Are GPS's more accurate than phones?

[+lee737]

Last weekend we cached in Canberra (maybe the heaviest cache density in this country). I had our GPS and my iPhone. I hardly used the GPS at all.... for the occasional longer navigation. The phone is better for filtering and planning, and of course it logs as well, not to mention live updating of multi coordinates back to my account. I'm not going to get rid of the GPS, but I do see why phones are killing them....

[+barefootjeff]

27 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Last weekend we cached in Canberra (maybe the heaviest cache density in this country). I had our GPS and my iPhone. I hardly used the GPS at all.... for the occasional longer navigation. The phone is better for filtering and planning, and of course it logs as well, not to mention live updating of multi coordinates back to my account. I'm not going to get rid of the GPS, but I do see why phones are killing them....

 

Yesterday I went caching around Sydney harbour, targetting specific D/T combinations I need for one of lee737's challenge caches. It was a public transport jaunt (my aversion to Sydney traffic and the $2.50 seniors day cap makes it a no-brainer), using a mixture of trains, ferries and buses to get around. First up was an AL in Hyde Park, then once I'd finished that and got the bonus's coordinates from Certitude, I loaded those onto the Garmin and used that pretty much exclusively for the rest of the day. It was particularly handy when on the bus to the first of the Cremorne caches, when I could watch it to see where I was in relation to the cache to pick where to get off. I've done something similar on buses using my phone, but having to constantly keep the screen awake is bothersome. Maybe I'm old-fashioned (some would just say old), but for the sort of caching I do, I prefer the Garmin, mainly for its small size, ruggedness and constantly viewable screen combining the map (with a scale!), the compass and basic cache details.

 

[+lee737]

11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I've done something similar on buses using my phone, but having to constantly keep the screen awake is bothersome. Maybe I'm old-fashioned (some would just say old), but for the sort of caching I do, I prefer the Garmin, mainly for its small size, ruggedness and constantly viewable screen combining the map (with a scale!), the compass and basic cache details.

Absolutely. Refreshing the screen is a huge pain. We didn't do a lot of walks, but the ones we did, the phone went in the pocket and the GPS was used. Except for a couple that 'mysteriously' wouldn't appear on the GPS. It turns out I forgot to download the last PQ for Canberra - it did take 7 of them.... .C'mon HQ - we need 10,000 item PQ's!

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, lee737 said:

Canberra (maybe the heaviest cache density in this country)

As can be seen, I have found a few of them, but yet a 1,000 cache load cannot hold all those I haven't found. And that doesn't show the caches outside of the central area. Certainly could do with larger loads.

 

  

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

C'mon HQ - we need 10,000 item PQ's!

 

YESSSSSSS.....       And be able to make fences, when caches outside an area aren't needed. That can be done with states, but that's too big an area, at least with Australian states.

 

  

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

having to constantly keep the screen awake is bothersome

That's one of my biggest gripes with phones.

Edited January 30 by Goldenwattle

[+lee737]

Its really mad in there..... without a (pretty restrictive) filter it's hard to see anything.....

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, lee737 said:

Absolutely. Refreshing the screen is a huge pain.

 

Why not to adjust it longer or get totally rid of it? The App I am using, allows keeping the screen on while I am using navigation.

[+lee737]

42 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Why not to adjust it longer or get totally rid of it? The App I am using, allows keeping the screen on while I am using navigation.

I can... but when navigating, especially over a longer distance, I don't want to have the thing in my hand running non stop. With the GPS I lock the screen and put in pocket, further down track I take it out of pocket and look at the screen... no face ID to unlock, then choose the app, then wait for the GPS to settle. The GPS is just always doing its job. I like my phone for caching - but this is the killer anti-feature of phones for me. And their rubbish battery life.....

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, lee737 said:

no face ID to unlock, then choose the app, then wait for the GPS to settle

 

My phone has none of these killer anti-features. It is immediately on the spot when I take it out from my pocket, because I have chosen this way to operate it. I think that you have chosen to have these anti features or you are using the default setup. Anyway, I am sure that the dedicated GPS receiver is the best for you (because you have one). I only criticize the difficult way you have chosen to operate the phone

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

My phone has none of these killer anti-features. It is immediately on the spot when I take it out from my pocket, because I have chosen this way to operate it. I think that you have chosen to have these anti features or you are using the default setup. Anyway, I am sure that the dedicated GPS receiver is the best for you (because you have one). I only criticize the difficult way you have chosen to operate the phone

There is still the battery problem. The GPS's battery lasts longer and spare batteries can be carried.

[+kunarion]

When you say "accurate", do you mean compared to a surveyed point?  Because for Geocaching we mean "precision" instead, where you are consistently guided to the same point.  If I "put the GPS away when I'm close, and start looking",  than it's more important to know how Geocaching works than to have an "accurate" device. But we use the term "accurate" when saying "close enough to the posted coords to find caches".

 

Phones are as accurate as a handheld GPS, if you keep buying phones until you buy one that is as accurate as a GPS.  Once you get phones, you keep buying phones anyway, because last year's phone doesn't run anything.  You keep getting Apps, too, because the old Apps don't run.  And there's constantly an "update" of this and that.  Better keep up.

 

My iPhone 8 will wander 300 feet or more  (unaddressed issue).  Sure, there are times when it's as accurate as a GPS.  So if I say that phones are as accurate as a GPS, I said it on a good day.  My Samsung S22 map will invert and then roll left and right a little (unaddressed issue) when it's in the car phone dock.  It's as accurate as a GPS unless you're talking about bearing, in which case it's 180 degrees out from accurate.  Everyone else (except for all the persons who posted in the Forum about their inaccurate phone) says that phones are just as accurate, just try this setting and that setting, just get it updated, just try another App.  Still doesn't work? Why not just buy another phone.  And now try more phones.  But phones are not only not designed to be accurate, they're designed for communication.  Just go look how long the linked problems have existed, many can't be fixed, ever.  If issues such as I see on my phones occur on a Garmin GPS, Garmin works on those issues for me.  Because a handheld GPS is designed to be accurate.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is still the battery problem. The GPS's battery lasts longer and spare batteries can be carried.

 

I still own two phones that have battery compartments, the only reason the phone is still alive.  My awesome HTC phone is dead for sure because the factory-installed battery has no 3rd-party replacement, the factory replacement batteries are as old as the phone, and they're impossible to find.  Also, no, dead phones are not accurate, in case anyone asks. 

 

So if you hear of some cool new solar-powered handheld GPS, be sure it can accept ordinary batteries, or it's yet another brick in 5 years.

 

Edited January 30 by kunarion

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, lee737 said:

I can... but when navigating, especially over a longer distance, I don't want to have the thing in my hand running non stop. With the GPS I lock the screen and put in pocket, further down track I take it out of pocket and look at the screen... no face ID to unlock, then choose the app, then wait for the GPS to settle.

 

I think that entirely depends on your app, not natively the phone (unless there is no sufficient app on the phone brand you have). Cachly on iOS has no issue with this. Navigate to the cache and you can sleep the phone in your pocket but the GPS will remain active, and you can turn on notifications with a fence so you get a buzz when you're as close as you like. I have my watch connected so I can hike along a trail and get a buzz whenever I'm w/in 20m of a cache, while targeting the last on the trail.  Buzz - open phone - immediately in the navigation/map screen as desired - gps never 'lost'.

 

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is still the battery problem. The GPS's battery lasts longer and spare batteries can be carried.

 

Remember that phones are doing way more actively than dedicated GPSrs which are almost universally thriftier at power use.

But apart from bad outing planning (like going out without being fully charged) I've never had a battery problem with my phones that wasn't solved by either being close enough to my car or an outlet to charge when convenient if absolutely needed, or else if on a long day trip away from any power source by having a battery pack. Not a juicepack that itself needs to recharge when dead, but a battery pack that provides USB power, for which you can swap out batteries you may be sharing with other devices (like another GPSr if you have one).  But rarely have I ever had to make use of that. 'Phones' these days are a lot better at battery use specially if you know how to optimally use the phone to extend available power (and not to an uncomfortable detriment of usability).

And hey, if you're out with friends away from power, no need for everyone to drain their batteries. If everyone's going to the same place, as long as as few as at least one person is navigating, everyone else can save power.  If I used a GPSr, I would be turning it off because it just seems wasteful to keep it running, even if it is very efficient with battery use.

 

These are age-old criticisms of 'phone' use, and people who them regularly just kind of shrug it off because we know it's not nearly as big a deal as people tend to make it out to be Not when you know how to use your device (whether it's a phone or a dedicated gps).  We get used to the device we prefer, because we've learned and accepted what it takes to use, with its unique benefits and drawbacks - and every device has them. 

You see the same things happen in big business with competition. New tech? Loads of small companies startup. But if there are multiple ways to accomplish something effectively, typically you'll end up with the big 2 or 3 competitors who 'do it right' but are different from a fundamental level, and each accomplish what they need to accomplish well, despite hard critics on either side. That's why we have Apple & Android, Windows Mac & Linux, Coke & Pepsi, Netflix & Prime & more, etc etc.

 

Use the device you like. Stick with it as long as it does what you want the way you prefer. No one's "daddy" is better, they just look different, have different skill sets, and tell different dad jokes though all equally bad. =p

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

There is still the battery problem. The GPS's battery lasts longer and spare batteries can be carried.

 

My phone (Samsung Xcover 5) battery last whole day and it has option to change the battery on field. Sometimes I may use a power bank on longer trips, instead of changing the battery, because I do not have a spare battery (yet). I have chosen my phone these features in my mind. Many phones are not as practical, I know. Dedicated GPS receiver with simple AA batteries are very easy to keep running if you have one.

Edited January 30 by arisoft

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If I used a GPSr, I would be turning it off because it just seems wasteful to keep it running, even if it is very efficient with battery use.

 

I bought a GPSMAP 67 last March and have only charged it four times since then, and most of those times the remaining charge was still well above 50%. On one recent outing, I forgot to turn it off before putting it into my backpack after finding the cache and didn't discover that until the next day. No problem, stiill heaps of charge left. With the Oregon 700 I'd often have to swap AA Eneloops mid hike but the 67, talk about running on the smell of an oily rag!

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, kunarion said:

Once you get phones, you keep buying phones anyway, because last year's phone doesn't run anything.

I hope that was satire . I keep my phone until it doesn't work. Enough e-waste without me adding more unnecessarily to it.

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, kunarion said:

last year's phone doesn't run anything

Meh... At some point, old phones no longer get OS updates, and old phones running an old OS no longer get app updates, and old phones running old apps no longer work because the servers no longer support the API versions the old apps support. I've bought new phones at that point.

 

But my phones still last several years, and I don't buy the expensive flagship phones to begin with.

[+thebruce0]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

On one recent outing, I forgot to turn it off before putting it into my backpack after finding the cache and didn't discover that until the next day.

Yep, there've been news articles about people finding lost devices, still working, and returning them to the owners; whether lost normally, or found deep under water... phones too. Part of me thinks they're promo gimmicks, but I'm pretty sure there've been some legit random findings of devices blowing people away when they still work. I would hope that a dedicated GPSr's real strengths (other than GPS) are durability and battery use; given their dedicated use context. Phones demand much less physically, so accessories add any desired features to push them into a similar context.   But today's vanilla phones are getting pretty freaking tough out of the box.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

Interesting discussion...  I'll give you my thoughts as someone who used a $4000+ survey grade GPS unit long before the big blue switch was flipped (mid-late 1990's).  The antenna on the CMT MC-GPS was bigger than my current GPS.  The more satellites that your antenna picks up, the greater the accuracy of your way point whether hiding or seeking a point.

The longer you stay on the spot averaging, (up to 3 minutes) the better precision you will have.  The WAAS satellites which are in geosychronus orbit over the equator improved accuracy for everyone.

I had found over 500 geocaches before I ever found one using my phone. The first one I remember doing with my phone was in downtown Chicago across the street from Union Station. My GPS was in my suitcase at the time.

I use a phone for less than half of my cache finds.  As for finding a cache on the other side of the road from where it shows on the map, the CO should have caught that before hitting the "submit cache" button to send it to the reviewer.

A safety note for all geocachers that go into deep canyons: Always carry and know how to use a magnetic compass. My Suunto compass saved my life at least once when the GPS could not pick up 4 or more satellites above the horizon.  Large areas of Oregon and other western states do not have any cell phone service with any  carrier. 

 

[+barefootjeff]

48 minutes ago, tomfuller & Quill said:

The WAAS satellites which are in geosychronus orbit over the equator improved accuracy for everyone.

 

Not everyone, WAAS only covers the USA.

 

50 minutes ago, tomfuller & Quill said:

As for finding a cache on the other side of the road from where it shows on the map, the CO should have caught that before hitting the "submit cache" button to send it to the reviewer.

 

The cache creation page doesn't make this easy for the creator to pick up. The initial map where you're entering your coordinates can't be zoomed in and covers a fairly wide area. There's no scale on the map, but it looks to be about 7km wide so you're not going to be able to tell from that which side of the road you're on:

 

 

The one on the edit page at least has zoom buttons (but again no scale), but it's only the OSM Trails map with no option for other map sources or satellite images. On one of my recent caches, the trails shown on the map are nothing like what's actually on the ground. The signposted track junction, where I placed my trailhead waypoint, is several hundred metres from where the map has it:

 

 

 

 

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, tomfuller & Quill said:

The longer you stay on the spot averaging, (up to 3 minutes) the better precision you will have.

On phones, most phones do this infamous 'averaging' in the background at the OS level. As the app requests the OS's latest GPS reading, the OS is regularly updating its calculations in the background based on the satellites it has found.  If watching a map with your current pin location, it may hover and bounce because it necessarily places its center at what the OS has averaged and gives a circle of estimated precision, so in areas where coverage is rough that margin of error bubble is larger and where GPS detection is strong that circle is small and tight. But when visualizing that location on a map there will always be some degree of hovering over the 'averaged' centerpoint reported by the OS.

 

At least with Apple, apps that manually and repeatedly request the GPS data if in an effort to 'average' multiple readings are being redundant; you might think it gets better results but it really does no better - as long as the phone has already optimized its satellite reception of course.  To my knowledge, apps can request that iOS increase its GPS hardware polling and calculations in the background for higher accuracy, but if the app receives a GPS coordinate from the operating system, that's as 'forcefully' accurate as the phone will give. I can't speak for Android. And I'm only speaking from what I recall developers sharing about app development on iOS, and what I've read about GPS on iOS, over the years since I began with it in 2009.

 

Also never forget that for the context of geocaching, gps will always only be 3 decimal minutes precision, for as long as the website and data use a DDM(.000) format. So dedicated GPSs may achieve higher accuracy deeper than 3 decimals, but it's needless the moment the listing is created or you target a cache to be found. As long as the device in your hand can achieve technical accuracy within the 3 decimal minute region, then your device is good enough for geocaching.

Edited February 1 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

55 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

On phones, most phones do this infamous 'averaging' in the background at the OS level. As the app requests the OS's latest GPS reading, the OS is regularly updating its calculations in the background based on the satellites it has found.  If watching a map with your current pin location, it may hover and bounce because it necessarily places its center at what the OS has averaged and gives a circle of estimated precision, so in areas where coverage is rough that margin of error bubble is larger and where GPS detection is strong that circle is small and tight. But when visualizing that location on a map there will always be some degree of hovering over the 'averaged' centerpoint reported by the OS.

 

I rarely use my phone (an Android) to take coordinates, but on the odd occasion I have (using the create a waypoint function in the official app), I've observed the opposite. I don't know whether this is happening in the phone itself or in the app, but if it thinks I've stopped moving it'll stop updating its reading and the coordinates don't change even if I slowly move five or ten metres away. Then suddenly it'll decide 'hey, he's moved!" and update. I know of one cacher locally who exclusively uses a phone and this has been a constant battle for him when placing caches and he really has a hard time reliably getting a reading within 10 metres of his hides. I suspect it was a similar scenario with the one I recently did where the initial coordinates were ten metres out and confirmed by the other cacher searching with me and where the icon appeared on the map, in that case the CO quickly rechecked and updated his coordinates.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I rarely use my phone (an Android) to take coordinates, but on the odd occasion I have (using the create a waypoint function in the official app), I've observed the opposite. I don't know whether this is happening in the phone itself or in the app, but if it thinks I've stopped moving it'll stop updating its reading and the coordinates don't change even if I slowly move five or ten metres away. Then suddenly it'll decide 'hey, he's moved!" and update.

I would say that's the app being used. The phone obviously knows, in such a case, that you've moved past a threshold, so the gps is still active, but the app may be choosing to not make use of new coordinates until a difference has been met. But maybe it is the OS making that decision, dunno.  In any case, the phone is still GPS-active in order to know it's moved a distance. So somewhere between that and the app deciding to update the location visually is the hiccup, and I'd be surprised if it didn't have a setting somewhere to adjust... 

[+SpiritGuide]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I would say that's the app being used. The phone obviously knows, in such a case, that you've moved past a threshold, so the gps is still active, but the app may be choosing to not make use of new coordinates until a difference has been met. But maybe it is the OS making that decision, dunno.  In any case, the phone is still GPS-active in order to know it's moved a distance. So somewhere between that and the app deciding to update the location visually is the hiccup, and I'd be surprised if it didn't have a setting somewhere to adjust... 

 

It definitely is the app. On Android, developers decide how location updates are generated... the frequency from a previous update, and whether the device has moved a determined distance. To save on battery usage, the developer can dictate that the user has to move 100' for example before the OS gives a location update to the app. 

[+BFMC]

I've used both over time, eventually sold my GPS as it wasn't getting used. Too much effort for too little reward most of the time (long hikes are a different story,  but they are rare these days for me).

 

I've found my iPhone (far from the latest model) to be more than capable. Being able to zoom right in on satellite maps helps on the odd occasion its bouncing around (usually Sydney or Melbourne CBD), and a GPS wouldn't be any better in that scenario (in fact worse IMO).

 

In terms of taking coordinates with my phone, I really dislike using the create a waypoint (or even just navigate to a random cache and screenshot the compass page). I found an app called GPSdiagnostic that gives way better information, and I can reset the read manually. I usually provide this to our reviewer in the submission notes as well. This read was taken indoors and is probably worst case scenario for most locations unless there is the usual challenges of CBD building density etc. In terms of finding caches, cachly (both on the phone and the watch) was a game changer for me.

 

Given coordinates are only going to ever be as accurate as the process of the person that obtained them, accuracy is a moot point when debating the advantages of a smart phone vs GPS. The only categories GPS can still beat out a decent phone are battery life and reading the screen in bright daylight, neither of which are significant enough (given my caching style) for me to own one anymore.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 2 by BFMC

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, BFMC said:

In terms of taking coordinates with my phone, I really dislike using the create a waypoint (or even just navigate to a random cache and screenshot the compass page). I found an app called GPSdiagnostic that gives way better information, and I can reset the read manually. I usually provide this to our reviewer in the submission notes as well. This read was taken indoors and is probably worst case scenario for most locations unless there is the usual challenges of CBD building density etc.

 

Exactly, and what the official geocaching app really, desperately needs is similar functionality built into it so it can be properly used by prospective COs to obtain half-decent coordinates. The cludge of taking a single reading by creating a waypoint on an existing cache, which is likely using the coordinates it recorded when you were five or ten metres away and it thought you'd stopped moving, I'm sure is the root cause of so many new caches having poor coordinates. Make it easy to get good coordinates, not hard.

Edited February 2 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

To followup - it's confirmed still recently that iOS apps do not have detailed access to satellite info, and any apps that show things like "satellite count" are estimating and 'guesstimating' based on the information that the API from the OS provides. This thread talks a bit about whether apps can access such data (and even mentions the aforementioned diagnostic app). There isn't yet a response from the user who said he'd ask the developer how they managed to provide the satellite count value if by some other indirect means.  Without having a jailbroken phone, I don't think Apple would knowingly permit a 'loophole' around something they seem extremely closed about since iPhone first introduced GPS capability.  Likewise, other apps for years have shown a 'satellite count' pseudo variable based on estimations from other gps readings, not based on a hard actual number provided by the device's OS.

Edited February 2 by thebruce0

[+igator210]

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

To followup - it's confirmed still recently that iOS apps do not have detailed access to satellite info, and any apps that show things like "satellite count" are estimating and 'guesstimating' based on the information that the API from the OS provides. This thread talks a bit about whether apps can access such data (and even mentions the aforementioned diagnostic app). There isn't yet a response from the user who said he'd ask the developer how they managed to provide the satellite count value if by some other indirect means.  Without having a jailbroken phone, I don't think Apple would knowingly permit a 'loophole' around something they seem extremely closed about since iPhone first introduced GPS capability.  Likewise, other apps for years have shown a 'satellite count' pseudo variable based on estimations from other gps readings, not based on a hard actual number provided by the device's OS.

Thank you for this information. I use an app that does display a read count. I usually let it get into the hundreds before I start the process over again. Its nice to know that the numbers are only an estimate.