UKGeoCyclist

Don't like to post this, but I've been told to do so by the Dewdrops, and as they helped me get the my first big milestone on 09/04, I thought I would do so.. UKGeocyclist has finally hit the 100 cache milestone. Adrian D'Oh, edited to enter the correct date after entering the wrone one

Guys, As earlier states, this is a problem caused by moving very slowly when you get almost on top of the cache. Take a look at This Link Because the GPS uses your direction of motion to give a bearing to a waypoint, when you slow down to a near standstill, the GPS struggles to give a reliable bearing due to your movement being so little. Try marking a waypoint at a landmark on your street, going to one end and telling the GPS to go to the waypoint just marked. Try it when walking fast, cycling, and walking very slowly. You should see a difference between the walking fast and walking very slowly, but it should be accurate when you cycle past. Add into the equation tree cover, which degrades the GPS signal further due to the scattering effect of the tree canopy, and you see why the GPS is having difficulty. Try taking a normal compass out, and transferring the bearing that the arrow is pointing to and transferring it to the compass, and estimate how far you need to walk by taking the distance reading from the GPS. Even if the arrow is pointing the wrong way, the distance counter will still correctly count up as you move further around, and count down as you get closer. Adrian

I have a venture and a legend, and find this happens on both units, normally when I'm under tree cover, in any area of poor reception, or moving very slowly. If I've left my normal compass at home, generally walk away at a brisk pace, turn around and come back at a brisk pace until the counter zero's out. As axetowax said, when you pick up speed it generally sorts itself out. Other times, I tend to ignore the arrow, and watch the distance count down, but most often, when I'm about 50-100m away and travelling at normal speed, I transfer the bearing that the GPS is giving to a normal baseplate compass and use that to keep a constant bearing until I reach a likely hiding place. Adrian

Its far to easy to make a mistake when entering waypoints on the GPS unit. Its far easier and much more accurate to download the co-ordinates from GC.com then upload them into the unit. Another reason is to back up all of your data. If you use your etrex regularly, then you will soon find that you have run out of space to store your tracklogs, and waypoints. Another reason is that if you have to do a hard reset you will lose everything in the GPSr. Although you can keep a list of co-ords for your waypoints, manually entering even 25 waypoints is tedious, so imagine if you had to manually enter 100 or more. Just my 2p worth, Adrian

Hi, Apologies if this has been raised before, but I have done a quick search and cannot find anything that is immediately obvious. I am using the latest version of Mapsource (6.5) and an older version of Memory Map (3.1.6) Due to the useless waypoint management in Memory Map 2003, I dowload all of my waypoints and tracks into Mapsource, as is it much easier to manage them here. However, I miss seeing my tracks on the detailed maps that memory map provides. I have tried saving everything to a *.mps file, then converting *.mps to *.csv using GPSBabel. However, when I try importing the resulting file into memorymap, nothing gets imported. Does anyone know the best way to exchange data between these two programs? Ideally I would like the path of least resistance, and do not want to have to use half a dozen different programs to achieve my goal. I know that GSAK supports Memory Map exports, but as far as I can see, this only handles waypoints, and it is really my track data that I'm interested in. Tks, Adrian

There are loads of utilities out there, I have used most, but for Caching Waypoints GSAK gets my vote, even though I've only scratched the surface. G7toWin is good for backing up the waypoints from the GPS, as is Easy & ExpertGPS IMHO, GSAK is about the best you can get.

I've recently upgraded to one as well. I used to have an etrex Venture, and can't believe how much more useful the unit is with the metroguide maps loaded. I've found that the unit is a tad slow updating when travelling at speed in a car/bus or train, but as I mostly use it for cycling, it is ideal. I don't bother with the "Lock on Roads" option, as I found that it made the screen updates slower, and didn't like it if I went offroad for a cache. Remembering to turn it off was a pain, so I just leave it off, and the accuracy is good enough for me if the zoom is set to the 120m scale or above. Love this unit, and not had too many reception problems, though I have to confess that the leaves aren't out in the UK just yet. Adrian

All GPSr units have a basemap specific to the region in which you purchased them, therefore units from the US will not have any detailed European basemap coverage and vice versa. On my European etrex Legend, I get an outline of the US with state boundaries, and major cities, but that is all, there is no road detail at all as far as I can see. In order to get any road detail, you will need to purchase some european mapping software to upload to the unit. There are a few hacks out there for the Garmin etrex, that allow you to create your own maps, but its a long process. In the UK, there are some free topo maps available Here These are accurate enough to give you an idea of the topography, but I would not rely on them for serious navigation. The answer to your question is that in order to upload detailed maps to the GPSr, you have to rely on the proprietry maps. If you want to connect the GPSr unit up to a Pocket PC, then that opens up loads of doors, as there are lots of manufacturers who provide digital mapping for the PPC, but it also adds significantly to the cost Memory Map Fugawi, and many, many more, however this software will only work on a pocket PC or desktop, and cannot be uploaded to your GPSr Personally, I own an etrex Legend, and am more than happy with it. I have only just switched to a mapping upit, and can't believe how I managed without for so long. For your budget , the Legend is a good unit, however, having never used a Megellan or Lowrance unit, I cannot comment on these. The one big advantage that these have over Garmin is the use of removable SD cards, I really wish that Garmin would add this to their units soon. Hope that this answers some of your questions Adrian

I had considered this, but as I often use front panniers on lowrider pannier racks, I needed to mount my dynohub powered lamp to the centre of the fork crown, where it would be obscured by a front rack. I did try to mount the garmin mount on my bar ends, but because of the angle the bend at, you couldn't see the screen. The RAM mount works fantastically for me, and means that I haven't had to spend an age fiddling with my current setup to mount the GPS. Adrian

The problem that I had with the Garmin mount in the end was caused by my handlebar bag. I do a lot of touring, and have a bar bag fitted most of the time that I tour, and indeed when I go caching, as its a convenient place for maps, swaps, food, etc. To use the garmin mount with the bar bag meant that the etrex had to be almost vertical, which isn't too god for getting a lock with a patch antenna, it also meant that you couldn't read the screen. The bar bag also meant that one of the spacebars was not a viable option either. The RAM mount positions the GPS forward of the bars, and allows it to be horizontal above the bag, meaning that it is in a perfect viewing position (for me anyway). Adrian

Have you considered a RAM Mount RAM Mounts The following kit will allow you to attach your Garmin to the handlebars (up to 1" diameter) of a bike. RAM-B-149Z-GA5 This is slightly more expensive than the Garmin mount, but IMHO soooooo much better. I use one on my mountain bike all the time, and they are fantastic as they allow you to adjust the position of the GPS for optimal viewing, which the Garmin mount does not. I got one about 2 months ago, and would not be without it. Adrian

The official reply from Garmin is: "Yes this is because the eTrex Legend is a mapping unit and so has a Basemap built in. The basemap is drawn from a 1:1'000'000 and a 1:100'000 map and therefore is not accurate at all and not intended for accurate navigation. If you had detailed mapping for the area you were travelling in it would show a much better position." This makes sense, why didn't I see that? I noticed the base map was a tad inaccurate, as it had me cycling down the motorway on my bike for about a mile or so last night. Adrian

I have just got a new Legend which is loaded with firmware version 3.7. I have noticed that the accuracy circle on my unit seems to bear no resemblance to the accuracy figure shown on the satellite page. Last night I was using a map zoomed into 300m, and the GPS was indicating accuracy of 6m, however, the accuracy circle was twice the size of the map scale bar, which is surely not right. I turned on my old Venture for a comparison, and got the same accuracy reading, but at the same scale the accuracy circle was NOT visible as it was beneath the position marker, and was only visible if I zoomed in a lot more. As the accuracy decreases, the circle gets larger, then shrinks again as accuracy increases, but the circle just seems way too large for my liking. To check the GPSr accuracy, I loaded my track into memorymap, and it is right where it should have been, and does not show a significant error, which indicates to me that the GPSr accuracy is good. Has anyone else noticed this? I have emailed Garmin, and am waiting for a response.

Thanks for that, I am currently waiting for Metroguide Europe v6 to turn up. I originally ordered with Roads & Recreation, but the vendor didn't think to tell me that they had no stock, and just sent out the GPS only. If they had told me, I would have changed my order to a Legend with bundled Metroguide, but now is cost me quite a bit extra money. Thanks for your info, I will post back when I receive the software CD. Adrian

Just a quick question here. Which of the etrex models have the 3d navigation screen like this? Etrex Legend Screen This photo shows it on the etrex legend, but I have been unable to work out how to get it to display. Can anyone shed any light on this? Adrian

I would like to see: 1 - More internal memory 2 - Standard SD card slot for external memory - Could be behind the battery door as in Magellan Meridian Gold to make it waterproof. 3 - Topographical maps of the UK - Magellan already have a UK Topo product, come on Garmin, you're slipping behind. I agree that memory is so cheap, that Garmin should be adding more of it. Adrian

Clyde, I am also getting the same error as Snowake, and am using the same version of GSAK(5.1.1 (Build 14). I have modified the macro to filter out my finds, and to give 10 caches, but that is all.

IMO, the etrex is a good first unit, and I know some cachers who swear by them. I started using an etrex venture, which is the next model up and has a city database. I'm now upgrading to the etrex Legend, as the road mapping will be useful to help me find caches when I'm cycling. The only problem I have had with the etrex family is getting or maintaining a lock under tree cover. Tree cover is a problem for all GPS units, but units such at the GPSMAP 60 series, which have a quad helix antenna as opposed to the patch antenna of the etrex, seem to hold a signal better. Having said that, I have never failed to find a cache with my etrex due to tree cover, it might just take a little longer. I always take a magnetic compass with me, and generally take the bearing from the etrex and transfer it to the compass before going into the woods, so long as you are able to approximate distances without too much trouble. My next upgrade will probably be a GPSMAP 60 or 60C, but that'll be another year or so yet. In short the etrex line are great little units, and shouldn't give you too much trouble as long as you are aware of their limitations.

Can someone give me an idea about the difference in map size between the Garmin Metroguide maps & Roads & Recreation maps. I am looking to get an eTrex Legend & Mapsource maps, but don't know which maps to get. I have been told that the R & R maps are essentially the same as Metroguide, but don't have the autorouting/address search capability, and that they are a lot smaller in size. What I want to work out is what sort of continuous coverage could I get using R & R compared to Metroguide. The reason I ask is that in the UK I can get the Legend bundled with Metroguide for less cash than buying a legend with R & R, and want to know how much greater coverage I can get with the latter. Is it possible to minimise the size of the maps in Metroguide by making a selection in the desktop software to leave out the info that the GPS doesn't support? Anyone have both products and able to give me an idea or rough coverage area? Many thanks, Adrian

I am looking at upgrading from my Etrex Venture to an Etrex Legend. What level of mapping detail do you get if you do not buy the optional Garmin mapsource CD. Does the basic Legend have mapping down to the small local road level, or do you only get major highways marked. The main uses will be Geocaching and cycling. I will be using an UK version if this makes much difference to the mapping detail. The Legend is currently reasonably priced, but the mapsource CD adds almost another £100 to the total. Many thanks, Adrian