This can potentially set off a firestorm, I know.

Rather than interrupt a different thread, though I'd start my own. Now, I've been using the GPS for cars for a few years, intermittently. Never camping/hiking/outdoorsy. I have a decent sense of direction, know how to use a map and compass, and heck, most of my hikes in the last 10 years don't even need a map. My wife uses the Garmin Forerunner, but only as a distance-measuring device.

That being said, I'd like to change it! So, for < $200, what do you think is the best GPS for me?
-- Would like decent battery life (approx 10 hrs)
-- waypoints would be nice
-- small/light
-- relatively quick to lock on and use.
-- rugged (if I like it, I may take it if needed in a military setting)

I do NOT need a compass feature or an entire map. Don't really care about weather, barometer, altitude, etc. Would like something that can display lat/long, in addition to whatever other GPS-centric navigational coordinates. I was just playing on amazon for a few minutes, and seems the Garmin Foretrex 301 had the basics. Things like the Garmin eTrex seemed too "techie" for what I want.

Ideas?

I've owned the eTrex and did not find it complicated at all. I did not coin this phrase, and I do not know who to attribute it to, but I certainly subscribe to it: Get as much Garmin as you can afford.

After quite a few years of using "outdoor" GPS's of various capabilities, I've boiled down my own needs to (beyond the basics most have):

-Mapping - the reality is that although the primary function of the GPS is to produce the current location's coordinates ... eventually I had the desire to actually view the current location relative to features around me.

-Electronic Compass - though this is certainly not needed, I find it helps that my current GPS (Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx) can point to the destination waypoint while I'm standing still.

-External Memory Card - IF you get a GPS with mapping, do make sure your unit has an external memory card capability.

-Fast-Lock GPS Chipset - Most of the newer GPS units have a GPS chipset that allows the unit to lock in amazingly fast - even under fairly substantial vegitation cover. These days the old style GPS chips are almost unacceptable, especially since I don't leave my unit on as I hike. I hike, stop, turn the unit on to get a waypoint, and then turn it off to save the batteries.

-Battery Type - My own preference is for all my electronics (GPS, headlamp, weather radio) to use the same battery type - so I don't have to carry a bunch of different kinds. Lately that seems to be AAA batteries, but unfortunately my current unit takes AA batteries. On the other hand, AA batteries (I assume) tend to last longer than AAA batteries.

As for ease of use, I find all of the Garmin units I've had to be easy to use. Even my young daughter - without any instruction - had been able to figure out how to set up the GPSMAP 60CSx to navigate.

If all you want is to get GPS coordinates and capture and use waypoints, then the Garmin eTrex H should suit you well. Garmin is about to come out with a new eTrex, but I'd imagine they would be more expensive than the current version. Actually my Garmin Geko is a great tiny unit, but alas it doesn't have the more modern chip set (and it out of production - but sometimes findable on-line).

One more thought ... about the different brands out there.

I've only owned Garmin GPSs, except for a Delorme unit that works with a PC.

I tend to be a big fan of healthy competition between brands, since it tends to create better products, so I wish there was more competition between makers of GPSs, but from what I've read on-line Garmin's competitors are struggling to compete with them - except maybe to some extent the Delorme units.

Still, as they say, your mileage may vary.

I am also a Garmin only person. I have a Nuvi on the dashboard and a Geko 301, GPSMAP 60CSx for the trail.

I'm seriously looking at the Foretrex 401 but I need to find out more details. It's small, lightweight and with the high sensitivity receiver should be a great addition. I'll use this on my bike rather than having the Geko attached to my handlebars. It should do all you need.

The AA battery has about 2.7 times the energy of the AAA battery. Which is a lot more than you would think when eyballing their size.

FWIW. I've found the 60CSx can lock faster and maintain lock much better than my eTrex Vista.

The only real downside is that it can't take lithium batteries.

-john

You want a stripped down GPS w/ the current technology but not the extra fluff. I get that. My personal opinion is stay away from Delorme PN40. I have one, I love it but its a high end model and has a steep learning curve.

Conversely I have a decade old Garmin eTrex Vista and it is as basic as it gets. Monochrome, not a lot of whistles.

I would say this. The iPhone has spoiled me. Using its provided Google Map, and adding things like Around Me and Geocache app, it shows how much dedicated backcountry GPS units need to compromise for the chipset and battery power. I am not recommending an iPhone as a back country GPS.

I think Garmin can fit your bill. Like mentioned above the Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx gets strong reviews from hikers and government users. Don't dismiss having full color maps preloaded or being able to do that. looking at silly monochrome screens and funky triangles gets tired.

Garmin Foretrex 301 or 401. You can't beat this design's profile of signal acquisition, size/weight, and proven track record of dependability. If you absolutely must have AA batts instead of AAA, go with one of the lower end eTrex models, as long as it has the high sensitivity chip.

Disclaimer: this advice assumes you depend on a paper map and traditional compass as the base for your nav work, using the GPS as an (extremely useful) adjunct. If you intend to rely chiefly on the GPS it will cost you a lot of additional money, weight, and bulk... plus lots of batteries.



For the $36 price difference, the compass function is nice for getting a quick azimuth when navigating from waypoint to waypoint if you're using a route in a tricky area. Don't worry about the fact that the compass eats more battery power. Best practice is to turn the GPS on periodically, not run it continually (but there are exceptions where I have not done this). Plus you can also just turn the compass off if you like.



Vista, or Vista HCx? Enormous difference; the HCx has the high sensitivity receiver. The 60 series had a high sensitivity chip (although an earlier design) long before the eTrex series was available with one.

Vista. Not Vista HCx.

-john

I just pulled the trigger on a Foretrex 301. Primary reason is that when flying I want to read altitude not cabin (pressurized) altitude.

With the 401, the baro altimeter is constantly updated by the GPS, but in a situation where baro altitude is 5000 ft and real altitude is 15,000 ft, it gets a bit out of calibration. The 301 measures GPS altitude which for my purpose is just fine.

Cool, you will love it.

As far as the GPS units that are made for cars... Garmin is better than Magellan because the Garmin units will let you avoid unpaved roads. You don't want to end up like the Chetien's in Nevada (who were using a Magellan).

Beyond that, I think you have to dive into the details and figure out which feature is the game changer for you personally. For instance, the new Delorme PN60 is awesome, but doesn't have an external antenna jack. That alone might be the game changer for you. Or maybe you need long battery life or you need to be able to save a large number of waypoints. The devil is in the details and there are so many models now you just have to figure out which features are important to you.

I have a question about non-mapping GPS models like the fortex 301/401 or the eTrex H.

I haven't used these before, but looking through the owner's manuals for these models (fortex, eTrex H) they don't seem to show any screen shots for a mode where the device simply displays your current coordinates so you can relate your position to a map.

How easy are these units to use if you are trying to relate your current position to a map, as opposed to pre-entering your way-points before your trip? Or is that the right way to do things?

MDinana,

I believe it was my thread you didn't want to interrupt so I promise not to hijaack yours.

Although I might be able to salvage my Triton, after looking around for a replacement the new version of the Garmin eTrex 20 looks like it might fit my needs with regard to price, ruggedness, map loading and size. A bigger screen would be nice but would be twice as much money.

It also will work with the Russian GLONASS satellite system (though after today's loss of Russian supply rocket for the ISS I'm not sure I'm brimming with confidence in Russian technology).

Currently not shipping, but it looks like a nice unit.

It's super easy on my old eTrex, haven't played with the newer models.

Denis -- Page 8 of the Fortex owners manual discusses waypoints. That is one page where you would get the Lat/Long or UTM coordinates. That said, not everything is in the owners manual.

I expect to find a summary page in the receiver which has things like location, elevation, time & heading. Possibly with optional fields which you can select.

Like I said in the other thread, I always mark a location and create a waypoint in the GPS before moving it to the map.

I've just had a quick look at the Garmin Foretrex 301 GPS manual. Its pretty awful in that it is showing nothing I would consider useful. Yet the 301 is being marketed as useful for even military use.

I couldn't find any information on Datum settings and Compass Declination, WAAS etc, even my old Etrex Camo would even accept DGPS signals via the 232c cable for Differential GPS (using an external MBX-3S Differential Beacon Receiver) and would display OSGB 36 format for UK Ordnance Survey maps let alone MGRS, NAD27 etc (coordinate datum transformation) etc.

Connecting the Garmin eTrex GPS to another device using RTCM NMEA signals is also very useful to turn the GPS into a full electronic mapping system as well using a Notebook PC etc.

These basic eTrex's are fully featured (non electronic map display type) and cost effective.

http://www.amazon.com/Garmin-eTrex-Handh...2906&sr=8-1


Here is an example of a waypoint I recorded on my Samsung B2710 i.e. Ordnance Survey

NO3965078992 - Plug it into www.streetmap.com and set zoom to 1:25000

and a video of the location where camp was setup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBB9V87pqZI

The location might be out by about 10-20 metres but technology today is pretty

+1.The older Garmins all did this quite well; can't imagine that that basic information isn't displayed on the newer units.

The ease with which you can fix your coordinates on the map has more to do with the configuration of the map than the GPS itself. You want a map with the UTM grid, typically in 1000 units. It helps if you have a printed scale of some sort, allowing you to easily find your position on the map. Theoretically, you could do this with lat,lon as well, but it is much easier with UTM. Just be sure your GS and map share the same datum, and be prepared for the occasional deflected signal (in canyon bottoms, etc).

If you are familiar with UTM. I've been using Lat/Long in navigation for over 30 years.

Maybe if the map was only UTM... still, with non-mapping GPS receivers, I use preloaded waypoints for nav.

It sounds like it would be worth it to check out the eTrex H. It seems like it would provide the basics (keeping track of where you've been & figuring out where you are) at a very reasonable cost; locally they are running $90.

Honestly, this is a fair bit less than I originally thought you'd need to spend to get into a decent GPS for hiking.

I should have stated that I was basically referring to USGS topos which have the UTM grip superimposed - even very old ones have tick marks so you can draw your own grid. Lat/lon marks on these topos are pretty sketchy. Marine charts are a very different story - basically lat/lon works much more easily there.

Now that I agree with. But I really should spend an afternoon and learn UTM. It's supposedly a fairly good system.

Fortunately, both the Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx and the Geko 301 receivers can display in either Lat/Long or UTM.

Seems like about 3-4 units have come up repeatedly. Thanks all.

As for lat/long vs UTM ... UTM is OK. I only played with it for about 2 hours one day, but seemed straight forward. Since this is something i'm considering in a potential military use, the UTM would be useful too.

Thanks all for the thoughts.

Maps with UTM grid + GPS with utm coordinates is all very good. MGRS is even better - ever heard of it? It is UTM for dummies. It is UTM coordinates, but you replace the biggest number with a letter code (which only changes every 100km) and round the last numbers off to 100 meters accuracy. This is plenty accurate for wilderness navigation, IMO.


Example: Take the UTM coordinates 34W 422460 7734002. The MGRS equivalent with 100 meter accuracy is 34WDC - 225 - 340. On my 1:50.000 map, the numbers 22 and 34 correspond to the numbers written on the UTM grid (which is a 1 km grid). Those two numbers tell me which square I'm in, and the last digit ("5" and "0") tells me where I am inside that square. The 34WDC-part covers a 100- by 100 kilometer square, so it is straigthforward to keep track of that.

So instead of the 13 digits 422460 7734002 I only have to juggle around with two-by-tree numbers 225 - 340. MUCH easier! And much easier to add or substract in my head - I know instantly that my friend in position 236 - 443 is 10 km to the north and 1 km to the east (23-22=1, 44-34=10). Try doing that aritmetic in your head with 423649 7743928... Not to mention how hard it is to communicate all those numbers by phone, radio, SMS or email...

In the MGRS system, rounding off to 100 meter accuracy is optional. You can round off to kilometers, 10 meters or keep the 1 meter resolution (giving you the full coordinate 34WDC 22460 34002). But on a 1:50.000 map I can't read the coordinates with accuracy much better than 100 meters anyway, and 100 meters is PLENTY for my wilderness navigation needs. 100 meter resolution is the perfect compromise, IMO.

Please note that the GPS retains its full accuracy, it is just the resolution of the coordinates you see on the screen that's rounded off to 100 meters.


I've got a magellan GPS which was top of the range way back in 2004 (magellan meridian color). By today's standards, the map screen is horrible and the user interface is very primitive and little intuitive. But it has all the bells and whistles a geek can dream of, I can do any kind of map coordinates I like (I can even define my own, if I like) and the battery life (~15 hours) and accuracy is pretty decent, even with today's standards.

Today I'd go for a garmin, probably some model with "60" in it. But I would absolutely choose a GPS that can show MGRS with 100 meter accuracy.


Oh, by the way, both UTM and the MGRS (=UTM for dummies) is invented by the military.

Back to the original question: If all you need is a basic GPS and you do not need maps and do not ever intend to need maps in the GPS receiver, take a look at the Garmin GPS-72H.

This version of the GPS 72 has the high sensitivity receiver, a 1.6" x 2.2", 4 level gray scale display, takes 2 AA batteries (alkaline, Lithium or NiMH) for 18 hours (alkaline?), is waterproof to IPX7 levels and it floats.

According to the owners manual it allows for 29 different location formats, so I'm fairly certain that UTM is on that list.

This is basically the same GPS that I've seen some pilots take as a back-up nav system. They use a GPS 72 and preload VOR and TACAN stations as fixed waypoints for nav; it allows them to navigate off a tacan reference even though they are below the radar horizon and can't receive the tacan signal.

With all that said, the Foretrex 301 can do most if not all that with 2xAAA batteries but with a smaller display. It doesn't float, but as long as it's strapped to your wrist, it doesn't need to.

The Foretrex 301 is virtually the same price as the GPS 72.

FWIW, $.02??

I find it interesting that the 72H is the only GPS in Garmin's basic (non-mapping) handheld category for trail use that is shown as displaying the GPS coordinates on one of the device's main screens (i.e., outside of viewing/editing a waypoint).

Maybe when it comes down to practical use, you'd want to save a waypoint when checking your position anyway, so it really becomes a moot point. But this is the information I would have thought you'd see once a device is powered up and the satellites were acquired.

Having just checked the manual for the eTrex-H on the Garmin Webiste, it is again very very poor compared to the full information detailed on the older eTrex Camo manual.

http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/eTrexH_OwnersManual.pdf --eTrex H

http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/etrex_yel_cam_3.0.pdf --eTrex Camo

Is it just the extremely poor manual or has many of the features been disabled on the later eTrex models.

Does Garmin regard its user base as being a little dull, when it comes to Datum and Mag declination GPS features etc?

I think most GPS's will do both L/L & UTM. I prefer UTM, which is what you get Adventure Racing and Orienteering (most of the time)but Geocaching defaults to L/L.

Relax guys. Garmin's manuals are notoriously poor but the products are fine.

My old Garmin Vista HCx will put as much as 6 data fields on the main screen at a time. Which fields they are, and how many, is easily user configurable. I do it all the time. My default screen shows coordinates, azimuth (true, grid, or magnetic; user selectable), and accuracy. When navigating between waypoints I have it show distance to the next point.

FYI - Garmin is redesigning the eTrex line and they should be available soon. They are advertising the eTrex 10, 20, and 30 models now.

I think if I wanted a basic, no-frills GPS I would go for the eTrex 10. Looks like it will be selling for a little over $100 MSRP. Just having the USB connection for the computer is worth the extra cost over the older eTrex H model.

All that being said, I've had too many Garmin models to count. None have ever given me a problem. Latest is the GPSMAP 62s -- probably more bells & whistles than I need, but it works great.

Yep -- the receivers with smaller displays are somewhat limited in the number of fields they show at one time, but often the other data is accessible using the arrow keys to tab through.

As a for instance, on the Geko 301 there is a page with a compass displayed and on the bottom of the display is a field for info selectable by the user. By using the arrow key you can tab through: Heading (you need to choose between True or Mag), Location (Lat/Long or UTM), Elevation, Speed, Time/Date, et al.

Similarly, on the Elevation page (next) the lower field has: Glide ratio, Min Elevation, Max Elevation,a 12 hr pressure graphic, Ambient Pressure, Normalized Pressure, Vertical Speed, et al.

The next page is a table of four fields and you can select which info is displayed in each. Mine currently shows (top to bottom) Elevation, Heading, Lat/Long and Time of Day.

Bottom line, there is a lot of info available on these receivers if you know how (on which page) to access it. Once you get a GPS, play with it a lot and do everything with it on a known course before you go wandering into the unknown.

cedfire -- How does the GPSMAP 62s compare to the GPSMAP 60CSx? It takes lithium batteries, but how else does it differ? TIA

Lots of extra features -- you can make/download custom maps, you can download Garmin's proprietary "Bird's Eye" imagery, support for paperless geocaching, ability to turn entire map sets on/off, wireless "Chirp" and exercise interface, lithium battery support as you mentioned, high-speed USB interface, etc.

I used to have a GPSMAP 60Cx and I would consider the 62s a relatively big improvement in terms of overall features. As far as GPS reception & performance, I think they are pretty close.

Realistically, I hardly use the lithium battery option, but it's nice to know it's there. A set of the Sanyo Eneloop NiMH cells work really, really well.

Agree with Garmins manuals (and software), they are a lot like HP, the software sucks but they have the best hardware, I buy for the hardware and replace the software with open source.
In my testing eneloops and Lithium get with 5% different in run time, a few minutes difference over hours so its close enough that I can't really tell a difference.

what are you charging you eneloops with, maybe they are not getting a complete charge, I get maybe 5 minutes difference between eneloops and lithium.
base camp looked nice but is using .net so even on a quad core processor with 8G ram its extremely slow. For those that don't develop or support .net is designed to make programming easier and makes extremely bad code which wastes a lot of resources and has a lot of problems. Any time you have a software vendor that needs any version of .net installed you know you'll be in for multiple support calls.
I've stuck with an older version of mapsource because its the last that will work under wine but recently found an open source package called viking that looks similar so I hope I can replace it. That will be the last program I need wine for

Okay ... a Garmin Foretrex 301 arrived and first thought was "wow, thing thing is small." The display is the same size as that on my Geko 301, but the overall package is much more compact; it has about the same thickness (probably dictated by batteries and display), but it's just slightly narrower and about 2/3 as long.

BTW, I can't find any way to show Lat/Long other than to Mark the location as in creating a waypoint. None of the fields I tabbed through listed location as an option. If someone can find that option, please correct me.

Edit: I'll correct me now that I've played with it a bit outside where it could get a location and update time from the constellation. If you go to the Trip Computer page, four fields are visible and you can select what is in those fields from a list of options. What I didn't see before taking it outside, is that the page continues down if you scroll with the arrow keys. Right below the four visible fields at the top, are additional fields, one of which is full width defaulted to Location. Below that is a full width field defaulted to Elevation and at the bottom is a full width field defaulted to Time (of day).

The compass page has a compass pointing to your next waypoint or final destination (as required) and two fields to the left in which you can display info from a list of options; location is not one of those options.

It seems that the Foretrex 301 is primarily set-up to show your location relative to waypoints you create as you travel or pre-load before you leave home. However, everything you need including location (lat/long, UTM and a bunch of other formats) is available if you look for it.

It's really small. I pulled the Lithium batteries out of my Geko to use in the Foretrex and will store the Geko along with pack of AAA's in my EDC backpack. Everything I had done with the Geko can be done with the Foretrex with the exception of the baro altimeter which I specifically declined.

I like it.

Go to the Trip Computer page, then select the data fields you want displayed there. Pick location coordinates in WGS84 lat/lon and/or user selected coordinates and datum.

This guy's review of the 301 has some errors and oversights in it, but at the 12:10 mark he shows the trip computer page set up with 2 fields: lat/lon and compass heading.

Thanks, I found that page and field, and discussed it and the other fields on that page in the "Edit" paragraph of my post above yours. That's a good YouTube video review.

I really like the Foretrex 301. For a receiver you can where on your wrist it has a lot of capability. While the display is small, it allows you to access navigation information that could easily keep you from hiking down the wrong water-shed.