Garmin Models that "Don't Rely on Cellular Signals"

its to dump on phones
phones pretend to have gps, they don't, they have a limited triangulation from approximately known cell towers.
How good is it?
cops looking for murder victims know the suspect is within a 500m radius
the phone knows roughly where it is too
like signing your name with a basketball-point pen
GPS, uses satellites, and is accurate depending on the model to between 1-5m
or if using grooup III units without civilian hashing, 1-10cm

Thanks almostbob. So in other words, it's meaningless. *NO* Garmin GPSs are reliant on cellular signals, but for some reason Garmin just points it out on selected models and not others.

Garmin list that fact is, cell phones can be spotty in coverage at times and Sat GPS has full coverage for the most part. The two problems Sat GPSs has is no coverage in tunnels and some city canyons...................

It's just a marketing tactic.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=cell+phones+and+gps+sa...

Note that the difference is not the GPS signal but rather the access to the map data. That's what they are touting...that you do not need a cellular signal to have the map display on the device...as compared to a device that does rely on a cellular signal for the map.

It is a marketing tactic. Since Google Maps works best with a data connection - though it can be used to a limited extent without one - it makes sense for GPS receivers to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack.

One thing I do want to touch on is your comment regarding smartphones not having GPS receiver chips. All smartphones in the United States must have GPS receivers within them. This is due to the FCC's 911 requirement that location data be made available to emergency call dispatchers. Since accuracy is mandatory in emergency situations, smartphones have to be fitted with GPS receivers.

Case in point, here is a screenshot of a GPS app I have installed on my Nexus 6. As you will see, it has no problem finding satellites in the GPS constellation. If the device only had network location services, it wouldn't find any satellites at all.

The biggest difference between the smartphone GPS and that of a standalone GPS receiver is that the smartphone uses triangulation data from cellular and WiFi networks to improve startup performance. Since cellular and WiFi networks assist the GPS in this regard, it is referred to in smartphone spec sheets as Assisted GPS (A-GPS or aGPS). With reasonably current standalone devices like my nüvi 1300, they have limited computational capability to predict satellite locations based upon ephemeris data downloaded from the GPS satellite constellation on the last connection. Older standalone devices like my 200W do not even have this, and thus the end user has to wait for the device to lock onto the satellites.

Devices that are not subject to the 911 location data requirement, like tablets, do not always have GPS receivers included. For these devices, network location services, if enabled in the firmware, can be used to locate the device, but at a corresponding loss of accuracy.

I use my phone as a GPS on hikes. This will work even with no service signal whatsoever. If the phone did not have a GPSr, this would not be possible.

Smartphones also have several offline-only mapping options available to them. So the marketing hype the OP has seen, while true, is really intended for the rubes who don't know any better. I wonder who the misinformation presented upthread was intended for?

Never needed a cell signal to use a GPS before.

@bechi who posted: "So in other words, it's meaningless. *NO* Garmin GPSs are reliant on cellular signals, but for some reason Garmin just points it out on selected models and not others."

That's correct. All GPS units made by Garmin rely on satellite, not cellular service.

Garmin is saying they're more reliable than cell phone navigation because their coverage is more complete. And I can affirm from personal experience just last year that if you get far enough out in the sticks and off and away from interstate highways particularly in broad swatches of the Western USA, cell phone signals can be impossible to come by and navigation by phone will break down, particularly if you want to enter a new destination, even with Verizon which some say has the best cell coverage.

I was shocked to find that even our OEM 2015 Nissan built-in navigation doesn't have map or street-name coverage for more rural parts of North Carolina where cell phone coverage is still good, not far from where we live. "Ending route guidance" it tells me, in the middle of nowhere. Gee thanks.

It's still worth keeping a Garmin or TomTom in the car in unfamiliar off-the-beaten-path areas, or at least a paper map, even if you prefer cell phone navigation or OEM built-in navigation when at home.

I finally had a response from Garmin:

"All Garmin automotive GPS devices, including the nuvi 2789LMT, use satellite data rather than cellular data to obtain information about your whereabouts and calculate routes. Therefore, if you're in a remote area without cell phone service, the Garmin device will still be able to calculate routes for you."

Of course this didn't really address my question, which was if Garmin advertises one model as "not relying on cellular signals", how does that model differ from other models that do not make this claim? They should make it clear that they're making the claim in comparison to mobile phone apps. and not in comparison with their other models or not make the claim at all.

There are numerous discrepancies on Garmin webpages depending on how they're marketing their devices, with input from numerous teams. Just because one team has decided to make that comment isn't going to cause anyone to revisit other pages to ensure all their GPS devices say they don't rely on cellular signals.

- Global Positioning Satellite.....All of them use satellite not cellular, just a marketing tool. They would be better off pointing out they don't run down your phone battery as a more useful point to differentiate.

after using google maps on my phone on a vacation in FLA, I've been using it for my commute.

Yesterday I tested it again--due to a multi-vehicle accident, the expressway was reduced to all traffic squeezing by on the shoulder.

Garmin, solid green. Google maps, +9 minutes.

It's hard to be scientific with these scenarios, but I arrived at my destination 10 minutes late. The +9 looked pretty good as far as approximating the impact. Because of these I have found how easy it is to reroute using google, you don't have to wait for them to offer, just pinch and zoom out, touch. Quite practical when you are at a stop light (I would not recommend doing it while driving).

I heard on the radio that google is more conservative than Waze.

Makes a person wonder if connected cars would drive the final nail into Garmin's coffin? If I were Garmin, I would be against connected cars....

Mode
Touch Mode to select the accuracy level of your locating method. Choose from the following:

•High accuracy: This option has the highest level of accuracy, using GPS, Wi-Fi®, and mobile data networks interchangeably to estimate your location. Data charges may apply when using this option.

•Power saving: This option uses only Wi-Fi and mobile data networks to estimate your location. Data charges may apply when using this option.

•GPS only: This option uses only the GPS network.

Now if you had no data (cellular or otherwise) from you hike going forward, and you flew from NYC to LA, your phone would need some sort of data to be able to produce a correct map for LA, unless somehow it were cached on your phone.

Let me clarify. I download a US Topo map for the area we will be hiking in first, using data (on wi-fi). Then when we hike, the map is already on the phone. The GPS track itself relies solely on satellite positions. The map is merely a point of reference when using GPS for navigation.

That Garmin wants you to believe that if there is no cell service, you cannot use a smartphone for navigation. But this thread confirms that is not necessarily the case.

On the other hand, there are times when Garmin will not work, and the smartphone will, in high accuracy mode. But they wouldn't want to mention that, now would they?

If both are receiving the same GPS signals both will be as accurate as each other. One place a phone with A-GPS might be better is somewhere like New York where tall buildings might block GPS signals.

If you Go to the GPS Settings on your Smart Phone you can select High Accuracy .Power savings and GPS only are the other 2 selections. Using High Accuracy you should get a faster lock on your location.That is the claim anyway.

And if you're inside a building where there's cell service, and/or wifi, you'll still be able to route, where the Garmin will not.

I just think the basis behind the thread is Garmin's intent to dissuade people from using smartphones. Hey, my grandpa told me he used his IBM Selectric III which even had a serial interface until the bitter end. While his coworkers had been using Microsoft Word for a decade already, he was changing cartridges and had stocked up on white out. To each his own!

Good on your grandpa .... need more like that

After the post I looked up what each setting refers to.

High accuracy mode utilizes GPS, Wi-Fi, and mobile networks to determine location.

Battery saving only uses Wi-Fi and mobile networks.

Device only relies exclusively on GPS.

Not everything old is bad...I have a calculator (HP15C) that was $80 new, which is $184 in 2016 dollars. There's one on eBay asking $429 as it's new old stock. Many others are $250 to $350. Mine still works and I rarely use it, but I would never give it up, not even for $400!

About that 15C price, isn't it sad that even today HP sells the 12C at the same price? The same question could be asked of my TI-89 Titanium, but unlike you, I didn't get mine new and didn't spend the retail price of $159.99 on it. I got mine at a thrift store for $4.

I dumped the TI-89 Titanium ROM and use it on my Nexus 6 with Graph89 for Android. Even then, there are occasions where using the actual calculator is more convenient than the smartphone.

Nostalgia's sake I bought a 12C 25th anniversary edition in 2006, and while it works, it's really chintzy with keys not responding well. I see they have decided to have a 30th anniversary edition as well, how bizarre. I doubt they would be collectible as the originals...

I can't speak for law enforcement, but when I use my phone to get me to a destination, it always gets me there accurately and I'm not talking about within 500 meters. It puts me on the doorstep. That said, there are other reasons where a GPS receiver can be superior, as noted in this thread. Good conversation.

Short trips, I often use my phone if I need mapping. Long trips, I always use my Garmin. Maps on my phone drains my battery for one thing. But there are plenty of other reasons that I prefer my Garmin for longer trips.

Phone GPS drains the battery - true, but the same way as plugging in a portable GPS - you can plug in a phone charger.

Portable GPS - is a known quantity and allows downloading of routes and POI's - great for pre-planning trips, etc.. I use it for most travel, however traffic alerts coverage is not good outside metropolitan areas.

Phone GPS - apps do have an off-line mode so will work without using up your DATA service. Some apps even have public transport. The greatest benefit is when traveling outside of you area - you can get off-line maps for almost every country - so you can use the phone without data roaming virtually anywhere.

Traffic info seems to be better on a phone.

Depends where you are. In the UK Garmins digital traffic is as good as any phone app I've tried.

In FLA we relied on the phone, and when using the USB port of the rental car, it was charging the phone at a rate that was slower than what was being consumed. Had to get out the 12V adapter, and now the phone was not being drained.

I believe that my 5 1/2 y.o. 2350 LMT battery is toast, and we have never used it solely on battery. It would have been nice if they had designed it to not charge when plugged in, if the battery were sufficiently charged, like on a laptop....

same in the San Fran Bay Area, the HD digital traffic is excellent, especially on the freeways. No Cell phone data is needed.

Waze is still reporting that there are street contradistinction work in our neighborhood, even though the work has been completed weeks ago.

This is confusing to me. WAZE alerts only exist when WAZE users enter them. These alerts only last a short amount of time unless more users report or support the alert. In other words, someone must be reporting every hour or so that there is construction going on in your neighborhood. Otherwise you would not get a WAZE alert. Seems like a lot of work for someone to do that for several weeks if construction does not exist.

.. perhaps there is an error at the WAZE end so it's alerting even though no one is reporting it?

Navigate to Bubb and Presidio in Cupertino, CA. You would see 5 construction hats along Presidio. Clicking on the hats, a call-out bubble shows: "Construction, Utility Work. Reported by City of Cupertino City Hall, ... min ago"

This is the second phase of utility work and street construction in the neighborhood, spaced about one month apart. The second phase completed two days ago.

I guess the city of Cupertino does not update the public construction activity announcements promptly.

Ah... that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Around Tampa Bay Waze traffic info is better than Google Maps and Garmin's HD Traffic - by a mile. It does make you wonder where Garmin will go with automotive PND.

To take the stress on them and apply to others...

Weekend, google maps was a life saver. Friday afternoon, we were driving from Sarasota to MCO (not good). Then, on Sunday, from Palm Coast to Tampa.

As we were making our way westbound I-4, Garmin was happy as a clam, green dot, with that bus fire on the Eastbound which caused a massive delay...totally avoided it thanks to Google.

It's hard to say because of course each situation is different...but it does sound like Garmin is often the laggard in the trifecta

I am one of those people whooes not own a cell phone.
I do own a Garmin and a tablet and do tell people that if they want to contact me to write a letter, call me on my Vonage line or Email me.
I use my Garmin and the one in the car whenever I travel and my 2010 car has over 130,000 miles on it.
With the two units I have only had two different problems. One was that in a tunnel on Colorado I 70 we were stuck due to traffic. I assume that cell phones would notwork there also.
My second problem was with traffic. I have several times as I travel from AZ to CA on I 10 the traffic would announce "Traffic Ahead" as I drive at 80mph until the outskirts of LA. This also happened in ST. Louis, MO.
Technology is not always right. Just look at windows 10.

I might be wrong, but I think it refers to how it gets traffic information. My old nuvi 750 does not get any traffic information, so I am not experienced with this.

Initally models got their traffic information via FM radio.

I think then models got traffic information from Cell.

Personally, I don't want anything in my car transmitting RF. Receiving is OK.

ago I was working on my car, and I said holy **** wth is that? There was something stuck very discretely onto the back of my rearview mirror. It said "alien 9640." I googled it and it looked like this. No clue who put it there, which is creepy. I am the original owner of this car and it never sat on the lot, I got it from the dealer with 000003 miles, the day after it was delivered to the dealership. Just shows you how easy it is to do the above nowadays.

https://cdn.barcodesinc.com/images/models/lg/Alien/aln9640sq...

That sounds like an RFID sticker.

Maybe some garage you took your to for repairs uses it to keep track of cars? I'd think the license tag would be good enough.

Google 'Alien 9640' and you'll get quite a few hits similar to your situation, plus the manufacturer's web site of RFID tags. Sounds like it's something the dealerships put on there. It shouldn't be too concerning, since RFID tags can only be "read" from about a maximum of 1 foot away.

I think if I had one, I'd take it off. They can see the license plate when I pull in for service. That should be enough for the dealer to call up my info on their computer.

interesting read!

I believe my EZ pass uses RFID (it's just a sticker) and those overhead scanners are more than a foot away. Granted they sometimes miss in which case they use your license plate number to debit the account as they take a picture of every car passing the scanner.

who put it there, but it's a guess. Because I work on the car myself, the only real opportunity dealers had to do that were for specific jobs I didn't do myself at the time, like a brake fluid flush. And if that were the case, it had been on the mirror for 2 yrs. before I noticed. That's what's creepy...that you could actually put something into someone's car and they'll never even notice. How about stick it on someone's pants or jacket or sleeve? How about a umbrella with a poison dart, very 1960's, gps, very 2010's....Today RFID, tomorrow gps tracking...

EZPass uses 'Active RFID' technology, using active receivers and transmitters, powered by batteries. It's the un-powered RFID 'stickers' that only work from about a foot away. Whenever there's a glitch in the toll system and my transponder doesn't register, they still charge a toll to my account using license plate recognition. I got mine around 2000, but since it is now so easy to just use license place recognition, I wonder why they bother with the dedicated transponders any more.

I always thought it was illegal but I often see plates with covers that make them difficult to read. I see one daily that has something that makes it impossible for me to read from more than a foot away, some sort of diffraction grating or something.

ID Evidence that your Car went there.