schmidtbaby

I believe gmapsupp is the 24 k maps, but it is (actually labeled congeree and cameron ?????) I do see topo contours on my map. and it appears to be from the 24k, but why is called congeree and cameron? thx gmapsupp - 990meg These are the maps that Mapsource or Mapinstall makes. 990M is a very large file, several states at 24K gmapbmap - 42meg This is the base map gmaptz - 52 k This is the time zone map for automatically setting local time Are you able to see the SE 24K maps in Basecamp? You mention Cameroon, is that a Garmin map? Have you tried loading just the SE 24K maps? I'd try backing up every file on your 62s, then delete gmapsupp.img, then try installing a few segments of SE 24K w/ Mapinstall.

I have: gmapsupp - 990meg gmapbmap - 42meg gmaptz - 52 k

Thanks, But where does the section of 24K I downloaded into the SD card show up in the memory - under Choose Map - I have a map of Cameroon and a North America Base Map - which I presume is what it came loaded with ? How do I make my 62S use the 24K data ? That makes sense, Garmin's 24K Topos are NOT locked. At least the set I have are not locked.

I just download a section of the SE Topo 2k to my 62s using "Map Install" , but when I go to Select Map in the menu , it is not there. Only maps shown are Congeree and North America, which I presume were already on there. When I go to Basecamp, the Unlock feature for 24K is greyed out Can someone please explain how I'm supposed to associate this map to my device? Thanks

Maybe old news, but it is $50 cheaper than I've seen at many other places

Just saw all Colorados 25% Off at REI. Does this maybe signal the end of the series or just a End of Summer Sale ?

Actually, the 60CSx has a high-sensitivity chipset (Sirf Star III). It was the first Garmin handheld to have one, and people have been frustrated by Garmin's seeming inability to surpass or (in some cases) even match the performance of that receiver in later handhelds. I stand corrected on the 60scx. As I understand it, the Sirfstar's are more expensive than the chipsets Garmin is now using?

Beautiful. Thank you! That tells me everything I need to know about the receiver. And this wasn't even at the manufacturer's website. This was at Semsons.com - an online vendor. It's in the description of the unit. http://www.semsons.com/nagrusbgpsdo.html How can I make an accurate comparison of different models, aside from the "gee whiz" bells and whistles, if I'm not provided with the cold, hard facts about how it performs? I'm new to geocaching, and maybe I'm missing something obvious. How did everyone else here pick their model? Am I making too much of this? You're very observant. I have owned about 10 Garmin units and have been most disappointed in the latest two units they have released (Oregon and Colorado). They are hyped as High Sensitivity Receivers, but they seem more prone to drift than earlier units (60scx) that do not have High Sensitivity chipsets. There is also the speed at which they update which seems to be slower than earlier units , that results in speed and distance (odometer) errors. Finally, many people blame some of their inaccuracy on the fact that they are "high sensitivity" receivers and hence are prone to errors that "low sensitivity" chipsets are not prone to. So these units are not all they are hyped to be. They do have more robust Geocaching features that appeals to the average reader on GS. All that being said and given that I've blasted the Oregon and Colorado many times, I just went out and bought another Oregon 400T

I'm one of those who thinks the Oregon and Colorado are duds and I was very happy with the following Garmin products that I have owned or still own: 60c 60scx Etrex - B/W White version with serial port (not USB) Legend Nuvi 350 Nuvi 760 (still own) Forerunner 305 Forerunner 105 (?) - may have name wrong Forerunner 50 (still own) Edge 305 (still own) Rino 120 - 2

Wow, I was going to try another Oregon until I saw this. Why can't Garmin simply add the feature set of the Oregon to the accuracy of the 6scx. What is up with all this??? OK, I know what is up with all this. I'm just venting. I sold my 60scx and returned the Colorado. and Oregon. It's hard for me to not be bothered by the poor accuracy of the Oregon and Colorado when I primarly bike on a public greenway with mile markers everywhere - and then see that the 60scx is spot on while the Colorado and Oregon are reporting that I dropped them somewhere about 0.2 miles ago

I bought the Oregon and Colorado 400 T and returned them both. They are great for Geocaching, but for accuracy of the 60scx beats both of them. I wish I hadn't sold my 60scx. Garmin needs a unit with the accuracy of the 60scx and the features of the Oregon series.

May I respectively differ with this statement. This behavior with the Colorado is the same reaon I returned mine!!! I left the 400 T by accident overnight and it showed tracks all over the place - without ever even moved. I never saw this with my 60scx!!! I don't feel this is normal behaviour for a GPS.

Those comments closely reflect my experiences with a recently aquired Nuvi; difficult to see, love the touchscreen, and yep the screen smuges. Clearly Delorme is a up and coming player in this market. Unlike brand M which is fading fast. Thanks for the reply. I returned my Oregon today to the same place I returned the Colorado. As soon as Garmon comes out with a new unit with equal (or I hope, better) accuracy than the 60scx - I'll buy it and may actually keep it. The WAAS issue was the last straw. I am deeply disapointed in Garmin.

Red90, I hate to admit it, but You have a good point with the cycle computer. My Cat-eye computer is simple and always works fine. Maybe I'm expecting too much with these purported do-it-all GPSs. (Even though I do think at times at times you're a little fervent with the defense of the CO I do appreciate your advice on these forums. Aside from the Odometer issue, I like the the Oregon so far. Maybe i should just start enjoying it as a Geocacher device and quit being so picky. Thanks for the advice.

After reading your last first impressions, I've decided that my Oregon may be going back to the store for a refund. I too have seen the same issue with the odometer. One thing I can not tolerate is an inaccurate Odometer. I realize that an odometer is not critical to most of the Geocachers out there, but I value it highly. I guess I just got used to my 60scx. maybe I shouldn't even be venting on this forum because what i really need is a an accurate GPS for my biking escapades and an accurate odometer is paramount. My experiences with the Colorado (same issue) and now the Oregon have really soured my respect for Garmin. I guess I just expected every new unit from them to be perfect. This has been three disappointments in a row for me. (I salivated over the Forerunner 405 , went to buy one and realized the thing wouldn't even fit on my wrist.) Then the issues with the Colorado. I feel that the most accurate handheld GPS out there is one that I just sold - the 60scx. Sorry to be so negative tonight, but these are my honest opinions. Could someone please try to cheer me up and suggest that the odometer issue might be able to be fixed with a firmware upgrade? Please!!!

All but the base model...... www.garmin.com I believe you , but I've scoured the Garmin website and can't find any reference. Can you be more specific?

Does the Oregon support the Cadence and HRMs?

I got a little lost on this thread. Is it the Colorado or Oregon that has the 600 ft. accuracy issue ? I returned the Colorado because of several issues. Garmin please don't disappoint me with the Oregon. Sorry - meant to post in the "Garmin Oregon Wiki Thread" Can someone move it into there?

I went back to the 60scx after trying out the Colorado. I can't wait to see a photo of these Oregon's. I was so dissapointed in the 400t, even though I loved it's looks and feature set. Let's hope for good things from the Oregon's.

I was a "Beta" tester for the Colorado" - might as well be for the Oregon's. I'll try any new Garmin.

Anyone heard anything about the "Garmin Oregon 200, 300, and 400". Maybe they will come with the latest in Sirfstar chipsets? If so , I'm first in line.

For some the 400T is the best thing out there - extremely accurate and no problems, whatsoever: for others it is still problematic, even with the latest firmware upgrades. I suggest buying where you will not incur a restocking charge and decide for yourself.

I've owned about 8 Garmin units and this is the first time I've traded a newly released unit for a unit that I sold - the 400T for the 60scx. I too think it is the chipset and that it can't be fixed by a firmware upgrade. I sold the 60scx for US$180 and had to buy a new one for US$299. (REI has them on sale for $299). Let me know how your Geowoodstock goes. (WTF is Geowoodstock? )

Do like I did - buy both the 60scx and the 400T and take them both out. The kicker for me was the tripmeter on both . The 400 T said I had traveled 0.12 less than the 60scx, an Edge 305, a Cateye , and actual road makers. So the 400T went back. When the bugs have been worked out of the 400T, I will be first in line. Other than the issues, I loved its features. Now that I think of it, I wonder if many Geocachers even see the dynamics of real in motion travel statisitics as would be provided by the tripometer - as most of us Geocachers walk ? whereas I ride a bike on trail to get near the cache first. Comparison table is located here: http://garmincolorado.wikispaces.com/Colorado+vs+60csx To the point of odometer accuracy -- I've compared my odometer on my 400t to my 60cs over many (~30) hikes and as long as the 60cs doesn't lose lock they are usually within 1-2% of each other, the 400t is almost always a little longer. Instantaneous speed and time moving/stopped tend to vary widely between the two units. The 400t's instantaneous speed always seems to read low although average speed for both units is almost identical. The 400t tends to more accurately record the stopped time better than the 60cs. GO$Rs Trouble is I want it all - accurate location, speed, distance, etc. I feel that all in all the 60scx is more accurate than the 400/300 series - but that is my personal opinion and it appears to be the opinion of quite a few other people on these forums. It seems that a more scientific comparsion could be done with the Colorados and other units out there - more scientific than verbage from these forums. But with that said, I suspect that there is variance between individual 400s/300's and even 60scx's. I also suspect that part of the problem with the Colorados is where your'e at on earth and the particular satellite constellation you're using. So I'm waiting on someone to convince me that the 400T is as accurate or moreso than the 60scx. When that happens. I'll buy one again. I love the feature set of the 400T and can't wait until it's perfected.