# Which GPS would you suggest



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

I actually use my Blackberry as a GPS for recording the trails i do. But battery life is usually an issue.


I mostly want something reliable, crash resistant.
Also i want to be able to save the trail route and when im home, transfer it to the PC and watch the trail line drawn on the mountains on Google Earth!

Which Garmin GPS would you choose?

I was looking at some forerunner series, 305, 310XT.
Also looked at the Edge 305 and 500.


Thanks!


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

I came close to buying a GPS in the fall. The Garmin Dakota 20 made it to the top of my list. It's small, has the ability to use custom maps, has a barometric altimeter for keeping elevation data a little more acurate, and is priced pretty well. 

I was not able to convince myself I need a GPS, so I can't give a detailed review of my own.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

If you are debating between Edge and Forerunner models, you really have two questions to ask yourself. Do you want a wrist mount and a bar mount option, or do you want bar/stem mount only? Do you want the capability for maps at all?

The best you can get out of any Forerunners is an Edge 205/305-style basic graphic of your track. No basemaps. Most Forerunners don't give you any sort of maps. The Edge 500 is similar to that, but the Edge 605/705 and 800 give you some nice basemap options for navigating.

My personal choice is a handheld like the Oregon. It fits on my stem (to be fair, it's not a short stem, so YMMV), it has a variety of mounting options so I can snap it onto a bike, clip it to a pack strap (for hiking), and attach it to my canoe thwart. It also has a slightly bigger screen and a few other goodies.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

Thanks for your replies!

Well, i really doubt there would be any basemaps even available for where i live (Chile). So it would be nonsense to buy one with that capabilities.

Ive read some Edge models are meant for road biking more than mountainbiking?

Also, price is an important deal maker !


----------



## Ted (Jan 29, 2004)

Check out this site for OSM maps. It seems to me that Chile is well covered.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/

I also have an Oregon and I use OSM maps. I am very happy with the combination.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

Indeed it looks ok.

I dont know if that big ammount of money for containing basemaps is what i need.
Also, a bike mount is not all that necessary, the GPS would most likely be stored in my backpack for track recording.

So we have ruled out forerunners models.

And have Etrex, Edge and Oregon left.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

assas1n said:


> Indeed it looks ok.
> 
> I dont know if that big ammount of money for containing basemaps is what i need.
> Also, a bike mount is not all that necessary, the GPS would most likely be stored in my backpack for track recording.
> ...


There's a lot more options than that, to be completely honest. You need to decide which features you need, then which features would be nice to have, and then you can do some one-to-one comparisons.

Also look at:
http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/country/cl

There are some map options for you. There is also the option to create your own (using free software) if you can find data.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

Heart rate monitoring and cadence arent needed either.

And theres not many more features im familiar with or know hehe


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

assas1n said:


> Heart rate monitoring and cadence arent needed either.
> 
> And theres not many more features im familiar with or know hehe


Features to look for:
*Memory* (not only physical memory measured in GB or the capability for expandable memory, but also track point limits and waypoint limits and stuff)
*Screen* (size, resolution, colors, etc)
*Maps* (none, basic map view w/o basemap, vector maps, raster maps)
*Wireless* (HRM, Cad, data sharing, Chirp for geocaching, possibility for additional functionality through firmware upgrades)
*User Interface* (joystick, rocker pad with more buttons, touchscreen)
*Size* (how big is the GPS?)
*Versatility* (is it a bike-only GPS like the Edge series, or is it made for a variety of uses and can change the layout from one use to another like the Oregon?)
*Mounts* (How does it mount to things?)
*Battery* (how long does it last? is it an onboard rechargeable or user replaceable AA?)

There are more features you'll find, but these tend to be important to people. You'll find a lot of folks disliked the mounts for the Edge 305 and 705 models so Garmin improved them for the Edge 500 and 800. Likewise for the eTrex and the 60/76 series as compared to the Oregon, Dakota, and 62/78 series. High screen resolution has advantages of showing you a lot of detail, but the limitation of using more battery. User interface can be important if you have a preference for that sort of thing like I do. Map types is a biggie, too.


----------



## TheDirty (Apr 1, 2011)

NateHawk have you by chance seen the new Forerunner 610 from Garmin? I was considering pre-ordering one, as that touch screen feature looks nice!

I not only bike, but I run and swim as well. (I know the 610 is not waterproof so I wouldnt use it in the pool) but I'm looking for a watch that counts heart rate, calories burned, and the GPS functionailty. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I do a little running, too, and I use a Forerunner 205. These days, I don't monitor my HR much, and I have a Polar I got for $10 at an REI garage sale for when I do.

The touchscreen on the FR610 looks pretty cool, but I haven't looked deeply into that watch to see what other features it has. I know with the FR205, I really wanted a lot of the advanced workout capabilities it has, because when I got it I was on a pretty specific workout plan that involved a lot of interval work and pace work. My main reasons for getting the Forerunner back then were to help me keep track of my laps for intervals and for tracking my pace. At the time, most other models lacked those advanced workout features.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

Could you please explain what do those map options mean?
Also, what are those waypoint limits you wrote in the memory submenu?

Thanks


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

assas1n said:


> Could you please explain what do those map options mean?


*No map* - self explanatory
*Basic map view w/o basemap* - will show relative locations of tracks and waypoints, but no reference information (roads, streams, cities, that sort of thing)
*Vector map* - Map features graphically represented by point, line, and polygon features. Roads and small streams are lines of different colors, lakes and larger rivers are polygons going roughly from shoreline to shoreline. There are points representing various points of interest. A forest or park, for example, is just a solid green polygon.
*Raster Map* - Scanned images of some sort where each pixel may have a different value. Useful for satellite images where you can actually see vegetation types. They often give you more accurate representations of things like shorelines.



> Also, what are those waypoint limits you wrote in the memory submenu?
> 
> Thanks


All the specs you could ever want. https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=132


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

I i mean, could you explain what those limits mean?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

assas1n said:


> I i mean, could you explain what those limits mean?


Please elaborate on your question.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

What does a 200 waypoint limit mean for example. Also, what do point limits stand for?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

It sounds to me like you need to do some basic research and educate yourself more on GPS features. Here is an excellent tutorial.

Nate is a capable GPS geek, but expecting him to educate you on the vast features of GPS use is not very fair to him. 
_
Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime_.

Go fishing with the above tutorial. :thumbsup:


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

Ok so after reading those tutorials, i went to Garmin site and took a look at the Edge 500.

On the specs, it said Waypoints/favorites/locations and routes = 0

Does that mean it stores no tracks? I couldnt save my daily lap through the mountains to watch it over google earth afterwards?




After looking many reviews, i think the Etrex Legend HCx will be what i choose. What do you guys think of it for mountianbiking?


----------



## dang1 (May 1, 2007)

For a device to be stored in your backpack for track recording, so you can save the trail route and when you get home, transfer it to your PC and watch the trail line drawn on the mountains on Google Earth- get a GPS data logger, like the Holux M-241. Looks like alot reviewers in Amazon like it.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

Yeah but at least a black line on the screen showing where ive been would be lots of help.

Thats why i thought of the Etrex Legend HCx.


----------



## dang1 (May 1, 2007)

if it's black lines on the screen showing where you've been is also what you want, check out the Venture HC. It's the one I have and I like it.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

The benefit of the HCx is that you can add a memory card for extended capacity


----------



## dang1 (May 1, 2007)

yup, that's good with the memory card. I wouldn't know because my trail mileage usually never exceeds 10 miles, and my Venture HC is good enough for that. So, you're all set then. Let us know how it works out.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

assas1n said:


> Ok so after reading those tutorials, i went to Garmin site and took a look at the Edge 500.
> 
> On the specs, it said Waypoints/favorites/locations and routes = 0
> 
> ...


Ok, the terminology is tripping you up. Yes, you can see a track as you ride and upload it to the computer when you get home. Go back to the Garmin 500 page, click on the "more images" below the picture of it, and scroll down to the very bottom image. Bingo.

So, it will record a *Track*, you can load a *Course* to follow. It will not allow *Locations*, *Waypoints* or *Routes*.

Look these up in the Garmin Glossary and it should become clearer. Using a GPS to full advantage does have a steep learning curve. You seem tenacious enough to get there.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I think the stickied thread at the top of the GPS board would be a good help.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

Hmmm yeah that glossary help clear some naming doubts hehehe.

Although i have some more things to ask you guys 

How long can a track be to be saved on the Etrex Legend HCx?
Also, according to garmins site, the Edge 500 does not save any routes you can later follow, and says nothing about the ammount of tracks you can save.

Also it says the 500 doesent save any waypoing/favorites, but in the more pictures section, i can see saved locations.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I don't know anything in particular to the Edge 500 outside of what I've read from other people's experiences with the device. They'll have to address those questions.

The terms you should look for regarding the length of a track you can save would be "track memory", "track log memory", "track point memory" or something similar. In browsing Garmin's site, none of the cycling GPS receivers specify number of track points, so I dunno what the deal is there. All it says is how many laps it can hold. I suppose if you set the GPS to "auto lap" at a specified interval, that gives you your capacity in some relatively vague terms. I know that when I had an Edge 705, it would store a bunch of old activities, but the device performed better if you cleared as many out of memory as possible. My Forerunner 205 is the same way - it will hold a lot of old runs but works better if I empty the memory.

Many of the handheld models can handle as many as 10,000 points in a track (like my Oregon 450), but the less expensive models handle much less. IIRC, my old Rino 120 could only handle 2,000 track points before you'd encounter problems. If you were trying to load a track onto the GPS that had more points than that, it would truncate the track arbitrarily. Sometimes the GPS will split a longer track into hundreds of tiny segments. If you're recording a track and you reach the point limit, the GPS will start overwriting the track from the beginning.


----------



## gps_dr (Feb 27, 2007)

On Garmin units, what happens when you exceed track memory depends on a setting.
(e.g. Wrap when full or just stop recording.)

Most recent handhelds allow you to drag & drop GPX files containing routes/waypoints/tracks onto the GPS. Typical limit is 200 of these files. Sort of a pain to get rid of on unit.
Don't have a newer Garmin/Magellan/Lowrance unit to see if performance is degraded with many gpx files loaded. To avoid loading all of these files, you can create map overlays for Garmin & DeLorme. Don't know if it is possible on Magellan or Lowrance units.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

gps_dr said:


> On Garmin units, what happens when you exceed track memory depends on a setting.
> (e.g. Wrap when full or just stop recording.)


I have not found such an option on my Oregon 450. While searching for it, I did notice that my Oregon has an auto archive option for tracks. Mine is currently set to auto archive when my track log is full. I can also do it for distance or time intervals. Then doing some more digging, I found the auto-archived tracks. Now I just need to find them to get them off of the GPS to merge with some of my earlier incomplete tracks.


----------



## DesertDog (Apr 14, 2006)

gps_dr said:


> On Garmin units, what happens when you exceed track memory depends on a setting.
> (e.g. Wrap when full or just stop recording.)


Well, don't forget that you can also allow the unit to record essentially unlimited track points by allowing it to save to the memory card!

Also, there is the setting to specify how many track points that the track log will log (which won't interfere with your save tracks), in addition to the tracking interval.

Interesting to see the 'snaking' effect of doing a long ride that exceeds the number of points that the track log records. Been noticing that a lot lately now that I'm recording at 1 second intervals. Not that it's reallly necessary, but I want to get the best detail I can for creating overlay files from what I map!



gps_dr said:


> Most recent handhelds allow you to drag & drop GPX files containing routes/waypoints/tracks onto the GPS. Typical limit is 200 of these files. Sort of a pain to get rid of on unit.


Hey, it's sort of a pain to get rid of them even when you just use all 20 tracks that are available on an older GPS unit, like my 60CSx!

And, if you don't mind an older unit, I whole-heartedly recommend the Garmin GPS MAP 60CSx!


----------



## DesertDog (Apr 14, 2006)

slocaus said:


> It sounds to me like you need to do some basic research and educate yourself more on GPS features. Here is an excellent tutorial.
> 
> Nate is a capable GPS geek, but expecting him to educate you on the vast features of GPS use is not very fair to him.
> _
> ...


The bad thing about what you say is that only 'gps freaks' like us look into every little screen and option to find out how to do everything that can be done. And even we sometimes miss stuff until it gets mentioned by someone else!

Sadly, there is nothing in the documentation for the units that actually tells 'normal' users how to do anything but the basics! These devices need to be shipped out with settings that allow optimal performance and no thinking required for 97% of users (think bell curve). Then, the remaining 3% of us geekers can tweak them to our heart's content!


----------



## womble (Sep 8, 2006)

Sounds like a 305 (or a 205 if that's basically the same thing without the HRM?) is what the OP wants.

I ride in places without decent topographic map data available, so all I want is to record trails and pump them into Google Earth. The 305 will do this. It's cheap, it's easy to use, easy to mount.


----------



## emsky80 (Jul 2, 2011)

Have you thought about a Holux GPSport 260 Pro? I love how easy it is to read the screen and it has a highly accurate GPS. Routes can be downloaded into a number of different mapping packages.

http://www.holux-uk.co.uk/holux-gpsport-260-pro.php?it=216


----------



## gateCrasher (Dec 23, 2006)

I have the same Edge 305 that I bought back in 2006 or 2007. It has been bulletproof. I lost it in the Buffalo river when I crashed my canoe (found it later when we found the submerged canoe wedged between 2 rocks). I lost it on the trail that I normally ride, but it was returned to me by another rider that happened upon it (mtb riders rock!). I've done everything with that thing - bike, run, canoe, drive, etc, etc. The heartrate monitor works Ok, I guess. I'm not looking for perfection, just get me in the ball park so I can at least have a starting point to measure. 

The one variable is the garmin.connect website. I love that thing and they've done some really good updates to it. I can get a overview of all my rides with the stats that are important to me. I can share on facebook, send the link, or search for other riders nearby and see how they did in comparison to the trails I ride.

Like a previous poster said, the mount isn't really that great. On a rough trail it will bounce off and you'll lose it. I solved that by just wrapping a velcro strap around it when I ride. The battery life is Ok even after all this time. I probably charge it once a week. I do not use it to navigate. I've used the little asci map on it a couple of times, but really just to see what form the trail takes. I never could get the cadence feature to work. I don't need it to navigate for me, since i use it only on the trail. I don't need a color display because I don't look at the thing when I ride unless I'm checking my heartrate, speed, and distance. 

That's about all I got to say about it. If it died, I'd buy another one.


----------



## Dirtrider127 (Sep 17, 2010)

I just got the Garmin Edge 605 and love it. I'm a basic guy just wanting to track my rides and see what they look like after uploading and this unit has been easy to use for me so far.
Costco has them for $199 now


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

Well people, took longer than i thought, but the time has come to buy my GPS.

I saw Garmin launched several new Etrex series models. Including the Etrex 20.

Now, between the Legend HCX or Vista HCX and the 20, which one would you choose? Why ?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

assas1n said:


> Well people, took longer than i thought, but the time has come to buy my GPS.
> 
> I saw Garmin launched several new Etrex series models. Including the Etrex 20.
> 
> Now, between the Legend HCX or Vista HCX and the 20, which one would you choose? Why ?


20. Updated OS and software capabilities, GPS+GLONASS, 1.7GB internal memory + memory card capability

The 30 adds ANT+ wireless, however, which makes it compatible with a HRM, speed/cad sensor, Chirp geocaching beacon, wireless data transfer.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

thanks NateHawk, tomorrow im making the purchase on the Etrex 20 then !


----------



## miguel33 (Jun 9, 2009)

Would highly recommend the Edge 500. Perfect little machine for all my needs.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

As im not looking for mounting the GPS on the handlebars, the Edge 500 is not what im looking for.


----------



## assas1n (Sep 28, 2009)

Finally went for the new Etrex 20 series GPS.

Just updated firmware to 2.50 (from 2.20) and now its time for learning !

Whats the point on choosing battery type on the menu?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

assas1n said:


> Finally went for the new Etrex 20 series GPS.
> 
> Just updated firmware to 2.50 (from 2.20) and now its time for learning !
> 
> Whats the point on choosing battery type on the menu?


Accurate battery level, giving low battery warnings and shutting down at correct voltage for the battery type being used.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

choosing the wrong battery type can result in abrupt, unexpected shutdowns and "shorter than expected" batter life.


----------



## kdc1956 (Feb 5, 2010)

I use the Delorme Earthmate PN-60 GPS it's pretty easy to use and setup.It comes with a lot of maps and disc so you don't have to buy much more to be able to use it.It's great for bicycling and a lot of stuff and the price is pretty cheap for what all you get in the box.Garmin GPS are ok but I wanted more in a GPS unit.My 2 cents I know it's no good here lol...Thats why there is so many GPS 
out here to pick from.


----------



## forgiven_nick (Nov 7, 2006)

I am seriously considering the etrex 30. I like that it has the barometric altimeter and ANT+ capabilities. I use Strava.com a lot to compare my routes with other riders, but currently use my android phone to track my route. I also use a Timex Race Trainer Pro heart rate monitor with ANT+. Will my Timex HRM strap sync with the etrex 30??

I figure that I should get another dedicated GPS unit since the last one I bought was about a decade ago, plus I am doing long rides in the dirt (this weekend I just did my first off road metric century!) and my phone battery gets pretty low by the end of tracking my longer routes. My phone should be saved for emergencies when I am out that long and I like that the etrex series uses GLONASS and AA batteries as well for increased accuracy and longevity. I have been wondering if there are any reasons I should be looking at the Oregon or Edge series GPS units as well?

Thanks!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

GLONASS doesn't necessarily improve accuracy. By itself it's actually slightly less accurate than gps. The improvements it provides are simply a larger sat constellation. It can improve accuracy if the visible gps satellites are few or provide poor geometry but really I think of it as a reliability improvement


----------



## StiHacka (Feb 2, 2012)

*Barometric altimeter accuracy?*

Do you ladies and gentlemen trust your barometric altimeters? I got me a mint used Vista H and the altimeter is far from dependable. When I calibrate it before a ride and do a 1hr loop, the difference between the starting and ending elevation can be quite starling (e.g. 135ft vs. 215ft at the same spot). Maybe my unit is faulty? Perhaps a few degrees of temperature drop (I usually finish right before sunset) and being close to coast makes such a difference? Luckily strava fixes the elevation imperfections for me but I would like to know where the error most likely is. Thank you.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

StiHacka said:


> Do you ladies and gentlemen trust your barometric altimeters? I got me a mint used Vista H and the altimeter is far from dependable. When I calibrate it before a ride and do a 1hr loop, the difference between the starting and ending elevation can be quite starling (e.g. 135ft vs. 215ft at the same spot). Maybe my unit is faulty? Perhaps a few degrees of temperature drop (I usually finish right before sunset) and being close to coast makes such a difference? Luckily strava fixes the elevation imperfections for me but I would like to know where the error most likely is. Thank you.


Barometric pressure changes during the day (I know, duh.  )
Baroaltimeters _improve_, not *perfect* the accuracy.
GPS elevation can be off by 300-500 feet.

Your data was 80 feet off.
Which would you prefer to have for reference during a ride?

Use a desktop program that uses DEM corrections and you can get much closer accuracy. My post ride mapping software is the data I use and trust.

Remember, GPS gives you precise approximations unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend for more precise instruments (and a BoB trailer to tow it.)


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

GPS elevation accuracy varies as a multiple of horizontal accuracy, whereas barometric altitude measurements obviously vary by pressure but can be calibrated.

You said you calibrated prior to your ride but you did not say which gps and how you calibrated. And slicaus is right, it was off by 80ft. Big diff near the coast but in the big picture not much at all.


----------



## StiHacka (Feb 2, 2012)

NateHawk said:


> You said you calibrated prior to your ride but you did not say which gps and how you calibrated. And slicaus is right, it was off by 80ft. Big diff near the coast but in the big picture not much at all.


Thank you. I did say I have a Garmin Vista H. I used the known elevation calibration method, 80ft over 135 is 60% off, a little more than I had expected. The weather really did not change that much in one hour, if at all.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

StiHacka said:


> Thank you. I did say I have a Garmin Vista H. I used the known elevation calibration method, 80ft over 135 is 60% off, a little more than I had expected. The weather really did not change that much in one hour, if at all.


A barometric altimeter has a consistent accuracy of about 100ft no matter your initial altitude.



> So, an 8 bit a/d with pressure sensor provides 100' precision. But, many of these low cost altimeters "beep-out" altitudes down to the foot. It is clear that the extra resolution cannot be valid.


from http://www.transolve.com/Transolve/Files/Testbench/001/Testbench001.html

80ft is within the acceptable error range of a cheap barometric altimeter. Quit whining


----------



## StiHacka (Feb 2, 2012)

NateHawk said:


> A barometric altimeter has a consistent accuracy of about 100ft no matter your initial altitude. 80ft is within the acceptable error range of a cheap barometric altimeter. Quit whining


Drink much before posting?

Eleven+ years old article, 8bit A/D, seriously? eTrex altimeter would have to be a random number generator if it only registered 80ft increments but reported them in single feet. Such resolution would make them completely useless for fitness tracking. I do not care about absolute elevation figures, but the hundreds feet of fake gain per a five mile trip I like not. I am going to try it with auto calibration off, that might work better for short trips.

Sorry to disturb the piece of your cave, mate. No need to respond.


----------



## scanny (Feb 21, 2012)

NateHawk said:


> A barometric altimeter has a consistent accuracy of about 100ft no matter your initial altitude.
> 80ft is within the acceptable error range of a cheap barometric altimeter. Quit whining


Well in my watch altimeter has 5 meter accuracy, but it's Casio. Normally sensors even in cheap watches have 1m / 3ft accuracy. The only problem with barometric altimeters is that they require frequent calibration because atmospheric pressure is changing. If there is no storms the pressure usually changes slowly and if you calibrate your altimeter before you go out for a ride you are going to have quite accurate altitude records.


----------



## forgiven_nick (Nov 7, 2006)

*Lets be done with this altimeter accuracy discussion and get back to suggesting a GPS*

From Garmin's own FAQ:
"How accurate is the Barometric Altimeter?"


----------

