# What's Your Preferred Method of GPS Tracking?



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Currently I use Runkeeper on my Smartphone to keep track of my rides. I'm mostly interested in the distance traveled and how long it took, but average speed and a map of the ride are nice too. The problem is that it eats through battery pretty quickly, so it's only good for short rides.

I've been doing a bit of looking into Fitness Bands and Smart / Fitness Watches, but there are a lot of options out there, and it's a little confusing. So, that's why I'm making this thread!

What is your preferred device? Do you use a Fitness Band? A Smart / Fitness Watch? What's the make and model of it, so I can look into it? 

Thanks, guys and gals!

EDIT: I also have a Garmin Dakota 20 Handheld GPS, but I don't know if and how it can be used for this purpose.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Garmin GPS. I have two.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

A GPS computer with a wheel sensor. If you care about distance traveled, you owe it to yourself to use a wheel sensor with whatever method you choose.


----------



## MCHB (Jun 23, 2014)

I've been using an etrex 20 for about 3 years on a "close enough" basis. I think I change the batteries like once a month-ish depending on how much I get out (I average about three 2 hour rides a week), lol.

If you have a device that is copacetic with a wheel sensor, use that! My brother has a basic non-gps bike computer and we compared distances a few times and the wheel sensors are definitely accurate. Combining the two I would imagine would be even moreso!


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

I'm going to edit this into my initial post, but currently I have two options available.

1) LG Google Nexus 5 w/ Runkeeper (or some other app)
2) Garmin Dakota 20 Handheld GPS

I have no idea if and how the Dakota 20 can be used for this purpose, so if anyone knows the answer; please tell me!

As far as a "GPS Computer with a Wheel Sensor" is concerned, I have this to say; what? Lol, I'm not familiar with what this is. It sounds very expensive though!

Thanks for the information so far, everyone! Please keep it coming.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

a little searching (say, with Google) will answer your questions perfectly fine.

lots of fitness-oriented computers can pair with wireless sensors using the ANT+ fitness sensors. Those sensors can be all kinds of things from heart rate monitors, external temp sensors, wheel rotation sensors, cadence sensors, power meters, rear radar sensors to detect approaching cars, the list is rather lengthy. Just because a computer has ANT+ doesn't mean it can pair with all of those sensors. My Oregon 450T can only pair with a heart rate monitor, external temp sensor, or a geocaching sensor, I think. My Forerunner 310XT can pair with a running foot pod (for running cadence), HRM, wheel sensor, cadence sensor, power meter. I have a Bryton Rider 310 that can pair with a wheel sensor, cadence sensor, or power meter. Each device is different.

The point of the wheel sensor is that it records more accurate distances than GPS-only devices are able to calculate. Lots of reasons, really. GPS-only devices will shortcut corners, they don't account for the slope of a hill (they only calculate horizontal distance), sometimes they will lose signal entirely (like in long tunnels, or deep canyons), and sometimes GPS reception is just crappy and the recorded points are inaccurate (though the wheel sensor data will be unaffected). On a mtb, a wheel sensor is absolutely essential, IMO. It's also a good idea for a road bike.


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

I use a Garmin 520 that links to my iPhone through Bluetooth and then sync's to Strava. I just got a new iPhone 6SE and I use the RWGPS app because it has OSMcycle. All the trails are on it, so in new areas it's hard to get lost. Battery life is excellent when run in airplane mode. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Harold said:


> a little searching (say, with Google) will answer your questions perfectly fine.
> 
> lots of fitness-oriented computers can pair with wireless sensors using the ANT+ fitness sensors. Those sensors can be all kinds of things from heart rate monitors, external temp sensors, wheel rotation sensors, cadence sensors, power meters, rear radar sensors to detect approaching cars, the list is rather lengthy. Just because a computer has ANT+ doesn't mean it can pair with all of those sensors. My Oregon 450T can only pair with a heart rate monitor, external temp sensor, or a geocaching sensor, I think. My Forerunner 310XT can pair with a running foot pod (for running cadence), HRM, wheel sensor, cadence sensor, power meter. I have a Bryton Rider 310 that can pair with a wheel sensor, cadence sensor, or power meter. Each device is different.
> 
> The point of the wheel sensor is that it records more accurate distances than GPS-only devices are able to calculate. Lots of reasons, really. GPS-only devices will shortcut corners, they don't account for the slope of a hill (they only calculate horizontal distance), sometimes they will lose signal entirely (like in long tunnels, or deep canyons), and sometimes GPS reception is just crappy and the recorded points are inaccurate (though the wheel sensor data will be unaffected). On a mtb, a wheel sensor is absolutely essential, IMO. It's also a good idea for a road bike.


Thank you for the information!

I don't mean to seem lazy. I'm more than willing to search things on Google when I'm curious. I just want to make sure I go into the searching with an idea of what to actually look for, ya know?

For example, initially, I would have thought that perhaps my Garmin Dakota 20 could pair with a Wheel Sensor and I wouldn't need to buy anything other than the Wheel Sensor. Now I have a pretty good feeling that that's not the case.

Come to think of it, I think the salesman that sold me my bike at my LBS mentioned something about a GPS Computer. At the time, I thought he was referring to something like my Dakota 20, but now I know that's not true at all.


----------



## gsoroos (Jan 4, 2012)

DrumsXO said:


> ... I would have thought that perhaps my Garmin Dakota 20 could pair with a Wheel Sensor and I wouldn't need to buy anything other than the Wheel Sensor.


Some garmin units will pair with their wheel sensor. Not sure one that one, but I think Garmins site will tell you which do and don't. I think it needs the ANT+ connectivity to be able to. But there are also bluetooth sensors and even combo sensors so you could even pair it with a phone.

Personally I like the Garmin computers with the wheel sensor and heart rate. As others have said the wheel sensor will give you the best distance reading.


----------



## MCHB (Jun 23, 2014)

I was curious so I googled it, and found an answer on one of the gps websites (dated March 13, 2016)

"No, the Garmin Bike Speed Sensor and Cadence Sensor is not compatible with the Dakota 20. There would be no speed or cadence sensors compatible with the Dakota 20."


----------



## trail4fun (May 9, 2016)

Suunto watch with heart rate monitor. Download the watch on my computer to analyze my route 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

While I was at my LBS today, I picked up a Bontrager GoTime Cycle Computer on a whim. It's not the greatest, but for $35, probably isn't too bad. I just don't anticipate being able to afford a really nice one with tons of features for a while, since my Jeep is gonna need work done soon.

What do you guys think? Is it worth it, or should I return it and save for something better?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

DrumsXO said:


> While I was at my LBS today, I picked up a Bontrager GoTime Cycle Computer on a whim. It's not the greatest, but for $35, probably isn't too bad. I just don't anticipate being able to afford a really nice one with tons of features for a while, since my Jeep is gonna need work done soon.
> 
> What do you guys think? Is it worth it, or should I return it and save for something better?


I'd get one of these before I got a plain computer.
Amazon.com: [Upgrade] EasyAcc 2nd Gen 10000mAh Power Bank Brilliant External Battery Pack (2.4A Smart Output) Classic Portable Charger for iPhone Samsung HTC Smartphones Tablets - Black and Orange: Cell Phones & Accessories


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

slocaus said:


> I'd get one of these before I got a plain computer.
> Amazon.com: [Upgrade] EasyAcc 2nd Gen 10000mAh Power Bank Brilliant External Battery Pack (2.4A Smart Output) Classic Portable Charger for iPhone Samsung HTC Smartphones Tablets - Black and Orange: Cell Phones & Accessories


My phone actually did really well on battery life today while I was out riding. I had the GPS on the entire time I was riding, and it didn't do much draining. It's still not very accurate in terms of the GPS though... My nightly ride after work is the exact same route every time, and the distance comes up different every night on Runkeeper. :nonod:

I probably jumped the gun with this Bontrager GoTime, honestly. I don't know if I can return it, since they installed it for me and I rode with it installed already.

Are there better models out there that can sync with my phone or my computer to upload the stats of my ride(s) so I can share them on the web?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

DrumsXO said:


> My phone actually did really well on battery life today while I was out riding. I had the GPS on the entire time I was riding, and it didn't do much draining. It's still not very accurate in terms of the GPS though... My nightly ride after work is the exact same route every time, and the distance comes up different every night on Runkeeper. :nonod:
> 
> I probably jumped the gun with this Bontrager GoTime, honestly. I don't know if I can return it, since they installed it for me and I rode with it installed already.
> 
> Are there better models out there that can sync with my phone or my computer to upload the stats of my ride(s) so I can share them on the web?


Start here. Not all of them will sync with your phone are accept a wheel sensor, so you have to check those things.

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/cycling/cIntoSports-cCycling-p1.html

I have an older 750 that I can upload rides and install maps, but no phone sync. I also have an older GPSMAP60CSx for trail survey and building. No bike functions or phone sync, but solid with it's high gain helix antenna. A thoroughbred that is not produced anymore.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I would just save up the money and pick up a Garmin. Evans has the Edge 25 for 131 shipped. It pairs with your phone and automatically uploads your data to Connect and Strava (if you use it).

https://www.evanscycles.com/garmin-edge-25-EV248652

You can get the Edge 20, but it doesn't have the Bluetooth connectivity and I don't think it can pair with a wheel sensor either.

https://www.evanscycles.com/garmin-garmin-edge-20-EV248651


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

slocaus said:


> Start here. Not all of them will sync with your phone are accept a wheel sensor, so you have to check those things.
> 
> https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/cycling/cIntoSports-cCycling-p1.html
> 
> I have an older 750 that I can upload rides and install maps, but no phone sync. I also have an older GPSMAP60CSx for trail survey and building. No bike functions or phone sync, but solid with it's high gain helix antenna. A thoroughbred that is not produced anymore.


Holy hell, those are expensive! That's why I bought this one; to use for the time being, because it'll be a little while before I can afford a good one.

I may return it and stick with Runkeeper (or maybe use Strava) in the meantime though; I'm not sure yet.



RS VR6 said:


> I would just save up the money and pick up a Garmin. Evans has the Edge 25 for 131 shipped. It pairs with your phone and automatically uploads your data to Connect and Strava (if you use it).
> 
> https://www.evanscycles.com/garmin-edge-25-EV248652
> 
> ...


With the Edge 25; do you have to buy ALL of the sensors separately, or does it at least come with a basic wheel sensor for speed, trip distance, etc? I'm assuming it does, and you only need to buy the heartbeat and cadence sensors separately if you'd like them.

Does it (the Edge 25) connect to a phone or no? I didn't see any mention of that in the product description, so I assume it doesn't.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I don't think it comes with the sensors. That would be a bundle and cost a whole lot more. It's not mandatory that you run it with a wheel sensor. I have one on my road bike, but don't use one on my mountain bikes.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

RS VR6 said:


> I don't think it comes with the sensors. That would be a bundle and cost a whole lot more. It's not mandatory that you run it with a wheel sensor. I have one on my road bike, but don't use one on my mountain bikes.


Isn't it a lot less accurate without a sensor though? That's what I'm understanding from everyone's posts here thus far.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I honestly never really paid that much attention.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

DrumsXO said:


> Holy hell, those are expensive! That's why I bought this one; to use for the time being, because it'll be a little while before I can afford a good one.
> 
> I may return it and stick with Runkeeper (or maybe use Strava) in the meantime though; I'm not sure yet.
> 
> ...


You asked about syncing with your phone, so those are you choices. 

Or use you phone for now and get a $15 power brick as backup. I have used one to charge my 750 on multi day camping outings when no power was available.

Click on the 25 and it will show the option for head unit only or bundle, you can get it either way. Some time clicking on the different units will give you much more info.


----------



## bicyclebillpdx (Feb 5, 2011)

My buddy uses Ride with GPS app. Key is turning off cellular and wifi so that your phone is only running gps. He gets good tracking and battery life on 4-5 hour rides no problem.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

slocaus said:


> You asked about syncing with your phone, so those are you choices.
> 
> Or use you phone for now and get a $15 power brick as backup. I have used one to charge my 750 on multi day camping outings when no power was available.
> 
> Click on the 25 and it will show the option for head unit only or bundle, you can get it either way. Some time clicking on the different units will give you much more info.


It looks like, on the Garmin website, the device itself doesn't come with any sensors. Upgrading to the bundle gets you a cadence sensor, but not a bike speed sensor. The device is $169.99 and the accessory pack (sold separately) that includes both the bike speed and cadence sensors is $69.99. I guess that's not bad.

I'm going to do some clicking around on their site and see if any other models include both sensors for around the same price, but with even more features. I'm sure there are other brands to consider as well, although Garmin is definitely my preference, since they lead the field when it comes to all things GPS related.

Models that sync with your phone; what's the advantage of that for someone who doesn't have a lot of data on their plan? Like, my data is almost always turned off unless I turn it on quickly to do something, so I don't go over. What does having them synced actually do?


----------



## MCHB (Jun 23, 2014)

I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but if it was me, unless you need hyper accurate distances or other sensor's, I would just use your Dakota for the time being. If you decide you need more accuracy, then change over to something more specialized down the trail.

Regardless of the route you go, keep riding!


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

MCHB said:


> I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but if it was me, unless you need hyper accurate distances or other sensor's, I would just use your Dakota for the time being. If you decide you need more accuracy, then change over to something more specialized down the trail.
> 
> Regardless of the route you go, keep riding!


Can my Dakota even keep track of things like that? I've only ever used it for Geocaching, so I'm not very familiar with the other possible aspects of it.

As far as accuracy is concerned, I'd like to have a system that's fairly accurate. There's just something about being able to look at the total distance I've traveled (a map is always a nice bonus as well) that makes the experience all the more enjoyable for me. It's like a badge of honor or something, I guess. Does that make sense?


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

DrumsXO said:


> Isn't it a lot less accurate without a sensor though? That's what I'm understanding from everyone's posts here thus far.


It ignores the wheel sensor, uses the cadence and heat rate sensors, but they're optional.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

NordieBoy said:


> It ignores the wheel sensor, uses the cadence and heat rate sensors, but they're optional.


Not sure it ignores the wheel sensor entirely. My understanding was that the wheel sensor does a nice job for the numbers displayed on the head unit itself, but the lower recording interval minimizes the improvement possible for the recorded data.

Of course you know this, but for the OP, the "smart recording" interval of the Edge 25 is the primary reason it's less accurate. The more twisty the trail is, the more that gets exaggerated. The wheel sensor will not fix that.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Harold said:


> Not sure it ignores the wheel sensor entirely. My understanding was that the wheel sensor does a nice job for the numbers displayed on the head unit itself, but the lower recording interval minimizes the improvement possible for the recorded data.
> 
> Of course you know this, but for the OP, the "smart recording" interval of the Edge 25 is the primary reason it's less accurate. The more twisty the trail is, the more that gets exaggerated. The wheel sensor will not fix that.


So, for someone who wants something that's really accurate, the Edge 25 wouldn't be a good choice for me? That's the way I'm understanding your post.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DrumsXO said:


> So, for someone who wants something that's really accurate, the Edge 25 wouldn't be a good choice for me? That's the way I'm understanding your post.


If you want recorded data that's as accurate as possible, then no. The Edge 20/25 models are basic GPS computers.

If you want the most accurate recorded data possible, there are a few items you want (that are currently available, anyway).

1. You want a computer capable of receiving GPS+GLONASS signals (other geolocation satellite constellations will be going operational in years coming, so this will change).
2. You want a computer capable of recording data at least 1/sec. I know of ONE computer that records 10/sec, but it lacks GLONASS capability, as well as capability for extra sensors.
3. You want a computer that can accept extra sensors through ANT+ or Bluetooth (most will be ANT+, but there will be a few BT ones out there).

The GPS+GLONASS and 1/sec recording interval will give you the most accurate GPS data possible right now. It's difficult to quantify the other major variable here, which is the size and quality of the antenna on the GPS. That plays a pretty major role in accuracy, too, but it's not listed on any hardware specifications for devices. I think the biggest takeaway here is that phones are NOT consistent. Some are good, while some are not. Part of that is app-dependent, but some of it is hardware-dependent. Most modern phones provide GPS+GLONASS capability now, but the recording interval is determined by the app you're using. And without tearing the phone apart, you really have no way of knowing anything about the GPS antenna, but considering everything else that's crammed into a phone's case, the GPS antenna is likely to be smaller than that of a dedicated device.

I have several devices I use. They're either older or more basic. None of them offer GPS+GLONASS capability, but otherwise they've got everything else. They're "pretty good" when it comes to accuracy, but I definitely find places where their reduced accuracy is noticeable. Generally, I find the accuracy of those devices pretty sufficient for most road rides. The only place I'm not happy with the accuracy of them is when I go downtown. I find that my track begins to wander a good bit when I'm among the skyscrapers, and it goes completely bonkers in a couple areas where I ride underneath buildings or parking structures. Strava Flyby is a nice comparison tool, because I can look at people's tracks who were in the same area at a similar time (which reduces atmospheric variation and differences in satellite coverages as factors explaining different levels of accuracy), and see how their tracks differ from mine in accuracy. I'm finding that my devices generally sit in the middle of the curve. There are definitely some that are far less accurate (some phones and some low end dedicated devices, probably not set up well), many that are similar, and some that are a good bit better. I am seeing that the ones that are consistently better in those difficult areas tend to be Garmin Edge 520's and Garmin Edge 1000's.

For mtb riding, I'm a little less happy with the accuracy of my devices. Usually they're generally okay, but I do notice when accuracy drops off. It's harder to get an accuracy assessment on mtb trails here, because they're generally not visible through the trees on satellite imagery, but looking at repeatability when you ride a section of trail more than once (especially if it's a fast downhill) is a good proxy. Again, I'm seeing that Edge 520's and Edge 1000's are more repeatable. Considering that I frequently collect data for trail maps where accuracy is important, I'm considering buying an Edge 520 for the boost in accuracy while riding. It speeds data collection by a large margin over walking all the trails with a handheld GPS.

It's worth noting that the accuracy on my devices typically isn't enough to cause me to miss most Strava segments. And they're definitely not inaccurate to the level that Strava matches me to segments I didn't even ride. I have been noticing lately that at one local park with particularly dense trails has that problem. Apparently nobody really patrols the segment leaderboards for obviously erroneous data. I found on a REALLY steep climbing segment that a couple riders had avg speeds in the 15mph range and were on top of the standings for years. I started digging into their data, and found that their GPS data was just so inaccurate that Strava matched their ride onto the wrong trail. Those riders had been on a pretty much flat to slightly downhill section of trail, and definitely not on the climb that clocked in at nearly 30% grade at its steepest. Those rides had been recorded on much older devices, and probably with poor settings, again. Around here, the Edge 20/25 models may well produce results like that at times, even with GPS+GLONASS, because of the low recording interval ("smart" recording), which I find to be less accurate than 1/sec recording, when comparing on my own devices that give me both options.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to type all of that out! I'm at work right now, so I only have time to skim read, but I'll give that a thorough read when I get home this evening.

In the meantime, I'll say this regarding my desire for GPS accuracy. I'm not looking for 100%, impeccable accuracy. I just want something that's not going to record different distances when I'm riding the exact same route as I've ridden previously. Currently, using Runkeeper on my Smartphone, when I ride the same route every night after work, the total recorded distance varies by up to 1/4 mile sometimes...

As long as I have something that is more accurate than that, then I'll be satisfied. A heart rate sensor would be nice, as would a cadence sensor to track the distance I climbed when I go up a really big hill, but they're not a necessity. Not nearly as much as an accurate distance and speed recording is. Mapping is also nice too, so people can see a map of my ride, but I guess it's not necessary (although I'd really like it).

Does that help narrow things down?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DrumsXO said:


> Wow. Thanks for taking the time to type all of that out! I'm at work right now, so I only have time to skim read, but I'll give that a thorough read when I get home this evening.
> 
> In the meantime, I'll say this regarding my desire for GPS accuracy. I'm not looking for 100%, impeccable accuracy. I just want something that's not going to record different distances when I'm riding the exact same route as I've ridden previously. Currently, using Runkeeper on my Smartphone, when I ride the same route every night after work, the total recorded distance varies by up to 1/4 mile sometimes...
> 
> ...


You'll never get 100% accuracy. That's impossible.

I try to avoid doing the exact same route all the time to minimize boredom, so I can't tell you exactly how much improvement to tell you that you'll get. But I will tell you that with the method you're using, you're losing out on distance that you're actually doing, and a wheel sensor will help you capture that. Where I live, that can easily be a couple extra miles for a 15mi ride. Simply because GPS-only recording shortcuts corners, and my local trails really are that twisty. The wheel sensor should also improve repeatability, since recorded distances won't be dependent on GPS reception, which can be hugely variable from day to day.

One thing to also pay attention to is what's happening to your data when you upload it somewhere. Some sites do very little to your data when you upload it. Others, like Strava, can do an awful lot to it. Strava does not appear to like my Bryton Rider 310. It seems like it's almost always tossing out the wheel sensor data because it's reprocessing the GPS data so much. I really don't see much improvement on my side of things when it does that, but it does. Strava has some pretty lengthy articles buried in the site explaining all of the processing that they do, and it's mostly because there are so many people using crap phones that provide crap data. They are a whole lot more diplomatic about it, but that's basically what it amounts to.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Harold said:


> Not sure it ignores the wheel sensor entirely. My understanding was that the wheel sensor does a nice job for the numbers displayed on the head unit itself, but the lower recording interval minimizes the improvement possible for the recorded data.
> 
> Of course you know this, but for the OP, the "smart recording" interval of the Edge 25 is the primary reason it's less accurate. The more twisty the trail is, the more that gets exaggerated. The wheel sensor will not fix that.


Nope, as mentioned above, cruising a forestry downhill at about 20kph and having 5kph on the display is not optimal.
Works brilliantly in more open areas though. If I don't need mapping or power, it's the one I grab instead of the 810.

I'll have another play with the wheel sensor in the next few days and try getting some GoPro chesty footage of it.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

NordieBoy said:


> Nope, as mentioned above, cruising a forestry downhill at about 20kph and having 5kph on the display is not optimal.
> Works brilliantly in more open areas though. If I don't need mapping or power, it's the one I grab instead of the 810.
> 
> I'll have another play with the wheel sensor in the next few days and try getting some GoPro chesty footage of it.


yep, that's pretty much poop, then.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

How much of the inaccuracies of a Garmin affect a recreational rider that just wants to track their miles? It wouldn't be any less accurate than someone using their phone?


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Harold said:


> You'll never get 100% accuracy. That's impossible.
> 
> I try to avoid doing the exact same route all the time to minimize boredom, so I can't tell you exactly how much improvement to tell you that you'll get. But I will tell you that with the method you're using, you're losing out on distance that you're actually doing, and a wheel sensor will help you capture that. Where I live, that can easily be a couple extra miles for a 15mi ride. Simply because GPS-only recording shortcuts corners, and my local trails really are that twisty. The wheel sensor should also improve repeatability, since recorded distances won't be dependent on GPS reception, which can be hugely variable from day to day.
> 
> One thing to also pay attention to is what's happening to your data when you upload it somewhere. Some sites do very little to your data when you upload it. Others, like Strava, can do an awful lot to it. Strava does not appear to like my Bryton Rider 310. It seems like it's almost always tossing out the wheel sensor data because it's reprocessing the GPS data so much. I really don't see much improvement on my side of things when it does that, but it does. Strava has some pretty lengthy articles buried in the site explaining all of the processing that they do, and it's mostly because there are so many people using crap phones that provide crap data. They are a whole lot more diplomatic about it, but that's basically what it amounts to.


Yeah, I'm not looking for 100% accuracy anyways, since I realize it's basically impossible. Just something that's more accurate than my Smartphone is. Having relatively accurate distance recordings and possibly a map of my ride is really all I need. Elevation and heart rate sensors are nice, but I won't pay a lot of extra money for those features.

Also, I have a wheel sensor now, since I bought that Bontrager GoTime. I'm wondering if I wasted my money on it though, and if I should try to return it to save for a better model. I'm not sure yet what I want to do with it.



RS VR6 said:


> How much of the inaccuracies of a Garmin affect a recreational rider that just wants to track their miles? It wouldn't be any less accurate than someone using their phone?


That's something I've been wondering as well.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

The Edge 20 and 25 appear to have GLONASS on top of GPS.

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/cycling/edge-20/prod508487.html

"Edge 20 uses GPS/GLONASS satellites to track distance even under dense tree cover."

These guys may have some videos that can help you,

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnfvwMRyMTecPVnsXe3vWXA/videos


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RS VR6 said:


> The Edge 20 and 25 appear to have GLONASS on top of GPS.
> 
> https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/cycling/edge-20/prod508487.html
> 
> ...


Yes, but only recording with the "smart recording" algorithm is a major problem. At best, accuracy on one of these will be no different than a phone.

If you are already using a phone and want more accuracy, this is no improvement


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Harold said:


> Yes, but only recording with the "smart recording" algorithm is a major problem. At best, accuracy on one of these will be no different than a phone.
> 
> If you are already using a phone and want more accuracy, this is no improvement


Thank you for that. I was considering the Edge models, but now, after reading that, have reconsidered.

I'm more than likely going to have to wait until I can afford a nicer model that can do what I'd like it to. I'm definitely leaning towards Garmin, but not the Edge 20 or 25.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I've owned a bunch of Edge (200, 500, 510, 520, 910xt, and Tactix) units. Accuracy is something I've never really paid attention to. Only one I've ever noticed I've gotten shorted on miles is the 500. I had to do a factory reset to fix that. Where would the discrepancies be on a GPS that is not accurate for a GPS that's mainly used to track your miles? I've used my Edge and my cell phone at the same time and the mileage is pretty close. What I did notice what's different is the tracking on the path. The Edge has more squiggly lines compared to the more linear phone track. How important that is, is up to the user I guess.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

The edge 520 would be a solid improvement. An older 510 would be very good from the accuracy department, but fewer of the newest bells. Even an old edge 500 would be a slight improvement, especially with a wheel sensor.

If you cannot afford a newer model with gps+ glonass, at least getting 1 sec recording and wheel sensor capability should be a priority for the distance accuracy you seek.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Whatever I go with will definitely be compatible with, and use, a wheel sensor. From what I've read on them, they're essential to getting accurate statistics out of your computer.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Now, this is perplexing...

I just got back from a ride, where I rode my usual route around town after work. Like usual, I used Runkeeper to track my ride, and my cycle computer started working once I got moving.

At the end of the ride, I stopped Runkeeper and compared the mileage from it with the trip mileage off my cycle computer. Runkeeper says I went 4.61 miles, and my cycle computer says I went 5.5 miles... Which one is wrong?

If the cycle computer is wrong, then it's wrong by a lot, but the same goes for Runkeeper if *it's* wrong. Either one is over by a mile, or short by a mile... Maybe I'll see what distance Google Maps says my route is, if I can get it to let me map it out.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

DrumsXO said:


> Now, this is perplexing...
> 
> I just got back from a ride, where I rode my usual route around town after work. Like usual, I used Runkeeper to track my ride, and my cycle computer started working once I got moving.
> 
> ...


Did you calibrate the computer with a weighted rollout so each revolution is accurate distance? If you use the chart in the instructions you can have a large error.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

slocaus said:


> Did you calibrate the computer with a weighted rollout so each revolution is accurate distance? If you use the chart in the instructions you can have a large error.












I honestly didn't know that it needed to be calibrated.

The salesman didn't mention anything about that to me, but it's also my fault for not reading the instructions. Then again, you just said if I calibrated it using the instructions that it'd be really inaccurate, so I guess it doesn't matter that I didn't read them. 

What's a "weighted rollout?"


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Measure the distance of 1 revolution and of the wheel, with your weight on the bike.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

DrumsXO said:


> I honestly didn't know that it needed to be calibrated.
> 
> The salesman didn't mention anything about that to me, but it's also my fault for not reading the instructions. Then again, you just said if I calibrated it using the instructions that it'd be really inaccurate, so I guess it doesn't matter that I didn't read them.
> 
> What's a "weighted rollout?"


http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike-computer/wheel-size-auto-custom-garmin-gps-set-up-582283.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike-computer/tire-size-computer-help-wtf-mate-408594.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike...-305-vs-cat-eye-stada-one-correct-549795.html

Pump the tires to pressure you use. Get on flat surface, concrete area is best. Make a sharpie mark on the concrete. Put front tire valve stem at bottom on mark. Sit on bike. Roll forward until valve stem is at bottom again. Make second sharpie mark on concrete. Measure from mark A to mark B. That is your weighted roll out distance.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

NordieBoy said:


> Measure the distance of 1 revolution and of the wheel, with your weight on the bike.





slocaus said:


> http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike-computer/wheel-size-auto-custom-garmin-gps-set-up-582283.html
> http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike-computer/tire-size-computer-help-wtf-mate-408594.html
> http://forums.mtbr.com/gps-hrm-bike...-305-vs-cat-eye-stada-one-correct-549795.html
> 
> Pump the tires to pressure you use. Get on flat surface, concrete area is best. Make a sharpie mark on the concrete. Put front tire valve stem at bottom on mark. Sit on bike. Roll forward until valve stem is at bottom again. Make second sharpie mark on concrete. Measure from mark A to mark B. That is your weighted roll out distance.


Thanks, guys! I'll do this before I ride tonight after work.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

The measurement is ALWAYS entered into the computer in millimeters, by the way.

My preference is to do the rollout, but to use 3 or 4 wheel revolutions, and average them out.

The cyclocomputer will still measure more than your phone, but the margin should be less than what you recorded, if the phone+app combo is reasonably accurate.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RS VR6 said:


> I've owned a bunch of Edge (200, 500, 510, 520, 910xt, and Tactix) units. Accuracy is something I've never really paid attention to. Only one I've ever noticed I've gotten shorted on miles is the 500. I had to do a factory reset to fix that. Where would the discrepancies be on a GPS that is not accurate for a GPS that's mainly used to track your miles? I've used my Edge and my cell phone at the same time and the mileage is pretty close. What I did notice what's different is the tracking on the path. The Edge has more squiggly lines compared to the more linear phone track. How important that is, is up to the user I guess.


Inaccuracies can show up in all kinds of places.

Comparing to your phone as a measure of "trueness" isn't going to show you anything useful. Especially if you use an app that heavily processes your data like Strava. Strava does so much data processing, that you might as well just figure that the track Strava displays is not what your phone actually recorded anymore. A well-calibrated cyclocomputer like Drums bought is going to be the best option available to get a baseline for distance traveled, which you can use for comparison.

When it comes to distances recorded, the wheel sensor does make a difference. I see you're a west coaster. That explains to me, at least in part, why you haven't noticed much difference. Any computer without a wheel sensor is going to lose miles over a typical ride where I live. If I've set a goal of riding x distance in a year, or doing a single ride of some distance, I want to measure true with whatever I'm using. The wheel sensor is important for that and it makes a substantial difference.

As to the positions recorded in the GPS data, I suppose for many that just doesn't matter. At all. I'm not one of those people. I get irritated when my recorded GPS data shows me crossing over my own tracks when I was on a trail that never crossed itself. That's a real problem when I'm using a GPS to actually map a particular trail. Not only do I make maps for the local mtb club, but I also get paid to make maps sometimes. I don't want my name or my business name or the mtb club to be associated with shoddy work. Confusing people with my maps is the opposite of what I want to accomplish. An inaccurate GPS forces me to do more work to make a good map, to deal with garbage data.

My requirements are high. Not everyone is going to have the same requirements I do, but it's also disingenuous of me not to tell people which devices, IME, are more accurate than others. They can decide for themselves if they're willing to pay for that, or if they even care. That comes from one of the other hats I wear as a sales and customer service person. I don't engage in high pressure tactics or any of that BS. My job is to answer questions.


----------



## Dax Olivares (Jul 5, 2014)

Garmin Fenix 3


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Harold said:


> The measurement is ALWAYS entered into the computer in millimeters, by the way.
> 
> My preference is to do the rollout, but to use 3 or 4 wheel revolutions, and average them out.
> 
> The cyclocomputer will still measure more than your phone, but the margin should be less than what you recorded, if the phone+app combo is reasonably accurate.


I was actually thinking it might be best to use an average of a couple of rolls, lol. Great minds think alike I guess. 

Thanks for the tip about millimeters though. Well, it was more of a heads up than a tip, but thank you nonetheless.


----------



## MisterM (Jan 23, 2016)

Garmin Edge 25 w/K-Edge Gravity Mount. Simple. Light. Accurate. I Love it! Then use Garmin connect to log all activities. I was on strava but it drains the battery too much for my comfort.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Well, after some searching on Google, I discovered how to manually enter my tire size, after doing a weighted rollout three times, taking the average, and turning it into millimeters. Once I input the size, I headed out on my nightly ride.

Runkeeper recorded the total distance as 4.51 miles, and the trip odometer on my GoTime read 4.6. So, that's pretty damned close. I'll use the average between the two and say my ride was 4.55 miles.

Still, I think down the line when I upgrade to a nicer computer, I can give this GoTime to my friend.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DrumsXO said:


> Runkeeper recorded the total distance as 4.51 miles, and the trip odometer on my GoTime read 4.6. So, that's pretty damned close. I'll use the average between the two and say my ride was 4.55 miles.


Honestly, I trust the recorded distance from your cheap computer more than the phone app. I wouldn't bother averaging anything, even for SNG. The only time I'd take that kind of computer's measurement with a grain of salt would be if I was getting a LOT of air on a downhill run with lots of jumps. But even then, it's kinda hard to even decide if the computer would measure short or high.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Harold said:


> Honestly, I trust the recorded distance from your cheap computer more than the phone app. I wouldn't bother averaging anything, even for SNG. The only time I'd take that kind of computer's measurement with a grain of salt would be if I was getting a LOT of air on a downhill run with lots of jumps. But even then, it's kinda hard to even decide if the computer would measure short or high.


I go up and back down a pretty steep hill on this particular route, and I don't have a cadence sensor. Could that account for the difference between the two recordings?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Nope. Cadence sensors have no bearing on recorded distance


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

My preferred method ? 

I drink a solvent dye that makes my blood show up in UV

then I ride through thick thorns and wipe anti-coagulant on my shins 
and complete the ride.

later at night I go in with a 6x18650 UV light and find my blood trail and drop popcorn every ten feet of my blood tracks. 

then go home and rest. 

3 hours later I go back in the woods, only this time I replace all the popcorn with red M8 nuts because popcorn might get eaten by birds but I learned these nuts don't

so then back home to rest up some more, 
than I go out again with a garmin unit and go and find these nuts (sometimes I need knee pads to root around in the dirt looking for them but i always find them with some determination) 
I then log my tracks between the nuts I dropped. 

I hit reset after each one so I can get an accurate reading.

after collecting all my gps tracks I go home and dump my files to csv format and load it up in excel and make all my separate links as one big track. then I change the file format to one strava recognizes and upload it.


believe me if I knew another way to do it I am all ears, but this works for me.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Harold said:


> Nope. Cadence sensors have no bearing on recorded distance


Oh, I thought they did? I think someone told me that cadence sensors measure elevation changes, and that using them in conjunction with a standard wheel sensor provides a more accurate distance reading if you're doing a lot of climbing and descending.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

The cadence sensor measures your rpm's while pedaling, at least that's what I bought my cadence sensor for.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

DrumsXO said:


> Oh, I thought they did? I think someone told me that cadence sensors measure elevation changes, and that using them in conjunction with a standard wheel sensor provides a more accurate distance reading if you're doing a lot of climbing and descending.


That is a good example of totally erroneous information available on the internet. A barometric altimeter is the best we have on a GPS. That is why uploading data to a good analysis program is essential because they use real world elevation data.

A GPS is really bad at elevation, because even few hundred to a few thousand feet of elevation change is hard to detect when the signal is 22000 miles almost straight overhead. The difference between two points vertical is much different than points horizontal, relative to the GPS satellites, and easier to measure and track.

Cadence sensors measure how fast you spin your feet in circles is all they do.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

RS VR6 said:


> The cadence sensor measures your rpm's while pedaling, at least that's what I bought my cadence sensor for.


Wow, I was _*VERY*_ wrong then, LOL!



slocaus said:


> That is a good example of totally erroneous information available on the internet. A barometric altimeter is the best we have on a GPS. That is why uploading data to a good analysis program is essential because they use real world elevation data.
> 
> A GPS is really bad at elevation, because even few hundred to a few thousand feet of elevation change is hard to detect when the signal is 22000 miles almost straight overhead. The difference between two points vertical is much different than points horizontal, relative to the GPS satellites, and easier to measure and track.
> 
> Cadence sensors measure how fast you spin your feet in circles is all they do.


Ah, okay. Thank you for setting that straight for me! Now I'm not worried about whether whatever setup I get will work with a cadence sensor, since that data (how fast I spin my feet while pedaling) isn't anything I care about.

Thanks, man! Again. You're being a big help to me.


----------



## luvdabeach2001 (Nov 11, 2011)

DrumsXO said:


> Oh, I thought they did? I think someone told me that cadence sensors measure elevation changes, and that using them in conjunction with a standard wheel sensor provides a more accurate distance reading if you're doing a lot of climbing and descending.


I think what you are looking for is the ACTELECH Sensor. (Active Elevation Change Sensor) It basically does what it sounds like it does, measures your elevation change as it happens. NASA uses a similar system. The ACTELECH Bike sensor attaches inside your bottom bracket and measures the rotational rate of the bracket and compares it to the rotational speed of the speed sensor, you have one of those correct? It then uses an extensive algorithm to extrapolate the data to elevation and some systems will also interpolate the speed and disatnce, but those are a little more expensive. Other than an extremely expensive GPS this is the best and most accurate way to get elevation, speed and distance. It does work in conjunction with most Ant+ compatible GPS'

Good luck


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

luvdabeach2001 said:


> I think what you are looking for is the ACTELECH Sensor. (Active Elevation Change Sensor))


Do you have a link to info about this? I tried searching and really only found this thread as having any mention of it.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

Harold said:


> Do you have a link to info about this? I tried searching and really only found this thread as having any mention of it.


Ditto. I'm very curious now, too.


----------



## luvdabeach2001 (Nov 11, 2011)

Harold said:


> Do you have a link to info about this? I tried searching and really only found this thread as having any mention of it.











Ok maybe not. Guess doing a little research is beneficial.


----------



## TAC_Reload (Sep 4, 2015)

thecanoe said:


> I use a Garmin 520 that links to my iPhone through Bluetooth and then sync's to Strava. I just got a new iPhone 6SE and I use the RWGPS app because it has OSMcycle. All the trails are on it, so in new areas it's hard to get lost. Battery life is excellent when run in airplane mode.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


What's the RWGPS app? I don't see it in the App Store.


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

Ride with GPS. Excellent app. You can create routes too. And it will voice guide you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

I'll take a look into that app!


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

This is what the screen looks like. Notice that all the trails are shown. 









Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

See, I love the look of that! How it shows the trails. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DrumsXO said:


> See, I love the look of that! How it shows the trails.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Don't assume the coverage is awesome everywhere. RWGPS uses OSM maps, which rely on user submissions. If there's an active user community that adds trails in your area, then it'll probably be pretty good. If, however, your area lacks a community of users who submit edits for trails on OSM, you may wind up being disappointed.

My area is hit-or-miss. Some areas show up well. Others lack data. I don't count on OSM to show everything. I have MTBProject and even Trailforks (which I don't like as much) as alternative sources for trail data for new areas. You can check all of these services on the web before downloading any apps that use their maps.

When it comes to map data, I will use digital data if it's available (on a Garmin), I have a few phone apps (they're all a little different, with different trail data), and I typically purchase paper maps for areas I ride, if there's something good available. I'm a particular fan of the maps available that cover the Pisgah NF and DuPont State Forest areas in North Carolina. They're excellent maps. I have both the local maps as well as the National Geographic Trails Illustrated map.

Some areas don't have good print maps, and that's where digital data comes into play. I relied heavily on MTBProject when I visited Vegas and SW Utah earlier this year. I tried Trailforks, but the trail data quality was less consistent. Over The Edge (bike shop) had really cool trail maps printed on microfiber cloth for the SW UT trails, too.


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

MTBProject is pretty awesome. I discovered it through the WNYMBA, which is local to me.


----------



## luvdabeach2001 (Nov 11, 2011)

I have MTB Project it is a great resource for the trail and since you can DL an area to the phone always have the trails available. MTB-P has quite a selection of trails also.

I just DL'd Trailforks a couple weeks ago and while it doesn't have the same number of trails as MTB-P yet I do prefer the TF interface over MTB-P. Especially the feature that links the trail to a route. This allows me to plan a ride better than just saying I want to ride this trail and have little idea the best way to link it to the other trails in the area. Another nice feature is it will let you know if a trail is "unsanctioned". While it isn't perfect it may help keep you out of trouble. With time more trails will be added in all areas. 

I have linked TF to my Strava for auto upload and all the elevations are better on TF's than Strava so that is an added bonus.


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

luvdabeach2001 said:


> I have MTB Project it is a great resource for the trail and since you can DL an area to the phone always have the trails available. MTB-P has quite a selection of trails also.
> 
> I just DL'd Trailforks a couple weeks ago and while it doesn't have the same number of trails as MTB-P yet I do prefer the TF interface over MTB-P. Especially the feature that links the trail to a route. This allows me to plan a ride better than just saying I want to ride this trail and have little idea the best way to link it to the other trails in the area. Another nice feature is it will let you know if a trail is "unsanctioned". While it isn't perfect it may help keep you out of trouble. With time more trails will be added in all areas.
> 
> I have linked TF to my Strava for auto upload and all the elevations are better on TF's than Strava so that is an added bonus.


I agree, MTB-P or TF is great in certain areas. Weak in Massachusetts but great in AZ. How did you link to Strava?


----------



## DrumsXO (May 2, 2016)

I'll look into this "Trailfork" as well.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

DrumsXO said:


> I'll look into this "Trailfork" as well.


MTBR feedback here.
http://forums.mtbr.com/trail-building-advocacy/pb-trailforks-935505.html#post11532686


----------



## luvdabeach2001 (Nov 11, 2011)

thecanoe said:


> How did you link to Strava?


PM sent.


----------



## GuruAtma (May 17, 2004)

I have a garmin 500, but I got a fitbit surge as a gift, and I find it's more accurate than my garmin as well as more convenient. The garmin can measure more things that I usually don't care about.


----------



## RichardU (Jun 16, 2016)

I've done the GPS thing since the satellites first went active. Not too keen on giving Garmin any more money while I have a perfectly good GPS device in my phone. 

So I recently tested all of the major Smart Phone tracking apps. I'm really surprised by the apparent popularity of Strava. The interface is kludgy. Couldn't reverse a route, etc. I suppose they have the advantage of critical mass, (if sharing/comparing yourself to others is a desired feature). 

Anyway, the winner by far is: MapMyRide. Try it and find out why.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Is there a GPS that can give me turn-by-turn directions on a trails, or have pre-loaded trail maps (Colorado mainly) or something I can load trails maps on to? It would be especially useful if I get stuck out there after dark.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Flyer said:


> Is there a GPS that can give me turn-by-turn directions on a trails, or have pre-loaded trail maps (Colorado mainly) or something I can load trails maps on to? It would be especially useful if I get stuck out there after dark.


It is the maps that need to have routing data embedded, and most do not for trails, only for roads. Any GPS can read the routing data if it exists. You search needs to be for maps with trail routing data, not for a GPS.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Alright, good point. I'll look for trail maps and see which Garmin GPS can accept them in the form of a card. Thanks! Since I have an unusual tendency to get lost, I really need this.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Flyer said:


> Alright, good point. I'll look for trail maps and see which Garmin GPS can accept them in the form of a card. Thanks! Since I have an unusual tendency to get lost, I really need this.


Try these two, but for me in California, there are many trails mapped, but none with routing data. These are excellent free map sources.

Free worldwide Garmin maps from OpenStreetMap
GPSFileDepot - Garmin Compatible Custom Maps


----------



## RUBZERK (Aug 16, 2015)

I use Mountain Bike Pro on my note5.
I use a Slipgripcarmounts.com bike mount.
I keep a small dackup charge battery in a small top tube bag.

With this setup I'm able to record video while I ride and take pictures. 
I'm able to stream pandora and run my app that records all my ride data. 

App, Mount, battery and bag cost me under $100.

Best part is important able to move it from bike to bike in seconds.

Plus your able to access all your ride data online. Even live tracking so family can track you just in case something goes wrong.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Flyer said:


> Is there a GPS that can give me turn-by-turn directions on a trails, or have pre-loaded trail maps (Colorado mainly) or something I can load trails maps on to? It would be especially useful if I get stuck out there after dark.





slocaus said:


> It is the maps that need to have routing data embedded, and most do not for trails, only for roads. Any GPS can read the routing data if it exists. You search needs to be for maps with trail routing data, not for a GPS.


Alternatively, with Garmin fitness receivers, you can program a course before you head out, using your computer. I use RideWithGPS for this. It will route on trails. You can program custom notifications into the course file for turns and other things. It's worth pointing out that if the trail is a little different from the map data, or if you're in a location with poor reception, you're likely to get a lot of "off course" notifications.

I haven't used it to program a route using trails exclusively, but I have done some mixed surface rides and have used shorter trail segments this way. It does work.

It needs to be a GPS with full mapping capability to read routing data on basemaps. It should be obvious that the Edge 25, for example, does not support this kind of functionality. But it's a little less clear that the Edge 520 does not, either. The Edge 520 is in an odd middle ground state of limbo. You can view maps with it, but that's the extent of it. No routing using map data. It will only route using pre-programmed courses. By full mapping receiver, I mean models like the 810 (and the leaked 820) or the 1000.


----------



## Loch (Apr 29, 2011)

Also, if you have a GPX file of the route you want to follow you can upload it to RideWithGPS and add turn-by-turn directions to the cue sheet. Make sure you load the tcx file onto your gps. If the gps supports tcx files (I've used these on both my edge 800 and forerunner 310xt) then you will get turn by turn directions pop up as you ride. Super cool!

This is very handy for trails/routes the loop back and forth across each other.


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

Flyer said:


> Is there a GPS that can give me turn-by-turn directions on a trails, or have pre-loaded trail maps (Colorado mainly) or something I can load trails maps on to? It would be especially useful if I get stuck out there after dark.


I use RWGPS. While in Scottsdale last winter, I designed some routes on my iPad at a local trail system. All trails had names. After I plotted the ride and saved it, I tried it out on the trail. Turn by turn by voice just like using a nav system in you car or google maps. 
Worked great. You can also search routes in your area.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

If you really want to know how well, or even how a GPS unit work orwhat it can do, then look u the review on DCRainmaker, those reviews are bonkers detailed.

Personally, I used to use a phone (for running an riding, old sony phone non smart, running endomondo).
Got a Garmin FR610, worked great (for running), worked well or riding, but couldn't really see the display very well on the road, super hard on the mtb, but end of ride upload to garmin/endo/strava was all good. Now have an Edge 1000 for riding...so much better to use. Brilliant on road and readable on mtb. (also have a FR620 for running, which isn't actually as good as my old 610).
Phone is only for real time data for my GF so she knows if I died o something and auto upload.


----------



## Steve in PA (Sep 29, 2008)

I use my Garmin Vivoactive HR which I wear on my wrist 24/7 but I also have a mount on the handle bar for my Garmin 60CSX.


----------



## Loch (Apr 29, 2011)

thecanoe said:


> I use RWGPS. While in Scottsdale last winter, I designed some routes on my iPad at a local trail system. All trails had names. After I plotted the ride and saved it, I tried it out on the trail. Turn by turn by voice just like using a nav system in you car or google maps.
> Worked great. You can also search routes in your area.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Could you expound on this a little? You created the route using RWGPS and your IPAD. Did you use your IPAD to navigate with an app that gave you vocal turn by turn directions based on your route? Do you load the route to another device that provided vocal turn by turn? This sounds pretty cool.

Is nice to hear a beep and look down and see which direction to go, but having a sultry female voice whispering directions into my ear would be even better!


----------

