Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Seawind

Fourth decimal digit added to coordinates in recent Garmins. Was:New 66st User with a Question

Recommended Posts

I discovered the Garmin 66st adds an extra decimal digit of precision to coordinates, such as N 46 18.2386.  Is there a way to prevent that extra fourth decimal digit from displaying?

 

Thanks!!

 

Share this post


Link to post

If you do a search right here in tis forum, you will find a very long conversation about this very subject.

 

The short answer is, 'No.' Ignore the 4th digit if you do not want to use it.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, you can't ignore that 4th digit completely: when entering coordinates, you have to set it to zero to get avoid being as much as 0.0009 minutes off. The more precise answer is "no, just live with it."

 

(And admittedly the question has been asked before, but I wouldn't know how to search the forums for it. At least I couldn't find the previous long discussion when I searched just now.)

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

At least I couldn't find the previous long discussion when I searched just now.

Don't feel bad. I couldn't find it either. In the midst of my searching for it, a reply had been posted covering everything I would have said anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

HA. When google searches your forums better than your internal search function.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

HA. When google searches your forums better than your internal search function.

 

Scary, right?

 

8^)

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Atlas Cached said:

Not a thing about the 66st or anything recent. I am fascinated that "extra digit" does hit some discussion about this issue in other devices where "precision", the more accurate and concise term for what the OP was asking about, does not.

 

Anyway, we've answered here, so no need for anyone to go looking.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Not a thing about the 66st or anything recent. I am fascinated that "extra digit" does hit some discussion about this issue in other devices where "precision", the more accurate and concise term for what the OP was asking about, does not.

I don't navigate to a cache with the pointer, I navigate by looking at my current location compared to the destination coordinates. I can't speak for the OP but when I posted in the last discussion on this subject precision wasn't a concern, having the GPSr display match how geocaches are normally listed was. I learned to navigate with a GPSr on a handheld that displayed UTM to at least 12 decimals, I want to say it was 14. Very precise, but when navigating to a location where someone had scribbled 11 decimals on a scrap of paper a margin of error was added. The cache page posts coordinates in three decimals, GSAK lists caches in three decimals, what is wrong with asking to have the GPSr display cache coordinates in what has become the standard for displaying cache coordinates?

 

If I drive I-19 south of Tucson the speed limit signs are posted in KPH rather than MPH. KPH to MPH and vice versa is an easy conversion done in your head but I don't have to because I can make a few pushes of a button and the speedometer display matches what is POSTED on the highway signs. I'm sure the Garmin overlords know the best way for me to navigate but when a car speedometer can do something an expensive piece of navigational equipment can't I get aggravated.

Share this post


Link to post

The Galileo-System is supposed to be more precise than the GPS, as long as you’re using the „toys“ that we use for geocaching. Only the Galileo-capable units use 4 digits, the GPS/Glonass units don’t.  So the extra-digit makes sense, GARMIN is up-to-date and GC.com outdated as soon as Galileo is working properly, and that won’t take long. „Standard“ now, but I think GC.com will switch to 4 digits sooner or later, so you better get used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Since this Question is become Frquently Answered, I'm going to put it at the top to increase visibility.  I've also improved the subject line to help future seekers. This seems to be one of the better discussions:

 seems 

Edited by robertlipe
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/8/2019 at 11:19 PM, Henne1312 said:

The Galileo-System is supposed to be more precise than the GPS, as long as you’re using the „toys“ that we use for geocaching. Only the Galileo-capable units use 4 digits, the GPS/Glonass units don’t.  So the extra-digit makes sense, GARMIN is up-to-date and GC.com outdated as soon as Galileo is working properly, and that won’t take long. „Standard“ now, but I think GC.com will switch to 4 digits sooner or later, so you better get used to it.

 

Curious, as I can't find anything to suggest the Oregon 700 is Galileo-capable yet it's now displaying 4 digits in the decimal minutes. The only options it shows are GPS or GPS+GLONASS.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Curious, as I can't find anything to suggest the Oregon 700 is Galileo-capable yet it's now displaying 4 digits in the decimal minutes. The only options it shows are GPS or GPS+GLONASS.

 

The Oregon 7x0 series GNSS chipset is Galileo capable, but has not yet been enabled. Contact Garmin and ask when this is going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Curious, as I can't find anything to suggest the Oregon 700 is Galileo-capable yet it's now displaying 4 digits in the decimal minutes. The only options it shows are GPS or GPS+GLONASS.

 

Me and Atlas Cached already told you that it is but not yet enabled 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Henne1312 said:

Me and Atlas Cached already told you that it is but not yet enabled 

 

So if it's not still not enabled in firmware (and in all likelihood won't be because it would seem a pretty dumb marketing strategy to make a unit with a feature that could be attractive to buyers and then not enable it or even publicise it) then, regardless of whether its receiver chip supports Galileo, the fact is that, at the present time at least, the Oregon 700 does NOT support Galileo. I suspect if they do eventually enable it on that hardware platform, it'll be in the form of a new model version (700X ?) so they can monetize it.

Share this post


Link to post

Galileo is not yet working properly, four satellites to come in 2020 and high precision supposed to be enabled this year. It’s way behind schedule, should have been working 10 years ago. So no need to enable it on the 700 now for marketing reasons only. I assume that it will be enabled when Galileo is working on high precision, but if that takes longer, maybe Garmin will introduce a new model as you suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 5:01 AM, 31BMSG said:

I learned to navigate with a GPSr on a handheld that displayed UTM to at least 12 decimals, I want to say it was 14. Very precise...

That many decimal places is certainly precise, but completely meaningless and unnecessary in this application (and nearly every other application). 12 decimal places would be measuring picometres. For reference, the estimated diameter of a hydrogen atom is 25 picometres. From Wikipedia:

Quote

The picometre's length is of an order so small that its application is almost entirely confined to particle physics, quantum physics, chemistry and acoustics.

 

I'd be skeptical if a consumer GPS receiver billed itself as being able to accurately provide measurements to the metre-level, let alone sub-metre. Certainly not to the sub-atomic level. :laughing:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Precision and Accuracy are two entirely different animals frequently confused for each other.

 

All things being equal, the GPS radio in the GPSr may very well be 4 digit precise, but not 4 digit accurate.

 

The-concept-of-accuracy-versus-precision.thumb.png.24cd0bf71ef7bcae390278f8bba637f9.png

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, The A-Team said:

That many decimal places is certainly precise, but completely meaningless and unnecessary in this application (and nearly every other application). 12 decimal places would be measuring picometres. For reference, the estimated diameter of a hydrogen atom is 25 picometres. From Wikipedia:

 

I'd be skeptical if a consumer GPS receiver billed itself as being able to accurately provide measurements to the metre-level, let alone sub-metre. Certainly not to the sub-atomic level. :laughing:

I never implied that it be used in a caching application or it was a consumer item. I was merely pointing out the method I was taught in 1991 that I still use today, and that comparing a screen with 4 decimals to a page with 3 decimals can cause an error. If you come across the specifications for a SLGR let me know the UTM precision, I'm leaving for a road trip in a few hours and a bit busy.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, 31BMSG said:

I never implied that it be used in a caching application or it was a consumer item. I was merely pointing out the method I was taught in 1991 that I still use today, and that comparing a screen with 4 decimals to a page with 3 decimals can cause an error. If you come across the specifications for a SLGR let me know the UTM precision, I'm leaving for a road trip in a few hours and a bit busy.

 

I can't find any specs for UTM for the SLGR or PLGR, but the Wikipedia article for the much newer DAGR shows UTM in only whole metres. I doubt that a non-precision unit from 14 years earlier was using 12 more decimal places. It just occurred to me that maybe you meant 12 digits, not 12 decimal places?

220px-Defense_Advanced_GPS_Receiver.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×