Sorry, just about to set off on a walking holiday in Devon. I'll let you know when I get back...
A quick thought though. I spent more than £500 on a dedicated GPS and I think it money very well spent. If you spent good money on a GPS and find it no better than your phone, then perhaps you wasted a lot of money. Who's the lucky one?
I bought the GPS over 5 years ago when phones weren’t up to the job.
Who’s the one throwing their toys out if their pram because some had the temerity to mildly contradict them?
Perhaps I can help. I did a walk this very morning that highlights a few of the issues being debated.
The planned route was one that can only really be accurately followed using gps.
This is the route as shown on the OS map.
The route followed a series of paths and tracks, the majority of which are not on the OS map.
Here is the aerial image from the OS website that I used to construct the route.
Clearly there is a wealth of detail available in this image that is not in the OS map so a paper map and compass would be of little value in trying to follow it. In an instance like this a gps is the preferred tool for following the intended route.
Turning to the phone/dedicated gps debate. Once upon a time I was firmly in the dedicated device camp but now, in terms of performance there is little to choose between. In fact the purple trace in the OS map image above is actually two traces superimposed. The red trace is from my phone and the blue trace is from my Garmin Etrex.
The image below is an enlargement showing both traces, you can just make them out. I suggest there is nothing to choose between them
And this is an aerial image of the same bit, including the backtrack where my gps alarmed because I had missed my turning which I think makes my point of using a gps to find the right path in this kind of well walked but poorly mapped terrain.
And just to close - this is what it actually looks like in that area
Not exactly full of features to fix on when you compare it with the map!