# Looking for GPS for tail riding



## StayVigilant35 (8 mo ago)

Hey guys. I’d like a GPS (if they exist) that will map out the trails where I ride. It would be nice to follow a map of the trails in real time and know where to turn/where we will end up. Went out recently where we just did a guess the direction type ride and it was NOT fun. I don’t want to buy a unit that’s going to be phased out this year and Garmin looks like that’s how most of their units are. I don’t need all the bells and whistles like fitness tracking, etc but would like an accurate GPS for trail riding. My current GPS which I use for hunting and hiking seems bulky and someone else on the forums confirmed it’s not great for riding.


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

Garmin 1030. 
All Electronics become obsolete technology. 
buy it, use it and in 5 years if things have drastically improved (which they won’t) sell it and upgrade.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

Good deal on Garmin 1030 Plus's right now as we await the introduction of the 1040. It has the bells and whistles, just don't use them and turn them off. Good mapping unit, large enough screen to view the maps. Other options are the 830, but at only $50 less than a 1030+ I'd spend the extra $50. Hammerhead Karoo 2 also good.

The Garmins can use the TrailForks app built in and that's useful. Trail Forks is a separate website that lets you (in a limited area unless you pay) create routes of single track. They have the best database of ST, other sites are mediocre. You can create a navigable route on TF, then save and then download to a 1030+ and have turn-by-turn.


----------



## Riled (May 1, 2012)

Garmin Edge 530 and up have the Trailforks map, which is the best option for trail guidance. It can still be a pain to use for live navigation, and I find myself having to stop and consult the App on my phone often. The Garmin has janky routing, the screen is too small (on the 530/830--maybe the 1030 is big enough?), the zoom level never seems to be what I need at the moment, the map lacks needed detail, and the accuracy isn't quite good enough for tight trails.

It has slowly improved, so maybe there's hope. The trail maps used to have big gaps in data, but the map was updated which seems to have fixed that. The routing used to be worse, but it is still pretty bad. For example, it will say you are off-course if you turn too early or deviate but get back on the correct path. At least it now still displays you on track and keeps the correct path highlighted, whereas it used to tell you to do a u-turn and constantly put a u-turn symbol in your path. It is better, but the off-course status can last for a long time (15 minutes or more) and during that time additional turn guidance will not kick in.

In one recent example, the directions broke apparently because I had taken the last turn using a gradual curving merge trail instead of pedaling another 30 ft and doing a 90 degree turn. This resulted in the off-course message and the routing no longer providing updates. I then had to pay close attention to the screen to watch for upcoming turns, but the map was zoomed way in so I stopped and zoomed out. That became a problem when the trails were overlapping and running very close to each other and I couldn't make out which trail I was on. The final straw came at a big stream where it seemed to keep telling me to go back the way I had come. After going back and forth several times, I pulled out the phone and saw that the recorded route called for crossing the stream. I would have never been able to tell on the Garmin because the stream wasn't represented on the map, and the positioning wasn't accurate enough to tell me I was headed on the right path as there were several routes branching right there.

The Garmin is still better than most options, but don't go into it expecting smooth car-like gps navigation.


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

Riled said:


> Garmin Edge 530 and up have the Trailforks map, which is the best option for trail guidance. It can still be a pain to use for live navigation, and I find myself having to stop and consult the App on my phone often. The Garmin has janky routing, the screen is too small (on the 530/830--maybe the 1030 is big enough?), the zoom level never seems to be what I need at the moment, the map lacks needed detail, and the accuracy isn't quite good enough for tight trails.
> 
> It has slowly improved, so maybe there's hope. The trail maps used to have big gaps in data, but the map was updated which seems to have fixed that. The routing used to be worse, but it is still pretty bad. For example, it will say you are off-course if you turn too early or deviate but get back on the correct path. At least it now still displays you on track and keeps the correct path highlighted, whereas it used to tell you to do a u-turn and constantly put a u-turn symbol in your path. It is better, but the off-course status can last for a long time (15 minutes or more) and during that time additional turn guidance will not kick in.
> 
> ...


1. Great info here.
2. 1030 is as small of a screen that I would go. I had a smaller one (explorer?) and even though it was only .25” smallerit was a huge difference.
3. you need trailforks and upload routes as garmin maps are bad. 
4. Turn off turn by turn routing it’s annoying.
5. I use it for high level guidance. If I ever need to look at a broader trail system out comes the iPhone.
6. Garmin has teased The 1040 for a what seems like couple of years now almost since the 1030. came out in 2020
7. Garmin hardware = good.
8. Garmin software = bad.
9. I would expect minimal changes from 1030 to 1040
10. For $449 direct from garmin I’d jump on it.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Good replies have been addressed.
I would repeat what many have already stated.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

FWIW, I've been putting maps on my Garmins from gpsfiledepot.com for what seems like forever. Including trail maps. But for route planning, I've always done the bulk of my work ahead of time on my computer at home or with paper maps. I think phone screens are even too small for really solid planning, but I'll pull mine out if it's all I have at the time. Still, I carry paper maps of the area(s) I ride if good ones are available for the places I ride (I currently do have access to excellent ones where I ride).

My Garmin gets 2 jobs, mainly. Job 1 is to record where I am/have been. Job 2 is to show me where I am now. Sometimes I will program a route beforehand and load it onto my Garmin for me to follow. It's not really worth the effort unless it's a pretty big ride. The results of this depend on too many factors to get it completely right and to work very well. The first thing that is critical is the quality of the base data you're basing the route off of. Are you simply loading a previous ride created with a device that has very accurate recording (a recent Garmin is a best-case option)? Or are you drawing out a route manually using a hodgepodge of map data from whatever map sources, or -ugh- satellite images? This will get you going the correct direction, generally speaking, but you're going to get a ton of unnecessary off-course warnings and whatnot as described above.

The thing about crowd-sourced trail map sites like Trailforks, MTBProject, OSM, etc, is that it's pretty much a rule that they heavily process the raw data that you submit to reduce server load. Garmin devices are VERY precise when it comes to handling navigation data. If you stray a tiny bit, it's going to think you're off-course. If the data is lower quality, and you're actually where you need to be, then the same thing will happen. Garmins need a bit wider "buffer" zone for what it considers to be "off course" to be able to account for iffy data. A great deal of the data on the crowd-sourced map sites comes from variable sources. Some people who submitted used accurate devices and good recording methods to get the most accurate recordings possible. Other people just ran Strava on their crappy phones stuffed in their pockets and recorded really terrible data that they then submitted. You aren't going to know the origin of the data on the trails you intend to ride, unless you know the person who submitted the data and ask them.

The next factor is going to be how good of a job _you_ did when you created the route. I tend to use RideWithGPS to create routes to follow and with that tool, I can program turn notifications where I want them. If I'm good, the turn notification goes off far enough in advance of the actual turn that I don't miss it, or panic brake in order to make it. I can put the notification much farther ahead on descents and closer to the turn when I anticipate I'll be going slower. I can reasonably accurately follow the best data available and take my time with the task, or I can rush through it sloppily and give my Garmin some really terrible instructions to follow.

One classic example was from an 80+mi road ride I did years ago. It was planned by others and was a semi-informal Memorial Day ride where the organizer actually got us a police escort for the first few miles. The organizer created a route to follow and sent it to participants using MapMyRide. I looked at the route beforehand and saw little details that were off. Turn notifications were REALLY close to turns. The route went the wrong way through a few roundabouts, that sort of thing. So I took the ride, fixed those little details with RWGPS, and loaded that file into my Garmin. When out on the ride, the turn notification for one really super sharp left turn created some mayhem. I had already split off into a slower group off the back, so I missed the actual mayhem, but I came through afterwards and talked to a few riders. The group was moving pretty quickly there, and a subset of the group got the turn correct (started braking early in order to make the really sharp left), but another subset didn't and just kept hammering. The two subgroups crossed up and crashed. It wasn't helped any by the loose debris in the middle of the road, as tends to collect. One rider broke her pelvis in the mayhem. That turn needed a pretty early warning if you didn't know the turn ahead of time. It was a fairly fast section of road and you had to start braking pretty early. You also had to be heads-up to get around the pile of loose debris and make that sharp turn.

With my Garmin on my mtb, I'm okay with not having all the trails on the map, as long as i have some. What's critical to me are topo maps loaded in. I can use the terrain to match up my location between what my GPS shows and the paper map if I need to look at that much detail while I'm in the woods. The topo data that I load shows roads, streams, etc pretty well, so it's not usually too difficult to match them up when there are no trails on the digital map data.

To get the best use out of the hardware, you need to understand how it works and its limitations. This is true for anything. People get themselves into trouble by setting expectations too high and being too rigid and unadaptable.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Are you riding mapped trails, or do you want to build up a map of your trails? If it's the former and they are mapped on Trailforks then as others have mentioned Garmin have Trailforks integration.

If it's the latter that is something I've been struggling with as I ride a network of sanctioned but unmapped trails. I record every ride on my Wahoo Elemnt Bolt, and then I export the GPX files to GaiaGPS to build up a trail map. I can't load them onto my Elemnt, but I can quickly get out my phone and open Gaia to see where I am in relation to the network.


----------



## Riled (May 1, 2012)

After reading Bassmantweed and Harold's detailed and thoughtful responses, I'm thinking I may take advantage of the 1030 plus deal going on right now. TBH, I don't rely on the routing function that much, even though my earlier post details a recent negative experience. The issues I outlined had kept me from routinely using the active routing, but I do occasionally give it a try as it is steadily improving.

The thing is, the fact that I can almost always pull out my phone using the same Trailforks data and tell immediately what I need to do, tells me a bigger easily zoomable screen may be all I need.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Riled said:


> After reading Bassmantweed and Harold's detailed and thoughtful responses, I'm thinking I may take advantage of the 1030 plus deal going on right now. TBH, I don't rely on the routing function that much, even though my earlier post details a recent negative experience. The issues I outlined had kept me from routinely using the active routing, but I do occasionally give it a try as it is steadily improving.
> 
> The thing is, the fact that I can almost always pull out my phone using the same Trailforks data and tell immediately what I need to do, tells me a bigger easily zoomable screen may be all I need.


The Trailforks integration on recent Garmins isn't _quite_ the same as it is with the TF app or website. There are a couple of different ways TF can be integrated or imported into these Garmins, so you might want to read up on the details of this first, just so you have an idea of what to expect. My older 520 is a little different with TF than more recent models. And I don't actually use it, because I do other things that cover many of those functions.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

My experience using TF and my 1030 was I created a complicated route of a local trail system that had a lot of turns to follow in order to get onto the correct trail. I ported the ride to the 1030 on the TF app. I generally found TBT useless for pre-advice of an upcoming turn, mostly as I was too busy paying attention to the trail (having never been at this trail system prior),,but found TBT useful when I got to (and stopped at) an intersection. Then TBT routed me correctly. 

One issue with TF is because it's crowd sourced, the database is only of whatever trails other users of a GPS tracking app have uploaded to the TF website. On one trail system I ride, it's nearly impossible to use TBT and TF as there are so many side trails that have not yet been tracked and uploaded that you find yourself encountering numerous intersections that TF has no idea exist, Thus you stop and pause and look at the screen a few minutes to figure out where you are before you understand that the trail off to the left is no in the TF database so can be ignored. Note as well that for single track, TF is THE BEST so far and it does get better over time.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

I'd hold off another day and see what drops tomorrow. There's been leaks for the 1040 for the last month or so.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Catmandoo said:


> My experience using TF and my 1030 was I created a complicated route of a local trail system that had a lot of turns to follow in order to get onto the correct trail. I ported the ride to the 1030 on the TF app. I generally found TBT useless for pre-advice of an upcoming turn, mostly as I was too busy paying attention to the trail (having never been at this trail system prior),,but found TBT useful when I got to (and stopped at) an intersection. Then TBT routed me correctly.
> 
> One issue with TF is because it's crowd sourced, the database is only of whatever trails other users of a GPS tracking app have uploaded to the TF website. On one trail system I ride, it's nearly impossible to use TBT and TF as there are so many side trails that have not yet been tracked and uploaded that you find yourself encountering numerous intersections that TF has no idea exist, Thus you stop and pause and look at the screen a few minutes to figure out where you are before you understand that the trail off to the left is no in the TF database so can be ignored. Note as well that for single track, TF is THE BEST so far and it does get better over time.


My experience with turn notifications is that automatically generated ones are usually too close to the intersection. Unmapped intersections are definitely something you can't really address that way. Just gotta assume that if no notification, some trail isn't mapped and then you have to do a visual check with the map. 

When I do turn notifications, I tend to move them farther from the intersection. Nice thing with RWGPS is that you can program notifications that hint at the sharpness of the turn, and even program in notifications to continue straight and whatnot. It's not perfect. You still don't get "make the 2nd left" type notifications.

I also contend that TF is not always the best. Sometimes it is. But sometimes it isn't. Sometimes local trail gnomes have put more effort into some other trail database. And I expect that their pay model is going to dial back submissions as some folks stop using it on their phones. I know locally, this is true to a degree. Major trail changes took months before I ended up putting them on TF, and I'm hardly a TF power user. And TF does tend to be the best resource in my area. so....


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Don't need a GPS to find good tail.


----------



## guidodg (Mar 2, 2004)

Karoo Hammerhead...


----------



## StayVigilant35 (8 mo ago)

Jayem said:


> Don't need a GPS to find good tail.


Ha! As soon as I was this I know my phone misspelled something


----------



## StayVigilant35 (8 mo ago)

I ordered the 1040 solar this morning


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

Looks like the 1040 dropped today and the major “upgrade” is solar. 😂😂🤔

save your $ and get the 1030


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

Bassmantweed said:


> Looks like the 1040 dropped today and the major “upgrade” is solar. 😂😂🤔
> 
> save your $ and get the 1030


According to DCRainmaker the even bigger difference is in GPS accuracy - particularly in the woods. That might make a difference to some MTBers.


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

wayold said:


> According to DCRainmaker the even bigger difference is in GPS accuracy - particularly in the woods. That might make a difference to some MTBers.


his wrap up.

….”Ultimately though, if you’re on an older Edge unit, or looking for arguably the best bike computer in the market, the Edge 1040 or Edge 1040 Solar won’t disappoint. I’m not sure it’s worthwhile upgrading from an Edge 1030 Plus….”


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

Hey, I'm not running out and spending $750 on a new 1040 Solar either. I just think that it's worth mentioning that it has more going for it than just a solar panel.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I like the looks of the new UI, and I like the way the increase in processing speed sounds. And of course the increase in battery life from having the solar addon.

Hopefully Garmin brings those things to a smaller form factor computer eventually (maybe next yr?).


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

Harold said:


> I like the looks of the new UI, and I like the way the increase in processing speed sounds. And of course the increase in battery life from having the solar addon.
> 
> Hopefully Garmin brings those things to a smaller form factor computer eventually (maybe next yr?).


ibe never out ridden a charge. In fact I get 6-7 rides on a charge. Andwhy do you want smaller form factor? Just curious as I’m the opposite and would love a bigger screen.


----------



## StayVigilant35 (8 mo ago)

Bassmantweed said:


> ibe never out ridden a charge. In fact I get 6-7 rides on a charge. Andwhy do you want smaller form factor? Just curious as I’m the opposite and would love a bigger screen.


In all honesty if the regular battery unit was available sooner than two months I’d have bought it. Solar sounds cool but what are the odds I run out of battery in a days ride…?


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

TheWitness34 said:


> what are the odds I run out of battery in a days ride…?


zero


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Bassmantweed said:


> ibe never out ridden a charge. In fact I get 6-7 rides on a charge. Andwhy do you want smaller form factor? Just curious as I’m the opposite and would love a bigger screen.


It's not about outriding a charge in one day. It's about being able to use the computer for multiple days without worrying about it. Especially bikepacking. I can squeeze 2 big days out of my Edge 520. That's a bare minimum requirement for me. If my rides are short, sure, I can get more. A few more long days would be nice. I'm sure the huge battery life possibilities of the solar functionality plus the aux battery pack are for endurance riders, expedition riders, and such. I would appreciate the ability to not need to plug in to charge (and carry the extra gear to do so) after 2 days of bikepacking, for sure.

As for overall device size, I should pose the same question to you. Why do you want bigger? With multiple data screens, I can display the data I need on a smaller screen. I see no need whatsoever to be able to display analysis graphs on the device. That's why you download the data onto a computer or upload it to a cloud service. Those options give you more analysis possibilities than you can dream of. I don't find the screen size differences to make a notable difference in how much terrain I can see when navigating. They're both too small to do substantial navigation on-device. If I need a bigger view of the terrain, I carry a physical map (and I often do, whether I know I'll need it or not).


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

Harold said:


> I don't find the screen size differences to make a notable difference in how much terrain I can see when navigating. They're both too small to do substantial navigation on-device.


I agree they are both too small. However I had the edge explore which was 3” and moved to the 1030 at 3.5” and it was much better. I think 4” or 4.5” would be perfect and allow for better navigation.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Bassmantweed said:


> I agree they are both too small. However I had the edge explore which was 3” and moved to the 1030 at 3.5” and it was much better. I think 4” or 4.5” would be perfect and allow for better navigation.


I disagree. even phone screens are too small for that kind of stuff. and I definitely don't want something that big on my bars. And of course nothing even close to tablet territory (which is where I'd start to say the screen is actually big enough). It's going to stick out. I'm going to bump it with my body or it's going to be in a spot that makes it more vulnerable to snagging on trailside vegetation or getting hit in a crash. The size of the 520 is about right for me.


----------



## Riled (May 1, 2012)

I went ahead and got a 1040 and will be able to ride with it tomorrow and get first impressions. I got the solar since right now it's either that or the regular with a bundle. I already have all the sensors, so I figured I'd rather pay a bit more and get the added functionality. My old 530 had been patched twice from crashes and was on it's last leg.


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

Harold said:


> I disagree. even phone screens are too small for that kind of stuff. and I definitely don't want something that big on my bars. And of course nothing even close to tablet territory (which is where I'd start to say the screen is actually big enough). It's going to stick out. I'm going to bump it with my body or it's going to be in a spot that makes it more vulnerable to snagging on trailside vegetation or getting hit in a crash. The size of the 520 is about right for me.


thats why they make coke and Pepsi. I can’t wrap my head around how a phone screen would be too small for navigation?

this is the most complex trail system near me and I can navigat on my 3.5” garmin ok. My iPhone is like a big screen tv and I can zoom way in.

but like I said to each their own …..


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

there's a notable point of diminishing returns.

I actually teach navigation and I've developed strong preferences over the years.

on my local trail systems, zooming in generally isn't necessary. the trail network isn't very dense. it's expansive is what it is, and you are more likely to need to zoom OUT to fit the trails of interest onto the screen. which results in things being too cluttered to see the detail you need on small screens (and I include phones here). to see the detail you need _plus_ the area, you need BIG. I'm not lugging a tablet into the woods, so large format paper maps are it.

my small-format Garmin screen is enough to show me where I am, and I can cross reference to the paper map if I need that, which is generally uncommon, anyway.


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

Harold said:


> there's a notable point of diminishing returns. ...........which results in things being too cluttered to see the detail you need on small screens (and I include phones here). to see the detail you need _plus_ the area, you need BIG. I'm not lugging a tablet into the woods, so large format paper maps are it.


Agree - Again me personally i find a phone just fine for this and would be ok with a 4" Garmin - hence my original comment 

Coke v. Pepsi.


----------



## Art666 (Aug 4, 2018)

For dirt bike riding we usually upload gpx track from known rides and follow the line( dont actually navigate). It works very well and we used it like this for 10+ years. I do same even for street moto rides. I have Garmin montana for that. I use Garmin Base Camp to prepare and upload the tracks.
So, which of garmin bike gps would do the same (display uploaded gpx track)? I dont need anything else from gps for mountain biking. Mostly for use in the new areas, so I dont have to pull out phone all the time.


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

Art666 said:


> For dirt bike riding we usually upload gpx track from known rides and follow the line( dont actually navigate). It works very well and we used it like this for 10+ years. I do same even for street moto rides. I have Garmin montana for that. I use Garmin basemap to prepare and upload the tracks.
> So, which of garmin bike gps would do the same (display uploaded gpx track)? I dont need anything else from gps for mountain biking. Mostly for use in the new areas, so I dont have to pull out phone all the time.


i actually wrote to garmin and suggested that the allow trailforks on the Montana. That would be perfect for ME. Now you have given me something to think about as the ability to upload a gps file would be all I need as well.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Bassmantweed said:


> i actually wrote to garmin and suggested that the allow trailforks on the Montana. That would be perfect for ME. Now you have given me something to think about as the ability to upload a gps file would be all I need as well.


You might want to look into the manual method for getting Trailforks maps onto your Montana. That method predates the Garmin app and the baked-in TF maps.


----------



## StayVigilant35 (8 mo ago)

Harold said:


> You might want to look into the manual method for getting Trailforks maps onto your Montana. That method predates the Garmin app and the baked-in TF maps.


Can you do this on the GPSmaps 66SR as well?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

TheWitness34 said:


> Can you do this on the GPSmaps 66SR as well?


any Garmin with mapping capability can do it.

It costs money to get them. And a little technical capability. I do not believe they are routable. Meaning, they won't give you directions. They're for visual navigation only, which is the main difference from the other baked-in Trailforks options.

Garmin Maps For Mountain Biking | Trailforks

I generally get my maps from here, though.

GPSFileDepot - Free Custom Garmin Maps, Ximage hosting, tutorials, articles and more for your GPSr 

It's a bit more piecemeal than the one-source TF option, but it's mostly free. Plus there's more to it than the trailforks maps. I like having a view of the terrain as you get with topo maps, which does limit available memory for other things. You can also use the tutorials at this website to make your own maps. Which I've done in the past.

I love the MyTrails layer.

My Trails-High Quality Trail and POI Maps Garmin Compatible Map - GPSFileDepot


----------



## Art666 (Aug 4, 2018)

so, if understand correctly Garmin bike gps in general doesnt allow gpx track upload? I guess I can always buy something like etrex Garmin eTrex® 22x | Hiking GPS or 64 Garmin GPSMAP® 64sx | Handheld Hiking GPS Both will run a day on a battery if screen is off. I really dont need any cadence or other bs info, just general awareness of the trail I planned to ride and what else is around me if I would like to change plans.


----------



## StayVigilant35 (8 mo ago)

Harold said:


> any Garmin with mapping capability can do it.
> 
> It costs money to get them. And a little technical capability. I do not believe they are routable. Meaning, they won't give you directions. They're for visual navigation only, which is the main difference from the other baked-in Trailforks options.
> 
> ...


I use the topo maps on my 66SR for hunting and hiking. It is nice to have topo but I prefer tangible topo maps or I be honest. I really only carry my GPS when I want to endlessly roam in new areas and I may want to see in what direction I came or how close I am heading back on another trail to my previous one. Up to this point I have yet to use it for navigation getting in or out. The Trailforks will be great for choosing routes in new places. I may pick up the sensors at a later date.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Art666 said:


> so, if understand correctly Garmin bike gps in general doesnt allow gpx track upload? I guess I can always buy something like etrex Garmin eTrex® 22x | Hiking GPS or 64 Garmin GPSMAP® 64sx | Handheld Hiking GPS Both will run a day on a battery if screen is off. I really dont need any cadence or other bs info, just general awareness of the trail I planned to ride and what else is around me if I would like to change plans.


Loading a GPS track onto the computer for you to follow? Of course they allow that. Even fitness computers that don't have mapping capability can do that.

What differs is that fitness computers (bike computers and watches) handle them fundamentally differently from a handheld like an etrex or others. They get converted to a "course" and the fitness computer will also compare your timing relative to the previous track (which the handhelds won't do). If you preprogram turn notifications into the course file, you can get actual navigation instructions, too. If the basemaps already loaded into your GPS contain routable roads/trails, then the GPS will figure out turn notifications for you, but if those roads/trails aren't on the map AND ARE ALSO routable, then you need the turn notifications preprogrammed into the course file. A standard .gpx that handheld computers use cannot accept these instructions.


----------



## Art666 (Aug 4, 2018)

Harold said:


> Loading a GPS track onto the computer for you to follow? Of course they allow that. Even fitness computers that don't have mapping capability can do that.


No, other way around. Make gpx track on computer and upload to gps, then display track on gps as a solid line. That is all I need. No navigation, I can figure out if I am deviating from track. We ride like that through desert for hundreds of miles. Just following the line.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Art666 said:


> No, other way around. Make gpx track on computer and upload to gps, then display track on gps as a solid line. That is all I need. No navigation, I can figure out if I am deviating from track. We ride like that through desert for hundreds of miles. Just following the line.


That's what Harold meant.
Virtually all the head units can do this.


----------



## Art666 (Aug 4, 2018)

I am just going to get some android like Umidigi Bison and put Gaja gps on it. 200$ with more capability than any garmin stuff.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Art666 said:


> I am just going to get some android like Umidigi Bison and put Gaja gps on it. 200$ with more capability than any garmin stuff.


More capability in some aspects. Less in others.


----------



## StayVigilant35 (8 mo ago)

The 1040 solar is solid and already been a huge asset. Very happy with the money spent.


----------

