Guest Alphawolf Posted November 17, 2001 Share Posted November 17, 2001 I was wondering what your impressions are of both when using the auto-routing abilities of both. Quote Link to comment
Guest worldtraveler Posted November 17, 2001 Share Posted November 17, 2001 I've found both of them to be accurate and helpful when traveling in unfamiliar areas. I also use them to help me locate hotels and restaurants when traveling away from home. And more to the point of this forum, I use them to route me to geocache sites. The only caveat is that the autorouting will direct you to the geocache via the road that passes closest to it, but that is not always the route/road you SHOULD take. As an actual example, the closest road to one cache I hunted recently was a quiet residential street in a very exclusive neighborhood. The GPS V said the cache was only about 500 ft. from the road. Only problem was, I would have had to park in front of somebody's house, cut through their yard, and descend a steep ravine to get to it. As I reviewed the on-screen map, I guessed (correctly) that the intended approach was via another road on the other side of the ravine that didn't pass quite as close to the cache. The hike was somewhat longer, but it was through a public park instead of a stranger's back yard. ------------------ Worldtraveler Quote Link to comment
Guest worldtraveler Posted November 17, 2001 Share Posted November 17, 2001 I've found both of them to be accurate and helpful when traveling in unfamiliar areas. I also use them to help me locate hotels and restaurants when traveling away from home. And more to the point of this forum, I use them to route me to geocache sites. The only caveat is that the autorouting will direct you to the geocache via the road that passes closest to it, but that is not always the route/road you SHOULD take. As an actual example, the closest road to one cache I hunted recently was a quiet residential street in a very exclusive neighborhood. The GPS V said the cache was only about 500 ft. from the road. Only problem was, I would have had to park in front of somebody's house, cut through their yard, and descend a steep ravine to get to it. As I reviewed the on-screen map, I guessed (correctly) that the intended approach was via another road on the other side of the ravine that didn't pass quite as close to the cache. The hike was somewhat longer, but it was through a public park instead of a stranger's back yard. ------------------ Worldtraveler Quote Link to comment
Guest Hamster Posted November 18, 2001 Share Posted November 18, 2001 I use both. In my area just outside Cleveland, the Metroguide USA II is the better choice. Because City Select coverage dies right outside of Cuyahoga county (the county cleveland is in). However City select has better maps. So I load both, and then just enable and disable the ones. I need. Quote Link to comment
Guest macdaddymd@aol.com Posted November 18, 2001 Share Posted November 18, 2001 I prefer MetroGuide because it gets street level even in remote regions. It is worse for POI's than City Select, especially for restaurants. CS has so few cities I need, I keep Metroguide loaded until I make a trip to a City Select place, then load. I have my most useful setup by keeping MetroGuide and topos loaded... then I'm ready to go a-caching! I am much more likely to need a country road than look for a place to eat using my GPS. [This message has been edited by macdaddymd@aol.com (edited 19 November 2001).] Quote Link to comment
Guest Alphawolf Posted November 18, 2001 Share Posted November 18, 2001 Someone from Garmin told me that they were going to do an upgrade to City Select this Spring. Anyone hear anything else about that? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.