Trying to decide between Legend HCx and 60CSx...

[+NanDAssi]

Which one is best for geocaching? I will use it for this purpose only. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[+ziggy4733]

I started with a Magellan 400. I used that 2 years and it was ok but the menus were confusing. Then I went with a garmin GPSmap 60csx. It’s been great love the color base map and the menus are easy to navigate.

[+Ramona Retired Snipe]

As a Garmin 60cx user I definately would say the 60csx. Biggest attractor for me is the micro sd expansion card. I can load all the street maps for a region and still have plenty of left over memory. I can load 2 500 cache quieries on my unit. As ziggy said the menu and pages are easy to read and navigate. Look around for hardheadhat on the forums he has a great tutourial on the 60csx and ten tips to maximize the geocaching performance of it.

[+Maingray]

As a Garmin 60cx user I definately would say the 60csx. Biggest attractor for me is the micro sd expansion card. I can load all the street maps for a region and still have plenty of left over memory. I can load 2 500 cache quieries on my unit.

 

..which is exactly the same as the Legend HCX.

 

The Legend HCX and the 60CSX differ mainly in the fact that the Legend has no electric compass or barometric altimeter, the form factor is different and the antenna capabilities are different.

 

Both are fine choices for geocaching.

[+Prime Suspect]

The 60CSx has a larger display, a belt clip, and if you're going to be using it for driving, it can use the much more rugged 4-pin power adapter. The Legend can only be externally powered by the USB port.

 

Also, the eTrex line has a history of problems with the outer grip band coming loose in hot weather.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Prime Suspect

[+Degai]

Now this subject interested me! I own a Garmin CSX60 and I hate it. Oh sure it looks good and it's great to be able to download caches from the computer, but I have not found a single cache with it! Every time I zoom in all the way, the little arrow just keeps floating off course. I have an OLD Magellan SporTrak that belonged to my husband and it works great. Of course it is somewhat antiquated and doesn't have a color screen, but it is always dead on for the coordinates. Every cache I have found has been with the Magellan.

 

Just recently, I have been thinking about getting rid of the useless CSX and getting a Colorado.

 

Does anyone have any comments that could help me? Am I doing something wrong with the CSX?

 

Oh one more thing. . .when you are downloading the coordinates from the computer to the CSX, it just gives you that cache #, not the name, so when you are hunting for caches, how do you know which cache is which. Is there a way to get the name and not the number?

[+Damin69]

Now this subject interested me! I own a Garmin CSX60 and I hate it. Oh sure it looks good and it's great to be able to download caches from the computer, but I have not found a single cache with it! Every time I zoom in all the way, the little arrow just keeps floating off course. I have an OLD Magellan SporTrak that belonged to my husband and it works great. Of course it is somewhat antiquated and doesn't have a color screen, but it is always dead on for the coordinates. Every cache I have found has been with the Magellan.

 

Just recently, I have been thinking about getting rid of the useless CSX and getting a Colorado.

 

Does anyone have any comments that could help me? Am I doing something wrong with the CSX?

 

Oh one more thing. . .when you are downloading the coordinates from the computer to the CSX, it just gives you that cache #, not the name, so when you are hunting for caches, how do you know which cache is which. Is there a way to get the name and not the number?

funny. You just described all the things I like most about the 60CSx. I since all caches are by unique GC numbers I much prefer that over names. As for the zooming in I dont use that part of the map I use the compass and has not failed me yet.

[+Degai]

You just described all the things I like most about the 60CSx. I since all caches are by unique GC numbers I much prefer that over names. As for the zooming in I dont use that part of the map I use the compass and has not failed me yet.

 

I hate to sound so stupid about these things (but I am )but how do you use the compass to find the cache instead of zooming in?

[+Damin69]

You just described all the things I like most about the 60CSx. I since all caches are by unique GC numbers I much prefer that over names. As for the zooming in I dont use that part of the map I use the compass and has not failed me yet.

 

I hate to sound so stupid about these things (but I am )but how do you use the compass to find the cache instead of zooming in?

I dont use the map screen I just go to the compass screen and go in the direction the arrow points.

[Neos2]

I love my 60CSx also.

 

I use the compass screen to navigate as well. I have some of the basic info show up in the text boxes, such as distance to cache ... and it points the way and tells me how much farther I have left to travel.

 

I use the map screen to see which caches are nearby after I find the one I'm one, and to see if I really want to go to the next closest one, or if there is a route that will take me past several caches in a loop.

 

I always keep my caches listed by number as well. I look them up by number in my PDA. I never have worry about multiple caches in the area having the same name (as can happen with series caches). I have never been caching with anyone who does use names on the display. Even the folks who 'can only remember which caches they want to do' by name (and don't use a PDA) make their lists by cache ID and write down the names next to the ID on their list.

[Tom Zentra]

Now this subject interested me! I own a Garmin CSX60 and I hate it. Oh sure it looks good and it's great to be able to download caches from the computer, but I have not found a single cache with it! Every time I zoom in all the way, the little arrow just keeps floating off course.

 

...

 

Oh one more thing. . .when you are downloading the coordinates from the computer to the CSX, it just gives you that cache #, not the name, so when you are hunting for caches, how do you know which cache is which. Is there a way to get the name and not the number?

I have been using a mobile Garmin GPS in my car for quite some time. It wasn't expensive at all. I was really very shocked when saw I how much better the mapping is on that cheap unit compared to my CSX60. Good thing I never use the 60CSX map function for geocaching. It is terrible. I hate it and I avoid it as much as possible.

 

As for the 60CSX looking great, well, I have to disagree with that. It's a horrible looking unit other than its display. The keys are the wrong shape and in the wrong place; the unit is big, bulky, and heavy; and the exterior has a lot of tactile nuisances, such as the covers on the back and the bumps on the lower end.

 

You can edit the names of the caches, if you so desire. I leave them as their default and then press Enter with the GC number highlighted. The English name is in the Notes.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Tom Zentra

[+Prime Suspect]

Now this subject interested me! I own a Garmin CSX60 and I hate it. Oh sure it looks good and it's great to be able to download caches from the computer, but I have not found a single cache with it! Every time I zoom in all the way, the little arrow just keeps floating off course. I have an OLD Magellan SporTrak that belonged to my husband and it works great. Of course it is somewhat antiquated and doesn't have a color screen, but it is always dead on for the coordinates. Every cache I have found has been with the Magellan.

 

Just recently, I have been thinking about getting rid of the useless CSX and getting a Colorado.

 

Does anyone have any comments that could help me? Am I doing something wrong with the CSX?

 

Oh one more thing. . .when you are downloading the coordinates from the computer to the CSX, it just gives you that cache #, not the name, so when you are hunting for caches, how do you know which cache is which. Is there a way to get the name and not the number?

Your old Magellan was lying to you. It used a few tricks to make it appear that it still had a satellite lock when it didn't, and it started averaging coordinates whenever you slowed down. So it traded accuracy for the appearance of stability.

 

What you need to learn is that once you've entered the zone of error, stop trying to chase ground zero, and start looking for the cache. Your Magellan was giving you an assurance that you had reached GZ (even if you actually hadn't), so you started searching, and eventually found the cache.

[+Jeep4two]

Which one is best for geocaching? I will use it for this purpose only. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

 

Over 13000 users on this site use the 60CSx - I'd say that's a safe bet. Obviously more money but you'll want the electronic compass for geocaching. I have an older Legend and I really have missed the electronic compass. That's important once you close in on a cache and start moving slowly (non electronic/magnetic compasses use your movement to determine your bearing / heading so when you stop your bearing/heading isn't reliable).

 

If you can afford it - go with the 60CSx.

 

I just picked up a Oregon 400t as an upgrade (B-day present from wife). I'm awaiting its arrival and hope I don't have issues with the screen on the Oregon.

[+briansnat]

Now this subject interested me! I own a Garmin CSX60 and I hate it. Oh sure it looks good and it's great to be able to download caches from the computer, but I have not found a single cache with it! Every time I zoom in all the way, the little arrow just keeps floating off course. I have an OLD Magellan SporTrak that belonged to my husband and it works great. Of course it is somewhat antiquated and doesn't have a color screen, but it is always dead on for the coordinates. Every cache I have found has been with the Magellan.

 

Just recently, I have been thinking about getting rid of the useless CSX and getting a Colorado.

 

Does anyone have any comments that could help me? Am I doing something wrong with the CSX?

 

Oh one more thing. . .when you are downloading the coordinates from the computer to the CSX, it just gives you that cache #, not the name, so when you are hunting for caches, how do you know which cache is which. Is there a way to get the name and not the number?

 

You would be hard pressed to find a more accurate consumer grade unit than the 60CSX. Do you calibrate it? What you describe sounds like a compass that isn't calibrated. The unit needs to be calibrated every time you change batteries and sometimes if it has been sitting a while, otherwise your compass and arrow will get very fluky.

 

As far as the GC number, many geocachers (including me) prefer it that way. I have no real need to know the name of the cache I'm hunting. This website keys on the GC number so that's what I prefer the GPS uses.

 

The cache name (and owner) does appear in the comments field though so if I do decide I want to know the name I simply look there (this only works with GPX files). If you prefer it the other way, you can use GSAk to flip them and have the cache name as the waypoint name. You may have issues with truncation of longer names though.

Edited April 17, 2009 by briansnat

[+jchartline]

As a Garmin 60cx user I definately would say the 60csx. Biggest attractor for me is the micro sd expansion card. I can load all the street maps for a region and still have plenty of left over memory. I can load 2 500 cache quieries on my unit. As ziggy said the menu and pages are easy to read and navigate. Look around for hardheadhat on the forums he has a great tutourial on the 60csx and ten tips to maximize the geocaching performance of it.

 

You comment that you load 2500 cache queries; however, from my experience, the only thing that can be loaded on the MicroSD card are maps, and the 60CSx has a 1000 waypoint limit. I found this out as I was preparing for vacation and tried to load as many as I could ahead of time.

 

How were you able to get 2500 on the 60CSx?

[+Prime Suspect]

You comment that you load 2500 cache queries; however, from my experience, the only thing that can be loaded on the MicroSD card are maps, and the 60CSx has a 1000 waypoint limit. I found this out as I was preparing for vacation and tried to load as many as I could ahead of time.

 

How were you able to get 2500 on the 60CSx?

Undoubtedly, he was loading them as custom POIs. You can navigate to them, just like waypoints, but you can't mark them Found, or delete individual entries.

[+Nubster]

Is it 2500 or 2(two) 500 cache queries which would be the 1000 limit? Anyways, I have the Oregon 200 and I love the paperless and it is pretty accurate as long as there is nothing above my head. Even a few branches with no leaves even and the thing goes haywire. My question is to you 60CSx users, how well do your units work when in the woods? I might start a thread on this as well if a search shows nothing but I figured it was also a good question for this thread. If it is much better than my unit I might switch and buy a Palm Pilot so I can continue going paperless but the inaccurate readings in the woods is enough to drive me nuts.

[+briansnat]

My question is to you 60CSx users, how well do your units work when in the woods?

 

My 60CSX gets outstanding reception even under a heavy leaf canopy. It blows away my old 60CS, my eTrex Vista and my Magellan Meridian.

 

I've never compared it side by side with an Oregon but the people I know who have both say the 60CSX gets better reception than the Oregon.

[+Nubster]

I wish you would compare because I know you are a 60CSX die hard so I would be very interested in your experienced thoughts on the comparison. I had a terrible outing yesterday. Well, not terrible but I had a heck of a time with two caches that were in the woods. One was a no find and I could not even get in the same neighborhood to give it an honest go. The other hide I got just enough reception that I was able to make the find by using hints and good old fashion looking which is fine and I enjoy that sort of caching but when my current unit has me hundreds of feet away that is no good in my book. I may end up buying a 60CSX if I can find a good deal and just play around with both and sell off the unit that does not work as well for my application. I do think though that if I lived someplace not as mountainous and with out as many forest hides the Oregon would be a fantastic unit but since I am in West Virgina and the entire state is a giant mountain covered with trees that puts me up a creek w/o a paddle. Every hide I have tried to find that had clear sky or VERY light cover I was able to get right next to the hide, but all those easy finds in my area have been found so now I am on to the harder ones and there are hundreds in my area and I think I need a different unit to have a fighting chance. Anyways, thanks for your input in this thread and others as well and sorry about the rant and off topic talk.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Nubster

[Neos2]

I live in woodsy southern Indiana; I've owned several Garmin gps units and been out with people who use other brands--from the most simple to the most elaborate. The bottom line is that almost any gps will get you to the cache, but some do it better (more quickly, with less hassle) than others.

 

My favorite is the Garmin 60 CSx; I own other styles, but I use that one. The 60 CSx has the best accuracy of any gps I've seen in use in heavy coverage conditions.

 

We're also hilly down this way, and I don't have much problem in that regard, either. Having the electronic compass really helps in canyons or on steep hills, when you have to move slowly and carefully. (That's one time you really need the electronic compass).

 

I've used my 60 CSx in large cities, woods, prairies, and mountains from Texas to Maine and from Michigan to Florida. I had it out in snow, sleet, rain, heatwaves, and perfectly gorgeous days. I can afford any consumer grade gps I want. I've had the chance to compare it to plenty of other units and I wouldn't trade my 60 CSx for any other unit.

[+Degai]

You would be hard pressed to find a more accurate consumer grade unit than the 60CSX. Do you calibrate it? What you describe sounds like a compass that isn't calibrated. The unit needs to be calibrated every time you change batteries and sometimes if it has been sitting a while, otherwise your compass and arrow will get very fluky.

 

briansnat--What do you mean do I calibrate it? I don't and I never have. I didn't know any of that. How do you calibrate it? Is it in the manual?

[+Prime Suspect]

Is it 2500 or 2(two) 500 cache queries which would be the 1000 limit? Anyways, I have the Oregon 200 and I love the paperless and it is pretty accurate as long as there is nothing above my head. Even a few branches with no leaves even and the thing goes haywire. My question is to you 60CSx users, how well do your units work when in the woods? I might start a thread on this as well if a search shows nothing but I figured it was also a good question for this thread. If it is much better than my unit I might switch and buy a Palm Pilot so I can continue going paperless but the inaccurate readings in the woods is enough to drive me nuts.

That shouldn't be happening. While it's true the 60CSx generally gets better rating on accuracy than the Oregon and the Colorado, it's a very slight difference; not enough for the average person to notice in casual usage. I'm guessing that you may have the Battery Saver mode turned on. Make sure it's turned off, and WAAS mode is turned on (if applicable to your area).

Edited April 29, 2009 by Prime Suspect

[+WRASTRO]

I have been using a 76cs for several years now and I would buy a 60csx in a heartbeat if I could justify the expense. Last Sunday I did a 12 mile hike with a group of cachers who had 60csx units and Delorme pn-40 units. I was the only one who lost signal in the woods, and I lost it for much of the day.

[+kraushad]

I compared the 60CSX with the VISTA HCX side by side before getting the Vista HCX (which has the compass and electronic altimeter - therefore making it feature-wise more similar to the 60CSX than the Legend).

 

Anyway, I loved the clarity and brightness of the Vista over the 60CSX. Side by side it was far brighter and clearer (smaller screen, roughly same pixels=better clarity).