Do we really need the maps?

[Fatzu]

New to Geo, but a long time navigator, hiker and gps user.

 

Just wondering really how important are those maps? Granted, one does need a map to get to the general area of the parking lot or trail head, but a paper map or a printed yahoo or google earth should do fine.

 

Once on the hunt, I would have to believe that most caches are not hidden in extreme places that require lots of off trail stomping, bushwacking, or rock scrambling. Even if they are, a map isn't going to give you that much help close in. It may save you some time if you have no trail and are depending on contours to guide you of course.

 

I'm going to upgrade my GPS but am not sure if I should pop for the map feature. (What I really want/need is the ability to acquire and keep a fix in heavy cover.)

 

So is the general thinking that maps are very usefull? I will admit, they do look very cool!

 

Comments/suggestions would really be appreciated.

[+imajeep]

You can cache without a mapping unit, but we find the maps to be very convenient. As you mentioned, maps make it easier to navigate to a cache site. And we often cache while hiking. A mapping unit makes it easier to lay out a route that includes the caches we want to hunt.

 

And for hiking alone, a mapping unit is great, unless you already hike with a map and compass. A few months ago, we ended up getting dumped on a hike in Georgia with several other folks when the local who was to lead it had an emergency. The GPSr made it pretty easy to navigate over unfamiliar terrain with a minimum of fuss and bother.

[+x_Marks_the_spot]

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a GPSr today that insist a mapping-capable unit. That is, they have the ability to graphically display data. The problem with the add-on topo and street maps is that they are horribly proprietary and expensive. But the basemap is sufficient about 3/4 of the time.

 

As for getting and keeping a signal under cover, we have found that Magellan and Lowrance units perform well in the woods, while Garmin units do not. YMMV.

[+Team_CSG]

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a GPSr today that insist a mapping-capable unit. That is, they have the ability to graphically display data. The problem with the add-on topo and street maps is that they are horribly proprietary and expensive. But the basemap is sufficient about 3/4 of the time.

 

As for getting and keeping a signal under cover, we have found that Magellan and Lowrance units perform well in the woods, while Garmin units do not. YMMV.

I've had great success with my Garmin 60CX in woods.

 

As to maps on the GPSr, I would literally be lost without them as I need to see terrain and road detail. This was especially valuable to me on a recent trip to Maui.

[+the hermit crabs]

So is the general thinking that maps are very usefull? I will admit, they do look very cool!

 

Comments/suggestions would really be appreciated.

Very often the maps have saved me a lot of time by telling me that I have to take a trail that appears to lead away from the cache, even though there's another trail that seems to lead directly toward it -- but there's a pond in the way

 

Take a look at this post by briansnat, which shows a tracklog of a mountain hike with no maps, with topo maps, and with City Navigator. It might give you an idea of whether the maps would be useful to you or not.

[+Team_CSG]

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a GPSr today that insist a mapping-capable unit. That is, they have the ability to graphically display data. The problem with the add-on topo and street maps is that they are horribly proprietary and expensive. But the basemap is sufficient about 3/4 of the time.

 

As for getting and keeping a signal under cover, we have found that Magellan and Lowrance units perform well in the woods, while Garmin units do not. YMMV.

I've had great success with my Garmin 60CX in woods.

 

As to maps on the GPSr, I would literally be lost without them as I need to see terrain and road detail. This was especially valuable to me on a recent trip to Maui.

 

Sorry about the second post. Received a timeout message and it appeared the first post never got there.

Edited August 16, 2007 by arthurat

[+briansnat]

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a GPSr today that insist a mapping-capable unit. That is, they have the ability to graphically display data. The problem with the add-on topo and street maps is that they are horribly proprietary and expensive. But the basemap is sufficient about 3/4 of the time.

 

I have to disagree with all the points. I find the basemaps to be virtually useless unless you are only traveling on major highways and roads. You might as well not even have a mapping unit if you're only going with the base map.

 

Detailed maps make finding the cache so much easier. Topo tells me if there is a river, swamp, hill, cliff, ravine, lake, etc... between me and the cache (or other destination). Garmin's City Navigator is great for finding your way to parking (and anywhere else).

 

Considering what these maps can do, particularly City Navigator, I'm surprised they are not more expensive. Too many people have no idea what it costs to produce quality software.

 

As for getting and keeping a signal under cover, we have found that Magellan and Lowrance units perform well in the woods, while Garmin units do not. YMMV.

 

I think this is someone who is using information that is about 3 years old. Some of the older Garmin units did not perform great under trees. This hasn't been the case at all with the newer color units, particularly with the CX and HCX models. Their performance under trees is outstanding.

 

And to answer the OP, are maps needed? Not at all. Are they helpful? Absolutely

[+Miragee]

New to Geo, but a long time navigator, hiker and gps user.

 

Just wondering really how important are those maps? Granted, one does need a map to get to the general area of the parking lot or trail head, but a paper map or a printed yahoo or google earth should do fine.

 

<snip>

 

I'm going to upgrade my GPS but am not sure if I should pop for the map feature. (What I really want/need is the ability to acquire and keep a fix in heavy cover.)

 

So is the general thinking that maps are very usefull? I will admit, they do look very cool!

 

Comments/suggestions would really be appreciated.

If you only cache in an area you know well, perhaps you can get along without the maps, but I find the City Navigator maps on my Vista C to be extremely helpful. I use them everytime I head into the nearby Metropolitan area, and they sure helped me on a few road trips from California to Colorado

 

The Topo maps are also helpful when I am hiking so I can see whether or not that ravine is passable . . . or not . . . and I should stay on the trail.

 

I would look at the new Legend HCx or Vista HCx. I have used my Vista C for two years now and it is a great unit, although I am thinking of upgrading because the new Vista HCx can hold 1000 waypoints instead of the 500 the Vista C holds.

[Gen Santa Ana 2]

While you can geocache without a map on your GPS screen, the map can make it a lot easier.

If you have a GPS that will auto navigate it is real handy to find your way in areas that you are not familiar with, unless you have a detailed map loaded into the GPS the auto route feature will not work.

[mtbikernate]

A GPS is mostly useless unless you have some sort of visual reference for what the GPS is telling you. Coordinates mean nothing unless you have a map telling you what those coordinates mean. Sometimes that means a paper map. Sometimes it means map detail in your GPS. Either way, without either of those, the coordinates mean nothing.

 

If you have another georeferenced point (say, a geocache) stored in the GPS, your GPS can then tell you which direction to go to get there. Unless you can look at your surroundings and determine a cardinal direction (a lot of folks cannot, especially in the woods), you need a compass. Again, some sort of map is necessary to tell you what's between your current position and the end point.

 

The GPS itself is only one of the tools used to play this game. Some people even play without that...but they do rely heavily on a map & compass instead.

[+6coondawgs]

My first GPS had only the base map and did not have any capability to add other maps. I used it for about a month and we found caches with it. I decided that since I was hooked on geocaching I may as well upgrade and get a unit that was a little more versatile. I got a Vista HCX and added Map Source Topo maps to it. I have to say it makes a world of difference in navigating and I've used it on a ATV as well. So I'd say you can geocache without the maps, but they sure make your GPS a lot more useful.

[+Renegade Knight]

... Granted, one does need a map to get to the general area of the parking lot or trail head...

 

That's about what the GPS maps are good for. No need for extra paper. The limitations are as you have noted.

[Neos2]

I'll agree with almost everyone. We began with eTrex Legends without additional maps. We found over 300 caches with that set up, and were reasonably satisfied with the built-in base maps and the occasional on-line map print off or using an actual paper map. Then we decided to upgrade to autorouting GPS units and chose to add City maps and topo maps to our arsenal; we've found well over another 300 with that set up. We have cached with folks using GPS units that have no maps at all.

 

In our experience, it was easier to find our way to the cache with the base maps than with no map, and easiest to find out way with the city maps & topo maps. We don't often need the topo maps, but the few times we have, I've been very very grateful to have them. The city maps are fantastic for locating the right approach to the cache area and parking, as well as places to stay and places to eat when traveling.

 

Once you are near the cache area--say within 200 feet---it probably doesn't matter so much whether you have maps on the GPS or not, but getting to within 200 feet is much easier with the maps. Personally, I enjoy the part of the hunt where I'm actually looking for the cache more than the part where I am looking for a place to park, so anything that gets me to the cache with less frustration is appreciated.

 

If money is a concern, you could buy the mapping unit and add the maps later. I don't know of any GPS units meant to use maps that don't have base maps to get you started.

 

I also agree with the folks that recommend the Garmin "X" units as well. The sensitivity of their chip just isn't matched by the other brands, in the woods or out, and the company reputation for customer service is very good. I haven't had to use their customer service yet, so I can't vouch for that myself. We now own 5 Garmin units. The other brands all have their good points and the also have loyal followers, but I think I'll stick with Garmin. The Map 60CSx is what I am currently using and I highly recommend it if the bells and whistles appeal to you.

[+StarBrand]

I like the new legend HCX unit for sensitivity - plan to buy one soon.

 

Maps are nice and make life easier but certainly not "required" for caching.

[+George1]

You do not need maps to Cache but I almost feel like I'm cheating since I started using Topo. Keeps me from making a lot of wrong turns on roads and lets me go anywhere and back.

 

The only way my 60CX will loose signal is if I put it on the ground and lay down on top of it.

[+briansnat]

My first GPS had only the base map and did not have any capability to add other maps. I used it for about a month and we found caches with it. I decided that since I was hooked on geocaching I may as well upgrade and get a unit that was a little more versatile. I got a Vista HCX and added Map Source Topo maps to it. I have to say it makes a world of difference in navigating and I've used it on a ATV as well. So I'd say you can geocache without the maps, but they sure make your GPS a lot more useful.

 

Just wait until you put City Navigator on that HCX. That unit will really sing.

[+TrailGators]

A GPS is mostly useless unless you have some sort of visual reference for what the GPS is telling you. Coordinates mean nothing unless you have a map telling you what those coordinates mean. Sometimes that means a paper map. Sometimes it means map detail in your GPS. Either way, without either of those, the coordinates mean nothing.

 

If you have another georeferenced point (say, a geocache) stored in the GPS, your GPS can then tell you which direction to go to get there. Unless you can look at your surroundings and determine a cardinal direction (a lot of folks cannot, especially in the woods), you need a compass. Again, some sort of map is necessary to tell you what's between your current position and the end point.

 

The GPS itself is only one of the tools used to play this game. Some people even play without that...but they do rely heavily on a map & compass instead.

This is how I feel. I would never cache without good maps on my GPS. The basemaps are worthless. Maps really help you figure out how to approach many caches. If you didn't have the maps, you'd be making a lot of wrong choices and wasting a lot of time. Plus, I use my GPS to help me get around in areas when I travel.