GPS performance in the deep woods

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:49 pm

The purpose of this post is not to start a debate on Garmin vs. Magellan vs. any other options. Please . . . no. Really . . . my desire is to get others' opinions on just how GPS units may or may not perform, price aside.

We're talking about one attribute here. That is .... a Garmin's ability to hold a signal under heavy tree cover.

Here's the back story. I talked this week with a Garmin rep. I asked which of their GPS units are the best under heavy tree cover. What I was told was that any unit with their high-sensitivity receiver should perform identical to any other with that same high-sensitivity receiver. (In reality, that is almost every single unit they sell.)

What differences do you see within the Garmin line on their ability in the deep woods? I'll lead off by saying that my ancient Etrex Legend was always better than my Oregon 300. There is/was a clear difference. (Oregon died.)

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:06 pm

Would have to say that my old GPS72 was better than my 550 but still like the paperless too much to bring that one back out of retirement.

WGA Member Joined: 2004-05-19 Posts: 730

I still like my 60CSx. Never lost a signal and never had the torture of signal bounce. Accuracy was always within 10-15 feet in the deep woods. Couldn't say the same for our old Etrex Legend. That thing never could keep a signal in the deep woods and when it got one it's accuracy was beyond terrible. I wish they still made the 60CSx. I need a new one. [ Sad

]

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:34 pm

I use the Oregon because it has that paperless feature. Trekkin' has the Map60CSx, which is practically being held together with duct tape by now. But his holds the signal with more accuracy and far less bounce than mine ever does. I'm still wandering in circles while he's signing the log. That's my excuse, anyway!

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:40 pm

G*Force wrote:

What differences do you see within the Garmin line on their ability in the deep woods? I'll lead off by saying that my ancient Etrex Legend was always better than my Oregon 300. There is/was a clear difference. (Oregon died.)

I use an Etrex Legend and have very poor performance in deep woods. I don't use any other kind, so I have nothing to compare it to firsthand. But people I have cached with who use other units never lose reception. If you know how you keep your signal on the Legend, let me know.

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:18 pm

Of the units I've used, the best were the 76Cx and Dakota. The Oregon wasn't as good as a the Dakota in that respect, and my old yellow Etrex was not in the same league as the others. I would argue that the positioning of the antenna, the other electronics used and the type of case will also have an effect on reception.

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:36 pm

We currently cache with an Oregon 400t, preceded by a 60CSX and a Geko 301. I have a gut feeling that the Oregon is not as accurate under heavy cover, but it hasn't kept me from finding them. Every once in a while I'll have a maddening experience under heavy cover, most usually after a heavy rain. I don't know why. It's always good to keep in mind that the accuracy of the placer's coordinates is probably an even bigger factor than the accuracy of the finder's unit.

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:57 pm

Do folks really lose satellite reception under a canopy, totally? Or is that just another way of saying the GPRs is bouncy like crazy, and taking you on staggered path?

Have used both the Etrex Vista and Oregon, but never at the same time, so can't say that one is better than the other....BUT, have never totally lost satellite signal with either. OK, truth be told, there is one exception: lost signal with the Oregon when inside into a cave.

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:57 pm

G*Force wrote:

....ability to hold a signal under heavy tree cover.

Garmin GPS Map 60CSX
I hunt in the National Forest, not some 100 acre woodlot. Often far from any trail or road. I need to get in and be able to get back out. It works for me. I often mark good sign/locations for next season and I find them next year.

I bought it for hunting but it works great for Geocaching too. Would I like to up-grade? Someday I will, but not yet.

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:04 pm

We use three different units: an iPhone4, Garmin Dakota20, and Garmin GPSMAP62s. I spoke with tech support at Garmin last summer, and they said that in reference to the Dakota/Oregon vs. the MAP62s, the difference in reception was virtually non-existent, but that the MAP62s (and its predecessors like the 60) would have a very very slight edge because of the bigger external antenna. However, we've found that if anything the Dakota was the better unit. The iPhone of course doesn't belong in the same category, it has inferior reception in deep woods. But it's great for spontaneous caching.

WGA Member Joined: 2009-07-20 Posts: 120

huffinpuffin2 wrote:

Do folks really lose satellite reception under a canopy, totally? Or is that just another way of saying the GPRs is bouncy like crazy, and taking you on staggered path?

We have a Garmin 60, I think it is, that always loses reception completely. We consider it a bad purchase and rarely get it out.

Our 60csx is the one we most rely on, but the Oregon 450 is good too and we love the paperless aspect.

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:33 pm

LostBoys5 wrote:

huffinpuffin2 wrote:

Do folks really lose satellite reception under a canopy, totally? Or is that just another way of saying the GPRs is bouncy like crazy, and taking you on staggered path?

We have a Garmin 60, I think it is, that always loses reception completely. We consider it a bad purchase and rarely get it out. . .

Thanks! Think that would be very frustrating, and could also be very scary. Wonder how far one could be thrown?? Roll Eyes

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:41 pm

Every tax refund season, I think about buying a new GPS but the 60csx that I've used for the past few years just keeps doing so darn well that I decide not to replace it. It does lock on to a signal like a pit bull and I don't recall it ever dropping off, no matter how thick the cover.

By comparison, my Nuvi will lose satellite reception just going through the underpasses down by Mitchell International in Milwaukee.

WGA Member Joined: 2007-02-03 Posts: 2182

We still have the Etrex Legends that we bought when we started 6 years ago. We can't afford to replace them, but have never had trouble in deeply wooded areas. We use them to get as close as we can and then hide in the bushes and wait for someone with a better unit to come and find the cache. After they leave we come out of our cover and sign the log.

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:13 pm

I had an old Blue Etrex, I have a 60CSx and last year my wife upgraded me to the 62st. The 62st kicks butt!! I have never have a problem getting a signal lock and it locks on super fast. It is a a bit difference set up than the 60CSx, but easy to learn once you get familiar with it. I do believe that the external antenna helps a lot too. I like that it has buttons and that it's still easy to use while wearing gloves.
I bet I have over 75 different trails mapped on it while the CSx only let you store 10 or so. You can also store I think 10,000 waypoints on it and pretty sure you can load the whole City Navigator North America disk on it and still have room. And it is also paperless and can use it for Chip caches but does not do WhereIgo's, but neither did the CSx.

Now Sandlanders recently got a the new Etrex 20...I think. It also does paperless. I know she has ad some issues with it, but I think it was with the setup or did not do the recent upgrade. I have never used a Colorado or Oregon and have never used anything other than a Garmin. Some love their Megellens too.

If someone were to ask me what I would recommend, it would have to be 62st. For me and where I live, the Topo maps are very handy. It is a tad pricey thou. I do think that the new Etrexs are good and are not as expensive.