Consumer-Grade Global

Positioning System (GPS) Accuracy

and Reliability
Michael G. Wing, Aaron Eklund, and Loren D. Kellogg
Our primary study objective was to test the accuracy and reliability of consumer-grade GPS receivers six consumer-grade GPS receivers collected
in a variety of landscape settings. We established three measurement testing courses in open sky, young 1,800 measurements, with 450 being taken
forest, and closed canopy settings within a conifer-dominated forest in western Oregon and rigorously
ABSTRACT

at each measurement course; these measure-

tested the positional accuracy of six different GPS. All units were produced by established GPS ments were averaged and compared to
manufacturers. We found that performance varied, in some cases considerably, among units and known locations at the measurement courses
appeared to be influenced by canopy cover and satellite availability. Among the top GPS performers, to ascertain positional accuracy and reliabil-
we determined that users could expect positional accuracies within approximately 5 m of true position ity.
in open sky settings, 7 m in young forest conditions, and 10 m under closed canopies.
Basic GPS Concepts
Keywords: GPS, evaluation, geospatial technology, mapping A prime distinction between consumer
GPS and other GPS receiver grades is in the
ability to differentially correct coordinate
data that have been collected. Mapping- and

G
lobal positioning systems (GPS)
are becoming ubiquitous in society
for a variety of applications. GPS
hardware and software technology contin-
ues to become more accessible and afford-
able for consumers, with some GPS receivers
now available for several hundred dollars or
less. GPS use in forestry has been hindered
by challenges to receiving and maintaining
sufficient satellite reception due to interven-
ing canopy cover and land forms.
GPS receivers can generally be classified
into one of three categories: survey, map-
ping, and consumer grade. Survey-grade
GPS is capable of determining locations to
within 1 cm of true position (Rizos 2002),
but requires operator expertise and a sub-
stantial operating budget because instru-
ment costs can exceed $25,000. Survey-
grade GPS also requires satellite signal
reception that is often unattainable in for-
ested landscapes. Mapping-grade GPS re-
ceivers can return accuracies typically within
2–5 m of true position, depending on the
quality of the equipment and operator skill,
with instrument costs ranging from $2,000
to $12,000. Although mapping-grade GPS
can be somewhat more forgiving than survey
grade in terms of acceptable satellite recep-
tion and required operator skill, the price of
these units is still prohibitive to many poten-
tial users. In contrast, consumer-grade GPS
receivers are now available at prices under
$100, and there are many different manu-
facturers and styles of consumer-grade GPS
receivers. Consumer-grade GPS manufac-
turers commonly assert that measurement
accuracies of this equipment should be
within 15–20 m of true position.
We tested six consumer-grade GPS re-
ceivers to determine average positional er-
rors and measurement reliability. Our test-
ing used three measurement courses that
represented three distinct measurement set-
tings (open sky, young forest, and closed
canopy). In addition, we revisited the open
sky course during a predicted period of poor
satellite availability. Altogether, each of the
survey-grade GPS usually include software
that enables consumers to differentially cor-
rect data (Van Sickle 2001). Another signif-
icant distinction between consumer-grade
and other GPS receivers is in the quality
control of satellite reception including min-
imum reception quality standards and the
number of points necessary for coordinate
determination. The potential strength of
satellite arrangement relative to a receiver’s
position for position determination can be
estimated and reported as a position dilution
of precision (PDOP) statistic (Johnson and
Barton 2004). A PDOP value can be gener-
ated by GPS mission planning software for a
user-specified position on the earth’s sur-
face. In general, a higher PDOP value indi-
cates a satellite geometric arrangement with
reduced reliability for measurement pur-
poses. Mapping- and survey-grade GPS al-
low users to set a minimum PDOP level that
is necessary before location coordinates can
be recorded; consumer-grade GPS do not
typically permit users to specify a minimum

Journal of Forestry • June 2005 169

quality level. In addition, mapping- and sur-
vey-grade GPS allow for point averaging of a
position. As the earth and surrounding sat-
ellites are constantly in motion, multiple co-
ordinate readings and the averaging of these
readings typically leads to a more statistically
reliable location estimate than a single read-
ing alone can produce. The vast majority of
consumer-grade GPS do not allow for point
averaging, although some exceptions exist.
Hindrances to effective GPS use in for-
estry include canopy cover (Karsky et al.
2000), landscape topography (Liu and Bran-
tigan 1996), and other factors (Wing and
Kellogg, 2005). Key to deriving quality GPS
measurements is the reception of at least
four satellite signals at sufficient strength
and from a robust geometric distribution.
Four satellites ensure that a horizontal and
vertical position can be determined and that
GPS timing errors are minimized. Canopy
cover and other solid objects can interfere
with satellite signals and prevent them from
reaching a GPS receiver. In some cases, sat-
ellite signals may reflect off an object, such as
an automobile or other solid surface, and
take a nondirect path to a GPS receiver,
leading to an error known as multipathing
(Hofmann-Wellenhof et al. 2001).
Methods
We established three measurement
courses to test six consumer-grade GPS re-
ceivers. Six measurement stations were es-
tablished in close proximity to each other at
all three courses. All three courses were
placed on relatively level terrain but environ-
mental settings were selected to create open
sky, young forest, and closed canopy condi-
tions. The young forest course was placed in
a moderate density stand of predominately
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with age
classes between 5 and 15 years and a canopy
closure of approximately 40 –50%. The can-
opy cover in the closed canopy course was
nearly 100% as provided by a dense stand of
35– 45-year-old Douglas fir.
The six measurement stations that were
established at each of three courses were ini-
tially created through the use of a hand com-
pass and tape measure. A center point was
established, and measurement stations were
set 7.5 m from the center point and at 60°
angles from each other relative to the center
point (Figure 1). Measurement stations were
marked by wooden stakes (4.4 cm2 top sur-
face) that were driven into the ground until
the upper 2 cm remained above ground. A
dimpled nail was driven into the head of
170 Journal of Forestry • June 2005
60°
7.5m
Figure 1. Geometry of test courses.
each stake to mark a center location for mea-
surement purposes.
The six consumer-grade GPS receivers
we tested were all similar in physical dimen-
sions (Figure 2), although two of the units
(Etrex Vista and Geko 301) have somewhat
smaller cases than the rest. All are produced
by one of two recognized manufacturers
(Table 1). All receivers had the ability to col-
lect data in different map coordinate units
and to store up to 500 coordinate locations.
We used GPS mission planning soft-
ware that was freely available from the Inter-
net (ARINC 1999) to identify PDOP times
of good to poor quality. We scheduled our
GPS data collection at each of the test
courses to reflect relatively good GPS data
collection potential with one exception: the
mission planning software indicated that a
time of exceptionally poor PDOP (15)
would occur on the second day of our
planned testing. Consequently, we decided
to revisit the open sky course during this
time period to examine influences of poor
PDOP on GPS accuracy and precision. GPS
receiver testing occurred over 2 days in Mc-
Donald Forest, a research forest managed by
Oregon State University and located in
western Oregon.
A digital total station was used to estab-
lish universal transverse mercator (UTM)
coordinates for all measurement stations.
Wooden staffs were built to standardize the
height of all GPS receivers at 1.2 m above
the ground surface, a height at which oper-
ators could comfortably access GPS con-
trols. We consulted the GPS manuals and, if
necessary, called manufacturers directly to
determine whether units should be placed
vertically or horizontally for best measure-
ment accuracy. All GPS receivers were af-
fixed to the wooden staffs using rubber
bands (we avoided using metal fasteners to
reduce multipathing risk). A flat wooden
platform was glued to the top of staffs for
GPS receivers that required horizontal oper-
ation.
At all testing courses, each GPS receiver
was placed at one of the six measurement
stations to begin recording coordinates. All
GPS receiver operators faced south during
data collection to standardize measurement
conditions. An audible count at approxi-
mate 4-second intervals was used to syn-
chronize the collection of 25 measurements
at each station at the same time by the six
GPS operators. This synchronization was
designed to minimize the effect of satellite
geometry and time on measurements be-
tween the six GPS receivers. At the comple-
tion of 25 measurements, each GPS receiver
was moved to the next measurement bench-
mark where another 25 measurements were
collected. This process was followed until
each GPS receiver had collected 25 measure-
ments from all six measurement bench-
marks. Following an approximate 5-minute
pause, this process was repeated twice so that
a total of 450 measurements were recorded
at each measurement course by all six GPS
receivers. The 450 measurements were
downloaded digitally at the completion of
each measurement course. Each of the GPS
receivers we tested had a limit of 500 coor-
dinate pairs that could be stored, conse-
quently collecting 25 measurements at each
station (resulting in 450 total at each course)
approached this limit while not exceeding
instrument storage capacity.
All GPS receivers were set to collect
data in a UTM coordinate system. An aver-
age UTM coordinate was calculated from
each set of 25 coordinates that was collected
at all measurement stations. A horizontal
distance, or positional error, was calculated
by determining the straight-line distance be-
tween the average coordinate and the total
station-derived coordinate. Standard devia-
tions were also calculated to provide an esti-
mate of GPS reliability. We also determined
a maximum PDOP estimate during each
course repetition by having a mapping-grade
receiver record satellite signals throughout
the testing processes.
Results
Accuracy and reliability were summa-
rized for each GPS receiver from three per-
spectives: by an average positional error and
standard deviation (SD) for each of the three
repetitions around the courses, for a sum-
mary of all three repetitions (referred to as
course summary), and for all courses com-
Figure 2. Consumer grade GPS from left to right: SporTrak Map, GPSmap 76S, GPS V, Etrex Vista, Geko 301, Meridian Platinum.
Table 1. Name, manufacturer, and price
of consumer-grade GPS units that were
tested.
GPS name Manufacturer Price
Etrex Vista Garmin $245
Geko 301 Garmin $220
GPS V Garmin $320
GPSmap 76S Garmin $310
Meridian Platinum Magellan $280
SportTrak Map Magellan $150
bined (referred to as GPS summary). Our
results found that measurement accuracy
and reliability varied, in some cases consid-
erably, among the six GPS receivers (Table
2).
In comparing the average positional er-
ror for the course summaries of the open sky
setting, positional errors varied from 1.4 m
for the GPSmap 76S to 19.6 m for the Me-
ridian Platinum. Only the Geko 301 and
Meridian Platinum had average errors
greater than 4.0 m. The SD was also greatest
for the Geko 301 (2.0 m) and Meridian Plat-
inum (3.8 m). For all other GPS units, the
SD summary was 1.0 m or less.
Within the young forest setting, the
course average error ranged from a low of
1.3 m for the SportTrak Map to 6.8 m for
the Geko 301. Notably, with the exception
of the SportTrak Map and Meridian Plati-
num (1.7 m), the course summary average
error was greater than 3.5 m for all other
GPS receivers. The course summary SD was
1.1 m or less for all GPS receivers except the
Geko 301 (1.9 m).
The average errors for the closed can-
opy course summaries varied from 2.7 m
(SportTrak Map) to a high of 11.4 m (Geko
301). The Etrex Vista (4.9 m), Geko 301,
and GPS V (4.7 m) had measurement error
sums in excess of 4.6 m, while all other units
were 3.2 m or less. The three receivers with
the largest positional errors also had the larg-
est SD (2.8 –5.0 m), with the other units
featuring SD of 1.7 m or less.
We revisited the open sky course during
a period that was predicted by our mission
planning software to be particularly poor for
GPS data collection. Open sky course posi-
tional error averages ranged from 1.0 m
(Meridian Platinum) to 4.0 m (Geko 301)
during the second visit. In comparison to
error in the initial visit to the open sky
course, these average errors were within 2–3
m during the second visit with one excep-
tion: the Meridian Platinum had greatly re-
duced positional errors during the second
visit. For all other units, the SD were similar
during both visits to the open sky courses.
One method to assess the overall per-
formance of the consumer GPS receivers we
tested is to average the positional errors and
SD for all measurement courses to create a
GPS summary average error and SD value
for each unit. GPS summary average errors
ranged from a low of 1.7 m for the Sport-
Trak Map to a high of 6.6 m for Geko 301
(Table 2). The summary SD ranged from
0.9 m for the SportTrak Map to a high of
2.6 m for the Geko 301. In using the GPS
receiver summaries as a benchmark for per-
formance, a top tier emerged among the
units: the performance of the Etrex Vista,
GPS V, GPSmap76S, and SportTrak Map
was superior in comparison to the other two
GPS.
In general, course settings and maxi-
mum PDOP values varied predictably with
GPS receiver error averages (Table 2). The
highest positional errors occurred typically
in the closed canopy course, followed by the
young forest course, and open sky courses.
In the case of the SportTrak Map, however,
positional errors were improved in the
young forest course in comparison to the ini-
tial visit to the open sky course. Maximum
recorded PDOP values also tended to follow
a similar trend in relation to course cover
types, with the highest PDOPs being re-
corded in the closed canopy course and low-
est PDOPs in the open sky course visits.
In terms of what users should expect in
terms of performance, there are several ap-
proaches to quantifying predicted accuracies
for GPS receivers based on repeated mea-
surements (Wilson 2000). However, the
National Standard for Spatial Data Accu-
racy (NSSDA), published by the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (1998), is de-
signed to provide a unified approach to as-
sessing the accuracy of digital geospatial data
independent of measurement scale. The
NSSDA uses the root mean squared error
from measurements and multiplies this by a
constant of 1.7308 to produce a 95% confi-
dence level for predicted measurement accu-
racies. This constant is based on a normal
distribution of error values and is designed
for use when error distances are calculated in
two dimensions (e.g., x and y coordinate dif-
ferences). In contrast, a constant of 1.96
would be used for single-dimension error
measurements. NSSDA accuracies are given
in brackets in Table 2 and can be interpreted
to provide an estimate of expected positional
performance among the consumer-grade
GPS receivers. For instance, the SportTrak
Map had a NSSDA value of 3.2 m for the
Journal of Forestry • June 2005 171
Table 2. Average positional accuracy, SD, and the National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) of GPS measurements.a

Open sky course Young forest course Closed canopy course Open sky revisited GPS summary
Max. Average Max. Average Max. Average Max. Average Average
GPS unit Repetitionb PDOP errorc PDOP errorc PDOP errorc PDOP errorc errorc

Etrex Vista 1 5.0 2.5 (0.9) 5.5 3.1 (1.1) 5.7 4.3 (2.0) 4.3 3.1 (0.8)
2 4.0 2.1 (1.3) 4.6 4.1 (0.7) 5.9 5.5 (4.4) 2.9 3.1 (0.8)
3 4.6 2.1 (0.7) 4.5 4.0 (1.5) 5.7 4.8 (2.3) 3.1 2.2 (0.5)
Course summaryd 2.2 (1.0) 关4.2兴 3.7 (1.1) 关6.7兴 4.9 (2.9) 关9.8兴 2.8 (0.7) 关5.0兴 3.4 (1.4) 关6.4兴
Geko 301 1 5.0 3.1 (1.8) 5.5 6.3 (2.1) 5.7 11.8 (4.9) 4.3 5.1 (1.3)
2 4.0 4.4 (1.7) 4.6 6.4 (1.2) 5.9 10.2 (5.0) 2.9 3.3 (2.2)
3 4.6 5.0 (2.4) 4.5 7.6 (2.5) 5.7 12.3 (5.2) 3.1 3.6 (1.4)
Course summaryd 4.2 (2.0) 关8.0兴 6.8 (1.9) 关12.2兴 11.4 (5.0) 关21.6兴 4.0 (1.6) 关7.5兴 6.6 (2.6) 关12.3兴
GPS V 1 5.0 3.2 (0.8) 5.5 3.8 (0.9) 5.7 3.5 (2.9) 4.3 4.2 (0.6)
2 4.0 2.6 (1.1) 4.6 3.9 (1.1) 5.9 4.9 (3.3) 2.9 3.1 (0.8)
3 4.6 2.0 (0.9) 4.5 3.7 (0.7) 5.7 5.8 (2.1) 3.1 1.6 (0.4)
Course summaryd 2.6 (0.9) 关4.8兴 3.8 (0.9) 关6.8兴 4.7 (2.8) 关9.5兴 3.0 (0.6) 关5.2兴 3.5 (1.3) 关6.5兴
GPSmap 76S 1 5.0 1.1 (0.5) 5.5 3.5 (0.8) 5.7 3.2 (2.0) 4.3 3.7 (0.6)
2 4.0 1.0 (0.4) 4.6 3.7 (1.8) 5.9 3.5 (1.9) 2.9 1.9 (1.0)
3 4.6 2.0 (0.9) 4.5 3.6 (0.7) 5.7 3.0 (1.0) 3.1 1.2 (0.3)
Course summaryd 1.4 (0.6) 关2.6兴 3.6 (1.1) 关6.5兴 3.2 (1.6) 关6.2兴 2.3 (0.6) 关4.1兴 2.6 (1.0) 关4.9兴
Meridian Platinum 1 5.0 13.3 (1.6) 5.5 2.0 (0.9) 5.7 2.9 (1.8) 4.3 0.8 (0.5)
2 4.0 19.6 (8.6) 4.6 1.3 (0.3) 5.9 4.1 (1.9) 2.9 0.8 (0.4)
3 4.6 26.0 (1.2) 4.5 1.9 (1.1) 5.7 1.8 (0.8) 3.1 1.4 (0.7)
Course summaryd 19.6 (3.8) 关34.6兴 1.7 (0.8) 关3.3兴 3.0 (1.5) 关5.7兴 1.0 (0.5) 关2.0兴 6.3 (1.7) 关11.3兴
SportTrak Map 1 5.0 1.4 (0.5) 5.5 1.1 (0.7) 5.7 3.4 (2.2) 4.3 1.4 (0.8)
2 4.0 1.7 (0.4) 4.6 1.2 (0.7) 5.9 1.4 (0.6) 2.9 1.1 (1.0)
3 4.6 2.2 (1.0) 4.5 1.7 (0.5) 5.7 3.4 (2.1) 3.1 0.8 (0.6)
Course summaryd 1.8 (0.6) 关3.2兴 1.3 (0.6) 关2.5兴 2.7 (1.7) 关5.5兴 1.1 (0.8) 关2.4兴 1.7 (0.9) 关3.4兴
a
Units are in meters, SD are in parentheses, and NSSDA values are in brackets.
b
Each course repetition represents 150 measurement values for each GPS.
c
The average error is the distance from GPS coordinates to known coordinates at the test courses.
d
Course summaries are the average of the three course repetitions.

first open sky course. On average, if we were
to take 100 measurements of a position with
this GPS receiver, we would expect that 95
of them would be within 3.2 m of the actual
position. For a single coordinate pair taken
with this GPS receiver, we would be 95%
confident that the point was within 3.2 m of
the actual position. As the NSSDA is based
on an assumed statistical distribution and a
confidence interval (95%), we should not be
surprised to detect measurements outside of
predicted accuracy ranges.
In considering the top four GPS receiv-
ers in terms of average measurement errors,
expected NSSDA accuracies within open
sky settings should be within approximately
5 m of true position 95% of the time de-
pending on the GPS receiver. In a young
forest setting, this figure increases to 7 m,
and in a closed canopy setting approximately
10 m.
Discussion
Consumer-grade GPS receivers now of-
fer potential users an inexpensive and man-
ageable technology for collecting coordinate
locations of landscape features. Users will
need to determine whether the potential ac-
curacies of collected coordinates are suffi-
cient for the intended purposes of the data
and must always keep in mind that measure-
ment accuracy can vary widely depending
on the consumer GPS receiver.
Our results indicate that at least for the
Etrex Vista, GPS V, GPSmap76S, and
SportTrak Map (the top four performers as
identified by our testing results), positional
accuracies that are better than the 15–20 m
range often cited as a yardstick should be
achieved, with improved accuracies being
possible in open sky settings and depending
on the unit.
Overall, the Etrex Vista, GPS V, GPS-
map 76S, and SportTrak Map all performed
similarly in terms of accuracy and reliability.
The SportTrak Map, however, had the low-
est summary average error (1.7 m) and SD
(0.9 m). The GPSmap 76S had the second
lowest summary average error (2.6 m) and
SD (1.0 m).
The Etrex Vista and GPS V were strik-
ingly similar in performance throughout the
measurement courses. We expected the GPS
V to perform better than all other units, due
to the presence of an external antenna, but
did not find superior results. The GPS V,
however, was the most full-featured of the
GPS receivers we tested and included a CD
that featured additional basemap data that
could be downloaded onto the receiver. The
GPS V also allows for automatic point aver-
aging, where a user can log multiple coordi-
nate points and store the average of the
points. None of the other GPS we tested
featured this capability.
One apparent anomaly was the perfor-
mance of the Meridian Platinum, which
rated poorly during the first visit to the open
canopy course but was otherwise a strong
performer in accuracy and reliability. The
individual coordinates collected by the Me-
ridian Platinum were more closely exam-
ined, revealing gradually increasing and de-
creasing coordinate positions relative to the
control benchmarks throughout the indi-
vidual measurements. The reasons for this
performance are unknown but it did not oc-
cur during the second visit to the open sky
course or at any of the other measurement
courses.
The Geko 301 did not compare well to
the other GPS receivers in any of the mea-
surement courses with the exception of the
Meridian Platinum in the initial open sky
course measurements. The Geko 301 was
the smallest of the GPS receivers we tested
and would be convenient in this regard.
Several considerations should be made
in assessing the results of this study. The
mission planning software we initially used
was available free over the Internet and was

172 Journal of Forestry • June 2005

not a reliable resource for predicting satellite
availability PDOP levels. For instance, our
return visit to open sky course was supposed
to occur during a time that was poor for GPS
data collection, but average error sums and
recorded PDOP values indicated otherwise.
Our expectation was that we would either
not be able to collect data or that measure-
ment errors would be much greater than
those that resulted during the projected poor
PDOP period. As we examined actual
PDOP values following data collection,
PDOP values during the second visit were at
least marginally better than those recorded
during the initial visit.
Potential GPS users should keep in
mind that results reported in this study were
based on 25 measurements collected at each
of six stations. This process was repeated
three times during each measurement
course, and the entire process was repeated
at the open sky course. This process of aver-
aging should, statistically, result in coordi-
nates that are more accurate than that col-
lected by a single measurement, or by fewer
than 25 measurements.
There are some strategies, however, for
those wishing to maximize the accuracy of
collected coordinates with consumer-grade
GPS receivers. Mission planning software
can identify the data collection times that are
best in terms of the number of satellites
available and the physical geometry of satel-
lites relative to a ground location. GPS users
may also want to consider keeping the GPS
receiver antenna located at operator head
height or above any features that might im-
pede satellite reception. Utilizing an external
antenna may also increase the accuracy of
measurements. Unfortunately, few consum-
er-grade GPS receivers will accept external
antennas.
Literature Cited
ARINC. 1999. The system effectiveness model, ver-
sion 3.6.4. Annapolis, MD. Available online at
www.arinc.com/gps/gpsapps/sem.html; last
accessed January 2005.
FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE. 1998.
Geospatial positioning accuracy standards. Part
3: National standard for spatial data accuracy,
FGDC-STD-007.3. Federal Geographic Data
Committee, Washington, DC. 25 p.
HOFMANN-WELLENHOF, B., H. LICHTENEGGER,
AND J. COLLINS. 2001. Global positioning sys-
tem: Theory and practice. Springer-Verlag,
Wien, Germany. 382 p.
JOHNSON, C.E., AND C.C. BARTON. 2004. Where
in the world are my field plots? Frontiers Ecol.
Environ. 2(9):475– 482.
KARSKY, D., K. CHAMBERLAIN, S. MANCEBO, D.
PATTERSON, AND T. JASUMBACK. 2000. Com-
parison of GPS receivers under a forest canopy
with selective availability off. USDA Forest Ser-
vice Project Report 7100. 21 p.
LIU, C.J., AND R. BRANTIGAN. 1996. Using differ-
ential GPS for forest traverse surveys. Can. J.
For. Res. 25:1795–1805.
RIZOS, C. 2002. Introducing the global position-
ing system. P. 77–94 in Manual of geospatial
science and technology, Bossler, J., J. Jensen, R.
McMaster, and C. Rizos, eds. Taylor and
Francis, London and New York.
VAN SICKLE, J. 2001. GPS for land surveyors. Ann
Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.
WILSON, D.L. 2000. GPS horizontal position ac-
curacy. Available online at users.erols.com/
dwilson/gpsacc.htm; last accessed January
2005.
WING, M.G., AND L.D. KELLOGG. 2005. Locat-
ing and mobile mapping techniques for for-
estry applications. Geographic Information Sci-
ences 11(1):87–95.
Michael G. Wing (michael.wing@oregonstate.edu)
is assistant professor, Aaron Eklund (aaron.
eklund@oregonstate.edu) is graduate student, and
Loren D. Kellogg (loren.kellogg@oregonstate.edu) is
Lematta professor of forest engineering, Forest Engi-
neering Department, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR 97331.
Journal of Forestry • June 2005 173