Garmin etrex 10

[+les1967debs]

I am thinking of ugradeing from my Garmin etrex h to a etrex 10 only so that i can have the descriptions and hints to hand rather than looking them up on my phone when i get to Gz, or manually copying and pasteing the hints to word before going out.

I have been trying to read up on the device as i have read somewhere that it doesn`t copy the hints and description from the Geocaching website butonly from another geocaching website that doesn`t have as many caches logged

Does any one know if this is right as i dont really want to use another site especailly if its not got a good database like this one

[+eusty]

I can get the info from geocaching.com (i.e. here!) Your best bet as your a premium member is to run a PQ. Handy info is here.

[Wintertime]

Garmin is pushing its OpenCaching site, but you can use .loc and .gpx files from anywhere, including Geocaching.com.

 

If you're considering the eTrex 10, be sure you won't want the ability in the future to add a micro-SD card or additional maps. The basemap included with the eTrex units is very basic.

 

Patty

[+chillypenguin]

I would recommend going for the Etrex 20 and adding the free Talky Toaster Maps.

 

"very basic" is polite about the base maps. It only shows one near us, and that does not even take the right route

[+Croesgadwr]

I am thinking of ugradeing from my Garmin etrex h to a etrex 10 only so that i can have the descriptions and hints to hand rather than looking them up on my phone when i get to Gz, or manually copying and pasteing the hints to word before going out.

I have been trying to read up on the device as i have read somewhere that it doesn`t copy the hints and description from the Geocaching website butonly from another geocaching website that doesn`t have as many caches logged

Does any one know if this is right as i dont really want to use another site especailly if its not got a good database like this one

First hand info coming your way...think hard before you buy the Etrex 10! Nothing wrong with it, but you'll be limited as regards specification, as previously stated. Consider the Etrex 20. First go to www.handtec.co.uk & check their price (approx £153), then go to go-outdoors.co.uk, they are selling it for £162, BUT they have a price promise that they will beat the competition by 10%. This brings their price down to £142.50, of course you've got to have a discount card to get it at that price...so add a fiver for one of those, and get the Etrex 20 for £147.50 inc postage, you can still use the discount card for up to twelve months...so, you could say that you've got the Etrex at the best price AND still benefit from the card on any future purchase from them. This is how I did it, I've had my E20 for about 10 days now and it works a treat.

Consider your options carefully...Etrex 10 at about £100, or Etrex 20 for forty-odd quid more. You'll 'out-grow' one of them quickly...the other will 'do you' for much much longer.

[+user13371]

Owning an eTrex 10 and tempted to upgrade to the 20 myself. On the edge and keep talking myself in and out of the upgrade.

 

Decision points: If all you want is basic tracking and the ability to load data for a few hundred caches, and you're a tightwad like me -- buy the 10. if you want (or think you will eventually want) maps, and the ability to load a lot more cache data (thousands instead of hundreds), get the 20. It'll be a bit more expensive up front but might sell as used for a little more when you''re tired of it.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Portland Cyclist

[+coggins]

The eTrex 10 will show hints and desccriptions if you have a premium membership

Edited January 15, 2012 by coggins

[+robocoastie]

i love my etrex 20. The eTrex 10 looked too basic. As coggins said above you can get hints, descriptions, previous logs when a PQ is loaded into it.

[+les1967debs]

Owning an eTrex 10 and tempted to upgrade to the 20 myself. On the edge and keep talking myself in and out of the upgrade.

 

Decision points: If all you want is basic tracking and the ability to load data for a few hundred caches, and you're a tightwad like me -- buy the 10. if you want (or think you will eventually want) maps, and the ability to load a lot more cache data (thousands instead of hundreds), get the 20. It'll be a bit more expensive up front but might sell as used for a little more when you''re tired of it.

hi

i only want it to do basic geocaching and instead of having to copy and paste the hints into word and then printing it and having to keep looking at a piece of paper to get the hints

if it does all that without using word and i would have thought 100 caches saved to it would be enough to last a day of caching anyway its doing basically what i need

do you use the send to gps tab on the geocache website to get all the info on to as i presently do now with my etrex or do you have to so a pocket query as i am not to sure on how to do this

[+user13371]

I use the pocket query feature to download caches in batches. Start here http://www.geocaching.com/pocket to create and download a pocket query -- once you get there you'll find it's easier to do than to explain

 

With your current eTrex H you can use MapSend or Basecamp to send just the waypoints to your GPS. If you have one of the newer models you're thinking of getting, it'll also copy all the other cache info (description, hints, logs) as well.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Portland Cyclist

[Wintertime]

do you use the send to gps tab on the geocache website to get all the info on to as i presently do now with my etrex or do you have to so a pocket query as i am not to sure on how to do this

Yes, you can use the Send to GPS tab to send .gpx files directly to an eTrex 10. But as "Portland Cyclist" noted, it's easier to create pocket queries because they allow you to have multiple geocaches in a single file. They also make it much easier to delete caches from the eTrex later, because there are fewer files to delete and also because you can give each file a meaningful name (such as Emerald Lake Area) so it's easier to know which finished geocaches you want to delete.

[+coggins]

With your current eTrex H you can use MapSend or Basecamp MapSource to send just the waypoints to your GPS.

Fixed that for ya' Edited January 18, 2012 by coggins

[+GrnXnham]

Owning an eTrex 10 and tempted to upgrade to the 20 myself. On the edge and keep talking myself in and out of the upgrade.

 

Decision points: If all you want is basic tracking and the ability to load data for a few hundred caches, and you're a tightwad like me -- buy the 10. if you want (or think you will eventually want) maps, and the ability to load a lot more cache data (thousands instead of hundreds), get the 20. It'll be a bit more expensive up front but might sell as used for a little more when you''re tired of it.

 

Of course you are leaving out the single biggest reason to get the eTrex 20 over the eTrex 10--color!

 

I spent my 1st year caching with a GPSr with a B&W screen. Once I got a color screen, there was no going back. It's SO much easier on the eyes to look at a color screen than B&W.

 

Let's face it. These portable GPSr units have really small screens. On a screen that small, you need all the contrast you can get to keep from having to hold the unit close to your face to see it clearly. A color screen is just so much more enjoyable to look at.

 

The color screen alone is well worth the higher price of the eTrex 20 over the 10. The ability to add maps and SD cards are just icing on the cake.

[+user13371]

... MapSend or Basecamp MapSource to send just the waypoints to your GPS.

Fixed that for ya'

Whoa, did I really write "Mapsend?" Guess I did, oops. But I really did mean Basecamp. On the Mac, you know how it is...

[+coggins]

... MapSend or Basecamp MapSource to send just the waypoints to your GPS.

Fixed that for ya'

Whoa, did I really write "Mapsend?" Guess I did, oops. But I really did mean Basecamp. On the Mac, you know how it is...

My iToy likes to substitute words on it's own. I just assume this happens for others also;)

[+user13371]

Right, blame it on the ducking spellchecker.

[+user13371]

So anyhow.... back to the relevant topic of choosing between an eTrex 10 and 20... I bought the 10 a little over a month ago because I wanted ultra simple, mainly to use as a data logger on my bike and for some geocaching, and figured I didn't need a color screen or maps for that limited use.

 

But I decided today to order an eTrex 20. Unless I find something really seriously bad about it, I'll probably put the 10 up for sale here or on eBay/craigslist/etc after a while.

 

I still don't think need the maps or color screen myself, but I do have a problem with the memory limitations of the eTrex 10. A data managment problem more than anything else. I've got about 4000 traditional geocaches within 20 miles of home, and all of them fit on my iPhone. Not like I'll be searching for that many on any given day, but it'll be more convenient just to load the same, complete database on the GPS when I go out -- instead of trying to extract a subset that'll fit.

 

Does that make sense?

[+GeoTrekker26]

So anyhow.... back to the relevant topic of choosing between an eTrex 10 and 20... I bought the 10 a little over a month ago because I wanted ultra simple, mainly to use as a data logger on my bike and for some geocaching, and figured I didn't need a color screen or maps for that limited use.

 

But I decided today to order an eTrex 20. Unless I find something really seriously bad about it, I'll probably put the 10 up for sale here or on eBay/craigslist/etc after a while.

 

I still don't think need the maps or color screen myself, but I do have a problem with the memory limitations of the eTrex 10. A data managment problem more than anything else. I've got about 4000 traditional geocaches within 20 miles of home, and all of them fit on my iPhone. Not like I'll be searching for that many on any given day, but it'll be more convenient just to load the same, complete database on the GPS when I go out -- instead of trying to extract a subset that'll fit.

 

Does that make sense?

 

I fully understand the desire to have all nearby caches at hand for spur of the moment caching. I believe the 20 only holds 2K caches. I've never actually tried more but 2K is the number from Garmin's specs. But based on other inconsistencies among various Garmin pages on their site, I'm not sure I trust their info. I worked around their stated limit on a recent trip by loading 2K chunks on various microSD cards, which would not be convenient for your use.

[+user13371]

I believe the 20 only holds 2K caches. I've never actually tried more but 2K is the number from Garmin's specs. But based on other inconsistencies among various Garmin pages on their site, I'm not sure I trust their info...

The inconsistency is because Garmin's product pages advertise how many WAYPOINTS these things will hold, but GEOCACHES are counted separately, don't count against the waypoint limit, and have their own unadvertised limit.

 

I emailed Garmin tech support and asked specifically how many geocaches the new eTrexes would hold; reply was 2000 for the eTrex 10, 5000 for both the 20 & 30.

 

But in real use of my eTrex 10, I can rarely load more than 500 without getting "low memory" errors. After some testing on my own, it looks to me like any combination of GPX files totaling more than around 3MB in size will trigger that error. And there's no way to get 2000 geocaches with descriptions and logs into that tiny space.

 

And I think that's the reason Garmin doesn't advertise how many geocaches the devices (not just eTrex x0 series; also Dakotas, Oregons, and other new-ish models) will hold. They might have 5000 "slots" in memory for them, but with caches descriptions and logs being variable and potentially huge in size, there are other ways for them to run out of space.

[+GeoTrekker26]

And I think that's the reason Garmin doesn't advertise how many geocaches the devices (not just eTrex x0 series; also Dakotas, Oregons, and other new-ish models) will hold. They might have 5000 "slots" in memory for them, but with caches descriptions and logs being variable and potentially huge in size, there are other ways for them to run out of space.

 

I did some testing today so I have real live data. I confirmed my eTrex 20 will hold exactly 5000 geocaches. The details of what I did:

 

I loaded 5 pocket queries of 999 caches each. They were loaded one at a time, with a restart between each load. Each time I would search for caches in the newly loaded GPX file and in any previously loaded GPX files to be sure that none of the files were being ignored. The pocket queries were widely separated to insure there were no duplicate caches in the queries.

 

I loaded a 6th GPX of 999 caches and it was simply ignored. Searches for caches in the 6th file were not found. Searches in the first 5 files returned results as expected. To protect myself against any possible problems the 6th file was on an SD card that I had previously used with no problem. This way if the system were to hang, I could simply remove the card.

 

I removed the card and added caches one at a time. (This is the reason the original files contained only 999 caches.) The first 5 caches loaded as expected. With the 6th, I got an error message saying the number of geocaches exceeded the limit. Prior to the error there was no warning I was approaching a limit.

 

The caches used in the test were traditional and multi-cache. While I didn't record exact numbers, there were about 50-70 child waypoints with each 999 cache GPX file. The 5 major GPX files varied in size from a small of 4,432 KB to a large of 5,309 KB. With all files loaded I have 1.25 GB free. It's raining today so all tests were at my desk, but I did not notice any performance degradation with the 5K caches in the GPS. I had thought that loading a cache description might be slower but I didn't detect any difference.

 

I found the results interesting and useful; I hope others do also.

[+user13371]

GeoTrekker26, that confirmation of both capacity and load time/performance is very useful to me. Thanks!

 

I was kinda disappointed that the supposed limit of 2000 for the eTrex 10 was actually unreachable without stripping practically everything out of the GPX -- more trouble than it's worth. Knowing for certain the 20 really does have 5000 slots without other hidden roadblocks cheers me considerably.

 

Guess I'll list my 10 in the garage sale section.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Portland Cyclist

[+planetjanet2007]

I have fewer than 590 caches on my Etrex 10 and I am getting the low memory message. at least it is still working! It keeps telling me to delete "tracks" but I simply cannot figure out how to do that. any help?

[Wintertime]

It keeps telling me to delete "tracks" but I simply cannot figure out how to do that. any help?

Is there not a Track Manager option on the main screen? There is on my eTrex 20.

[+Lineman101]

I believe the 20 only holds 2K caches. I've never actually tried more but 2K is the number from Garmin's specs. But based on other inconsistencies among various Garmin pages on their site, I'm not sure I trust their info...

The inconsistency is because Garmin's product pages advertise how many WAYPOINTS these things will hold, but GEOCACHES are counted separately, don't count against the waypoint limit, and have their own unadvertised limit.

 

I emailed Garmin tech support and asked specifically how many geocaches the new eTrexes would hold; reply was 2000 for the eTrex 10, 5000 for both the 20 & 30.

 

But in real use of my eTrex 10, I can rarely load more than 500 without getting "low memory" errors. After some testing on my own, it looks to me like any combination of GPX files totaling more than around 3MB in size will trigger that error. And there's no way to get 2000 geocaches with descriptions and logs into that tiny space.

 

And I think that's the reason Garmin doesn't advertise how many geocaches the devices (not just eTrex x0 series; also Dakotas, Oregons, and other new-ish models) will hold. They might have 5000 "slots" in memory for them, but with caches descriptions and logs being variable and potentially huge in size, there are other ways for them to run out of space.

Edited May 12, 2012 by lineman6746

[+Lineman101]

And I think that's the reason Garmin doesn't advertise how many geocaches the devices (not just eTrex x0 series; also Dakotas, Oregons, and other new-ish models) will hold. They might have 5000 "slots" in memory for them, but with caches descriptions and logs being variable and potentially huge in size, there are other ways for them to run out of space.

 

I did some testing today so I have real live data. I confirmed my eTrex 20 will hold exactly 5000 geocaches. The details of what I did:

 

I loaded 5 pocket queries of 999 caches each. They were loaded one at a time, with a restart between each load. Each time I would search for caches in the newly loaded GPX file and in any previously loaded GPX files to be sure that none of the files were being ignored. The pocket queries were widely separated to insure there were no duplicate caches in the queries.

 

I loaded a 6th GPX of 999 caches and it was simply ignored. Searches for caches in the 6th file were not found. Searches in the first 5 files returned results as expected. To protect myself against any possible problems the 6th file was on an SD card that I had previously used with no problem. This way if the system were to hang, I could simply remove the card.

 

I removed the card and added caches one at a time. (This is the reason the original files contained only 999 caches.) The first 5 caches loaded as expected. With the 6th, I got an error message saying the number of geocaches exceeded the limit. Prior to the error there was no warning I was approaching a limit.

 

The caches used in the test were traditional and multi-cache. While I didn't record exact numbers, there were about 50-70 child waypoints with each 999 cache GPX file. The 5 major GPX files varied in size from a small of 4,432 KB to a large of 5,309 KB. With all files loaded I have 1.25 GB free. It's raining today so all tests were at my desk, but I did not notice any performance degradation with the 5K caches in the GPS. I had thought that loading a cache description might be slower but I didn't detect any difference.

 

I found the results interesting and useful; I hope others do also.

 

 

Wow! It's enthusiasts like you that keeps me coming back to the forums. I have an E-trex 20 and I really appreciate the info. Garmin should send you money. Thanks.

[+amy jean]

If not there it'll be available to add as a page, or in the Set Up menu ...

 

Failing that you can delete tracks using Garmin's Basecamp program.

 

I tried using both those methods on my etrex 10 but they don't work.

[+theridgeway]

ok old thread I realize but it's exactly the info I was after, in case anyone can help; am considering upgrading from etrex H to etrex 10 (possibly 20); if I was to cache with the 10, just want to confirm that I can send everything to the 10, including textual information about the caches, from the Groundspeak site (not garmin's opencaching or whatever), and, how does one decipher the hint with the etrex 10 - is the hint present and decodable???

 

thanks all,

 

tr

[+gpsblake]

Yes, the hint is right on the unit. When you are searching for a geocache, the hint will be one of the options available to you. it will give you the options when searching for a geocache

 

LOG ATTEMPT (you can log it found, not found, needs repair or unattempted)

SHOW DESCRIPTION

SHOW LOGS

SHOW HINT

ENTER NEXT STAGE (for multicaches)

FIND ANOTHER

SHOW FOUND

 

It's a simple unit to use.

[+Mineral2]

Just to reiterate everything above, I'd skip the Etrex 10 and go for an Etrex 20 only because of the memory limitations that the 10 possesses. The other features are a bonus.

 

But wait... the Oregon 450 is about the same price as the Etrex 20 on Amazon.com. So, if you have any thoughts at all about going with a 20 rather than a 10, consider the Oregon 450 a "free" upgrade from the Etrex 20.