Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by or-tracker

  1. Some my tips how to work with crappy BaseCamp program. Allways delete unnecessary downloaded BE images from My Collection, leave only few. Remove sd card from gps, backup and delete images from internal memory, do not insert sd card to computer with a lot of images! Before working with Basecamp insert empty flash card to computer. After downloading few images move them to other location, do not let collect a lot of them. After work clean up temporary files from C:\Documents and Settings\{Name}\Local Settings\Temp\BaseCamp. Hope this helps.

  2. 160x240 Pixel is Dakota-Style (i thought it would be 240x400 = Oregon-style) :rolleyes:


    Edit : and like I mentioned above, typical of Garmin. No one GPS receiver that's obviously better than everything else in all specs.


    I'm sure that is all part of their business strategy... to keep us wanting more all the time. :ph34r:

    Maybe it is the strategy of Garmin.

    But this would be a bad strategy.


    Other companies have also great units.








    There is no reason to wait any longer if it is really 160x240 Pixel


    Just watch this video and compare the speed of map drawing !!!!!


    In this video comparison speed between raster and vector, but not raster and raster

  3. I am using Sanyo Eneloop AA batteries and should to say that I don't need expensive lithium's because Eneloop has fairly good performance in freezing temperatures. Earlier generation NiMH cells had a very poor temperature tolerance and struggle below freezing. The LSD appears to have better cold temperature performance limited testing down to 0 F have found no appreciable drop in capacity.

  4. Found good review "Martin fields vs invisible shield vs durasec!" here http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53139 , but want to add some comments from my own experience. I am used invisible shield on Oregon 300 and now using durasec hightec on Oregon 450 and like it. Differently than invisible shield durasec hightec applied on the screen exactly without gaps! Installation went very easy without air bubbles thanks to ZAGG's application kit that I kept from previous protector. Should to say that nevertheless durasec hightec is thicker than invisible shield about 0.15mm it not decreased touch sensitivity. Stickiness of surface remained about the same, but I can live with it if I scroll with fingers through the screen without stress. I can't confirm the statement from the review that "The HighTec was NOT CLEAR ENOUGH", it need further investigation, but overall I happy with this protector.

  5. Been there, done that, got the shirt, and I have no idea why Zaggs are so popular. They're one of the hardest screen protectors to install, they have a rubbery feel and fingers don't slide around on them very well (only important for touch screen devices), and they have a bumpy texture which causes distorted reflections. Oh, and they're way too expensive.


    After a couple of miserable experiences with Zagg protectors on my cell phone and GPSr I switched to BoxWave protectors and I've never looked back. BoxWave makes both Crystal and Anti-Glare protectors which fit all popular consumer electronics devices (including GPSrs) and you'll never know how much better than Zagg they are until you try them. They're a snap to install, your finger won't drag on 'em, and the Crystal protector is truly invisible. That said, I prefer the Anti-Glare version on devices which are used outdoors.




    Tried BoxWave Anti-Glare version on my Oregon 300 but it not adhered properly on edges of the screen, replaced with Zagg.

  6. I've been away for quite some time and haven't really been keeping up with the goings-on in the world of GPS's. My 60CSx has been working fine all these years with firmware 3.70 installed, except for the times when I'd try to shut the unit off and it would just beep and I'd need to take the GPS off the mount and remove the batteries to stop it. Plus I'd find that fresh batteries would be dead the next time I tried to turn it on even though the unit was off and plugged into a power source.


    Anyway, I went to the Garmin site and saw firmware 4.00 and decided to install it. Thinking that it's been a while since it came out that all the bugs, if any, would have been addressed already. However, looking at the messages in this forum I'm starting to think that maybe I shouldn't have updated my GPS because of the reports of people getting close to geocaches and suddenly their units will say they're 75 feet away or something strange like that. Did I make a mistake by updating my unit?


    Since nobody seems to have any thoughts or ideas to share I thought I'd give you my findings. I made a waypoint to my car and returned to it at the end of the day. The GPS said it was 20 feet and east of where my waypoint was set. I checked the accuracy and it said it was 25 feet, so I figured it was that particular error that caused the discrepancy.


    I noticed that the GPS takes a little bit more time to find satellites when starting cold and it does take a few seconds longer to calculate a new route, though nothing to really complain about.


    So overall, the "new" update wasn't too bad.

    Some thoughts is here http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=234504

  7. Update: this issue is not profile dependent but if all vector maps disabled or not (including base map). Seems it's Oregon specific issue because on 60csx no such behaviour. First I fougth that it's profile dependent because not all maps were disabled on some profiles. Why I need to disable all vector maps? Because I want to create waypoints with sequence numbers 000, 001, 002.. on the custom raster map. Waypoint's name derives the text from the name of vector object when vector map enabled.

  8. I am always amazed how can people issue definitive statement like this topic title while so many other parameters may be the cause !

    It's only my own experience. The gps by me is used in the city not often, especially in large, with tall buildings and narrow streets, but the result I got greatly surprised:

    1. Firmware 4.0/3.0: track rides on the roofs of houses

    2. 4.0/2.90: track jumps but slightly less

    3. 3.70/2.90: - almost no jumps!!!

    Time between testings is the same up to 5 minutes, the state of the sky (clouds, etc.) roughly the same, route the same.

    These results is the main reason why I reverted to 3.70/2.90.

  9. My unit is only a month old and has 4.0 on it.

    I am having similar issues, I cannot pinpoint any caches, they have all been way off compared to people that I am caching with.

    If I revert to an older version of firmware, should I remove my micro sd card so that I do not have to re-load mapping software?

    Or will it ride out the firmware change?

    I think to remove micro sd card is not necessary, but if you worried about it, remove. Be sure to back up all your data, waypoints, tracks, routes and etc. Be sure that your 60csx is sirf version, because if it is MTK version, you cannot revert to 3.7/2.9 .

  10. I uploaded the latest chipset to my 60CSX about 2 months ago. Ever since then the gps is way off and it used to be pretty good. Now when I'm approaching a cache it will suddenly go from 40 feet away to 200 feet away to 75 feet away, etc. Now I can only find caches that are in really obvious spots or I have to spend forever in a big search area. Does anybody know how I can get it fixed?

    If your 60csx is sirf version you can revert to last successful firmware 3.7/2.9. I did so and now very happy with sensitivity and accuracy. 2GB uSD limit is not problem for me.

  11. That sounds like an issue. I would send Garmin the files since it seems easy to reproduce. I'm assuming you aren't exceeding the 100 limit?

    No, limit not exceeded, files per both kmz only 21. Error report and kmz files sent to TrailTech@garmin.com

    Received response from Garmin: "From looking at the kml files, it looks like

    you are trying to use super overlays and the minLodPixels tag. Garmin

    devices don't support super overlays. To control which images are shown

    on top you can use drawOrder. See this forum post for more details about

    which xml tags are being processed:


    The minLodPixels tag is generated by Global Mapper 10 (Display When File is...) parameter. After removing this tag

    from doc.kml file problem seems to be solved.

  12. Seems that higher resolution kmz (3x3km 1:10000 map 0.86m/pixel) not showing properly on the top of lower resolution kmz (15x15km 1:50000 map 4.3m/pixel). It is visible only small part of high res map! Other parts is covered by low res map. If I delete low res kmz, high res map looks ok. Does somebody else noticed such behaviour? Both kmz files have been made with Global Mapper with chunks 1024x1024 and "Display When File is.." parameter were set to 49 on first file and 48 on the second file. If it is bug I will send error to TrailTech@garmin.com.

  13. Hi

    You should be able to do this via the Mapsource software that came in the box with your garmin.

    start the program, connect you device, wait for it to be recognised and click the upload from device button.

    job done :D

    Excellent - that will teach me I use Memory Map most of the time!

    Is there an accessible location, for waypoints, on the Oregon directly?


    All your current tracks, waypoints and routes is here /garmin/gpx/current/current.gpx

  14. Tried walking with Oregon 300 (FW 3.20) and 60csx under dense tree cover about 5km (WAAS off). 60csx track seems as usualy accurate and maximum difference between tracks in one place reaches 40m. Seems that pointer of Oregon 300 is lagging from the pointer 60csx most of the time and freezes staying away when stopping. It's only my own observations and I need more exhaustive analysis between two devices at low speed under dense tree cover.

  • Create New...