Caching with a map-capable unit.

[+aka Monkey]

I've always done my caching on a unit with built in maps (originally the eTrex Legend, and more recently a Rino 120). However this past weekend I picked up a Geko 201 for a song and decided to go caching with it, and it's a whole new experience. Before, always knew where to drive to and park. Now I only have an idea of the direction and distance, which means a lot more care and throught is required just to get in the general vicinity. The only drawback being I waste a bit more gas getting there.

 

Anyone else have any preference for whether their geocaching unit supports maps or not?

[OuttaHand]

I started with a Garmin76 (non-mapping) and found a bunch of caches with it. Because of starting with that one, I got in the habit of using my mapping software at home before leaving for the hunt. I found the location, printed a map, and used satellite images of the area to nail down the best approach. All of this from the comfort of my computer chair. That all made the hunt relatively easy with no mapping GPS.

I now have a Rino120 (with maps, of course) and I've used it on several hunts since getting it last December. I must say that my old habits are still the thing that gets me to the area. I like the mapping ability of the 120, but I don't use it near the cache site. I have used it many times to get around cities, etc., but not much out caching. I still count on my "homework" for that.

[+Renegade Knight]

Mapping all the way. I still find that remote caches require the check it out at the computer first to find the way in approache.

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

[+phantom4099]

I am sure 2 min of research and I could figure this out, but what is the diffrence between the GPS76 (no mapping), and the GPS72 (based on the GPS12-no mapping) other than screen resolution, antanna jack, and price?

 

Wyatt W.

 

The probability of someone watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your actions.

[+GeneralBracket]

I had some friends that went hiking with me and I told them to park at xxx/xxx coords. They got lost and showed up 45 minutes late because they were using the GPSr instead of their heads. They actually knew the area and if they had just turned a dadgum thing off they'd have gotten there.

 

My point is, mapping and/or GPSr is an aid to your good judgement, not a replacment.

 

That said, I do like the maps. Just not a necessity IMO unless you're in a foreign environment, but even then you should use your head first.

[McKenna Family]

Originally posted by phantom4099:

I am sure 2 min of research and I could figure this out, but what is the diffrence between the GPS76 (no mapping), and the GPS72 (based on the GPS12-no mapping) other than screen resolution, antanna jack, and price?

 

Wyatt W.

QUOTE]

 

Not much. My dad has the 76, my bro' has the MAP76S and I have the 72. You already hit the differences between the 76 and 72, and to tell you the truth, comparing both side by side, I can't see much of a difference between the display resolution.

Other than that, the specs are the same, the operation is the same, the size is the same, and it uses the same accessories as the 76.

Been very happy with it, and saving over 50 bucks. Can't tell any difference in reciever performance, I think they are identical. The sales guy, who in this case actually seemed knowledgeable, said that the 72 was an attemt to make an entry level, less than $200 version of the 76 line.

 

McKenna Family

Watsonville CA