Dakota 20 compared to PN-40

[+TotemLake]

I kept making this overly complicated, finally decided it needed a little KISS principle applied.

 

What I did was walk a boardwalk in a wildlife sanctuary area, which provides roughly a 1 mile loop. Wide open skies, no power lines etc in the area, boardwalk keeps you on the same path so you can compare consistency, easy to see in aerial photos which hopefully allows an idea of accuracy, assuming this area is properly referenced aerial photo wise, which I think it is. Both receivers were set to record trackpoints at two second intervals, which tends to reflect what sort of information the unit would have been providing you real time when you were using it. The Dakota track is in blue, the PN-40 in orange of course. I made three loops, first with the Dakota in my left pants pocket and the PN-40 in my right, the PN 40 in left pocket and Dakota in right, and finally with both units handheld. As you look, notice how the Dakota tracks dances around a fair bit, which is something the unit reflects with compass indications as you get close to your destination. The PN-40 on the other hand seems to buffer, or filter it’s indication position indication, providing a more steady position indication in the field.

 

Here you’ll see both tracks overlaid on an aerial photo. It’s a very large picture, so to see the results make sure you’re viewing at the full size, and scroll around to see the individual areas of interest.

 

Large file raw tracks

 

Next, in order to get a better idea of actual accuracy, I made trail networks for each receiver. Basically, that is averaging out and combining the three tracks into one. I then did the same thing with the PN-40, then overlaid both results on the aerial photo map, which hopefully gives a good idea of actual accuracy. To me it looks like the PN-40 might have had slightly better accuracy, but I can see plenty of room for debate here.

 

Results averaged out

 

Regarding my take on this, to me, the PN-40 seems to provide more useful information for something like geocaching. While either unit is great for navigating to your car in a parking lot, or your campsite, or tree stand hidden in the woods, the PN-40’s buffered data seems to work better for me in navigating to ground zero so to speak.

Nice job. I'm assuming you used TopoFusion?

[+Searching_ut]

I kept making this overly complicated, finally decided it needed a little KISS principle applied.

 

...............

Nice job. I'm assuming you used TopoFusion?

 

I used Delormes TOPO to download the data from the GPS units, saved as GPX files, then imported into TOPOFusion to display the tracks, and of course to build the trail network where it merges multiple tracks together into one averaged one.

 

There was a lot of other stuff I wanted to do, like show the tracks I made of the same trail using the default settings of both receivers. On that, the jumping around of the Dakota isn't nearly as obvious because the distance between points results in a smoother looking output, and doesn't convey what I was trying to show about how the data is actually displayed to the user of the handhelds in the field. As PN-40 users know, the postion data and as a result compass pointer tend to be more stable on the Delormes than on any other unit I've used. (3axis compass really helps as well) I tended to want to vernture off showing map comparisons etc as well, but really don't have the time, or patience to do all that right now.

 

Playing with the data on TOPO USA, I'm not sure if I should re-cant the part where I mentioned that the boardwalk is actually on the map. At first, I didn't notice it was displayed as a "Road".....

[+TotemLake]

Assuming the image is North up, I do see what appears to be jeep tracks in the southwest corner of the aerial. Is it possible it was a road at one time?

[+Searching_ut]

Assuming the image is North up, I do see what appears to be jeep tracks in the southwest corner of the aerial. Is it possible it was a road at one time?

 

Actually, it's quad runner tracks. The photo is a couple of years old, and they made those when they were building the boardwalk. My son in law was one of the workers constructing the boardwalk as a summer job he had when he was a student. It was all just marshland when they started, part of the now sort of dry part of the great salt lake, davis county. I do indeed have the map set to north up.

 

I've also decided to upload an example of a Dakota 20 track two loops, tracking set to default which shows how the larger spacing, and primarily distance space trackpoint savings doesn't reveal nearly as well where the unit thinks it is on a second by second basis.

 

 

Dakota 20 tracks recording set to default

[+TotemLake]

Assuming the image is North up, I do see what appears to be jeep tracks in the southwest corner of the aerial. Is it possible it was a road at one time?

 

Actually, it's quad runner tracks. The photo is a couple of years old, and they made those when they were building the boardwalk. My son in law was one of the workers constructing the boardwalk as a summer job he had when he was a student. It was all just marshland when they started, part of the now sort of dry part of the great salt lake, davis county. I do indeed have the map set to north up.

 

I've also decided to upload an example of a Dakota 20 track two loops, tracking set to default which shows how the larger spacing, and primarily distance space trackpoint savings doesn't reveal nearly as well where the unit thinks it is on a second by second basis.

 

 

Dakota 20 tracks recording set to default

It's interesting how visible the tracks are for even a short term project.

 

I see similar variances across most models with high sensitivity and 20-32 channels capability. It was even more noticeable with GPS models that were at the then high level of 12 channels capability. I'm wondering if this can be attributable to the constantly changing position of the orbiting satellites rather than the failings of a GPS to hold true? I noticed with the PN the variance gets worse when it locks on fewer birds versus more.

 

I haven't polished it up yet, but I'm working on a report of two extensive hikes with these observations.

[+Searching_ut]

Assuming the image is North up, I do see what appears to be jeep tracks in the southwest corner of the aerial. Is it possible it was a road at one time?

 

Actually, it's quad runner tracks. The photo is a couple of years old, and they made those when they were building the boardwalk. My son in law was one of the workers constructing the boardwalk as a summer job he had when he was a student. It was all just marshland when they started, part of the now sort of dry part of the great salt lake, davis county. I do indeed have the map set to north up.

 

I've also decided to upload an example of a Dakota 20 track two loops, tracking set to default which shows how the larger spacing, and primarily distance space trackpoint savings doesn't reveal nearly as well where the unit thinks it is on a second by second basis.

 

 

Dakota 20 tracks recording set to default

It's interesting how visible the tracks are for even a short term project.

 

..........

 

It's unfortunatel, but jeeps, quads and the like can indeed leave lasting marks in as little as a single pass on certain types of terrain. This particular area is only swampland for part of the year most years, drying up considerably by fall. The tracks you see on the color aerial photo only lasted a couple of years, then faded away. If you check out this more recent satellite image from a trail review of the same boardwalk, you'll notice that most of the tracks are gone by the time this shot was taken:

 

Trail Review of nature preserve

 

By the way, I've only recently discovered the everytrail website that the above link takes you to. If you haven't seen it yet, it's a pretty good spot to find possible areas worth exploring.

[+TotemLake]

 

It's unfortunatel, but jeeps, quads and the like can indeed leave lasting marks in as little as a single pass on certain types of terrain. This particular area is only swampland for part of the year most years, drying up considerably by fall. The tracks you see on the color aerial photo only lasted a couple of years, then faded away. If you check out this more recent satellite image from a trail review of the same boardwalk, you'll notice that most of the tracks are gone by the time this shot was taken:

 

Trail Review of nature preserve

 

By the way, I've only recently discovered the everytrail website that the above link takes you to. If you haven't seen it yet, it's a pretty good spot to find possible areas worth exploring.

You're right, I'm hard pressed to see it and only because I know it's there that I can see the depressions otherwise I'd probably overlook it as some natural anomaly. That's a cool site. I have it bookmarked now.

[+MacFlash]

Seeing the smooth raw tracks of the PN-40, even when it is obviouisly slightly off to the side of the path reminds me of the Magellan Sportrak, where there was constant averaging going on. Does anybody know if that is happening in the DeLorme units?

[+Searching_ut]

Seeing the smooth raw tracks of the PN-40, even when it is obviouisly slightly off to the side of the path reminds me of the Magellan Sportrak, where there was constant averaging going on. Does anybody know if that is happening in the DeLorme units?

 

I was one of the early, and probably somewhat vocal complainers about the sportrak position problems. Here is an example from the webpage I had back when the sportrak was a new model:

 

http://searching_ut.home.sprynet.com/diffi...20reception.htm

 

I've watched for that sort of behavior with all my receivers, and to date haven't noticed any significant downside to the filtering used on the PN-40. They seem to have things dialed in pretty nicely from what I've observed so far. I haven't been in real tough terrain as much as I'd like to since I got the unit, but I've played with it in some fairly tight sandstone canyons, and the mountains of Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska without seeing any really objectionable behavior from it so far, other than it sometimes shuts itself off when it's having reception issues, and seems to eat batteries even quicker during those times than it normally does.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

Seeing the smooth raw tracks of the PN-40, even when it is obviouisly slightly off to the side of the path reminds me of the Magellan Sportrak, where there was constant averaging going on. Does anybody know if that is happening in the DeLorme units?

I have no idea of that which it might be doing on the inside:

http://mapshare.delorme.com/Consumer/V.aspx?p=v8hzwz0n

[+TotemLake]

Seeing the smooth raw tracks of the PN-40, even when it is obviouisly slightly off to the side of the path reminds me of the Magellan Sportrak, where there was constant averaging going on. Does anybody know if that is happening in the DeLorme units?

 

I was one of the early, and probably somewhat vocal complainers about the sportrak position problems. Here is an example from the webpage I had back when the sportrak was a new model:

 

http://searching_ut.home.sprynet.com/diffi...20reception.htm

 

I've watched for that sort of behavior with all my receivers, and to date haven't noticed any significant downside to the filtering used on the PN-40. They seem to have things dialed in pretty nicely from what I've observed so far. I haven't been in real tough terrain as much as I'd like to since I got the unit, but I've played with it in some fairly tight sandstone canyons, and the mountains of Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska without seeing any really objectionable behavior from it so far, other than it sometimes shuts itself off when it's having reception issues, and seems to eat batteries even quicker during those times than it normally does.

I'm in agreement. The only time I observed similar behavior to the Magellan Meridian was when I was locked on 5 or 6 birds. Then I saw the slow positioning to the point I was boomeranged back to the actual coordinates and some serious drift to boot.

[yogazoo]

Dakota users: Keep your tightie-whities on!

 

The Oregon x00 series chipset update (3.7) has corrected most of the herky-jerky tracklogging. Since the Dakota uses the same chipset and antenna I'm sure that before long the update will trickle down. I think the Oregon x00 is the beta tester on this one. So far I couldn't be happier.

[+Searching_ut]

Seeing the smooth raw tracks of the PN-40, even when it is obviouisly slightly off to the side of the path reminds me of the Magellan Sportrak, where there was constant averaging going on. Does anybody know if that is happening in the DeLorme units?

 

I was one of the early, and probably somewhat vocal complainers about the sportrak position problems. Here is an example from the webpage I had back when the sportrak was a new model:

 

http://searching_ut.home.sprynet.com/diffi...20reception.htm

 

I've watched for that sort of behavior with all my receivers, and to date haven't noticed any significant downside to the filtering used on the PN-40. They seem to have things dialed in pretty nicely from what I've observed so far. I haven't been in real tough terrain as much as I'd like to since I got the unit, but I've played with it in some fairly tight sandstone canyons, and the mountains of Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska without seeing any really objectionable behavior from it so far, other than it sometimes shuts itself off when it's having reception issues, and seems to eat batteries even quicker during those times than it normally does.

I'm in agreement. The only time I observed similar behavior to the Magellan Meridian was when I was locked on 5 or 6 birds. Then I saw the slow positioning to the point I was boomeranged back to the actual coordinates and some serious drift to boot.

 

I'm lucky in that most of the time even with only 5 or 6 birds, which is actually a lot for the kinds of area I like to play in, I haven't experienced anything much out of the expected. When it completely looses lock, sometimes resulting in my turning it off and back on, it has on occasion lost it pretty badly, but that has been of the sliding into a fix sort of behavior, and it's quite obvious that the unit is a little confused......

[+Team CowboyPapa]

Too many of us are on the outside looking in.

Here is an opportunity to get on the inside looking out:

http://jobview.monster.com/getjob.aspx?Job....mc_n=JDN000003

[+Searching_ut]

Too many of us are on the outside looking in.

Here is an opportunity to get on the inside looking out:

http://jobview.monster.com/getjob.aspx?Job....mc_n=JDN000003

 

Actually, been there, done that, even have some of my old L3 T-shirts. When I retired from the AF, I worked for a time for L3 working on GPS system upgrades on military aircraft. That contract ended, and I have since moved on to a different company, similar line of work, but not GPS related. Seems no one is willing to pay me at the moment to play with GPS receivers anymore. All is well though, at least as long as I can keep finding someone willing to pay me enough to buy GPS receivers.

[robertlipe]

Moderator's note This is not the help wanted ads. Back on topic, please.

[+The Yinnies]

When do you think Zagg and Ram will come out with products for the Dakota?

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

RAM has a cradle...

 

http://www.ram-mount.com/NewProducts/Garmi...77/Default.aspx

[+Searching_ut]

So far, I haven’t been able to do much hiking in tough conditions with both receivers. I have managed to do several comparisons in other ways though.

 

Initial fix, both receivers lock on in about the same amount of time. The Dakota however tends to be a fair bit more accurate initially. The PN-40 initially often gives a position indication farther out from where you are, then slides into a more accurate fix. With either unit however, you can power up, and have quite accurate position fixes in less than a minute most of the time when the receiver is using the hot fix. You’ll want to get familiar with how they behave though if you generally don’t fire the units up till you get to the trail head, as the PN-40 in particular takes a little bit to get settled in so you can accurately record the trailhead position.

 

The PN-40 seems to get a WAAS solution somewhat more often than the Dakota does. Neither unit however does very good at getting a WAAS fix.

 

The PN-40 almost always indicated an EPE of approximately half the distance the Dakota is indicating. This doesn’t seem to line up with actual accuracy however, with the PN-40 appearing to me to be a little overly optimistic.

 

I’ve done several hundred miles now of trying to use the units for road navigation. In most of the northern counties in my area, the delorme maps are off by enough that the PN-40 quickly gets confused about where I am, and fails to re-calculate. Even in the areas where the maps are good, if the route is even slightly complex the unit can’t re-compute if I go off course. The routes the PN-40 picks often seem to be rather bizarre as well. The Dakota, routes fairly well most of the time, but will fail to re-calculate a new route approximately 1 out of 6 times when I don’t follow the route it’s trying to get me to follow. Neither one is very easy to see in the vehicle when mounted on the dash because of the small size screen with the PN-40, and a combination of small screen and glare issues with the Dakota. The Dakotas beeps are quite a bit louder, which helps but I really can’t see using either unit for road use having used dedicated GPS units for this purpose for a few years now.

 

Behavior of the two units when loosing lock is quite different. The PN-40 generally lets you know it’s having reception issues quite quickly, which is something I prefer. As an example, the position triangle on the map page flashes red. The Dakota seems to guess for a fair bit of time before a dialog box pops up telling you reception is out the window. When they do re-acquire reception, the Dakota snaps right back in, the PN-40 seems to do more of a fast drift back into a good position. I averaged several different waypoints in my house, and find that when I navigate to them, both units will generally indicate I’m within five feet or so of the averaged waypoint when I return, The PN-40 however takes a minute or two to slide into that position whereas the Dakota indicates it right way. (My house , stucco and brick provides some reception issues on the upper floor, and drives the units nuts downstairs. ) When given the time to settle in, actual repeatability of both units seems to be quite similar, and quite a bit better than I personally expect from consumer grade units.

[hrudu]

Okay, as requested, here are some photos. It's hard to display them in such a way as to give a really good idea of the displays because the camera doesn't necessarily capture the way your eyes adjust to the screen, and slight changes of angle change what you see. I tried to make it as real world as possible.

 

First, bright sun, bad maps for the garmin units as it's an old version of TOPO (The first version actually). Those of you familiar with these maps probably know that the green forest areas are the hardest to read on the trail.

 

 

Next comes the compass page with decent angles for viewing all of the displays:

 

 

Finally, the units running backlights indoors

 

 

Finally, so as not to tie up bandwidth for the dial up guys, I have a few more photos with different viewing agles posted here:

 

My Webpage

 

Again, I don't really have much difficulty with any of the displays when handheld, even in various light. The Delorme unit is the brightest though, followed by the etrex with the dakota bringing up the rear. With the old version of topo, both of the garmins can be somewhat hard to see in when you have the map displaying areas with the dark green background, with the problem being the worst with the Dakota.

 

Hello Searching_ut,

What kind of map are you using on your Garmin units(showing in pics)?

24K or100K? comes with the units?

I use the 60CSX for years and now I am planning to buy some topo maps.

Any advice/suggestion?

Thanks

[+Searching_ut]

.......

Next comes the compass page with decent angles for viewing all of the displays:

 

 

.........

 

Hello Searching_ut,

What kind of map are you using on your Garmin units(showing in pics)?

24K or100K? comes with the units?

I use the 60CSX for years and now I am planning to buy some topo maps.

Any advice/suggestion?

Thanks

 

To keep things as close to equal as I could I used the 1:100k garmin maps, with the Garmin units, and Delormes TOPO with the PN-40. Although the PN-40 draws more contour lines, when you compare the maps it doesn't really have the detail the contour lines would leave you to believe.

 

I have the Dakota loaded up with the 24k maps for the southwest (4 states) and pretty much all of the 100k maps for everything west of the mississippi. (I'm using the older version of the 1:100k maps, garmin changed to DEM data a couple years later.

 

I got out into some tough terrain with both the dakota and PN-40 this afternoon, a hike I had to cut short when I was scrambling up a ravine, focused too much on my handholds, and smacked a tree branch hard enough to give me tunnel vision for a few seconds, and a cut on my head that was bleeding bad enough I was afraid it might require stitches (Seems being alone I couldn't see up there to tell how bad it was) Despite cutting the hike short, I got some pretty good comparisons now of the two units in rough reception conditions. Surprisingly, the Dakota gets a lock fairly often when the PN-40 can't. When it's terrain causing the reception issues though, although the Dakota gets the lock, it can suffer noticable multipath issues.

 

I'll try to post examples in the next evening or two.

[+user13371]

... smacked a tree branch hard enough to give me tunnel vision for a few seconds, and a cut on my head that was bleeding bad enough I was afraid it might require stitches ...

Whoa, talk about takin' one for the team! Hope you're okay!

[+The Yinnies]

Do you need a Garmin car cord? Can I use one for my phone?

Thanks

[+Searching_ut]

... smacked a tree branch hard enough to give me tunnel vision for a few seconds, and a cut on my head that was bleeding bad enough I was afraid it might require stitches ...

Whoa, talk about takin' one for the team! Hope you're okay!

 

I don't know about taking one for the team. What I was working on is getting myself grounded again. My wife has issues with me hiking alone, and has already grounded me from overnight or longer backpacking trips on my own, and serious bushwhacking day trips. I still get to do trails though. Problem is, should I hurt myself she gets to say "I told you so", and I'll get grounded......

 

Do you need a Garmin car cord? Can I use one for my phone?

Thanks

 

As I mentioned earlier on, the Dakota seems to not like my older style mini USB cigarette lighter adapter. If I plug it into the one off my i3 the Dakota goes into the computer download mode, and doesn't function as a GPS. I guess you have to get the one from Garmin that works with this unit One of the traffic receiver plugs works, but the unit will tell at first that you're using the wrong type adapter. (I guess it doesn't support traffic data). Myself, I use dedicated car units for street navigation so I don't picture myself buying a new adapter. or trying to use it in my car. As it is, since it runs all day with a set of NiMh batteries

[+The Yinnies]

... smacked a tree branch hard enough to give me tunnel vision for a few seconds, and a cut on my head that was bleeding bad enough I was afraid it might require stitches ...

Whoa, talk about takin' one for the team! Hope you're okay!

 

I don't know about taking one for the team. What I was working on is getting myself grounded again. My wife has issues with me hiking alone, and has already grounded me from overnight or longer backpacking trips on my own, and serious bushwhacking day trips. I still get to do trails though. Problem is, should I hurt myself she gets to say "I told you so", and I'll get grounded......

 

Do you need a Garmin car cord? Can I use one for my phone?

Thanks

 

As I mentioned earlier on, the Dakota seems to not like my older style mini USB cigarette lighter adapter. If I plug it into the one off my i3 the Dakota goes into the computer download mode, and doesn't function as a GPS. I guess you have to get the one from Garmin that works with this unit One of the traffic receiver plugs works, but the unit will tell at first that you're using the wrong type adapter. (I guess it doesn't support traffic data). Myself, I use dedicated car units for street navigation so I don't picture myself buying a new adapter. or trying to use it in my car. As it is, since it runs all day with a set of NiMh batteries

Thanks. So for the update, Are you OK? Can you go out and play? I am almost sold on the Dakota I am just going to wait for more of your updates. My Wife loves the PN-40 and I like to try the new stuff.

[+TotemLake]

I don't know about taking one for the team. What I was working on is getting myself grounded again. My wife has issues with me hiking alone, and has already grounded me from overnight or longer backpacking trips on my own, and serious bushwhacking day trips. I still get to do trails though. Problem is, should I hurt myself she gets to say "I told you so", and I'll get grounded......

Been there done that. Gonna try to do that again without getting injured this time.

[+user13371]

...should I hurt myself she gets to say "I told you so", and I'll get grounded......

Darn, that's LITERALLY worse the the proverbial poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

 

Just pay attention to where you're goin, okay? At least long enough to finish your side-by-side reviews...

[+Tui Chub]

Do you need a Garmin car cord? Can I use one for my phone?

Thanks

 

The generic one I use for my phone also works for my Dakota 20.

[+Douce Us 5]

I would like to know how to load pocket quaries into the PN-40. Right now I use GSAK and load them into my Garmin Nuvi 255, and I LOVE it. The main reason I'm getting the PN-40 is because it is able to go paperless. I've read on here that you can't use GSAK with th PN-40, and I'd relly not have to spend any more money to access their "Cache Register Program".

 

Thanks

[+TotemLake]

I would like to know how to load pocket quaries into the PN-40. Right now I use GSAK and load them into my Garmin Nuvi 255, and I LOVE it. The main reason I'm getting the PN-40 is because it is able to go paperless. I've read on here that you can't use GSAK with th PN-40, and I'd relly not have to spend any more money to access their "Cache Register Program".

 

Thanks

Without CR, you'll need to import your GPX to Topo8, then export it to your PN.

 

A future version of GSAK/GPSBabel is in the works which will export directly to the PN. Until then, Topo8 or CR are your only choices.

[+Searching_ut]

Okay, as promised, here is a track example of a hike in an area I’ve often experienced GPS reception issues in. For reasons mentioned above, I cut the hike way short, only a mile and a half or so each way, about a thousand feet of elevation gain/loss. The receivers were carried in pouches on the upper straps of a camelback pack, not quite horizontal, more like 45 degrees facing up, which isn’t quite optimal, but about as optimal as you can reasonably hold them when hiking where you periodically need your hands. To start with, here is a TOPO overview of the tracks, 40 foot interval between contour lines, GPS reception affected by terrain and some vegetation, mostly scrub oak and pine. Trail is called the Adams canyon trail, Davis county Utah, Wasatch mountains. Both receivers were set to record a track point every 10 seconds. PN-40 track orange, Dakota in Blue. I’ll stick to using aerial photo maps, and public domain stuff for the comparison to ensure I’m not infringing on any copyrights or anything.

 

 

For the full sized image go here:

 

My Webpage

 

PN-40 in orange/red and Dakota in blue

[+Searching_ut]

This image shows the first part of the hike, a series of switchbacks, fairly good area for reception as the vegetation is brush, low trees, but mostly open, terrain only blocked to the east. As you can see, both units tracked fairly accurately, the PN-40 smoothing or buffering the track somewhat more than the Dakota did.

 

 

For the full sized image go here:

 

My Webpage

[+Searching_ut]

Here is the first area where the units diverged from how they tracked. As you can see, on the left side of the screen I didn’t take the same trail on the up and down leg of the hike, but both units recorded quite accurately. It’s the area more towards the middle and right side of your display where you’ll notice the PN-40 track split, where the split and fact it doesn’t show me on the trail would indicate positional error. (Always keeping in mind you don’t know if the photo is indexed correctly)

 

 

For the full sized image go here:

 

My Webpage

[+Searching_ut]

Farther up the trail, you’ll notice both units struggling a bit. The Dakota is bouncing, the PN-40 smoother but not necessarily more accurate since I can’t find the trail in the picture, so I have no real idea as to accuracy of the units.

 

 

For the full size image go here:

 

My Webpage

[+Searching_ut]

Finally, as I approach the head schwacking turn around spot, you’ll see the PN-40 lost it and quit recording track points. The Dakota is still recording track points, but obviously suffering multipath issues, with the track appearing to vary by up to 100 feet or so from my actual location. Again, hard to tell since you can’t see the trail in the photo.

 

 

For the full size image go here:

 

My Webpage

 

As for my conclusions:

 

The above tracks, are but one set of many I’ve looked at in comparing the units, while of course comparing the assorted information screens real time while hiking. Basic accuracy and reception of these two units seems fairly comparable, and about in line with most modern GPS receivers I’ve played with. For some reason, you see a lot of Fan boy claims regarding the PN-40 that I haven’t seen any evidence myself to support. It isn’t any more accurate, nor does it have any edge in reception that I can see. The only observation I’ve noticed that might be taken as evidence the unit is more accurate is a very optimistic EPE indication it is prone to give. In the field however, more often than not I don’t see any correlation between EPE and reality, unless you happen to be in flat fairly open terrain. That said I haven’t really seen anything that would support a claim that the PN-40 is at any disadvantage either. It’s very much a competent unit from what I’ve observed.

 

My personal preference is for the Dakota. I like the size, battery life, maps, and compatibility with other software it brings to the table. I also find I prefer it’s interface, and handling somewhat better, and the fact it works with maps for areas other than just the US. That said, I’d have to say the PN-40 is a better value, bringing comparable basic functionality for the same or lower price than what you can pick up a Dakota for. It also includes maps, which although not as good as some of the other maps out there, are again a good bargain price wise. The PN-40 does have the aerial photo capability, but to me the trouble of obtaining them for anything but a small area, coupled with the large memory requirements make them something of little. Others mileage may vary there of course.

 

In the end, either unit works great for geocaching, or just about any other type outdoor adventure you might be interested in. If you’re looking for something primarily for road use, I advise looking elsewhere. For my own purposes, I see no reason to continue comparing the units. My curiosity is now sated. If there is anything else someone might think of worth looking at however, I might try to do the comparison.

[+The Yinnies]

Finally, as I approach the head schwacking turn around spot, you’ll see the PN-40 lost it and quit recording track points. The Dakota is still recording track points, but obviously suffering multipath issues, with the track appearing to vary by up to 100 feet or so from my actual location. Again, hard to tell since you can’t see the trail in the photo.

 

 

For the full size image go here:

 

My Webpage

 

As for my conclusions:

 

The above tracks, are but one set of many I’ve looked at in comparing the units, while of course comparing the assorted information screens real time while hiking. Basic accuracy and reception of these two units seems fairly comparable, and about in line with most modern GPS receivers I’ve played with. For some reason, you see a lot of Fan boy claims regarding the PN-40 that I haven’t seen any evidence myself to support. It isn’t any more accurate, nor does it have any edge in reception that I can see. The only observation I’ve noticed that might be taken as evidence the unit is more accurate is a very optimistic EPE indication it is prone to give. In the field however, more often than not I don’t see any correlation between EPE and reality, unless you happen to be in flat fairly open terrain. That said I haven’t really seen anything that would support a claim that the PN-40 is at any disadvantage either. It’s very much a competent unit from what I’ve observed.

 

My personal preference is for the Dakota. I like the size, battery life, maps, and compatibility with other software it brings to the table. I also find I prefer it’s interface, and handling somewhat better, and the fact it works with maps for areas other than just the US. That said, I’d have to say the PN-40 is a better value, bringing comparable basic functionality for the same or lower price than what you can pick up a Dakota for. It also includes maps, which although not as good as some of the other maps out there, are again a good bargain price wise. The PN-40 does have the aerial photo capability, but to me the trouble of obtaining them for anything but a small area, coupled with the large memory requirements make them something of little. Others mileage may vary there of course.

 

In the end, either unit works great for geocaching, or just about any other type outdoor adventure you might be interested in. If you’re looking for something primarily for road use, I advise looking elsewhere. For my own purposes, I see no reason to continue comparing the units. My curiosity is now sated. If there is anything else someone might think of worth looking at however, I might try to do the comparison.

Thank you for all of the work you did. I will be buying a Datota 20 soon. I have Topo for this already and will be waiting for the 24K for Wisconsin to come out. Again thanks

[+embra]

These are nice illustrations of your investigations; thanks for all of the reporting you've done. I've read it with interest.

 

I suppose it is reasonable to expect that different GPS models that share the same GPS chip should get roughly comparable results. I recall that other people have demonstrated the PN-40 has difficulty with canyon reception.

 

I can also appreciate that if your Garmin maps are more accurate than you've found the DeLorme maps to be for your area, why the scales for your preference would tend to tip in that direction. With good accuracy in my area and less of an interest in international maps, I'm more satisfied with my PN-40 than I would be in your shoes.

[+Searching_ut]

........I recall that other people have demonstrated the PN-40 has difficulty with canyon reception.

 

 

I've been logging tracks, and comparing reception for years now. The first unit I noticed that made a significant trade off between sensitivity and multipath was the sportrak. Here is a link to a track of the same trail I made many years ago with an Etrex legend.

 

 

It had reception issues a couple times, but in no way would I say it was any less accurate. Since they've gone to 12 channel receivers, the only real accuracy improvements I've noticed were when they turned off SA, and WAAS. The rest has been whistles and bells, with a little sensitivity improvement that has mostly come at the expense of Multipath susceptibility. Virtually all of the High sensitivity receivers seem to do it.

[+Pax42]

I would like to know how to load pocket quaries into the PN-40. Right now I use GSAK and load them into my Garmin Nuvi 255, and I LOVE it. The main reason I'm getting the PN-40 is because it is able to go paperless. I've read on here that you can't use GSAK with th PN-40, and I'd relly not have to spend any more money to access their "Cache Register Program".

 

Thanks

Several of us already answered essentially this same question for you in the other thread you started. I'll add detail to what TL said.

 

When you get your PQ email from GC.com unzip it and drag the resulting GPX files to the map screen on Topo 8 which comes with your PN-40. Once the caches are loaded in topo, open the exchange dialog window and transfer the file to the 40. Again, Cache Register is NOT NEEDED.

 

If you like editing the caches in GSAK first, you can still do that and then drag the new GPX file to Topo 8 the same way.

 

Some time in the near future you will be able to load GPX files directly from GSAK to the 40 but not yet.

 

Having said that, if you're using a mac ignore what I just said. Topo 8 won't run on a mac so for now, cache register is the best option.

[+Pax42]

Very good thread. Like Embra, I've been very interested in your comparisons. Not that I'm looking for yet another receiver but I'm a gadget guy and enjoy checking out all the new toys. Hope your head heals quickly.

[+Searching_ut]

Very good thread. Like Embra, I've been very interested in your comparisons. Not that I'm looking for yet another receiver but I'm a gadget guy and enjoy checking out all the new toys. Hope your head heals quickly.

 

Just a few days for the scab to go away and I'll be good as new. Actually, I shouldn't admit it, but I've taken a branch or two because I was looking at the GPS instead of paying attention to where I was going, and when I first started wearing bifocals, I would turn my whole head way down at first and got a bump or two then as well. Being tall doesn't help I guess, and the fact I tend to wander off the beaten path means a a scratch or two from time to time.

 

I admit, I had no good reason to buy either unit. My Vista works pretty good other than needing minor repairs to the rubber band. Using the paperless feature doesn't really work for me because Most of the time, even when I find a cache I don't bother opening it, and if I do I often don't get around to logging. I tend to use geocaching as a road map so to speak for interesting areas to explore. It's also a good place to find people who actually know how to use their GPS units.

[+SilentWolf]

Just wanted to add my thanks for your comparison here - it's answered a lot of the curiosities I've had.

[+Searching_ut]

As an update to the Dakota performance, Garmin has changed the firmware resulting in the compass performing quite differently. I haven’t had a calibration issue since the change, having gone through a couple sets of batteries now. While the calibration failure thing seems to be fixed, the compass isn’t the smooth scrolling unit it used to be. As you tilt the unit, it now fluxgates plus or minus ten degrees or so, and is a fair bit more jumpy as compared to the quite a bit slower and smoother behavior it displayed with the older firmware. I like the fact that the calibration issue is gone, but liked the smoother compass behavior better than what it does now. That said, I like the 3 axis version of a compass when compared to the regular Garmin offerings. With the latest firmware though I prefer the Delorme compass behavior over that on the Dakota, at least based on my limited experience with the new software.

[+Torgut]

As an update to the Dakota performance, Garmin has changed the firmware resulting in the compass performing quite differently. I haven’t had a calibration issue since the change, having gone through a couple sets of batteries now. While the calibration failure thing seems to be fixed, the compass isn’t the smooth scrolling unit it used to be. As you tilt the unit, it now fluxgates plus or minus ten degrees or so, and is a fair bit more jumpy as compared to the quite a bit slower and smoother behavior it displayed with the older firmware. I like the fact that the calibration issue is gone, but liked the smoother compass behavior better than what it does now. That said, I like the 3 axis version of a compass when compared to the regular Garmin offerings. With the latest firmware though I prefer the Delorme compass behavior over that on the Dakota, at least based on my limited experience with the new software.

 

Interesting. I have quite the opposite experience (although it's a short one - just updated firmware today): calibrating returned much more errors but the compass behavior improved.

[+RRLover]

Calibrating returned much more errors but the compass behavior improved.

Could you elucidate? I can't quite "get my head around" this statement.

 

Norm

[+Torgut]

Calibrating returned much more errors but the compass behavior improved.

Could you elucidate? I can't quite "get my head around" this statement.

 

Norm

 

I mean

 

1) I got plenty of erros rotating the unit during the calibration process. Had to restart the process a few times. Had errors in the first step, which never happened before.

 

2) After finally concluding the calibration process with sucess, the compass behavior improved (comparing with previous / original firmware).

[+Rockin Roddy]

Calibrating returned much more errors but the compass behavior improved.

Could you elucidate? I can't quite "get my head around" this statement.

 

Norm

 

I mean

 

1) I got plenty of erros rotating the unit during the calibration process. Had to restart the process a few times. Had errors in the first step, which never happened before.

 

2) After finally concluding the calibration process with sucess, the compass behavior improved (comparing with previous / original firmware).

 

lol I followed what you were saying!

[+jenny08_1015]

Can you change preference on how you sort your Geocache list? By name, distance, date placed?

 

Thanks!1 I'm thinking about getting one as well.

 

Jenny

[+TotemLake]

Can you change preference on how you sort your Geocache list? By name, distance, date placed?

 

Thanks!1 I'm thinking about getting one as well.

 

Jenny

By name and by distance.

[+Frisco Finders]

Finally, as I approach the head schwacking turn around spot, you’ll see the PN-40 lost it and quit recording track points. The Dakota is still recording track points, but obviously suffering multipath issues, with the track appearing to vary by up to 100 feet or so from my actual location. Again, hard to tell since you can’t see the trail in the photo.

 

 

For the full size image go here:

 

My Webpage

 

As for my conclusions:

 

The above tracks, are but one set of many I’ve looked at in comparing the units, while of course comparing the assorted information screens real time while hiking. Basic accuracy and reception of these two units seems fairly comparable, and about in line with most modern GPS receivers I’ve played with. For some reason, you see a lot of Fan boy claims regarding the PN-40 that I haven’t seen any evidence myself to support. It isn’t any more accurate, nor does it have any edge in reception that I can see. The only observation I’ve noticed that might be taken as evidence the unit is more accurate is a very optimistic EPE indication it is prone to give. In the field however, more often than not I don’t see any correlation between EPE and reality, unless you happen to be in flat fairly open terrain. That said I haven’t really seen anything that would support a claim that the PN-40 is at any disadvantage either. It’s very much a competent unit from what I’ve observed.

 

My personal preference is for the Dakota. I like the size, battery life, maps, and compatibility with other software it brings to the table. I also find I prefer it’s interface, and handling somewhat better, and the fact it works with maps for areas other than just the US. That said, I’d have to say the PN-40 is a better value, bringing comparable basic functionality for the same or lower price than what you can pick up a Dakota for. It also includes maps, which although not as good as some of the other maps out there, are again a good bargain price wise. The PN-40 does have the aerial photo capability, but to me the trouble of obtaining them for anything but a small area, coupled with the large memory requirements make them something of little. Others mileage may vary there of course.

 

In the end, either unit works great for geocaching, or just about any other type outdoor adventure you might be interested in. If you’re looking for something primarily for road use, I advise looking elsewhere. For my own purposes, I see no reason to continue comparing the units. My curiosity is now sated. If there is anything else someone might think of worth looking at however, I might try to do the comparison.

 

THANK you for all your VERY INFORMATIVE comparison work on this. These are the two that I was considering and you posts have been very helpful!