Dual XGPS160 GLONASS bluetooth receiver
This looks pretty nice. And they also include a nice app that tells you everything about the device on either iOS and Android.

It wasn't available when I got the GLO, but if I were in the market today I might get this instead. A bit more expensive ($145 USD at GPSCity) but it includes a friction mat and I paid extra for that with the GLO. Apparently it also has some standalone logging capability.


Ken in Regina
It looks very interesting. Users of the Android app are not kind: "Device is brilliant but the Android app is total rubbish! " seems to sum it up.

It sounds like they got the iOS app about right. It updates firmware on the GPS, controls the on-device logging, downloads the logs from the device, and has a decent display. Apparently the Android app does none of that.

See, this is the problem: we are not really "platform agnostic" yet. That is disappointing that the apps are so different. But in the case of the GLO, we have the cool, free Bluetooth GPS app on Android. The only thing missing is a readout of the GLO battery charge

Nothing like this on iOS. I have one app called GPS Status and another called GPS Data but they are really limited. They show your coordinates and an "accuracy" number that never shows any better than 5 meters (note the GLO accuracy of 1.8m in the screenshot above). No map of the satellites or signal strength graph.

iOS apparently doesn't report that info, and also doesn't indicate whether it is using the internal GPS or bluetooth. So that's where it's nice that Dual has their own app for this kind of data. I guess they also use bluetooth for the app to directly talk to the GPS?

So I'm completely happy with the GLO on Android, but frustrated with it on iOS. Maybe I need to get one of the dual's to balance that out?
Ken in Regina
So far I have been satisfied with the GPS receivers in my Nexus 5 phone and Nexus 9 tablet so I haven't felt motivated to use an external receiver. I've just installed Bluetooth GPS and will give it a whirl with my Garmin 10x to see if there's any significant difference between it and the internal receiver.

I'm not platform agnostic, either. Every time I use iOS for anything I run into something almost immediately that frustrates me. I got an iPad Mini for my wife a couple of years ago because it's perfect for what she does. Fortunately our daughter's family are totally invested in the Apple infrastructure. And they live nearby. So they look after it all for her. Whenever she needs my help with something it is usually accompanied by a lot of grumbling and a few expletives.

Ken in Regina
The internal receiver on my Nexus 9 tablet will get to 4 metres error but it takes awhile to get there.

The Nexus 5 phone gets to 3 metres and gets there fairly quickly.

The Garmin 10x does 2.2 and gets there even quicker than the Nexus 5.

The i.Trek M7 does 2.1 and gets there as quickly as the 10x.

Interesting to note that ALK CoPilot can also be set as the mock location provider.

Ken in Regina
For contrast my old hiking GPS, an eTrex Legend HCx, gets to 3 metres error in about the same time as my Nexus 5. It will get down to 2 if I leave it sit for a bit longer.

All this testing was done in my living room of a single storey house.

Quoting a statistic like "3 meters accuracy" is actually pretty meaningless in and of itself. I don't think there are any standards and for some manufacturers it means "3 meters 50% of the time" while it could mean "3 meters 95% of the time" for others.

I put my GLO through some extensive testing last week. I don't think a cell phone or tablet can do anywhere near this well. It was recording 6 position updates per second for one thing, as opposed to 1 per second which is pretty typical for the built-in gps chips.

See this for detailed info on my testing methodology: http://forums.gpsreview.net/discussion/30108/what-is-gps-accuracy-testing-the-garmin-glo-in-the-forest

If you're hiking or driving around (or using the gps in your living room ) you don't need a lot of accuracy. If you are trying to map something with precision, that's another matter...
As stated in another thread, the quantity of updates per second does not necessarily improve the accuracy of a GPS receiver. However, I think you have shown in other ways the accuracy of the GLO.

Ken in Regina
I'm not challenging the goodness of the GLO. I'm very much aware there are a number of methods of calculating the error factor And I'm equally aware that a stationery receiver, even a poor one, will eventually narrow that error factor. My eTrex has an averaging option when creating a waypoint for exactly that reason. That's why I specified that I was sitting in my living room and not doing anything more complex than that.

The performance of the various devices was consistent across apps and similar enough to my experience using them that it seemed interesting enough to report.

In particular, the similarities in performance between the chip in my Nexus 5 and my trusty eTrex demonstrate why I have been sufficiently satisfied with the Nexus 5 to not fool with an external GPS. I already know the eTrex works better in the woods. So I use it, not my phone, when I'm hiking or riding in the woods.

Although I still have every track from every trip with every GPS I've ever owned and I often use them for planning purposes, I've never been tempted to make a map. So high accuracy is not a big factor for me.

My living room testing confirmed for me that the receivers in many mobile devices have improved to where they are more than sufficient for the majority of common navigation tasks.
Originally Posted by tcassidy
As stated in another thread, the quantity of updates per second does not necessarily improve the accuracy of a GPS receiver.
I think that is true in terms of the accuracy that is provided while you are actually hiking or driving with the GPS. But as Ken pointed out, averaging can usually produce a more accurate position.

So if you averaged your position for 5 minutes using a device that updates once per second, you'd have 300 samples. Averaging 6 updates per second would provide 1800 samples. Seems to me that more data is better in this case, although "garbage in, garbage out" still applies.

In the case of the GLO accuracy thread that I linked do, I think the additional data was a big help too. When multiple tracks are overlaid, they paint a pretty clear picture of where the little trail actually is because of the data density. Performing these same tests with my Oregon and eTrex devices in the past was no so clear.
laptopgpsworld.com About