Re: GPS Recommendations


Steve B. wrote:
> Rick, thanks for the info.
>
> "Rick" <rickwarner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message >> "Jason Settles"
>
> >> I have used the original Garmin Vista, and did experience the
> >> auto-shut-off
> >> issue related to loose Lithium batteries, but also had luck with a rubber
> >> shim. The Lithiums do extend battery life, are expensive, but are almost
> >> a
> >> required item as the Vista eats alkalines.
> >
> > NiMH are cheaper than lithiums and work great. I have 2500 maH ones
> > that I am using now, but have been using 2100 maH NiMH batteries in my
> > Legend and Vista for the past 5 years and they work fine with
> > sufficient life.
>
> I suspect I had not heard of NiMh in AA size 3 years ago, thus went to
> Lithiums. I'll try the NiMh
>
>
> >> The software does allow an up-load of a track to PC as well as download
> >> of a
> >> map, but does not allow routes to be complied on a PC and downloaded, or
> >> I've never been able to do it !
> >
> > Geez, I guess all those routes I compiled for my tour down the west
> > coast and my tours in Italy, Switzerland, France, and Spain are all
> > figments of my imagination. Not! It is trivial in the Garmin software
> > to create routes and download to the unit.
> >
> >> though I think you can download routes from
> >> Delorme products - never bothered though.
>
> Well, I did say that I had never been able to do it !, not that it wasn't
> possible, but having not used the unit as much in the past 2 years ( I have
> a 2610 in the car - which I love !), I'll delve back into it.
>
>
> > Only sort of; DeLorme takes its route and creates a series of waypoints
> > that get downloaded. OK, but not as useful as a route.
> >
> >> The built in tracklog is good for
> >> about a 22 mile ride, or one way track, before it "wraps around" the log
> >> of
> >> waypoints it writes.
> >
> > I did 300 miles in France in May all in the Active Log of my Vista with
> > no wrap around. You need to work more with the unit and find out how
> > the setting affect things. Lower the sampling rater; a high sampling
> > rate is fine if you are flying an aircraft or driving at 80 MPH, but on
> > a bike it is useless.
>
> > Semantic correction; it writes track points, not waypoints. Waypoints
> > are a much different thing.
>
> Are you using the same unit ?. What I remember on my unit was the
> limitation of something like 1000 trackpoints (which I should have called
> something like internal waypoints, or some such to avoid confusion) - which
> I seem to recall could be adjusted as to how far apart in distance, which
> according to info I read ended up as something like 20 some odd miles at
> highest resolution. Remember that I was creating cuesheets, not using to
> navigate, thus I needed better resolution.

Yes, I am using an eTrex Vista. You seem to confuse trackpoints and
waypoints. The Vista, and many of the Garmin units, can store up to
1000 waypoints, only. But a waypoint is a marker and is quite
different from a trackpoint. I have tracks with 6000+ trackpoints in
them.

> >> else it cuts corners on twisty
> >> roads and the ride log reads short.
> >
> > It will still do this even at the highest sampling rate.
>
> True, but with less error
>
>
> >> Thus a regular $25 bike computer can be
> >> more accurate,
> >
> > No, if calibrated correctly the cyclocomputer will always be more
> > accurate. Accuracy of distance travelled is not the reason one rides
> > with a GPS. It is to help navigate and provide a track that can be
> > analyzed later.
>
> Do you mean Yes, the bike computer is more accurate ?. One issue with bike
> computers though, is that from manufacturer to manufacturer, the measuring
> differs, and even with correctly calibrated computers, the measurements
> differ. This was the primary reason I got the Garmin, to help me get a
> different measurement system as I create cue sheets for my area. At this
> point I essentially average out what the GPS and the bike computer tell me.

Yes, the cyclocomputer will be more accurate. The difference in
measurement systems is relatively inconsequential. The main difference
is whether they use cm or mm. Since my wheels are all over 200cm in
circumference, the maximum error is less than 0.25% (5mm on a 200cm
circumference wheel) if it uses cm for calibration rather than mm. A
difference of a 1/4 mile on a 100 mile ride does not matter.

> > Again, the main purposes to ride with a GPS are to navigate, to find
> > items, and to provide a track log for later analysis.
>
> Which is what I missed my Garmin on a trip to Vermont 3 weeks ago when I
> decided to detour without a map.

Use it more often, then you will become more accustomed to its uses,
capabilities, and limitations. And if you move to NiMH, the
rechargable aspect will help with the cost of running it.

BTW, here are some GPSVisualizer processed tracks from my recent trip
(all tracks recorded on an eTrex Vista):

http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_2005_tour.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_May_24.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_May_25.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_May_26.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_May_27.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_May_28.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_May_29.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_May_30.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_May_31.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_Jun_1.jpg
http://www.cycle-tours.com/images/france-spain2005/maps/map_Jun_2.jpg


- rick

.

Loading