myotis
-
Posts
1204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by myotis
-
-
snowfleurys, the contours from the 24K maps are not used. The contour lines are generated from DEM data from USGS servers.
The CA map he had was generated from DEM data with a 100K map resolution. Thats why I would avoid using it. The USGS 24K maps are 4 times better than the 100K maps. The DEM data used to make most of the maps on gpsfiledepot are made from DEM data (if I remember correctly) have 9 times the resolution of the 24K maps. So have a small CI cam provide more accurate results. So the electronic maps are generally much more accurate that USGS 24K maps
Besides the resoluiton, there is the accuracy of the data. LiDar is the best and if I remember correctly it is accurate to 6 inchs. Most places don't have Ldar though.
-
http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/53
Its a transparent trail map. You load it on your GPS with the topo and the trails show on top
-
I would go with the combination of the CA topo 2011 and My Trails. The topo you downloaded is based on 100K elevation data and the newer one is based on elevation data that is better than the 24K elevation data. But it is 40 ft contour interval and the one you had is 20. In some places you may want to have both loaded but I would use the newer one unless you need a smaller contour internval.
-
Did you follow the directions??????? Or is there a problem with the directions:
http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/tutorials/how-to-load-maps-on-my-garmin-gps-unit/
Also the map you have is many years out of date and there are issues with it.
-
I would say you should get a topo and trail map. Some topo maps have trails but many don't. And trail maps don't have every trail and sometimes they are wrong. But many times you will have what you need. My Trails http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/53 has 10s of thousands of trails in CA. So in CA your best bet is a topo map from gpsfiledepot and My Trails (which is transparent so it shows on topo of your other maps)
-
It sounds like you don't have any data in level 0. I'd say your problem is likely your levels or you have the settings for the levels wrong. If you zip up your mp file and email it to me I will take a look at it. For My Trails (did you check to see if My Trails already has what you need), I will add the data to levels 0 and 1. In level 2 I add a POI (this stops it from displaying at higer levels). I set
Level 0 23 bits zoom 0
level 1 20 bits zoom 1
level 2 18 bits zoom 2
Level 3 13 bits zoom 3
On the GPS, level 0 (highest resolution) shows up to .2 mile zoom. Level 1 (lower resolution) shows from .3 to 2 mile zoom.
-
I'd get a new GPS. Sure you could mark a waypoint every 100 or so feet, jot down the cords, and then manually enter waypoints in GE. But you won't be able to enjoy your hike, it will be very time consuming, and it would look like c**p in GE.
-
To get the best quality track from your GPS, you should set the track set up settings to auto and most often
-
Look at your zoom level
set up, map, advanced, zoom levels and see what waypoints are set to.
Or you may need to reload your PQ
-
It appears that it in-itself didn't get hacked but the DNS server had a lot of issues. it is back now and if people still can't see it just wait a bit for your local DNS servers to flush.
--Dan
GPSFileDepot.com
How long should it take? I am get that photography studio
-
The directions for basecamp did not make much sense to me. For my 550T, I deleted my tracks off my card and my PQ. Then upgraded. I then used GSAK to put the caches back and then directly placed my gpx file with my tracks on my card and it works fine. I don't use basecamp to load tracks or waypoints.
-
The latest firmware added a second field notes file on the GPS. The one you upload has a .txt extenstion, the new one has an xml extenstion. Maybe you are uploading the wrong file. I think the xml file is for Garmin's site. The file names are the same so if you have your computer set to not show extensiotns, it could be hard to tell the correct file to upload.
-
I like my OR 550T for geocaching, canoeing, biking, etc. One nice thing is the built in waterproof camera. While it is not the greatest camera and it can be hard to see what you are taking a picture of, it is really nice to have a camera always available and not have to worry about getting wet and out of the dry bag.
As others have mentioned to get river miles, you have to use a track and the track manager of the GPS. For a river, the best thing to use is a track you created on a previous float (after you clean it up by deleting extra points). If you don't have that, you just trace the river in MapSource/BaseCamp, GoogleEarth, etc. You can also add waypoints along the track and the route manager will give you distances to these points.
-
I agree with Walt's Hunting, and I will add my Garmin 62s as what we use for kayaking and hiking. It's waterproof but does not float where the 76 does. I do as Walt mentioned using Google Earth to create a "path" down the centerline of our creeks and rivers and saving it as a .kml or .kmz file. Then convert that to a .gpx track file using any of several free programs. When doing a "Find/Track" of this file when on the river it displays the distance remaining along the actual river course.
Hi there Timpat. What program do you use? I have been using the webisite GPSVisualizer. GSPBabel didn't seem to do KML very well.
I never have any problems converting-but I convert to a mapsource file. I use this batch file:
C:\programs\gpsbabel\gpsbabel.exe -p "" -w -t -i kml -f "C:\Users\Jim\Desktop\Temporary Places.kml" -o gdb -F "C:\Users\Jim\Desktop\Untitled1.gdb"
(Save as a text file and have an extenstion of .bat-then just double click to convert)
It converts tracks and waypoints no problem.
-
When you selected do not record, it used to not show the track. Now it appears you cannot have Do not record, do not show. I wish they would have left it the way it was or gave you the option of do not record and do not show.
Another issue they I have had for many version is every so often the setting Lock on Road comes back on. I like it off because the GPS is so accurate 99% of the time you are off the road, you are off the road. So when you have it lock on road, it won't show you in the correct location. That made sense when GPSs were not that accurate. But not anymore. Every once in a while, it gets set to lock on road.
-
Has anyone figured out how to turn of the display of the track with the new firmware? You used to be able to see the map without the track by turning tracking off. Now it shows. While I normally want to see my track, there are times when I want to just see the map. I've been lessing with it and so far have not been able to figure out how to turn off the track. Has anyone figured it out?
-
Early on, that was true to a degree. For numerous releases, Garmin couldn't get the firmware settled to where it would lock data from either of the WAAS satellites worth diddly, and we were losing some of the EPE quality to which we'd been accustomed on other units. Signals were good, but it was like they were suffering from framing errors, and would give up trying. That did finally get settled a while back, and with WAAS enabled again, I'm entirely happy with the accuracy performance.Still, I don't recall one post from a cacher who used a 60 or Meridian for years who said the Oregons and 62's were as good at pinpointing caches as their older units. I've read quite a few which say the opposite.
I used the 60csx for years-I think my OR550T is significantly better than the 60csx at pointing to the cache. You also must remember that the cache cords can be off. To judge accuracy you need to use a known location. I have a waypoint in my packyard that I have averaged numerous times over several months. So I know the cords are right on. Whenever I put my GPS on the spot, it almost always is within 5 feet. Also thins topic is about the compass, the OR 50 series compass is 100 times better than the 60csx.
-
How does the find count help with this? You could have 10K "finds" and never found a real cache. With the number hounds numbers are meaningless and displaying them with the log only encurages the numbers hounds and helps thier delusion that lots of numbers equals a great cacher. I say no numbers, provide the month and year they started caching. That would be better info to judge how serious to take a cacher and it would have less impact on the system. It could also be included in PQs.BRING BACK THE GEOCACHE FIND COUNT!
How are we supposed to tell the difference between the experienced cachers and the casual Tom Dick and Harry blank phone loggers.
We know who the armchair cachers are...it is easy to filter their entries from the true cachers. These people think they are clever, but are only fooling themselves. The find counts do make a difference when you are monitoring and maintaining hundreds of hides. This fact was mentioned by someone else earlier in the thread, but bears repeating. The find counts also help provide motivation to the 'true' cachers. In our area there are dozens hovering in the 4000 range. It is as entertaining as a automobile race to watch the race to the next milestones. How can you congratulate your friends on achieving the milestone if the numbers aren't readily available. Or send the newbie a note of congrats at reaching their first hundred. These numbers have been an important part of the game.
I am saying, don't put the find number in the logs - I am saying put the date you started caching in the logs and PQs. You could still see the numbers by clicking on the cacher.
I think cachers with hundreds of hides are responsible for lots of the garbage we have out there. I think we should limit cachers to 50 active hides. When I hid my 43rd cache I had the most hides in the world and I eventually discovered I had too many active hides. 50 seems more than reasonable. So I don't care about someone with hundreds of hides.
Yea back in the day numbers meant something. But when you can claim a 1,000 finds in a day riding down the rode moving film canisters from one spot to another or claim 100 finds for volunteering at an event, unfortunately numbers are now meaningless. I used to congratulate people when they reached milestones. I don['t any more. Congratulating them on their anniversary seems better than reaching a milestone.
-
I say no numbers, provide the month and year they started caching. That would be better info to judge how serious to take a cacher and it would have less impact on the system. It could also be included in PQs.
really?
how many examples you want me to provide?
How does your example have ANY relavance to the issue? Someone who quit caching 10 yeara ago is not going to show up in a PQ of recent caches. Sure nothing is perfect, but I would bet 95% of the time the month and date you started caching will give you a better ideal than find count on how serioulsy to take a DNF from the cachers.
More importantly, the find count is not included in the PQ. So when I am out in the field with just my GPS and the PQs loaded I have nothing to judge a cacher by. Unlike the find count, adding the date someone started caching to the PQ would be easy. If we had dates instead of find count, we would have useful info in our PQs.
-
BRING BACK THE GEOCACHE FIND COUNT!
How are we supposed to tell the difference between the experienced cachers and the casual Tom Dick and Harry blank phone loggers.
How does the find count help with this? You could have 10K "finds" and never found a real cache. With the number hounds numbers are meaningless and displaying them with the log only encurages the numbers hounds and helps thier delusion that lots of numbers equals a great cacher. I say no numbers, provide the month and year they started caching. That would be better info to judge how serious to take a cacher and it would have less impact on the system. It could also be included in PQs.
-
What kind of cell chemistry are you using, and when are you changing out cells (per the 'gas gauge')?I agree wqith you on not needing it, but liking it. However, it depends on your GPS if you need to recalibrate. My OR 550T never needs calibration and is always within a degree of my Silva Compass.
NiMH Multiple Brands (Garmin, PowerX, energizer) and various states of discharge when I recharge. Its always accurate.
-
I was one of those "I don't need a compass" votes.
Now, I have a newer unit which has a compass built in.
So...now I am getting used to having it on.
Each time you change the batteries, you need to re-calibrate the compass.
You don't really need the compass to get to the geocache, nor to navigate, because the arrow points to the cache...and you really don't care what direction you are travelling.
I agree wqith you on not needing it, but liking it. However, it depends on your GPS if you need to recalibrate. My OR 550T never needs calibration and is always within a degree of my Silva Compass.
-
When you find geocaches now, it also creates a geocache_logs.xml
-
Well it does not fix the problem with lock ups on importing PQs. Geez, why cannot they fix this????? I also have the same problem of lock ups when trying to delete all waypoints when a large PQ is loaded.
Routing for kayak trip
in GPS technology and devices
Posted
To be clear you need to create a track not a route. When you use trck manager in the GPS, it will give you river mile distances to any waypoint along your route. I do not recall if this only works with a waypoint or if it will give distance to a geocache. So you may need to save the geocache as a waypoint. I am also not sure how close the waypoint has to be to the track. I would create a waypoint where you will get out of the river for each cache