And yet they were all off by 50-200 ft in a well-covered area, so if you like your data to be that far off go for it. But that can easily be the difference between 1-5 mph or more, 1-10 miles distance, etc etc.
I want it for mapping and 50-200 ft of inaccuracy is not adequate to make a decent route map, not even close. But thats just me.
Dasvidania and see you cosmonauts later. Good luck !
Rather than use that old and outdated article you posted from 6 years ago, why not actually look at the pictures I provided in this thread to show that your claim of 50-200 feet really isn't that accurate. Guess it depends on what your definition of 'well-covered' is as even in the interior of my basement I had an accuracy of 56 feet and that is nowhere near the type of coverage I would experience on a typical ride. I don't ride in a tunnel deep underground for my rides. At most you will go under overpasses and maybe into a short tunnel a few times on a ride if that. The 510 has darn good accuracy imo as I have shown with pictures of my unit. Also, it seems that you didn't read that article by O'Shea did you?
Here is a picture of my Garmin 510 outside the house, with it locking onto signal in <5 seconds from turning on. Accuracy noted as 14 ft and has lock on 11 satellites.
And this article itself states that you need UNOBSCURED SIGNAL FROM AT LEAST 4 SATELLITES for it tot work
Do you finally realize that getting a lock on 4 or more satellites isn't that big of a deal when I had more than that in my basement and 2.5 times that when I was outside.