GPS Frustration

[+The-Chad]

I own a Garmin Etrek Legend that i bought 4 or 5 years ago. It served its purpose well for fishing and canoe trips. However, now that i have recently discovered geocaching i have to say: This unit is innaccurate and unreliable for this hobby. Today i went searching for 5 caches and was only able to find 1!

 

I would track a cache to within a few feet and then suddenly the unit switches to tell me i am 35 feet away and its behind me! Or i would track to the exact location on the unit and PRESTO I'm now 15 feet away in a different direction!

 

This makes it impossible for me to find well hidden caches. ITs not just in heavy cover either, today i was out in a wide open area, trying to find the "End of Pier" cache, which is hidden in a rockpile along the side of the pier, a good quarter mile from the shoreline essentially in the middle of the St Mary's River. I track to within 1.75 feet, then after moving a foot i'm told its 13 feet away! In relatively clear skies!

 

I have never owned or used any other GPS, how accurate are they supposed to be? DO the newer units have the same trouble? Is this normal behaviour for the Etrek Legend?

 

My birthday is in a few weeks and i am pretty sure that I will be getting the Garmin Oregon 200 for a gift. I certainly hope somebody can tell me that this unit will be much more accurate than my Legend.

Edited May 16, 2010 by The-Chad

[+coggins]

It wouldn't be much of a cache hunt it the GPS lead you directly to a pinpoint. Where's the fun in that? Although, I guess some would find that much more enjoyable.

[+The-Chad]

It wouldn't be much of a cache hunt it the GPS lead you directly to a pinpoint. Where's the fun in that? Although, I guess some would find that much more enjoyable.

 

Oh, i agree, but i would much rather search a 50 square foot area than a 300 square foot plot!

[+coggins]

Oh, i agree, but i would much rather search a 50 square foot area than a 300 square foot plot!

Dig it What you want to do is display the compass page and have it show the distance to the waypoint. follow the go to pointer and glance down as the distance counts down. When it gets below 100', look ahead that distance and look for somewhere that might be a likely hiding place. You have to be on the move to have the go to pointer point in the correct direction with that GPS as it doesn't have a magnetic compass. You might be able to get a closer reading if you have WAAS turned on. BTW, the hider's GPS might be off a bit, plus yours could be so adding those two together could result in 50 feet+/-

[+kentwoodkrew]

I hate to tell you but that oregon 200 you might get will be the same. Your performance with the legend sounds like what I have got from an oregon 400 and 450 and ALL others tried. My old venture hc is as probably as accurate as the oregons are. Ask delorme fans if they get better accuracy. I don't know. Remember that even if you drop 7 grand for a Trimble(10cm accuracy) you still have to contend with the hiders inaccuracy. The probability cloud is big so work on your read the mind of cachers skills Edited May 16, 2010 by kentwoodkrew

[namiboy]

I hate to tell you but that oregon 200 you might get will be the same. Your performance with the legend sounds like what I have got from an oregon 400 and 450 and ALL others tried. My old venture hc is as probably as accurate as the oregons are. Ask delorme fans if they get better accuracy. I don't know. Remember that even if you drop 7 grand for a Trimble you still have to contend with the hiders inaccuracy. The probability cloud is big so work on your read the mind of cachers skills

 

agreed, i have an old blue etrex legend and even when it gives me and EPE of 7 ft, it still doesn't take me to exact dead-on ground zero, i don't think any gpsr will. you might get lucky once a while maybe.

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

The original Legend does not have a high-sensitivity chipset. Newer models, including the Legend HCx, do. This should result in improved reception, faster lock, better performance in difficult conditions, etc.

[+DonB]

I own a Garmin Etrek Legend that i bought 4 or 5 years ago. It served its purpose well for fishing and canoe trips. However, now that i have recently discovered geocaching i have to say: This unit is innaccurate and unreliable for this hobby. Today i went searching for 5 caches and was only able to find 1!

 

I would track a cache to within a few feet and then suddenly the unit switches to tell me i am 35 feet away and its behind me! Or i would track to the exact location on the unit and PRESTO I'm now 15 feet away in a different direction!

 

This makes it impossible for me to find well hidden caches. ITs not just in heavy cover either, today i was out in a wide open area, trying to find the "End of Pier" cache, which is hidden in a rockpile along the side of the pier, a good quarter mile from the shoreline essentially in the middle of the St Mary's River. I track to within 1.75 feet, then after moving a foot i'm told its 13 feet away! In relatively clear skies!

 

I have never owned or used any other GPS, how accurate are they supposed to be? DO the newer units have the same trouble? Is this normal behaviour for the Etrek Legend?

 

My birthday is in a few weeks and i am pretty sure that I will be getting the Garmin Oregon 200 for a gift. I certainly hope somebody can tell me that this unit will be much more accurate than my Legend.

That's the nature of the beast. I'm using a 76CSX which is pretty accurate, there are times when I'm at GZ it will tell me I'm three or four feet from the cache, there are other times when I get within 20 feet from the cache it will start to jump around. That's when I put it away and use my eyes. That's how caching works. As someone else said, if the person that hid it was 10-15 feet of on the coordinates and your GPS is 10-15 feet off you could be 20-30 feet off total.

[Grasscatcher]

If the difference between 1.75 ft and 13 ft is considered to be an insurmountable problem, then I'm afraid that you'll need more than GPS guidance.

 

At some point the user should turn the GPS off and turn their brain and eye functions on.

[+The-Chad]

If the difference between 1.75 ft and 13 ft is considered to be an insurmountable problem, then I'm afraid that you'll need more than GPS guidance.

 

At some point the user should turn the GPS off and turn their brain and eye functions on.

 

lol, its not quite the endo fo the world. There were 3 of us searching for this particular cache to no avail, leading me to believe my gps was off just a little too much. Again, i had never used any other gps and only recently started using mine to find exact locations for geocaching. I guess i just don't know what to expect from the GPS accuracy. ThE difference between that 1.75 ft and 13 ft was by far the closest variance i had experienced. All other tracking attempts were much further off.

[+humboldt flier]

Can't begin to tell you how many times I've been out with 3 - 4 folks with the same model GPS'rs and all of us would be in slightly different locations. Then the time I neglected to change from on road to off road and was 100 or so feet away from the rest of the crew.