Re: GPS Recommendations

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.

>> 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.

> 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.

Thanks again

SB





.

Loading