Is a handheld GPS a lot more accurate than using a smart phone?

January 2, 2012

I am just getting started geocaching and was wondering if you get a much more accurate compass reading from a handheld GPS unit? I am using the c:geo app on my smart phone and the compass function seems a little erratic at times. I am thinking that a dedicated GPS unit like the Garmin eTrex 30 would get me closer to the loc when getting close. Is this correct? Does anyone have smart phone to GPS comparison experience? I don't want to spend money on a GPS unit if I don't have to. Thanks!

7k · January 2, 2012

You'd have to describe "a little erratic" in a bit more detail to get a proper answer...

January 2, 2012

You'd have to describe "a little erratic" in a bit more detail to get a proper answer...

January 2, 2012

When getting close to a spot, maybe 20m or so the compass will send me in different directions. It does not consistently send me toward the same spot. How close should it direct me? I know there are a lot of variables, e.g., time of day and where the satellites are, etc., but if i move around with clear sky above shouldn't it point in the same direction? I am just thinking that a device that is dedicated to the purpose, (handheld GPS) will perform better than a device that does a bunch of things, (cell phone with an app). But you never know, an app may just as good. Just trying to find out.

7k · January 2, 2012

You're quite right in your assumption. Note that there's quite a lot of variance between different phone models, and that it's the hardware that makes the difference, not the software on it.

A good handheld GPS, under normally good reception conditions, will consistently get you (at least) within 3-5 meters of the coordinates. The better units (and/or with exceptional reception) will perform even better than that, with 1-3 meters accuracy.

January 2, 2012

You're quite right in your assumption. Note that there's quite a lot of variance between different phone models, and that it's the hardware that makes the difference, not the software on it.

A good handheld GPS, under normally good reception conditions, will consistently get you (at least) within 3-5 meters of the coordinates. The better units (and/or with exceptional reception) will perform even better than that, with 1-3 meters accuracy.

January 2, 2012

Thanks! Any reco's on a GPS unit that is not too complicated to use? You look like you have been at this for a while...

7k · January 2, 2012

Thanks! Any reco's on a GPS unit that is not too complicated to use? You look like you have been at this for a while...

That highly depends on your budget and needs. If money is no problem and you want the latest and greatest (and don't mind the somewhat bulky size), get a Garmin Montana. A step down from that would be the Oregon x50 models, or the Dakota series (preferable the 20) as their smaller sisters, all of which are still quite excellent. There's also the Garmin 62 series as an alternative, which is basically the same as the Oregon, but in a different form factor and with a button interface instead of a touchscreen. The next step down (with the biggest difference being the joystick user interface) would be the new Garmin eTrex models (20 or 30). The least expensive recommendation would be the older garmin eTrex H models (or maybe the newer eTrex 10), which still give you very good accuracy, but no bells or whistles (some don't even support maps). This is a popular option when paired up with a smartphone: the phone for all the fancy stuff, and the cheap GPS for accuracy.

So, lots of choices here, and this is just from one manufacturer. Another possibility would be a bluetooth GPS dongle paired with the smartphone.

January 2, 2012

I have used c:geo a few times in a pinch but there is no comparison. My Garmin Oregon is much, much more accurate. I can't speak for geocaching.com's official app since I haven't used it.

January 2, 2012

Thanks! Any reco's on a GPS unit that is not too complicated to use? You look like you have been at this for a while...

That highly depends on your budget and needs. If money is no problem and you want the latest and greatest (and don't mind the somewhat bulky size), get a Garmin Montana. A step down from that would be the Oregon x50 models, or the Dakota series (preferable the 20) as their smaller sisters, all of which are still quite excellent. There's also the Garmin 62 series as an alternative, which is basically the same as the Oregon, but in a different form factor and with a button interface instead of a touchscreen. The next step down (with the biggest difference being the joystick user interface) would be the new Garmin eTrex models (20 or 30). The least expensive recommendation would be the older garmin eTrex H models (or maybe the newer eTrex 10), which still give you very good accuracy, but no bells or whistles (some don't even support maps). This is a popular option when paired up with a smartphone: the phone for all the fancy stuff, and the cheap GPS for accuracy.

So, lots of choices here, and this is just from one manufacturer. Another possibility would be a bluetooth GPS dongle paired with the smartphone.

January 2, 2012

Thank you for the info! There are a lot of choices out there!

5.3k · January 2, 2012

Another advantage to a Dedicated (or real GPS)

They are water proof, cellphons are not and even if you only go out on a sunny day you might drop the phone and it might land in water. I droped my GPS in a lake once while on my Kayak, I dove in after if but it was not harmed. Also if you drop a cell phone ion a bunch of rocks it will not survive that fall as well as a real GPS. You can get a dedicated GPS for about $125.00 from Garmin or Magellan.

January 2, 2012

I have used c:geo a few times in a pinch but there is no comparison. My Garmin Oregon is much, much more accurate. I can't speak for geocaching.com's official app since I haven't used it.

7k · January 2, 2012

I have used c:geo a few times in a pinch but there is no comparison. My Garmin Oregon is much, much more accurate. I can't speak for geocaching.com's official app since I haven't used it.

As mentioned above, the software makes no difference. It's solely the hardware in the device used that determines the accuracy. Some phones have quite good GPS accuracy, but a good handheld will always have the upper hand.

Edited January 2, 2012 by dfx

January 2, 2012

I have found my Garmin to be much more accurate than my HTC Thunderbolt. At times the Garmin has said ground zero is 5 feet away while the phone says 50 or 60 or more.

January 2, 2012

I think there are few advantages to an actual GPS unit.

Battery life for one. Using my phone in the sunlight, I can't see it unless the brightness is all the way up, and that drains the battery so bad. Especially if I'm using the phone to wander around looking for something.

Durability for a second. My last smartphone fell a couple of times. The (almost) killing blow was when it fell like, 2 feet max off a low nightstand onto a hard floor. Luckily, my dad is awesome with electronics and fixed it. With my Garmin, I fell out of a kayak and was in the water and the thing worked fine. Until it fell off my Camelbak and I accidentally ran it over I think my dad could've fixed it, but I thought it was hopeless and got rid of it

Last of all, accuracy. I'm not saying the phone is going to suck all the time, but sometimes it will just be off. I used my phone for a cache once and the coords on the phone were way off. Sometimes the GPS will be way off or do something weird, but I've never had it act out so badly or unpredictably that it ruined my day.

Finally, as for something uncomplicated, gander through the manual and then just play with it some. You'll figure it out, you just need to trust yourself

5.3k · January 2, 2012

After reading what some smart phone users have said I am wondering if some of the caches I have found by new cachers have coordinates that are not very good. Maybe they are using smart phones to hide caches

January 2, 2012

Thanks! Any reco's on a GPS unit that is not too complicated to use? You look like you have been at this for a while...

i got a Garmin Oregon 450 a few months ago to replace an old unit and i love it it is supper easy to use it is a touch screen like a lot of smart phones so it would be easy for anyone who us use to using a smart phone

January 3, 2012

When getting close to a spot, maybe 20m or so the compass will send me in different directions. It does not consistently send me toward the same spot. How close should it direct me? I know there are a lot of variables, e.g., time of day and where the satellites are, etc., but if i move around with clear sky above shouldn't it point in the same direction? I am just thinking that a device that is dedicated to the purpose, (handheld GPS) will perform better than a device that does a bunch of things, (cell phone with an app). But you never know, an app may just as good. Just trying to find out.

Do what I do in that case. When you get 10-15 meters from the cache (or in your case before the compass goes crazy), take a compass bearing. Look along that line of sight. If you see something obvious (a lone bush, a lamp post, whatever), that's probably your cache's location. If nothing jumps out at you, keep that line of sight in mind. Then wander about 10-15 meters perpendicular to your original path, and take another bearing. Compare that line of sight with your original. Where they intersect is where you want to start looking.

Triangulation is awesome that way. Once you get within a couple meters, your CacheSense will have to kick in and do the final lifting for you.

As a side note, does your phone actually have a compass in it? or is your program creating a bearing based on your movement? If you have a compass in your phone (iPhone for example), then you shouldn't be getting the jumping readings. If it's averaging and giving you a bearing, then what you're seeing is the small margin of error as your GPS calculates your position and you "jump" around within your accuracy zone and that is "movement" that is averaged for a new compass heading. In my first handheld GPS unit I didn't have a compass and as long as I was walking steadily at a certain pace or higher I got bearings just fine. When I stopped it jumped around like crazy too (which made using a real compass kind of screwball). I actually got an iPhone 4 just for the compass & geocaching feature.

10.2k · January 3, 2012

Another advantage to a Dedicated (or real GPS)

They are water proof, cellphons are not and even if you only go out on a sunny day you might drop the phone and it might land in water. I droped my GPS in a lake once while on my Kayak, I dove in after if but it was not harmed. Also if you drop a cell phone ion a bunch of rocks it will not survive that fall as well as a real GPS. You can get a dedicated GPS for about $125.00 from Garmin or Magellan.

Speaking of sunny day, I find the smartphone app's compass naviation screen to be extremely difficult to read during the daytime (and even worse on a bright sunny day). I'm talking the official Groundspeak Windows phone app, and the navigation screen for the Droid app (which I've seen) is almost identical. I think the mostly black backfround has a lot to do with it.

Anywho, the Magellan Explorist GC touts itself as being 100% dedicated to Geocaching. You can go totally paperless, works great. Has a worldwide base map that is pretty good (in my area of the USA, at least). MSRP is $150, which means that's the most you'll ever pay for it, and might find it cheaper.

Somewhat of a beginner GPS for someone like me 8 1/2 years in, but the wife got it for XMAS (total surprise), that's what she wanted to spend, and I don't want to be rude. I think it's just fine (only found like 6 local caches with it so far).

9k · January 4, 2012

After reading what some smart phone users have said I am wondering if some of the caches I have found by new cachers have coordinates that are not very good. Maybe they are using smart phones to hide caches

"smart phones" aren't the issue. True, low-end smart phones don't help at all, but ultimately good and bad caches can be placed using good or bad gps-enabled devices. A great GPS doesn't guarantee good coordinates for a listing, just as great caches can be placed accurately using low-end smartphones. It's ultimately the end-user that decides a listing's accuracy. (of course a better GPS device increases the likelihood of better accuracy, if the user uses it properly )

There's so much hate-on for "smartphones" from the GPSr crowd in these forums The average capability of dedicated GPSs is indeed better than the average of smartphones, but to blame bad coordinates on smartphones is a misnomer. One needs to know how to use whatever device they're using, how to read it, and how to increase the likelihood of accuracy, whether due to lesser technology, or difficult environmental conditions. And that should go the same for any device being used.

If I find bad coordinates with a listing, my first action is to check out the CO, and find out what else they've hidden and how they're doing. That's the best indicator, imo. Most smartphones are average at best when it comes to GPS, but high end smartphones can certainly rival the good GPSs.

I continue to stand by the iPhone 4S

January 5, 2012

I've just started with my new droid bionic and have found 13 caches in no time at all. Really enjoying it and the phone with the c:geo app has led me pretty much right to it everytime. If my phone starts to jump a little i just start to circle the area a little and you can usually pin down right where the spot is. Really enjoying the new hobby and even took my 5 year old daughter with me today for 3 caches, we had fun.

January 7, 2012

There is a very simple answer to your question.

YES!

1.5k · January 8, 2012

I had to use my phone recently because caches I thought had been loaded into my GPSr hadn't been loaded. First cache--kept pointing me well away from where the most likely spot was, and that spot is where I found the cache. Second one, I had a feeling I was well away from where the cache was, as where I was looking did not fit the description or terrain in the write-up. Went back the next day with my GPSr and the hide was about 200' from where c:geo indicated the cache was.

January 8, 2012

the used droid 2 I have seems to be very accurate, down to a few feet on the ones I've tested so far.. one was almost exact down to the foot. Will do more testing tomorrow.

I made the c:geo maps using the instructions on their site, they are offline maps with stored cache locations.

January 11, 2012

The reason your phone seems so "erratic" near the cache probably doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of your phone's GPS software or hardware. The issue is that your phone doesn't actually have a compass in it. Instead it tracks your movements, and if it detects that you're moving, for example, East, then it rotates the compass graphic to put East at the top of your screen, and the arrow pointing to your target will then line up with the cache. If you stop and turn around, the phone has no way to know what direction you're actually facing until you've walked for a bit.

Expensive GPSr units have an electronic compass that solves this problem. Entry level units don't have an electronic compass, but some of them use other clever ways to help solve the problem. The newer Magellan Units, like the Explorist 310, the GC, and the 510 show the position of the the sun and moon for your location and time of day around the edge of the compass graphic. All you have to do is turn the GPSr in your hand so that the picture of the sun and/or moon is pointed toward the real sun and/or moon, and then the direction arrow will be pointed toward your target again.

That said, I know that my Blackberry does not give nearly as accurate a reading as my Magellan GPSr. With a little bit of overhead cover, the Blackberry will typically tell me it is accurate to within +/- 60 feet or even 150 feet where my Magellan would say +/- 15 or 20 feet in the same situation. Note that accuracies of 9 - 15 feet are the absolute best you can hope for based on the limitations of the Satellite system we use.

9k · January 11, 2012

Note that compass is different than GPS.

Movement is required for devices without a real compass, so it can determine direction of motion - not your still bearing. But a number of the latest smartphones, including the iPhone 4 and 4S do have a real GPS built in (not that that provides a real compass)

In short: a few things to note:

* A digital compass may be calculated by determining motion, which requires location services (whether a real GPS or based on cell triangulation) -- this can be anywhere from shoddy (spinning, jumpy compass) to accurate, when considered as direction of motion, not view bearing (unless you move and stop, without turning).

* Recent devices have a proper compass which provides a heading while remaining still (though may still be anywhere from shoddy to accurate )

* Older phones don't have a proper GPS so use cell tower triangulation to estimate a GPS location, which is generally slower and less accurate, but provides at least some level of location service

* Newer phones have real GPS capability, getting location readings from satellites. This, boosted with the cell triangulation (Assisted GPS) helps increase smartphone GPS locating. Strength and accuracy of the smartphone GPS reading though can also vary between models and brands.

In other words:

Cheaper, older smartphones aren't very good for geocaching.

Recent, higher tech smartphones (especially the iPhone 4S) can rival mid-high level dedicated GPS devices.

Compass and GPS capabilities are different things

Edited January 11, 2012 by thebruce0

2.3k · January 14, 2012

Some smart phones have a compass. My Droid X has a magnetic/digital compass. There is a calibration feature in the Settings and I have several apps that use the compass. I have compared it to a regular compass to see if it is accurate and it is.

This phone can be used successfully for geocaching, but in general, it is somewhat less accurate or less sensitive than my GPSrs. I found that the position can be somewhat off in some places, and can hop around. I have also found that turning the phone off and then on seems to reset the GPS and makes it work better.

1.6k · January 15, 2012

The smartphone vs handheld is the greatest of debates!!

Personally, we've cached with iPhones but now own both iPhone and handheld. The handheld does much better for a variety of reasons.

They all have their weaknesses and strengths and it all depends on what type of caching you do and the problems you run into while using the phone. If you've got the cash, and you really enjoy this hobby - get a handheld and enjoy having a bit of both worlds.

9k · January 15, 2012

Some would argue if you've got the cash, get a smartphone The latest can be more expensive than a dedicated gps, but it's more an multi-purpose, powerful tool. But again I don't think anyone's denied that a high-end dedicated gps will perform better with its gps features than any smartphone

In short, check your budget, consider what you'd find more practical, both for geocaching and the rest of life. And if you opt for geocaching with a smartphone, please please don't go with anything less than the iPhone 4, 4S, or another recent high-end smartphone that boasts quality gps hardware.

(and please remember, if you're debating "smartphone vs gps", please share the model/brand of the device(s) you're referring to - those terms both encompass a very wide range of quality)

Debating smartphones vs dedicated GPS is like debating, I dunno, which is healthier - fruits or vegetables?

(...is considering creating a reference list of smartphone and gpsr models and general opinions about their geocaching friendliness...)

Edited January 15, 2012 by thebruce0

1.6k · January 16, 2012

There is no debate when you have both.

I can have my cake and eat it too! (wink)

9k · January 16, 2012

There is no debate when you have both.

I can have my cake and eat it too! (wink)

But of course! The tasty best of both worlds

January 16, 2012

It depends on the smart phone .... some appear to be smarter than others when it comes to locating coordinates and placing you on top of them. The big drawback to a smart phone, however, isn't the accuracy (or lack thereof): it's the fact that its battery life is so inferior to that of a handheld dedicated GPS device. If you're going out for the day, your smart phone isn't going to be able to keep up.

I'd hoped to use only my smart phone when I finally decided to get one ... but I'm back to my Garmin now!

Jeannette

(I wrote the book on geocaching: http://tinyurl.com/3ffzsuc )

January 16, 2012

I've cached exclusively with my iPhone 4.

Tried a garmin legend and took it back next day; controls terrible.

9k · January 16, 2012

It depends on the smart phone ....

Indeed (always saying that )

The big drawback to a smart phone, however, isn't the accuracy (or lack thereof): it's the fact that its battery life is so inferior to that of a handheld dedicated GPS device. If you're going out for the day, your smart phone isn't going to be able to keep up.

Again - depends on the smartphone well, and how efficiently you use it. Obviously if you have every bell and whistle running you'll kill your battery life right quick. Be conservative. If you're going from one waypoint to another, turn off the gps until you're somewhat nearby. If you're driving, turn off the gps (unless you need it for live directions). For an iPhone, if you're temporarily not needing the gps, hit the home button so the app isn't in the foreground when you screen-save (it'll still use the gps if the screen is blacked, otherwise). etc

All of these are now habits of mine, and I can be out for a day of geocaching and still complete with spare power. Granted it's the iPhone 4S. And - always head out with spare power. Pick up an extra battery pack. A AA pack is great since you can just carry a handful of batteries, but before that I started with an iPhone-specific rechargeable battery pack, which would hold over a full phone charge. Always good to have backup power.

Now, of course, if you don't have to worry about being conservative when using a dedicated gps, then that's different. But I consider being efficient a given, regardless of what device you're using IMO, battery life isn't really a concern... but of course, that's dependent on the smartphone that I use =)

Edited January 16, 2012 by thebruce0

3.3k · January 17, 2012

For the past two years I had the original Droid and found it to be extremely accurate. I often found caches with it while my Garmin 76cs wanted me to be quite a ways away. The downfall of the Droid was battery life. And lack of ruggedness/water resistence. I recently replaced my Droid with the new Bionic, in part because I found the Motorola GPS to be quite accurate. I was very happy to discover that my Droid compass still works so I can keep using it for caching! No need to pull out the new phone in poor weather. My Garmin doesn't get used much these days.

8.9k · January 17, 2012

...I have anecdotally seen that even the best smart phone positioning is not nearly as accurate as the worst dedicated GPS units. I've noticed it with cache placements on those that place using iPhones, and I've noticed that using my iPhone will get me to within maybe 50 feet, while my Garmin 76Cx will get me within 10-20 feet.

Anyone have access to this article?

I'd still love to see the results of this paper, but the abstract is interesting. I'll highlight some relevant points:
The 3G iPhone was the first consumer device to provide a seamless integration of three positioning technologies: Assisted GPS (A-GPS), WiFi positioning and cellular network positioning. This study presents an evaluation of the accuracy of locations obtained using these three positioning modes on the 3G iPhone. A-GPS locations were validated using surveyed benchmarks and compared to a traditional low-cost GPS receiver running simultaneously. WiFi and cellular positions for indoor locations were validated using high resolution orthophotography. Results indicate that A-GPS locations obtained using the 3G iPhone are much less accurate than those from regular autonomous GPS units (average median error of 8 m for ten 20-minute field tests) but appear sufficient for most Location Based Services (LBS). WiFi locations using the 3G iPhone are much less accurate (median error of 74 m for 58 observations) and fail to meet the published accuracy specifications. Positional errors in WiFi also reveal erratic spatial patterns resulting from the design of the calibration effort underlying the WiFi positioning system. Cellular positioning using the 3G iPhone is the least accurate positioning method (median error of 600 m for 64 observations), consistent with previous studies. Pros and cons of the three positioning technologies are presented in terms of coverage, accuracy and reliability, followed by a discussion of the implications for LBS using the 3G iPhone and similar mobile devices.

Personally, I'd love to see a large study in a wide area over a wide variety of conditions and testing against multiple devices and multiple smart phones. Maybe some location-based corporation would be able to sponsor some type of study.

Too bad that some large corporation doesn't have access to a trusted group of volunteers that might have access to technology and methodology that could help in this situation.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Markwell

1.6k · January 17, 2012

But of course! The tasty best of both worlds

Grabbing an FTF today reminds me how nice a smartphone can be. Click link in email and the App loads up as you hop in the car! Gotta love those that are only 2 miles from your house!

2.4k · January 17, 2012

I cached a few times with someone who used a smart phone.

The first cache we came to, we both jumped out of the car, looked at our devices, and headed off in different directions.

First clue something was wrong.

The second time we went caching, her phone battery died shortly. We used just my GPS for the rest.

The third time we went out, we visted all her caches... to get accurate coordinates. Her smart phone had all the local cachers screaming.

One cache was over 100 feet off!!!!!

Yes, I'd say there is a major difference between the two.

She went out and bought a GPS after only a few more times like that.

She's really happy with her decision.

3.3k · January 17, 2012

I cached a few times with someone who used a smart phone.

The first cache we came to, we both jumped out of the car, looked at our devices, and headed off in different directions.

First clue something was wrong.

The second time we went caching, her phone battery died shortly. We used just my GPS for the rest.

The third time we went out, we visted all her caches... to get accurate coordinates. Her smart phone had all the local cachers screaming.

One cache was over 100 feet off!!!!!

Yes, I'd say there is a major difference between the two.

She went out and bought a GPS after only a few more times like that.

She's really happy with her decision.

What kind of phone was she using?

9k · January 17, 2012

I cached a few times with someone who used a smart phone.

(lots of really not fun stuff)

What kind of phone was she using?

This.

9k · January 17, 2012

Results indicate that A-GPS locations obtained using the 3G iPhone are much less accurate than those from regular autonomous GPS units (average median error of 8 m for ten 20-minute field tests) but appear sufficient for most Location Based Services (LBS). WiFi locations using the 3G iPhone are much less accurate (median error of 74 m for 58 observations) and fail to meet the published accuracy specifications.

Note it's the "3G iPhone" -- I wouldn't trust that for geocaching in a long shot. Unless they're just referring to 3G-enabled iPhone, rather than the actual model itself.

Too bad that some large corporation doesn't have access to a trusted group of volunteers that might have access to technology and methodology that could help in this situation.

inorite? Where on earth could they find a test group like that?

January 17, 2012

To me, there really is no debate. GPSr all the way. For me the deciding factor isn't how good the compass is or how close it can get you, it's the durability.

smart phones just aren't as tough as a good handheld GPS. I don't care what kind of rubber case you put on in, or if you coat it in rhino-liner and cache with it in a zip lock bag, they just aren't as hardy lol.

iPhones split in two falling off bed stands

My Garmin fell off a 20 foot cliff, hitting dang near ever rock on the way down, and then rolled into a freezing stream. My buddy fished it out with a tree branch (as he was bending over doing this he found the cache btw lol), and it was perfectly fine. We went out and found 3 more caches that day. If I was a Smart Phone cacher, I'd be going home sad and in need of a new phone.

The only major benefits of smart phone caching I see are:

- Like the guy above said, getting notifications and then zipping right out to get a FTF if you're a competitive type.

- Looking less suspicious when doing urban or suburban caches.

However, all that being said, the best situation is to just have both lol. Have a real GPS to do the grunt work and keep your phone safe in your pocket where it belongs as a "sidearm" if you will.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Putasokinhet

9k · January 17, 2012

To me, there really is no debate. GPSr all the way.

All power to you

For me the deciding factor isn't how good the compass is or how close it can get you, it's the durability.

Not for me. Everyone values different properties of their devices, but durability is far from top priority for me, and...

smart phones just aren't as tough as a good handheld GPS. I don't care what kind of rubber case you put on in, or if you coat it in rhino-liner and cache with it in a zip lock bag, they just aren't as hardy lol.

...well of course, they're cell phones However

iPhones split in two falling off bed stands

My Garmin fell off a 20 foot cliff, hitting dang near ever rock on the way down, and then rolled into a freezing stream. My buddy fished it out with a tree branch (as he was bending over doing this he found the cache btw lol), and it was perfectly fine. We went out and found 3 more caches that day. If I was a Smart Phone cacher, I'd be going home sad and in need of a new phone.

My first 3GS was lost to a pond. Stupidity. My 2nd 3GS was submerged in a lake (stupidity) a few seconds, and survived, and I continued caching with it for 2 years. My 4S -- well, I have no plans to submerge it or get anywhere near the possibility of being submerged any time soon (which is not to say I won't be anywhere near water or get on a boat with it or anything - I'm just not going to let "stupidity" reign =P)

All of my phones have been dropped and banged up and survived. That's not, however, to say that they are better for it, or as durable as a GPSr, but that is to say that they're not fragile antiques that will crumble at the slightest touch. Their durability is more than sufficient for the average, and above average, active geocacher, especially if said cacher pays a sensical amount of attention to the safety of their device.

The only major benefits of smart phone caching I see are:
- Like the guy above said, getting notifications and then zipping right out to get a FTF if you're a competitive type.

- Looking less suspicious when doing urban or suburban caches.

- Contacting a friend or CO on the road

- Apps and functions to solve complex equations and puzzles

- emergency communication

- lightweight

- multipurpose electronic device

- user friendly interfaces (with the right apps), better general experience (ymmv)

- mini computer at your finger-tips

- comparable prices

- usable for far more than just geocaching

Disadvantages?

- Not built to take damage (though depends on cacher habits)

- Battery life can be shorter (though greatly depends on cacher habits and brand/model)

- Speed & accuracy of GPS can be less (though greatly depends on brand/model)

Point? "smart phone", again, has to be qualified. Recent, higher end smartphones, while more expensive, offer so much for their price, that unless your goal is specifically to have a better GPS (the only really factor, IMO, that can't be rectified by cacher habits, and an equivalent alternative would still require purchasing an upper end GPSr), the debate can't be solved by asking "which is better?"

However, all that being said, the best situation is to just have both lol.

That I can agree with

Have a real GPS to do the grunt work and keep your phone safe in your pocket where it belongs as a "sidearm" if you will.

However there are indeed people who've reported that once they had the smartphone they put the GPSr in their pocket... perhaps because - again, depending on their caching habits, the GPSr was effectively a sort of 'overkill' for their geocaching.

Get the device that works best for you, is within your budget, and at the very least has a solid GPS capability (everything else is up to how you use and treat it).

And for God's sake - if you plan to hide caches, whether you're using a dedicated gps or a smartphone (of any brand/model) -- double, triple, quadruple check your coordinates, by GPS and visibly on the map; whether you take multiple readings and average, or have a friend verify for you... :blink:

Edited January 17, 2012 by thebruce0

8.6k · January 17, 2012

Too bad that some large corporation doesn't have access to a trusted group of volunteers that might have access to technology and methodology that could help in this situation.

This is a SUPER idea. I trust you will gather an large objective group of testers* [notice: I spelled it correctly], and rent the group out to industry leaders. They henceforth would each earn the title of consultant.

Really, it is a pretty good idea. Now -- to the economics of it all...

* Yes, it was initially spelled some other way...

January 18, 2012

I have an HTC 7 Pro with Windows and I use the Groundspeak app and the GPS is very accurate. Every time I've looked, the indicator is right on the cache location. It is also very accurate with my position relative to the cache. I have only used it a handful of times, but so far it has been excellent and I haven't had any issues. I love being able to take pictures and upload them and the log on the spot.

8.9k · January 18, 2012

Results indicate that A-GPS locations obtained using the 3G iPhone are much less accurate...

Note it's the "3G iPhone" -- I wouldn't trust that for geocaching in a long shot. Unless they're just referring to 3G-enabled iPhone, rather than the actual model itself.

Yep - but to date it's the only "study" I've found.

Too bad that some large corporation doesn't have access to a trusted group of volunteers that might have access to technology and methodology that could help in this situation.

inorite? Where on earth could they find a test group like that?

Yep...

January 19, 2012

I am just getting started geocaching and was wondering if you get a much more accurate compass reading from a handheld GPS unit? I am using the c:geo app on my smart phone and the compass function seems a little erratic at times. I am thinking that a dedicated GPS unit like the Garmin eTrex 30 would get me closer to the loc when getting close. Is this correct? Does anyone have smart phone to GPS comparison experience? I don't want to spend money on a GPS unit if I don't have to. Thanks!

I have the Droid Incredible and use the Cgeo app to find caches in the area but the compass is not reliable so I enter the coords into my Garmin Oregon.

1.6k · January 19, 2012

I have the Droid Incredible and use the Cgeo app to find caches in the area but the compass is not reliable so I enter the coords into my Garmin Oregon.

Just curious - why would you be entering coordinates into your GPS?

Aside from being out in the field and not having updated (??)PQ's loaded...or other weird scenarios.

January 19, 2012

I have used two different high end smartphones, a now retired BlackBerry Storm running CacheSense and Geocache Navigator, and a Droid 3 using Neongeo, C:Geo, and the newly released CacheSense for Android (beta tester). Both were reasonably accurate, not as much so as either of my GPS units, but useable. My money is still on the Garmins for the durability factor however.

The phones do allow instant local searches and a lot of flexibility in that department, as well as immediate logging from the field and a lot of other handy features but I'd rather drop my Oregon on a rock than my Droid. Water? No comparison.

Solution? Carry both. And, when I manage to fall down a cliff I can call back to the car so the wife can get the police or rescue team out for me :laughing:

Oh yeah. Since I can get accurate waypoints from the Oregon, they can use them to find me.

Edited January 19, 2012 by hairball45

Is a handheld GPS a lot more accurate than using a smart phone?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment