Smart phones and geocaching

[+lynjer7]

I'm thinking of finally getting a smart phone...but mostly for geocaching. I'm with verizon so I'd get a Droid or an iPhone. Which one do you think has the best apps and programs, and generally is easiest and best to use for geocaching? I don't really know much about either phone yet...curious what cachers have to say about the phones and apps before I talk to sales folks....thanks for your help!

Edited August 19, 2011 by lynjer7

[+EdrickV]

I don't think phones are the best way to do Geocaching, unless you already have a good GPS and just want to be able to get cache info on the fly or something. (And I actually have and use a smartphone for Geocaching, though it is an older Windows Mobile device I bought used. If I had the cash though, I'd get a better hiking style GPS. I didn't get the smartphone just for Geocaching, but to combine the abilities of my old regular phone and old PDA into one device, with a nice slide out keyboard.)

 

Haven't had an Android phone or an iPhone, but I personally would pick Android before an iPhone. (On an iPhone you can only run the software that Apple lets you. On an Android phone you can download apps on your PC and put them onto the phone directly, not just get apps through an app store.)

[+mpilchfamily]

For me i'd have to have more then Geocaching in mind to dope that much money on a smart phone. For the price you pay for the phone itself you could get a really nice dedicated GPSr. Then on top of that you have to have a phone and data plan. Run the numbers and you'll see your throwing another $500 to $1000 a year into a device your mainly using for Geocaching and phone calls. So i'd have to need it for more then calls and Geocaching to be putting that much of my money into a single device.

 

Judging by your finds i take it you already have a GPSr. So if that isn't adequate enough i'd invest in a better unit. A dedicated Hand Held unit is always best for Geocaching. Smartphones tend to have very poor battery life. If you drop them while on the trail they likely won't survive the fall. If it starts to rain on you that could damage them as well.

[NordicMan]

Don't buy a Smartphone "just for Geocaching" if you don't already have one, they aren't cheap & data plans nickel & dime you to death.

 

If you do want a Smartphone for other reasons then get one. After that you can *also* use it for geocaching they all have apps available.

 

But if you really want one that is more optimized for Geocaching check out something like the Motorola Defy. It's waterproof dust proof & in general is way more rugged than a typical smartphone.

[+Jonathanwpurvis]

I'm thinking of finally getting a smart phone...but mostly for geocaching. I'm with verizon so I'd get a Droid or an iPhone. Which one do you think has the best apps and programs, and generally is easiest and best to use for geocaching? I don't really know much about either phone yet...curious what cachers have to say about the phones and apps before I talk to sales folks....thanks for your help!

 

Im only new to Geocaching and I have to agree it's not a good idea to buy the phone just for GC. However in saying that I'm using my iphone with the GC app if we stick with the gc I'll buy a unit but for now I'll stick with my iPhone. However in saying that the battery gets drained very very quickly so I'd imagine on a big, GC it would be a non runner. It's certainly a good starting point but it's not a reason to buy one

 

Now on the phone front I'm a dedicated lover of the iPhone I have to say I would highly recommend one

[+niraD]

As others have said, using a smartphone for geocaching doesn't make sense unless you already have a smartphone for other reasons. With the money you would spend on the phone and on the first year of service, you can get a top-of-the-line GPSr with paperless caching features, and have money left over to pay for premium membership for years to come.

[+lynjer7]

As others have said, using a smartphone for geocaching doesn't make sense unless you already have a smartphone for other reasons. With the money you would spend on the phone and on the first year of service, you can get a top-of-the-line GPSr with paperless caching features, and have money left over to pay for premium membership for years to come.

 

Thank you for your response. You seem to be in agreement with others. I wouldn't really get the phone JUST for geocaching, but it is incentive to me to get one if it is the best way to go. Maybe getting a better GPS would be the way to go. Any suggestions?

[+lynjer7]

I don't think phones are the best way to do Geocaching, unless you already have a good GPS and just want to be able to get cache info on the fly or something. (And I actually have and use a smartphone for Geocaching, though it is an older Windows Mobile device I bought used. If I had the cash though, I'd get a better hiking style GPS. I didn't get the smartphone just for Geocaching, but to combine the abilities of my old regular phone and old PDA into one device, with a nice slide out keyboard.)

 

Haven't had an Android phone or an iPhone, but I personally would pick Android before an iPhone. (On an iPhone you can only run the software that Apple lets you. On an Android phone you can download apps on your PC and put them onto the phone directly, not just get apps through an app store.)

 

Thanks for your response. I've heard good things about the Droids so I'd probably go with that if I get a smart phone.

[+lynjer7]

As others have said, using a smartphone for geocaching doesn't make sense unless you already have a smartphone for other reasons. With the money you would spend on the phone and on the first year of service, you can get a top-of-the-line GPSr with paperless caching features, and have money left over to pay for premium membership for years to come.

 

Thanks for your response. I've got a bit to think about. I should crunch some numbers too.

[+lynjer7]

I'm thinking of finally getting a smart phone...but mostly for geocaching. I'm with verizon so I'd get a Droid or an iPhone. Which one do you think has the best apps and programs, and generally is easiest and best to use for geocaching? I don't really know much about either phone yet...curious what cachers have to say about the phones and apps before I talk to sales folks....thanks for your help!

 

Im only new to Geocaching and I have to agree it's not a good idea to buy the phone just for GC. However in saying that I'm using my iphone with the GC app if we stick with the gc I'll buy a unit but for now I'll stick with my iPhone. However in saying that the battery gets drained very very quickly so I'd imagine on a big, GC it would be a non runner. It's certainly a good starting point but it's not a reason to buy one

 

Now on the phone front I'm a dedicated lover of the iPhone I have to say I would highly recommend one

 

Thanks for your response. I'll check out the iPhone a bit more.

[+EdrickV]

If you can afford it, the best way to go IMHO is a hiking style GPS capable of paperless Geocaching. (Being a premium member as you are, the GPX files you download, either directly or through Pocket Queries, will have more information in them then a basic member like me would get. That includes name, GC code, terrain/difficulty ratings, size, description, hint, and the last 5 logs. On a paperless GPS you can access all that info, and you may also be able to make notes in the field. (I can do something similar with my smartphone even as a basic member, but it is a /lot/ more work and wastes a lot of space doing it the way I am. When I get the chance to go Geocaching on a more regular basis, then I'll be getting a Premium Membership and may look into a higher end GPS.)

 

(Incidentally, unlike many people my smartphone is actually used with a fixed price plan and without a data plan. Since the phone I bought is a few generations old and bought refurbished, I was able to get it for less then many hiking style GPS units.)

[DesertPopps]

Agreeing with the others about the accuracy of smartphones for geocaching. This afternoon I opened a geocache program on my phone and watched the accuracy swing between +/- 62m to +/- 192m. Last time we were searching for a cache the gps showed a range of +/- 7ft. Notice the difference between meters and feet.

[+Lieblweb]

Don't buy a smart phone just for geocaching. Buy the smart phone because you want it for data, e-mail, games, internet accesss, etc.

 

My husband and I have iphones. The iphones actually got us started with geocaching....and got us hooked on it. So - I can't complain about using the phones for geocaching. However - the smart phones are expensive, are NOT water proof, are NOT rugged, and really not meant to be outdoors with dirty/muddy fingertips. Battery life on the smart phones absolutely sucks....so you're limited to the amount of time you can get out geocaching and a lack of cell phone service can impede your geocaching progress. The phones get slow & unresponsive when cell service isn't available.

 

We bought a dedicated GPS and couldn't be happier. A dedicated GPS is more accurate and will get you closer to the caches more quickly. The iphones did well, but more often .......you had to stand around for too long before the signal settles. You can geocache all day long without battery problems - and even so - they're AA batteries that you swap out in an instant (Our Oregon 450 anyway). Just last weekend, we rode our bikes about 6 miles on a power trail in the pouring rain with our Oregon 450. We were soaked to the bone and had a BLAST!! The Oregaon was in our hands and out in the rain the whole time.....Can't do that with a smart phone!

 

We use the GPS and the iphones on-field for instant logging and/or finding local geocaches while traveling (and we haven't loaded the GPS with PQ's). Depending on the situation - we will log our finds in the GPS also (like, the last weekend in the rain).

Edited August 19, 2011 by Lieblweb

[+3Woofs]

We just started Geocaching in June. We use an iphone which I had so GC app was a no brainer. Also use Geosphere which seems to work better where no good satellite signal for phone--used preloaded queries. Also use an Extrex which we were lucky and a fellow geocacher gave to us, better battery life and weather resistance etc. Also use our car Nuvi to get to parking areas. We always had this GPS unit for our car we just never knew that it had a pedestrian mode and we could enter locations by coordinates until we started caching. In the end under tree cover is difficult for us no matter what.

[+lynjer7]

We just started Geocaching in June. We use an iphone which I had so GC app was a no brainer. Also use Geosphere which seems to work better where no good satellite signal for phone--used preloaded queries. Also use an Extrex which we were lucky and a fellow geocacher gave to us, better battery life and weather resistance etc. Also use our car Nuvi to get to parking areas. We always had this GPS unit for our car we just never knew that it had a pedestrian mode and we could enter locations by coordinates until we started caching. In the end under tree cover is difficult for us no matter what.

Thanks for the info. To geocache instantly...when you're in an area you haven't downloaded info to the GPS sounds like the phone works well....otherwise a good GPS is better. I agree.

[+lynjer7]

We just started Geocaching in June. We use an iphone which I had so GC app was a no brainer. Also use Geosphere which seems to work better where no good satellite signal for phone--used preloaded queries. Also use an Extrex which we were lucky and a fellow geocacher gave to us, better battery life and weather resistance etc. Also use our car Nuvi to get to parking areas. We always had this GPS unit for our car we just never knew that it had a pedestrian mode and we could enter locations by coordinates until we started caching. In the end under tree cover is difficult for us no matter what.

 

Thanks for the info. Sounds like both a GPS and a Smart phone may be the best way to go...especially if you want to do instant caching.

[+lynjer7]

Don't buy a smart phone just for geocaching. Buy the smart phone because you want it for data, e-mail, games, internet accesss, etc.

 

My husband and I have iphones. The iphones actually got us started with geocaching....and got us hooked on it. So - I can't complain about using the phones for geocaching. However - the smart phones are expensive, are NOT water proof, are NOT rugged, and really not meant to be outdoors with dirty/muddy fingertips. Battery life on the smart phones absolutely sucks....so you're limited to the amount of time you can get out geocaching and a lack of cell phone service can impede your geocaching progress. The phones get slow & unresponsive when cell service isn't available.

 

We bought a dedicated GPS and couldn't be happier. A dedicated GPS is more accurate and will get you closer to the caches more quickly. The iphones did well, but more often .......you had to stand around for too long before the signal settles. You can geocache all day long without battery problems - and even so - they're AA batteries that you swap out in an instant (Our Oregon 450 anyway). Just last weekend, we rode our bikes about 6 miles on a power trail in the pouring rain with our Oregon 450. We were soaked to the bone and had a BLAST!! The Oregaon was in our hands and out in the rain the whole time.....Can't do that with a smart phone!

 

We use the GPS and the iphones on-field for instant logging and/or finding local geocaches while traveling (and we haven't loaded the GPS with PQ's). Depending on the situation - we will log our finds in the GPS also (like, the last weekend in the rain).

 

I wouldn't get the smart phone JUST for geocaching;...but even with an expensive GPS you still have to download sites and I like the idea of using the smart phone to instant geocache when you're in an area you know will have caches but haven't downloaded them. Thanks for the info.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

VZW HTC Thunderbolt and c:geo app (free) works great for geocaching. I use it to log all my finds, upload pics, search for caches and hunt non hiking caches.

Edited August 20, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+EdrickV]

You don't actually have to have a smartphone to look up caches in the field. I know I've looked up caches (mostly to get hints/size info) with my old cheap flip phone using both wap.geocaching.com and the regular site, (using Opera at $0.01/kb rates) and also searched for and found a specific Geocache (thanks in part to Google) to get the coordinates to put into a Nuvi using a non-smartphone with keyboard and unlimited data plan. (Down side of searching using the wap.geocaching.com site is you need to know the area code of where you are at.)

 

Granted, a smartphone might make some of that a lot easier, but for on the fly caching you'd want a data plan and that means paying more money then if you have a regular phone without a data plan.

 

The biggest drawback about actually finding caches with a smartphone is that the GPS chip is often inferior to what you'd get in a modern GPS unit. So while it may be fine for a cache out in the open, a cache in woods may cause issues. Some handheld GPS units (say older ones) may have the same issues. Newer units with a SiRFstarIII chipset and especially those with WAAS are likely to be the best for actually finding a cache even under heavy tree cover. (Not counting military units. :b )

[+mikemtn]

It may not be entirely true that a smartphone can't be waterproof and tough as a GPS.

 

Here's the

 

Casio G’zone Commando

 

And the

 

Motorola Defy

Edited August 20, 2011 by mikemtn

[+PFF]

I'm thinking of finally getting a smart phone...but mostly for geocaching. I'm with verizon so I'd get a Droid or an iPhone.

 

I've taken a 2-step approach to evaluating smart phone accuracy. In my area (Raleigh NC), caches set with smart phones are approximately 24 feet off. Usually the cache is south and slightly west of where the coordinates point. Sometimes it is 22 feet east or west. The statistics were compiled from 25 caches where the container was hidden in a place significantly different from where the dynamic map showed. Coordinates were taken at the cache using a 60Cs checked against government benchmarks, and a computer program was used to calculate the bearing and distance of the error.

 

Step 2 involved reading all the logs of over 75 caches--including those found at the location shown on the dynamic map and those which were not. Two patterns emerged. If the cache was at the correct location, finders sometimes complained that the coordinates were off, or that they put the user in the middle of a parking lot, etc. These appear to be from smart phone users. If the cache was not at the correct location, there also were complaints--but these were from experienced cachers who are known to have dedicated GPS devices.

 

Is a 20-30 foot variance acceptable? Yes, if you are looking for a large cache, or one where there are a limited number of hosts. But, when looking for a micro in the woods, it creates a challenging situation. It also can cause harm. If poor coordinates cause people to wander into areas of sensitive vegetation, geocaching could be banned in parks. I found some cases where poor coordinates put people in potentially dangerous situations--such as at the edge of high retaining walls. One trail-side cache's coordinates took hunters 40 feet into the woods, right to a yellow jacket nest. Over several weeks, numerous people were stung--some several times. (Eventually, the CO was persuaded to adopt the alternate coordinates posted by the FTF, and life got better for everyone!

 

May I add another reason why I'm concerned about folks who do not understand the accuracy limitations of smart phone GPS technology? If you read this forum on a regular basis, you frequently see posts from new hunters who are discouraged and are ready to quit. The primary reason? Going after 4 to 15 caches and not having a single find. Each time such a post appears, people respond with the usual helpful suggestions about looking for a cache which has been found recently and which has an easy rating, along with the recommended team approach. But nobody ever suggests that the lack of finds may be due to the quality of equipment used in the hunt; used to hide the cache; or both.

 

Bottom line: If you can afford to purchase a stand-alone GPS, do so. Even the most expensive ones beat a smart phone, unless conditions are absolutely perfect and you're not a hurry (and can wait 5 minutes for the phone to stabilize). And how many caches have perfect conditions? Very few!

 

Smart phones can be an excellent entry path into the hobby. That's why geocaching.com has an app. Just remember that the accuracy of the phone's GPS is less than stellar. But it's also true that with most caches, the GPS gets you close to GZ, and then you shift to the "geo-sense" mode.

Edited August 23, 2011 by PFF

[+WarNinjas]

I only have used my droid. I have not had a problem getting to ground zero most times. Most times I make the find and if I don't I don't think it is the phones fault more of my geo sense or the cache is not there, I have posted a did not find and had the cache owner thank me because he went to check and it was gone. It has not worked near as well after this last upgrade to the site though. I am thinking of getting a handheld gps for it to but have no issues with the phone. I like that I can log the find and upload pics right there. The battery does wear down fairly quickly and if you had a older Iphone...I don't know about the newer models that you cant change out the battery it would be a problem but with my droid I bought a couple of spare battery's (bought cheep on ebay) I carry with me and switch out when it dies.

That being said I found out about geocaching from my phone browsing threw the apps. I wouldn't buy one just for geocaching but it has become my favorite app after already having it! I know it is a different topic that I might ask some day as to what I would get out of buying a handheld gps and what one is good. Reading here I can see the waterproof part might be handy. I don't really plan out my day prior to going so if I had to download them at home I think that would be a problem. I have also used my garmin GPS for my car to find them when my battery was running low and I didn't bring the extras for my phone.

-WarNinjas

[+Coldgears]

Coldgears to the rescue!

 

Yes, use smartphones for geocaching.

 

I have used both, and I guarantee everyone spotting nonsense about smartphones being worse have never owned a smartphone beyond WP7 and Iphone.

 

Yes, the GPS in Iphone sucks, yes the GPS in WP7 sucks.

 

Get android, and laugh as other people use pocket query's.

 

I have first hand experience with both....

[+Ambient_Skater]

Get android, and laugh as other people use pocket query's.

So now you're hating on people who cache with a GPS? I have a Blackberry, I just don't use it for geocaching because I have a GPS for that. What is so hard to understand about that?

[cb82]

Get an android phone. My Evo does everything I could possibly want and more, plus it has a very accurate GPS. It puts the Iphone to shame.

[+Coldgears]

Get android, and laugh as other people use pocket query's.

So now you're hating on people who cache with a GPS? I have a Blackberry, I just don't use it for geocaching because I have a GPS for that. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

The way I see it? If you want a Smart Phone, and also want to geocache. Then a Smart Phone does the job of a handheld GPS, and better.

 

However, if you just want to go geocaching, a handheld GPS is your best bet because of all the money a smartphone cost you in the long-run.

 

In this case, he wants a smartphone anyway, so why not steer him in the right direction?

[+dfx]

The way I see it? If you want a Smart Phone, and also want to geocache. Then a Smart Phone does the job of a handheld GPS, and better.

 

No. Better in some aspects (and situations), worse in others.

Edited August 23, 2011 by dfx

[+TL&MinBHIL]

I've taken a 2-step approach to evaluating smart phone accuracy. In my area (Raleigh NC), caches set with smart phones are approximately 24 feet off. Usually the cache is south and slightly west of where the coordinates point. Sometimes it is 22 feet east or west. The statistics were compiled from 25 caches where the container was hidden in a place significantly different from where the dynamic map showed. Coordinates were taken at the cache using a 60Cs checked against government benchmarks, and a computer program was used to calculate the bearing and distance of the error.

 

Step 2 involved reading all the logs of over 75 caches--including those found at the location shown on the dynamic map and those which were not. Two patterns emerged. If the cache was at the correct location, finders sometimes complained that the coordinates were off, or that they put the user in the middle of a parking lot, etc. These appear to be from smart phone users. If the cache was not at the correct location, there also were complaints--but these were from experienced cachers who are known to have dedicated GPS devices.

 

Is a 20-30 foot variance acceptable? Yes, if you are looking for a large cache, or one where there are a limited number of hosts. But, when looking for a micro in the woods, it creates a challenging situation. It also can cause harm. If poor coordinates cause people to wander into areas of sensitive vegetation, geocaching could be banned in parks. I found some cases where poor coordinates put people in potentially dangerous situations--such as at the edge of high retaining walls. One trail-side cache's coordinates took hunters 40 feet into the woods, right to a yellow jacket nest. Over several weeks, numerous people were stung--some several times. (Eventually, the CO was persuaded to adopt the alternate coordinates posted by the FTF, and life got better for everyone!

 

May I add another reason why I'm concerned about folks who do not understand the accuracy limitations of smart phone GPS technology? If you read this forum on a regular basis, you frequently see posts from new hunters who are discouraged and are ready to quit. The primary reason? Going after 4 to 15 caches and not having a single find. Each time such a post appears, people respond with the usual helpful suggestions about looking for a cache which has been found recently and which has an easy rating, along with the recommended team approach. But nobody ever suggests that the lack of finds may be due to the quality of equipment used in the hunt; used to hide the cache; or both.

 

Bottom line: If you can afford to purchase a stand-alone GPS, do so. Even the most expensive ones beat a smart phone, unless conditions are absolutely perfect and you're not a hurry (and can wait 5 minutes for the phone to stabilize). And how many caches have perfect conditions? Very few!

 

Smart phones can be an excellent entry path into the hobby. That's why geocaching.com has an app. Just remember that the accuracy of the phone's GPS is less than stellar. But it's also true that with most caches, the GPS gets you close to GZ, and then you shift to the "geo-sense" mode.

What about all the caches hidden with GPS devices that are lower-end or older models? There are plenty of accounts by cachers in this forum who have used both older and/or lower-end models of GPSr's and some of the newest smartphones. They can attest to the fact that many of today's smartphones are as accurate, and yes even more accurate. Smartphones take a beating in this forum, yet I haven't seen anyone discouraging the use of less accurate GPSr's. Dedicated GPS units can be just as inaccurate as what so many here claim smartphones are. Are they great at caching? I'm sure. Overall, do they tend to be more accurate, probably. I hope so because it's what they are designed to do, period. I've crossed paths with a cacher who was using one (not sure what model) and it lead him 40 ft. away from GZ. My iPhone 4 practically put me right on top of the cache. So there are going to be variations no matter what device you use. How accurate was the CO's device when they hid it? How accurate is your device looking for it? You have to factor in the variables of both device's accuracy/inaccuracy.

My problem is that so many people are discouraged from using smartphones and what I want them to know is you CAN Geocache with a smartphone and be successful at it. I do and I find it to be quite accurate...well within the 20-30 ft. you mention. If someone WANTS to use a smartphone to cache, by all means do it. Countless times in this forum someone has asked about using one and every time a group of GPSr users tell them to go buy a GPSr. If they want to learn about caching with a smartphone alone, teach them the pros & cons of using one. If they're curious about both, I don't think the proper answer is to tell them not to buy the phone, buy the GPSr instead.

Hiding a cache accurately with a smartphone is possible and from what I've read, happens all the time. It's not necessarily the device that causes all the problems, you have to take into account the person using it. You can't just walk up to a prospective location and use the first coords reading you get on a smartphone. Chances are good they'll be off because sometimes it has to "settle." So educating smartphone users how to properly hide a cache with accurate coords is a better choice than telling them not to do it at all. Maybe use more than one app. Use an app that takes a few readings then averages them into one, more accurate one. Take a reading, walk away, then return to see if you get the same reading. Act as the hunter and see if you can find it using the coords you think are correct. It can definitely be done.

 

Coldgears to the rescue!

Yes, use smartphones for geocaching.

I have used both, and I guarantee everyone spotting nonsense about smartphones being worse have never owned a smartphone beyond WP7 and Iphone.

Yes, the GPS in Iphone sucks, yes the GPS in WP7 sucks.

Get android, and laugh as other people use pocket query's.

I have first hand experience with both....

I cache solely with my iPhone 4 and I disagree with you wholeheartedly. It's GPS does not suck. Time after time it has put me on the cache or within 5-10 ft. of it. On a bad day, 10-20 ft. Many here have expressed that older iPhone models are less accurate, but I know first hand the iPhone 4 is a great and often accurate caching tool.

[+PFF]

Of COURSE you can geocache with a smart phone. Read my post. That's why geocaching.com has an APP. And you can place a cache using a smart phone, or a $99 GPS, or a top of the line model. But whatever device you use, take a moment to look at the satellite view in the dynamic map or try putting your coordinates into GoogleEarth to see if the position plots reasonably close to where you hid the container.

 

If you are one of those who feels that precise coordinates are a spoiler, fine. Be 30 feet off. But monitor the logs for your cache and at the first sign that you are putting people in dangerous or uncomfortable situations, move the coordinates 30 feet in a different direction.

[+Ambient_Skater]

Get android, and laugh as other people use pocket query's.

So now you're hating on people who cache with a GPS? I have a Blackberry, I just don't use it for geocaching because I have a GPS for that. What is so hard to understand about that?

The way I see it? If you want a Smart Phone, and also want to geocache. Then a Smart Phone does the job of a handheld GPS, and better.

I have a smartphone, and I want to geocache, and I have a GPS. Whatcha gonna do about it?

[+SirDonB]

I'm thinking of finally getting a smart phone...but mostly for geocaching. I'm with verizon so I'd get a Droid or an iPhone. Which one do you think has the best apps and programs, and generally is easiest and best to use for geocaching? I don't really know much about either phone yet...curious what cachers have to say about the phones and apps before I talk to sales folks....thanks for your help!

 

I am using the Casio Commando, a Verizon exclusive Android phone. I chose it because its rugadized and geared with the outdoor person in mind. I got my phone from WWW.WIREFLY.COM and with shipping the phone cost me $0.00. This particular phone runs $450 with no contract and $150 with a 2year contract.

 

So far from my experiance with this phone and geocaching, I have found 8 caches of the 10 i have looked for. the only reason I have not hit 100% is cuz i look at night too and that adds a level of difficulty to it.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Bandit1979

[+dantesbrewery]

If you are interested in a smartphone for all the other features besides geocaching you may want to look at what Steve Job's has called "the best selling iPhone without a phone plan", the iPod touch. I use the iPod touch for all the apps others use on an iPhone, Android or Blackberry, except if I'm out of a wi-fi hotspot "my email can wait". No phone plan or data plan to worry about. I just use a cheap pay-as-you-go mobile phone. I'm just not deep into geocaching enough to spring for a good dedicated satellite-based GPS receiver at this time. There are some options available to turn an iPod touch into a GPS receiver. Bad Elf, Dual and Magellan are three possible options for converting an iPod touch into a satellite-based GPS receiver. Plus one can still listen to music and podcasts, take pictures, write notes, play games, check email, tweet, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

B.

[+Ambient_Skater]

I'm just not deep into geocaching enough to spring for a good dedicated satellite-based GPS receiver at this time.

Umm, all GPS devices are satellite based. A smartphone with a built in GPS receiver still uses satellite signals.

[+EdrickV]

As far as I know, no smartphones have High Sensitivity chipsets or support WAAS yet.

 

As far as the Casio Commando, I find it interesting that the official specs do not list GPS. It seems possible that GPS apps on it may not work if the phone doesn't have a cell tower signal. And of course some Smartphone apps require a data connection in order to download maps.

 

Incidentally, there also seems to a bug with some CDMA Droid phones where the phone will not get a GPS lock if in Flight mode. This might also happen if the phone is out of cell tower range. (Seems to me like it tries to get A-GPS data through the cellular network, fails, and does not fallback into Standalone GPS mode.)

 

Smartphones may also have issues with battery life. I think my Tilt may be good for a couple hours of GPS use, possibly less, while a Garmin Nuvi car GPS is supposed to last like 3-4 hours and a hiking style GPS may last anywhere from 12-24 hours. Using a car adapter when going from one cache area to another may help, but may not be an option in some cases. Like multi-day hiking trips. In that case easily replaceable batteries are a good thing. Cell phone batteries tend to be proprietary at best, non-replaceable at worst. A lot of hiking style GPS units seem to use AA batteries, which you can buy just about anywhere.

 

When it comes to accuracy, I think my Tilt is fine out in the open, but once I get into some woods the accuracy seems to go down quite a bit. (To the point that, on one cache I did, I couldn't actually find GZ at all.) Of course, in woods even a dedicated GPS can have issues. I saw a Garmin Nuvi 1300LM that in woods had, at best, 50 foot accuracy. And it has a High Sensitivity SiRFstar III chip. It doesn't have WAAS though and is a car unit rather then a hiking style GPS. (I might actually be able to increase the accuracy of my Tilt in some situations, but only if I can find an antenna that will fit the external port.)

 

This all doesn't mean you can't use a smartphone for Geocaching, and for spontanious Geocaching a smartphone (with a data plan) does have an advantage over a GPS, since you can get cache info through the cellular network. Of course, you can do the same thing with a non-smartphone that can use data and put the coordinates into a GPS manually, as I mentioned above and have done myself.

 

The hiking style GPS units have advantages that you don't get with most smartphones (at least without shelling out more money) like IPX-7 waterproofing and, as mentioned, long battery life. So I still think the best way to do Geocaching is with a paperless hiking style GPS. The reason I don't have one is pretty simple. My refurbished Tilt cost about $100. The cheapest Garmin paperless GPS I see on Amazon right now is over $180 and only comes with a basemap. And the types I'd really like cost more like $300-$400. (It would also be a little harder carrying around a phone, PDA, and GPS in my pant pockets compared with just a smartphone. Not counting other stuff I'd have with me, like my wallet.)

 

Edit: As previously mentioned, now that I've got the smartphone I'll be keeping my eyes open for a good deal on a paperless GPS unit, but even a used one would likely be enough money that I might not be able to get one this year, and getting a Premium Membership will come first. Right now I don't really get out enough to make a paperless GPS unit worth buying, unless I found one really cheap and happened to have enough money to get it. Which isn't all that likely.

Edited August 24, 2011 by EdrickV

[+DrStrange1]

Me and the wife use smart phones she has an Android I have a iphone and a garmin gpsr. Now the andriod was usally off more the 17meters compared to iphone while handheld gpsr was usally right on. BUT... When deploying a cache you should be averageig the cords anyways so if using the andriod there is an alt app that does it just fine taking about 100 reading will get you a good location then come back on another day and test it again this will narrow down the offset. with the Iphone you have to pay for an appp that will do the averaging ..So i didnt get one.. The gpsr has it built in and can average the cords easily... So which would i choose? Each has its good points and draw backs i like to use them in combination with each other.. Unplanned caching is great with smartphones just look it up and go.. you have to plan it with the gpsr's...so smartphones would be my choice....andriod for a few more free apps then the iphone but iphone if you buy the geocaching.com app... That be my 2cents

[+PFF]

Smartphones may also have issues with battery life. I think my Tilt may be good for a couple hours of GPS use, possibly less....

EdrickV brings up an excellent point. Geocaching often is a several-hour activity. Picture yourself needing to make a phone call and the batteries are nearly exhausted from use as a GPS. However, as he points out, you can plug the phone into a charger as you drive from one cache to another. It may not fully re-charge, but it certainly will extend the number of hours you can hunt. And if you stop for lunch, leave the phone in the car with the charging cord connected--assuming you have a 12-Volt outlet which stays "hot". Also, consider purchasing one of those handy little "battery boosters" which contain their own batteries and which can give your phone an emergency charge. (These occasionally are on sale at "The Shack" and at big box stores. Watch the ads in the Sunday newspaper.)

The Good News is that with forethought, battery power can be managed wisely, giving you many hours of geocaching fun with your smart phone.

-Paul-

Side note for Edrick: Regarding accuracy improvement with an external antenna.....On phones like the Tilt, connecting an external antenna will improve cellular reception, but it may, or may not, assist the GPS function. Phones and GPS operate on different radio frequencies, so the GPS chip may be hard-wired to an internal antenna. Also, an amplified antenna gets its operating voltage from the host device, which slightly increases the battery drain and shortens the operating time. (The newest smart phones do not have an antenna port, making this a non-issue.)

 

[+SirDonB]

As far as the Casio Commando, I find it interesting that the official specs do not list GPS. It seems possible that GPS apps on it may not work if the phone doesn't have a cell tower signal. And of course some Smartphone apps require a data connection in order to download maps.

 

As far as that goes, it is interesting, but as a commando owner and opperator, I can attest that the commando indead does have a STAND ALONE GPS built in to it. it also allows you to get your coords from VZW Location services AND Google Location in addition to the stand alone GPS. I will see if I can get more specs on the commando from Casio direct and in particular to the GPS side of it and post later as i am now wondering what type of GPS in in my phone.

[+EdrickV]

Smartphones may also have issues with battery life. I think my Tilt may be good for a couple hours of GPS use, possibly less....

Side note for Edrick: Regarding accuracy improvement with an external antenna.....On phones like the Tilt, connecting an external antenna will improve cellular reception, but it may, or may not, assist the GPS function. Phones and GPS operate on different radio frequencies, so the GPS chip may be hard-wired to an internal antenna. Also, an amplified antenna gets its operating voltage from the host device, which slightly increases the battery drain and shortens the operating time. (The newest smart phones do not have an antenna port, making this a non-issue.)

 

 

Just to correct this for anyone else viewing this thread, the antenna port on the Tilt is specifically for the GPS, not the cellular radio.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

For spontaneous caching or T1 through T1.5 I use my Android to cache. Any higher T and I use my Garmin. No way I'm risking damaging my $250 phone in the wilderness. Handheld GPS battery lasts longer, it is more durable and is less likely to break or get ruined from a fall on land or water.

 

As well though, I log all my caches using my Android and c:geo, I use Google Navigation to get me to the area, I use Google Maps to look at trails, waterways and the terrain.

 

My smartphone and Garmin are both needed for me to geocache. Each has their special purpose.

 

I used my BlackBerry and an Otterbox Defender case to find over 150 caches. BlackBerry phones aren't smartphone though. They are to be laughed at. Get with it.

Edited August 24, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay

[robertl30]

I've been geocaching for about a month now with my DroidX. I also have a garmin GPS that I use for hiking. There's no difference in the data provided by both. I also have GPS units in my car and on my airplane. Now I'm no expert on the technology, just an avid user, but as near as I can tell. GPS is GPS. All devices are using the same algorithm so all give the same result. Different level units offer different bells and whistles. Faster CPUs return results faster.

 

As others mentioned my only complaint with the my Droid is the battery life which gets sucked down amazingly fast when cache hunting with the map or compass feature (c:geo) running. More than once it's run dry when I was in the middle of the woods. That's no fun.

[+dantesbrewery]

I'm just not deep into geocaching enough to spring for a good dedicated satellite-based GPS receiver at this time.

Umm, all GPS devices are satellite based. A smartphone with a built in GPS receiver still uses satellite signals.

 

Most smartphones use 'assisted GPS' by accessing the cellular network to get satellite data. As we discovered a few weeks ago, if one goes outside the cellular network, the GPS functions including the Geocaching app are useless. A 'standalone GPS' receiver that accesses the satellite data directly will work where smartphones with only assisted GPS fail.

[+niraD]

I'm just not deep into geocaching enough to spring for a good dedicated satellite-based GPS receiver at this time.

Umm, all GPS devices are satellite based. A smartphone with a built in GPS receiver still uses satellite signals.

Most smartphones use 'assisted GPS' by accessing the cellular network to get satellite data. As we discovered a few weeks ago, if one goes outside the cellular network, the GPS functions including the Geocaching app are useless. A 'standalone GPS' receiver that accesses the satellite data directly will work where smartphones with only assisted GPS fail.

That doesn't match my experience with my Android phones (a G1 and a Nexus 1). Their GPS receivers work just fine without a data connection. If I move a great distance between uses of the GPS, then it takes them a while to get a lock on the new location, the same as any other GPSr. Then, having a data connection helps speed things up by giving them an approximate location to start with. And of course, without a data connection, they can't download map data once they figure out where I am. But these phones have real GPS systems.

 

I've heard that some "assisted GPS" phones rely on a server to perform the necessary calculations. With no data connection, they won't work. But I've never seen one in real life.

 

I haven't heard of any phones with the kind of high-sensitivity receivers built into modern dedicated handheld units, so that is a real limitation. But older units like my old yellow eTrex have the same limitation.

[+Ambient_Skater]

I'm just not deep into geocaching enough to spring for a good dedicated satellite-based GPS receiver at this time.

Umm, all GPS devices are satellite based. A smartphone with a built in GPS receiver still uses satellite signals.

Most smartphones use 'assisted GPS' by accessing the cellular network to get satellite data. As we discovered a few weeks ago, if one goes outside the cellular network, the GPS functions including the Geocaching app are useless. A 'standalone GPS' receiver that accesses the satellite data directly will work where smartphones with only assisted GPS fail.

That's not what Assisted GPS is. A-GPS means the phone can download the GPS almanac and ephemeris (big words-- I know, I know) through the celluar network instead of getting it through the satellite signal, so you can obtain a lock faster. They can still download the data directly through the satellite signal, it just takes longer.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Ambient_Skater

[Blue Square Thing]

Most smartphones use 'assisted GPS' by accessing the cellular network to get satellite data. As we discovered a few weeks ago, if one goes outside the cellular network, the GPS functions including the Geocaching app are useless. A 'standalone GPS' receiver that accesses the satellite data directly will work where smartphones with only assisted GPS fail.

 

iPhone 4 seems to work fine wrt the GPS when away from a network - put us right on top of a cache - literally - this week with no network coverage. Seems to work pretty well to me so far.

[+TL&MinBHIL]

Most smartphones use 'assisted GPS' by accessing the cellular network to get satellite data. As we discovered a few weeks ago, if one goes outside the cellular network, the GPS functions including the Geocaching app are useless. A 'standalone GPS' receiver that accesses the satellite data directly will work where smartphones with only assisted GPS fail.

 

iPhone 4 seems to work fine wrt the GPS when away from a network - put us right on top of a cache - literally - this week with no network coverage. Seems to work pretty well to me so far.

Yep, I agree. And as far as the Geocaching app being useless without cell signal, that's untrue as well. Save the caches to your favorites and it saves the maps to the device. Then it doesn't require cellular data to display the maps. Just as it was designed to.

 

I'll be the first person to inform someone interested in caching with a smartphone of the downsides of using one. But some of their biggest downfalls can be remedied. Inferior battery life compared to a GPSr -- external battery pack. More fragile than a GPSr -- tough case. Accuracy -- well I find my iPhone 4 to be quite accurate, but there are also external Bluetooth GPS receivers. It comes down to a matter of preference. I have no desire to switch to a GPSr or add one to augment the experience. I've proven to myself that my iPhone 4 is the perfect Geocaching tool for me.

[+PFF]

"Accuracy" is a squishy term. It can mean that you are able to find a geocache using a smart phone. However, the only real test is checking against an object with a known set of coordinates. For those of us in this hobby, the most accessible object is a benchmark.

 

While on the data page for a cache, you can click "Nearest Benchmarks" to see if there is one nearby. It must be a benchmark where the horizontal coordinates are "adjusted". Don't use one with horizontal coordinates which are "scaled". (This info is at the top of the benchmark page.) A preferred location is in the open, rather than being in woods or among tall buildings.

 

Hold the GPS device about head level. Let the unit settle for a moment. Then look at the coordinates in real time. A dedicated GPS unit will display the coordinates shown in the data sheet.

 

If you are using a smart phone and one of the coordinates is off by more than one digit, try different operating modes. If it won't "pull in", get a feel for the distance and direction of the error. This can serve as a "fudge factor" which you can apply if you're looking for a cache and just can't find it at GZ as indicated by the phone.

 

Bottom line: Benchmark coordinates are accurate to within an inch or less, making benchmarks an ideal standard for checking your GPS equipment--and your technique.

 

P.S. Since you've visited the benchmark, log it at www.geocaching.com/mark, or use the link on the cache page. It's the same website, so you can use your regular name and password.

[+EdrickV]

Don't think the explainations of aGPS quite cover the whole details, but I'll get to that in a sec. First, here is a simple example of differences in "accuracy" between my Tilt (set down on one spot, running a program that does averaging) and a Garmin Nuvi 1300, which AFAIK doesn't do averaging, so I did the "get coordinates, walk a ways away, and walk back" method. This is of course a rather small sample pool, and this particular spot is wide open and started with a cloudless sky. The X's represent coordinate values that are identical, which are masked since I might actually use these coordinates, eventually.

 

Tilt

1:

XX XX.X920

XXX XX.X727

2:

XX XX.X912

XXX XX.X724

3:

XX XX.X939

XXX XX.X744

 

Nuvi

1:

XX XX.X93

XXX XX.X72

2:

XX XX.X93

XXX XX.X72

 

The differences are very minor here, and in testing my Tilt has led me to that spot multiple times since. The interesting thing is the Nuvi's coordinates were identical, and are what I used for my test location file on the Tilt to "find" the spot later. The Tilt's averaged coordinates did not totally match the Nuvi's coordinates. Again this is a nice open spot. In woods the Nuvi (which has an accuracy estimate feature) has told me it's accuracy was about 53 feet, and it didn't get any better. So I used geosenses instead and managed to find that cache. (Being an ammo can in the woods rather then say a nano, it wasn't as hard as it could have been.) The cache was not where the GPS seemed to indicate the actual GZ was. Of course, once you start walking around a bit it may indicate that GZ is somewhere else entirely. Both the Tilt and Nuvi have led me around in circles when in woods trying to find GZ. And using geosenses instead hasn't always worked so far, especially if one has time constraints.

 

As far as aGPS goes, the basic concept is that the phone will, if possible, connect to the cellular network and get data on where the various GPS satellites should be in order to help get a GPS fix a lot faster. If that fails, and the phone has an actual GPS chip in it, then it should fall back to a standalone method and just start looking for satellites. On some phones it may not actually fallback and will totally fail to get a GPS fix. Some phones may actually send the GPS signal data to the aGPS server (Mobile Station Assisted mode) and have it do the position calculation. Others do the calculation themselves. (Mobile Station Based mode)

 

The only specific report I've seen about phones not being able to get a GPS position without the cellular network involved Verizon CDMA Droid/Droid X phones being used in Flight Mode and may be a software bug. (It was reported as such and was being looked into.)

 

Oh, and High Sensitivity GPS chipsets are apparently a different method to try and fix the issues aGPS is intended for. (Getting new fixes quicker after being turned off recently, and, I think, getting better locks in cities.)

 

Most of this info, and a lot more, can be found on the Wikipedia page for aGPS.

 

Edit: Oh, and while I don't know for sure about handheld/car type GPS units, apparently phones may have a "feature" called Static Navigation which I understand can be an issue with activities like Geocaching. I followed instructions on turning that feature off on my phone, how well they worked I'm not sure.

Edited August 26, 2011 by EdrickV

[+GimpnPuff]

We have a gps and an iphone. I love the iphone and all it's ease of caching. But, it will often take us to within a foot or so of the cache, then when we stop walking it decides to send off in another directin 30-40 feet. Does anyone else have this problem?

Winnie-Vinnie-Bago