Which GPS is best ?

yvon said:

I paid my 60CS $476.00 + tax, in december.

Click to expand...

Down to $ 364.00 at GPSCity.com.
I just got another one for my son to upgrade him from a 76S.

Motobobo, be sure and let us know what you purchase. I think you've found out whose brain to pick on gps-ology.

CaptCaper said:

Down to $ 364.00 at GPSCity.com.
I just got another one for my son to upgrade him from a 76S.

Click to expand...

Yvon's price is in CDN $'s. They're getting cheaper by the minute. My RINO 130 was CDN $325 or thereabouts (xmas gift). I hesitate to lay out a large whack of cash for something that I could probably do without, no matter how cool it is.

In October, Hillman (now famous for the gps head pic) and I did Sawtooth #5, a bushwhack Hundred Highest. He had the most bottom line gps I've ever seen. Any WP's had to be entered manually and, no offense to Doug H., it seemed like a cheap piece of ...apparatus. But, being able to get a fix, satellite, that is once in a while and check the bearing to the next WP or summit was a gigantic leap forward from M&C only. We used the M&C extensively and the instrument confirmed that we were on track.
Also, I've bushwhacked with an expert M&C person who is a regular on the forum here and when it mattered he was spot on and just as quick in pin-pointing our location and desired line of travel. On that trip the gps served as a confirmatory device.

It's all something to consider when determining you budget and perceived need for bells and whistles.

I responded to this on another thread separately, but I will respond on here too. I use the eTrex vista and have for the past 4-5 years (since the 1st generation came out). On individual hikes, certain features stand out as important and on other hikes they just simply are not as important. For instance, on a real steep up, the mental mind game of watching the feet tick away on the altimeter function assists in preoccupying the mind from the physical exertion I'm feeling. For me, it makes it go faster . On flatland bushwhack shortcuts to some nameless knob, I may never even use the altimeter function. So really, each function will serve a specific need based on what you are doing in the moment.

For the overall, over time big picture functionality, I have found that by far the most important function that the vista (and other units) has is the mapping capability. Not so much for what it does in the moment (orients you on a virtual topo map of the area you're in), but for the overall long term things I have learned by using it, particularly in the area of bushwhacking.

In my experience, there are subtle (and occasionally significant) differences between "topo terrain" and "real terrain" once you get off trail. The art of recognizing and distinguishing between the two in the woods is part of what I consider a newfangled type of woodcraft that I refer to as Observational Navigation (ObNav). I'm not sure I'm using the term right, but that MY definition of it. For me, it is the art observing the surrounding terrain features (multiple) and recognizing their significance so that I can place myself in relation to them on a map without the aid of compasses, GPS or even eyeball triangulation.

One of the pitfall's I've found trying to teach myself ObNav skills is map bending, which is when you take terrain features you actually you see, and then imprint them to a FLASE location on the map. This will place you in a different spot on the map then you actually are. Thats sorta the effect of "Gee, I thought that tiny mound right over to the right, is this knob right here (pointing to a topo map knob 1/4 mile away). By having the mapping capacity, you can get instant feedback that will CORRECT your false map bend you back to place you correctly within the scheme of the topo world. Over time (I suppose by being wrong enough) I have learned to differentiate between what I am actually seeing on the ground and what I should expect to see translated the topo maps I carry. IS THAT AS CONFUSION it sounds ?

With each bushwhack I do, I'm feeling that more of my pre-hike topo work is translating to a far better understanding at what I should expect to see at different locations along my hike route. I'm no expert certainly, but I AM GETTING BETTER. Now, I can happily hike along off trail without the aid of my GPS (or map/compass) and only when I begin to see things that are not what I expect to see do I need to refer to the GPS map to re-orient myself to the real world.

For instance, If the plan is to hike directly up hill to a knob at the end a jutting ridge, then follow that ridge to the summit. I start out with that in mind, but then as I'm strolling along whistling Dixie and enjoying nature, I suddenly find a huge ravine forming to my right, I'll stop and be like "hmmmmm, that's not right, it shouldn't be there". By using the Mapping feature, I can instantly see I drifted right to far. Do that enough times and you start to know your own tendencies while bushwhacking and future hikes will reflect that knowledge, hopefully in a positive way.

SOOOOO... for all my bloviating, I find that the mapping capacity of my vista, has taught my to be LESS RELIANT on the mapping capacity feature of the vista and more reliant on what I see and feel out there in the real woods. Sorry for my loquaciousness of this post.

mavs00 said:

SOOOOO... for all my bloviating, I find that the mapping capacity of my vista, has taught my to be LESS RELIANT on the mapping capacity feature of the vista and more reliant on what I see and feel out there in the real woods. Sorry for my loquaciousness of this post.

Click to expand...

Can't you do the same thing with a non-mapping GPS and a UTM gridded map?


-Shayne

spaddock said:

Can't you do the same thing with a non-mapping GPS and a UTM gridded map?

Click to expand...

Of course, but it is harder and takes more time.

Since it is easier and faster with a mapping GPS, you more likely to do it. And if you add fatigue, wind, rain/snow, etc, the difference in convienece can add up to the difference between doable and not doable. Also you are less likely to make a transfer error.

In theory, one could also use a non-mapping GPS while driving a car; but in practice, you would have to pull over every time you take a fix. Having a mapping unit allows you to see what you need to see with just a quick glance because everything is plotted for you on the map.

Doug

DougPaul said:

Since it is easier and faster with a mapping GPS, you more likely to do it.

Click to expand...

How good is the resolution of a mapping GPS like a Vista or Summit, etc. Can you really see the detail on those tiny screens. I've been considering getting a Rino.... are the new colour models the way to go?


-Shayne

spaddock said:

Can't you do the same thing with a non-mapping GPS and a UTM gridded map?

Click to expand...

Most US maps are not UTM gridded; at best some have tick marks along the borders. That makes using the paper maps that much harder.

In Switzerland last summer I was hiking using a basic Etrex, but their maps have 1 kilometer grids and are at a metric scale (I used the 1:50,000 series). I found that I could eyeball my position quite easily to within 100 meters or better, all I really needed.

For better accuracy in the field there are a variety of tools, check the MapTools website and read their excellent Usng UTM Coordinates booklet online.

spaddock said:

Can't you do the same thing with a non-mapping GPS and a UTM gridded map?
-Shayne

Click to expand...

I have the grid overlay tool and I've used it both to pin-point my location and to enter WP's while in the field. While the overlay's precision is nice the eyeball estimation does a very good job too. Last May Alistair and I decided to descend a new route not entered beforehand in the gps. We simply entered a WP for a coupkle of map grid intersections (easy with all those zero's) because we were getting cold. As we descended I just watched where we were in relation to the wp's and used them as a rough guide.

It's a very good exercise though to gain understanding about how all of this stuff works. To study the map and decide what WP's you want and then to manually "pull" them off the map and enter them into the gps is a very good study. It isn't something I'd do for all my hikes. But, I have no computer-GPS interface for Quebec and I was able to set up 5 days worth of bushwhacking à la gps last winter. (40 or 50 WP's) Most I did at home, some at the cabin and a few while standing on a lake. If nothing else it makes you appreciate the computer.

Mohamed Ellozy said:

Most US maps are not UTM gridded; at best some have tick marks along the borders. That makes using the paper maps that much harder.

Click to expand...

You use a ruler and the kitchen table to apply the grid lines. Another reason to appreciate the computer.

You can make your own lat-long ruler too. Another excellent exercise.

mavs00 said:

...In my experience, there are subtle (and occasionally significant) differences between "topo terrain" and "real terrain" once you get off trail. The art of recognizing and distinguishing between the two in the woods is part of what I consider a newfangled type of woodcraft that I refer to as Observational Navigation (ObNav). I'm not sure I'm using the term right, but that MY definition of it. For me, it is the art observing the surrounding terrain features (multiple) and recognizing their significance so that I can place myself in relation to them on a map without the aid of compasses, GPS or even eyeball triangulation.

One of the pitfall's I've found trying to teach myself ObNav skills is map bending...

...With each bushwhack I do, I'm feeling that more of my pre-hike topo work is translating to a far better understanding at what I should expect to see at different locations along my hike route....

...mapping capacity of my vista, has taught my to be LESS RELIANT on the mapping capacity feature of the vista and more reliant on what I see and feel out there in the real woods.

Click to expand...

Mavs and I have previously pontificated on this topic in previous posts here and other places. We have very similar techniques, the difference being I never really entered the gps world to practice or teach ObNav. I'd disagree in calling ObNav a newfangled technique however, as it's been in use by woodsmen for a very long time. My father, the best mentor ever in the woods for one. I still don't understand how he knew so much.

To be fair, if gps units existed when I was learning these techniques I probably would have used one (I am an engineer by training and profession and this particular technology is no stranger). I do understand the draw and ease of gps technology and I don't begrudge anyone using it as an aid. Just don't ignore everything else nature offers because you have a gps.

Being I was mentored and self-taught in the ways of navigating back in the dark ages, I used the best tools I had available at the time... map, compass, eyesight, and a tiny bit of brain power. Improving those skills seemed adequate enough. Now that gps is available I still don't carry one for recreational hiking. I do own one and use it when on a SAR team mission with the DEC, or perhaps I might use it for mapping the neighbor's woodlots. Otherwise I can't think of many instances while recreational hiking that I would need to pinpoint an obscure featureless location to within 10 meters in the backcountry. Anything of interest can be located by simply looking around at the environment on the way to finding it. Observing that you have one foot on the shore with the other one in the water at the inlet flowing into a lake puts you within a few inches of the best accuracy possible.

When learning this stuff, I've found it actually helped to get a little "lost" along the way to finding the next recognizable position. There's nothing like constantly/nervously questioning your present location to make you a better observer of the subtle clues nature offers you. I'd bushwhack for an hour or more while dead reckoning on a compass heading to a remote pond. Not until better practiced did I understand I could actually continuously know where I am by observing minor terrain features along the way. A tiny squiggle in a contour line may be enough to fix your location to less than a hundred feet or so, which for all practical purposes is plenty accurate.

It is the observation and assemblage of many such small terrain clues that make you a better navigator. You don't need to always see a craggy mountain or distinctive lake shore to navigate by. Sometimes you can relax a bit and just knowing "I am very approximately 'here', in this ravine heading west" is enough knowledge for the moment. To navigate I look for anything that is different in my motto of "change is my friend", meaning that any time there is even the slightest change to what you observe serves as information input for a position fix. I ask myself what of significance lies next ahead, when do I expect to see it, and if I don't then, why not?

What is crucial is pre-trip map study. It takes practice. Study the map enough to expect what you will look for and encounter in the field, even to memorize enough so you can find your way out if your map (or gps) gets lost. As Mavs says, "bending the map" is one of the greatest dangers. A single error will lead to nonsensical clues in short order from which you may easily recover. A compound error based on a previous undetected error may lead to panic. I've seen people during training ignore obvious major terrain features because "everything else looks right" (I just follow behind and let them go - we discuss it all in detail later). Trails and beaver dams and meadows may change over time from the map representation, but a mountain or prominent ridge hardly ever moves. Look for change, use it, justify it, definitely question it, but never ignore it.

Mohamed Ellozy said:

Most US maps are not UTM gridded; at best some have tick marks along the borders. That makes using the paper maps that much harder.

Click to expand...

I don't know about most US maps or those in New England, but virtually all USGS paper topographic maps of the Adirondacks now have UTM grid lines printed on them. Not only the newer 1:25000 metric series, but even the older 1:24000 series maps have been overprinted with grid lines.

DougPaul said:

Of course, but it is harder and takes more time.

Since it is easier and faster with a mapping GPS, you more likely to do it. And if you add fatigue, wind, rain/snow, etc, the difference in connivence can add up to the difference between doable and not doable. Also you are less likely to make a transfer error.

In theory, one could also use a non-mapping GPS while driving a car; but in practice, you would have to pull over every time you take a fix. Having a mapping unit allows you to see what you need to see with just a quick glance because everything is plotted for you on the map.

Doug

Click to expand...

What he said. You do it on the fly, and it's instant feedback.

Now, I've been doing alot of hiking with some REALLY skilled ObNav folks and occasionally on my own. I haven't referred to a paper map, in the field, in over a year. I always carry them, but I just have found that WE (it not so much as a I thing) have not had the occasion to use them. We do however refer to the GPS, with the goal of doing that less and less.

In fact, I used almost exclusively ObNav skills to find a rarely (like close to never) military crash site last year in the DAKs. I was only given a vague description by the guy who rediscovered the site it in 1997 (the crash was in 1943), but he gave me very specific terrain locaters to guide us. We walked, turned like we were supposed to when we found them, and we pretty much walked RIGHT TO IT. In fact Rik & Peakbagr (from this site) were with me and I remember saying to Rik "hey Rik, I think we should be getting close" and within 30 seconds he called back to me and said he'd found the first piece of wreckage. It was an awesome feeling.

We (and it was a group effort), never consulted a map, and carried the GPS that told us where WE were, but not where the plane WAS and we literally walked right to a needle in a haystack.

The bottom line is ObNav can be very powerful and for me, the mapping capacity I have in my GPS improved my skills and has greatly reduced my learning curve in doing it. Sure, I could have learned the same with maps and overlays, but it would have taken more time. In addition, I remember a hike to Little Santanoni (again with Rik & Peakbagr, among others) in the driving rain. It sucked enough using ObNav and wet GPS unit's (actually one failed, leaving only mine left), I can't imagine thegrief we'd have gotten had I said "hold on guys, lets stop in this downpour to consult the paper maps" (yeah, I know about waterproof ones) for a bit. Ultimately, we walked directly to the summit and back down again with little trouble despite driving rain and reduced visibility

Certainly I understand that in the scheme of things, I am very "young" in my knowledge of the woodcraft of ObNav. I really am. But someday, I envision myself walking into the adirondack woods to go someplace specific, going there and GETTING back not having ONCE to consult my GPS, a map, or compass Just relaying solely on what I see and what my mind & experience tells me. There are many hikers (some right here on this forum) that do exactly that, and I stive to be like them. I can think of few things that would provide a greater sense of individual accomplishment for me on a hike (in relation to b-whaking).

Nessmuk said:

Mavs and I have previously pontificated on this topic in previous posts here and other places. We have very similar techniques, the difference being I never really entered the gps world to do or teach ObNav. I'd disagree in calling ObNav a newfangled technique however, as it's been in use by woodsmen for a very long time.

Click to expand...

True, I meant using the GPS to advance the natural learning (or relearning) process that has existed in us for years.

Nessmuk said:

Just don't ignore everything else nature offers because you have a gps.

Click to expand...

Soooooooo true. Let the natural signs and our inherent skills guide us, and let the technology supplement your long ago forgotten confidence in "finding your way in the woods". Our ancestors used them for generations.

Nessmuk said:

When learning this stuff, I've found it actually helped to get a little "lost" along the way to finding the next recognizable position. There's nothing like constantly questioning your present location to make you a better observer of the subtle clues nature offers you.

Click to expand...

I agree, I've taking to doing local strolls in a huge wooded park of several hundred acres near my home (mendon ponds for you local western NY folk). It's filled with glacial terrain features like eskers, drumlings and protruding ridges. It's crisscrossed with nature trails but very easy to get turned around back in there. I've been using it as my ObNav training ground, always going without a compass, map or GPS. Needless to say, I've spent many an hour actually lost there

Nessmuk said:

What is crucial is pre-trip map study. It takes practice. Study the map enough to expect what you will look for and encounter in the field, even to memorize enough so you can find your way out if your map gets lost.

Click to expand...

This fact cannot be overstated, weather you GPS, M&C, ObNav, or however you choose to tackle a truly trailess peak.

I have a Garmin Forerunner 201 and 301, and they cannot track a signal as well as Magellan Meridian Platinum.

For instance, I recall a hike up Bear Mountain in Connecticut in which one of the Forerunners never got satellite lock, and the Platinum never lost satellite lock.
The whole point of the experiment was to compare the behavior of the odometers, but I never got data from the Forerunner.

My choice was the 60CS hands down. I have also used it in the car as a navigator with City Select installed (now I use a C330 StreetPilot in the car and have installed only United States Topo maps in the 60CS). Loading maps is fast (a few minutes for 56mb), and the altimeter is right on.

KevCon223 said:

My choice was the 60CS hands down. I have also used it in the car as a navigator with City Select installed (now I use a C330 StreetPilot in the car and have installed only United States Topo maps in the 60CS). Loading maps is fast (a few minutes for 56mb), and the altimeter is right on.

Click to expand...

I agree although it costs more than others My priority is in the features. I've used GPS since 1995 now and find this little 60cs unit the cat's meow. The CSX has even a better reciever for foilage. The guys are raving about it.
The unit has a vertical trip computer in it and gives excellent data for vertical trips such as hiking unlike the units without the sensors which don't have a vertical trip computer i.e. 60C. Most people don't realize that. They think the Sensors are just a compass and barometer.
I have a Street Pilot 2610 as well as a Northstar 941XD that I bought new in 1995. I use external antennas for all three.

Nessmuk said:

I don't know about most US maps or those in New England, but virtually all USGS paper topographic maps of the Adirondacks now have UTM grid lines printed on them. Not only the newer 1:25000 metric series, but even the older 1:24000 series maps have been overprinted with grid lines.

Click to expand...

None of my maps show a full grid, so I searched the USGS site for the real scoop. Here is what I found on their Questions and Answers Regarding GPS page:

4. Why don't your maps show the UTM grid?

Through time, policies have changed regarding whether or not a full UTM grid would appear on the 7.5’ map series. Beginning in the mid 1950’s, the grid was indicated by blue ticks around the projection at 1000 meter spacing. In 1979, the ticks were replaced with a full-line black UTM grid. Because so many complaints were received through a 1991 user survey, the full grid was removed in early 1992. Blue ticks returned to the maps. In 1994, another survey indicated that either a complete grid or internal 1000 meter ticks were the preferred treatment as opposed to the perimeter ticks alone. Once again, a full grid will appear on the 7.5’ series with the exception of single edition quadrangles published cooperatively with the U. S. Forest Service.

Click to expand...

So it all depends on when the map was printed.

Remix said:

I have a Garmin Forerunner 201 and 301, and they cannot track a signal as well as Magellan Meridian Platinum.

For instance, I recall a hike up Bear Mountain in Connecticut in which one of the Forerunners never got satellite lock, and the Platinum never lost satellite lock.
The whole point of the experiment was to compare the behavior of the odometers, but I never got data from the Forerunner.

Click to expand...

The Platinum never reported a lost lock. All GPSes dead reckon for short distances to avoid constantly reporting lock loss and reacquisition. Magellans have developed a reputation for carrying on this dead reckoning too far and reporting a lock, but giving you garbage locations.

Compare the recorded tracks to where you actually were if you want to make a meaningful comparison.

I prefer a GPS that tells me that the lock is lost rather than giving me bad data.

See the following threads for more detail:
Question on GPS use under heavy canopy: Garmin vs Magellan http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7393
Garmin 76CS
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9499

Doug

WOW!! My search for GPS info has made my head hurt. I am getting interested and scanned this thread for the last fifteen minutes.

I am going to have to re-read this stuff many times for I don't understand it at first glance, but let me say thanks to all who posted with such great detail.

When I know what to ask, I certainly feel confident, asking here.

By the way, if I missed it. Motabobo, which unit did you buy????

Doodles said:

WOW!! My search for GPS info has made my head hurt. I am getting interested and scanned this thread for the last fifteen minutes.

I am going to have to re-read this stuff many times for I don't understand it at first glance, but let me say thanks to all who posted with such great detail.

When I know what to ask, I certainly feel confident, asking here.

By the way, if I missed it. Motabobo, which unit did you buy????

Click to expand...

Take a breather and sort things out. Look to the web and learn all you can. Best thing of course is buying one and using it. Basically once you learn about navigation and gps basics it will apply to all of em. i.e. auto,boat,and as they change features you can go with the flow much easier. There all similar.
I bought a 60CS for my son as I have one and find it perfect for hiking. He went up Cannon yesterday by himself and with temps down low and fog I felt better he had more resources to work with. I have one and find it excellent all around. Best ever screen in outside conditions,fast processor,has a nice track option to make it readable in dim conditions,and a vertical trip computer among other things.
The new 60CSX has better reception now using a state of art processor receiver. But the CS works just as good if you use an external antenna. My son sent me the track of Cannon and didn't lose a signal the whole day with 60CS and a Gilsson antenna.
Hope this helps ...

Cellphone GPS

Pretty soon all that will be needed is a cellphone that can tell you exactly where you are. www.nokiausa.com/about/newsroom/article/1,1046,3828,00.html