stevensj2

At first, I was going to reply point-to-point to demonstrate that there are models which fit the needs I listed perfectly (I'm quite happy with my Colorado). But, I disagree with this idea that anyone not admirably in love with the pn-40 must validate or justify their opinions to others ad nauseum, so I'll kindly not do so. This is the sort of thing others have commented on. It's nearly impossible to make the suggestion that the pn-40 is not the most perfect unit ever made without the pn-40 pack hounds jumping on said posts within minutes of them being posted. Can you or any pn-40 owner transfer GBs of data to the unit in a matter of minutes? No - so why imply it? That's not really helping someone who might not be able to make that distinction. And there's really no need to turn a criticism about the speed of data transfer into a discussion of what types and how much data can be transfered. Apples and oranges. (You'll also notice in my list of things for a GPS to do, photo/raster imagery isn't even listed!) The pn-40 does not transfer the same amount of data from the PC to the unit as the others you mentioned (Colorado and Oregon). This is well established, and it ought to be addressed without being convoluted to something else. DeLorme's own team members on their forums have brought this up, and justified it by sacrificing speed for waterpoofability. I appreciate your efforts to help (and I imagine many others do, as well). But I don't think offering the pn-40 as the only option to be considered is the only way to help (unless DeLorme is paying your bills! ) As to battery life, I can tell you of tests being done by an unbiased friend, she is testing the unit with Duracell dark green rechargeables and yesterday's results were 11 hours without the backlight on! Not bad, about par with the OR and CO! Today, she's testing it with the backlight on, I'll post results when I get them! Battery life doesn't seem to be such the issue some have made it out to be! As to WAAS, can you name what units fit this criteria? Your last comment about offering PN-40 as the only option...while I can't speak for all, MOST of us who offer any advice to anyone do so giving options and listing where to get info. Since I see many Garmin lovers quick to offer up the Garmin of their choice without offering options, do you look badly at their offers of help too and make claims that Garmin is paying their bills? This could all be more helpful if you'd not make this into a personal argument and keep it to the facts! I believe you might kindly notice that I didn't bring up Garmin - another member that I quoted brought the Oregon/Colorado into the discussion as comparisons. But I've noticed you have chosen to make the suggestion to me instead, which is interesting. (A search would also show that in other threads I have suggested the pn-40 to members based on their criteria). No one is making this a personal argument on either side (IMO). Even among strong disagreements, everyone has remained courteous and kind. But why can't complaints or concerns about the pn-40 be left as they are? Why must they constantly be challenged with such fervor? I understand the psychology in people needing to feel reassured of their purchases, so they are more likely to offer positive reviews about the things they own (which is why I seldom read the reviews on online shopping sites). The DeLorme does not fit the criteria that I've mentioned. I wish it did. but it doesn't. Does that really make me quilty of some offense, or an enemy to the friends here at GC.com? I certainly don't think so. Different strokes for different folks (Having the options, I'd gladly place some beers at local coordinates, and whether you use a DeLorme or Garmin, or paperclip and matchbox, to get there, I don't mind! A geocacher of any kind is a friend of mine!)

At first, I was going to reply point-to-point to demonstrate that there are models which fit the needs I listed perfectly (I'm quite happy with my Colorado). But, I disagree with this idea that anyone not admirably in love with the pn-40 must validate or justify their opinions to others ad nauseum, so I'll kindly not do so. This is the sort of thing others have commented on. It's nearly impossible to make the suggestion that the pn-40 is not the most perfect unit ever made without the pn-40 pack hounds jumping on said posts within minutes of them being posted. Can you or any pn-40 owner transfer GBs of data to the unit in a matter of minutes? No - so why imply it? That's not really helping someone who might not be able to make that distinction. And there's really no need to turn a criticism about the speed of data transfer into a discussion of what types and how much data can be transfered. Apples and oranges. (You'll also notice in my list of things for a GPS to do, photo/raster imagery isn't even listed.) The pn-40 does not transfer the same amount of data from the PC to the unit as quickly as the others you mentioned (Colorado and Oregon). This is well established, and it ought to be addressed without being convoluted to something else. DeLorme's own team members on their forums have brought this up, and justified it by sacrificing speed for waterpoofability. I appreciate your efforts to help (and I imagine many others do, as well). But I don't think offering the pn-40 as the only option to be considered is the only way to help (unless DeLorme is paying your bills! )

I think that what Lake Elmo Kid saw is an additional reason to give up on it, IMO. If the unit can be shorted and turned into a brick because of battery placement, that's a design flaw. Lake Elmo Kid is lucky that he experienced that in the store with someone else's unit, rather than elbow-deep in the field with his own. Granted, there are plenty of individuals whose needs are met by the pn-40, and who understand the various issues and have committed themselves to working around them. That's awesome. But I think a great milestone has been reached in this thread: not that the pn-40 is useless, or a Garmin is useless - that there are many of us who are drawn to the pn-40, but have serious concerns about it. This thread proves that those concerns are well-founded, and are valid to have. They're not attacks as some so quickly like to label them. I have also decided against the DeLorme unit. Not because of its capabilities, or the direction DeLorme is taking it. But because of the quirks and unpolished state it seems to represent at the current moment. I feel that when DeLorme gets their units at the point they have envisioned, it will be the top unit, with little question. Right now though, I'm not ready to buy into an experiment. Before I buy a pn-40 (or whatever version is next), it would have to meet these criteria: - Accidental battery placement won't brick it - Battery life is 12hrs + - Paperless geocaching is not beta - WAAS support is reliable - Data transfer from PC to unit is substantially faster (should be minutes, not hours) - Topo7 (or the next version) is scrapped and replaced. I know a lot of work went into it, and I understand it does what the developers intend. But to me, it was designed from the developers perspective, rather than to the users needs. In the days of Windows 98/ME, the app wouldn't receive much criticism. But today, when the common application is much more intuitive, resource-efficient, and uses a conventional interface, Topo7 is just another obstacle between the user and their GPS; which is to say, another obstacle between the office and the field. If DeLorme's software and hardware performance were anything like their customer service and personal investment into hearing peoples concerns, I'd buy one for everybody I know. I just wish that was the case, because the pn-40 is the unit I want to be using, though unfortunately it is the unit I can't be using.

I see what you're saying, and understand 100%. But at the same time, I also think that is should be OK, because a lot of people, even those who geocache as a hobby, may not know how it all works. Three weeks ago, I thought geocaching was just finding things people had left in the woods, taking an item and leaving another, and moving on to the next one. I had no idea it operated from a central website, on which every cache was logged, reviewed, approved, commented on, etc, etc. Most people who have heard the term but never did the sport, I tend to think, would be right where I was. Not until someone really gets into it and starts googling for more info will they come across GC.com or Groundspeak, and only then will they learn about the central connectivity and that there is some kind of order and "control" to the whole thing. "OHHHH!!! That's how it works!!" is probably a pretty common thought to newcomers.

In threads like this, its always interesting to me how many of us use our GPS to see where we've been, rather than where we're going.

Different situations - such as canopy cover like you've mentioned - as well as the satellite constellation and positioning at certain times - will affect different units differently. Try it out several more times, and see if this result is consistent, or if on other days your unit reports more accuracy. Also remember that the accuracy of satellites and their positioning reporting functions are purposely degraded for consumer use. While many units will report accuracy of +/- 8ft (I've even seen 8" before!) these numbers are just estimates, and the true accuracy and precision of the unit is much different. Because of this, most newer consumer units will perform about the same, as far as accuracy goes since they are all receiving slightly "bogus" info from the sats. The only thing that will affect differences in performance/accuracy among them are chipsets/antenna style, WAAS ability, and differential correction. How the unit handles those factors will contribute to their overall performance more than anything. No (consumer) unit could be made that would have an error of 0m or even within 4 ft. The unit might estimate that kind of precision or better, but it can only do as good as the signal its getting, and the satellites aren't sending signals with that type of accuracy.

Quite different indeed. Maybe the advertised pic is using the 24k Topo West data (vs the standard US Topo 100k)? *shrug* I'd definitely like to know, since that could be quite misleading.

Wow! That's an amazing source of data and maps BIG THANKS to all of you.

Thanks for all the replies so far! A lot more info than I expected so soon If I understand correctly, XMap is on discount to pn-40 owners. I'll have to look more into what exactly it is (I see the name pop up, but I haven't researched its full purpose and features). Although the appeal of the DeLorme unit is less $ spent on maps, if I've got the right idea of XMap, its utility could pay for itself after just a few custom rasters. Thanks again all.

A meter stick, compass, sun dial, an old map, and a pencil has all that. Plus, never needs recharging. (Just kidding. But thats a tough question to answer without more specifics - how much do you want to spend? What type of computer do you have (PC or Mac), etc)

I've been scouring the net for info, but I can't seem to find any pics of the simple basemap that the pn-40 comes with, except for the few images on the DeLorme site that show the Middle East and Australia (I think). What I'm curious about is what information the world basemap contains for Canada. I know it isn't going to have contours, POIs, etc - so I expect something very basic. But I'd like to know (see) it before buying the unit. I've tried going to my local REI to see one, but they didn't carry any units in the store If there are any pn-40 owners with a couple minutes to spare, would you be able to post a screenshot of the basemap centered around this area in Canada: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.....471924&z=9 ? (I ask because one of my main purposes for the unit will be to map some older trails my grandfather had made to one of the lakes in that image. Although I've returned to the area many times and know how to get to the lake, I'm still not 100% sure which of the lakes it actually is since the sat imagery on Google is not high-res enough to determine the trails taken. I'd like to use the unit once I reach the lake to sort of "zoom-out" and see my position in relation to the lakes. I know this could be done with reference imagery once I returned home, with any unit, but doing so in the field would be crucial). Any info or screens is much appreciated, and I can promise a returned favor to anyone who is able oblige!

The screen is smaller (this page has a pic which shows the pn-40 next to other GPS units, including the Oregon which has the same screen size as the Colorado). On the plus side, the pn-40's screen is more readable under most conditions. The Colorado has more pixel density, which allows for much finer resolution and smooth display - but the cost of that is brightness. I have to enable the backlight on the CO often. This is less of an issue with the pn-40, as it is among the more readable screens. Another negative is battery life. The pn-40 is a dual-processor unit, which means it requires more juice and is one of the most demanding units on batteries. The Colorado will last quite a bit longer on one set of batteries and between charges. Both are said to be waterproof, and both carry the same rating on their waterproof ability. That said, I'm not inclined to trust it on my Colorado. There is a barrier around the batteries when the back is in place, which supposedly keeps the water out. However, there is a visible gap between the back and the actual unit - and if I can see into the gap, water will certainly get in there. Whether or not the barrier will be effective, I cannot tell nor do I want to find out the hard way. You can go to the DeLorme website and see a unit functioning in a stream, and its design is (to me) more trustworthy in that regard. (Note: there is also a video on youtube of a Colorado owner submerging his unit in a sink and showing something similar). The UI is easier and more intuitive on the Colorado, and the software is much simpler. But given time and the more detailed manual that comes with the DeLorme, one can learn the software enough to eventually eliminate that difference. EDIT: I forgot to mention: Both pn-20 and pn-40 suffer from ssllloooww data transfer rates. The contact serial-usb system the units use significantly affects data transfer speed. A transfer of ~200mb might take 5-6 minutes on the Colorado. The same amount of data could take up to an hour on the DeLorme (not exaggerating). While it won't effect you in the woods, it is something to consider when planning your routes/trips. Especially since the DeLorme can handle raster imagery and you may download multiple map styles of the same area (lots of data).

Thanks, TotemLake! That's good info indeed. Now the last thing standing between myself and a pn-40 is the detail of the world basemap. My Garmin shows hydrography, which is suprisingly detailed (ie many small and obscure lakes are both present and named), in Canada. But I will research the DeLorme forums for that info - I don't want to distract this thread in numerous directions

There is a reason the pn-20 is so much cheaper: its slow as molasses. Screen redraws can take seconds, and if you're using this for any kind of road navigation, I'd suggest against it. If on the other hand you were considering a pn-40, which is much, much faster, then the above doesn't apply. I also think a comparison to the pn-40 would be a better choice, and would make for a much tougher decision. My local REI had the Colorado 400t on sale for $249. Ridiculously low price, which makes me mad I paid about $375 for my CO 300. Owning a Colorado, I can say it is a fine unit. Accuracy is acceptable for recreation use, and the screen and topo maps are awesome. I've been considering purchasing a pn-40 to replace it, and its been a tough call so far. The DeLorme does have the ability for raster maps and aerial imagery, for $30 a year. At the same time, there are sites like GPSFileDepot where you can download all the FREE maps you want for the Colorado (or any Garmin unit). These free maps are often better than what the others are charging for their vector maps. I'd honestly suggest spending a couple days with both units, and see which you prefer. With DeLorme's no-questions-asked 30-day return policy, I would probably start with it first. If you don't like it, return it and get the Colorado. If you get the CO first, you may find youself needing to payback a restocking fee, thus losing money you could use towards the purchase of the DeLorme. In any case, good luck with your search! You'll be happy either way

If I recall correctly, the map you've posted in other threads to show off the accuracy of the pn-40 show only a track made by it alone, with no other tracks from another unit to which it can be compared. Which leads me to your statement: You may be familiar with the trail your walking, but those images don't make a strong case when there is no other unit you're comparing them to, especially at such a zoom level (far enough out, and any track will appear spot-on). You've also stated that you retract your offer on the basis that "what [you] did cannot be accomplished with any other handheld and its single source software and data. " Do you mean to suggest that the Gamin's waypoints and tracks cannot be sent to Google Earth? And that these tracks could not be compared to one another to indicate overlaps and mismatches? Although that question was rhetorical, I'd be interested if the pn-40 has any utilities that export its tracks and waypoints as shapefiles that can be loaded into any GIS package (ArcGIS, Quantum, UDig, etc.) for more accurate cartographic comparisons. I know the "other handhelds" can, but I'm not about to say the pn-40 cannot without really knowing. After seeing how easily concerns and fair criticism is labeled "bashing," I think its fair to consider some real, physical comparisons. Those making some of the criticisms have done so and use the results as their basis. I've yet to see anyone defending the DeLorme do the same.

And, in your personal, hands-on experience, a specific example of such concern? A response to which I would gladly respond based on my personal, dircect, hands-on observations, fair enough? I'm simply stating there are things to be concerned about (and there are). As a prospective buyer, I'm going to assess the strengths and weaknesses of whatever I'm considering. In all comparisons I've seen, the 60csx typically fared better than the pn-40. Occasionally the reverse was true. Seeing that accuracy could go either way, with either of the units being more accurate than the other under certain conditions or at certain times, the next step one might take is to ask themselves "Is there anything I, the consumer, can do to improve the accuracy of the unit?" The only answer to that is to add an external antenna when such accuracy is necessary. Only one of the above units would allow that to be possible. Is that not a valid concern?? As I've mentioned, it all comes down to what one expects from a device, and what activities and purpose they'll take to task with it. For 85%+ of us who geocache, hike, track our mountain bike trails or where we've walked the dog, either unit would suffice and we'd be most satisfied either way. For more cartographic purposes, short of ponying up the cash for a Trimble, a wise buyer ought to weigh out all the options beforehand. And that's precisely what I'm doing (and don't take this as heat on the pn-40 - I give it tough love because its currently in the #1 position of my choice, so I'm becoming increasingly scrutinizing as the time to pull the trigger nears). At any rate, it is good to hear from the experienced owners who use the device daily, and I look forward to more unit-to-unit comparisons and experiments.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but due to using a patch sensor, the DeLorme's effectiveness is dependent on how it is positioned (ie level is best). Holding it upright in your hand, in a shirt pocket, or dangling from your neck puts it vertically, which is not the position in which it is most effective. So if you were to toss two units in your bag - a Garmin 60cxs for example and a PN-40 - the Garmin will get the same results every time. The DeLorme will get different results, better or worse depending on how it "falls in the bag." The DeLorme is a fine unit, but for the reason that it cannot even repeat its own results unless carried at a specific orientation each time, I'd be cautious of using it for anything other than recreation. Not being able to add an external antenna to correct this only adds further injury. For geocaching, its not a big deal. For getting back to your vehicle after a day out, no big deal either. Mapping trails, especially for the first time through, and this can become an issue. (And I'm glad to see more Linux users around! If someone can become familiar with the notorious disaster that is the GIMP UI, Topo7 should be a walk in the park. But I doubt everyone has had that torture, erm, I mean, pleasure.) The patch antenna has been a proven antenna when it comes to the Garmin units... and yet it's a problem with the DeLorme? The method is called adapt, adjust and overcome. The 60csx, the Garmin to which I compared the pn-40, does not use a patch antenna. Nor does that address the pn-40's lack of external antenna attachment. That is indeed a problem with the DeLorme (IMO) - how big or how small depends on the user and their goals. Adapting, adjusting, and overcoming are great. But if we're needing to adapt to the GPS and overcome it, I'd argue we've got the process wrong. A GPS should be a tool that assists us, not an obstacle to be adapted to or overcome. (I'm not bashing the pn-40. It will likely be my next unit, and I don't see why any criticism of DeLorme is so quick to be challenged on this board (??). No GPS is perfect for all uses, and if the criticisms address that, then they are fair. Credit is due where it is due, and likewise, criticism too. It's a great device, but there are some valid concerns to be had with it.)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but due to using a patch sensor, the DeLorme's effectiveness is dependent on how it is positioned (ie level is best). Holding it upright in your hand, in a shirt pocket, or dangling from your neck puts it vertically, which is not the position in which it is most effective. So if you were to toss two units in your bag - a Garmin 60cxs for example and a PN-40 - the Garmin will get the same results every time. The DeLorme will get different results, better or worse depending on how it "falls in the bag." The DeLorme is a fine unit, but for the reason that it cannot even repeat its own results unless carried at a specific orientation each time, I'd be cautious of using it for anything other than recreation. Not being able to add an external antenna to correct this only adds further injury. For geocaching, its not a big deal. For getting back to your vehicle after a day out, no big deal either. Mapping trails, especially for the first time through, and this can become an issue. (And I'm glad to see more Linux users around! If someone can become familiar with the notorious disaster that is the GIMP UI, Topo7 should be a walk in the park. But I doubt everyone has had that torture, erm, I mean, pleasure.)

No, and that was my first guess at the problem. But the manual states that it has ~ 24mb (tiny) on-board space to transfer maps to, which should hold a small county or two, and thats really all he needs. I thought the eTrex might operate similarly to the Colorado and allow its on-board space to work like a mass-storage device, and allow me to transfer data to it. You need to check the model, if it says "eTrex Vista HCx" above the screen then it doesn't have any internal map memory, I have one and wasn't able to store any map without first picking up a card. The original Vista, as well as the newest Vista H has 24Mb of internal memory for maps. Correct indeed! Thanks, everyone. I had read the manual, and saw 24 mb for storage. Upon rechecking it this evening, I realized that was model-specific. Drats. Thanks to all who helped out, I appreciate it! - Josh

No, and that was my first guess at the problem. But the manual states that it has ~ 24mb (tiny) on-board space to transfer maps to, which should hold a small county or two, and thats really all he needs. I thought the eTrex might operate similarly to the Colorado and allow its on-board space to work like a mass-storage device, and allow me to transfer data to it.

Hi, My girlfriends dad was having some trouble sending his Topo maps to his eTrex, so I told him I'd take a look at it. After bringing his eTrex + CDs (MapSource and Topo08) home with me, I now see what he's talking about. When I connect it to my PC, I get a notification that it is connected, but MapSource will not recognize that a device is plugged in. When I manually change the interface in the eTrex settings, it then says a hardware device is found, but does not have the necessary features. If I use 'My Computer' to browse which drives are connected, I can see the eTrex (drive G:). Any exploration of this drive is denied with the "Please insert a disk" error. I've had no trouble at all sending maps, routes, waypoints etc to my Colorado, but I'm unable to make any progress with the eTrex. This unit is older, but it's been unused in the box until now, and I'd like to figure this out for him so it doesn't have to stay that way. Thanks for any help / advice!

I also saw this error on Firefox 3, which resulted in a double-post of a new topic The error was properly returned, which means the function to request the data was received. But due to its restrictions on time limits, the function was unable to complete. Since PHP is a server-side language, it could indicate a small glitch there, and is not a browser error. Its likely the server hosting the database was unable to be reached in time (45s, I think) simply due to a heavy load or large process being ran at the same time, so I doubt its anything to worry about. User's Browser--> Access site / server ---> PHP function "calls" database --> reaches time limit --> denied / error returned. (Red is where the error is occuring) EDIT: Never mind, OP is talking about a different error. Oops! I think I've been staring at text too long today...