Garmin Oregon Wiki

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

"The OR has no equivalent of the CO's ability to mark a waypoint at your current location with a button push. You have to use the Mark Waypoint Tool on the Main page which means leaving, say, the Compass or Map page, marking the waypoint and returning. I was hoping there might be something like writing a giant "M" or "W" on the screen that might do something equivalent on the OR."

 

Zoom in and tap your current position. Gets you very close. First try I got within 16 feet.

 

So nothing like on a Nuvi where tapping the "vehicle" marks a waypoint at the current location?

 

It's similar. But it depends on how accurately you tap the screen. That's why I said zoom in first.

1. Tap the screen at your current location
   
2. Tap the information header on the next screen
   
3. Tap the "save waypoint" icon
   

[+911turbos]

RE: seems to be technical very difficult blink.gif

i also would prefer: Black letters on white background !!! smile.gif

 

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the black background and white text was maybe the power consumption would be better with it this way, but a quick google and I found that that is NOT the case for LCDs, so I can't think of any technical reason for them not having this as switchable setting that the user can decide which way they prefer.

 

http://helllabs.org/blog/20070723/black-and-white/

[dopoka]

Anyone with a little knowledge, a map, and a compass can locate their position on a map within 50ft in ideal conditions. Unfortunately if visibility is poor, its dark, or there are no visible landmarks it can be impossible to locate your position using this method. I agree that for the purpose of finding your general position on a map an accuracy of 50ft is adequate. If you're less than 50ft from your car and you can't find it you're really in trouble. That being said I also agree that if I'm paying top dollar for a top of the line consumer GPS the accuracy should be improved or comparable to the previous models (60/76), not worse.

[+g-o-cashers]

It's similar. But it depends on how accurately you tap the screen. That's why I said zoom in first.

1. Tap the screen at your current location
   
2. Tap the information header on the next screen
   
3. Tap the "save waypoint" icon
   

 

Probably faster and more precise to hit Exit->Mark Waypoint->Save->Map (assumes you move the Mark Waypoint button up on the Main page one "slot").

 

GO$Rs

[+Crid]

IMO, this whole forum is obsessive compulsive about accuracy, wasting untold amounts of e-ink going in circles. For my purposes, backpacking in Colorado's mountains, anything within 50-feet is awesome. I have eyes and a brain, which are my primary navigation tools, the GPS and more specifically the maps within help me make decisions about the path to take, often like the screenshot, where no path exists, just black timber.

That's fine, but try geocaching when the GPS is several hundred feet off course. 50 feet is one thing. 600 feet is quite another.

[MtnHermit]

IMO, this whole forum is obsessive compulsive about accuracy, wasting untold amounts of e-ink going in circles. For my purposes, backpacking in Colorado's mountains, anything within 50-feet is awesome. I have eyes and a brain, which are my primary navigation tools, the GPS and more specifically the maps within help me make decisions about the path to take, often like the screenshot, where no path exists, just black timber.

That's fine, but try geocaching when the GPS is several hundred feet off course. 50 feet is one thing. 600 feet is quite another.

Are the errors really on the order of 600 feet? My 50-foot number was a pretty gross error to me, but needed to use something. When I first got my eTrex, I noticed it could tell when I switched from the left to the right track of a twin-track road, I was flabergasted. However 600 feet . . .

[SiliconFiend]

The ultimate question/test for a GPSr for me is: If I regain consciousness somewhere in the wilderness in the middle of the night, and need to get to safety, which model do I want to have with me?

Hee. Thanks for the laugh. Really, how many times has that happened to you? I think under those circumstances you'd be lucky to have a functioning piece of electronics, not to mention spare batteries...

[+g-o-cashers]

IMO, this whole forum is obsessive compulsive about accuracy, wasting untold amounts of e-ink going in circles. For my purposes, backpacking in Colorado's mountains, anything within 50-feet is awesome. I have eyes and a brain, which are my primary navigation tools, the GPS and more specifically the maps within help me make decisions about the path to take, often like the screenshot, where no path exists, just black timber.

That's fine, but try geocaching when the GPS is several hundred feet off course. 50 feet is one thing. 600 feet is quite another.

Are the errors really on the order of 600 feet? My 50-foot number was a pretty gross error to me, but needed to use something. When I first got my eTrex, I noticed it could tell when I switched from the left to the right track of a twin-track road, I was flabergasted. However 600 feet . . .

 

The worst one I've seen was around 700 feet. They are pretty commonly in the 100-200' range.

 

GO$Rs

[+anniebananie]

We have had at least a half dozen over 400 feet over four months.

 

Anniebananie

[+Crid]

Are the errors really on the order of 600 feet? My 50-foot number was a pretty gross error to me, but needed to use something. When I first got my eTrex, I noticed it could tell when I switched from the left to the right track of a twin-track road, I was flabergasted. However 600 feet . . .

Last week after walking in woodland for about 45 minutes, my Colorado was reporting EPE of about 120ft but the track log (checked afterwards) was about 680ft off. The 76CSx (logging at the same time) was reporting EPE of about 50ft but the track log was only about 20ft off.

[teamdw]

I just put up an Oregon 400t first impressions post. I tried to cover some areas GO$RS hasn't gotten to yet, but man, it's hard to keep up with him!

 

Hmm, I see that my images stacked instead of going side-by-side. Crap!

 

OT to Red 90...yes, the nuvi 205W will show tracklogs. Surprised me too. I have one of them in for review as well.

 

I would like to see a pic of the 205w showing tracks. I look forward to your review.

[jmedlock]

I returned my Colorado 400t to REI. I couldn't tolerate the extreme position drifts I was seeing on the Colorado in the mountainous / forested terrain I hike.

Could you quantify this statment please. Did you make any screenshots?

 

Thanks

 

Check the "Colorado location error" post -->

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...158&st=145#

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...158&st=159#

[jmedlock]

(Duplicate)

Edited July 16, 2008 by jmedlock

[MtnHermit]

I would like to see a pic of the 205w showing tracks.

Already posted in this thread, post #79.

 

But here it is again:

 

[freeday]

Garmin Colorado 300:

600 feet accuracy (183 meters)

32 feet shown on gps-map (10 meters)

after power off/on - it was correct again

(i was running under tree cover from south to north)

 

Garmin was wondering about the problem - they said it is not usual

Edited July 16, 2008 by freeday

[+g-o-cashers]

Here's a particularly nice one I saw about 300' off:

 

http://garmincolorado.wikispaces.com/space...09_CO_60csx.png

[MtnHermit]

Here's a particularly nice one I saw about 300' off:

 

http://garmincolorado.wikispaces.com/space...09_CO_60csx.png

To all who posted regarding my misunderstanding as to the magnitude of the Colorado position errors . . . Thanks!!!

 

Before these many posts, I thought we were talking 20-30-foot errors. But 300-600-foot errors are truly outrageous. I now understand.

 

Now let's get back to 'g-o-cashers' excellent review of the Oregon.

[+Crid]

Here's the 680ft (ok, 675ft) one I mentioned. Blue track is the 76CSx, red track is the Colorado. Both tracks were recorded at the same time. I started heading north (so the track starts at the bottom of the picture). I was mapping, so the big spikes are a sign of me going part of the way up a track so I could mark it for future exploration.

 

The point in the bottom left where the blue track is the furthest off, it's about 70ft. I had been in woodland for about 45 minutes at that point and that particular place is in a bit of a dip. Conditions were not great for GPS, but the 76CSx managed much better than the Colorado.

 

 

Sorry g-o-cashers. We really don't mean to threadjack your excellent Oregon topic.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Crid

[+g-o-cashers]

http://garminoregon.wikispaces.com/first+impressions#toc10

 

An update with a "How To" on the basics of navigating around the Main page.

 

GO$Rs

[+BTBAM]

So far...I absolutely love this GPS. I know that the accuracy may prove a problem (I'll find out when I cache tonight), but typically when I get within 20 feet I stop using GPS and just look with my eyes anyway.

[+bitmap]

So far...I absolutely love this GPS. I know that the accuracy may prove a problem (I'll find out when I cache tonight), but typically when I get within 20 feet I stop using GPS and just look with my eyes anyway.

 

Until an OR user hides a cache, and the finder searches with an OR...the error can quickly get out of hand. Anybody ever tried to find a cache in a rockpile in a 40' radius? Yikes.

 

This accuracy issue has completely stalled my interest in the OR for now. Thanks for all the reviews so far!

 

-Tony

[+BTBAM]

So far...I absolutely love this GPS. I know that the accuracy may prove a problem (I'll find out when I cache tonight), but typically when I get within 20 feet I stop using GPS and just look with my eyes anyway.

 

Until an OR user hides a cache, and the finder searches with an OR...the error can quickly get out of hand. Anybody ever tried to find a cache in a rockpile in a 40' radius? Yikes.

 

This accuracy issue has completely stalled my interest in the OR for now. Thanks for all the reviews so far!

 

-Tony

 

Well, I know that I won't be hiding caches with this accuracy. I won't hide a cache unless the accuracy gets to 6-12 feet. I am talking more along the lines of FINDING with it. I don't know how many times I've had a GPS zero on a cache....maybe 7%?

[+Crid]

This accuracy issue has completely stalled my interest in the OR for now. Thanks for all the reviews so far!

Please be aware that we were discussing accuracy problems with the Colorado. g-o-cashers has yet to report in depth about accuracy with the Oregon. (I keep going to type Oregano).

[+BTBAM]

This accuracy issue has completely stalled my interest in the OR for now. Thanks for all the reviews so far!

Please be aware that we were discussing accuracy problems with the Colorado. g-o-cashers has yet to report in depth about accuracy with the Oregon. (I keep going to type Oregano).

 

I am going out tonight with two other people. We will be using the 60CSx, the Colorado, and the Oregon and I am going to see how they all do, who finds the most, and what the accuracy seems to be like.

[+FulThrotl]

a small thought, but before y'all run off and play with

your new toy, it might be a good idea to back up the

coloregon, or oregado, in the odd chance that you

manage to kill the database on it... when i'm done

with that, and installing CN to the littlest 2 gig card

i've ever seen, then we'll see how it navigates,

infuriates, obtusificates, and perplexes.

 

yeah, i went and bought one.... strike that...

REI graciously lent me one to see if i like it,

and just required a CC number

as a security deposit....

 

first impressions? well, the purchase felt

just like it did when i bought the same album

on a CD that i had on tape.......

 

fulthrotl

[+g-o-cashers]

Almost forgot about these two -- you can't read past geocache logs on the Oregon and the Detour function doesn't seem to exist. I'll assume that this was a simple oversight!

 

GO$Rs

[+bitmap]

This accuracy issue has completely stalled my interest in the OR for now. Thanks for all the reviews so far!

Please be aware that we were discussing accuracy problems with the Colorado. g-o-cashers has yet to report in depth about accuracy with the Oregon. (I keep going to type Oregano).

 

Perhaps there hasn't been an in-depth analysis yet, but g-o-cashers did provide a track log on the blog that is concerning to me:

 

http://garminoregon.wikispaces.com/space/s...16_OR_60csx.png

 

I look forward to seeing more accuracy tests comparing the OR to both the CO and other GPSr's like BTBAM is planning on. Keep them coming and thanks!

 

-Tony

[jmedlock]

Perhaps there hasn't been an in-depth analysis yet, but g-o-cashers did provide a track log on the blog that is concerning to me:

 

http://garminoregon.wikispaces.com/space/s...16_OR_60csx.png

 

It is funny: after having a Colorado 400t, and many occurrences of the "location drift" problem, I find the Oregon location drift shown in the picture to be very tolerable. Of course I would like it to be better.

 

Once I get my Oregon 400t (now possibly by Friday), I will take it out and see how it does in my terrain. I'll be taking it to the same area where the Colorado seems to lose its mind (a mountainous forested trail).

 

I think Garmin should also consider taking some Colorado 400ts out in forested terrain in, uh, Colorado, and see how it performs. Perhaps they'll encounter the location drift problem and will eventually find a cure for the disease.

 

Okay, sorry, this is an Oregon (Oregano) thread.

 

J

Edited July 16, 2008 by jmedlock

[+FulThrotl]

i have a dumb question about the oregon....

i have City Navigator NA NT 2008 on a sd card,

(had to buy it that way as was unable to locate a

copy for the PC anywhere)

 

it works fine in the colorado, but alas, the card will

not fit into the oregon, so i copied all the data to

a micro card, installed it, and VOILA!!! nothing.

 

i get an error message that says cannot initialize map.

everything else works fine, but when i go to map setup

and try to get oregon to see the map on the sd card,

nothing is there....

 

any suggestions, anyone?

 

FulThrotl

[+Red90]

Nope you are pooched.... They maps are tied to the cards ID....

 

You could try complaining and getting an exchange for micro-SD. Sometimes it works....

[+benh57]

Almost forgot about these two -- you can't read past geocache logs on the Oregon

 

Past Logs show up appended to the cache description on my Oregon. (scroll down with your finger)

[+g-o-cashers]

Yes, you are right. The logs are there but you have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the description to find them (the trackables are also listed there now). I'm not sure I like that change. It was nice having a dedicated button to get directly to the logs especially since this seems to be the only page on the OR that doesn't have dedicated up/down arrows which forces you to scroll with your finger. Not a big deal if the description is short but the one I happened to pull up was 8-10 pages long.

 

GO$Rs

Edited July 17, 2008 by g-o-cashers

[+benh57]

Yes, you are right. The logs are there but you have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the description to find them (the trackables are also listed there now). I'm not sure I like that change. It was nice having a dedicated button to get directly to the logs especially since this seems to be the only page on the OR that doesn't have dedicated up/down arrows which forces you to scroll with your finger. Not a big deal if the description is short but the one I happened to pull up was 8-10 pages long.

 

 

Both would probably be handy. For a cache with a huge description it would be nice to just get right to the logs.

 

I'm kinda used to this way (combined) with CacheMate though. Normally when having trouble with a cache, i'll first read the whole desc carefully, then the logs. (which naturally would be scrolling through the desc, then right to the logs)

[+Blind Avocado]

What about one handed operation? The CO with the RnR wheel is supposed to be easy to use with one hand, but the OR with the touch screen looks like it would take two hands to operate.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Blind Avocado

[+BTBAM]

Alright...the night is over.

 

I was out for a few hours and grabbed about thirty caches. At first I was mainly getting used to how the Oregon worked and how it navigated. I found my Oregon did lock on the smaller satellites, and did show accuracy averaging 20 feet most of the time, but going into the teens a lot. Actually, even when I was in some coverage and the accuracy was at 22 feet, I was still zero'd out on the cache...and that was for multiple seconds standing over the cache location. Every cache we went too (except for a few that I know the owner purposely offsets caches) were right on the money. I didn't notice any detour or difference in that and my 60CSx model.

Overall, after getting used to it, and setting up screens right, this is a really easy to navigate tool.

 

As of right now I only have one problem with it. I can't figure out if I can, or if so, how to get this screen that the Colorado provides:

 

 

I really would like to see the name, size, and D/T WHILE using the Compass or arrow, but all I can do is use the map feature OR the arrow feature, which looks like this:

 

 

If anyone knows a way to get to that setting on the Oregon...let me know.

 

I didn't notice a problem with the screen's display out in the sun. It was dim, and less clear than the clear screens of the Colorado and 60 series, but that was already know.

[freeday]

What about the TOPO-100-database?

Is it also a type of .img-file (what the name).

And does this file also work on a colorado or in mapsource?

 

(It was possible to convert the database of the DEM-Data of the colorado to view it also in mapsource)

[+g-o-cashers]

 

If anyone knows a way to get to that setting on the Oregon...let me know.

 

I didn't notice a problem with the screen's display out in the sun. It was dim, and less clear than the clear screens of the Colorado and 60 series, but that was already know.

 

The OR doesn't support the same Geocaching interface as the CO. The summary screens with bearing, distance, etc aren't there. This is because the OR treats geocaches more like regular waypoints. Once you select a geocache from the list all the tools like the map, compass, altimeter, 3d-view, odometer, etc are available once you start navigation to the cache. In this sense there really isn't a geocaching mode on the OR. You pick a cache to navigate to and you end up back at the Main Menu to select the tools you want next.

 

IMO this is an improvement over the CO's dedicated geocaching mode. Yes, you don't get the clever little summary screens but 75% of the time I found myself doing a Go To Location so that I could access other functions and then I had to return to read the description, etc. The other benefit of this is that geocaches seem to get the same treatment as waypoints in that they show up on the recent finds list and you can do a search near using recent finds. You can also pan and zoom the map when selecting a geocache which allows you to easily find child waypoints.

 

I'm sure that there will be debate over this one! I'll try to post some screen shots on the geocaching mode to better show the flow but the link below shows some of what I'm talking about.

 

http://garminoregon.wikispaces.com/First+Impressions#toc6

 

GO$Rs

[+g-o-cashers]

What about one handed operation? The CO with the RnR wheel is supposed to be easy to use with one hand, but the OR with the touch screen looks like it would take two hands to operate.

 

Good question. If feel that one handed operation on the OR is more difficult than the CO. I can do much of what I want to do with one hand using my thumb, but for the more precise touches I need to hold with one hand and point with my other index finger. The CO seldom if ever requires me to use two hands.

 

On the other hand, using a mounted OR on a bike, car, boat, etc is much easier because of the touch screen.

 

GO$Rs

[xer0piggy]

Seems to me there might be two screen issues. Since it's touch screen, you will basically "need" to put a protective plastic cover over it. Dirty fingers/gloves with even a little bit of dirt on them scratch plastic very easy, and anyone outdoors digging around for caches gets dirty hands. Even the best swipe on the pants leaves lots of microscopic scratching junk on the fingers. Yes many auto units have touch screens, but most people driving around don't have dusty grimy hands.

 

Not a big issue with something like the other outdoor GPS series where there is no need to actually touch the screen. PDA's tend to have a built-in stylus that help prevent this but this unit does not have one built-in. Of course, one could always carry an extra stylus around...

 

The other issue directly related to the screen is that it seems not as bright/readable during daytime viewing as the 60's or the CO in the first place. Add another layer of protective plastic over the screen and you easily lose another 5-10% light transmission to make it even more hard to view.

 

Not to be a naysayer, as it looks to be a nice unit. Just some things that bothered me about some touch screen PDA's in the past...

[OttoLund]

Do the Oregon US model have support for european languages, in menues, as norwegian and danish?

The Colorado model has support for both US', Europe's languages and others

[+BTBAM]

I'm curious now as to how I remove caches from my Oregon.

 

I went to delete waypoints (it said I was using 3%) of waypoints, but nothing happened. I'm wondering if that just deleted the caches I had found last night? (changing them to boxes made them a waypoint?)

[+g-o-cashers]

Do the Oregon US model have support for european languages, in menues, as norwegian and danish?

The Colorado model has support for both US', Europe's languages and others

 

The OR has 20 different language files including Dutch and Norwegian. Looks to be about the same (if not exactly the same) list as the CO.

 

I'm curious now as to how I remove caches from my Oregon.

 

I went to delete waypoints (it said I was using 3%) of waypoints, but nothing happened. I'm wondering if that just deleted the caches I had found last night? (changing them to boxes made them a waypoint?)

 

Like the CO the only way to delete a cache is to connect to a computer and delete the gpx file that contains the geocache. If you "Log Attempt" and mark the cache found it will no longer show up on your Found list if that helps.

 

GO$Rs

Edited July 17, 2008 by g-o-cashers

[+BTBAM]

So is that what happened? As soon as you mark that they are found it will switch over to waypoint? I saw that some of my finds included the caching symbol still and the open treasure box under it.

 

The GPS game my cache logs a total of 22, but when I looked through the find list it only showed me about 17 of them. I'm a little confused.

[MtnHermit]

Screenshot Mode?

 

On this page, http://garminoregon.wikispaces.com/Colorado+vs+Oregon, I didn't see if the Oregon could capture a screenshot. Can it?

 

Thanks for this great tool.

[MtnHermit]

 

In this photo I see three different colors, please describe the textures.

 

Thanks

[+BTBAM]

Did I hear there was an update (2.2) somewhere?

[+Red90]

The OR doesn't support the same Geocaching interface as the CO. The summary screens with bearing, distance, etc aren't there. This is because the OR treats geocaches more like regular waypoints. Once you select a geocache from the list all the tools like the map, compass, altimeter, 3d-view, odometer, etc are available once you start navigation to the cache. In this sense there really isn't a geocaching mode on the OR. You pick a cache to navigate to and you end up back at the Main Menu to select the tools you want next.

 

Wow, that sucks. Those screens are the best thing since sliced bread.

[yogazoo]

Wow, that sucks. Those screens are the best thing since sliced bread.

 

As long as you're not out in daylight. Vampires should really love the Oregon series!!

[jcc123]

Seems to me there might be two screen issues. Since it's touch screen, you will basically "need" to put a protective plastic cover over it. Dirty fingers/gloves with even a little bit of dirt on them scratch plastic very easy, and anyone outdoors digging around for caches gets dirty hands. Even the best swipe on the pants leaves lots of microscopic scratching junk on the fingers. Yes many auto units have touch screens, but most people driving around don't have dusty grimy hands.

 

Not a big issue with something like the other outdoor GPS series where there is no need to actually touch the screen. PDA's tend to have a built-in stylus that help prevent this but this unit does not have one built-in. Of course, one could always carry an extra stylus around...

 

The other issue directly related to the screen is that it seems not as bright/readable during daytime viewing as the 60's or the CO in the first place. Add another layer of protective plastic over the screen and you easily lose another 5-10% light transmission to make it even more hard to view.

 

Not to be a naysayer, as it looks to be a nice unit. Just some things that bothered me about some touch screen PDA's in the past...

 

If it's anything like the Nuvi series, then it's already got one on. If you used one you would know that it has a non slippery type of screen that's a bit "soft" to the touch. It acts both as a protective cover and a non-relective screen, allowing for better handling. I have yet to hear that someone scratched their Nuvi screens. And this is after millions of them have been sold and grabbed by all sorts of dirty fingers.

Edited July 17, 2008 by jcc123

[Maximus XX!V]

I am not normally an early adopter but the UI on the 60CSx is a frustration for me. Ever since I bought a car unit, I have been waiting for a touchscreen unit for backpacking.

 

I have gift certificates for Amazon so I wanted to buy from them but it is still backordered there. Now, with the feedback on the screen, I am a little leary about ordering one and am thinking about buying from REI. This would get it to me sooner with a better return policy but I would need to pay tax and shipping (gas, 80 mile round trip for me).

 

Any idea when Amazon will get units?