Garmin Oregon 550t

[DougPaul]

I understand that the 60csx is highly rated but I wanted one to do everything I mentioned. Under the canopy the accuracy was 15 to 20 ft. That is pretty damn good (and comforting considering how remote I was getting). I believe the 60 is the real deal for geocaching though.

That accuracy number (EPE--Estimated Position Error) is misleading--it does not take a number of factors (including the effects of the tree canopy) into account. EPE is not a reliable indicator of the actual accuracy. A small EPE is necessary, but not sufficient.

By and large, the two GPSes have very similar performance at their primary task--showing you where you are. Most of the secondary features are also very similar (see https://buy.garmin.com/shop/compare.do?cID=145&compareProduct=14903&compareProduct=310 )--the primary difference is the user interface. There are also some feature differences not shown in the Garmin comparison.

Fine. You like your Oregon. But you have not presented any defensible evidence that it performs any better than a different GPS. See http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14406 and http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=15025 for some fairly careful comparisons between several GPSes. The first shows inbound and outbound tracks on an actual hike in a valley and under tree cover to differ by an average of less than 5 ft for the 60CSx. (This is a test of repeatability, not accuracy. Testing accuracy requires a reference location known to an accuracy of a few cm.)

Either an Oregon or a 60CSx is capable of doing a good job for navigation and geocaching under less than ideal skyviews.

Doug

 

[deanmacg]

I'm not saying it works better than others, I'm saying that it does all the things I want it to do. I've even tried it geocaching - paperless!! I really like the training help with the wireless inputs for biking. If it took really good pictures and held 100megs of tunes it would be perfect.