# Garmin Edge 530 & Trailforks



## Cicch95 (Apr 6, 2016)

I picked up an Edge 530 around Xmas time, excited to be able to use it to upload my custom routes from Trailforks and navigate areas I am unfamiliar to with it. I am totally disappointed with the unit. It cannot keep up with the route very long at all. It does "track" the ride well...miles, speed, etc. It just cannot follow the route and give me navigation direction. Has anyone else experienced this? Has anyone been able to upload your TF route and fuse the Garmin to follow it successfully? Repeatedly? Thanks.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I used that feature this past weekend actually. Have you updated it's firmware?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

What is the specific thing it's doing that's the problem?

I've honestly never bothered with any of the Trailforks business because I simply don't rely on my gps computer for navigation on the trail. There's too many known and potential problems with doing so on mtb trails that have nothing to do with the device itself (the issues are primarily software-related and basemap-related).

The navigation capability of the device (nav cues when following a pre-planned "course" loaded into the Garmin) works great on roads, but for mtb trails, it works better to just load trail maps and just do visual checks on the device screen. You can load a planned course and have it just display visually for mtb purposes, as well.


----------



## Cicch95 (Apr 6, 2016)

dysfunction said:


> I used that feature this past weekend actually. Have you updated it's firmware?


Hi yes, I make sure it is updated.


----------



## Cicch95 (Apr 6, 2016)

Harold said:


> What is the specific thing it's doing that's the problem?
> 
> I've honestly never bothered with any of the Trailforks business because I simply don't rely on my gps computer for navigation on the trail. There's too many known and potential problems with doing so on mtb trails that have nothing to do with the device itself (the issues are primarily software-related and basemap-related).
> 
> The navigation capability of the device (nav cues when following a pre-planned "course" loaded into the Garmin) works great on roads, but for mtb trails, it works better to just load trail maps and just do visual checks on the device screen. You can load a planned course and have it just display visually for mtb purposes, as well.


That being said, they are selling us BS then with the mountain bike bundle and its capabilities?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

"It's broke" isn't really enough to go by.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Cicch95 said:


> That being said, they are selling us BS then with the mountain bike bundle and its capabilities?


No. everyone needs to learn how it works. every device has quirks that users need to learn. every device has procedures that users need to learn to use the device to maximize its function. Devices built to a specific purpose often require more of a learning curve. With Garmins and their apps, not only do you need to learn the Garmin device and its own software, but you also have to learn the app.

It's a bit much to expect this kind of device interoperability to handhold you through everything.

I get it. We've all gotta ask questions about stuff from time to time. I've taken grad school level courses to learn how to use a bunch of highly specialized software. Some of it, I've had to learn to use myself. I've also taken private seminars on other software. And there are still some functions of my Garmin that I need to look up to figure out how to use correctly. It's just the nature of the technical world we live in.

But you're going to have to spell out the procedure you're using and describe what's going wrong and where.


----------



## Cicch95 (Apr 6, 2016)

Harold said:


> No. everyone needs to learn how it works. every device has quirks that users need to learn. every device has procedures that users need to learn to use the device to maximize its function. Devices built to a specific purpose often require more of a learning curve. With Garmins and their apps, not only do you need to learn the Garmin device and its own software, but you also have to learn the app.
> 
> It's a bit much to expect this kind of device interoperability to handhold you through everything.
> 
> ...


I like to think I am a educated person, (hold an MBA) and am fairly tech savvy. There certainly is no hand holding via Garmin. They really do not give you much of anything in the form of user guidance. As far as the procedure I am using........

*Create a route on trailforks - save to wishlist​*Ensure Garmin app on phone is on and synced with the 530​*Navigate to the trailforks IQ on the device​*Upload the route​*Start the ride which usually prompts that the route is near do I want to navigate to it...yes....then ride on.​​Now onto the problems (or maybe perceived problems?)​1) The "route" will be in pink on my 530's screen. It seems to "follow" it and give verbal guidance for a short while, then drops off. (pink route line is gone)​--Sometimes, but not every time it will "find" the route again. (pink route line is found)​2) If you miss a portion of a trail, the 530 rightfully asks you to u-turn.....however, if you get to the "next" trail on the route and are back on course, it does not seem to recognize it, and continues to ask for a u-turn.​​I would assume that perhaps it loses gps "signal". However, the mileage comes back as correct at the end of the ride, and the "map" looks ok.​​​​


----------



## MrIcky (Oct 2, 2007)

Cicch95 said:


> I picked up an Edge 530 around Xmas time, excited to be able to use it to upload my custom routes from Trailforks and navigate areas I am unfamiliar to with it. I am totally disappointed with the unit. It cannot keep up with the route very long at all. It does "track" the ride well...miles, speed, etc. It just cannot follow the route and give me navigation direction. Has anyone else experienced this? Has anyone been able to upload your TF route and fuse the Garmin to follow it successfully? Repeatedly? Thanks.


More detail would be helpful. I have a 530 and it works pretty well for navigation for routes I've pulled down from Trailforks and Ridewithgps. It does seem like some routes were created much more accurately than others. It also seems to be easier to follow routing in 3d mode.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Cicch95 said:


> Now onto the problems (or maybe perceived problems?)
> 1) The "route" will be in pink on my 530's screen. It seems to "follow" it and give verbal guidance for a short while, then drops off. (pink route line is gone)​--Sometimes, but not every time it will "find" the route again. (pink route line is found)​2) If you miss a portion of a trail, the 530 rightfully asks you to u-turn.....however, if you get to the "next" trail on the route and are back on course, it does not seem to recognize it, and continues to ask for a u-turn.​​I would assume that perhaps it loses gps "signal". However, the mileage comes back as correct at the end of the ride, and the "map" looks ok.​​


​
Ok, I see what's going on, at least in part.



MrIcky said:


> It does seem like some routes were created much more accurately than others. It also seems to be easier to follow routing in 3d mode.


I think this statement addresses part of what's going on, and is along the lines of things I noticed when trying to use "course" navigation on mine on mtb trails. So basically what you're seeing is that the Garmin is determining your position as being "off" of the planned one. Two reasons why it'd do that. First being that the GPS position might be inaccurate. Second being that the underlying route might be inaccurate. If you're building a planned ride off of some existing map database, the accuracy of your planned route will depend on that database. I know for a fact that all of the trail map databases heavily simplify the data that's sent to them in order to streamline their databases. They pretty much have to, even though navigation suffers for it. When you're building a planned route off of roads, those are generally highly accurately recorded in map databases, so that is mostly eliminated as a factor in troubles. But with mtb use, you usually have BOTH problems going on at the same time.

When using Garmin's own course routing functionality, what happens is that the device repeatedly gives you warnings that you're "off course" even though you're on the trail. Mine would also suggest turn guidance for simple curves in the trail instead of actual turns, which can be nightmarish on mtb trails. The device itself will have some course navigation settings for using its own functions, but the behavior to resume the course wherever you return to it seems to be default and not changeable, at least on my 520.

There MIGHT be a setting somewhere for Trailforks to control the behavior of navigation when you go off course. The way things are going as you describe them, the software is telling you to go back to the place you were the last time it determined you were on the planned route. It's not picking up wherever you rejoin things.

One function I would like to see in navigation settings would be a "buffer" setting where it would assume you're "on course" so long as your position is determined to be within x buffer distance of the planned route and that it won't throw any off course warnings until you go outside that buffer distance. At least with Garmin's own navigation system, that would at least help some with mapping inaccuracies messing up navigation.


----------



## oheckler (Jan 26, 2008)

I have created rides using Strava and had great success when riding in unfamiliar areas. Even in areas that are notoriously difficult to navigate like Jackson in Mendocino. Think unmarked trail in a vast, thick redwood forest. ridewithgps.com also works well.


----------



## Riled (May 1, 2012)

I also have been incredibly frustrated with the turn-by-turn routing of the 530. I gave up trying to use it, and am much happier now that I've lowered my expectations. If you still want to try, three things that might help a bit if you're determined are:

Choose GPS+GLONAS or +Galileo (Settings - Activity Profile - GPS Mode)
Get rid of all the redundant maps (Settings - Activity Profile - Navigation - Map - Map Info)
Change the recording interval to 1s (Settings - System - Data Recording)
The GPS+... choices in the navigation settings greatly increase the accuracy of the system when under trees. I don't know which of the two is better, but either one is better than straight GPS.

The redundant maps I'm talking about are the five different data sets loaded into the unit (AMR Standard Basemap; Garmin Cycle Map Amer, North; Trailforks; etc.) that are all enabled by default. Many of the trails I rode would have a spaghetti of lines displayed and it took me a while to realize it was multiple datasets showing a slightly shifted--and not quite identical--version of the same trail. I don't know if this confused the routing, but it sure confused the heck out of me when I would try to get back on the the route when the system inevitably thought I was off. I find that the Trailforks map is the most up-to-date for the trails in my area. It may also be worth connecting the unit with a cord to you computer and launching Garmin Connect. I noticed when I did that, it surprised me with a big update of the maps. I thought the firmware updates were keeping the maps up-to-date, but I'm guessing not.

The recording interval of 1s forces the map to update more often. This will decrease the battery life, I'm sure, but I still get about 10 rides between charges. Similarly to getting rid of redundant maps, I'm not sure if this helps routing at all, but it does make it easier to see where the heck you really are when you have to figure out if you're really off the route like the 530 always thinks you are.

These things combined with the constant firmware updates might make MTB routing possible now, I don't know. I haven't tried in probably 5 months. If you have success, please report back; I would like to try again if there's hope. Regardless, the changes I recommend help the map display to be more accurate and less confusing, which makes manual routing better. On new trails now, I find myself visualizing a route, following it as best as possible, and stopping to get an overview and correct when necessary. I think the 530 is totally capable of doing routes on roads, but not up to the task on trails.


----------



## Cicch95 (Apr 6, 2016)

Riled said:


> I also have been incredibly frustrated with the turn-by-turn routing of the 530. I gave up trying to use it, and am much happier now that I've lowered my expectations. If you still want to try, three things that might help a bit if you're determined are:
> 
> Choose GPS+GLONAS or +Galileo (Settings - Activity Profile - GPS Mode)
> Get rid of all the redundant maps (Settings - Activity Profile - Navigation - Map - Map Info)
> Change the recording interval to 1s (Settings - System - Data Recording)


Thanks. I will give it a shot. I have already been using GPS+GLONAS. Unfortunately, I think the conclusion will be the same as you have found, that the Garmin is more of a road bike tool than mountain bike. Very disappointing. It seems from what I have read and observed, my phone is a much more powerful and accurate tool to use to find my way around the woods.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Hopefully have a chance to test this out tomorrow.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Riled said:


> I also have been incredibly frustrated with the turn-by-turn routing of the 530. I gave up trying to use it, and am much happier now that I've lowered my expectations. If you still want to try, three things that might help a bit if you're determined are:
> 
> Choose GPS+GLONAS or +Galileo (Settings - Activity Profile - GPS Mode)
> Get rid of all the redundant maps (Settings - Activity Profile - Navigation - Map - Map Info)
> ...


Good tips. Too much competing/overlaying map data DEFINITELY bogs down the processor of these little computers.

And yeah, there are a few different types of updates that Garmin can toss out to you. Firmware addresses basic functionality of the unit. They'll toss out the occasional time zone map update, too. Even my old handhelds that aren't officially supported anymore get those. It's good to hear that Garmin does issue map updates for these. I hadn't heard conclusively one way or the other if they were going to issue updates on devices that included OSM or Trailforks maps, or how that was going to happen. Considering how they handle other updates, it absolutely makes sense that they'd be a separate update than the others.

I don't think recording interval should affect navigation, though. The receiver is receiving signals from the satellites pretty frequently, but only saves the location at the interval set in the settings. So it might pan the screen more frequently, but the nav warnings aren't really based on this.



Cicch95 said:


> Thanks. I will give it a shot. I have already been using GPS+GLONAS. Unfortunately, I think the conclusion will be the same as you have found, that the Garmin is more of a road bike tool than mountain bike. Very disappointing. It seems from what I have read and observed, my phone is a much more powerful and accurate tool to use to find my way around the woods.


Overall, I think there's strong potential for mtb trail routing, but the biggest problem, IMO, is low accuracy map data. When I did my own testing of mtb routing, I rode a known route that was simple to follow. I planned the route using RideWithGPS and the OSM map data available there. It was plenty good enough to follow, but the little inaccuracies in the map data combined with the inherent wander of the GPS resulted in throwing off course warnings too frequently. Rather than relying on the Garmin's baked in ability to determine turns (which threw turn notifications on trail curves), I programmed turn notifications into my route on RWGPS. Those work amazingly. I've used them on the road, also. There's a trick to programming them in well, as you want the notification to pop up prior to the moment you need to turn, especially if you're moving quickly.

I COULD turn off the off-course warnings, but then that would mean the computer also wouldn't notify when I'm actually of course. It's a bit of a catch-22 there. I don't think the assessment that it's a road bike tool more than a mtb tool is entirely accurate. What's more accurate in my assessment is that some specific features work better for road biking than for mountain biking, and because of that, you have to use them differently for each.

Also, another point that begs bringing up. It's been awhile since it's been something we've specifically discussed in here, but every Garmin ever made starts behaving oddly when its memory starts to get full. This seems to be less of a concern most of the time now that the devices tend to come with more memory, but it's something that you should check if your device starts doing weird stuff. Periodically clear out old ride data. Make sure that maps aren't occupying too much space. That sort of thing.


----------



## Cicch95 (Apr 6, 2016)

Harold said:


> Overall, I think there's strong potential for mtb trail routing, but the biggest problem, IMO, is low accuracy map data. When I did my own testing of mtb routing, I rode a known route that was simple to follow. I planned the route using RideWithGPS and the OSM map data available there. It was plenty good enough to follow, but the little inaccuracies in the map data combined with the inherent wander of the GPS resulted in throwing off course warnings too frequently. Rather than relying on the Garmin's baked in ability to determine turns (which threw turn notifications on trail curves), I programmed turn notifications into my route on RWGPS. Those work amazingly. I've used them on the road, also. There's a trick to programming them in well, as you want the notification to pop up prior to the moment you need to turn, especially if you're moving quickly.
> 
> I COULD turn off the off-course warnings, but then that would mean the computer also wouldn't notify when I'm actually of course. It's a bit of a catch-22 there. I don't think the assessment that it's a road bike tool more than a mtb tool is entirely accurate. What's more accurate in my assessment is that some specific features work better for road biking than for mountain biking, and because of that, you have to use them differently for each.
> 
> Also, another point that begs bringing up. It's been awhile since it's been something we've specifically discussed in here, but every Garmin ever made starts behaving oddly when its memory starts to get full. This seems to be less of a concern most of the time now that the devices tend to come with more memory, but it's something that you should check if your device starts doing weird stuff. Periodically clear out old ride data. Make sure that maps aren't occupying too much space. That sort of thing.


I have never used RWGPS. My primary app is trailforks. It has always worked fairly well on its own. I am not familiar with programming in turn notifications on a route. (can that be done on trailforks?!?!) My biggest concern isn't actually the turn by turn nav prompts....although those would be great to be able to rely on also. My #1 concern is that it loses the route completely for spells of time, then seems to pick it back up, loses it again, etc. Literally, the "pink" route line is gone. The trails are there, but the route is not. So, it makes getting around a trail system that I am not familiar with tough. (if I didn't have my phone of course!) Next time I try it I will try to get a pic of the screen showing this. Going to be a while though, since we have maybe 16" of snow on the ground and more coming here in northeastern CT. Ugh! I will definitely purge he memory, can't hurt!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Cicch95 said:


> I have never used RWGPS. My primary app is trailforks. It has always worked fairly well on its own. I am not familiar with programming in turn notifications on a route. (can that be done on trailforks?!?!) My biggest concern isn't actually the turn by turn nav prompts....although those would be great to be able to rely on also. My #1 concern is that it loses the route completely for spells of time, then seems to pick it back up, loses it again, etc. Literally, the "pink" route line is gone. The trails are there, but the route is not. So, it makes getting around a trail system that I am not familiar with tough. (if I didn't have my phone of course!) Next time I try it I will try to get a pic of the screen showing this. Going to be a while though, since we have maybe 16" of snow on the ground and more coming here in northeastern CT. Ugh! I will definitely purge he memory, can't hurt!


RWGPS has a great route builder tool. The biggest limitation is that the only trail data you can see comes from OSM, so if the trails you want to ride aren't on there, then you can't plan there. You CAN import a route from somewhere else and then edit it with RWGPS to get their tools onto it.

I don't know enough about Trailforks' route planning to be able to say if you can program turn notifications into it. I suppose worst case scenario, you could build it in TF using their data, transfer the file to RWGPS so you can program turn notifications into it, and then export it as a Garmin Course so you're using Garmin's own nav capability instead of the TF connectIQ app. Not sure if that would address the problems you're having, but it might be worth a shot.

The nice thing about planning routes on RWGPS is that your GPS doesn't need to have maps built into it at all. I programmed some really long road rides (60-100mi) into a Forerunner 310XT and got all the turn notifications that I had programmed into the Garmin Course file that RWGPS built for me. Since it was a road ride, I was able to plan it out with good quality data and avoid the extraneous off course warnings that I got when I tried using it on mtb trails. I suspect since TF trail data is crowd sourced by more people than OSM trail data, that it's likely more accurate than the OSM data, at least for trails.

One thing you could do, which adds another step to the process, of course, is instead of basing your route off of something you draw out based on trail data, is to base it on someone's previous ride that you downloaded from somewhere. With data privacy being a bit of a thing lately, that's harder to do now than it used to be when Garmin Connect let you search activities and download them so you could build a Course from them. This one is easier to do nowadays if you have riding buddies who have done what you want to ride, so you can get the file from them directly.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Didn't get a chance to follow a route, but my first niggles with the 530 are the limited screen layouts and the brightness.
However I may have been spoiled by my Stages L50 in that regard.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Followed a Garmin Connect route today.
Created from a previous ride. No problem at all. Pink line all the way.
40km, 1,000m climbing, fire roads in the hills.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

NordieBoy said:


> Followed a Garmin Connect route today.
> Created from a previous ride. No problem at all. Pink line all the way.
> 40km, 1,000m climbing, fire roads in the hills.


Yeah, it seemed to me that the most likely reason routing didn't work well was because of the inaccuracy of underlying basemaps I used to plot the route and that it'd be much better if using a previous ride as the basis for the course.

But then again, I was also dealing with singletrack, not fire roads.


----------



## Cicch95 (Apr 6, 2016)

NordieBoy said:


> Followed a Garmin Connect route today.
> Created from a previous ride. No problem at all. Pink line all the way.
> 40km, 1,000m climbing, fire roads in the hills.


Unfortunately, there are not many Garmin connects routes in my area. I will keep an eye out and try it.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Cicch95 said:


> Unfortunately, there are not many Garmin connects routes in my area. I will keep an eye out and try it.


There are none here.
You've got to create them yourself


----------



## Rocky Mountain Racer (Jun 6, 2014)

If your GPS is connected to your phone and the track is disappearing, could it be a service connection with your phone? If cell service is so so and your phone loses info, does that impact your track? I typically use gpx tracks as where I live and ride has questionable service. I don't like syncing my phone to my gps as I don't think it will be reliable due to service. I am looking to get a 530 soon and am not worried about trailforks sycing. From the research I've done, it seems like the 530 software is much better than the 820.


----------



## Riled (May 1, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Racer said:


> If your GPS is connected to your phone and the track is disappearing, could it be a service connection with your phone? If cell service is so so and your phone loses info, does that impact your track? I typically use gpx tracks as where I live and ride has questionable service. I don't like syncing my phone to my gps as I don't think it will be reliable due to service. I am looking to get a 530 soon and am not worried about trailforks sycing. From the research I've done, it seems like the 530 software is much better than the 820.


The 530 doesn't rely on a constant connection to a phone for the track or route info. If you get a route from your phone, it transfers it once and then it's on the 530 for good. At least, this has been my experience in using Trailforks and Strava routes on the 530. I think those are the only ways to get routes from the phone to the 530. I also believe the phone app creates the route on your web login for either Trailforks or Strava, and then the 530 uses the same login to download the route. It doesn't seem to be a direct transfer from a phone to a 530. If true, this means the 530 needs to be in a known WiFi at least once after you create the route and before you plan on using it.

I'm using routes to mean to directions along a track. The tracks are already installed on the 530, and can be updated by connecting to a computer with the Garmin software launched.


----------



## CCS86 (Jan 6, 2020)

Some really good info here.

I have struggled a bit with the "cleanest" way to use my 530 for MTB. Originally, I was trying to use the Connect IQ: Trailforks app, but that is super clunky.

The idea of disabling unnecessary maps sounds great. The screen resolution is not awesome, so displaying to much data is no good. This is my list of available maps (all enabled by default):

AMR Standard Basemap, NR
Garmin Cycle Map Amer, North 2021.10
Garmin DEM Map North America 2020.10
Garmin Cycle Map Amer, Central 2021.10
Trailforks 2021.10

The annoying thing I am finding is that the "cycling" maps have Trailforks data "integrated", so that the trails show up with a dashed line (all blue). Then when you enable the specific Trailforks map, you get solid lines for the trails (with color coded difficulty), but the screen is all cluttered up, because the dashed and solid trail lines are not perfectly matched (and the colors are different).

The best I have found so far is to only enable the AMR Standard Basemap and Trailforks. You get major roads, but not surface streets, and the solid trail lines.

I wish there was some way to disable the "integrated" Trailforks data from the cycling maps.

:edit: 

Just tried downloading the Trailforks "custom" basemap and enabling only it. Unfortunately, while it has both street data and "clean" trail data without the double lines, the trail lines are all beige.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

CCS86 said:


> Just tried downloading the Trailforks "custom" basemap and enabling only it. Unfortunately, while it has both street data and "clean" trail data without the double lines, the trail lines are all beige.


You might try searching for trail maps on the gpsfiledepot.com website. This is what I use for trail basemaps. The one for my area isn't 100% complete, but it does a pretty good job of showing most trails. Plus side is that the trail map is a separate file from other basemap data (like roads, streams, contours, etc). regardless of which map you use, though, trails WILL be a different appearance than roads, and likely a less prominent color/pattern.


----------



## sorryiAmTheBoss (Jul 3, 2021)

Sorry to hijack this thread but I was wondering if any of you had managed to do this on the 530. 

The other day I was at the endpoint of a trail and wanted to be directed to the top using Trailforks, like google maps does when you put in an endpoint - it works out a route for you. I knew the trail name and searched for it but no luck. I ended up just selected the map view and working my way up but it was super painful and I took a stupid route

Does anyone know if you can select a trail on the 530 and it choose a route for you?


----------



## rado877 (Aug 6, 2021)

Would garmin gpsmap 66sr help ? It is a multi-gnss receiver and can pick up signals from multiple satelite systems : GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), GALILEO (Europe) QZSS (Japan), and IRSS (India) ?
The 66sr should get a position very quickly and often with a 6ft (1.8m) level of accuracy. 

I am also considering buying a gps device for trails but worried about the accuracy of gps devices.


----------



## thasingletrackmastah (Nov 15, 2005)

rado877 said:


> Would garmin gpsmap 66sr help ? It is a multi-gnss receiver and can pick up signals from multiple satelite systems : GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), GALILEO (Europe) QZSS (Japan), and IRSS (India) ?
> The 66sr should get a position very quickly and often with a 6ft (1.8m) level of accuracy.
> 
> I am also considering buying a gps device for trails but worried about the accuracy of gps devices.


Accuracy from a GPSmap66 ( or Etrex32) is way better than any Edge.
And the 66 works with GC on your phone via BLE.

The Etrex32 can work with your phone via USB-OTG.

You'll need an USB-OTG cable between the Etrex and your phone.
Your phone needs to be OTG compatible
You need some sort of file manager to place the gpx file in the /Garmin/GPX folder on your Etrex.

If you can live with the size of the GPSmap66, it is the better choice.
If you can't, use the Etrex32.
If this is to complicated, use an Edge.
They are not that bad.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

thasingletrackmastah said:


> Accuracy from a GPSmap66 ( or Etrex32) is way better than any Edge.
> And the 66 works with GC on your phone via BLE.
> 
> The Etrex32 can work with your phone via USB-OTG.
> ...


But they can't do TrailForks.


----------



## thasingletrackmastah (Nov 15, 2005)

NordieBoy said:


> But they can't do TrailForks.


But you can download the tracks in your area from trailforks and put them in your device.

You can make them visible on the map (and select a color), so you still have an overwiew of all the trails
You can select the trail you want to follow.
Because this is something you most likely will do at home, you're not bothered by bad cellphone reception in the mountains.
(these places do exist)
You can combine it with any map you like.

You can't use the Trailforks Connect IQ and you can't use the trailforks map.
But I hear they're very clunky and all the tracks are beige


----------

