PerryB2

JohnTee may not get a satellite lock with the PN-20 in his living room, but it does have a High Sensitivity receiver. I have both a 60CSx and a PN-20. With FW 1.4 on the PN-20 it’s reception and accuracy in the mountains, in woods, is very similar to the 60CSx. The 1.4 FW does seem make a difference. The 60CSx gets it best reception in a vertical position. The PN-20 does best horizontal, face up. I took both on a recent hike in a valley, in deep fir forest, in the Washington Olympic Mountains. Both GPSs got and held satellite lock during the whole hike. This hike was 4 ½ miles round trip. One way I measure accuracy by looking at the recorded track going and coming back on the same trail. The four tracks were all close together, generally within 30ft to 40ft of each other. The maximum distance apart for the two PN-20 tracks was 70ft. The maximum distance apart for the two 60CSx tracks was 50ft. At the trailhead I marked a waypoint with each GPS before and after the hike. 3 of the waypoints were within a few feet of each other; however the initial waypoint from the 60CSx was 70ft away from the others. At lunch I marked waypoints and turned the GPSs off. After lunch I turned them on and again marked waypoints. This time the waypoints were all within 30 ft of each other. On the return track the initial PN-20 location was about 45 ft from where I turned it off and the 60CSx initial track point was 170 ft away. I had not moved more than 10 ft. In less difficult situations I have found no noticeable difference in the accuracy of the tracks and waypoints the two GPSs record. In one instance one may do a little better, but in another check it will be the other one that does better. My overall impression is that the 60CSx is slightly more accurate (gets slightly better real reception) than the PN-20; but the difference is very, very small. The 60CSx and PN-20 are both great GPSs.

A good place to learn more about the DeLorme is on their forums. The pn-20 comes with a good vector topo map, with the 60CSx a topo map is extra. For hiking the DeLorme has much better contour detail / intervals and you can put 7.5 minute quads on it if you want to. The PN-20 does not have the 2-axis electronic compass or barometric altimeter that the 60 CSx does. They both have high sensitivity receivers. They are both good GPSs.

How are you carrying the PN-20? It will get it’s best reception if carried horizontal – face up.

I have both a 60CSx and PN-20. I find the PN-20 easier to read. It just seems brighter / clearer; with or without backlight. The colors on the 60CSx seem dull in comparison. My eyes are not young.

If you really want 7 1/2 minute quads you could return the 60CSx and buy a DeLorme PN-20. <Is the scale on the older mapsource the same as 2008? 1:100,000?> yes As you can see from the 60CSx, GPS screens are about 2 inches square. You will likely want printed quads as well...I sure do.

You said you were "not really impressed" with the 60CSx. You mention the 'screen bounce', which was addressed by another poster. If you could be more specific about what you did not care for on the 60CSx it may help get specific answers to your concerns.

Take a look at Mapwel. It greatly simplifies the process.

The Colorado needs to have the backlight to see the display on in many situations where the 60CSx does not…this affects battery life. Whether or not that will be an issue will depend on how you plan to use it. Look at them for yourself, if you can.

I don’t have a Colorado, but I did compare a Colorado 400t to a 60CSx at REI, both by the display counter and by the window with full sunlight. The Colorado was so dim without the backlight; to me it was not usable. If you can, try to find a store that has them and do your own comparison.

HarLin, The manufacturer specification accuracy of the HCx is within 33 ft. 95% of the time; or, within 10 ft. 95% of the time when it’s using WASS. This is with a clear sky view. The Magellan SporTrak map says claims 21 ft. 95% 2D RMS or 10 ft 95% 2D RMS. So the specs on both are fairly close to the same. If one appears better in your test and the difference from your marked point is close to or less than the specs, the difference is probably just luck. I’ve heard that many of the Magellan units start automatically averaging where the Garmin’s do not. As long as you have a clear sky view for all of your geocashing, the accuracy of the two should be similar. Where the HCx may well do better is under heavy tree cover, in mountains or urban ‘canyons’.

To add a little: About the screen – go look at the different ones someplace where you can compare side by side. I was surprised when I did. There is more to it than size and resolution. For example, I was at REI looking at the 60CSx, Colorado, and PN-20. The screen on the PN-20 is shorter than the 60CSx. The screen on the PN-20 is clear and the colors are bright, making it easy to see. The colors on the 60CSx are very dull / faded in comparison to the PN-20. The location pointer, highways and your track are easy to see on the 60CSx. However, it can be hard to distinguish between contour lines, trails and minor roads. The Colorado has a great looking screen…when you have the backlight on full. At less than about ¾ backlight level it was hard to see what was on the screen. And others have reported very short battery life with the backlight on full. They did not have any Tritons on display. But a few days ago, when I was there, I noticed a box full sitting on the floor. Ready to go on display, or going back? I don’t know. Perry

In which case it would be dead as a doornail, unless the different chips are identical. But then there is no issue. Hi Anders, I realize I was not clear. I was thinking about the situation where it did identify the chip correctly but did non handle / process the information from chip ‘A’ to produce the same result as it did for chip ‘B’…because of a bug in the firmware that only affected the result from a certain chip. Thanks for all your contributions. Perry

Interesting. Thanks! <They just make a firmware that appropriately identifies the chip in each unit, then handle it accordingly.> Unless it doesn’t. That could easily explain why people with the same model may or may not experience a particular problem.

Spoke with Garmin rep about this. The ones pre-loaded on the 400t are 1:100,000. Thank you for the information. Maybe I'd be better off getting a 300 and adding maps from another source. Patty Patty, <from another source> Except Garmin in the only source (they do a have 24k National Parks), unless you want Colorado or want to create your own. Perry

I have not tired it, but MapSource has a Maps check box on the Transfer > Receive from Device dialog. So it looks like the maps could be transferred from the GPS to your PC. Perry

Thomas Distributing has a number of charger / conditioners http://www.thomas-distributing.com/index.htm Perry

In MapSource use the Track Divide Tool (the button looks like a red S with a scissors) to split the track into two parts. The track properties dialog should not be open. It’s easy once you figure it out. Perry

Another option for making maps for Garmin GPSs is Mapwel.

Ryan, From my investigation, I’ve found that all of the ones you listed get pretty good reception under tree cover. The pros & cons in short: PN-20 has better topos and mapping software. However, from posts I’ve read it can be a little slower to redraw maps when zooming or panning; it gets good reception under tree cover, but not quite as good as the 60CSx. If you do a search on the model names, you should find lots of info and opinion. A lot of the choice is going to depend on what’s most important to you. Perry

I have not used one of the NG Trails Illustrated Explorer 3D maps, but do use the NG Topo! State series maps. I can easily upload and download waypoints and tracks to my 60CSx from NG Topo!. From my experience with Garmin Topo USA (not 2008) and NG Topo! State series. The Garmin is a rough approximation of level 4 (1:100,000 scale) maps. It’s real advantage is that it does give you at least that level of detail on your GPS map screen, but won’t be a substitute for printed maps from NG Trails Illustrated Explorer 3D. I hope this helps. Perry

Have you updated NG Topo to the Vantage point version?

Did you install the MapSource you got with the GPS?

One possible work around is to traces the missing roads in NG Topo to make tracks and transfer those to your GPS. Another possibility is to download road info from the Forest Service Geodata Clearinghouse, but the process of converting the data from the shapefile the FS provides into tracks you can transfer to your GPS is not simple.

In MapSource you can delete the offending point from your track.

Remember the estimated accuracy the GPS displays depends a lot on how optimistic the mfg wants to be in what they tell you/display. In other words, to get an idea of real accuracy you need to compare two units actual location output side by side. One way to do this is to look at time based track logs created when you are standing still, particularly in a poor reception situation. The Vista HCX is reported to do well at keeping signal under tree cover. I have a 60CSx. It’s done well for me under trees…to the point that I don’t even think about it loosing signal. I had a Magellan 315 before…there is a big difference. I have found that where and how I carry it makes a big difference. Also, when reception is quite poor, it will loose accuracy long before it displays a low accuracy reading or reports that it’s lost signal…actually I don’t think I’ve ever had it report that it’s lost signal while hiking in the woods.