<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Garmin Dakota 20 review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gpstracklog.com/2009/10/garmin-dakota-20-review.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gpstracklog.com/2009/10/garmin-dakota-20-review.html</link>
	<description>GPS reviews, news, tips and tricks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:06:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rich Owings</title>
		<link>http://gpstracklog.com/2009/10/garmin-dakota-20-review.html#comment-46928</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Owings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gpstracklog.com/?p=2963#comment-46928</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t &quot;think&quot; they are reporting the same level of accuracy. But they may be using different algorithms to calculate accuracy, which is merely an estimate. Not sure that really helps you though!

Probably the best way to test them is to compare tracklogs. It&#039;s also nice to compare to previous tracklogs if there is an area you have frequented with lots of historical data. For new comparisons, I&#039;d go in and set the tracklog recording interval to manual, and use identical settings. Also, make sure WAAS settings are either on or off for both units. The units should be in a comparable position and not close to each other -- one in each hand works well, but is tiring and hard to pull off. Unless you don&#039;t need you hands for anything else! ;-)

How do you like the Dakota otherwise?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t &#8220;think&#8221; they are reporting the same level of accuracy. But they may be using different algorithms to calculate accuracy, which is merely an estimate. Not sure that really helps you though!</p>
<p>Probably the best way to test them is to compare tracklogs. It&#8217;s also nice to compare to previous tracklogs if there is an area you have frequented with lots of historical data. For new comparisons, I&#8217;d go in and set the tracklog recording interval to manual, and use identical settings. Also, make sure WAAS settings are either on or off for both units. The units should be in a comparable position and not close to each other &#8212; one in each hand works well, but is tiring and hard to pull off. Unless you don&#8217;t need you hands for anything else! <img src='http://gpstracklog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>How do you like the Dakota otherwise?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig</title>
		<link>http://gpstracklog.com/2009/10/garmin-dakota-20-review.html#comment-46725</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:45:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gpstracklog.com/?p=2963#comment-46725</guid>
		<description>Great review. Based upon your recommendation, I bought this unit and I&#039;ve been comparing it with my GPSMap60scx. The 60scx always gives the accuracy as +/- feet while the Dakota just states an a number without the plus and minus--is the Dakota doing the math for you? For example, I just connected outside and the 60scx gave me +/- 9 ft and the Dakota reported 18 ft. Are they reporting the same level or accuracy? Or is the Dakota less assured of its location? I hope that makes sense! Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great review. Based upon your recommendation, I bought this unit and I&#8217;ve been comparing it with my GPSMap60scx. The 60scx always gives the accuracy as +/- feet while the Dakota just states an a number without the plus and minus&#8211;is the Dakota doing the math for you? For example, I just connected outside and the 60scx gave me +/- 9 ft and the Dakota reported 18 ft. Are they reporting the same level or accuracy? Or is the Dakota less assured of its location? I hope that makes sense! Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Owings</title>
		<link>http://gpstracklog.com/2009/10/garmin-dakota-20-review.html#comment-41119</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Owings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gpstracklog.com/?p=2963#comment-41119</guid>
		<description>The easiest way to do this, if it&#039;s just a few, is to convert them to tracks. You can do that with just about any brand of GPS.

For larger boundary files, I&#039;d suggest getting a Garmin and creating a transparent overlay. There are a couple of methods described in these threads:
http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=218965
http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=211363

Hope that helps. Feel free to follow up with more questions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The easiest way to do this, if it&#8217;s just a few, is to convert them to tracks. You can do that with just about any brand of GPS.</p>
<p>For larger boundary files, I&#8217;d suggest getting a Garmin and creating a transparent overlay. There are a couple of methods described in these threads:<br />
<a href="http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=218965" rel="nofollow">http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=218965</a><br />
<a href="http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=211363" rel="nofollow">http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=211363</a></p>
<p>Hope that helps. Feel free to follow up with more questions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
