Garmin G5 Not accurate according to Manual

[ronbo]

I was reading the Garmin manual online and wanted to know how accurate they would be to all the other units on the market before I invest $500.00 and was stunned to find out that they are claiming 33ft (10 meters) 95% of the time. I guess that's OK if your driving a car and need to know the turn in front of you but Not on a Golf Course. I guess if it looks cool they think custome'sr won't care. That's one club difference for me, and I do care buyers beware........

[Q-Ball]

All have some sort of disclaimer...

 

Ill have mine tonight and Ill have a report Friday/Saturday.

 

I do know the distance from my front steps to the center of the 15th hole at River Ridge Vineyard course, so Ill get a good indicator tonight.

[BirdieBob]

http://criticalgolf.com/golf-gps-reviews/g...oach-g5-review/

 

Accuracy

We tested the Garmin Approach G5 on a variety of courses and found the accuracy readings to be within 3-9 yards of sprinkler head markings and our laser readings.

[InTheHole]

I think that is more a function of the number of satellites you acquire a signal from. The more satellites, the more accurate your GPS will be. I believe three is the minimum to get a reading, and that will give you about 10 meters of accuracy.

 

There is an accuracy limit, I believe, set by the military- obviously their stuff is super accurate. But commercial equipment, less accurate.

 

The number of satellites you acquire is dependent on a) the signal strength at your location (this is a function of atmospheric conditions as well as your location and abilitiy to "see" the satellites), b) obstacles such as bridges, trees, etc., and c) the sensitivity of the GPS receiver. Better units are more sensitive and can recieve weaker satellite signals.

 

So what they're saying is the signal strength from the 3 closest satellites will be sufficient 95% of the time wherever you are.

 

I wouldn't throw this out as a "buyer beware." Sure, you need to be aware that there are limits to any technology. Heck, I still use a $20 Busnell scope that measures distance based on the height of the flag on the green. Some guys use the lasers which are great if you can see the target- not so great if you can't... GPS has its limitations also.

 

But I have seen side-by-side comparisons of laser vs. GPS and they are usually within a yard of each other under normal circumstances.

[Q-Ball]

http://criticalgolf.com/golf-gps-reviews/g...oach-g5-review/

 

Accuracy

We tested the Garmin Approach G5 on a variety of courses and found the accuracy readings to be within 3-9 yards of sprinkler head markings and our laser readings.

 

 

If they went by the sprinkler heads at my course they would be screwed, the super paced them off from the closest monument and some are 10 yards wrong. Sure its 15 yards from the 150 monument, but at a 80 degree angle. That doesn't make it 135!

 

Ill run out to a nearby par 3 today and let you know :)

[Q-Ball]

I think that is more a function of the number of satellites you acquire a signal from. The more satellites, the more accurate your GPS will be. I believe three is the minimum to get a reading, and that will give you about 10 meters of accuracy.

 

There is an accuracy limit, I believe, set by the military- obviously their stuff is super accurate. But commercial equipment, less accurate.

 

The number of satellites you acquire is dependent on a) the signal strength at your location (this is a function of atmospheric conditions as well as your location and abilitiy to "see" the satellites), b) obstacles such as bridges, trees, etc., and c) the sensitivity of the GPS receiver. Better units are more sensitive and can recieve weaker satellite signals.

 

So what they're saying is the signal strength from the 3 closest satellites will be sufficient 95% of the time wherever you are.

 

I wouldn't throw this out as a "buyer beware." Sure, you need to be aware that there are limits to any technology. Heck, I still use a $20 Busnell scope that measures distance based on the height of the flag on the green. Some guys use the lasers which are great if you can see the target- not so great if you can't... GPS has its limitations also.

 

But I have seen side-by-side comparisons of laser vs. GPS and they are usually within a yard of each other under normal circumstances.

 

 

President Clinton turned that military/civilian difference a long time ago. Otherwise they couldn't use GPS for surveying or assisting in the landing of aircraft.

[InTheHole]

^^ Yeah, I thought they did but I didn't remember the details. The military equipment is still way more accurate, if nothing more than because they have better antennas (not the 5-cent thing included in your GPS) and way more sensitive receivers.

 

But you're correct- they have surveying equipment that is accurate to within millimeters.

[PingG10]

Not accurate within mms just due to SA (selective availability) being shut off. WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) reduced the circular error of position to 1-3m, if I recollect correctly-most good golf GPS units have WAAS capability. I'd be surprised if the Garmin did not but it may need to be turned on-WAAS can cause the unit to dither more due to variations in terrain and satellite coverage.

[Q-Ball]

5 cent antenna? You are giving them a lot of credit, it was probably about 1 cent in China. :)

[InTheHole]

lol, well, they did encase it in plastic!

[Q-Ball]

Was it Tour plastic though? :D

[InTheHole]

No, but I believe it has a draw weighted bias...

[Q-Ball]

Under the "you aint going to believe this", I went and stopped in 3 spots that are easily identifiable from Google Earth, and measured the reading from my car to the center of the green.

 

Then I came back and went from the center of the parking spot to what I judged to be the center of the green.

 

Its cool and overcast here right now.

 

Victoria Lakes Hole 5: Measured 88 Yards Google Reading 89 yards

 

Vineyard Hole 13: Measured 47 yards Google reading 48 yards

 

Victoria Lakes Hole 18: Measured 72 yards Google reading 74 yards

 

They weren't long distances, but River Ridge doesn't like people wandering out onto their course at dusk. Ill be checking very closely on Friday when I play, on a course I know well. But the preliminary test gives me a little comfort thinking I didnt buy a $500 paperweight. I have a 30 day full return guarantee from where I got it, so if I didnt like it it would go back.

 

Ill throw the ballpark disclaimer I probably wasnt exact in my Google readings to the center, nor exactly to the foot where I parked, but all I need is +/- 3 yards and Im happy.

[Q-Ball]

As for operation, its idiot proof. They had a good test subject with me.

 

To zoom, you touch the screen and drag the cross hair to where you want to look, and press zoom. Plenty big enough for me to read.

 

Some people have accuracy issues dragging the crosshair, but I have an iPhone so I didn't really have an issue. Sure the crosshair may not appear exactly under your finger, but if it did you wouldn't be able to see it (your finger is in the way ;) ) Once the crosshair appears, just move it around until its where you want.

 

The numbers on the screen do disappear when you have the crosshair up, and are not there when you zoom, but the distance to the crosshair and distance from the crosshair to the hole are still visible. At this point I DONT CARE what the preprogrammed numbers are, Im looking at how far to carry a bunker and want the distance from me to the other side of the bunker. No need for their numbers.

 

They do need to have more rhyme/reason for the stock numbers shown before you touch the screen. For example, #1 on the course Im playing Friday shows the beginning/ending yardages of the bunker complex on the right, and the ending yardage for the bunker on the left. From the tee I probably would want the beginning yardage for that left bunker. I can use the crosshair to figure it out, but when the end of the left bunker is 308 from the tee, I know Im not going to try to carry it. But I KNOW I can hit into it (I have that merit badge)

 

More later

[milfordj]

" At this point I DONT CARE what the preprogrammed numbers are, Im looking at how far to carry a bunker and want the distance from me to the other side of the bunker. No need for their numbers."

 

Wouldn't you rather have the numbers to reach AND to carry the bunkers preprogrammed to save the time of "tapping", zooming, repositioning crosshair, and then reading the distance? Then you could just use this "busy, time-consuming", method for determining desired lay-up distances. And, if they included lay-up distances to 200, 150, and 100 yds from center of green (as I think On-Par does), you would only Rarely need to use this "busy" technique to determine unmapped or mismapped distances to omitted hazards. I wish the U-Pro would KEEP those blue / red / white lay-up yardages shown in the fly-over on their screen all the time. I think whichever golf GPS unit that provides the most, easiest-to-obtain, and quickest information (whenever that unit comes into existence, and I don't feel ANY of them currently fit the bill) will dominate the market. Also, EXCELLENT and THOROUGH mapping is essential.

[Q-Ball]

" At this point I DONT CARE what the preprogrammed numbers are, Im looking at how far to carry a bunker and want the distance from me to the other side of the bunker. No need for their numbers."

 

Wouldn't you rather have the numbers to reach AND to carry the bunkers preprogrammed to save the time of "tapping", zooming, repositioning crosshair, and then reading the distance? Then you could just use this "busy, time-consuming", method for determining desired lay-up distances. And, if they included lay-up distances to 200, 150, and 100 yds from center of green (as I think On-Par does), you would only Rarely need to use this "busy" technique to determine unmapped or mismapped distances to omitted hazards. I wish the U-Pro would KEEP those blue / red / white lay-up yardages shown in the fly-over on their screen all the time. I think whichever golf GPS unit that provides the most, easiest-to-obtain, and quickest information (whenever that unit comes into existence, and I don't feel ANY of them currently fit the bill) will dominate the market. Also, EXCELLENT and THOROUGH mapping is essential.

 

 

On the main screen yes, distance to and to carry the hazard. However, once I tap though I dont need them, Im looking for a specific distance and their numbers will clutter the screen.

 

I was trying to make that point (i failed) about the first hole on the course Im playing tomorrow. If anything, I want the distance to the bunker, not the carry, especially when the carry is over 3 bills...

 

I would like the 100, 150, and 200 arcs to be there from the tee view. That would be a great feature.

[rapriebe]

I was reading the Garmin manual online and wanted to know how accurate they would be to all the other units on the market before I invest $500.00 and was stunned to find out that they are claiming 33ft (10 meters) 95% of the time. I guess that's OK if your driving a car and need to know the turn in front of you but Not on a Golf Course. I guess if it looks cool they think custome'sr won't care. That's one club difference for me, and I do care buyers beware........

 

This is typical accuracy of any GPS receiver. Most don't advertise that percentage, but that is how all units are rated. They are accurate to +/- 3 yards 50% of the time, but most just "forget" to mention the 50%. There are a lot of misconceptions about GPS technology, in part because of the way they are promoted. Accuracy can be quite variable depending on how many satellites are in range, how clear the view of the sky is, how strong the battery is, etc.

[tbowles411]

Also, if you are looking for the truest accuracy, you're not going to buy it. You need to join the military. So do you REALLY need to know to carry a bunker is 250 or 247? Pull driver and bomb it! ;)