OK Scott. Did I fail to mention that we have had the opportunity to compare
the performance of (7) seven Magellan and Garmins against each other while
doing something like 500 plus caches all over the US. In my original
missive a forgot about the emap unit. The units we used are the Garmin
Emap, 76CS, Etrex Legend, Etrex Legend Vista Cx. The 3 Magellans were all
Sportrack Pros. We seem to keep dropping them! Maybe I should also note
that none of the units failed operationally. Of all the Garmins the Etrex
Legend is the best, e.g. sensititivy and accuracy. All the others have/had
serious errors of 7 to 10 ft on the high resolution scale. These errors are
consistent with caches that were placed by careful knowledgeable cachers.
We have also had opportunity to compare waypoints established scientifically
by standards. The 3 Magellan Sportrack Pros were all perfect replicas and
were dead on. I am not hostile toward Garmin, but cannot ignore results.
Both mapsource and mapsend topos (I have both) will allow exchange of
waypoints but not maps. What I would like to be able to do is use Delorme
topo maps (superior) in either or both brands of receivers with Garmin
waypoint symbols. My backhand at Garmin is simply because they are the
industry leaders in terms of sales and promotions and for now get to set the
trend. Magellan Sportrack Pros are a great deal and very adequate for
geocaching. I repeat my offer to trade the etrex legend vista Cx for a
eXplorist 500. There is nothing wrong with the vista Cx except the offset
mentioned above.
On 11/13/06, Roping The Wind <
arizcowboy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >From: "Cordell Harris" <cordh5@gmail.com>
>
> >Magellan has better, more user friendly receivers that are more sensitive
> >and accurate. If >unconvinced, try caching with the owner of a Magellan
> >Sportrack Pro. Presently, we own two >Garmins a etrex legend and an etrex
> >legend vista cx.
>
> The etrex line uses a patch antenna, which IMHO, is crap. Upgrade to the
> new
> 60CSX and you will probably never see anything more accurate. I do not
> beleive that you can compare two GPS units for accuracy on a single
> geocache
> or any geocache for that matter. The cache owner's coordinates could be
> off
> for one. Also, both your GPS units will give slightly different readings
> on
> where the cache is supposed to be. To find true accuracy, take a waypoint
> and mark it with your GPS. Of course, with any GPS, you have to leave it
> there for a few minutes for a most accurate reading (too many
> inexperienced
> cachers hide a cache, hit mark on their GPS and leave and dont allow the
> GPS
> to average location). Now, walk away a few hundred feet or more and then
> come back to ground zero and see where your GPS takes you. Do this with
> two
> units that you want to compare and see which one is most accurate.
>
> Of course, as Loran said, all GPS's these days are decently accurate. They
> will all take you to a waypoint and get you within 30 feet or less. Do the
> example above once and you will find that both GPS's did their job well
> enough. If you want to find truly which unit is better, with there still
> being slight errors in GPS's, you will still need to do the example above
> several times to average your results out to truly see which unit is
> better.
> Seems nit picky. Well it is... as I just said, all GPS's are accurate
> enough. Still, if you want a GPS for just geocaching or marking waypoints,
> then a patch antenna Etrex or a Magellan GPS Blazer 12 (now that is
> ancient!
> and I have one too) is all you need. If you want to mark a little hole in
> the ground that an ant just went in to and then come back a week later to
> find it... then you need to spend the bigger dollars for a unit with a 12
> channel SiRFstar III high-sensitivity (WAAS-enabled) chip and built-in
> quad
> helix antenna, with external antenna connection (like the Garmin 60csX).
> Either units will get you to a geocache or any point for that matter. But
> the latter technology will, on average, get you to a specific point more
> consistantly.
>
> >Garmins are overpriced/overrated and as industry leaders don't like the
> >strangle hold they maintain >on proprietary mapping software. We badly
> >need mapping software that will function universally in >handhelds.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt Magellan also use proprietary mapping
> software? (Mapsend). I could be wrong on this, but I beleive both Magellan
> and Garmin have their own specific mapping software that must be used for
> mapping. I think both brands will accept some other mapping software, but
> only for uploading and transfering of waypoints, tracks, etc and not maps.
> If you want maps in your unit, you have to use their own mapping software
> (Mapsend or Mapsource).
>
> Scott
> Team Ropingthewind
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!
>
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
____________________________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list
listserv@azgeocaching.com
To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com
(text/plain)