geojibby

my friend uses & loves cacheberry (now called cachesense) http://www.cachesense.com/

I've got the Dakota 20 and it works perfectly with Mac - I also have the iMac and Macbook. The 450 will work great. Price is good too.

I'm sure the first tag I scanned would result in the blue screen of death. HAR HAR HAR.....

Thanks friends, that is exactly the info I was looking for. In this case, I think it makes sense for performance/speed to cut up my ibycus topo into provinces via map install, save the generated image file for each one, load them all on the card, but only enable the one I need at any given time. Cool!! Thanks for you help!

Hi friends - just nabbed the Dakota 20 on a Black Friday deal. ( ). Have been playing with it a couple days. Quick questions to poll the experienced multiple map people: 1) With multiple maps installed (base map, and a couple topos [ND state and all of Western Canada]) is there any performance (processing speed) advantage to only having one map enabled at a time or does it seem to matter? 2) When installing maps with Map Install (Mac) do you have to install the maps as one big image file or can you install separate maps on the same micro SD card with overwriting previously installed ones? Example: I want to install a topo map of Montana in addition to the current North Daktota & Canada topo I already have installed. Do I need to delete the current map image and install the desired maps as one deal OR can I simply add another map? Any help appreciated. Thanks!

Go for the Dakota 20 deal! People will think you are "over compensating" if you buy the Oregon.

Huge deal on Dakota 20 at Gpscity.ca too $179.95!! -- I couldn't resist. I just bought it. For the 20 and a 4GB microSD card (+ shipping & tax) it came to $214 bones! What a smokin' deal!!! I'll be caching paperless for Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!

On the Mac front, you can use iPhoto's "Places" feature by simply attaching the .gpx file from your GPSr. Also, the more pro-grade software Aperture that I use has the same feature, providing you with a cool map with pins from all over the world where you nabbed your geotagged pics. Cool stuff!

it's funny - when I check for updates from within basecamp it says there aren't any. Weird. But I'm downloading the new link submitted here manually.

Anyone tried a Nüvi cord for this?

So is differential preferred for benchmarking (that is, averaging a waypoint with a GPSr)? Scaled means measured off a paper map. A lot of these are for the Canadian Gravity Standardization Net (CGSN) Differential is an accurate type of GPS surveying. See How to do a GPS survey to centimetre accuracy.

What's the difference in scaled or differential?

Glue the chirp to the trigger on a mouse trap! hehehehe...... that'll stop those pesky rodents...and less honorable geocachers...

Ok, I redid the radial search and I got one station within 10km of home. The station number is: 11S56C and generated this long report: SITE IDENTIFICATION Unique Number : 11S56C Name : 56C Established by : Geodetic Survey Division Province : SK Prov. Identifier : None NTS Map No : 062E01 STATION COORDINATES Method : Scaled Latitude : N49° 14' 06" Longitude : W102° 12' 54" Agency : Geodetic Survey Division - NRCan UTM : Zone = 13 Scale Factor = 1.0001 N = 5457313 m E = 702730 m VERTICAL DATA Vertical Datum : CGVD28 Elevation : 556.993 m Order : First Order Method : Differential Adjustment Line : VA13 Published Year : 1911 STATION MARKER INFORMATION AND LOCATION Marker Type : Permanent Agency Marker Inspected in : 1911 Status : Good Inspection Comments : None OXBOW C.P.R., CONCRETE ARCH CULVERT , 188.2 KM FROM KEMNAY, 3.2 KM NORTHWEST OF STATION, BETWEEN THIRD AND FOURTH POLES EAST OF MILE POST 117, TABLET IN WEST END OF NORTH FACE, 21 CM BELOW TOP. HISTORICAL COORDINATES NOTE: Coordinates listed below are no longer maintained by GSD and should be verified with your provincial agency before use. None PROJECTS IDENTIFIERS: 49102 VA13 So I just punch in these coordinates, go there and there will be something there matching this description?

Thanks for the help on this one. I tried the Waymarking tip for caches that are local to my area and I did not yield any results. I have found 2 benchmarks/brass caps near my area and they both had "2450" stamped on them, as well as "geodetic survey of canada" - I uploaded this pic as part of a geocache log. Edit: I didn't get anywhere using CSRS database. Very puzzled about that. OK, I was able to do search based on location and that provided me with a bunch of results. My goal is to test the "accuracy" of some GPSrs so, which of the results is the best to find for averaging coordinates? Are all these stations and what not surveyed with the same accuracy?

Hi friends - I'm trying to find Geological/Geodetic Survey of Canada benchmark information to check the "accuracy" of some GPS receivers. I went to the nrcan website, signed up for my free account, and nothing is straightforward or easy (as with most government websites). How can I search for a benchmark number??????? Any help appreciated.

I thought about the whole theft thing too. I guess you'll have to hide the chirp better than the cache! Where I see coolness with it is on a self guided tour, like an outdoor GPS walk through some historic town or what not. You wouldn't need to mess up architecture with a bunch of signs or plaques or what have you. The chirp could tell you the interesting quip you need to know about said history. That'd be neat.

Excellent info. Thanks. I will take these points into consideration for the vid/tests. I think we do need to be honest though, for caching purposes, your finding is only as good as the hiding. If the dude who hid the cache only had 20 feet of accuracy and you have 8, it's gonna seem off. For as awesome as GPS is, it's still got some flux. I think people get way too bent out of shape about the "inaccuracy" of their unit's estimated accuracy. Thanks again for the tips. It's really difficult -- or at least VERY time consuming -- to do that kind of testing properly. Just a few things to consider: 1) GPSRs all "leak" a little energy that can interfere with nearby devices. If you're testing multiple devices simultaneously, keep them well apart from each other; several feet at least. 2) A single fix taken at any given instant, may not be representative; likewise for a track recorded on a single hike. It's better to record several series over a long period and repeated at different times. Then look at the scatter patterns they create (smaller pattern == more stable == better). 3) Reception conditions change constantly, based on the satellite geometry in view. Use Trimble Planning Tool or similar to select testing times and repeat all of your tests multiple times, under both favorable and unfavorable conditions. Even if you take all of that into account before posting your results, be prepared to be argued with. No matter what brand or device testing show as "best," there will be partisans of some OTHER device who will tell you your tests are wrong, theirs is better, and that you and anyone who disagrees with them is a complete moron or worse.

Oops!

I'm going to make a youtube vid on this. I'm going to contrast the Dakota 20, an Oregon 450 whatever and my old GPSMAP 60Cx. I will try to do a comparison of tracklogs in open sky, cover and on a bench mark. I think it'll be interesting to see the results and actually have some definitive data vs. opinion and hear say.

..

Of interest to me is actual differences in the antenna performance between these two units. Has anyone actually done any empirical tests on the 62's ability to hold a signal in dense cover more than the Dakota, or measured both at a benchmark? I'd say it is a commonly held belief that the 62/60 series were far more "accurate" than patch antennas in the Oregon/Dakota. But I have yet to see anything that validates said belief - although I currently hold that my 60Cx is more accurate than my neighbor's Oregon (just cuz though, no data to back it up).

When I look at the comparison page at Garmin, I see exactly the differences between the Dakota 20 and the GPSMAP 62. (There is an active thread discussing this already, so I won't re-hash it in this one). My original query was how the advent of Chirp/other wireless beacon possibilities would make poor schmucks like me who were considering upgrading to the 62 base model (for all the reasons you guys have listed) actually go for the Dakota 20 rather than jumping up the $110 for the 62s to get ANT+. It makes me rethink my upgrading strategy and I will probably go for the Dakota 20! Which, is probably the opposite direction Garmin wants me to go. So, the marketing is puzzling, the pricing is odd in my opinion. Perhaps I am the only one who thinks this way. I'm ok being a loner though.

You missed my overall point - which includes pricing. You'd have to be a complete moron to spend more money to get less features - I don't care what feature set you want. If I can get a "loaded" GPS (Dakota 20) for less cash than the feature-less GPSMAP 62, why would I buy it?! That doesn't make any sense.