# Do Garmins have better GPS coverage than phones?



## Samo831 (Jan 19, 2015)

Will dedicated GPS units be usable when phones lose reception? I ride some areas where there's no cell reception and I'm wondering if GPS would still work on a dedicated unit like a garmin? thx!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

A phone's GPS does not rely on cell reception. Modern smartphones have separate GPS chips and antennas. Phone GPSes are not quite as good as what you find on a Garmin, though, so phones use cell towers to improve location accuracy. When phones lose cell reception, their GPS capability can drop. It depends on a phone. GPS chip specs are usually published, but not the antenna specs, and those are what matter most. 

A dedicated GPS won't have this issue. It never uses cell towers for anything, so its accuracy will be the same regardless. Anything that reduces the accuracy of a dedicated GPS will reduce the accuracy of a phone. Topography, skyscrapers, solar storms, latitude, satellite constellation geometry, etc.


----------



## Samo831 (Jan 19, 2015)

Thanks Nate - super helpful. If I'm riding in forested areas, what would you recommend? I'm in Santa Cruz and there's a lot of tree covered trails. I know this is less than ideal, but do you know of a unit that is better than others in these conditions?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

*shrug*

I don't know what cell coverage is like there. I don't know how the forest canopy affects things. I don't know your local topography.

I know the places where I've lived and ridden with GPS. Currently, I'm in Indiana. Some of the trails I ride are in pretty hilly, fairly remote places where cell coverage is spotty at best, and nonexistent over many trails. Some people still ride with phones tracking their rides. Whether that works for you depends on your requirements for data quality and battery life, as well as any reserve for the possibility of calling out. I am more conservative on those issues than most.

I prefer a dedicated mapping GPS for remote rides like that. AND I carry a paper map showing the route I intend to ride, with any necessary hand-drawn notes, depending on my familiarity with the area. I have higher data quality standards than many, as I frequently fall back on my ride data to generate maps for my club, showing a particular route. And I still frequently use techniques to improve accuracy when I make those maps, because my dedicated GPS still has its accuracy limitations in certain circumstances.


----------



## squareback (Sep 19, 2011)

IMO a Garmin is only slightly better than a sextant. Every phone I have ever had beats the pants off of every Garmin I've ever had.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

squareback said:


> IMO a Garmin is only slightly better than a sextant. Every phone I have ever had beats the pants off of every Garmin I've ever had.


I sure haven't seen that. I've seen more than one phone with "geotagging" enabled either fail to provide coordinates or supply coordinates miles away from the actual photo location.

I'm quite curious how your definition works if I'm seeing the opposite of you.


----------



## m10b (Dec 27, 2004)

*GPS with Galaxy Note 2*

It's a fairy tale - Garmin GPS units are not better than all the phones.
My Galaxy Note 2 is usually equally well and often even better than my GPSmap 60CSx. 
My Note2 is used always in flight mode.

m10b
www.Trail.ch


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Right. The Note 2. You're talking about one of the biggest "phones" out there. You might as well be comparing laptops. I'm sure the GPS antenna inside is correspondingly larger than others.

I'm also curious how you carry the different devices, because antenna orientation matters. A lot.

Furthermore, I am curious about the data output from the two devices, and the specific settings used. There's a LOT more than meets the eye, which is part of what makes it so extremely difficult to do a direct comparison.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Many of the modern phones do use glonass as well, whereas my older Garmin 500 does not.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

ghettocruiser said:


> Many of the modern phones do use glonass as well, whereas my older Garmin 500 does not.


This is true. Though GLONASS doesn't improve accuracy in every situation. It can make a substantial difference in some situations, but it's also not fair to compare a GPS that has hardware that may be a decade or more older with a modern phone with hardware that's been released within the last couple. But even with GLONASS, a $hitty antenna will cripple a phone's ability to do much with it. A big phone has a much better likelihood of having a useful antenna than a smaller one.


----------



## Peddlin' Fool (Jul 22, 2013)

squareback said:


> IMO a Garmin is only slightly better than a sextant. Every phone I have ever had beats the pants off of every Garmin I've ever had.


I have a Nexus 5 which tracked rides fine with the exception of battery life.

So I went ahead and purchased the Garmin 510. This has only served to add frustration to my rides. The Garmin consistently reports 10% fewer miles than any of the five friends I ride with.., after 3 calls into Garmin Customer Support, the tech analyzed the data and verified the Garmin was dropping the signal.

As a test, I decided to record the ride with the Nexus 5 haphazardly tossed into my backpack. It never lost the signal while the Garmin 510 mounted out front on the bars was off by about 10%. (As compared to four other riders & my Nexus 5)

The Garmin 510 is only 4 months old and is on its way to the auction block!


----------



## FloriDave (Jul 15, 2009)

Garmins new Fenix 3 watch does the same thing. Complete fail on twisty trails. Bad smoothing of route and I've seen up to 10% less distance vs iPhone and 310xt. Crazy track recording, Fenix 3 in pink vs 310xt and iPhone on same ride










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

Interesting thread. My Garmin 1000 reports about 10-12% less feet climbed then my 705. i think Garmin has some major issues with their current generation of computers. so far filmware hasn't fix the issue. Tracking could be much improved as well. 

but why is everyone so bent on putting their phones on their bikes?


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Both the 1000 and the 705 have barometric altimeters, IIRC, Could one of the devices be discarding the elevation data and using corrected DEM data instead during upload? 

Alternately, dirt or dust stuck in the vent holes for the altimeter in the GPS case will cause random changes in elevation reporting.


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

it could be size, dust, sensor uses, hardware differences, software.... not sure what it is. i just know my old 705 was more accurate with altitude as well as GPS track. 

but really its making us ride a little longer and harder to get to our goals!


----------



## Stuart B (Mar 21, 2005)

my old edge 500 isn't as good as my sony z1. speed fluctuates noticeably and low when under tree cover.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

My brothers old Edge 500 is crap too. His new Edge 500 goes nicely.

A 6 year old GPS with probably 300MHz of CPU power isn't as good as a modern quad core 2.2GHz phone that costs only slightly more?


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

a modren smart phone retail cost is much higher then a edge 500.


----------



## Learux (Jun 4, 2012)

The calculated elevation provided by a smart phone is more then likely full of errors since most phones do not have barometric capabilities.

Both my smartphone and Edge 510 give distance measurements within 1% compared to my wheel revolution counter.

The Edge has the edge when it comes to elevation gain/loss and has much more consistent results


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

Learux said:


> The calculated elevation provided by a smart phone is more then likely full of errors since most phones do not have barometric capabilities.
> 
> Both my smartphone and Edge 510 give distance measurements within 1% compared to my wheel revolution counter.
> 
> The Edge has the edge when it comes to elevation gain/loss and has much more consistent results


I would have to agree but it is hard to convince those hardcore phone mount people that there is more of a disadvantage then advantage with phone based cycle computers. I suppose what ever makes you happy. I prefer to save my battery for when i actually need it.

I'll also ad the power meter options are slim with phones. as well as the metrics that one would expect to have.


----------



## valleyboy (Aug 10, 2014)

anyone ever use motion x gps for the i phone to map a ride??


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

valleyboy said:


> anyone ever use motion x gps for the i phone to map a ride??


why? Motion X doesn't use bike friendly maps to my knowledge.


----------



## valleyboy (Aug 10, 2014)

Know nothing about it why I ask. The website had a video of a guy on a bike


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

A forum search may yield results


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

myke2241 said:


> why? Motion X doesn't use bike friendly maps to my knowledge.


I've used it to record a track. It works as well as any phone GPS software. That's what I think of as "mapping" a ride.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

My fresh experience with Garmin Edge 20 cycle computer is very negative. Strava now does not recognize my segments. When I recorded my rides on phone (samsung galaxy s4 mini), there was never a problem. I tried recording garmin and samsung on the same ride, results are that phone is superior to garmin unit. Tracking from phone show my position exactly on the map on trail, while garmin ignores many turns and shows my position even as far as 70m off the trail. Never buy garmin again. I'm sending garmin for warranty next week.

EDIT: I switch off mobile data and wifi before rides to keep my battery up, so phone uses GPS receiver only


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RoboS said:


> My fresh experience with Garmin Edge 20 cycle computer is very negative. Strava now does not recognize my segments. When I recorded my rides on phone (samsung galaxy s4 mini), there was never a problem. I tried recording garmin and samsung on the same ride, results are that phone is superior to garmin unit. Tracking from phone show my position exactly on the map on trail, while garmin ignores many turns and shows my position even as far as 70m off the trail. Never buy garmin again. I'm sending garmin for warranty next week.
> 
> EDIT: I switch off mobile data and wifi before rides to keep my battery up, so phone uses GPS receiver only


The Edge 20 is a piece of $hit and its performance is not indicative of all other Garmin models. Its specifications were soundly criticized in this forum prior to its availability because certain things are considered bare minimum for mtb use. Primarily recording interval. For accurate gps tracks, you absolutely must have a minimum of 1 second recording intervals. The Edge 20/25 do not offer that and therefore have no business on a mtb

They are even sketchy for road bike use under certain conditions.

Just because something says it has gps (phone or otherwise) does not mean iit will be any good.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

RoboS said:


> My fresh experience with Garmin Edge 20 cycle computer is very negative. Strava now does not recognize my segments. When I recorded my rides on phone (samsung galaxy s4 mini), there was never a problem. I tried recording garmin and samsung on the same ride, results are that phone is superior to garmin unit. Tracking from phone show my position exactly on the map on trail, while garmin ignores many turns and shows my position even as far as 70m off the trail. Never buy garmin again. I'm sending garmin for warranty next week.
> 
> EDIT: I switch off mobile data and wifi before rides to keep my battery up, so phone uses GPS receiver only


The fact that you bought an Edge 20, given its stated specifications, is an indication of you as the buyer. It's like buying a rear wheel drive convertible when you live at 10,000ft in Colorado, then wondering why you end up in a ditch on your way to work half the year.

I don't know how or why you'd blame the unit; it's pretty bare bones and not reflective of Garmin's better stuff AT ALL.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

I haven't found anything wrong in stated specification. 
Edge 20 has everything I need, if it works

Functions I require:
-GPS tracking usable for Strava to check my segments (Inaccurate, but its not written anywhere)
-basic breadcrumb navigation
-basic ride info (time, distance, speed)
-8h battery life
-small size

Things I don't need
-color display
-touch screens
-annoying BT notifications from my phone
-HR, cadence and whatever

So, tell me please, why would I buy 5 times more expensive garmin $hit? To have function that I don't need/want? WHY???


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

Edge series is designed as a training partner not a hardcore orientation device. Try an Etrex if you never want to have accuracy problems under the thickest of canopies.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RoboS said:


> I haven't found anything wrong in stated specification.
> Edge 20 has everything I need, if it works
> 
> Functions I require:
> ...


The Edge 20 offers "Smart Recording" only. It is not so smart. Accuracy is terrible at bicycle speeds. No option to change recording interval. That one specification makes this model worthless for the mtb. It therefore does NOT have everything you need.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

Harold said:


> The Edge 20 offers "Smart Recording" only. It is not so smart. Accuracy is terrible at bicycle speeds. No option to change recording interval. That one specification makes this model worthless for the mtb. It therefore does NOT have everything you need.


Smart recording is one thing, accuracy other. From reviews on web I found that smart recording records less points if you go straight and records more points when you change direction. I did not have any experience with garmin units before I bought edge 20, but I expected from garmin the quality for which they were known for.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RoboS said:


> Smart recording is one thing, accuracy other. From reviews on web I found that smart recording records less points if you go straight and records more points when you change direction. I did not have any experience with garmin units before I bought edge 20, but I expected from garmin the quality for which they were known for.


Smart recording is also less accurate so it matters. My gps can switch recording intervals but "smart" is the default. It really is remarkably less accurate. If I do a master reset and forget to change that setting, it misses most strava segments on the next ride. That reminds me about the setting.


----------



## valleyboy (Aug 10, 2014)

been using motion x all summer it's been great


----------



## mtbiker040 (Jul 11, 2010)

A garmin with speed sensor on the wheel is pretty accurate to me.


----------



## austin_bike (Apr 2, 2005)

The big difference for me is the visual. I love the Garmin for being able to see the stats of the ride, how many miles, how many feet climbed, speed, etc. The phone is in my pack, and with the terrain here in Austin I'd rather not have the phone on my handlebars.

Yes, maybe I spend too much time worrying about that, but as a guy that has dropped close to 40 pounds in the last 3-4 years and just finished an 83-mile ride that includes 5 trails, including the 3 toughest and all of the hills between them. 

Data is king and data will change your life.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mtbiker040 said:


> A garmin with speed sensor on the wheel is pretty accurate to me.


the speed sensor does not change the gps position sampling rate and will not change whether the recorded data matches up with any segments or not. On the Edge 25, which is compatible with a speed sensor, I am hearing that the speed/distance data is only marginally improved. What I'm hearing is that even with a speed sensor, the GPS is only recording the data from it at the same interval it records GPS positions, and that does not improve the recorded data as much as it would if you used a speed sensor WITH 1 sec recording.

It very well may result in the data displayed on screen more accurate. But the device only records at its specified interval. So the data files are less accurate.

You know, if you like to save things for later analysis, use the spatial data to make trail maps, use the tracklog with Strava to compete on segments, or stuff like that.

Not everybody does those things. But enough do that it's a major problem for the device. It's clear from this thread that people are buying this model without actually understanding the limitations of the device.


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

Harold said:


> The Edge 20 is a piece of $hit and its performance is not indicative of all other Garmin models. Its specifications were soundly criticized in this forum prior to its availability because certain things are considered bare minimum for mtb use. Primarily recording interval. For accurate gps tracks, you absolutely must have a minimum of 1 second recording intervals. The Edge 20/25 do not offer that and therefore have no business on a mtb
> 
> They are even sketchy for road bike use under certain conditions.
> 
> Just because something says it has gps (phone or otherwise) does not mean iit will be any good.


Totally agree. dude is comparing sub $100 device to a $600 or $700 phone. he also doesn't understand that phones will lock to last known GPS points and follow map data (even on trails). Auto GPS units do the same thing when they don't have a good lock drift into location.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

LOL, is this a garmin nazi thread?

I compared $125 (not sub $100) garmin edge 20 to $200 phone galaxy s4 mini
If I take the price proportion, the garmin should cost less than $20 as it can only track your bike routes (very poorly) and nothing more. Phone on the other hand can do what does the garmin (much better), access internet, make pictures, play games etc.

Also someone mentioned that phone can lock to roads on maps, some apps can, usually car navigation apps, but gps trackers? No. 

That small edge 20 should have freaking high accuracy to justify the price garmin asks for it. But it does not.


----------



## Gallo (Nov 17, 2013)

RoboS said:


> LOL, is this a garmin nazi thread?
> 
> I compared $125 (not sub $100) garmin edge 20 to $200 phone galaxy s4 mini
> If I take the price proportion, the garmin should cost less than $20 as it can only track your bike routes (very poorly) and nothing more. Phone on the other hand can do what does the garmin (much better), access internet, make pictures, play games etc.
> ...


It seems for you to be an anti garmin thread which is fine but many have used and use the product to satisfaction. You obviously are unsatisfied and it seem the 20 did not work for you. However there are many here whom have bought other versions and are satisfied.

I am also in the Garmin works better camp. Used strava on my I Phone albeit it was an older version (4) and had many issues. Elevation for one would change on the same routes. Poor battery life on long rides. Jumping from place to place occasionally in a straight line.I even flew into the Pacific Ocean one time at 8000 feet about a mile in and back in one second. Moved to the 800 and was a big improvement. It works and well my data is in tact. My tracking works well and I have better data than when using the smartphone. 18 hours of battery is a big plus I can do either long rides and not worry or do multiple rides between charging

On one note I have noticed about a year ago that uploads directly to Strava were problematic and Chrome seemed to have issues. I now upload to garmin connect via i explorer and am fine.


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

RoboS said:


> LOL, is this a garmin nazi thread?
> 
> I compared $125 (not sub $100) garmin edge 20 to $200 phone galaxy s4 mini
> If I take the price proportion, the garmin should cost less than $20 as it can only track your bike routes (very poorly) and nothing more. Phone on the other hand can do what does the garmin (much better), access internet, make pictures, play games etc.
> ...


Full retail on the S4M is $520. i was $80 off. You need to understand the difference between subsidize costs and full retail.

BTW you really don't think dev would take advantage of locking to roads and trails when proper sat locking is not available! you need to pay more attention to what your apps are doing. this is done as a fail safe a lot.

In the world of camera i have never seen someone complain their Rebel T2i should at least be as "accurate" as 5DIII or what ever. are you next going to complain your Carola doesn't drive like a Porsche.. i mean they both have engines right! Their the same bike one is Alu and the other is carbon, no reason to think they perform any different. the argument you make is a foolish one.


----------



## pistav1 (Jul 16, 2015)

Well. I Bought garmin edge 520 and all I can say is one of best thing I have ever spend money on. Didn't lose signal not even under big trees in big hills. Accuracy is I would say up to 0.5m, comparing to my phone I had before.... even small tree.. signal lost... big hills with a lot of turns all I could see before was straight arrows from point A to point B. With garmin edge 520 I can see every single turn. 
garmin edge 520- https://www.strava.com/activities/403441533
phone android- https://www.strava.com/activities/349371682
And about the garmin 20.... What have you expected from ~100$ device? How about you go buy phone for 100$ and let us know how it is?
You get what you pay for . But yeah I would say newer garmin devices has better GPS performance.


----------



## brankulo (Aug 29, 2005)

i recently bought budget smartphone to replace my forerunner watch. phone is so much better. first time i ran it together with watch and was surprised that it found satellites within seconds, while garmin took over minute. garmin also lost signal in dense canopy cover while my phone had no issues. i bought unlock phone, dont have any voice/data plan on it. $70 vs $140 i payed for garmin watch that just have basic stuff, no maps. dont really see point to go with dedicated gps.


----------



## DethWshBkr (Nov 25, 2010)

I like my Garmin.
Most of any Strava segments I see, they will have a KOM who has a really, really crazy time. They seem to use an iPhone on that ride. 

Nevertheless, most of the time, my accuracy is within 18' according to my Garmin, but it has been off a number of times. 

I don't care personally whether it's phone or Garmin. my Edge 510 does everything I need it to, is accurate enough on distance, elevation, and location that I have no issues, and gives me my cycling computer for road and mountain, and allows me to analyze heart-rate at the same time. 

I know of no phone yet that integrates current speed, cadence, heart-rate, and GPS, while breadcrumbing and navigating IF needed, all in a very tidy little waterproof package that mounts right in front of my bars or on top of my stem.



Since however, we are comparing boners on GPS - my dad has a $1500 quadcopter with GPS.
That bugger was 400' in the air (clear, open sky) and suddenly his control said "GPS Signal Lost, Angle Mode active" So in the clear sky, a $1500 GPS located and navigable drone lost GPS signal.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I've used a LOT of GPS receivers over the years. I use my phone GPS occasionally. As well as several Garmins. I've also used a number of different survey-grade receivers over the years that cost many times as much as the most expensive Garmin handheld and have software installed on them that cost many times as much as the most expensive Garmin handheld.

Doing what they're built to do, sure, they are "better" but Garmins tend to have a pretty narrowly-defined use that's different from those expensive ones. Certainly with the correct hardware, you can get centimeter accuracy with survey-grade hardware. But guess what, they suck balls for fitness tracking! And they're not all that good for telling you where to go, either. Under those situations, the Garmins work far better.

Phones can do a lot of things. But what that means is that they're not especially optimized for any single use. Some of that is a software question that can be overcome with the correct software. Some of it is related to the hardware. And phone hardware is NOT optimized for clean mounting on your handlebars in varied weather conditions in rugged terrain, especially in the backcountry.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

myke2241 said:


> Full retail on the S4M is $520. i was $80 off. You need to understand the difference between subsidize costs and full retail.
> 
> BTW you really don't think dev would take advantage of locking to roads and trails when proper sat locking is not available! you need to pay more attention to what your apps are doing. this is done as a fail safe a lot.
> 
> In the world of camera i have never seen someone complain their Rebel T2i should at least be as "accurate" as 5DIII or what ever. are you next going to complain your Carola doesn't drive like a Porsche.. i mean they both have engines right! Their the same bike one is Alu and the other is carbon, no reason to think they perform any different. the argument you make is a foolish one.


I expect you know how phone pricing works. It drops to half within 6 months and then to 1/3 of the first retail price within a year. Did you see any cycle computer (not only garmin) to drop the price more than 20%?

Of course I don't expect corola to drive like porsche, but you have clear specification of each car and clear specification of each camera you mentioned. Corola might have 80kW engine, porsche 300kW engine, thats clear and for me as a buyer its useful information.

On the other hand, garmin does not say anywhere that edge 20/25 has lower accuracy because its a "cheap" $hit. 
I expected garmin quality and each individual models difference as follows
Edge 20 - cheapest (but not cheap), tracking + basic riding information + breadcrumb
Edge 25 - Edge 20 + HR/Cadence + Bluetooth + phone notifications
Edge 520 - Edge 25 + large color display + STRAVA + barometric altimeter
Edge 810 and higher - Edge 520 + maps + touchscreen + mega high-end for real proffesionals

This is how its presented and its not true. Thats all what I tried to explain from begining. Thats why I don't like garmin now.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RoboS said:


> I expect you know how phone pricing works. It drops to half within 6 months and then to 1/3 of the first retail price within a year. Did you see any cycle computer (not only garmin) to drop the price more than 20%?
> 
> Of course I don't expect corola to drive like porsche, but you have clear specification of each car and clear specification of each camera you mentioned. Corola might have 80kW engine, porsche 300kW engine, thats clear and for me as a buyer its useful information.
> 
> ...


Garmin doesn't present it like that and you know it.

The Edge 20/25 are their own class of receivers and really only comparable to each other. The Edge 500/510/520 are a similar class of receiver with improvements from model to model. The Edge 800/810 are comparable to each other, but with new features added from the 800 to the 810. The Edge 1000 is in a class of its own. There are hardware differences between all of them. But there are also significant software differences, and where Garmin does a poor job is with detailing those software differences. Some of them (like recording interval) affect the functionality of the model SIGNIFICANTLY. In short, the more expensive the model, the more detailed the software on the model. The less expensive, the more stripped down the software. There are fewer things you can change on them.

The expensive ones are not for "professionals". That assessment is pretty silly when it comes down to it. Those models are for people who prioritize the functions they can do. Lots of non-professionals are serious about improving their fitness one way or another. Data helps us gauge improvements, and helps us identify weaknesses that can be improved through training. I know definite non-professional riders who have hired coaches to help them get faster and more fit. Data helps those coaches do their jobs.

I agree that their documentation is poor. It always has been. But we've been ranting in this forum for YEARS about the terribly inaccurate "Smart Recording". I'm pretty sure such rants exist elsewhere on the internet, also. I believe it goes clear back to the release of the Edge 500, which first came with "Smart Recording" only (after the Edge 205/305 and the 605/705 permitted 1 sec recording), unless you used a power meter to enable 1sec recording. Enough people raged at Garmin over the terrible accuracy of the "Smart Recording" for mtb that Garmin released a firmware update (not just for the Edge 500 - my Forerunner 310XT got the same update) that enabled 1sec recording without a power meter.

In the end, you bought something without doing enough research and now you're disappointed. Do you think Garmin is going to tell anyone that one model is less accurate than another? Of course not. But the truth of the matter is that exists at multiple levels. Garmins from the early 2000's were less accurate than models that received newer, more accurate GPS chips shortly thereafter (intentional government scrambling of GPS signals for civilian use, "Selective Availability", was turned off in 2000, and GPS tech progressed quickly afterwards). GPS without WAAS is less accurate than GPS with WAAS. GPS without GLONASS is less accurate than GPS with GLONASS, especially in places with challenging reception like northern latitudes, deep canyons, and urban canyons. But the fact is that all those differences in accuracy exist between models. Companies might talk about accuracy IMPROVEMENTS with the addition of one feature or another if they want to make a big deal of it. But they may not. Like phone manufacturers. Many phones (but not all) have GLONASS-capable GPS chips on them. Some do not. Good luck finding that specification for every phone on the market. Good luck finding recording interval settings for every GPS app on the market, also. Some let you adjust that. Some don't. It makes a difference, whether you are aware of it or not.

A GPS is not an idiot-proof piece of electronic hardware. I'd argue that there's no such thing at all, but manufacturers of hardware and device software would have you believe otherwise. To truly get the most out of GPS hardware, you have to know what you're doing. There's a learning curve to understand what different settings mean, and what affects device accuracy. Accuracy is NOT always the same. It varies over time. When your device puts down a less accurate stretch of track, it probably has little to do with the device. Accuracy will dwindle the faster you're going. Atmospheric conditions affect accuracy. Satellite positioning in the sky affects accuracy. Signal reflection affects accuracy.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

You are right that I did not search forums before, I just expected garmin quality, but its not there.


----------



## cavo (Apr 18, 2011)

RoboS said:


> You are right that I did not search forums before, I just expected garmin quality, but its not there.


its not there for sure. not for what they sell for. there is noticeable trend of switching from garmin devices to smartphones just for tracking/mapping purposes in the the group i ride with. we used to be all garmin. now there is just one left. most of us have moto e2s (cheap, but excellent value) that we use solely as gps. battery life is amazing. tons of app so everyone will find favorite. lots of maps. mtb project app and viewranger are my favorite. we are more of adventure riders, do not care much for hart rates or cadence. in fact we are all map junkies and the aps we run give you all you want to play with.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

cavo said:


> its not there for sure. not for what they sell for. there is noticeable trend of switching from garmin devices to smartphones just for tracking/mapping purposes in the the group i ride with. we used to be all garmin. now there is just one left. most of us have moto e2s (cheap, but excellent value) that we use solely as gps. battery life is amazing. tons of app so everyone will find favorite. lots of maps. mtb project app and viewranger are my favorite. we are more of adventure riders, do not care much for hart rates or cadence. in fact we are all map junkies and the aps we run give you all you want to play with.


Thanks for the tip. If I understand correctly, "moto e2s" is Motorola E-series. Its also cheaper than the cheapest garmin


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

DethWshBkr said:


> I know of no phone yet that integrates current speed, cadence, heart-rate, and GPS, while breadcrumbing and navigating IF needed, all in a very tidy little waterproof package that mounts right in front of my bars or on top of my stem.


Sony Xperia Active with a SportyPal mount.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Ever since I got my first smartphone my Garmin GPS sits in the drawer collecting dust. 

The price I have paid for any smartphone is anywhere from free to $.97 to $19.99. My newest phone was .97 that I just got last month... Samsung Galaxy S5

For riding I use an app called Sportstracker. Mileage, speeds etc. have matched that of friends I ride with that have the expensive Garmin Units. And that's with the phone in my pocket. 

I also use another app called BackCountry Navigator when I hunt or trout fish rivers. It has been just as good and accurate as the Garmin I used to use. 

To conserve battery life, I just put the phone in airplane mode and use GPS signal only. 

Garmin can suck it. I'm not paying those prices for their products when my smartphone does just as good.


----------



## Gallo (Nov 17, 2013)

cavo said:


> its not there for sure. not for what they sell for. there is noticeable trend of switching from garmin devices to smartphones just for tracking/mapping purposes in the the group i ride with. we used to be all garmin. now there is just one left. most of us have moto e2s (cheap, but excellent value) that we use solely as gps. battery life is amazing. tons of app so everyone will find favorite. lots of maps. mtb project app and viewranger are my favorite. we are more of adventure riders, do not care much for hart rates or cadence. in fact we are all map junkies and the aps we run give you all you want to play with.


Not with my group. I disagree the quality is there for my device and I have never had anything but good things to say about Garmin


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

It's more running oriented, but I would assume it's similar also with bike products... It really is as someone already wrote... "Garmin is only slightly better than a sextant". 
GPS Accuracy of Garmin, Polar, and other Running Watches - Fellrnr.com, Running tips


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I've got a Forerunner 910xt and Forerunner 620 and they're much more accurate than that study shows.
The 910 is better than the 620 though.

910xt at a cyclocross race pretty much in the open.









620 at a 6hr XC with partial tree cover.









Edge 810 at an XC race with heavy tree cover.









Sony Xperia Active at the National XC Champs heavy tree cover.









The 910 seems to have an edge on the Edge 810 under tree cover too.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

primoz said:


> It's more running oriented, but I would assume it's similar also with bike products... It really is as someone already wrote... "Garmin is only slightly better than a sextant".
> GPS Accuracy of Garmin, Polar, and other Running Watches - Fellrnr.com, Running tips


I do not think the analysis in that website is appropriate.

He can run all the statistical analyses he wants, but if the baseline is crap, then everything based on that assumption is crap.

His baseline determination only determines the distance. Okay, you can do statistical analysis based upon measured distance. But the author went beyond that to actually analyze each GPS point within the track files. He does NOT have a POSITIONAL baseline in order to analyze those. So I believe some of his conclusions are quite probably erroneous.

He only looked at Smart Recording vs. 1sec recording once, on a device he reported to be very poor anyway. His analysis of accuracy vs. pace only examines a very small variation in pace. 90sec/quarter mile to 150sec/quarter mile. That roughly equates to 6-10mph. On a mtb, we might climb a really long, steep grade at practically walking speed, so 2-3mph, but we might descend that same stretch at greater than 20mph. There absolutely is a difference in accuracy between those two extremes that we might commonly see on a bike.

I think a far better look at a GPS receiver's accuracy would be to look at each one stationary, and look at how each varies over the course of an hour. The "track" can easily be converted to a point cloud. Do the tests on top of a USGS benchmark which has been measured to a degree of accuracy you'll never get out of a GPS receiver. That's your baseline. It won't compare the devices under movement, but there are major problems with determining a positional baseline for a linear feature which can be used to compare devices.


----------



## Gallo (Nov 17, 2013)

I am convinced I have got to get a sextant

how much do they cost?

do they come with a bike mount or is that extra?

do they display elevation gain?

how do I upload the data to strava?

I held out on the Garmin until my smartphone did not suit my needs. The garmin has been better gear for me. Your mileage might vary


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

http://www.singletracks.com/blog/gps/gps-distance-accuracy-test-smartphone-apps-vs-dedicated-gps/

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk 2


----------



## FloriDave (Jul 15, 2009)

I posted earlier in this thread as I've done some experimenting with various Garmins vs IPhones after having purchased a Fenix 3 and having horrible GPS performance. Excepting the Fenix 3, which I returned, and replaced with the Garmin 920xt, I'm finding the devices to all be close enough together that either works well. 

iPhone 5s, IPhone 4, Garmin 310xt, Garmin Etrex 30, Garmin Dakota 10, Garmin 929xt, for me, all of these run so close together as far as GPS that I consider them pretty much equal. That's in open areas and challenging tree covered, single environments. 

I would use any of these for GPS, the decision as to which one coming down to form factor, battery life, how it's being used on that particular trip. 

Personally, I normally use 920xt or Garmin Dakota for tracking, distance, speed, with IPhone 5s as a backup, having GaiaGPS installed and downloaded maps for my area. ( though I don't actually run the GaiaGPS App unless I'm needing to use it for something)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

FloriDave said:


> I'm finding the devices to all be close enough together that either works well.


Exactly. Which is why I use the smartphone option because it's a fraction of the cost of a Garmin unit.


----------



## Gallo (Nov 17, 2013)

Here is a better comparison I think. This is what I would say is closer to the real world. I can run both apps as well and think I will and pst the results. I think they will be close to the same.

Smartphones Vs Garmin: Which GPS is best for Strava? | ScarletFire Cycling

Why if I can get the same raw data did I buy a dedicated GPS?

I do one or two bicycle tours per year and running both Strava and the phone caused me to lose battery to the point I would have to shut of the app and lose my GPS data or not use my phone. Neither was a good option

It has been about a year but I do road centuries and the amount of time on the road caused the same problems I experienced with touring.

Things I like about the Garmin over the phone app

Display screen while I know I can get a mount for my phone I never have. However the Garmin can win here as you can toggle between so many different pieces of information on my 800

I like looking at a hill I am climbing so I can see where it ends real time. This was useful on some of my centuries where I was unfamiliar with the terrain

Cadence Speed and Heart Rate displayed on one screen. Useful when training to find just the right gear doing this enough times gives a feel of where you should be when climbing. This is a feature I have not used much on the MTB as when climbing I seem to get anaerobic often and never bother with a cadence sensor on my MTB in retrospect maybe I should. It should be fun as I am in the dirt far more than on the road this last two years.

route mapping is something that is supposed to be a feature but I found it lacking at times and useful at other times. It often seems in the dirt which I do not experience the same issues on the road but this is a dirt site that I have "lost" my course and would I like to go to the beginning and then to found course often enough that I route something but do not start the course until I feel lost and then quit it once I find the trail. This does not happen on the road and works quite well.

I think that if I were in the market today I might not buy the dedicated GPS as phone technology has come a long way. I bought the garmin after experiencing problems on longer ride 5 hours plus in 2012. I tried the power pack with limited success. Cellphone technology has improved and also now has longer battery life than when I purchased. With the Galaxy s5 that I own I can carry a spare and swap it.

Given that I think that saying the Garmin is not accurate and the cellphone more accurate is simply not true. Garmin works and works well as do the phone apps.

The garmin is more feature rich through ANT and software to make it more enticing for some. I have used it and found it usefull. My thought if you are on the bike 5 hours or less the Garmin is not worth the purchase unless you really want the ANT and bonus software features the garmin offers in real time


----------



## FloriDave (Jul 15, 2009)

prj71 said:


> Exactly. Which is why I use the smartphone option because it's a fraction of the cost of a Garmin unit.


I agree, If it's working for what you're doing there is certainly no reason to add an additional device. It won't gain you anything significant accuracy wise.

It's areas other than GPS reception or maps that point me to one device or another based on what I'm doing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Gallo (Nov 17, 2013)

Last nights ride and the data is pretty much identical. Again a dedicated device is not for everyone and the cellphone works well. But claiming a garmin does not work is silly


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

dude, you are stating the subsidize price. if you look at your contract i am sure you will have paid the entire retail of the phone plus a bit more ($500 - $700). people just don't understand how much phones actually cost! 

as others have said, you can't add sensors besides basic heart rate to phones. making near impossible for competitive cyclists to take seriously. if you don't need those things fine use a phone but don't come here and say garmin sucks when you are not really using it to its fullest potential.

BTW what happens when you crash out and need help only to find your phone is broken. not a risk i am willing to take.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

Myke, please, stop comparing price of multi-purpose device for everyday use with single-purpose device to have fun with. Its even worse when you consider that new phones can do (lets say almost) the same duty as bike computer and much much much more. And another thing to consider is massive price drop of every phone on market. Usually its 50% within 6 months. Bike computers drop 10% after 3 years, just to make free space for new models in warehouse)

Lets get back to garmins. My friend borrowed me his old forerunner 110. I did compare gps output with my phone and found that the accuracy is great in both, phone and forerunner. Both had some issues under trees, but these were minor. 
My question now is, why did garmin use good quality receiver in old low-end forerunner and use total crap $hit in new edge 20? In hunt for financial results they are putting crap receivers inside their product and don't hesitate to put their brand name on it.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RoboS said:


> Myke, please, stop comparing price of multi-purpose device for everyday use with single-purpose device to have fun with. Its even worse when you consider that new phones can do (lets say almost) the same duty as bike computer and much much much more. And another thing to consider is massive price drop of every phone on market. Usually its 50% within 6 months. Bike computers drop 10% after 3 years, just to make free space for new models in warehouse)
> 
> Lets get back to garmins. My friend borrowed me his old forerunner 110. I did compare gps output with my phone and found that the accuracy is great in both, phone and forerunner. Both had some issues under trees, but these were minor.
> My question now is, why did garmin use good quality receiver in old low-end forerunner and use total crap $hit in new edge 20? In hunt for financial results they are putting crap receivers inside their product and don't hesitate to put their brand name on it.


It's not the receiver that's crap. It's the "Smart Recording" algorithm. It's a software problem, not a hardware problem.

Here's an example of "Smart Recording" used on my Forerunner 310XT, an otherwise solid receiver.

https://www.strava.com/activities/384384971

Same trail system, with 1sec recording interval. Typical results.

https://www.strava.com/activities/400130242
https://www.strava.com/activities/391716019

Same place. Crappy GPS reception day due to poor satellite constellation. Atypical. This has only happened once in years of using this GPS.

https://www.strava.com/activities/323628395

Same place with my phone, Strava app on a Droid Bionic

https://www.strava.com/activities/272470747

So yeah, my phone is worlds better than my Forerunner on "Smart Recording". That's easy. As far as phones go, mine isn't too shabby for GPS performance. The Forerunner on a good day looks to be just a bit more accurate. I run a wheel sensor with my Forerunner, also, FWIW. There are a few major reasons I don't use my phone regularly.

1. Battery life. Yeah, airplane mode helps. But my phone eats batteries nonetheless. Battery used running GPS apps is battery I don't have for making a call if I need to. I prefer to turn my phone off entirely during rides so I can save juice.

2. Durability. Even with a good case, my phone is not BUILT to be on the bars. When I use it for tracking, I keep it tucked away so I don't smash it. I put it in a ziploc to keep it dry. I don't pay for subsidized phones and get roped into commitments with a cell phone company. I buy my phones outright. This one I bought used on ebay, so it wasn't too bad.

3. My phone is old. I have replaced the batteries many times as they wear out. But it has a hard time running even basic apps. Many times they crash before opening. My phone is an excellent example of how poorly phones age. The forced app updates don't help. It isn't THAT old. But it's old enough that it's almost no good for anything anymore. Maybe when I replace it, I'll see how well it works for off-network wifi-only junk. My suspicion is that it won't matter much and that it will still barely function.

4. My phone is too big to put on the bars. Plain and simple, there it is.

I will strongly point out that phones HAVE to drop aggressively in price to get people to buy them while they still function optimally. Retailers can't go selling old model phones as new anywhere near full price when apps become so much more resource hungry that they tax the phone's hardware more. On the contrary, my Forerunner is FAR older than my phone (it was bought as a refurb) and yet it works just the same as it did when it was new. Two entirely different situations.


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

Jack of all trades master of none. were talking about modern smart phones in everyday use right. 

RoboS if you bring up pricing and function you need to know what your talking about before you complain. you are again complaining about a entry level device. Garmin and many other companies have the right to do what ever they want. in this case they made a affordable entry device that meets the needs of a good number cyclist. if you don't like the results return it and stop complaining.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

myke2241 said:


> dude, you are stating the subsidize price. if you look at your contract i am sure you will have paid the entire retail of the phone plus a bit more ($500 - $700). people just don't understand how much phones actually cost!
> 
> as others have said, you can't add sensors besides basic heart rate to phones. making near impossible for competitive cyclists to take seriously. if you don't need those things fine use a phone but don't come here and say garmin sucks when you are not really using it to its fullest potential.
> 
> BTW what happens when you crash out and need help only to find your phone is broken. not a risk i am willing to take.


I paid 97 cents for my phone..
Galaxy S5...with 2 year contract. My bill is $120/month for 2 smartphones with 4 GB shared data.

I would have the phone anyway even if I bought a Garmin device. So at that price I can buy about 300 phones for the price of one Garmin.

They make protective bike mount cases so crashing doesn't concern me.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

prj71 said:


> I paid 97 cents for my phone..
> Galaxy S5...with 2 year contract. My bill is $120/month for 2 smartphones with 4 GB shared data.
> 
> I would have the phone anyway even if I bought a Garmin device. So at that price I can buy about 300 phones for the price of one Garmin.
> ...


You still paid full price for the phone. That price was just amortized out for the length of the contract and factored into the bill.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

myke2241 said:


> Jack of all trades master of none. were talking about modern smart phones in everyday use right.
> 
> RoboS if you bring up pricing and function you need to know what your talking about before you complain. you are again complaining about a entry level device. Garmin and many other companies have the right to do what ever they want. in this case they made a affordable entry device that meets the needs of a good number cyclist. if you don't like the results return it and stop complaining.


I compared phone with entry level garmin and another older entry level garmin. Simply, that old forerunner is tracking very very well, maybe better than my phone. But another entry level garmin, the new and modern, is piece of crap. Thats why I say that garmin had great reputation for great products, but not anymore.

And please, don't call that edge 20 affordable, its quite expensive for what it does. I had Mio (magellan) cyclo 100 few years ago, bought it for about €60 (half the price of edge 20) and it worked better.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Harold said:


> You still paid full price for the phone. That price was just amortized out for the length of the contract and factored into the bill.


No I didn't. I just purchased my phone for 97 cents last month because its at the end of its life and has been replaced by the Galaxy S6. My contract, which has been the same for years, is $120/month for 2 smartphones and 4gb shared data. I could have opted to pay $200 for the Galaxy S6 with 2 year contract but I didn't. Full price would have been about $580.

Again...no matter the price of the phone my contract would stay the same.

If you do the math I'm coming out a ahead.

$120 × 12 = $1440/year
Cost of phone = .97. 
So it cost me $2880.97 to agree to a 2 year contract.

If I bought a Garmin device add another $300+ to the total above.

I just choose not to spend that money on Garmin when the smartphone does what I need just as well.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

A 2nd hand S5 over here runs about $4-500us at the moment.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

prj71 said:


> No I didn't. I just purchased my phone for 97 cents last month because its at the end of its life and has been replaced by the Galaxy S6. My contract, which has been the same for years, is $120/month for 2 smartphones and 4gb shared data. I could have opted to pay $200 for the Galaxy S6 with 2 year contract but I didn't. Full price would have been about $580.
> 
> Again...no matter the price of the phone my contract would stay the same.
> 
> ...


The lack of difference in pricing just goes to show you how shady cell phone providers are regarding pricing. I am currently not under a contract. I can technically leave my cell provider ANYTIME I WANT and that scares the absolute crap out of Verizon. They desperately want me under a contract, so they try to tempt me with new phone deals almost daily...if only I'd sign a 2yr contract. Which really doesn't tempt me at all.

Just because they're not writing it all out for you doesn't mean it's not factored into the price of your bill. Which it is. The way it's described to customers is changing. Slowly but surely. If I browse Verizon's website for phones, they tell me exactly that the Galaxy S5 is $552 if I buy it outright from them, or it is $23.00/mo for 24mo (which is the same as a 2yr contract under old language, just a different way of phrasing it and spelling out the costs of the phone better). This morning's offer was a $100 trade-in value towards an iphone 6. BS. Anyone who gives me $100 worth of anything for my phone is a bloody moron. Of course, there are TONS of terms to the deal. No way I'm roping myself into that mess.

I paid $160 for my Forerunner 310XT. It doesn't need replacing anytime soon. I bought an Oregon 450 many years ago for $200. It, also, would be perfectly fine if not for the fact that I'm occasionally an idiot and I lost it earlier this year while on a mtb vacation. Those two devices, which have done more for me for fitness and navigation than a Galaxy S5 at over $550, cost me much less. No, they don't make phone calls for me or browse the internet. I have other things for that. Try browsing ebay for a used Galaxy S5 sometime like NordieBoy did. Not much less than full retail. I've checked myself.

All this argument tells us is that your cell phone company has you by the short & curlies. They've deceived you well to make you think you REALLY ARE paying less than $1 for that fancy phone you use. That's a joke if ever there was one. Oh, you're paying for it alright.


----------



## brankulo (Aug 29, 2005)

RoboS said:


> Thanks for the tip. If I understand correctly, "moto e2s" is Motorola E-series. Its also cheaper than the cheapest garmin


its moto e 2nd generation. thats what i use as well, as well as few other people i ride/hike with. it can be found for as low as $60. none of the people i ride with really use it as phone. just get unlocked version and use as dedicated gps. download app you like, load it with maps and you are set for an adventure.


----------



## austin_bike (Apr 2, 2005)

In today's world everyone has a phone so trying to compare phone to GPS is the wrong comparison. 

The correct economic question should be "is paying $xxx for a dedicated GPS device going to give me more than $xxx benefit?"

For me, because I ride every day, love my stats and love to watch it as I ride, yes, the Garmin (despite the terrible buggy SW+FW) is worth more than the $300 that I paid for it.

For each person it is going to be different. If you get more utility than you pay, it is a good deal. If you don't, then stick with your phone.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Harold said:


> The lack of difference in pricing just goes to show you how shady cell phone providers are regarding pricing. I am currently not under a contract. I can technically leave my cell provider ANYTIME I WANT and that scares the absolute crap out of Verizon. They desperately want me under a contract, so they try to tempt me with new phone deals almost daily...if only I'd sign a 2yr contract. Which really doesn't tempt me at all.
> 
> Just because they're not writing it all out for you doesn't mean it's not factored into the price of your bill. Which it is. The way it's described to customers is changing. Slowly but surely. If I browse Verizon's website for phones, they tell me exactly that the Galaxy S5 is $552 if I buy it outright from them, or it is $23.00/mo for 24mo (which is the same as a 2yr contract under old language, just a different way of phrasing it and spelling out the costs of the phone better). This morning's offer was a $100 trade-in value towards an iphone 6. BS. Anyone who gives me $100 worth of anything for my phone is a bloody moron. Of course, there are TONS of terms to the deal. No way I'm roping myself into that mess.
> 
> ...


I think you missed the part where I said I would have the smartphone anyway and I don't mind renewing my 2 year contract.

It's just a matter of do I pay .97 cents for a phone and renew or $150-$200 for a phone and renew. I choose the cheap route all the time.

In the end it really doesn't matter. The accuracy between smartphones and agarmin or magellan is close enough for most of what we bikers use it for. Just buy what you can afford and are happy with.:thumbsup:

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Autonomous G (Oct 11, 2008)

valleyboy said:


> anyone ever use motion x gps for the i phone to map a ride??


I've been using Motion X for about 4 years. It does a nice job of mapping my ride and providing some basic stats. Seems to track well, though I haven't compared it to a Garmin, etc.
I have an iPhone 6 and keep it tucked away in the upper pocket of my Camelback.


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

Question for strava users. I have an iPhone 4S with the free version of strava. It seems that when it goes into auto pause, or I take a picture in the middle of a ride,it doesnt restart at times. A 10 mile ride ends up 6. Maybe I should try running airplane mode. That way it won't be looking for a cell tower. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Gallo (Nov 17, 2013)

thecanoe said:


> Question for strava users. I have an iPhone 4S with the free version of strava. It seems that when it goes into auto pause, or I take a picture in the middle of a ride,it doesnt restart at times. A 10 mile ride ends up 6. Maybe I should try running airplane mode. That way it won't be looking for a cell tower.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


turn off auto pause


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

Gallo said:


> turn off auto pause


How do I do that? I thought that was a built in feature that can't be changed.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

"Record" button. Settings (three lines with circles on them, bottom left). Auto-pause.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

Little update on my crappy Edge 20. Garmin released new GPS firmware v3.0 (not device firmware), since update the results are much more accurate. On open roads its really very accurate, in woods its just like phone and sometimes better (just a little bit). Probably only thing that keeps this device from having excellent tracking is "Smart recording". I found that it records in 6 seconds intervals, but if change in direction/speed is sensed, it records in 1-2 second intervals. On paper it looks good, but in reality not so good. 
Now I can only hope that garmin will have my area mapped, so I can create more accurate courses.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RoboS said:


> Little update on my crappy Edge 20. Garmin released new GPS firmware v3.0 (not device firmware), since update the results are much more accurate. On open roads its really very accurate, in woods its just like phone and sometimes better (just a little bit). Probably only thing that keeps this device from having excellent tracking is "Smart recording". I found that it records in 6 seconds intervals, but if change in direction/speed is sensed, it records in 1-2 second intervals. On paper it looks good, but in reality not so good.
> Now I can only hope that garmin will have my area mapped, so I can create more accurate courses.


Why would Garmin map your area?


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

Harold said:


> Why would Garmin map your area?


Maybe they can get better map coverage from suppliers. OSM has mapped my area very poorly, there are lots of routes on map that stops at some point, but in reality they continue. Also main hiking trails ate not there, what is elementary. Google maps are even worse.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RoboS said:


> Maybe they can get better map coverage from suppliers. OSM has mapped my area very poorly, there are lots of routes on map that stops at some point, but in reality they continue. Also main hiking trails ate not there, what is elementary. Google maps are even worse.


Garmin has always purchased its map data from elsewhere. All it does with it is format it for its own devices, and curate what content is included. It is not in the business to supply maps to others or to send bodies into the field to map things itself.

OSM is reliant on users. Don't like its quality, then fix it. Even Google Earth allows users to submit edits. You think Google is the one that puts bicycle facilities and trails on its maps? Hell no. That's a user-submission thing.

When it comes to trails, sometimes if you want a good map, you have to make it yourself.

I make maps for paying clients as one source of income. I am currently working on a trail map that spans 5 different land managers from 3 different agencies, with a variety of trails open variously to bikes, hikers, and horseback riders in different combinations. Neither Google, nor OSM, nor Garmin's maps are sufficient to distinguish between trails where those various user groups are permitted. There are hundreds of miles of trails in those areas. Some of them, frankly, are not mapped at all. My client is not paying me to go out there into the woods and map everything that's not mapped. If he was, it would sure be a nice paycheck for me, but it's enough work as it is to aggregate the available data into a single decent map, and my client has a budget for this project.

And honestly, part of this is about what backcountry navigation is about. It's always been the case that sometimes the trails are not shown on the maps. If you're going to venture into those areas, it's incumbent upon yourself to have the skills to be able to wayfind in those areas. Really, a good topographic map, a compass, and a GPS are plenty to help you figure out where you are. So what if the map doesn't show the trail you're on? You're recording that data with your GPS while you're on it, so map it while you're at it, and share it when you're done.


----------



## RoboS (Aug 16, 2008)

Harold said:


> Garmin has always purchased its map data from elsewhere. All it does with it is format it for its own devices, and curate what content is included. It is not in the business to supply maps to others or to send bodies into the field to map things itself.
> 
> OSM is reliant on users. Don't like its quality, then fix it. Even Google Earth allows users to submit edits. You think Google is the one that puts bicycle facilities and trails on its maps? Hell no. That's a user-submission thing.
> 
> ...


OK, so I have a GPS, good map and I just need to buy a compass


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

Get used to the fact that a gps is just a navigation aid, it's not gonna allow you to turn off the navigation part of your brain entirely. People can get lost even with a gps mighty quick. Maps can be out of date, or landslides, fires, fallen trees and loggers can mess known trails. You should always know your way around the area at least a bit in the event that your gps becomes damaged or unreliable.

What a gps does very well is follow a known track, either that someone else sent you, or to go back out the same way you came in. Except for that, always be ready for surprises.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RoboS said:


> OK, so I have a GPS, good map and I just need to buy a compass


And once you buy that compass, learn to use it to pinpoint your location on that map you're carrying. I will say this: using a map and compass to pinpoint your location in an area with very dense forest that you can't see out of, or an area that's really flat can be REALLY HARD.

For our purposes on the mtb, the compass is really an emergency backup, so I wouldn't focus on buying a fancy one like you might if you're doing a lot of off-trail Wilderness hiking. Simply a good topographic map should be plenty. But beyond that, you need to develop the skill to use it. Can you take a topographic map and identify the ridge or valley you're standing on/in whether the trail is marked or not? You should be able to do that. Do you even know enough to distinguish between a ridge and a valley using only the contours and no hillshade?


----------



## Daniel de la Garza (Sep 5, 2015)

And I thought I needed a good GPS unit... I might just buy a heart rate monitor and keep my Sony Z1 doing the mapping. 

Enviado desde mi C6906 mediante Tapatalk


----------

