the gold standard for signal stability. Something about that Quad Helix antenna and that SirfIII chip that excels under handheld GPS conditions (slow movements, challenging tree cover). The quad Helix antenna doesn't appear to be a part of Garmin's future based on the most recent unit releases so the 60CSX may be the gold standard for signal reliability into the foreseable future.

Or maybe not, since the new units of the 60/76C(S)x series are now shipping with MediaTek chipsets instead of SiRF III. Performance remains to be seen. We can no longer assume the performance of new units of this series will be as good as the older units with the SiRF III chips.

[yogazoo]

True, but there is cause for hope. The new mediatek chip has supposedly been designed for slow speeds and WAAS reception, unlike the Oregon's Crap-tesio. Maybe Garmin will maintain the 60CSX as an accuracy workhorse for those of us who value such an obsurd feature.

 

Wishing on the stars that Garmin updates the processor to handle the more intense mapsets with ease. Man, a fast map drawing 60CSX, now that's refreshing.

Edited June 16, 2009 by yogazoo