yogazoo

Have you looked at http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/state/mt ? I haven't used them for Montana but have used maps from them for other states and been happy with them. Also take a look at http://www.miscjunk.org/mj/mp_mttopo.html I have tried and do use these excellent Garmin GPS maps. Don't get me wrong, my argument is FOR GPS maps on a dedicated unit and the detail they provide. What I'm saying is that detail for detail downloadable maps for offline use on your smart-phone can't stack up over a larger area for a variety of reasons including memory limitations on many phones as well as app limitations. Given a very small area it may be easier to save maps to your phone in case you lose cell coverage but the ease and convenience of having statewide and even regionwide 24K topo maps with elevation shading on your Garmin handheld is difficult to beat. Not to mention high-res aerial imagery.

I just tried to download high-res road and topo maps for the entire state of Montana in a popular offline mapping app for Android. The map data was Mapquest Open and first off it wouldn't let me do it, says the file would be too large. Secondly if I were to somehow bypass the download restrictions it says the mapping data would be 596,545 MB's (I assume raster data being the cause of the large file). My phone doesn't have enough storage but perhaps if I purchased a few SD cards (large ones) I could swap them out depending on the area of the state I'm in. However I'd rather grab my Garmin already loaded and head out the door and not worry about it. Edited to add: next stop OSM maps. Sure the whole state of Montana is only 50MB but all I get that is worth anything are roads and trails. I love OSM but not really a solution for detailed land features.

Ah, now there's a game changer. I thought we were talking about maps. We were talking maps. Why can't aerials be "maps"?

What kind of area are we talking about??? Maps don't take up all that much space. As an example, I keep the entire State of Colorado (OSM) on my GPS, and it only takes up 47MB. TomTom has the entire North American continent, WITH speed limits and many other details, including a large POI set, in about 3.5GB. So I second the suggestion. Aerials aside, were talking apples and oranges. If all I wanted were streets on my phone we'd be good to go. Not much street data for the Wilderness though is there? I'm talking detailed topo and landowner information.

See my previous post. The "World" for some is very small and can be had on a phone. For others who travel great distances, from the Frank Church Wilderness in one weekend, 300 miles east to the Missourri River Breaks the next, downloading data on a phone is problematic. Someone who comes out west to hunt for elk just wants a whole state's worth of detailed topo data loaded on a single robust device which takes about 5 minutes of actual attention (if that) on a Garmin. Messing around with apps and downloads on a phone is again not really an option. For some phones are great, for the rest GPS units are the only way to go. Which is why Garmin is going to be supporting older units and releasing new ones for a long time to come.

Having an entire states worth of topo, digital elevation, and aerials on my phone is a non-starter. So my point is that unless I want to sit down and take the time to download maps every time I recreate in a new area I'm better off with a dedicated GPS that I can load an entire state or regions detailed topo data plus aerial images in one action. There's a popular infomercial out there which has uses the catch phrase "Set it and forget it". It's attractive in it's low maintenance connotations. It comes down to uses and location and for Montanan's who drive hours between recreation areas in a vast state of public lands, a GPS is the best way to "Set it and forget it" with regards to maps. Phones work fine but scale is a huge factor in the amount of mapping data and the ease with which it's done. So one of the downsides to using a phone for many indeed is offline mapping. It just comes down to storage space on your phone and the size of the desired area you wish to download.

For all the phone enthusiasts out there. Relying on cell coverage in half of the US is a fools errand. Montana is exhibit A. Idaho is even worse. I know it's been suggested to download map tiles to cover areas I might be out of range but the areas are simply too large to make that a reasonable option. Long live dedicated GPS! Map of Verizon coverage in Montana (by far the most of any carrier)

Garmin has enough models available in their lineup that are targeted at many different users and their purpose for owning a dedicated GPS unit. Some models seem geared to the hunter/outdoor user (Rino), some are small and lightweight for hikers (eTrex), some seem more geocache specific like the Oregon. Some good auto-handheld crossovers like the Montana and Monterra. It's obvious that Garmin doesn't focus on the "all in one" GPS unit and many, including myself, sometimes forget that. However many features trandscend many of the different models. For the majority of GPS buyers it comes down to what features we would like to have crossed referenced with what we can afford/justify to our spouses. The OP in this thread ponders the question of whether or not Garmin has given up on the outdoor (handheld) GPS. I think it's quite obvious that they haven't and won't be as long as people recreate out of doors or until all mobile phones use satellites instead of cell towers.

Garmin already has a form factor for Quad Helix GPS units with touchscreens (Alpha, Rino). The Rino has the older resistive screen and features of the Oregon 450 and the Alpha's for training dogs.

I've seen that option and for some that would be a great solution. However some require topo info and detailed land features. The OSM maps I've seen have primarily roads, some trails, points of interest and little else.

Really? Most Garmin users I know are hikers, very few geocache ... I'll second sussamb with an anecdote. Of the several dozen or so GPS users I know there are only two who have ever gone geo-caching. Most GPS owners I know use them to navigate, record, query geospatial data. Hunting is another HUGE use for GPS with about 12.5 million hunters in the US alone. Ive read some estimates of the number of geocachers at 3-4 million. The geocaching features add customers that help to make the handheld market larger but to say that handheld units revolve or should revolve around geocaching might be assuming too much.

You don't need cell service to read gps signals. True, but a GPS signal without the ability to data-stream maps is like using an old Magellan 315. A dot (your location) on a blank screen. I could plan ahead and download map tiles from various sources and map styles (aerial, topo) but it's a PITA for me. Instead I can just grab my Garmin and go.

I'm another who wouldn't trade my GPS in for a cell phone. I'm a serious hiker/hunter/outdoors person living in Montana. I'm also in natural resource management as a career. Smartphones are ok in a pinch, when you have good cell service (a problem for me right there), and your phone is new enough to still have decent battery life, and it has enough free memory to download map tiles, and it's nice outside. I don't know because I'm not in the boardroom at Garmin but I doubt they're giving up their market share of the handheld outdoor niche anytime soon. Expect software updates and new units to continue to be released well into the future. To be honest though, what more could you want from a handheld than what is currently available? All the features for navigation are already found in available units to include good battery life and waterproof design. Personally what I would like to see in the next model is a combination of the user friendly high-res touchscreen found in the Oregon 6xx series combined with the reception and accuracy of the 64 series. Something like this:

Have you tried a master reset (hard reset) of the unit? That sometimes fixes odd issues such as this. Worth a try ay?

Just and FYI. I know that many of you are not using a Gizzmovest and may still be experiencing compass issues. BUT. I had my 64 in a Gizzmovest and found the compass to be very out-of-wack. I soon realized that the metal clip on the Gizzmovest was throwing my compass off. I always knew to be careful of non-Garmin carabiners but I always figured the metal used to make the clip on the Gizzmovest would be made from non-ferrous metal. Turns out it's not. Remove the metal clip on Gizzmovests if you use them to protect your GPS units. I cut cut a hole in the back and use the rail-mount carabiner or rail-mount swivel clip attachment.

There might have been a more tactful way to get your point across. "...just need to shut up." comes across as just being petulant. That said, a factory/hard reset is sometimes met with good result. Not sure if the OP tried a reset, perhaps they did, but it's always recommended when experiencing odd, not commonly experienced issues. My experience with the 64 with GLONASS has been flawless.

Great. On the trail I can have wires and tethers connecting my external battery pack to the phone strapped to my pack-strap. If only I could read my phone screen in bright sunlight as well as I can my Oregon. Then it rains and I worry about killing my phone. I guess I could buy the $80 otter box. Then I'll lose cell coverage and suddenly I'm looking at a 1999 GPS screen with my location indicator on a blank background. Sweet!

You are mixing up accuracy and sensitivity. Two very different issues. If this is a huge deal for you, for very cheep ($45ish) you can buy a bluetooth GPS puck that you tether to your phone. It will have better sensitivity and accuracy than you Garmin. I don't think I'm mixing up accuracy and sensitivity. Sensitivity is how readily a unit picks up signals. Accuracy is the ability to process those signals and achieve an output in coordinates that may vary from your actual location. Under heavy tree cover or canyon environment the higher sensitivity unit would receive more data from the satellites which may lead to greater accuracy. Adversely having a higher sensitivity might lead to the processing of the weaker bounced signals and may throw the coordinates off which is what I suspect geodarts is experiencing in the canyon he described. The trick is being able to find a balance in discerning a bounced signal and one that is line-of-sight with the satellite.

In my own personal experience, having two handheld GPS's and 2 different smart phones - The handheld GPS's have always been more accurate. What handheld GPS do you use? This is clearly a case of Anecdotal Fallacy! Do you have any metrics to back up this "experience"? I have found over 120 benchmarks (here we call them Brass Caps). I have found that consistantly, my phones are within 5m, but more often within 3m of true. As for Handheld GPSs, I have a Garmin eTrex Legend H, and two Garmin eTrex Venture HC. All of these have Garmin's "High Accuracy" chipset. They are also very good, but do not result in any better accuracy. What they do do better is sencitivity (i.e. under heavy tree cover). So based on the above anecdotal evidence it would be reasonable to assume that the dedicated GPS would be more accurate under heavy tree cover due to better reception under those conditions.

...um, so also required with a dedicated gps device. In that case, smartphones have the one up since if you do forget to download the necessary maps, at least you can do it if you can find data reception (instead of having to go home to use your device's proprietary software, unless your device has the ability to use data or any computer with internet access). Your point isn't one of smartphones, but of offline preparation regardless of your device. In the context of navigation, a smartphone IS a gps device, with the benefit of having optional data reception. ETA: a dedicated device may have the benefit of free offline maps from the device's manufacturer. But smartphones have apps with access to downloadable free maps as well. Opinion of the quality of offline maps is subjective, an issue of legitimate preference. Most people load an entire state or region or even country on their GPS when they get it. I'm not flying to Peru to geocache or hike around for the weekend. Most people don't leave their perspective state. So most never forget to load an area they plan to visit with a dedicated GPS because it's already loaded. Try loading an entire states worth of map tiles from your favorite mapping app, as I have, and you'll realize the tedium and time involved isn't worth it. My point is that the prep work isn't apples to apples. Neither is the mapping interface or data displays. I tried to use a smart-phone on my kayak deck but when I got tired of playing with the "toy" I broke out the true dedicated mapping/data devices. Luckily it was before the rain and waves or my phone would have been toasted.

You need cell coverage to download mapping data unless you did your homework and saved a few tiles in your prospective area. That said the whole issue comes down to what type of use and where. If you're geocaching in a city or densely populated area then you're probably alright with a cell phone. If you want to spend a week in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness and have viewable data on the deck of your Kayak then I would leave the phone in a dry bag. For many, periodic trips into remote areas and facing adverse conditions would justify a GPS purchase. And since you already have the GPS you might as well use it for caching. This of course is just my personal opinion.

BUT remember the android app is always behind the "dedicated Gps" when I have no cell signal, need to view in bright sunlight, go fishing and need water-proof, or need my batteries to last more than a few hours. Yes you can bring a special water case or spare charger packs for your phone but it's an exercise in fumbling around and clumsiness. My Oregon is a carabiner clip to my pack strap and I'm off.

If I took a smartphone out to gather trail data for my organizations trail map database I'd get laughed out of the group. Under dense canopy, in steep terrain (most of Montana) smartphones (like Trix) are for kids.

When you can take your tracklog or waypoints from an iPhone and import them into ArcGIS as a shapefile I'll agree. For data collectors and field mapping, iPhones and Android toys just can't hang. For geocaching however I'll agree, many parallels, and since this is a geocaching focused forum I'll let it slide.

YAAAWWWWWN! Can somebody please split the GPS forum into two. 1) Smart-phone forum, 2) GPS forum