Garmin Colorado

3.8k · January 9, 2008

No, none of the Garmin Topo maps will not autoroute. You will need street maps like City Navigator.

TopoCanada does autoroute (link)

3.8k · January 9, 2008

Anders my apologies if this has been asked and answered before (to many threads to keep track of) but can you mark a geocache as found (similar to the present geocaching mode on the 60/76 series)?

2.3k · January 9, 2008

I don't know, yet. I've only had time to do one geocache with the Colorado, and by then I didn't have the caches installed in a format the Colorado recognizes as geocaches. Hence, it just assumed I passed any regular waypoint, in which case it does nothing special, of course.

I have to try again, now when I do have a gpx file that describes the points as geocaches.

But I've heard some info which suggests that it works, in some way, or at least will work soon.

3.8k · January 9, 2008

While you're testing that could you also see if it will recognize more than cache type/icon as a geocache which is the limitation with 60/76 models.

Thanks again for all your time and effort regarding Colorado information.

January 9, 2008

Can't believe that for all that extra money, you still only get 1000 waypoints max.

January 9, 2008

On the internal memory you have a 1000 waypoint limit, but that doesn't limit the number of custom poi's or gpx files with geocaches on the card.

Can't believe that for all that extra money, you still only get 1000 waypoints max.

6.4k · January 9, 2008

Can't believe that for all that extra money, you still only get 1000 waypoints max.

Waypoints, yes. Geocaches, no, they are unlimitted as far as we know at the moment.

January 9, 2008

not to sound condisending or anything but what is the big deal with having more that 1000 waypoints?? I mean that's already alot, right?? - WW

24.7k · January 9, 2008

not to sound condisending or anything but what is the big deal with having more that 1000 waypoints?? I mean that's already alot, right?? - WW

It's at least 1000 short of how many caches are in my area.

January 9, 2008

not to sound condisending or anything but what is the big deal with having more that 1000 waypoints?? I mean that's already alot, right?? - WW

+1

6.4k · January 9, 2008

For the people that do a lot of caching, holding lots of information is desirable.

For instance, I hold all of my found caches, plus unfound for the normal areas I travel. This gets up around 3000 caches.

January 10, 2008

For the people that do a lot of caching, holding lots of information is desirable.

For instance, I hold all of my found caches, plus unfound for the normal areas I travel. This gets up around 3000 caches.

Yes, but with the GPX file support, that's almost a moot point. If you're that into caching, you'll likely be a premium member and will be using GSAK to manage your GPX files. True, we don't yet know for sure how many caches it will hold, but it's probably more a function of memory than of some artificial limit.

For "normal" usage of waypoints (to mark something of interest to you, one point at a time), 1000 is a lot.

January 10, 2008

For the people that do a lot of caching, holding lots of information is desirable.

For instance, I hold all of my found caches, plus unfound for the normal areas I travel. This gets up around 3000 caches.

Yes, but with the GPX file support, that's almost a moot point. If you're that into caching, you'll likely be a premium member and will be using GSAK to manage your GPX files. True, we don't yet know for sure how many caches it will hold, but it's probably more a function of memory than of some artificial limit.

For "normal" usage of waypoints (to mark something of interest to you, one point at a time), 1000 is a lot.

That depends on where you live. 1,000 unfound waypoints fill a radius of under 20 miles from my home. Not enough for me! I'd really like 10,000. That would get me the whole state of NJ, all of Long Island and NYC, plus some upstate NY and the closest 500 caches in Pennsylvania and leave me with ~2000 open waypoints. This would be ideal for me.

But with the new way that the Colorado handles geocaches, I'd be able to accomplish this easily. Right?

1.7k · January 10, 2008

No, none of the Garmin Topo maps will not autoroute. You will need street maps like City Navigator.
TopoCanada does autoroute (link)

Some European topos also route

So basically:
300 + extra memory + Topo 2008 = 400T?

My understaning is its:

300 + extra memory + useless foreign maps unless I go on vacation there + more $ = 400

(needless to say I'm looking at getting the 300)

January 10, 2008

For the people that do a lot of caching, holding lots of information is desirable.

For instance, I hold all of my found caches, plus unfound for the normal areas I travel. This gets up around 3000 caches.

Yes, but with the GPX file support, that's almost a moot point. If you're that into caching, you'll likely be a premium member and will be using GSAK to manage your GPX files. True, we don't yet know for sure how many caches it will hold, but it's probably more a function of memory than of some artificial limit.

For "normal" usage of waypoints (to mark something of interest to you, one point at a time), 1000 is a lot.

That depends on where you live. 1,000 unfound waypoints fill a radius of under 20 miles from my home. Not enough for me! I'd really like 10,000. That would get me the whole state of NJ, all of Long Island and NYC, plus some upstate NY and the closest 500 caches in Pennsylvania and leave me with ~2000 open waypoints. This would be ideal for me.

But with the new way that the Colorado handles geocaches, I'd be able to accomplish this easily. Right?

You're missing my point. As geocachers, we've come to expect geocache=waypoint. But that's not the original purpose of a waypoint (before geocaching), and with the Colorado, that seems to be no longer true (they're treated specially from the GPX files, not just a waypoint with a special icon as with the legacy Garmin implementation). So, given sufficient memory and absent artificial limits, there's no reason you couldn't have your 10k caches. So I reiterate, based on those facts, 1000 "normal" waypoints (actual waypoints, not caches) should be plenty for nearly all users.

2.3k · January 10, 2008

Yes, it should. I don't know how many caches it can hold, but it easily swallowed one file, with 500 caches, and then one more, with about 50 or whatever it was. This prooves that it can handle more than one GPX file with cache descriptions, so you can obviously combine them, if you like.

The file with 500 caches was about 2.7 MB, but as there are about 380 MB of internal memory free, I suggest placing your maps on the card and the caches in internal memory, and you'll be able to hold at least 50000 caches in the Colorado.

Maybe it would be slow as melasses sorting through them, but I think this shows that the number of possible caches in the device is probably not what's going to stop you from finding them.

As it is now, the Colorado can't show a map overview of the nearby (or any other) caches. You can only search for caches, near where you are, or near something else, and get a list of them. When you then view that particular cache you choose on the map, it always has the same blu map pin icon.

However, above that map, there's a short description of the cache, and there it will have the conventional icons representing a common cache, a multi or whatever it is. My screenshots describe this with fewer words.

If Garmin decides to implement a graphical overview of the caches on the map, I don't know if their current implementation would support using these same distinctive icons for the different kinds of caches. But at least they should be able to show different icons for found and not found caches. Perhaps filter out one or the other type.

Edited January 10, 2008 by apersson850

January 10, 2008

The file with 500 caches was about 2.7 GB, but as there are about 380 GB of internal memory free,

that's a lot ! Or was it just MB ?

January 10, 2008

He meant to say MB,not GB...... 1/1000 the amount.

2.3k · January 10, 2008

Yes, of course, 2.7 MB vs. 380 MB of available memory.

Don't know what I was smoking for breakfast?

January 10, 2008

I'm curious about how the reception of the new device compares to the SiRF-based models. Has anyone tried out both devices in a few different circumstances (like indoors, under heavy foliage, etc), just to check if they're really close or if one outperforms the other?

I'm also curious if the issue where the GPS would report movement while standing in some cases is still the same or if it has improved somehow.

January 10, 2008

Yes, it should. I don't know how many caches it can hold, but it easily swallowed one file, with 500 caches, and then one more, with about 50 or whatever it was. This prooves that it can handle more than one GPX file with cache descriptions, so you can obviously combine them, if you like.

The file with 500 caches was about 2.7 MB, but as there are about 380 MB of internal memory free, I suggest placing your maps on the card and the caches in internal memory, and you'll be able to hold at least 50000 caches in the Colorado.

Would you be open to someone sending you a GPX file with a few thousand caches in it to try it? It would be great to confirm that this unit shatters the previous 1000 point limit by not storing them as WPs.

I'd offer to send it but I've only got about 1000 in GSAK. Presumably someone here would be happy to zip it up (so your email doesn't choke) and email or FTP it to you.

2.3k · January 10, 2008

That's no problem. The 2.7 MB file was less than 600 KB when zipped.

I've not been running in the deep woods with the 60 CSx side by side with the Colorado. The season doesn't invite to such activities right now, around here. But looking at another tricky environment, which is more comfortable in winter, i.e. indoors, they seem to be similar. It's very difficult from a few tests only to tell if one is any better than the other. I can at least stretch that far that I say that the 60 CSx is good and the Colorado is good, too.

Edited January 10, 2008 by apersson850

1.3k · January 10, 2008

On the internal memory you have a 1000 waypoint limit, but that doesn't limit the number of custom poi's or gpx files with geocaches on the card.

Can't believe that for all that extra money, you still only get 1000 waypoints max.

I think the issue is that we would like to see more than 1000 Geocache icons displayed on the map at all zoom levels. I can put thousands of Custom POI’s in my 60CSx and nuvi but none of them show on the map. I know, you can set the zoom level that waypoints display but that shows all waypoints. I only want to see Geocaches. Only “Waypoints” display like this on the Garmin handhelds and only “Favorites” on the nuvi’s. If Garmin can make the “Geocaches” from GPX files display on the map as custom Geocache icons at any zoom level then I would order one today. I was holding out for the 3-axis compass but this would be the cat’s behind!

Edited January 10, 2008 by Cacheoholic

January 10, 2008

I don't recall reading about any GPX files used except for the ones sent from GC.com. Has anyone tested a GPX file exported from GSAK?

Do you get more logs?

Does it make sense to have multiple GPX files by cache type, found, owned, etc.?

January 10, 2008

As it is now, the Colorado can't show a map overview of the nearby (or any other) caches. You can only search for caches, near where you are, or near something else, and get a list of them. When you then view that particular cache you choose on the map, it always has the same blu map pin icon.

How in the heck is this an "improvement?" What is Garmin thinking? How is one supposed to route on the fly when you can't see the caches on an overview? This is NOT a user friendly feature!!

I've done the "Find Closest" thing and you end up trekking back and forth across an area and wasting a lot of time and gas.

It's not that the Colorado can't show an overview, it's the Colorado doesn't show an overview because they dropped the ball and they need to fix/change this yesterday!!!

Does Garmin even care what some of their most loyal customers want, expect, and need in a GPSr?????

January 10, 2008

I don't recall reading about any GPX files used except for the ones sent from GC.com. Has anyone tested a GPX file exported from GSAK?

Do you get more logs?

Does it make sense to have multiple GPX files by cache type, found, owned, etc.?

I found this somewhere on page 4:

I've also tried installing a gpx file, created by GSAK, to see what happens. That works well. It includes more logs for the caches than the file produced by pocket queries from Groundspeak's site, and they all show up on the Colorado.

It also turned out that two such gpx files can exist in the Colorado at the same time, so it's possible to update parts of your database, without disturbing other parts, when required (or desired).

2.3k · January 10, 2008

Hawk, don't flap your wings off over this. At Garmin, they are well aware of that the new geocaching support could be further refined. I know that they are considering various improvements, to make it work even better than it's doing right now. Virtually everything thought about or asked for here has been considered. What may come in the future I don't know, of course, but don't be too surprised if you see improvements in the near future.

Personally, I'd like two settings for caches on the map: Zoom level for those already found and another for those still to be found. Thus I can remove the found ones, if I want to, but show them, if I like to see which are there, but already visited. That may remind me about something in the vicinity, something that may be important when going for a new cache in the area.

January 10, 2008

Hey, apersson850, do you know if the 300 have the 3D elevation maps like the 400t?

January 10, 2008

I'm curious about how the reception of the new device compares to the SiRF-based models. Has anyone tried out both devices in a few different circumstances (like indoors, under heavy foliage, etc), just to check if they're really close or if one outperforms the other?

I'm also curious if the issue where the GPS would report movement while standing in some cases is still the same or if it has improved somehow.

Has anyone come across any further information on the "high-sensity receiver" used in the Colorado units ?

..... or maybe someone may be able to make an educated guess as to who the actual manufacturer may be and in which country it is manufactured ?

January 10, 2008

Would you be open to someone sending you a GPX file with a few thousand caches in it to try it? It would be great to confirm that this unit shatters the previous 1000 point limit by not storing them as WPs.

I'd offer to send it but I've only got about 1000 in GSAK. Presumably someone here would be happy to zip it up (so your email doesn't choke) and email or FTP it to you.

That's no problem. The 2.7 MB file was less than 600 KB when zipped.

Could someone do this please? I'd love to confirm that it can take 1000's of GC's.

January 10, 2008

Hawk, don't flap your wings off over this. At Garmin, they are well aware of that the new geocaching support could be further refined. I know that they are considering various improvements, to make it work even better than it's doing right now. Virtually everything thought about or asked for here has been considered. What may come in the future I don't know, of course, but don't be too surprised if you see improvements in the near future.

Personally, I'd like two settings for caches on the map: Zoom level for those already found and another for those still to be found. Thus I can remove the found ones, if I want to, but show them, if I like to see which are there, but already visited. That may remind me about something in the vicinity, something that may be important when going for a new cache in the area.

I'm not trying to be an alarmist. I really want a Colorado and I almost ordered one a few days ago inspite of the issues discussed in these forums.

As it currently stands, the Colorado is missing a few features that would make it a truely attractive purchase. I'm sure they will offer many upgrades in the form if Firmware, but thats like buying a brand new Lexus without tires or rims under the assurance that they MIGHT be sent from the manufacturer sometime soon. I just don't want to spend a bunch of money on something that has a lot of neat bells and whistles if it is not currently equiped and fully functional only to find out I will never get what I want or expect.

I just don't know...........To spend and gamble or not to spend???

2.3k · January 10, 2008

There's an option called "spend later, if I like it then".

The 300 has 3D elevation (DEM) basemap, but not as detailed as some 400 version has. You can't see the 3D view on the 300, as the basemap's elevation grid is too coarse.

I've got a big file, with 2000+ caches now. I'll try that as soon as I get my batteries charged again.

6.4k · January 10, 2008

I just don't know...........To spend and gamble or not to spend???

You can always wait..... You don't HAVE to buy everything the first day it is on the market. :grin:

January 10, 2008

Removed. I think it has been answered, at least for now.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Snake & Rooster

January 10, 2008

I'm curious about how the reception of the new device compares to the SiRF-based models. Has anyone tried out both devices in a few different circumstances (like indoors, under heavy foliage, etc), just to check if they're really close or if one outperforms the other?

I'm also curious if the issue where the GPS would report movement while standing in some cases is still the same or if it has improved somehow.

Has anyone come across any further information on the "high-sensity receiver" used in the Colorado units ?

..... or maybe someone may be able to make an educated guess as to who the actual manufacturer may be and in which country it is manufactured ?

You'll find the answert to your question at

http://www.tmcnet.com/ce/articles/17755-ga...g-sarantels.htm

Hope this helps.

2.3k · January 10, 2008

You'll find the answert to your question at

http://www.tmcnet.com/ce/articles/17755-ga...g-sarantels.htm

Hope this helps.

That article names the manufacturer of the antenna, not the receiver. Or are they integrated?

--Larry

2.3k · January 10, 2008

Regardless of type, it works well. Skyview screenshot is now in the web album.

Now I've tried a larger gpx-file with caches. That works too, even if the unit takes a few seconds to sort out the full description for one cache among more than 2500 of them. Still faster than bringing some other device out.

January 10, 2008

I just don't know...........To spend and gamble or not to spend???

You can always wait..... You don't HAVE to buy everything the first day it is on the market.

Just ask my wife; I'm anything but an impulsive shopper. Some might even call me a miser or even cheap. It takes me twice as long to grocery shop as my wife because I'm alwaly looking for the best deal.

I'm just itching to finally go "paperless" and the Colorado seems to have sooooo much potential. Maybe I should just flip a Geocoin to decide......

I wonder if a macro can be written in GSAK that would input caches as POI's that would show up on the maps and still allow you to use the features in the geocaching mode??? Then again, this might cause all kinds of other problems and the 1000 POI limit would come into play.

2.3k · January 10, 2008

There is no 1000 POI limit. There's a 1000 waypoint limit. The difference between waypoints and custom POIs are that waypoints can be created on the unit, while out and about. Custom POIs have to be created using a computer and loaded as a *.gpi file. It would most certainly be possible to filter out the required information to make POI's of the geocache gpx file.

My suggestion is that you sit tight a bit further. As far as the Hawk goes, it seems he has talent for that!

I just tried driving the 3 km to the nearest cache here, to see what happens when you come close to it. It turned out that what happens is this: Nothing.

So reasonably, they can't mean that this is the final version of the new geocaching application, they guys at Garmin. I think we can rest assured that within a reasonable time, the Colorado's geocaching support will also include some sort of logging. When they fix that, they may make it possible to overview the caches on the map as well, as it seems to be a thing most people (equals customers equals sales equals profit) would like.

January 10, 2008

Thanks for the information, Anders.

The 300 has 3D elevation (DEM) basemap, but not as detailed as some 400 version has. You can't see the 3D view on the 300, as the basemap's elevation grid is too coarse.

But is the 300 able to at least show the map in perspective, even if maps with more detailed altitude information aren't available (say, when using a City Navigator for instance)?

2.3k · January 10, 2008

Yes, indeed. It has four map view modes. North up, track up and track up perspective view all work with "flat" maps. 3D view works only with detailed DEM maps. The DEM basemap will only give you that colored look you'll find in a school atlas, or if you look at the elevation coded basemap in an aviation unit like my iQue 3600a.

January 11, 2008

I'm curious about how the reception of the new device compares to the SiRF-based models. Has anyone tried out both devices in a few different circumstances (like indoors, under heavy foliage, etc), just to check if they're really close or if one outperforms the other?

I'm also curious if the issue where the GPS would report movement while standing in some cases is still the same or if it has improved somehow.

Has anyone come across any further information on the "high-sensity receiver" used in the Colorado units ?

..... or maybe someone may be able to make an educated guess as to who the actual manufacturer may be and in which country it is manufactured ?

You'll find the answert to your question at

http://www.tmcnet.com/ce/articles/17755-ga...g-sarantels.htm

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the link you provided.

6.4k · January 11, 2008

My suggestion is that you sit tight a bit further. As far as the Hawk goes, it seems he has talent for that!

I just tried driving the 3 km to the nearest cache here, to see what happens when you come close to it. It turned out that what happens is this: Nothing.

On the topic of suggestions for logging.... What I think people would like to see.

1) Ability to mark a cache as "found" and "did not find". They should then "move" to a different category so they are not in the regular search. You should be able to change them back in case you made an error.

2) Make a note in the calendar of the find or dnf date and time.

I'm guessing the whole problem at the moment is they are READING from a GPX files and it would be difficult for the unit to modify the file. Somehow they need to use some other memory to keep track of the cache status.

January 11, 2008

Hi apersson850, is it possible to post the PDF manual of the Colorado, I think it's included with the cd-rom. It will be helpful! :grin:

5k · January 11, 2008

... Skyview screenshot is now in the web album...

moin,

your position is not shown in the correct way. it should be X Y (rt 90) instead of N E (lat/lon), shouldn't it?

good work, thx a lot.

1.8k · January 11, 2008

Anders is using UTM, which is actually a great coordinate system and easy to work with. The lowest denomination is a meter which is close to how refined your GPSr can position yourself. I always felt UTM should be geocaching's standard, it's a perfect grid system worldwide.

2.3k · January 11, 2008

The user's manual wasn't ready when I got my Colorado, so I didn't get any on the DVD.

I was actually testing the new national Swedish coordinate system, SWEREF99TM, when the screenshot of the skyview was taken. It's not Swedish Grid/RT 90, hence no X/Y.

January 11, 2008

Just thought I would come and mention a few issues I see with the Colorado after speaking to one of their techs on the phone. Please keep in mind that I do not have a Colorado and have not had the opportunity to use one, these are just my observations after talking to them.

1st issue: Not true paperless caching. The tech on the phone, as well as several reviews of the Colorado state having inconsistent information downloaded for caches. Some you will get the description, date, size, hint. Some you will only get a snippet of info. Plus, if you are to compare the capabilities of the Colorado to paperless caching with a GPSr and a PDA, one would also need to be able to put in a variety of types of information. With Cachemate on a PDA, you can input a log, tidbits of info like answers to puzzles, etc. You can also transfer that log to geocaching.com. I can input info about travelbugs and geocoins. The gentleman I spoke with said that the only place that you can input info like that would be on the waypoint edit screen. You are allowed to fit in a small amount of text in the "notes" field. He said it's about 2 to 4 lines of info. That's not much to place a log, TB and coin codes, puzzle info, etc. If you're looking for paperless caching equal to what a PDA can offer, you won't be satisfied.

2nd issue: The maps are Topo only with major freeways. I saw on the other thread that some people are hacking and placing 3rd party software on them, but there isn't anything available for the unit for good street mapping as of now. This again, was the info I got from a tech.

For us, the Colorado doesn't offer enough to warrant it's hefty price tag. Sure, it does Wherigo, but honestly, that "game" is going to be slow going especially outside major US cities. If we lived in LA or something, maybe it would be a pull to get a Colorado, but for our little NM town we just won't see Wherigo for quite awhile. Sure we could make some ourselves, but that would be like only placing caches and never caching. Not quite as fun.

We had tried the Tritons as we are currently Magellan Platinum Meridian owners and ended up returning both units we tried. I will spare you my review of it on this thread, but will be posting my thoughts on another once I receive my refund.

We are instead looking at the Delorme PN-20. Mapping is better than the NG Topo on the Magellans, it gets great reception *according to reviews* and it costs $200 less than the Colorado. You get all the top topo and street maps for across the US and they're giving $100 worth of free additional software right now.

Hopefully the Colorado price will come down quickly to make it worth the purchase.

2.3k · January 11, 2008

If you want street mapping, you can use City Navigator NT. Works like a charm on the Colorado.

But paperless goecaching leaves some loose ends. There will always be limits to what can be done with the input means available on a unit like the Colorado, compared to a real computer or a PDA, but there's still room for improvement as it is now.

Wait and see if they improve this functionality.

Now Groundspeak and Garmin have enhanched the "Send to GPS" interface, to handle the Colorado properly. If you use "Send to GPS" now, without being a paying premium member, you get the basic information into the Colorado, as a geocache. No description or hints, but rating, type and position.

As a premium member, you get the description, hint and logs as well.

January 12, 2008

Hey apersson850,

I just got off the phone with a Garmin Techie. He had a 400t in his hand and was very surprised to see that the cache icons did not appear on the map overlay. In fact, he was quite confused and said that this is not the way the unit was supposed to function.

He fumbled around for about 15 minutes and came up with a work around. Here you go:

1) Go to "Set-up"

2) Select "Map"

3) Push the left "soft key" for options

4) Choose "Advanced" over the default option

5) Select "Zoom Level" from the menu

6) Select "User Waypoints" from the menu

7) The setting should already be set to the "Auto" default setting. In this setting, the Colorado is supposed to automatically adjust to show POI's and Waypoints within the map overlay's current view. For some reason, this does not appear to be working properly. To show the cache icons on your map, select "500 miles." This will show you the cache icons on the map unless you pan out to more than 500 miles.

OK........Did this work? If so, are the cache type icons (traditional/multi/virtual/Earth/Event/Mystery)showing up or is just the closed chest( traditional) icon showing up?

The Techie I was talking to said he only had a few traditional caches loaded up and they were ones he "entered manually."

Are caches loaded via a GPX file showing up on the map? In the Geocaching Mode, if you select one of these caches from the map and hit "Go To," are you given the option to mark it as "Found?" Can you now search for "found caches" and are they listed separately?

Thanks!! I think we all appreciate the effort you have made to get us up to speed on these units.

Edited for spelling: 01/11/08 6:26pm CST

Edited January 12, 2008 by 3 Hawks

Garmin Colorado

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment