Oregon 450 accuracy

[+CacheHownds]

For those of you that own an Oregon 450, how have you all found the accuracy on it?

I took mine out for the first time and so far the best I'm getting is 4m with WAAS on and stationary in an open area, and it immediately gets worse if I start moving.

I used to be able to get 2m out of my Dakota, even when walking.

Did I get a bad unit?

[BMW JEDI]

I think your Dakota was being a bit, shall we say, optimistic.

 

The best I have ever achieved with the Oregon x50 is 3m, or 7ft - which is pretty good. I also have a Dakota x0, and never have I seen it out perform my Oregon x50.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

When you say "accuracy", I hope you don't mean the number displayed on screen.

That is Estimated Positional Error (EPE), which really doesn't have a whole lot to do with true accuracy.

Basically that is the units' best guess at how far off it COULD be based upon a wide range of factors, including but not limited to signal strength and number of satellites it "sees".

 

Now... if that "accuracy" is based upon geocaches/waypoints that you have accessed, two things are involved: 1) Whose unit is more "accurate" -- yours or the CO's? and... 2) Cache migration, which is oftentimes hard to distinguish. You shouldn't base the "accuracy" of your unit upon cache placements. Being only close is widely accepted as good.

 

Outside of the above, you cannot (should not) expect extreme accuracy with a consumer-grade device. It just isn't gonna happen.

If you want extreme accuracy, you are gonna have to relinquish more of your bank account to get it. Even then, it won't do you much good as I don't think too many geocachers use like devices for making placements.

 

Just realize and understand the limitations of your (as well as the hider's) equipment. It's better than worrying or being concerned about perceived inaccuracy. You should also be aware that if you consistently hold the device very close to your body, your body is blocking signal strength -- something to consider. Many folks we have witnessed hold the unit at or near belt level and are constantly "bowing" over the device. Think about it. Walking and turning to and fro has the same effect (on multiple sat signals).

[+Cardinal Red]

Since we're splitting hairs here, 3 Meters is a lot closer to 10 feet than 7 feet. I used to really keep track of "estimated accuracy" before I got my Oregon 450. Now I mostly just go where it tells me. Overly optimistic estimates of accuracy is a marketing strategy. It worked on you, but you should stop trusting it so much. If you are finding caches, it's working. And the DNF I am about to log was probably my fault, not the Oregon's.

[BMW JEDI]

Since we're splitting hairs here, 3 Meters is a lot closer to 10 feet than 7 feet.

 

True.

 

The reason I used this example:

 

The best I have ever achieved with the Oregon x50 is 3m, or 7ft - which is pretty good.

 

Is because when my Oregon x50 is reporting EPE of 7ft, and you change the display to metric, 2m is less than 7ft, so the unit displays 3m instead (rounds up).

[NordicMan]

I was out group geocaching with 3 other people this weekend, out device inventory consisted of 3 Oregon 450's and 1 Oregon 300. It was interesting to notice that the devices distance-to-target were almost never in agreement with each other

 

We weren't monitoring the "EPE" reading too much we were more interested in the actual distance to target we were going to. Especially when the target was still more than 100 meters away the devices would vary from 5 to 10 meters.

 

We were only after about 1/2 dozen caches that day & we all found at least 1 each so, at the end of the day all the devices were doing faithful duty

Edited March 10, 2013 by NordicMan

[+DragonsWest]

Mine is terrible. The variation is maddening, to boot. It often puts me within feet if evil hides, which I must then spend 40 or more minutes trying to find. Other times it's as much as 100 feet off on hides placed with mobile "smart" phones.

 

It is very good. We have found comparable to the GPSmap 60Csx (considered the benchmark of recreation GPS receivers.)

[+CacheHownds]

I think your Dakota was being a bit, shall we say, optimistic.

 

The best I have ever achieved with the Oregon x50 is 3m, or 7ft - which is pretty good. I also have a Dakota x0, and never have I seen it out perform my Oregon x50.

 

I could live with 3, but when I was out this morning, best I was getting was 5m, with it sitting around 7m most of the time. Even tested with it on a park bench with an unobstructed view of the sky. My cell phone was getting 2m to 3m. Tough to find a micro with a 7m accuracy and it's reading GZ in the middle of a parking lot and bushes on the edges. I don't expect it to drop me on the cache, but at least give me a rough area to look in, instead of the middle of nowhere.

[BMW JEDI]

I think your Dakota was being a bit, shall we say, optimistic.

 

The best I have ever achieved with the Oregon x50 is 3m, or 7ft - which is pretty good. I also have a Dakota x0, and never have I seen it out perform my Oregon x50.

 

I could live with 3, but when I was out this morning, best I was getting was 5m, with it sitting around 7m most of the time. Even tested with it on a park bench with an unobstructed view of the sky. My cell phone was getting 2m to 3m. Tough to find a micro with a 7m accuracy and it's reading GZ in the middle of a parking lot and bushes on the edges. I don't expect it to drop me on the cache, but at least give me a rough area to look in, instead of the middle of nowhere.

 

I have found micros in the middle of parking lots before

[+Red90]

The accuracy number on the GPS is not something to base any conclusions on. Find benchmarks and check accuracy against them.