Best unit for hiking, biking, trail/map creation?

[+user13371]

duplicate post. darn the latency!

Edited January 20, 2009 by lee_rimar

[+user13371]

...Small, low resolution screens.

Small, yes. But around 125 dpi is not low resolution.

... No mapping support outside of the USA. It astounds me ... that anyone owning a GPS does not travel.

A weakness of DeLorme for anyone who travels outside the US, absolutely.

 

But it should not astound you. DeLorme's primary business and market niche is selling maps of the USA. It would be fair to say they offer GPSRs to help sell more of the maps they make. Contrast that to Garmin, who licenses mapping products from other companies to help sell more of the GPSRs they make.

 

More generally, it should not astound you that "anyone owning a GPS doesn't travel." Only about 1/3 of the adults in the USA hold passports.

Edited January 20, 2009 by lee_rimar

[+TotemLake]

I'm not downloading or buying extra tools to make it happen just to satisfy your demand.

 

Open the IMG file with GPSMapedit, http://www.geopainting.com/en/ It is free. Export as a shape file and away you go.

 

The reality is it is very easy to make maps for Garmin units, as I'm sure it is for Delorme.

 

IMO, the Delorme units have two main problems.

 

1) Small, low resolution screens.

2) No mapping support outside of the USA. It astounds me, in today's age, that anyone owning a GPS does not travel.

Be astounded. I have no need.

[+myotis]

Red90, Do you have the paid version of GPSMAPEDIT? The free version does not export to shapefiles. I have had multiple people with a Delormoe wanting the data for my trail files. I would be more than happy to provide it but I have not been able to figure out any way to export it to a format Delorome can use and no one with a Delorome has been able to find me a way to use my data. So if there is some way, I would like to know.

 

But that only deals with trail data, even without it, the free Garmin topp maps are vector and they have better quality elevation and hydrology data than 24K USGS maps. So Delorome can do satlite much easier and without a 3rd party tool, but for topo maps, Garmin is far superior and I think topo is the most important.

 

Team CowboyPapa its not a 12th juror, you have yet to provide any evidence to support what you say or convience any juror. Let's see some evidence that the sat photo is accurate enough and have high enough resolution to deterimine if the track is within 10 feet. The track shows you driving on trees. A sat photo certianly is not the best standard for comparision-a track from a survey quality GPS is the best standard for comparision. The next best thing is a tool that will average multiple tracks. The 3rd possibility is both tracks are off which is reasonable to expect under the condistion the tracks were created under. That photo does not show they are within 5 feet for 7 miles and you won't let me see the track file to see if it actually is.

[+Red90]

I hang on.... I don't use GPSMapedit.... Sorry, brain fart....

 

Here we are... Ptxt2shp, http://www.msh-tools.com/Ptxt2shp.html

[+Red90]

More generally, it should not astound you that "anyone owning a GPS doesn't travel." Only about 1/3 of the adults in the USA hold passports.

 

I seriously do not know anyone that does not travel internationally at least once every two years.

 

I'm NOT really astounded. I've worked in the US and the limited world view of many people always shocked me. I was more astounded that people involved in Geocaching would still be within that group of people.

[+user13371]

... I've worked in the US and the limited world view of many people always shocked me. I was more astounded that people involved in Geocaching would still be within that group of people.

Put another way, when you meet people who don't think and live as you do, you're shocked? Considering that you style yourself worldly and well traveled, I'd call this a kind of reverse parochialism

 

International travel is one - but not the only - way to become worldly. But it has NOTHING to do with the question of "What's the best GPS and mapping package for someone bicycling across the USA."

 

Anybody want to try to steer back on topic?

Edited January 19, 2009 by lee_rimar

[+myotis]

I hang on.... I don't use GPSMapedit.... Sorry, brain fart....

 

Here we are... Ptxt2shp, http://www.msh-tools.com/Ptxt2shp.html

 

OK. I tried that. I used the mp file (build source) for this map:

 

http://mapcenter.cgpsmapper.com/maplist.php?id=2549

 

While it created a shapefile with the trail names, there are lines in the file for many things other than trails and I am not sure if you can seperate those out. The biggest problem is while a few of the shapes looked good, most of the trails had two lines for each trail and one line was way off. It looked like a jumpled mess. I tried limiting in the export to only level 0, but it had the same problem.

 

The POIs all seemed to export OK, but there are many different kinds of POIs in the file and I am not sure if they could be seperated when you import them into delorme maps. That would be a big problem.

 

As I have said, if someone can figure out how to get the files into Delorome, I am more than willing to share data. So if someone can figure it out, let me know. Also some have mentioned Xmap can import an img file, I bet that is the graphic with an img extensiton not the Garmin file.

 

Someone told me GSAK does not support Delorme. Is that the case? If that is the case, that would be a huge deal for me. While I can drag and drop PQs, I use GSAK so I can accumulate logs, have corrected cordinates, and user notes. I can get all of that with a mouse click to run a macro in GSAK.

[+Red90]

You need to first open the IMG file in GPSMapedit. Delete everything from any level other than zero to prevent multiple lines being created. Delete whatever types that you don't want in the shape file. You can do this by selecting by type. Save and convert.

[+myotis]

I figured out the problem with the extra lines for the trails. In GPSMAPEDIT, I removed all the layers expect 0 and the blank layer. Then I saved it as a mp file. Then I used the program and created a shapefile that looks good. So if any of you Deloromers want to try to see if it can be imported, send me your email and I will send you shapefiles.

 

The issues will be the shapefile for lines has trails, roads, boundaries, and lines for things like wing dikes in the river and levees. The issue will be if Delorome can import the differnt types of lines seperately. Likewise there are many kinds of POIs.

[+user13371]

Someone told me GSAK does not support Delorme. Is that the case?

Yes, for now.

 

DeLorme has announced (but not yet released) an API. But for now, DeLorme's own software (Topo 7, XMap) is the only way to get data in and out of the devices.

[+snow_rules]

Screen size has no relation to resolution. For example my old Eagle Accunav Sport has a larger screen size then the PN series and the Garmin 60 and 76 series but the resolution is not quite the same as either of the new units.

 

As for accuracy the best indicator would be someone with a Garmin and PN to visit 15 or so benchmarks that have been verified with a commercial grade gps and do some statics with the difference of distance.

[+snow_rules]

Someone told me GSAK does not support Delorme. Is that the case?

Yes, for now.

 

DeLorme has announced (but not yet released) an API. But for now, DeLorme's own software (Topo 7, XMap) is the only way to get data in and out of the devices.

 

The PN devices don't have a direct interface with GSAK but you can export a file from GSAK and then load it into T7 or Xmap to send to the unit. I don't think GSAK

[+Pax42]

I figured out the problem with the extra lines for the trails. In GPSMAPEDIT, I removed all the layers expect 0 and the blank layer. Then I saved it as a mp file. Then I used the program and created a shapefile that looks good. So if any of you Deloromers want to try to see if it can be imported, send me your email and I will send you shapefiles.

 

The issues will be the shapefile for lines has trails, roads, boundaries, and lines for things like wing dikes in the river and levees. The issue will be if Delorome can import the differnt types of lines seperately. Likewise there are many kinds of POIs.

 

Hey Myotis,

 

I camped next to you at MOGA last year and used your trail maps at Mark Twain on my 60csx. Now I have a PN-40 and would be interested in seeing if your trails will load to it. I downloaded the files on your site and it looks like you started mapping the trails in the state park area where MOGA's at this year. Any chance you'll have those entirely mapped before the event? I'll PM you my email.

[+TotemLake]

I figured out the problem with the extra lines for the trails. In GPSMAPEDIT, I removed all the layers expect 0 and the blank layer. Then I saved it as a mp file. Then I used the program and created a shapefile that looks good. So if any of you Deloromers want to try to see if it can be imported, send me your email and I will send you shapefiles.

 

The issues will be the shapefile for lines has trails, roads, boundaries, and lines for things like wing dikes in the river and levees. The issue will be if Delorome can import the differnt types of lines seperately. Likewise there are many kinds of POIs.

I can pull down a program to convert the SHP to do the conversion but all the line types become the same. The way we ended up working out the different line types was to export each type individually then export the lines as GPX or TXT. Areas (polygons) need to be exported as TXT. GPX imports will add a generic name to each line that is not named in the original file. The TXT file became easier to deal with as these are treated as draw files until such time you want to convert them to something usable on the GPS. The draw files can also be exported to the GPS so it is another layer on top of the imagery. See this site as an example for an upcoming hike. http://www.totemlake.org/20090124.htm

Edited January 20, 2009 by TotemLake

[+Red90]

I can pull down a program to convert the SHP to do the conversion but all the line types become the same. The way we ended up working out the different line types was to export each type individually then export the lines as GPX or TXT. Areas (polygons) need to be exported as TXT. GPX imports will add a generic name to each line that is not named in the original file. The TXT file became easier to deal with as these are treated as draw files until such time you want to convert them to something usable on the GPS. The draw files can also be exported to the GPS so it is another layer on top of the imagery. See this site as an example for an upcoming hike. http://www.totemlake.org/20090124.htm

 

Eeek, I take back my comment that it would be just as easy to make maps on a Delorme!!!

[+TotemLake]

I can pull down a program to convert the SHP to do the conversion but all the line types become the same. The way we ended up working out the different line types was to export each type individually then export the lines as GPX or TXT. Areas (polygons) need to be exported as TXT. GPX imports will add a generic name to each line that is not named in the original file. The TXT file became easier to deal with as these are treated as draw files until such time you want to convert them to something usable on the GPS. The draw files can also be exported to the GPS so it is another layer on top of the imagery. See this site as an example for an upcoming hike. http://www.totemlake.org/20090124.htm

 

Eeek, I take back my comment that it would be just as easy to make maps on a Delorme!!!

I said it was doable. I did not indicate it was not intensive.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

Team CowboyPapa its not a 12th juror, you have yet to provide any evidence to support what you say or convience any juror. Let's see some evidence that the sat photo is accurate enough and have high enough resolution to deterimine if the track is within 10 feet. The track shows you driving on trees. A sat photo certianly is not the best standard for comparision-a track from a survey quality GPS is the best standard for comparision. The next best thing is a tool that will average multiple tracks. The 3rd possibility is both tracks are off which is reasonable to expect under the condistion the tracks were created under. That photo does not show they are within 5 feet for 7 miles and you won't let me see the track file to see if it actually is.

What he have here, is a failure to communicate. I keep seeing in the quote above and in previous responses to my posts, the term sat. Now, if one searches my posts for the term sat, I will not turn up. 10-4?

 

Now, search my posts for the term aerial photo. Is it noticed that that term is used exclusively by me?

Is it understood that they are two different things? Satellite photos come from satellites and aerial photos are taken from airplanes.

 

Is it understood that they are two different things? That they are neither identical nor interchangeable? The Sat 10 photo images that are aquired through DeLorme's annual $29.95 subscription service are best viewed at Zoom Levels 11 through 13 with DeLorme's Topo USA 7.0 mapping application. In contrast, the usable range of the color aerial imagery, which I have provided, is Zoom Levels 13 through 17.

 

Yes, it is a problem in communication in that I have never alluded to any sat based data as it is useless for this determination. Being useless, as I stated above, if I did download some under my annual subscription and overlay the track on it, I expect then all I get back is ".... same as before, proves nothing, not good enough, send me more....". Which for a sat based comparison is true, demonstrates nothing.

 

Then it's noted that I haven't sent the useless sat imagey, but I should also make several trips out to capture more data. Well, obviously nothing that I send between now and more trips out is anticipated to be good enough or why would these trips be a consideration. Seems to be a scheduled failure no matter what I send. Seems to me to be an open ended wild goose chase for more and more inapplicable imagery (sat) and otherwise never good enough aerial based comparisons.

[+RRLover]

Not climbing any trees here, the trunks are just too da_n wet!

 

The old heads in the Magellan camp used to use a free utility that would change

the Garmin map files to a Polish text format. Then to the Magellan map format, both

with the same suffix as the Garmins that Maggie used, as well as the other one using

Mobile Mapper, and/or Magellan's Map conversion manager. If using Garmin maps

was desirable and do-able for Magellan users than there's probably someone who

might want 'em on DeLorme, I'm not interested though.

 

I'm thinking that DeLorme would probably be able to use the Polish text format right

into XMap.

 

But this all came down in a universe and time far removed from here, I don't remember

the name of the utility, and Rhamphorix (the site where it first saw daylight) is pretty well

decimated now. I'm sure someone is left in the Yahoo forums that could surface the utilities,

if there were truly a need. For all I know it may even be avail. in one of the files sections of :

MobilMapper2, Meridian, eXplorist, or maybe even MacMapping.

 

Norm

[+TotemLake]

Not climbing any trees here, the trunks are just too da_n wet!

 

The old heads in the Magellan camp used to use a free utility that would change

the Garmin map files to a Polish text format. Then to the Magellan map format, both

with the same suffix as the Garmins that Maggie used, as well as the other one using

Mobile Mapper, and/or Magellan's Map conversion manager. If using Garmin maps

was desirable and do-able for Magellan users than there's probably someone who

might want 'em on DeLorme, I'm not interested though.

 

I'm thinking that DeLorme would probably be able to use the Polish text format right

into XMap.

 

But this all came down in a universe and time far removed from here, I don't remember

the name of the utility, and Rhamphorix (the site where it first saw daylight) is pretty well

decimated now. I'm sure someone is left in the Yahoo forums that could surface the utilities,

if there were truly a need. For all I know it may even be avail. in one of the files sections of :

MobilMapper2, Meridian, eXplorist, or maybe even MacMapping.

 

Norm

I might even have them now. I remember downloading some proggies that were capable of customizing maps for my MeriPlat. It will take a little time to look for them as my plate really is spilling over.

[+TotemLake]

By the way, this collaboration I can work with. We're all in this game together.

[+Klemmer]

TotemLake, there is no comparision, the FREE vector topo maps people can get for thier Garmin's are far superior to the USGS 24K maps.

myotis, you can't be serious? What planet are you talking about? Better AT WHAT? Garmin vector maps might be better for driving down the road, but that's about it. This thread is about "hiking, biking, trail/map creation". In other words, off-road. That's what the OP was asking about. For off road use, there is simply no comparison to USGS 24K (7.5 minute) topos. Period. Know any serious outdoors "professionals"? (i.e. they make their living outdoors, off road). I do. I've had this discussion. One is my daughter. No question in their minds what maps are best for outdoors (off road) use.

 

Sorry to sound flame-like. Not my intention, honest, but I just couldn't let that statement from you stand.

[+embra]

The old heads in the Magellan camp used to use a free utility that would change

the Garmin map files to a Polish text format. Then to the Magellan map format, both

with the same suffix as the Garmins that Maggie used, as well as the other one using

Mobile Mapper, and/or Magellan's Map conversion manager. If using Garmin maps

was desirable and do-able for Magellan users than there's probably someone who

might want 'em on DeLorme, I'm not interested though.

Was this the same utility that Red90 linked above?

Here we are... Ptxt2shp, http://www.msh-tools.com/Ptxt2shp.html

[+TotemLake]

TotemLake, there is no comparision, the FREE vector topo maps people can get for thier Garmin's are far superior to the USGS 24K maps.

myotis, you can't be serious? What planet are you talking about? Better AT WHAT? Garmin vector maps might be better for driving down the road, but that's about it. This thread is about "hiking, biking, trail/map creation". In other words, off-road. That's what the OP was asking about. For off road use, there is simply no comparison to USGS 24K (7.5 minute) topos. Period. Know any serious outdoors "professionals"? (i.e. they make their living outdoors, off road). I do. I've had this discussion. One is my daughter. No question in their minds what maps are best for outdoors (off road) use.

 

Sorry to sound flame-like. Not my intention, honest, but I just couldn't let that statement from you stand.

To be fair, he provided a perspective for his usage and the vector does what he wants, cleanly.

 

It isn't sufficient for me or I would have gone Garmin. USGS 24K is the way to go for hiking. Aerial imagery adds to it. The hybrid capability to add topo lines over it adds even more information for me. I would have made different decisions in the past on a couple of hikes. On the flipside, I had an adventure on those same hikes.

[+RRLover]

Embra :

That could very well be it, I'm sans 40 for a few days, I'll poke around in my archives and see what I can dig up. I've got a little cache of things left over from the old days.

Maybe some treasure, or just pack-rat jetsam.

 

Norm

[+embra]

I know what you mean; I've got a few folders on my hard drive that are like a closet I haven't been into in years.

[+myotis]

Sat or aerial, you have not shown they are accurate enough or have high enough resoltion to determine you are within 10 feet. And I see your track on trees and you will not allow actual inspection of the track file.

 

Team CowboyPapa its not a 12th juror, you have yet to provide any evidence to support what you say or convience any juror. Let's see some evidence that the sat photo is accurate enough and have high enough resolution to deterimine if the track is within 10 feet. The track shows you driving on trees. A sat photo certianly is not the best standard for comparision-a track from a survey quality GPS is the best standard for comparision. The next best thing is a tool that will average multiple tracks. The 3rd possibility is both tracks are off which is reasonable to expect under the condistion the tracks were created under. That photo does not show they are within 5 feet for 7 miles and you won't let me see the track file to see if it actually is.

What he have here, is a failure to communicate. I keep seeing in the quote above and in previous responses to my posts, the term sat. Now, if one searches my posts for the term sat, I will not turn up. 10-4?

 

Now, search my posts for the term aerial photo. Is it noticed that that term is used exclusively by me?

Is it understood that they are two different things? Satellite photos come from satellites and aerial photos are taken from airplanes.

 

Is it understood that they are two different things? That they are neither identical nor interchangeable? The Sat 10 photo images that are aquired through DeLorme's annual $29.95 subscription service are best viewed at Zoom Levels 11 through 13 with DeLorme's Topo USA 7.0 mapping application. In contrast, the usable range of the color aerial imagery, which I have provided, is Zoom Levels 13 through 17.

 

Yes, it is a problem in communication in that I have never alluded to any sat based data as it is useless for this determination. Being useless, as I stated above, if I did download some under my annual subscription and overlay the track on it, I expect then all I get back is ".... same as before, proves nothing, not good enough, send me more....". Which for a sat based comparison is true, demonstrates nothing.

 

Then it's noted that I haven't sent the useless sat imagey, but I should also make several trips out to capture more data. Well, obviously nothing that I send between now and more trips out is anticipated to be good enough or why would these trips be a consideration. Seems to be a scheduled failure no matter what I send. Seems to me to be an open ended wild goose chase for more and more inapplicable imagery (sat) and otherwise never good enough aerial based comparisons.

[+BANDA]

 

So Banda,

 

Reading through the thread you linked, you never did answer Embra's inquiry when you asked if it makes a difference to hold it vertically or horizontally.

 

With the Quad-Helix antenna, you have to hold it vertically and the patch needs to be held horizontally. Is it possible your anomally was contributed by not having it in an appropriate position?

 

Throughout this hike I was hand holding both units, with my arms at my side except for when I would raise them to look at the screens. So they were actually in the preferred position for the patch antenna most of the time, except that it may not do well when under the hand. I'm still trying to figure out a way to carry it horizontally without it being under my hand.

[+myotis]

TotemLake, there is no comparision, the FREE vector topo maps people can get for thier Garmin's are far superior to the USGS 24K maps.

myotis, you can't be serious? What planet are you talking about? Better AT WHAT? Garmin vector maps might be better for driving down the road, but that's about it. This thread is about "hiking, biking, trail/map creation". In other words, off-road. That's what the OP was asking about. For off road use, there is simply no comparison to USGS 24K (7.5 minute) topos. Period. Know any serious outdoors "professionals"? (i.e. they make their living outdoors, off road). I do. I've had this discussion. One is my daughter. No question in their minds what maps are best for outdoors (off road) use.

 

Sorry to sound flame-like. Not my intention, honest, but I just couldn't let that statement from you stand.

 

OK, let's compare the FREE user created topo maps to the 24K USGS maps the Deloromes use.

 

One huge difference is the free garmin maps are vector so topo lines, trails, POIs, streams, and everything in the maps are objects. The Delorome 24K USGS maps are bitmaps(raster) which is just a picture. Since the Garmin maps have vector objects you can zoom way in and it never blurs due to pixiliation. With Delorome you can only zoom in a little ways before you get blurry pixils.

 

Since everything in the Garmin maps are ojects, you can point to them and see what they are. If you want to know what elevation a contour is, put your cursor on it and the elevation displays. If you want to know the name of a trail, water body, road, etc, put your cursor on it and the name displays. For the Delormore since it is a bitmap on its itty bitty low res screen, you have to scroll around until you can find a topo line that has the elevation labeled, then try to figure out what the contour interval is, then do the math to figure out what the elevation of the line you want to know. If you want to know the name of a stream you have to scroll around on the itty bitty screen and try to find somewhere where the steam, trail, road, etc is named. Since the POIs are objectives in the Garmin maps, you can use find to search for them. If you want to find Lake XXX, you can use find to find it. On a bit map you have to try to find it on the itty bitty screen.

 

If there is an error in the Garmin maps, you can edit the map. You cannot edit a USGS 24K map.

 

Clearly vector is far superior to bitmap.

 

With the Garmin maps, you can display relief shading.

 

So let's look at data.

 

The free garmin maps use 1/3 arc second elevation data which has 9 times the resolution of the elevation data that was used to create the USGS 24K maps. You can make the contour interval anything you want. So the topo lines are far superior in the garmin maps.

 

The free maps use the latest and most accurate hydrology data (lakes, rivers, streams) available from the USGS. So the hydrology is as good or better than what is in the USGS 24K maps.

 

All the POIs that are on the USGS 24K maps are included in the free Garmin maps. Sometimes the USGS POIs are mislocated or is missing things. You can fix that in the Garmin maps. So the POI data in the garmin maps is as good or better than the USGS.

 

Let's talk roads. Some maps like mine are transparent overlays for Garmin's street maps. Garmin's street maps are light years ahead in location accuracy and roads themselves that what is on a USGS 24K map. Other maps use the most recent tiger data which is also light years ahead of the road data in the USGS maps.

 

The trail data on the USGS is nortoriously inaccurate-particulary since it was never GPSed. Having GPSed trails and trail data from various agencies is one of the strongest features of the free Garmin maps. And as you said this is about hiking.

 

So the data is much better in the free maps.

 

Let's talk about how they look and readability. Not withstanding the issue of the itty bitty low resolution Delormoe screen, take a look at the screen shot I posted and compare it to the Delorome screen shot of the 24K USGS map. The free Garmin map is much easier to read and looks much better. Take a look at the screen shot of the map I made in MapSource. Can you tell me with a straight face the USGS 24K topo is in the same class?

 

These free Garmin trail maps are light years better than the USGS 24K maps.

 

Why don't you send your daughter the screen shot from my GPS and the USGS 24K screen shot of the same spot from your Delorme and ask her which is better.

[+myotis]

I figured out the problem with the extra lines for the trails. In GPSMAPEDIT, I removed all the layers expect 0 and the blank layer. Then I saved it as a mp file. Then I used the program and created a shapefile that looks good. So if any of you Deloromers want to try to see if it can be imported, send me your email and I will send you shapefiles.

 

The issues will be the shapefile for lines has trails, roads, boundaries, and lines for things like wing dikes in the river and levees. The issue will be if Delorome can import the differnt types of lines seperately. Likewise there are many kinds of POIs.

 

Hey Myotis,

 

I camped next to you at MOGA last year and used your trail maps at Mark Twain on my 60csx. Now I have a PN-40 and would be interested in seeing if your trails will load to it. I downloaded the files on your site and it looks like you started mapping the trails in the state park area where MOGA's at this year. Any chance you'll have those entirely mapped before the event? I'll PM you my email.

 

Last year the trails were mostly traced from a scanned map-which is usually not accurate as the trails were never GPSed. This year I have talked to the ACOE Ranger and he is planning on GPSing the trails with thier 60CSX. So hopefully this year I will have GPSed trails on my map.

[+myotis]

OK, back to figuring out how to share my trail data with Delorome.

 

I do not want to spend all the time doing the conversion, but I have no problem with others doing it as long as it is not used for non-commerical use and no charge for sharing it with others (and they sahre trail data with me!). Is there some web site with directions I can point people to or can some directions be developed to share with others.

 

Are there data sharing sites someone who converted my data could post it for others to download?

 

One quesitons is the data gets updated regularly. In garmin one just need to replace the map file then reload it on the GPS. What about the Delorme, once the data is loaded, is it easy to replace with more up to date data?

 

TotemLake, I am pretty sure I have figured out a much easier way to get what you need than you describe, but I need more info. A couple of people have emailed me volunterring to try to figure it out. Before I send them data to import, l need some more info.

 

What is the best format to send it in? I can send it in gpx, GoogleEarth, or shapfile.

 

Here is what I figured out. First I removed all data except level 0 and then used the program red90 pointed out to create a shapefile.

 

The shapefile attaches two attributes to each item: 1) Its label if it exists (i.e., name) and 2) what type of object it is (for example in GPSMapedit, the code for trail is 0X16, so each trail has the attribute of 0X16.

 

Since each object identifies what kind of object it is, there is no need to export them seperately. You can use software to split them into what they are.

 

I used ExpertGPS with the GIS pack. I opened ExpertGPS and imported the shapefile I created with the program red90 pointed out. I assign label to label in the shapefile and type to type. Once they are imported, sort by type. (The datum of the shapefile is WGS84) Then you select all the trails (i.e., items labeled 0X16), right click and select export. Then export to to trail.gpx or what ever format you want. Then select each object type and export it.

 

There may be some other tool that does this easier or some free tool that does it. I think ExpertGPS with the GIS pack is $100-you have to have the GIS pack to use shapefiles.

[+BANDA]

Myotis, You have certainly made a lot of posts here and elsewhere lately and you make many valid points, however I think there may be some confusion out there.

 

You wrote:

"TotemLake, you misunderstand. The free Garmin maps are based on 1/3 arc second USGS data."

 

This depends on who makes the map, and what data they use. This is certainly not the case with the maps provided by Garmin, and will vary among maps made by individuals or third parties. I think you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare home-made maps to commercially produced maps.

 

You wrote

"embra, thanks for posting the screen shoots as I think they really make my point. I would argue for hiking in that area of Marquette Park every one would be useless except the USGS 24K bitmap. And the quality of that bitmap is nowhere the quality of the garmin map. There are very steep slopes in the area with narrow ridge. The only map you could tell that from is the USGS 24K bitmap. But none of the maps have any of the trails-not even the paved bike trail just North of the road."

 

You make some valid points here, but in regard to the trails, those trails were not documented by Garmin, they were documented by either you or some other source. The same thing can be done for the Delorme units. It is very easy to add gpx files or shapefiles to Topo 7 and turn them into trails.

 

My main point here is that you are comparing maps made by yourself and/or other individuals to maps provided by Delorme and saying that yours are better. I don't necessarily disagree that yours are better, but I would also say that they are better than those provided by Garmin and their map providers.

 

I would hazard a guess that the data you are using either came directly from your gps tracks or from gpx files or shapefiles that you received from other sources. These same data can be added to the Delorme units as well. Topo 7 and one other program is all it takes.

 

So yes, your maps may be better than Delorme's and Garmin's, but better home-brewed maps can be made for the PN-40 as well.

 

One other thing to keep in mind is that all-inclusive home-brewed maps are not available for the entire United States, while the maps from Garmin and Delorme do cover the whole country.

 

And lastly, not everyone has the knowledge, skills, or desire to produce custom maps for their area of interest, so whatever is offered from the manufacturers is what they have to choose between. In this regard, I think Delorme is the clear winner for the off-road market, and Garmin is the clear winner for street use.

[+myotis]

Yes, I do know what data they are using. There are lots of directions and tutorials on how to make the garmin maps. Why would we not use the best data there is which is the 1/3 arc second. You can select what format you download it in, so why not take the 1/3 arc second.

 

Nope the entire country is not covered yet, but lots of people are working on it. There are lots more Garmin users so there are lots more working on garmin. Is there anyone working on maps like that for Delorme and are there tools and procudures to do anything more than trails (i.e., complete maps simular in quality to the garmin maps)?

 

Yes the Garmin 100K maps are simular to the Delorome 100K maps. But Garmin is working on doing the entire country in 24K VECTOR maps. Does Delorome offer ANY 24K VECTOR maps?

 

Don't get me wrong, I have cursed garmin many times and I have loved my Delorome mapping programs, but I think while there are some advantages for the Delorme, overall Garmin is far superior. The biggest issue for me is the screen size. I like to be able to glance at my Garmin and see what I need. I also like the big screen so I can see the big picture. Before I got my CO I used to cache with Delorome Street Atlas on my laptop connected to my Delorome USB GPS. (The first GPS I owned was about 15 years ago and it was a Delorme GPS that pluged into the sieral port.) Once I got my CO, I never used my laptop caching again. I found in all aspects, the CO was superior to my laptop, street atlas, and my delorome GPS for caching purposes. Another outstanding feature of Garmin is support for field notes. It creates a file you upload to GC.com that then gives you a list of all the caches you logged. All you have to do is click on a link and submit your log. That has saved me countless hours.

 

Oh well, time for bed.

[+Chuy!]

Hi all. I'm seeking advice on the best GPS for my intended uses. I just picked up a Garmin 60Csx via the intermittent $159 Amazon deal. I have yet to receive it, but in looking thru past forum posts, I stumbled on the PN-40 and think it might be a better fit for me. Here's what I'll use it for in order of importance:

 

1) Trails recording/map creation - will be hiking, mtn biking, trailrunning and using primarily for creating tracks I can add to maps and share in as many ways as possible. This includes bringing into arcGIS, as well as using with GoogleEarth.

 

2) Navigation - for hiking, mtn biking in wilderness areas of U.S. - mostly Colorado, Appalachian trail, as well as Illinois and Ohio.

 

3) Reliable compass/altimeter functions - will be backup compass and primary altimeter.

 

4) Usability - I was a Net Admin in a former life, so not terribly concerned about computer/software complexity, but want to make sure whichever unit I go with works well in the field - readability in various conditions, signal strength, tracking accuracy, water resistance, battery life, etc. - both seem good here, just making sure there aren't any gotcha's I'm not aware of.

 

I will rarely use this unit for street navigation, but a reasonable turn-by-turn function that will get me close is a plus as I may need to do some road/city navigation when hiking between trail heads. I have a Garmin nuvi for road use in vehicle.

 

I've found a few reviews/posts on the PN-40 and am thinking it might be the better unit for my needs. Unfortunately, "PN-40" doesn't pull any results in the forum search, so I've starting browsing back into the forum history to find them.

 

Let me know what you think. Thanks!

$159 is a very good price for the 60CSx.

 

I use a Garmin Etrex Vista HCx for biking, hiking, tracking. However, I can't recommend it over the Delorme because I have never used a Delorme. I believe lee_rimar is the only poster here with practical experience with modern GPS' from both manufactures.

Here is another.

 

For me, I will not consider a Delorme until they add or change to a mini-USB power/data plug. Currently, they require a proprietary adapter and this will not work for me. I use my Vista in two cars, bike, at work and at home. Having to carry the adapter with me everywhere is just asking me to lose it - and I know I will! With the Garmins, I only need a mini-USB cable, which are everywhere. I also don't like the Delorme's screen size. Compared to the 60's and Etrex' it has a smaller screen size relative to the size of the unit. The PN40 is an improved PN20, and to keep manufacturing costs down, it inherited some of the PN20's deficiencies. Overall, I do like the PN40 and will continue to keep a close eye on it for a possible future purchase if they do these two little things for me.

[+Pax42]

Hi all. I'm seeking advice on the best GPS for my intended uses. I just picked up a Garmin 60Csx via the intermittent $159 Amazon deal. I have yet to receive it, but in looking thru past forum posts, I stumbled on the PN-40 and think it might be a better fit for me. Here's what I'll use it for in order of importance:

 

1) Trails recording/map creation - will be hiking, mtn biking, trailrunning and using primarily for creating tracks I can add to maps and share in as many ways as possible. This includes bringing into arcGIS, as well as using with GoogleEarth.

 

2) Navigation - for hiking, mtn biking in wilderness areas of U.S. - mostly Colorado, Appalachian trail, as well as Illinois and Ohio.

 

3) Reliable compass/altimeter functions - will be backup compass and primary altimeter.

 

4) Usability - I was a Net Admin in a former life, so not terribly concerned about computer/software complexity, but want to make sure whichever unit I go with works well in the field - readability in various conditions, signal strength, tracking accuracy, water resistance, battery life, etc. - both seem good here, just making sure there aren't any gotcha's I'm not aware of.

 

I will rarely use this unit for street navigation, but a reasonable turn-by-turn function that will get me close is a plus as I may need to do some road/city navigation when hiking between trail heads. I have a Garmin nuvi for road use in vehicle.

 

I've found a few reviews/posts on the PN-40 and am thinking it might be the better unit for my needs. Unfortunately, "PN-40" doesn't pull any results in the forum search, so I've starting browsing back into the forum history to find them.

 

Let me know what you think. Thanks!

$159 is a very good price for the 60CSx.

 

I use a Garmin Etrex Vista HCx for biking, hiking, tracking. However, I can't recommend it over the Delorme because I have never used a Delorme. I believe lee_rimar is the only poster here with practical experience with modern GPS' from both manufactures.

Here is another.

 

For me, I will not consider a Delorme until they add or change to a mini-USB power/data plug. Currently, they require a proprietary adapter and this will not work for me. I use my Vista in two cars, bike, at work and at home. Having to carry the adapter with me everywhere is just asking me to lose it - and I know I will! With the Garmins, I only need a mini-USB cable, which are everywhere. I also don't like the Delorme's screen size. Compared to the 60's and Etrex' it has a smaller screen size relative to the size of the unit. The PN40 is an improved PN20, and to keep manufacturing costs down, it inherited some of the PN20's deficiencies. Overall, I do like the PN40 and will continue to keep a close eye on it for a possible future purchase if they do these two little things for me.

 

Actually, I believe several of us that have posted have experience with both. I for one, have both a PN-40 and a 60csx. My 60csx has been a great unit but the -40 does things it can't. As for the screen size, yes its a little smaller than the 60 but out in the sun its much easier to read than either the colorado or the oregon. You have a valid point about the mini usb connection being more convenient but which unit would handle being dropped in muddy water better?

[yogazoo]

Red90, Do you have the paid version of GPSMAPEDIT? The free version does not export to shapefiles. I have had multiple people with a Delormoe wanting the data for my trail files. I would be more than happy to provide it but I have not been able to figure out any way to export it to a format Delorome can use and no one with a Delorome has been able to find me a way to use my data. So if there is some way, I would like to know.

 

Myotis,

DRNGarmin is a free application that will convert anything on a Garmin unit (waypoints, tracks, it will even turn tracks into polygons.) into just about any format; Shapefiles, GPX, KML, DBF, TXT. You can also convert any format into these formats, e.g. KML to Shapefile, or Shapefile to GPX.

Here's a link: DNRGarmin. DNRGarmin has recently added support for the Colorado and Oregon. It's really a great tool to have for any Garmin GPS owner and so little is mentioned of it in these forums.

Edited January 20, 2009 by yogazoo

[+WolfgangStiller]

....but I don't recall seeing many side-by-side track comparisons between the PN-40 and 60CSx in challenging conditions. I hope to wrap up my PN-40 review in the next couple of weeks, weather permitting, and will post some. I do have doubts about the patch performing as well as the quad helix. I

 

 

I have had a 60csx for about three years now and love the unit. About a month ago I purchased a PN-40 so my wife could use the 60csx (to replace an old etrex vista that just died). One of my favorite features is the PN-40's 3D compass. It makes sure the map display is oriented correctly when I am not moving. The 60csx does the same but I Have to hold the case level which is almost impossible to do while climbing difficult terrain. Paperless caching is great and the other amazing aspect is the imagery that Delorme makes available. With the hires city data or color areal imagery I can often see the best route through small rock bands or thick trees where the topo maps give no clue. I love that!

 

 

On the issue of accuracy in difficult conditions, I'd have to say both units are very close. When I am high up on a ridge, the PN-40 seems to claim better accuracy (I typically see 8 ft) but when I'm hiding caches down in valleys or below tree-line in lower elevations, the 60csx reports better accuracy. On the most recent cache I hid, I had both GPS's averaging for ten minutes. The Garmin reported between 8 and 9 ft accuracy while the the PN-40 reported only 14 feet. This is an isolated case so it's not that statistically relevant but I had similar results on the two other hides I did in the last few weeks.

 

 

I also did a 6 mile off-trail hike recently and compared tracks between the two units. Once both units had about 10 minutes to get a good lock and settle-down a bit (the PN-40 seemed to be faster getting a solid position), the tracks where indistinguishable from each other when viewed at the highest zoom level in Topo-7.

[roguenode]

I have received both GPS's and thought I'd update this thread. After using both a few days both trail running and biking, I'm going to keep the 60Csx and send back the PN-40. I would love to have given each unit a more thorough and scientific comparison, but didn't think I'd have time to do so within my return window.

 

My unscientific opinion on accuracy is that either unit would work fine for me. Although the 60 locked on WAAS very well in my area, the 40 was in the same margin of error when I compared a few short tracks I took on back-to-back days with each unit. No clear winner here for me. The antenna-type of the 60 is said to excel in deep canyons, but that is only relevant to me once or twice a year and I can't vouch for that through personal experience. The 60 did get a better signal in my home, but I generally know where I'm at and where I'm headed when at that location.

 

The best way I can sum it up is that I am really looking forward to the next generation from DeLorme. The PN-40 uses the PN-20 form factor to reduce cost, and presumably, time to market. I really liked the feel in hand and screen size of the 60 in comparison. The button layout of each was fine, and the screen of the 40 was not bad. If the capabilities of the 40 were put in the 60 series or Colorado frame, I would have kept it.

 

The aerials and map subscription from DeLorme are great, but free maps I can get for the areas I visit meet my needs well and in some cases, are better. Yes, someone had to take it upon themselves to build those sweet topo's, but the fact is there are a lot of them out there for garmin users. Yes, the aerials are sweet from DeLorme, but they didn't trump the free topo's in areas with fairly uniform tree cover, which I frequent the most.

 

Also, since I will both sending and receiving data from ArcGIS to my GPS, the 60 wins out. Thanks to DNRGarmin and other easy to use tools to do this quickly and at no cost.

 

For now, I have $160 invested in a GPS that is accurate, has great free topo and road maps for areas I want, has a large base of experienced users, and allows me to use get the exchange data with ArcGIS easily. Had the 60 not been in my hands at the same time, or been it's normal near-$300 price, it would have been a harder decision.

 

I love seeing quality competition in the handheld market and can't wait to see what DeLorme can do with the next round of offerings. I'll also be watching the firmware development for these new chipsets closely.

 

On another note, with any luck, a fairly easy method to convert gpsfiledepot maps for DeLorme use will be found. Personally, I'd love to know I can use some of the free topo/trail maps when I buy my PN-60 someday.

[+embra]

Glad you had two attractive alternatives to choose from, and that you didn't feel you had to choose the lesser of two evils. GPSing keeps getting better and better!

[+BANDA]

I have received both GPS's and thought I'd update this thread.

 

Thanks for doing this! Many people start forum discussions, but few complete them. I find it interesting to see the final results of discussions like this. Happy GPSing!

[roguenode]

Glad you had two attractive alternatives to choose from, and that you didn't feel you had to choose the lesser of two evils. GPSing keeps getting better and better!

 

Definitely, both units are excellent handhelds, I just preferred one at this point and time. With Magellen's support issues and recent sale, it's nice to see DeLorme continue to produce strong units.

 

Thanks for doing this! Many people start forum discussions, but few complete them. I find it interesting to see the final results of discussions like this. Happy GPSing!

 

I really wish I had the time to produce a complete track comparison of them in various conditions on successive outings. Grad school, work, an internship, etc. just made that too difficult in a 30-day timeframe and I decided the luxury of owning both was outweighed by the extra $320 in my pocket.

[+BANDA]

 

I really wish I had the time to produce a complete track comparison of them in various conditions on successive outings.

 

As you may recall, I posted a link to a photo of a comparison of the tracks from the two units which I did in a small canyon where the 60 stayed accurate and the 40 track jumped across the creek when it shouldn't have. Just so you know, I re-ran that test recently and this time the 40 performed like a champ! Both tracks were almost identical this time. I held the 40 in my left hand and the 60 in my right hand the whole time while I hiked in and out of the canyon. One thing I found to be interesting is that both unit's tracks were a tiny bit off to the West side of my reference trail on the way in, and both were a tiny bit off to the East on the way out. Not enough to be a problem, I just thought it was interesting.

 

Brent

[roguenode]

 

I really wish I had the time to produce a complete track comparison of them in various conditions on successive outings.

 

As you may recall, I posted a link to a photo of a comparison of the tracks from the two units which I did in a small canyon where the 60 stayed accurate and the 40 track jumped across the creek when it shouldn't have. Just so you know, I re-ran that test recently and this time the 40 performed like a champ! Both tracks were almost identical this time. I held the 40 in my left hand and the 60 in my right hand the whole time while I hiked in and out of the canyon. One thing I found to be interesting is that both unit's tracks were a tiny bit off to the West side of my reference trail on the way in, and both were a tiny bit off to the East on the way out. Not enough to be a problem, I just thought it was interesting.

 

Brent

 

I do recall that post and I kept an eye out for any jumping or odd deviations from the trail for both units. Each of them had variances, but all were slight changes, no jumping or points logged that didn't make sense or indicated severe drift.

 

It is interesting the 40 did a good job on that same portion a second time around. It certainly could have been a number of things, including conditions, GPS placement, etc. Had you also updated the 40 between runs? I understand the firmware of the new chipset is still being improved.

 

Like I said, despite the lack of WAAS during my limited tests, the 40 held it's own against the 60 in terms of both accuracy on hike out vs hike in on same trail as well as comparisons of next day's run of same trail.

 

I wonder if improved WAAS on the 40 will actually result in improved accuracy. Although, I certainly don't know enough about the subject to do more than wonder.

[+TotemLake]

I'm back from a snowshoe hike and I feel I had a mixed bag of results which I'll be posting the map and track later. I'm waiting to see if I can get a track from one of the Garmin users on the hike with me.

 

At times the GPS was right on the mark and other times the variance was as wide as 40 feet. There was no mistaking I was exactly at the same location and it was in a wide open meadow. There were two differences...

 

1. The unit is mounted on my left shoulder, and going in I had a peak to my right, and going out the peak was to my left. It is interesting to note, in the trees, the track was on top of the other. Also, the granularity did show when I went over a root ball versus when I went around the other end of the tree... 33 feet away.

 

2. Going in was on power saver mode about half way in, going out was not. I'm thinking this may had a big play and I'm going to test that theory.

 

As for zeroing me in on the cache locations... It was on the money as verified by the owners that came along. (We DNF'd two of the three as they ended up MIA and had to be replaced. This is the 4th time for one of the caches.

 

All of this was without a WAAS lock.

 

Weather condtions low to mid 20's F, sunny at times with a light overcast.

Edited January 26, 2009 by TotemLake

[+embra]

I'm very curious to see whether you can determine if power-saving mode makes a difference in the tracking. As far as I know it shouldn't, but I'm not sure about it. Obviously, power-saving mode would be a less useful for a hiker wanting as good a track as possible if it compromised some aspect of tracking.

[+TotemLake]

I'm very curious to see whether you can determine if power-saving mode makes a difference in the tracking. As far as I know it shouldn't, but I'm not sure about it. Obviously, power-saving mode would be a less useful for a hiker wanting as good a track as possible if it compromised some aspect of tracking.

I have just the trail I can track with nearby. Next Saturday will be my testing day.