| Author |
Message |
Paul Shaughnessy
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:44 am Post subject:
Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
I have been testing a Garmin 76CS and 60CS against the Magellan Meridan
Series together with Map Send and Map Source software. While the Garmin
units appear to offer more features and the Garmin Map Source software has
more detail, the tracks on the Magellan unit are of far better quality. The
Garmins lose the signal from time to time and every now and then, the track
goes way off the road into a field or other road and then returns. At other
times, when you turn, the track continues straight on and then returns back
to the corner and follows your correct path around the corner.
I like the Garmins and am looking to purchase a number of units, but the
many tracking problems bother me. The Meridan Color appears to be an older
unit with less features, but the quality of the track appears to be far
better. What am I missing with the Garmins? How can such popular units have
so many tracking problems? What am I doing wrong?
Any suggestions are apprecuated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
H.W. Stockman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:45 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
"Paul Shaughnessy" <pshaughnessy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:zj4yd.14655$GK5.995466@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: | I have been testing a Garmin 76CS and 60CS against the Magellan Meridan
Series together with Map Send and Map Source software. While the Garmin
units appear to offer more features and the Garmin Map Source software has
more detail, the tracks on the Magellan unit are of far better quality.
The
Garmins lose the signal from time to time and every now and then, the
track
goes way off the road into a field or other road and then returns. At
other
times, when you turn, the track continues straight on and then returns
back
to the corner and follows your correct path around the corner.
I like the Garmins and am looking to purchase a number of units, but the
many tracking problems bother me. The Meridan Color appears to be an older
unit with less features, but the quality of the track appears to be far
better. What am I missing with the Garmins? How can such popular units
have
so many tracking problems? What am I doing wrong?
|
I'm not sure what you mean by "quality of tracks." I have both a Magellan
SporTrak Map and a Garmin 60c, and I've done quite a bit of testing
side-by-side, with each unit attached to a packstrap. The 60c has a slight
problem with saving the very first tentative fix to the log; when the sync
is lost a lot, as in a deep canyon, this quick-to-fix behavior causes a very
erratic-looking track. But in truth, the problem is artificial; on the STP,
the bad points are just averaged into previous points, so the track looks
better, but really contains no more information. Plus, I believe the STP
will dead-reckon longer than the 60c (which is a design choice, and really
provides no new information).
You can set the track on most newer Garmins to be quite detailed, as the
track can typically contain 10000 points (vs 2000 for most Magellans of the
same generation).
Here are some tests I ran:
http://hwstock.org/gps/1/
http://hwstock.org/gps/2/
http://hwstock.org/sf/GPS/
The latter two possibly illustrate the problem you encountered. I've
somehow adjusted, and just know when I have to make sure the 60c has a good
view of the sky, or when I should just turn it off for a few minutes (as
when I am deep in a crack waiting for other climbers to catch up, with 1% of
the sky visible).
The loose battery problem was far more serious with the Garmin 60c, than the
lost track problem; but again, I've fixed that problem by getting bigger
NiMH. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Shaughnessy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:04 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
I save tracks and use them on Mapsend or Mapsource software. Our intent is
to map trails, but first we are testing the units on roads. The Magellan
tracks used in combination with Mapsend are far better than the Garmin
tracks used on Mapsource. Even when we convert the Magellan tracks to
Garmin format for use on Mapsource, the Magellan tracks are very clean while
the Garmin track has many errors.
Thanks,
Paul
"H.W. Stockman" <stockman3@earth-REMOVE_THIS-link.net> wrote in message
news:0d5yd.6363$9j5.5948@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
"Paul Shaughnessy" <pshaughnessy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:zj4yd.14655$GK5.995466@news20.bellglobal.com...
I have been testing a Garmin 76CS and 60CS against the Magellan Meridan
Series together with Map Send and Map Source software. While the Garmin
units appear to offer more features and the Garmin Map Source software
has
more detail, the tracks on the Magellan unit are of far better quality.
The
Garmins lose the signal from time to time and every now and then, the
track
goes way off the road into a field or other road and then returns. At
other
times, when you turn, the track continues straight on and then returns
back
to the corner and follows your correct path around the corner.
I like the Garmins and am looking to purchase a number of units, but the
many tracking problems bother me. The Meridan Color appears to be an
older
unit with less features, but the quality of the track appears to be far
better. What am I missing with the Garmins? How can such popular units
have
so many tracking problems? What am I doing wrong?
I'm not sure what you mean by "quality of tracks." I have both a Magellan
SporTrak Map and a Garmin 60c, and I've done quite a bit of testing
side-by-side, with each unit attached to a packstrap. The 60c has a
slight
problem with saving the very first tentative fix to the log; when the sync
is lost a lot, as in a deep canyon, this quick-to-fix behavior causes a
very
erratic-looking track. But in truth, the problem is artificial; on the
STP,
the bad points are just averaged into previous points, so the track looks
better, but really contains no more information. Plus, I believe the STP
will dead-reckon longer than the 60c (which is a design choice, and really
provides no new information).
You can set the track on most newer Garmins to be quite detailed, as the
track can typically contain 10000 points (vs 2000 for most Magellans of
the
same generation).
Here are some tests I ran:
http://hwstock.org/gps/1/
http://hwstock.org/gps/2/
http://hwstock.org/sf/GPS/
The latter two possibly illustrate the problem you encountered. I've
somehow adjusted, and just know when I have to make sure the 60c has a
good
view of the sky, or when I should just turn it off for a few minutes (as
when I am deep in a crack waiting for other climbers to catch up, with 1%
of
the sky visible).
The loose battery problem was far more serious with the Garmin 60c, than
the
lost track problem; but again, I've fixed that problem by getting bigger
NiMH.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roy Lewallen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:16 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
I find this interesting.
Not too long ago I got a 76CS to replace my II+, and took it on a
backpacking trip in steep and rugged terrain. To add to the challenge,
it was raining nearly the whole time, and the tree canopy was thick. I
was pleasantly surprised to see the tracks I had recorded during the 7
mile hike in and 9 mile hike out. My II+ would behave pretty much as you
reported, with occasional excursions way off the trail when the signal
got bad. But the tracks I got from the 76CS on this trip were free of
those -- there were a number of holes where it didn't record anything.
It was easy to manually interpolate over those holes, and I greatly
prefer that to the wild excursions. It looked like it simply quit
logging when the signal was bad enough that the location it reported
wasn't fairly reliable. Maybe mine is set up differently than yours (if
that's possible), although I haven't consciously changed how it logs. I
was using a Garmin external antenna the whole time, under the flap of my
backpack.
Roy Lewallen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
H.W. Stockman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:16 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
"Paul Shaughnessy" <mpsrent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8v5yd.14725$GK5.1023776@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: | I save tracks and use them on Mapsend or Mapsource software. Our intent is
to map trails, but first we are testing the units on roads. The Magellan
tracks used in combination with Mapsend are far better than the Garmin
tracks used on Mapsource. Even when we convert the Magellan tracks to
Garmin format for use on Mapsource, the Magellan tracks are very clean
while
the Garmin track has many errors.
|
Are the units side-by-side in the same car/truck, with the same favorable
orientation (in this case, both vertical) and view of the sky? How are they
being powered?
Please check out the other suggestion in this thread, and make sure you
don't have a "lock on road" option enabled. Set both Magellan and Garmin
units to display EPE or "accuracy," to hint when something is wrong.
Unless you are driving through urban canyons, or have a bizarre software
setting or defective unit, I can't imagine a modern Garmin GPS giving
inaccurate tracks on a road. I use mine all the time for road navigation in
the wilds of Nevada, and it is dead on (at least within the EPE).
The 60c/s and some other Garmin units tend to lose continuity with the
smaller NiMH batteries, but if you are using external power, that should not
be a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Searching_ut
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:16 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
From the little bit of information you posted about your procedures, it
sounds like you might have the lock to road function turned on with the
Garmin Receivers. When you do this, the unit adjusts it's computed data to
match the map data which often results in some significant glitches in the
recorded track, especially when you slow down or stop. When you do that, the
receiver goes back to dropping track points at the computed position rather
than it's best guess based on the map data. Unfortunately, the map data
isn't always anywhere near as accurate as the GPS unit which can cause some
strange track recording.
As for the units overall, having run a sportrak map and etrex legend side by
side for a little over 300 miles of off and on trail hiking, my own findings
were that the Legend (Garmin) recorded significantly more accurate and
detailed tracks overall than the sportrak did. My hikes were mostly
mountainous terrain, with maybe a third in the desert canyon areas of
southern Utah. I also found the behavior of the two units to be quite
different when they did have errors. The Legend would throw a waypoint or
two way off the obvious track, while the sportrak would be inclined to have
the whole track wander off to one side or other of the real track and stay
there for a significant distance and time as evidenced by the often
significant track difference on out and back trail hikes.
I made this webpage very early in my comparisons, but it will give you an
idea of what I was doing. The map data comparisons are old, and for the most
part outdated, but the track data will give you a general idea of what I was
doing:
http://searching_ut.home.sprynet.com/
This particular page shows the sort of difference I came to expect overall:
http://searching_ut.home.sprynet.com/difficult%20reception.htm
For one of many good websites I can remember off the top of my head with
good info on trail recording check out:
http://www.travelbygps.com/
Good Luck, and let us know where to find your trail data if you end up
sharing it.
For what it's worth
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Looper
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:16 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
"Roy Lewallen" <w7el@eznec.com> wrote in message:
| Quote: | I was using a Garmin external antenna the whole time,
under the flap of my backpack.
Roy Lewallen
|
I think that's probably the difference.
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fustanella
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:17 pm Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
| Quote: | Garmins lose the signal from time to time and every now and then, the track
|
Do you have WAAS enabled? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Shaughnessy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:57 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
Hello All:
Thanks for the feedback. To the questions:
Lock on road is turned off.
The units are used on alkaline batteries rather than 12 volt hookup. This
could be an issue.
WAAS is enabled.
All three units, Magellan Meridan, 60CS and 76CS are all operated side by
side under the same conditions.
EPE or Accuracy setting - I may need help finding that one.
We have now compared the units together for a few thousand miles. Our
observations:
Garmin - occasionally, when you make a turn, the Garmin tracks continue past
an interesection, then the track goes to the point where you tunred and
carries down the correct road. Occasionly, the track completely leaves the
road (by a fair distance) and then returns later on. We also note a number
of lost signal warnings that don't happen with the Magellan. From a positive
perspective, the Garmin tracks are very detailed and with the exception of
the errors, the track actually matches the curvature of the road etc. We
have changed the level of tracking detail on all 3 units as part of our
testing.
Magellan - errors are seldom, though the quality of the tracks are no where
near the same as the Garmin units. The Magellan track paths appear to be
more angular than the Garmin paths. While the Garmin unit shows the curve of
a corner, the Magellan units take straight angle corners, thus short cutting
the real route.
In summary, we like the quality and detail of the Garmin tracks, but are
concerned with the occasional weird recording of a track that is obviously
no where near where we were. The Magellan does not give us the same grief
with errors, but the overall track quality is no where near the Magellan. If
we could eliminate the track errors with the Garmins, they would be perfect.
"Fustanella" <fustaNICHTSPAMnella@cs.com> wrote in message
news:cqbs4v$e56$2@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
| Quote: | Garmins lose the signal from time to time and every now and then, the
track
Do you have WAAS enabled? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:12 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
Paul Shaughnessy wrote:
| Quote: | We have now compared the units together for a few thousand miles. Our
observations:
Garmin - occasionally, when you make a turn, the Garmin tracks continue past
an interesection, then the track goes to the point where you tunred and
carries down the correct road. Occasionly, the track completely leaves the
road (by a fair distance) and then returns later on.
|
This sounds like a case where there was a momentary loss of lock.
Garmins will dead reckon for 30 seconds after a lock is lost before
indicating a lost signal alarm. During this time the displayed position
will continue in the direction you were moving and then jump over to the
correct position if lock is regained within the 30-second period.
| Quote: | We also note a number
of lost signal warnings that don't happen with the Magellan. From a positive
perspective, the Garmin tracks are very detailed and with the exception of
the errors, the track actually matches the curvature of the road etc. We
have changed the level of tracking detail on all 3 units as part of our
testing.
Magellan - errors are seldom, though the quality of the tracks are no where
near the same as the Garmin units. The Magellan track paths appear to be
more angular than the Garmin paths. While the Garmin unit shows the curve of
a corner, the Magellan units take straight angle corners, thus short cutting
the real route.
|
The two behaviors may be related. The Garmin units put down more
frequent trackpoints but in some cases these have errors since they're
generated during periods of bad reception. The Magellans put down
fewer trackpoints which allows for a bit more filtering/averaging of
data for each point and therefore not as many cases where the displayed
point is way off.
| Quote: |
In summary, we like the quality and detail of the Garmin tracks, but are
concerned with the occasional weird recording of a track that is obviously
no where near where we were. The Magellan does not give us the same grief
with errors, but the overall track quality is no where near the Magellan. If
we could eliminate the track errors with the Garmins, they would be perfect.
|
Have you tried using an external antenna with the 60 & 76cs units?
Placing the external antenna for optimum skyview will result in better
reception and cut down on the number of wayward trackpoints. The
Gilsson antenna is about $25 and works quite well in my experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Shaughnessy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:23 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
It's beginning to sound like 12 volt power and an external antenna will
produce far superior results. Interesting.
On another note, I get a number of Active logs. I think paart of this is do
to the loss of signal issue. If I increase my track limit for a long trip
from 3000 points to a higher number, would this resolve part of this?
Magellan has a smaller number of track points, but one file. Garmin produces
a number of active logs. When I save a Garmin track, the active component
(speed and time) is gone.
"Peter" <prathman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BPadncCTWvMTbFTcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
| Quote: | Paul Shaughnessy wrote:
We have now compared the units together for a few thousand miles. Our
observations:
Garmin - occasionally, when you make a turn, the Garmin tracks continue
past an interesection, then the track goes to the point where you tunred
and carries down the correct road. Occasionly, the track completely
leaves the road (by a fair distance) and then returns later on.
This sounds like a case where there was a momentary loss of lock.
Garmins will dead reckon for 30 seconds after a lock is lost before
indicating a lost signal alarm. During this time the displayed position
will continue in the direction you were moving and then jump over to the
correct position if lock is regained within the 30-second period.
We also note a number of lost signal warnings that don't happen with the
Magellan. From a positive perspective, the Garmin tracks are very
detailed and with the exception of the errors, the track actually matches
the curvature of the road etc. We have changed the level of tracking
detail on all 3 units as part of our testing.
Magellan - errors are seldom, though the quality of the tracks are no
where near the same as the Garmin units. The Magellan track paths appear
to be more angular than the Garmin paths. While the Garmin unit shows the
curve of a corner, the Magellan units take straight angle corners, thus
short cutting the real route.
The two behaviors may be related. The Garmin units put down more
frequent trackpoints but in some cases these have errors since they're
generated during periods of bad reception. The Magellans put down
fewer trackpoints which allows for a bit more filtering/averaging of
data for each point and therefore not as many cases where the displayed
point is way off.
In summary, we like the quality and detail of the Garmin tracks, but are
concerned with the occasional weird recording of a track that is
obviously no where near where we were. The Magellan does not give us the
same grief with errors, but the overall track quality is no where near
the Magellan. If we could eliminate the track errors with the Garmins,
they would be perfect.
Have you tried using an external antenna with the 60 & 76cs units?
Placing the external antenna for optimum skyview will result in better
reception and cut down on the number of wayward trackpoints. The
Gilsson antenna is about $25 and works quite well in my experience.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:10 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
Paul Shaughnessy wrote:
| Quote: | It's beginning to sound like 12 volt power and an external antenna will
produce far superior results.
|
Not sure why you think 12VDC power would improve things. I've done some
experimentation with different voltage levels and never saw any
repeatable effects on reception quality as long as the voltage was
sufficient to keep the units powered up. If 12VDC is conveniently
available you may as well use it to avoid the need to replace batteries.
Otherwise I'd recommend using decent quality NiMH rechargeables.
[BTW, the problem of some 60c/cs samples with smaller batteries caused
the units to shut off under vibration or shock - doesn't sound like
you had that issue.]
But external antennas can certainly improve the track quality by
allowing for better placement and reception of more satellites. The
Garmin, Gilsson, and similar active antennas are powered directly
from the antenna jack on the 60/76 series and don't need separate power
sources. The effect on battery life is quite small.
| Quote: | On another note, I get a number of Active logs. I think paart of this is do
to the loss of signal issue. If I increase my track limit for a long trip
from 3000 points to a higher number, would this resolve part of this?
Magellan has a smaller number of track points, but one file. Garmin produces
a number of active logs.
|
There is only one Active Log in the Garmin receivers, but it provides
for a flag to indicate signal interruptions. When the Active Log is
downloaded to MapSource that program designates each segment separately
as Active Log001 etc. - most other software programs do not do that with
the Garmin data.
| Quote: | When I save a Garmin track, the active component
(speed and time) is gone.
|
Speed is never part of the tracklog data, but some programs (incl.
MapSource) compute it from successive positions and the timestamps.
Saving the Active Log to one of the Saved logs on the Garmin receivers
prior to downloading is not recommended since you lose some track
detail, the date/timestamps, and the indications of where signal
interruptions occurred. Whenever possible download the Active Log
data directly to retain all the available information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Shaughnessy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:12 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
Peter:
I appreciate the feedback....I'm learning slowly but surely.
This helps.
Paul
"Peter" <prathman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rbydnaJ14KXBtFfcRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
| Quote: | Paul Shaughnessy wrote:
It's beginning to sound like 12 volt power and an external antenna will
produce far superior results.
Not sure why you think 12VDC power would improve things. I've done some
experimentation with different voltage levels and never saw any
repeatable effects on reception quality as long as the voltage was
sufficient to keep the units powered up. If 12VDC is conveniently
available you may as well use it to avoid the need to replace batteries.
Otherwise I'd recommend using decent quality NiMH rechargeables.
[BTW, the problem of some 60c/cs samples with smaller batteries caused
the units to shut off under vibration or shock - doesn't sound like
you had that issue.]
But external antennas can certainly improve the track quality by
allowing for better placement and reception of more satellites. The
Garmin, Gilsson, and similar active antennas are powered directly
from the antenna jack on the 60/76 series and don't need separate power
sources. The effect on battery life is quite small.
On another note, I get a number of Active logs. I think paart of this is
do to the loss of signal issue. If I increase my track limit for a long
trip from 3000 points to a higher number, would this resolve part of
this?
Magellan has a smaller number of track points, but one file. Garmin
produces a number of active logs.
There is only one Active Log in the Garmin receivers, but it provides
for a flag to indicate signal interruptions. When the Active Log is
downloaded to MapSource that program designates each segment separately
as Active Log001 etc. - most other software programs do not do that with
the Garmin data.
When I save a Garmin track, the active component (speed and time) is
gone.
Speed is never part of the tracklog data, but some programs (incl.
MapSource) compute it from successive positions and the timestamps.
Saving the Active Log to one of the Saved logs on the Garmin receivers
prior to downloading is not recommended since you lose some track
detail, the date/timestamps, and the indications of where signal
interruptions occurred. Whenever possible download the Active Log
data directly to retain all the available information.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
"Paul Shaughnessy" <mpsrent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_9pyd.27539$GK5.1319604@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: | On another note, I get a number of Active logs. I think paart of this is
do to the loss of signal issue. If I increase my track limit for a long
trip from 3000 points to a higher number, would this resolve part of this?
|
The number of track points is only the limit for what is displayed on the
map. It has nothing to do with the number of track points saved. The unit
will save track points up to the limit of the track log memory, regardless
of the setting.
--
Regards,
Roy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
H.W. Stockman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
"Paul Shaughnessy" <mpsrent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_9pyd.27539$GK5.1319604@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: | It's beginning to sound like 12 volt power and an external antenna will
produce far superior results. Interesting.
On another note, I get a number of Active logs. I think paart of this is
do
to the loss of signal issue. If I increase my track limit for a long trip
from 3000 points to a higher number, would this resolve part of this?
Magellan has a smaller number of track points, but one file. Garmin
produces
a number of active logs. When I save a Garmin track, the active component
(speed and time) is gone.
|
The only time I've had possible loss of continuity in the 60c/s, on a road,
was when the road was very bumpy; and from that day on, I have used external
power in my car.
I've never used an external antenna (there is no attachment on the SporTrak
Pro, anyway). I'm always happy to mount the units vertically high on a
packstrap, and I keep track of the EPE.
I tested the two units together in the car (Subaru Outback), both mounted in
the supplied windshield mounts, both largely vertical. This car does not
have a metalized windshield, and both units were pretty consistent with
EPE/"accuracy" (~9 to 30 feet). I was on dirt roads, and rarely went over
30 mph. There were never any spurious points on the 60c track. Perhaps
there would be, if I went downtown into the urban canyons of Las Vegas (e.g.
on The Strip).
I have to wonder: where are the roads you used for testing? Do they have
very tall trees (shouldn't be much foliage this time of year on deciduous
trees)? Are you between tall buildings? In what part of the country did you
plan to map trails?
In case I didn't give it sufficient gravity before, here again is this
comparison, which is unfavorable for the 60c:
http://hwstock.org/sf/GPS/
The Garmin does have a problem with deep canyons, largely because it keeps
that one bizarre point after regaining sync, and doesn't "average-away"
anomalies. Some city driving is effectively through deep canyons that are
worse than heavy tree cover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in