Most accurate handheld GPS?

> Is there anything better lately?

Not really. IMHO, consumer-grade GPS receivers have not improved much in the last 5 years. If you want to spend a lot of money, you could get a Trimble GPS Pathfinder ProXT Receiver. Key features:

Real-time submeter GPS with integrated SBAS and EVEREST multipath rejection technology
50 cm accuracy after postprocessing with Trimble DeltaPhase technology
Receiver, antenna, and battery in one compact unit
Bluetooth wireless technology for totally cable-free operation
Rugged and weatherproof for all conditions
User-replaceable battery lasts a full day in the field

A lot of the accuracy is dependent upon post-processing in the software.

To clarify, the Trimble mentioned above needs to be connected to a computer/computing device in order to be useful. The computer should be running Windows in order to use the Trimble software, though GPS apps on iPhones, etc. may be able to connect to the receiver.

That's because of the extra processing to the raw gps data? That makes me wonder if these new tablets with gps antennas will soon have gps applications that can do the processing necessary to get accurate locations.

How accurate does it need to be? My Android phone with the Backcountry Navigator app and mytopo maps usually gets within 20 or 30 feet. That's plenty accurate for how I use it, but perhaps not for your application.

I agree, my Android phone with the Backcountry Navigator app and mytopo maps usually gets within 20 or 30 feet.

My old clunk GPS from many years ago was also plenty accurate for backpacking.

I don't understand why you would need more accuracy than that for backpacking, unless you are doing surveying or something else that requires precision.

I am not a heavy GPS user, but do use my Android on the trail from time to time, like when I have to take a detour or need to confirm a location when bushwhacking, or to find local restaurants, outfitters, motels, …

I can go several days without recharge as long as I leave it in airplane mode most of the time.

I suspect for most, sensitivity probably trumps accuracy, which is to say your ability to acquire and track a location in difficult conditions (forest cover, canyons) is more important than whether you know your location to one meter or just ten meters.

Newer units seem to have traded sensitive antennas for more channels and speedier processing. Whether that's a good thing I'll leave to the experts. What I see in field comparisons is that some units can cold fix on the move in the woods while others just sit there, searching. Most seem to be able to track me once they acquire a fix, which is a notable improvement from my earliest experiences.

If I sit in one place long enough, they all eventually narrow my location to within ten or so feet, given enough satellites plus WAAS reception. This is most noticable with elevation, which can take quite awhile to match a known height.

I've mostly used a PN60 and an Oregon 450 lately. The Oregon might have a sensitivity edge, plus the larger display. They're both far better than my eTrex Legend CX (except in battery life).

Cheers,

Rick

…

"Most accurate for what? "

I agree.

Most GPS users could not define GPS accuracy if it bit them on the butt.

To many GPS users, the ability to lock in signals in difficult view of the sky situations is very important.

To some GPS users, position repeatability is important.

Raw position accuracy is less important to many GPS users, but this is what surveyors want.

To get really good position accuracy, you need a professional receiver with some sort of atomic clock and a choke ring antenna. Right away we are talking about many thousands of bucks.

–B.G.–