Jump to content

Cell phone VS Handheld GPS


Recommended Posts

I geocache with a HTC Evo and its been preety accurate, but I run into problems with forests. Im trying to save for a Bluetooth GPS reciever so I can remedy this because I cant afford a handheld GPSr yet. The GPS in smartphones are only recommended for open roads so they need an extra boost in virtually closed areas. I bet these work with the handheld GPSrs too. Does anyone know of a portable Bluetooth reciever priced under $40?

Link to comment

I geocache with a HTC Evo and its been preety accurate, but I run into problems with forests. Im trying to save for a Bluetooth GPS reciever so I can remedy this because I cant afford a handheld GPSr yet. The GPS in smartphones are only recommended for open roads so they need an extra boost in virtually closed areas. I bet these work with the handheld GPSrs too. Does anyone know of a portable Bluetooth reciever priced under $40?

 

Around here it's pretty easy to find one at Factory Direct for about $45CDN. Try electronics surplus stores in your area. I have one that I used with my HTC phones (Touch, Touch Pro II) before I went over to iPhone.

Link to comment

I enjoyed reading through these posts reading the positive and negative aspects.

I've been Geocaching since 2003. I started off with my good old Etrex Legend (still have it btw) and progressed to the Etrex legend cx (also still have this one). I've enjoyed caching through the years, and have probably found another 100 or so that I never logged. When I started caching it was new to me and our family and we enjoyed it, and shared our new found hobby with a lot of our friends. Over the years several things happened.......Our kids, now 15 and 12 have been very active in sports and school activities and weekends usually involve sports or some other event. I always kept this hobby on my mind......always saying to myself "download pocket queries...and transfer them for vacation" would do this and on vacation maybe take the time to find a couple. Then the fuel started going up in price.....way up.

Most of my caches in the beginning involved offroading and in the woods and such (btw...over the years I never dropped my gps.....lol) and they were fun for a daytrip. Now, with fuel so high it became a $75/day to go 4x4 geocaching. This is quite expensive for a day of caching and as much as I enjoy using my 4wd it became obvious that it's an expense that can be put on the back burner. Also, as with any day of caching you have to spend some time finding the caches you want, download them....use a program to convert the gpx files and transfer them to the gps. Then you have to have another means of reading logs or hints (if you need them).....it really can be a lot of work for a busy person like myself. Life used to not be this fast, but my job has made it so...and I spend as much time as possible with our two boys.

Then came the G2....I tried with the G1 but didn't work as good. I searched the market over a year ago on the G1 and found a very useful program, but to me the G1 was not up to par. The G2 (google phone 2...Android phone on Tmobile) and the forbidden program you all speak of is really what brought me back to this hobby. I will never say the G2 equal a stand alone gps in durability, it will not. Using the phone has it's drawbacks (weather, battery and ease of damage), but it's ability to find caches on the go won me over. Then I come over here to read about the program and find out there is negative stuff about it on this site.....I guess I have been away for to many years from this site.

I find the spur of the moment use of the program with the G2 is just one of the best things for this hobby (for us anyways). Not all the time we have involves caching. So,when we are out and about now we have the ability to cache anywhere we have signal...lol. We (4 of us) all have Android phone and all have a data plan for other reasons than caching. What I think i'm trying to say is, using a gps for the sole purpose of caching is great! I still would love to do it, I just wish there was a gps unit as versatile as smartphone. My fantasy gps i would be willing to pay a monthly service fee to grab and go caches on the fly and do everything these smartphones with these programs can do. We never know when we (or myself) will have the time to cache and this makes it perfect for US. To many caches in the past I wouldn't log as I would get home and say "i'll post them on Geocaching.com later tonight...then tomorrow...then....etc." it would never happen.

I'm not trying to start thread up as a "this is better than this", i'm just relaying what is currently working for me and my family. I'm not a new person to this hobby (8 years into it) and our family has had plenty of time to figure out what type of caches we are interesed in....the main things we are dealing with are: Time....gas....priorities. I often get the feeling of buying the newest gps unit to maybe get us back into it....as they would probably hold more caches nowadays ( i know...i've been doing this for 8 years and only logged a couple hundred) a lot of the problem is not having caches on the ready for wherever we may be.

I hope this is read for what it is....the convenience of use of the smartphone is what is keeping in this hobby. I wish the gps manufacturers would catch up to the mainstream. There has to be a way to get this ease of use into these gps units.

 

Thank you for understanding that i'm not trying to point to one side or the other...just what is working for us.

 

Enjoy Life.....

Link to comment

I read through some of the comments, and I must disagree with the pro-phone comments. You are geocaching with your family, which is all fine, but when it comes to actually getting a cache that isn't just another park n' grab in the city, that is where you will want a dedicated GPSr. It will be smart to even bring a topo map with you also. I did have another account along time ago, but I guess staying logged out for so long, your account gets purged. So I really don't have anyway to prove my point by the number of caches I have. If you will look at the caches that I found and logged, you will see that except for a few, most are in places where it's either roaming, no coverage, or in a different country. Now just roaming by itself is very expensive. International coverage in the Middle East is even more expensive. Cellphones are good for the cacher that wants to drive around, walk less than a mile, and log. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you. I love the adventure, the challenge, and dare I say, the danger of an actual cache that only the adventurers ever get to. Climbing onto the side of a rock wall for a micro cache crammed into a crevice, or placed on top the the wall, scuba diving down to one, or canoeing for days on the lakes of Ontario, Canada is where I believe the true fulfillment of geocaching comes into play. Then again though I am a geographer with a passion for the outdoors. Most of the time I use my paper maps to locate caches, but there are still times I use my GPS76, and most recently, Oregon 450. It's kind of like anything I guess. What you plan on doing with it will ultimately make the decision on what to buy. One will not by a $30 cheap Walmart fishing rod to catch Marlin and Amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico. You would buy a pole that was designed for such, or risk it snapping from the strength of the fish. I honestly think that before posting why Android is superior, to do a real field test. I pretty sure if you did buy international coverage in Kuwait or Europe you will find out why a GPSr is better. As for the price of maps go. I use the free 24K USGS topo with raster data. NGA or similar for outside the US. Put different series on microSD, and when I need to change coverage I just swap them out.

 

So my two cents on the phone vs. gps debate.

Link to comment

I read through some of the comments, and I must disagree with the pro-phone comments. You are geocaching with your family, which is all fine, but when it comes to actually getting a cache that isn't just another park n' grab in the city, that is where you will want a dedicated GPSr. It will be smart to even bring a topo map with you also. I did have another account along time ago, but I guess staying logged out for so long, your account gets purged. So I really don't have anyway to prove my point by the number of caches I have. If you will look at the caches that I found and logged, you will see that except for a few, most are in places where it's either roaming, no coverage, or in a different country. Now just roaming by itself is very expensive. International coverage in the Middle East is even more expensive. Cellphones are good for the cacher that wants to drive around, walk less than a mile, and log. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you. I love the adventure, the challenge, and dare I say, the danger of an actual cache that only the adventurers ever get to. Climbing onto the side of a rock wall for a micro cache crammed into a crevice, or placed on top the the wall, scuba diving down to one, or canoeing for days on the lakes of Ontario, Canada is where I believe the true fulfillment of geocaching comes into play. Then again though I am a geographer with a passion for the outdoors. Most of the time I use my paper maps to locate caches, but there are still times I use my GPS76, and most recently, Oregon 450. It's kind of like anything I guess. What you plan on doing with it will ultimately make the decision on what to buy. One will not by a $30 cheap Walmart fishing rod to catch Marlin and Amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico. You would buy a pole that was designed for such, or risk it snapping from the strength of the fish. I honestly think that before posting why Android is superior, to do a real field test. I pretty sure if you did buy international coverage in Kuwait or Europe you will find out why a GPSr is better. As for the price of maps go. I use the free 24K USGS topo with raster data. NGA or similar for outside the US. Put different series on microSD, and when I need to change coverage I just swap them out.

 

So my two cents on the phone vs. gps debate.

Man, I totaly dissagree! Backcountry is no problem for a smart phone. See the link in my signature for info on how to use a smartphone in the back country. The last time I did a backcountry mountian scramble with a bunch of other seasoned geocachers, by the end of the hike, they were all differing to me for location information.

Link to comment
Man, I totaly dissagree! Backcountry is no problem for a smart phone. See the link in my signature for info on how to use a smartphone in the back country. The last time I did a backcountry mountian scramble with a bunch of other seasoned geocachers, by the end of the hike, they were all differing to me for location information.

 

I think (most) everybody knows that it can be done. All of its shortcomings can be worked around, yeah. The point is that a dedicated GPS doesn't have those shortcomings to begin with, which saves nerves and time.

Link to comment

I read through some of the comments, and I must disagree with the pro-phone comments. You are geocaching with your family, which is all fine, but when it comes to actually getting a cache that isn't just another park n' grab in the city, that is where you will want a dedicated GPSr. It will be smart to even bring a topo map with you also. I did have another account along time ago, but I guess staying logged out for so long, your account gets purged. So I really don't have anyway to prove my point by the number of caches I have. If you will look at the caches that I found and logged, you will see that except for a few, most are in places where it's either roaming, no coverage, or in a different country. Now just roaming by itself is very expensive. International coverage in the Middle East is even more expensive. Cellphones are good for the cacher that wants to drive around, walk less than a mile, and log. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you. I love the adventure, the challenge, and dare I say, the danger of an actual cache that only the adventurers ever get to. Climbing onto the side of a rock wall for a micro cache crammed into a crevice, or placed on top the the wall, scuba diving down to one, or canoeing for days on the lakes of Ontario, Canada is where I believe the true fulfillment of geocaching comes into play. Then again though I am a geographer with a passion for the outdoors. Most of the time I use my paper maps to locate caches, but there are still times I use my GPS76, and most recently, Oregon 450. It's kind of like anything I guess. What you plan on doing with it will ultimately make the decision on what to buy. One will not by a $30 cheap Walmart fishing rod to catch Marlin and Amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico. You would buy a pole that was designed for such, or risk it snapping from the strength of the fish. I honestly think that before posting why Android is superior, to do a real field test. I pretty sure if you did buy international coverage in Kuwait or Europe you will find out why a GPSr is better. As for the price of maps go. I use the free 24K USGS topo with raster data. NGA or similar for outside the US. Put different series on microSD, and when I need to change coverage I just swap them out.

 

So my two cents on the phone vs. gps debate.

Man, I totaly dissagree! Backcountry is no problem for a smart phone. See the link in my signature for info on how to use a smartphone in the back country. The last time I did a backcountry mountian scramble with a bunch of other seasoned geocachers, by the end of the hike, they were all differing to me for location information.

 

Honestly I do not want to carry a ton of equipment if I'm backpacking, or going through another country. Yes it can be done, but in the end it's still a phone and a GPSr is still a GPSr. They were designed for two different purposes. Take my example on fishing. Are you going to use a freshwater rod and reel to go deep sea fishing? You would use something that is designed for such. Same goes when you are on a trekk for over a week or more. You want to pack light and keep only the essentials. With them differing to you. That's when the whole "use a gps for reference" idea comes into play. GPS and maps were never meant to be used exact. They are a reference tool, and using them for such manner is dangerous. Ever been on a rough unpaved, loose surface road because your navigator told you that was the better route when driving? It's where I think people need to learn basic landnav skills. Learning to use paper maps, spotting landmarks, reading the sun, and orienting a paper map to a compass can save one's life.

Edited by ThomasAwesome
Link to comment

Man, I totaly dissagree! Backcountry is no problem for a smart phone. See the link in my signature for info on how to use a smartphone in the back country. The last time I did a backcountry mountian scramble with a bunch of other seasoned geocachers, by the end of the hike, they were all differing to me for location information.

 

Honestly I do not want to carry a ton of equipment if I'm backpacking, or going through another country. Yes it can be done, but in the end it's still a phone and a GPSr is still a GPSr. They were designed for two different purposes. Take my example on fishing. Are you going to use a freshwater rod and reel to go deep sea fishing? You would use something that is designed for such. Same goes when you are on a trekk for over a week or more. You want to pack light and keep only the essentials. With them differing to you. That's when the whole "use a gps for reference" idea comes into play. GPS and maps were never meant to be used exact. They are a reference tool, and using them for such manner is dangerous. Ever been on a rough unpaved, loose surface road because your navigator told you that was the better route when driving? It's where I think people need to learn basic landnav skills. Learning to use paper maps, spotting landmarks, reading the sun, and orienting a paper map to a compass can save one's life.

 

Now you're getting kind of specialized here, aren't you? This is more about backcountry survival than geocaching if I read your argument right. No, an iPhone is not the best tool for a 7 day backcountry canoe expedition. But that's not the point here. The iPhone is a good general purpose GPS for geocaching.

 

Just like a car is a general purpose transportation device. Not overly useful on a Jeep trail, but generally useful for getting around. If a person *has* a smartphone already, for other aspects of their life, why not use it for Geocaching? If you have a specialized purpose, like backcountry navigation then you re-equip as needed. There is a cache on the International Space Station. That does not mean people have to add a Saturn V rocket to their geocaching kit or give up geocaching.

 

As for discussions about the fact you need a dedicated GPSr to get topo or compass functions - here's what I can get on my iPhone 4 with minimal effort:

 

Department of Natural Resources Topo Maps:

 

Matchedash_NRCAN_Topo.png

 

This is provided by a FREE app by Trailbehind, and caches the tiles for use without a data connection. The iPhone 4 GPS works with no data connection, so you can put the phone in airplane mode and use the GPS without the radio draining your battery.

 

or, how about Fugawi Topo maps instead? This one also caches the map tiles in advance if you want:

 

Fugawi_Topo.png

 

Or how about OpenCycleMap, which you can edit at OpenStreetMap.org if you find a map error that bugs you?

 

GPS_Motion_X_Terrain.png

This one was provided by GPS Motion X. Which also has lots of cool things built in like sight'n'go, and range/bearing, or tracklog playback. Also caches map tiles.

 

You see, there's one major advantage of the smartphones over the discreet GPS units. You can switch the software/maps much quicker and easier. I own several discreet GPS units. My Magellan eXplorist 600 and XL units started with poor topo, and never, ever got a decent update for that map. My Garmin Colorado has a much better Topo map, or I can switch to Ontario Backroad GPS map but costs creep up and up. The strength these units have is durability and maybe battery life. I say maybe because my Colorado gets pretty thirsty.

 

For 90% of the caches I visit my iPhone is sufficient. If you look at my profile you will see I have found lots and lots of urban caches, yes. I also have a pile of backcountry caches, several dozen canoe caches, and I have been known to hike 40+ kilometers in a day to find tupperware. I have not used my iPhone for all those hunts, but I have used it for a significant number of those hunts. I do take my iPhone when I visit canoe caches. There's a Pelican Case for that.

 

As we get devices like the Delorme SPOT paired with a Smartphone you are going to see more smartphones displacing dedicated GPSr units.

 

Short story - if you are looking to purchase just one device for your geocaching, there is nothing wrong with using your smartphone, as long as you are aware of the capabilities, and weaknesses of the device.

Link to comment

Man, I totaly dissagree! Backcountry is no problem for a smart phone. See the link in my signature for info on how to use a smartphone in the back country. The last time I did a backcountry mountian scramble with a bunch of other seasoned geocachers, by the end of the hike, they were all differing to me for location information.

 

Honestly I do not want to carry a ton of equipment if I'm backpacking, or going through another country. Yes it can be done, but in the end it's still a phone and a GPSr is still a GPSr. They were designed for two different purposes. Take my example on fishing. Are you going to use a freshwater rod and reel to go deep sea fishing? You would use something that is designed for such. Same goes when you are on a trekk for over a week or more. You want to pack light and keep only the essentials. With them differing to you. That's when the whole "use a gps for reference" idea comes into play. GPS and maps were never meant to be used exact. They are a reference tool, and using them for such manner is dangerous. Ever been on a rough unpaved, loose surface road because your navigator told you that was the better route when driving? It's where I think people need to learn basic landnav skills. Learning to use paper maps, spotting landmarks, reading the sun, and orienting a paper map to a compass can save one's life.

 

Now you're getting kind of specialized here, aren't you? This is more about backcountry survival than geocaching if I read your argument right. No, an iPhone is not the best tool for a 7 day backcountry canoe expedition. But that's not the point here. The iPhone is a good general purpose GPS for geocaching.

 

Just like a car is a general purpose transportation device. Not overly useful on a Jeep trail, but generally useful for getting around. If a person *has* a smartphone already, for other aspects of their life, why not use it for Geocaching? If you have a specialized purpose, like backcountry navigation then you re-equip as needed. There is a cache on the International Space Station. That does not mean people have to add a Saturn V rocket to their geocaching kit or give up geocaching.

 

As for discussions about the fact you need a dedicated GPSr to get topo or compass functions - here's what I can get on my iPhone 4 with minimal effort:

 

Department of Natural Resources Topo Maps:

 

Matchedash_NRCAN_Topo.png

 

This is provided by a FREE app by Trailbehind, and caches the tiles for use without a data connection. The iPhone 4 GPS works with no data connection, so you can put the phone in airplane mode and use the GPS without the radio draining your battery.

 

or, how about Fugawi Topo maps instead? This one also caches the map tiles in advance if you want:

 

Fugawi_Topo.png

 

Or how about OpenCycleMap, which you can edit at OpenStreetMap.org if you find a map error that bugs you?

 

GPS_Motion_X_Terrain.png

This one was provided by GPS Motion X. Which also has lots of cool things built in like sight'n'go, and range/bearing, or tracklog playback. Also caches map tiles.

 

You see, there's one major advantage of the smartphones over the discreet GPS units. You can switch the software/maps much quicker and easier. I own several discreet GPS units. My Magellan eXplorist 600 and XL units started with poor topo, and never, ever got a decent update for that map. My Garmin Colorado has a much better Topo map, or I can switch to Ontario Backroad GPS map but costs creep up and up. The strength these units have is durability and maybe battery life. I say maybe because my Colorado gets pretty thirsty.

 

For 90% of the caches I visit my iPhone is sufficient. If you look at my profile you will see I have found lots and lots of urban caches, yes. I also have a pile of backcountry caches, several dozen canoe caches, and I have been known to hike 40+ kilometers in a day to find tupperware. I have not used my iPhone for all those hunts, but I have used it for a significant number of those hunts. I do take my iPhone when I visit canoe caches. There's a Pelican Case for that.

 

As we get devices like the Delorme SPOT paired with a Smartphone you are going to see more smartphones displacing dedicated GPSr units.

 

Short story - if you are looking to purchase just one device for your geocaching, there is nothing wrong with using your smartphone, as long as you are aware of the capabilities, and weaknesses of the device.

 

Ha I guess I was. I know most will not do the caches I love to do, and it really goes to each his/her own. There is no wrong tool to use. I just believe that no phone is a complete substitute for a GPSr, and no GPSr is a substitute for a paper map. Recognizing the limitations and shortcomings of the tools that are used should be exercised. My biggest thing is seeing someone walk while staring at the arrow on their GPSr or phone without looking up, but that is another topic all together.

 

I see from your signature you live in Ontario. I am planning another trekk sometime next summer. It's really one of my favorite places in the world, except for the winter. HAHA

Link to comment

Hello - The answer to this question is probably somewhere in this thread, but I got sick of weeding through the nonsense halfway through the first page, so I'll ask this here and hope someone can help. I also have a Android Phone (Samsung Vibrant) and while the App (paid, official geocache app)is very nice on the big color screen and well put together, I find that my gps isn't very accurate. I'm lucky to get within a possible error range of 100 ft and that's after plenty of fighting with the thing to get to that point. While it is great for plotting out the general area with driving directions and what not, it's very frustrating once you get close. Will a dedicated gps solve that? I assume the problem with my phone is do to my somewhat rural area and maybe the network (tmobile) but will a gps be a lot more accurate up close?

Link to comment

This has been a great read.

 

I destroyed enough PDAs out in the woods while caching to know I don't trust myself to use my iPhone for anything more than basic urban caching. My 60CSx looks like it has been through a war but it just keeps ticking whereas my last iPhone 3G fell from my hands in the hallway at work and never worked again.

 

I now have an iPhone4 and it is much improved over the older 3G model in terms of accuracy and speed of updates when hunting caches. I'll use it in the city for a quick find when I forget the real GPSr, or as a paperless device to compliment my 60CSx. If I'm hiking the iPhone is secured inside my pack where it is not going to fall and where it is protected from the elements.

 

(It was great to see a thread that looked like it was going to go off the rails sideways last summer get back on track. Some of the early postings had me alternately shaking my head and then laughing out loud.)

Link to comment

People Have already chimed in...but I will throw my 2 cents in

 

I have a Garmin 76CS (Amzon Link)). I bought it years ago. I have used it for years....I dont log all my finds, but I have been caching for quite a few years in many states and countries. The thing is a BEAST, I have loved it from day 1. It is accurate, rugged, takes a beating...Battery life is superb...on just plain batteries, which can easily be changed out. Waterproof, rain proof, (i even spilled a gallon of paint on it in my truck, the paint dried, and i peeled the paint off - pics on request.)

 

Flash forward to present, I got a Droid X (Verizon Link to Droid))

 

I love it, and will use it in my toolbox for a lot of caching, but it will not totally replace my handheld for many of the already stated reasons, like weather / durability and accuracy

 

The pros and cons have been outlined already, so I will keep it short:

 

Handheld GPS:

 

+ Works without needing cell service, if you preload the caches

(i suppose this is true with my droid too, but I havent tried any preloading with it yet)

+ Rugged / Weatherproof

+ uses regular AA batteries, lasts a LONG time

+ Mine (76cs) Seems to be MUCH more accurate....but I have an excellent unit

+ Montly Cost - NO montly fee! Ever!

- Higher Start Cost / additional maps $$$

- Less user friendly (at least slightly, IMO)

- Display probably not as good / big etc on many of them...but I find mine excellent (76cs)

 

Phone / Smartphone / 3g/4g --- DROID OS (I have no experience with Iphones, just android OS)

 

+ Amazing...flexible...can download maps / caches in the field IF you have service*

(This is a huge IF....if you drop service, it can ruin things if youre not prepared)

+ Cheap Starting Cost! A hundred or two hundred bux and BOOm you have an amazing machine in your hands.

+ Free / Cheap apps, lots of new apps being developed

+ Beautiful displays, zoom in / out....

+ simple interfaces, easy to delete and store caches...no real need for a computer

- $$$ High Monthly Fee (unless you already need a data plan or have one, then this is moot)

- Not so rugged / durable / waterproof...YET..but that should change soon enough.

 

 

Just my 2 cents but I think that for now a handheld is a pretty cool thing (for me)...As I am pretty hard on devices. However, with that being said....I think the era of the handheld GPS stand alone is probably done. More and more people are just going to have 'do it all' devices. This argument will not even exist in a few years....There MIGHT be some stand alone GPSR's that are really cheap for hiking/camping/geocaching enthusiasts but it will be an extremely rare niche...even among that population as most people will just have GPSR in their phones and watches and cars and everything else.

 

It is really hard to justify spending a ton of money on a handheld, stand alone GPSR when your phone can do pretty much everything that the stand alone can...Thats just my opinion...HOWEVER, I do enjoy mine, and also take it out into the forest/water/rocks where it gets abused. And I love the fact that it doesnt cost a monthly fee....I still have mine, still use mine...but I see the day coming on the close horizon where that isnt going to be.

 

 

TL ; DR: I still use my handheld/standalone...but in the near future I believe they will be obselete for the most part.

Edited by mantis7
Link to comment

I geocache primarily with an iPhone. I've made two hides with it, also. (But shhh...don't tell the local purists or they'll put my caches on the ignore list!) I also bought an eTrex H to assist me where my iPhone lacks - battery life, low signal areas, international caching, and "on the fly" waypoints - multis, puzzles.

 

Out of the 353 caches I've located, about 85% were located with the iPhone. The others I used solely the eTrex or a conjunction of the iPhone and eTrex. The iPhone makes a pretty super paperless caching assistant - even without signal. I can save my list of caches and their respective details and bring it up on the phone's screen to save paper. I can also take photos and quickly and easily post them to my log.

 

The biggest drawback of the phone, IMO, is connectivity. Depends on your respective network, but AT&T tends to stink in its coverage consistency. It's GREAT here in Eastern PA, however, once you pass State College, you're sort of screwed (with the exception of Pittsburgh and Erie - you're okay in those urban areas).

Link to comment

 

The biggest drawback of the phone, IMO, is connectivity. Depends on your respective network, but AT&T tends to stink in its coverage consistency. It's GREAT here in Eastern PA, however, once you pass State College, you're sort of screwed (with the exception of Pittsburgh and Erie - you're okay in those urban areas).

 

Dunno, I'd say my Garmin Colorado doesn't have great connectivity in the field either, so I wouldn't say connectivity is a weakness for smartphones. Load up a program like Geosphere with some PQs and you can easily go caching with the phone in Airplane mode.

Link to comment

Hello - The answer to this question is probably somewhere in this thread, but I got sick of weeding through the nonsense halfway through the first page, so I'll ask this here and hope someone can help. I also have a Android Phone (Samsung Vibrant) and while the App (paid, official geocache app)is very nice on the big color screen and well put together, I find that my gps isn't very accurate. I'm lucky to get within a possible error range of 100 ft and that's after plenty of fighting with the thing to get to that point. While it is great for plotting out the general area with driving directions and what not, it's very frustrating once you get close. Will a dedicated gps solve that? I assume the problem with my phone is do to my somewhat rural area and maybe the network (tmobile) but will a gps be a lot more accurate up close?

The GPS is smartphones are not all created equal. Some are as good as handhelds, some rely on the cell network to be as good as a handheld, and some are crap.

 

If yours is one of the later 2, you should really get a external bluetooth GPS. They are cheep, accuriate, and long battery life. Android is a little tricky to get setup using an external bluetooth GPS. There is an app that you need to trick the OS into thinking that the bluetooth GPS is the simulation mode. Kind of lame, but it works.

Link to comment

This has been a great read.

 

I destroyed enough PDAs out in the woods while caching to know I don't trust myself to use my iPhone for anything more than basic urban caching. My 60CSx looks like it has been through a war but it just keeps ticking whereas my last iPhone 3G fell from my hands in the hallway at work and never worked again.

 

I now have an iPhone4 and it is much improved over the older 3G model in terms of accuracy and speed of updates when hunting caches. I'll use it in the city for a quick find when I forget the real GPSr, or as a paperless device to compliment my 60CSx. If I'm hiking the iPhone is secured inside my pack where it is not going to fall and where it is protected from the elements.

 

(It was great to see a thread that looked like it was going to go off the rails sideways last summer get back on track. Some of the early postings had me alternately shaking my head and then laughing out loud.)

Sounds like you should get an otter box for your phone. My old HTC Touch Vogue is still working great. I just put it in a sillicon skin, and attach it to a lanyard around my neck. On long backcountry hikes, I also attach it to the strap of my backpack to keep it from banging around. I am working on setting up a velcro system to secure it to the backpack straps for easy retreaval.

Link to comment

This has been a great read.

 

I destroyed enough PDAs out in the woods while caching to know I don't trust myself to use my iPhone for anything more than basic urban caching. My 60CSx looks like it has been through a war but it just keeps ticking whereas my last iPhone 3G fell from my hands in the hallway at work and never worked again.

 

I now have an iPhone4 and it is much improved over the older 3G model in terms of accuracy and speed of updates when hunting caches. I'll use it in the city for a quick find when I forget the real GPSr, or as a paperless device to compliment my 60CSx. If I'm hiking the iPhone is secured inside my pack where it is not going to fall and where it is protected from the elements.

 

(It was great to see a thread that looked like it was going to go off the rails sideways last summer get back on track. Some of the early postings had me alternately shaking my head and then laughing out loud.)

Sounds like you should get an otter box for your phone. My old HTC Touch Vogue is still working great. I just put it in a sillicon skin, and attach it to a lanyard around my neck. On long backcountry hikes, I also attach it to the strap of my backpack to keep it from banging around. I am working on setting up a velcro system to secure it to the backpack straps for easy retreaval.

 

+1 for the OtterBox

 

I have one on my iPhone 4. Best case I've found to date.

Link to comment

This has been a great read.

 

I destroyed enough PDAs out in the woods while caching to know I don't trust myself to use my iPhone for anything more than basic urban caching. My 60CSx looks like it has been through a war but it just keeps ticking whereas my last iPhone 3G fell from my hands in the hallway at work and never worked again.

 

I now have an iPhone4 and it is much improved over the older 3G model in terms of accuracy and speed of updates when hunting caches. I'll use it in the city for a quick find when I forget the real GPSr, or as a paperless device to compliment my 60CSx. If I'm hiking the iPhone is secured inside my pack where it is not going to fall and where it is protected from the elements.

 

(It was great to see a thread that looked like it was going to go off the rails sideways last summer get back on track. Some of the early postings had me alternately shaking my head and then laughing out loud.)

Sounds like you should get an otter box for your phone. My old HTC Touch Vogue is still working great. I just put it in a sillicon skin, and attach it to a lanyard around my neck. On long backcountry hikes, I also attach it to the strap of my backpack to keep it from banging around. I am working on setting up a velcro system to secure it to the backpack straps for easy retreaval.

 

+1 for the OtterBox

 

I have one on my iPhone 4. Best case I've found to date.

 

How's this? Mobilesyrup.com (Canadian smartphone site) put an Otterbox Reflex on an iPhone 4, then set about throwing the phone onto things like sidewalks. From their blog, yesterday -> http://mobilesyrup.com/2011/03/29/video-review-otterbox-reflex-series-case-for-iphone-4-throw-test/

Edited by northernpenguin
Link to comment

I've been Geocaching off & on (mostly off)since 2002. I started out with a Magellan meridian gold. I've enjoyed the hobby for the most part - It's taken me to places that I never would have seen otherwise. But it hs also gotten me into trouble. When you have a blank screen with an arrow & an "X" it's difficult at best to know that you are finding the easiest/safest route to a cache. I've wound up on my butt many a time on the way to a cache only to find an easier/better route out. I have a HTC Incredible now & I went cacheing with it last weekend for the first time in years. I d/l'ed an app many months ago that was free but out of habit, came here to search for caches. I found that Geocaching.com has an app for android - great! But I was shocked, it's $10. To me, that is alot of money for an app. I know, $10 isn't alot of money, but in a world of .99 apps, $10 is outrageous. So I loaded some caches into that free app & the merrigold & went out with my niece geocaching. I was very impressed with the gps in the phone & the app I used. It provided me with a satalite picture of my surroundings & for the first time, I could see that the cache is "on the other side of the canyon", or the cache is "on the other side of the river & here's the best/safest place to cross". When caching, esp. with a 9 y.o. girl, this was an immeasureable feature. I didn't find the accuracy to be much worse than the merrigold, including finding a cache in some big trees. I understand that there are limitations with battery life & durability when it comes to a smartphone, but I'm with the O.P. - GPS companies have ALOT of catching up to do. And for the first time in years, I'm looking forward to geocaching again. But the smartphone will definitely be in use!

Edited by Brian_d
Link to comment

I have an HTC Incredible smartphone on which I use the Geocaching.com app. My GPS is a Garmin GPSmap 60CSx. While the Incredible is a fine phone, the GPS wins hands down when geocaching and a few other outdoor activities. Battery life is in favor of the Garmin, and yes, I do have the heavy duty battery. While geocaching, coverage in many areas is spotty with the cellphone.

Do both have great attributes? YES! Do both have room for improvement? ABSOLUTELY!! But when I'm caching the GPS is my #1 choice.

If you don't care for your Oregon 450, I'll be happy to take it off your hands!

Final comment; whatever you use, have FUN caching... :D

Link to comment

 

As we get devices like the Delorme SPOT paired with a Smartphone you are going to see more smartphones displacing dedicated GPSr units.

 

Short story - if you are looking to purchase just one device for your geocaching, there is nothing wrong with using your smartphone, as long as you are aware of the capabilities, and weaknesses of the device.

FWIW, that isn't a Delorme SPOT. Spot Connect works with devices such as an iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch or Android phone. Let me know if you want some screen shots. Edited by coggins
Link to comment

 

As we get devices like the Delorme SPOT paired with a Smartphone you are going to see more smartphones displacing dedicated GPSr units.

 

Short story - if you are looking to purchase just one device for your geocaching, there is nothing wrong with using your smartphone, as long as you are aware of the capabilities, and weaknesses of the device.

FWIW, that isn't a Delorme SPOT. Spot Connect works with devices such as an iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch or Android phone. Let me know if you want some screen shots.

 

Thanks Coggins for clearing that up :)

Link to comment

Here's a little bit of fun I had on Friday, which will add a bit of fuel to the Cell phone vs GPS debate, particularly with the "inaccurate iPhone" vs a "far more reliable" Garmin Colorado, dedicated GPS.

 

Here's my tracklogs from both devices on a 5 km trailrun, in a wooded area with hills and a wetland:

 

iphone-vs-colorado.jpg

 

The red line is my iPhone 4, running Runkeeper in the background, with the screen off, playing music. I lost something like 5% battery charge while I was doing this, over a good hour (stopped for a few caches too) iPhone was inside my jacket pocket.

 

The blue line is my Garmin Colorado 400t, running 3.6 firmware, clipped outside my jacket to my shoulder.

 

Not only was my iPhone way more accurate on this run (I don't recall hopping fences into the farm next door, or taking off through that wetland at the beginning - right hand side of the map), the Colorado said I had 300 meters to go when I arrived at my car.

 

The rest of the weekend the iPhone tracklogs matched my Colorado tracklog almost identical - the next day was in a wind driven rainstorm (great day for a tree planting CITO ... for the trees anyway)

Edited by northernpenguin
Link to comment

I can't complain about our iphones, aside from the battery life.

We geocached probably 10 years ago with an old Garmin emap (we still have it!!) originally. Lost interest and now we're back playing with our iphones and the geocaching app. Having the phone with all the other goodies attached is definately nice. Expensive phone, yes... but we don't seek to find really difficult caches. If we need both hands to crawl or climb to get to a cache - we simply bypass it or put the phones inside a secure pocket.

 

And again, we have the old emap plus we have a Garmin Nuvi too. In fact, today I'm going to hide some 'test' caches using all 3 devices and see how the coordinates compare. My husband will try to find them using his iphone (before we register the cache online).

 

We were out caching the entire day on Saturday. We got about 3-4 hours of constant GPS usage before the low battery warning came on (18%). The good thing is, we both have iphones. Next time - we'll stick with using just one iphone at a time. Use mine for 3-4 hours and then switch over to using his for another 3-4 hours (while charging mine in the car inbetween stops). A good 6 hours of geocaching is enough for me.

Link to comment

Here's a little bit of fun I had on Friday, which will add a bit of fuel to the Cell phone vs GPS debate, particularly with the "inaccurate iPhone" vs a "far more reliable" Garmin Colorado, dedicated GPS.

 

Here's my tracklogs from both devices on a 5 km trailrun, in a wooded area with hills and a wetland:

 

iphone-vs-colorado.jpg

 

The red line is my iPhone 4, running Runkeeper in the background, with the screen off, playing music. I lost something like 5% battery charge while I was doing this, over a good hour (stopped for a few caches too) iPhone was inside my jacket pocket.

 

The blue line is my Garmin Colorado 400t, running 3.6 firmware, clipped outside my jacket to my shoulder.

 

Not only was my iPhone way more accurate on this run (I don't recall hopping fences into the farm next door, or taking off through that wetland at the beginning - right hand side of the map), the Colorado said I had 300 meters to go when I arrived at my car.

 

The rest of the weekend the iPhone tracklogs matched my Colorado tracklog almost identical - the next day was in a wind driven rainstorm (great day for a tree planting CITO ... for the trees anyway)

Dude how dare you use actual testing for your results! My sisters cousins aunt s htc tattoo isn't accurate at all!

Link to comment

Using phones for caching, and especially placing caches, just leads to degradation of our hobby. Phone cachers course are usually 60-150 feet off! Where I can pinpoint to 8 feet with my garmin 62s.

 

Also, you dont have to buy Garmina maps. I have mine loaded with free maps that are better than Garmins!

Link to comment

Using phones for caching, and especially placing caches, just leads to degradation of our hobby. Phone cachers course are usually 60-150 feet off! Where I can pinpoint to 8 feet with my garmin 62s.

 

Also, you dont have to buy Garmina maps. I have mine loaded with free maps that are better than Garmins!

 

Look at my post three posts above before you make a broad statement like that. My iPhone smoked the Garmin GPS on accuracy over a 1 hour period. I can upload dozens of tracks where my iPhone 4 and my Colorado agree on the track.

 

My Garmin Colorado 400t has a constant drift issue. The 62s with the most current GPS Firmware (not OS, GPS Chipset Firmware) also has the drift issue periodically.

My iPhone consistently brings me within 10 feet of a cache, even in inclement weather.

 

Modern smartphones are typically just as accurate as a modern GPS, as they typically include a discreet GPS. A two year old smartphone can be much less accurate, sure. It all depends on the brand.

 

Of my last five smartphones - HTC Touch Vogue, HTC Touch Pro 2 Rhodium, Blackberry Tour 9630, Blackberry Bold 9700 and iPhone 4 -- NONE of them showed a "typical" accuracy of 60-150 feet. NONE. My worst one was the Touch Vouge which averaged about 15-20' accuracy.

Link to comment
Dude how dare you use actual testing for your results! My sisters cousins aunt s htc tattoo isn't accurate at all!

 

You want actual testing? Well, here you go. I had some time to do some "actual testing" while waiting for my ride yesterday, Oregon 450 (running latest beta firmware) vs. HTC Desire Z (not the one that was "proven" to be accurate to 12 inches, heh, but close enough).

 

The test consisted of me having picked a random, well recognizable spot on the sidewalk, approaching this spot from different directions and simultaneously marking a waypoint on both devices. Single shot readings, no averaging, and both devices were given a few seconds at the designated spot to settle down before the waypoint was marked. Then I walked away a few meters and repeated. Everything was done under open sky.

 

Both devices were turned on (or had the GPS enabled) initially at roughly the same time, a few minutes before I started the test. The Oregon showed an accuracy of 3 meters for most of the test, and the HTC showed an accuracy of 2.0 meters. I marked 10 waypoints total and the coordinates are listed below. Since I don't know the actual coordinates of the designated spot, I used the mean location from each device and the variation from that mean is given below for each waypoint in meters, plus the mean variation at the end.

 

Oregon:

 

+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2116' | 3.12 |
| N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2127' | 1.77 |
| N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2133' | 0.68 |
| N 43 21.0253' W 079 50.2130' | 2.25 |
| N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2141' | 0.59 |
| N 43 21.0240' W 079 50.2146' | 1.16 |
| N 43 21.0241' W 079 50.2151' | 1.85 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2143' | 0.72 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2143' | 0.72 |
| N 43 21.0239' W 079 50.2146' | 1.19 |
+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2138' | 1.41 | <- MEAN
+------------------------------+------+

 

HTC:

 

+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0228' W 079 50.2126' | 2.96 |
| N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2146' | 1.52 |
| N 43 21.0237' W 079 50.2164' | 2.63 |
| N 43 21.0234' W 079 50.2164' | 2.65 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2170' | 3.59 |
| N 43 21.0234' W 079 50.2122' | 3.06 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2134' | 1.78 |
| N 43 21.0246' W 079 50.2134' | 2.33 |
| N 43 21.0226' W 079 50.2152' | 2.18 |
| N 43 21.0228' W 079 50.2134' | 2.06 |
+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2145' | 2.48 | <- MEAN
+------------------------------+------+  

 

So while the results from the phone aren't disastrous, it shows that it's not more accurate than the GPS. even though it claims that it is (going by the shown "accuracy"), and it also shows that the accuracy given by the phone is pretty much a joke. I also expect that the difference would be much more significant under tree cover.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

 

So while the results from the phone aren't disastrous, it shows that it's not more accurate than the GPS. even though it claims that it is (going by the shown "accuracy"), and it also shows that the accuracy given by the phone is pretty much a joke. I also expect that the difference would be much more significant under tree cover.

 

Yes you do demonstrate that a GPS unit is typically more accurate than a cell phone (well one data point anyway). But 3M of error is considered acceptable for consumer GPS units right across the board. Certainly acceptable for geocaching - wouldn't use either for surveying a bridge support.

 

That's a far, far cry from those who will claim all smartphones are 50-100 metres out.... like say that guy above.

Link to comment
Yes you do demonstrate that a GPS unit is typically more accurate than a cell phone (well one data point anyway). But 3M of error is considered acceptable for consumer GPS units right across the board. Certainly acceptable for geocaching - wouldn't use either for surveying a bridge support.

 

That's a far, far cry from those who will claim all smartphones are 50-100 metres out.... like say that guy above.

 

Well, saying that they're never that far off is just a broad of a statement as saying that they're always that far off, don't you think? :)

Obviously it depends, on the phone, on the user, on the circumstances, on the moon phase... And obviously it has happened before, and not only once. But that wasn't the point of the test anyway, I'm mostly tired of hearing people claim that their phone is oh so much more accurate than any other GPS could ever possibly be.

Link to comment
Yes you do demonstrate that a GPS unit is typically more accurate than a cell phone (well one data point anyway). But 3M of error is considered acceptable for consumer GPS units right across the board. Certainly acceptable for geocaching - wouldn't use either for surveying a bridge support.

 

That's a far, far cry from those who will claim all smartphones are 50-100 metres out.... like say that guy above.

 

Well, saying that they're never that far off is just a broad of a statement as saying that they're always that far off, don't you think? :)

Obviously it depends, on the phone, on the user, on the circumstances, on the moon phase... And obviously it has happened before, and not only once. But that wasn't the point of the test anyway, I'm mostly tired of hearing people claim that their phone is oh so much more accurate than any other GPS could ever possibly be.

 

Right. I'd never claim that a phone is more accurate than GPS in general, but I'm on the other fence - tired of the people complaining that no smartphone is usable for geocaching because of the "inaccuracy". On the other hand, my iPhone DID smoke my Colorado in my last test, but Garmin is having their own issues with making GPS units that reliably give position information - the Colorado is well known to suffer 100M location drifting and the 62 series does it too if you run the wrong beta GPS Chipset firmware. My 5 year old Magellan eXplorist 600 smokes my iPhone for position accuracy pretty easily though.

 

You're absolutely correct it depends on the brand, the user, the satellite constellation, the geology and whether or not the user is keeping their phone/gps warm in a tin foil bag .....

Link to comment
Dude how dare you use actual testing for your results! My sisters cousins aunt s htc tattoo isn't accurate at all!

 

You want actual testing? Well, here you go. I had some time to do some "actual testing" while waiting for my ride yesterday, Oregon 450 (running latest beta firmware) vs. HTC Desire Z (not the one that was "proven" to be accurate to 12 inches, heh, but close enough).

 

The test consisted of me having picked a random, well recognizable spot on the sidewalk, approaching this spot from different directions and simultaneously marking a waypoint on both devices. Single shot readings, no averaging, and both devices were given a few seconds at the designated spot to settle down before the waypoint was marked. Then I walked away a few meters and repeated. Everything was done under open sky.

 

Both devices were turned on (or had the GPS enabled) initially at roughly the same time, a few minutes before I started the test. The Oregon showed an accuracy of 3 meters for most of the test, and the HTC showed an accuracy of 2.0 meters. I marked 10 waypoints total and the coordinates are listed below. Since I don't know the actual coordinates of the designated spot, I used the mean location from each device and the variation from that mean is given below for each waypoint in meters, plus the mean variation at the end.

 

Oregon:

 

+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2116' | 3.12 |
| N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2127' | 1.77 |
| N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2133' | 0.68 |
| N 43 21.0253' W 079 50.2130' | 2.25 |
| N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2141' | 0.59 |
| N 43 21.0240' W 079 50.2146' | 1.16 |
| N 43 21.0241' W 079 50.2151' | 1.85 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2143' | 0.72 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2143' | 0.72 |
| N 43 21.0239' W 079 50.2146' | 1.19 |
+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2138' | 1.41 | <- MEAN
+------------------------------+------+

 

HTC:

 

+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0228' W 079 50.2126' | 2.96 |
| N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2146' | 1.52 |
| N 43 21.0237' W 079 50.2164' | 2.63 |
| N 43 21.0234' W 079 50.2164' | 2.65 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2170' | 3.59 |
| N 43 21.0234' W 079 50.2122' | 3.06 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2134' | 1.78 |
| N 43 21.0246' W 079 50.2134' | 2.33 |
| N 43 21.0226' W 079 50.2152' | 2.18 |
| N 43 21.0228' W 079 50.2134' | 2.06 |
+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2145' | 2.48 | <- MEAN
+------------------------------+------+  

 

So while the results from the phone aren't disastrous, it shows that it's not more accurate than the GPS. even though it claims that it is (going by the shown "accuracy"), and it also shows that the accuracy given by the phone is pretty much a joke. I also expect that the difference would be much more significant under tree cover.

Find a benchmark then repost results....

 

Edit: am I understanding your results? Are you debating over 3 feet? For real 3 feet is literally nothing when using consumer grade gps

Edited by LukeTrocity
Link to comment

Using phones for caching, and especially placing caches, just leads to degradation of our hobby. Phone cachers course are usually 60-150 feet off! Where I can pinpoint to 8 feet with my garmin 62s.

 

Also, you dont have to buy Garmina maps. I have mine loaded with free maps that are better than Garmins!

 

Degradation of the hobby? Seems this hobby has exploded since the last time I did it 10 years ago.

 

Technology of GPS's and phones has greatly improved. The ease of having a phone & GPS wrapped up into one unit is the best thing since sliced bread!! You say they're inaccurate - well - I've been finding a lot of caches, so it can't be all that bad. We'll see how this hobby ends up in another 10 years.

 

The degradation of this hobby won't be due to inaccurate devices, it'll be because of our own ignrance & laziness.

Edited by Lieblweb
Link to comment
Find a benchmark then repost results....

 

Edit: am I understanding your results? Are you debating over 3 feet? For real 3 feet is literally nothing when using consumer grade gps

 

What good would it be to repeat the same thing with a benchmark?

 

And I don't know if you understand the results. I'm not debating anything, I'm demonstrating. The phone claimed to be more accurate than the GPS, while the opposite was true. That's all.

Link to comment
Dude how dare you use actual testing for your results! My sisters cousins aunt s htc tattoo isn't accurate at all!

 

You want actual testing? Well, here you go. I had some time to do some "actual testing" while waiting for my ride yesterday, Oregon 450 (running latest beta firmware) vs. HTC Desire Z (not the one that was "proven" to be accurate to 12 inches, heh, but close enough).

 

The test consisted of me having picked a random, well recognizable spot on the sidewalk, approaching this spot from different directions and simultaneously marking a waypoint on both devices. Single shot readings, no averaging, and both devices were given a few seconds at the designated spot to settle down before the waypoint was marked. Then I walked away a few meters and repeated. Everything was done under open sky.

 

Both devices were turned on (or had the GPS enabled) initially at roughly the same time, a few minutes before I started the test. The Oregon showed an accuracy of 3 meters for most of the test, and the HTC showed an accuracy of 2.0 meters. I marked 10 waypoints total and the coordinates are listed below. Since I don't know the actual coordinates of the designated spot, I used the mean location from each device and the variation from that mean is given below for each waypoint in meters, plus the mean variation at the end.

 

Oregon:

 

+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2116' | 3.12 |
| N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2127' | 1.77 |
| N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2133' | 0.68 |
| N 43 21.0253' W 079 50.2130' | 2.25 |
| N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2141' | 0.59 |
| N 43 21.0240' W 079 50.2146' | 1.16 |
| N 43 21.0241' W 079 50.2151' | 1.85 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2143' | 0.72 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2143' | 0.72 |
| N 43 21.0239' W 079 50.2146' | 1.19 |
+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2138' | 1.41 | <- MEAN
+------------------------------+------+

 

HTC:

 

+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0228' W 079 50.2126' | 2.96 |
| N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2146' | 1.52 |
| N 43 21.0237' W 079 50.2164' | 2.63 |
| N 43 21.0234' W 079 50.2164' | 2.65 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2170' | 3.59 |
| N 43 21.0234' W 079 50.2122' | 3.06 |
| N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2134' | 1.78 |
| N 43 21.0246' W 079 50.2134' | 2.33 |
| N 43 21.0226' W 079 50.2152' | 2.18 |
| N 43 21.0228' W 079 50.2134' | 2.06 |
+------------------------------+------+
| N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2145' | 2.48 | <- MEAN
+------------------------------+------+  

 

So while the results from the phone aren't disastrous, it shows that it's not more accurate than the GPS. even though it claims that it is (going by the shown "accuracy"), and it also shows that the accuracy given by the phone is pretty much a joke. I also expect that the difference would be much more significant under tree cover.

 

You seem to have mistaken consistency for accuracy. Just because a device give consistent numbers doesn't mean they're right! This applies to both devices!

Link to comment
You seem to have mistaken consistency for accuracy. Just because a device give consistent numbers doesn't mean they're right! This applies to both devices!

 

I'm aware of that. But if a device already isn't consistent, then it also can't be accurate.

Link to comment
You seem to have mistaken consistency for accuracy. Just because a device give consistent numbers doesn't mean they're right! This applies to both devices!

 

I'm aware of that. But if a device already isn't consistent, then it also can't be accurate.

 

But on the other hand, consistency within the acceptable error margin of the device? 3 metres is what I'd normally expect for a consumer grade GPS.

My car does not have nanometer precision for steering but it works quite well for aiming it within a 12 foot lane width .....

Link to comment
But on the other hand, consistency within the acceptable error margin of the device? 3 metres is what I'd normally expect for a consumer grade GPS.

My car does not have nanometer precision for steering but it works quite well for aiming it within a 12 foot lane width .....

 

That's still not the point. See post #139.

Link to comment
But on the other hand, consistency within the acceptable error margin of the device? 3 metres is what I'd normally expect for a consumer grade GPS.

My car does not have nanometer precision for steering but it works quite well for aiming it within a 12 foot lane width .....

 

That's still not the point. See post #139.

 

Yes, the phone "claimed" to be more accurate. The term should be "confidence" on a GPS not "accuracy" as these things don't have a known reference point to compare their accuracy to.

 

Averaging co-ordinates can be helpful, but it is not a guarantee of accuracy either. My Colorado will happily tell me the co-ordinates are accurate to within 3 metres, and even average coords over 5 minutes - and I can average a drifted location that is 100+ meters out when it's acting up.

 

My point was that any consumer GPS that is reporting results consistent to within 3 meters is already overconfident to begin with. I'd like to see the same exercise repeated over several days, at the same marked location. Let those satellites move around a bit. If the location could be a known benchmark (with verified location), even better.

Link to comment
Yes, the phone "claimed" to be more accurate. The term should be "confidence" on a GPS not "accuracy" as these things don't have a known reference point to compare their accuracy to.

Confidence, accuracy, consistency, whatever. It's the sole reason for so many threads and posts popping up with the innuendo "phone accuracy > GPS accuracy". Their phone tells them it's accurate to 2 meters (or I've even seen it show 1 meter, which is outright ridiculous), while their GPS tells them it's accurate to 3 meters, so the phone has to be more accurate. Also the software on the phone shows them distances to the coordinats with sub-meter precision while the GPS only shows them round meters, so again the phone has to be more accurate. They come up with all kinds of wild ideas about why it is like that (it's called AGPS, so obviously it's the cell network assisting the regular GPS and thus giving more accurate position, right? :laughing:), while in reality it's not true at all. But they won't understand or believe that if you try to explain it to them, because they see the accuracy number as raw fact and obviously, since their phone owns everything and is the best thing since sliced bread, they only see and believe what they want to see.

Link to comment
Yes, the phone "claimed" to be more accurate. The term should be "confidence" on a GPS not "accuracy" as these things don't have a known reference point to compare their accuracy to.

Confidence, accuracy, consistency, whatever. It's the sole reason for so many threads and posts popping up with the innuendo "phone accuracy > GPS accuracy". Their phone tells them it's accurate to 2 meters (or I've even seen it show 1 meter, which is outright ridiculous), while their GPS tells them it's accurate to 3 meters, so the phone has to be more accurate. Also the software on the phone shows them distances to the coordinats with sub-meter precision while the GPS only shows them round meters, so again the phone has to be more accurate. They come up with all kinds of wild ideas about why it is like that (it's called AGPS, so obviously it's the cell network assisting the regular GPS and thus giving more accurate position, right? :laughing:), while in reality it's not true at all. But they won't understand or believe that if you try to explain it to them, because they see the accuracy number as raw fact and obviously, since their phone owns everything and is the best thing since sliced bread, they only see and believe what they want to see.

 

Um, ok. But the OP didn't mention GPS accuracy, just that he preferred his smartphone because of the free mapping support. This thread sure didn't start out as one of *those* threads - I was taking it as a more encompassing discussion of positives/negatives about a cell phone or discreet GPS.

 

I posted my tracklog up above not to demonstrate that my phone said it was more accurate - in fact, I don't even look at that data much - I posted it to show that my phone is at least equal to my Garmin GPS on average, without getting too in depth and "pixel peeping" the individual data points. I'm sure there were times my iPhone reported more confidence than my Colorado did on that run, and points where the opposite was true.

 

I'm from the camp that's always dealing with people that compare their 5 minute old super elite Garmin/Magellan/Trimble unit to the original iPhone, and then claiming that all iPhones(or smartphones) are inaccurate. It would be like me claiming your HTC phone gets lousy GPS location based solely on my experience with the original HTC Touch.

 

There are "zealots" on both sides of the discussion, and a fair number of people just hanging out in the middle.

Link to comment
Um, ok. But the OP didn't mention GPS accuracy, just that he preferred his smartphone because of the free mapping support. This thread sure didn't start out as one of *those* threads - I was taking it as a more encompassing discussion of positives/negatives about a cell phone or discreet GPS.

Oh the thread sure didn't start out like that, but I recall someone steering it into that direction. :anibad:

Link to comment
Um, ok. But the OP didn't mention GPS accuracy, just that he preferred his smartphone because of the free mapping support. This thread sure didn't start out as one of *those* threads - I was taking it as a more encompassing discussion of positives/negatives about a cell phone or discreet GPS.

Oh the thread sure didn't start out like that, but I recall someone steering it into that direction. :anibad:

 

I would argue they both have SIMILAR CONSUMER GRADE accuracy. Both fine for geocaching.

 

 

Also I was thinking a benchmark because a "common spot on a sidewalk" seems inaccurate.

 

For the record I use both types. My Oregon is my "go to" unit for durability and battery life. I break out my smartphone for quick access or when I'm stuck.

Edited by LukeTrocity
Link to comment
So while the results from the phone aren't disastrous, it shows that it's not more accurate than the GPS. even though it claims that it is (going by the shown "accuracy"), and it also shows that the accuracy given by the phone is pretty much a joke.

Dude, you just measured precision, not accuracy. I agree with you that the phone zealots are wrong, but you did not disprove their contention.

 

Go find a known point and measure the accuracy.

Link to comment

I'm a fairly avid smartphone/tablet user, and also own an Oregon 300.

 

I almost never use my phone for caching, and probably never will.

1) Battery life - Having a phone "always-on" for hike tracking/viewing imagery/etc will kill its battery REALLY fast. Having a backup battery to swap out is not feasible - expensive and device-specific. My Oregon uses cheap and standard NiMH AAs

 

2) Maps stored locally - If I'm in an area without cell phone reception, the phone becomes useless. Garmin's desire to milk you for extra money does make the unit seem less attractive at first, but since the IMG format has been mostly reverse engineered and the JNX format has been fully REd, there are PLENTY of free map sources for Garmin units.

 

3) Superior GPS performance. The GPS solutions in cell phones are cheap with weak correlators. Their raw performance is on par with or worse than old standalone GPS units from a decade ago. (my eMap locks faster than any smartphone I've used when out of coverage). When in a phone coverage area, the crutches of SUPL, time/location injection, and ephemeride preload (Qualcomm XTRA or similar) make the phone seem almost as good to an end user as a dedicated GPS - but if those crutches go away, the phone's GPS will show its true (vastly inferior) colors. Also, as far as ephemeride preload - a GPS with an MTKv2 chipset (Unfortunately, while there was a press release saying Garmin and MediaTek signed a supplier agreement, it sounds like the GPSMAP units are still using Cartesio - maybe MTKv2 is only in Nuvis?) will smoke a fully augmented smartphone in terms of lock times even without ephemeride preloads. The ephemeride caching implemented by the Cartesio (Oregons, DeLorme PN-40 and maybe 60) is a good middle ground. Similarly, MTKv2 chipsets smoke smartphones in terms of sensitivity. (Cartesio not so much)

 

3a) As others have said, reported accuracy means nothing. The only things that mean anything are: Measured actual errors/variances from a known position, and PDOP. DOP numbers are the only accuracy measure a GPS unit can give you that isn't a guess.

 

4) Magnetic compass performance - the magnetic compasses in many phones are flaky and inconsistent. (Nearly useless in my tablet...) Phone manufacturers focus on form factor and phone functionality - compass performance is a barely tested afterthought. Even Apple focuses only on the user interface and form factor and doesn't even care about phone performance. (The iPhone 4's antenna design is simply inexcusable. And yes, I am an RF engineer with antenna design experience - designing an antenna where the element is routinely contacted by human skin with no insulation whatsoever is dumb, dumb, dumb.)

 

5) Durability. I've dropped/bumped my GPS in many situations that would destroy a phone without the Oregon taking any damage. (This is admittedly part of the reason for smaller screens - the larger the screen, the easier it is to break/harder it is to protect.) Same for if it rains or there is any water spray - even light spray can kill some phones, and most phone's warranties void even in high humidity due to the immersion sensors being a liiitle too sensitive.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...