Garmin 196 and Land Accuracy

Just purchased a Garmin 196.

I like the unit but I have some concerns...

Used it today while driving to Charlottetown PEI from Moncton NB.
Found that the Maps were off by more than 3 KM in some instances.

Is this typical of accuracy?

The unit had great reception using the remote antenna.

I purchased the 196 as it was supposed to be Multi-Purpose. (land -
air - sea) but if indicating that I am 3 KM off in the Atlantic ocean
instead of driving across Confederation Bridge is the norm for the
196, Garmin can keep their multi purpose GPS and I will trade up to
the 295 as aviation is the main reason for the unit in the first
place.

Look forward to hearing what others have to say...

Best Regards,

Crispy3M

In a previous article, (Crispy3M) said:
Used it today while driving to Charlottetown PEI from Moncton NB.
Found that the Maps were off by more than 3 KM in some instances.

Is this typical of accuracy?

It's not your position that's off, it's their lousy base maps. When I
bought my 195 many years ago, I inquired and found that the built-in base
map was compiled from free sources. Since the US makes good base data
available for free (like the TIGER files from the Census Bureau), the US
is pretty good. But most countries don't make such good data available
without a fee, so Garmin relies heavily on the CIA's World Data Bank,
which is notoriously inaccurate. The basemap doesn't even show Highway
404 north of the 401, which was built a few years before the 195 was new,
and is a major landmark if you're going to be landing at Buttonville
Airport.

On my regular drive to Ottawa, I drive on both sides of the St. Lawrence
River. On the US side, my line is accurate with regard to the shoreline.
On the Canadian side, I'm hundreds of metres out into the water according
to the basemap.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. And if he can't
be bothered to learn to fish and starves to death, that's a good enough
outcome for me. -- Steve VanDevender

Hi Paul,

Thank you for the quick response!

Just as I suspected!

I knew my position was correct as I was only meters from my original
track on the return trip but I was unsure if the maps were notorious
for being inaccurate.

Nothing against a great company like Garmin, but in my personal
opinion, the 196 is not worth a pinch of Coon @#%@ as a Multi-Purpose
unit and is going right back where it came from.

I hate to spend the extra money, but I think I'll get the 295, as
Aviation is main reason I purchased a GPS in the first place.

Best Regards,

Crispy3M

In a previous article, (Crispy3M) said:
Nothing against a great company like Garmin, but in my personal
opinion, the 196 is not worth a pinch of Coon @#%@ as a Multi-Purpose
unit and is going right back where it came from.

I understand that Garmin has downloadable and installable detail maps for
the 196. I don't know if they're any better than the built in maps, but I
suspect they'd have to be. You might want to give them a try first.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The Code Red virus hasn't caused the widespread chaos earlier predicted.
Mainly due to the use of a security product known as 'Patch'.
-- Radio report, 28/11/01

The 196 is a superb unit. I bought the additional autokit and found it to be
dead nuts as far as roads, shores, etc. I agree that the basemaps may suck,
but if you want accuracy, then get accurate maps like City Select, etc... As
far as tossing it for an aviation only unit like the 295 (which I owned), I
would think that is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You
can also get updated and accurate Jeppesen charts for the 196 which will be
perfect for your use. I used my 196 for flying and other navigation
including using it for driving and NEVER had an issue with it at all. The
unit is great on power unlike the 295 which eats batteries like crazy. The
295 is also bulky and limited in it's uses. I think you will be downgrading
personally. FWIW.


Avi Zamites
PPSEL, A&P, GROL (RADAR)


"Crispy3M" wrote in message
om...
Just purchased a Garmin 196.

I like the unit but I have some concerns...

Used it today while driving to Charlottetown PEI from Moncton NB.
Found that the Maps were off by more than 3 KM in some instances.

Is this typical of accuracy?

The unit had great reception using the remote antenna.

I purchased the 196 as it was supposed to be Multi-Purpose. (land -
air - sea) but if indicating that I am 3 KM off in the Atlantic ocean
instead of driving across Confederation Bridge is the norm for the
196, Garmin can keep their multi purpose GPS and I will trade up to
the 295 as aviation is the main reason for the unit in the first
place.

Look forward to hearing what others have to say...

Best Regards,

Crispy3M

"Aircraft Mechanic in Tampa" wrote in message ...
The 196 is a superb unit. I bought the additional autokit and found it to be
dead nuts as far as roads, shores, etc. I agree that the basemaps may suck,
but if you want accuracy, then get accurate maps like City Select, etc... As
far as tossing it for an aviation only unit like the 295 (which I owned), I
would think that is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You
can also get updated and accurate Jeppesen charts for the 196 which will be
perfect for your use. I used my 196 for flying and other navigation
including using it for driving and NEVER had an issue with it at all. The
unit is great on power unlike the 295 which eats batteries like crazy. The
295 is also bulky and limited in it's uses. I think you will be downgrading
personally. FWIW.


Avi Zamites
PPSEL, A&P, GROL (RADAR)


Avi,

I think the difference may be between US and Canada.

I have been doing some inquiring on other aviation sites and most
agree that the 295 is a far superior product for aviation with the
Color Map. I know that you have had both and would be interested in
your thoughts.

Batteries and bulk not being an issue, I'm really only looking for the
best GPS for Aviation.

Regards,

Crispy3M