| Author |
Message |
Peter
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:06 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
H.W. Stockman wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
|
Depends on the trees and the city. I've had much better luck with
reception in lower Manhattan than in some of the redwood forests of
northern California. Don't know where Paul is located, but I can
find lots of roads around here (SF Bay area) where both Garmin and
Magellan receivers will lose reception. This time of year is
particularly bad since the ocean fog often hangs around for a long time
and soaks the canopy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paul Shaughnessy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:14 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
I'm located in Ontario Canada. Testing has taken place all over the province
covering a few thousand miles. Terrain has ranged from flat land with
limited tree coverage to hills and rock ranges. Weather has ranged from
clear to heavy snowfall. Surprising enough, reception is usually very good
even in heavy snowfall.
Our intent is to track snowmobile trails in a wide range of terrain. We did
the same over the past two winters using Magellan Meridian units. Our
testing in cars and trucks is somewhat different as reception in a vehicle
without an antenna is not a good as on an ATV or snowmobile out in the open.
I suspect the much higher vehicle speed in a car is also a factor. After
viewing all of the comments, we expect that the Garmin will produce better
results when we move from the highway to the trails. We found last year that
the Magellan was better on the trails as lower speeds than on the hoghway.
Thanks,
Paul
"Peter" <prathman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WsadnehbFZLKq1fcRVn-jg@comcast.com...
| Quote: | H.W. Stockman wrote:
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.
Depends on the trees and the city. I've had much better luck with
reception in lower Manhattan than in some of the redwood forests of
northern California. Don't know where Paul is located, but I can
find lots of roads around here (SF Bay area) where both Garmin and
Magellan receivers will lose reception. This time of year is
particularly bad since the ocean fog often hangs around for a long time
and soaks the canopy.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
H.W. Stockman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
"Paul Shaughnessy" <mpsrent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HXqyd.13236$Z%3.773324@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: | I'm located in Ontario Canada. Testing has taken place all over the
province
covering a few thousand miles. Terrain has ranged from flat land with
limited tree coverage to hills and rock ranges. Weather has ranged from
clear to heavy snowfall. Surprising enough, reception is usually very good
even in heavy snowfall.
|
Ice crystals are not usually a problem; the GPS receives at ~microwave
frequencies, and ice is a very poor absorber (compared to water) in that
range. Even rainfall is rarely a problem, as long as the area around the
antenna does not get wet enough to hold liquid water (e.g. some cloth or
neoprene cases become significant absorbers when wet). During rainfall, the
mass of water in the air, between you and the satellite, is usually pretty
small (compared to the water that is held aloft in leaves and so forth).
Metal is also a potent absorber.
I've found I have to be rather careful about the placement in cars. A mount
on a steep, non-metalized windshield is usually OK, but further inside a car
is a problem. You may seem to get good reception under the metal roof, but
you may be getting reflected signals mainly. And of course, different
units, by the same manufacturer, have different orientation requirements.
Thus many of the e-series Garmins require horizontal position, while the
rinos, 76 and 60c/s must be held near vertical.
I seem to recall that WAAS reception is fairly good in lower Ontario, but
the WAAS satellites are lower on the horizon (than they are for me, in
Nevada), and are more easily blocked by trees, hills and other obstructions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Shaughnessy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:22 pm Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
The Garmin does appear to be more sensitive to placement in the vehicle in
comparison with the Magellan. It may very well be that the track errors that
we are experiencing are not so much due to lost signals, but due to
"reflected" signals as noted. Good point. I suspect that we will have a
different experience when hiking or on an ATV or snowmobile.
Paul
"H.W. Stockman" <stockman3@earth-REMOVE_THIS-link.net> wrote in message
news:63syd.7184$9j5.3270@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
"Paul Shaughnessy" <mpsrent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HXqyd.13236$Z%3.773324@news20.bellglobal.com...
I'm located in Ontario Canada. Testing has taken place all over the
province
covering a few thousand miles. Terrain has ranged from flat land with
limited tree coverage to hills and rock ranges. Weather has ranged from
clear to heavy snowfall. Surprising enough, reception is usually very
good
even in heavy snowfall.
Ice crystals are not usually a problem; the GPS receives at ~microwave
frequencies, and ice is a very poor absorber (compared to water) in that
range. Even rainfall is rarely a problem, as long as the area around the
antenna does not get wet enough to hold liquid water (e.g. some cloth or
neoprene cases become significant absorbers when wet). During rainfall,
the
mass of water in the air, between you and the satellite, is usually pretty
small (compared to the water that is held aloft in leaves and so forth).
Metal is also a potent absorber.
I've found I have to be rather careful about the placement in cars. A
mount
on a steep, non-metalized windshield is usually OK, but further inside a
car
is a problem. You may seem to get good reception under the metal roof,
but
you may be getting reflected signals mainly. And of course, different
units, by the same manufacturer, have different orientation requirements.
Thus many of the e-series Garmins require horizontal position, while the
rinos, 76 and 60c/s must be held near vertical.
I seem to recall that WAAS reception is fairly good in lower Ontario, but
the WAAS satellites are lower on the horizon (than they are for me, in
Nevada), and are more easily blocked by trees, hills and other
obstructions.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skramblr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:16 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
Gain of salt...
I'm always a bit facinated in watching discussions like this one on which
GPS has better reception. I've been watching the Magellan vs Garmin battle
for several years. This thread is pretty balanced, with examples of both
Magellan and Garmin being better. I think that sums up the battle for the
last couple years. Someone always has a comparison showing one is better
than the other. The two units being discussed have very similar antannea and
hardware, so I think you'll fine either one to be a good choice. You'll also
find each one has it's own quirks.
Good luck,
-Skramblr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
.... hum ... Agree with Skramblr! Them... A question? I am still a bit
newbie... Sill have good old Magellan 315!!! With the lattess update!!!
Doing GeoCaching, I am interested in the precision!! How close will it
bring me to the Cache!!!!
Is my M315, as precise as the others... in that regard, saying that they
are all equipe the same, ex. Cannot install an antena on that M315
Robert
PS: Once, brought me 12 inches.... from Cache!?!?
CanadaQcMtl
"Skramblr" <skramblr@hotmail.comX> wrote in message
news:EjNyd.803497$8_6.398239@attbi_s04...
| Quote: | Gain of salt...
I'm always a bit facinated in watching discussions like this one on which
GPS has better reception. I've been watching the Magellan vs Garmin battle
for several years. This thread is pretty balanced, with examples of both
Magellan and Garmin being better. I think that sums up the battle for the
last couple years. Someone always has a comparison showing one is better
than the other. The two units being discussed have very similar antannea
and
hardware, so I think you'll fine either one to be a good choice. You'll
also
find each one has it's own quirks.
Good luck,
-Skramblr
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Shaughnessy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:44 pm Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
As someone who is truly looking for feedback rather than brand bashing, I
must say that I am very impressed by the quality of the responses that I
have received to my inquiries. We have been testing a number of the
suggestions and as noted by others, both the Magellan and Garmin units in
this price class are both very good units. I think it comes down to personal
preference depending on what you are looking for. We are now leaning towards
the Garmin 76CS units only becasue we like the more detailed track quality
when using the tracks on Mapsource. Having said that, I can see how people
would be very happy with their Magellan Meridan units as well.
Thanks to everyone for their help and Seasons Greetings.
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skramblr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 26, 2004 8:12 am Post subject:
Re: Garmin versus Magellan |
|
|
I like the display on the new 76CS better than he Meridian Color. You might
want to change your track detail setting on the Meridian from auto-detailed
to something finer. You should see better tracking. On the minus side,
you'll run out of track points faster (2000 max), but since it has an SD
card you can save many 2000 point files.
Good luck,
-Skramblr
"Paul Shaughnessy" <mpsrent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Jhzd.43042$GK5.2093061@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Quote: | As someone who is truly looking for feedback rather than brand bashing, I
must say that I am very impressed by the quality of the responses that I
have received to my inquiries. We have been testing a number of the
suggestions and as noted by others, both the Magellan and Garmin units in
this price class are both very good units. I think it comes down to
personal
preference depending on what you are looking for. We are now leaning
towards
the Garmin 76CS units only becasue we like the more detailed track quality
when using the tracks on Mapsource. Having said that, I can see how people
would be very happy with their Magellan Meridan units as well.
Thanks to everyone for their help and Seasons Greetings.
Paul
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in