+geojibby Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'm considering upgrading from my eTrex H – the Oregon 400 & DeLorme units are of little value for my Mac OS X/Canadian situation. I am basically convinced that the GPSMAP 60Cx is the way to go for my situation because I have an iPod touch that I use all the time. I'm wondering if the geocaching app for the iPhone/Touch has the ability to save multiple cache info pages (like say 300 geocaches) for off line viewing - that is, with the iPod Touch not being on a data plan, can I save the 300 pages on the iPod Touch at home in my wireless network and then take that info with me into the woods? If the paperless caching via the iPod app works off line conveniently, then the GPSMAP 60Cx is probably the way to go for me. Any info you can give me on this situation would be helpful. Thanks! Quote Link to comment
+geojibby Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?! Quote Link to comment
DsquaredMsquared Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I believe there are several caching apps available for the iPhone/touch but am not sure how much/well they store cache info offline. If I had an iPhone, I don't think I would need as much offline data. But I only have an iPod touch and can't have too much data. We cache with a VistaCX, two GPSMAP60csx GPSrs, and an iPod touch. We download pocket queries to GSAK (running on a Mac with Parallels) and upload filtered caches as waypoints (name, difficulty, terrain) and POIs (last 4 finds, hint) to the GPSrs. We then export the same information from GSAK as a custom HTML file. Then we use a program called GSAK2iPhone to make the HTML more iPhone/touch friendly. The HTML files are transferred to the iPod touch via another app called AirSharing. The cache pages (descriptions, images, logs) can be displayed as local web pages by AirSharing. Seems like a lot of work but it only takes a few minutes. Nothing worse than being out in the field without some nugget of information that was in the cache description, on the page, or in a previous log. Hope this is helpful. D2M2 Quote Link to comment
Jake - Team A.I. Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I actually have the same devices you are asking about. Unfortunately the iPhone/Touch application does not yet have a way to receive bulk waypoint information. So for now, if you want to use the Geocaching app on your iPhone/Touch, you'll have to type in and save each waypoint individually. I have noted in other threads that there is an "airshare" app that will allow you to download files to the iPhone/Touch. The application will support major file formats like PDF's, word documents and other documents. So, it's possible to port the information one of these formats and view the info from there. What would be nice is if you could load .gpx files through this application and open it in the Geocaching app. Quote Link to comment
+geojibby Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) I actually have the same devices you are asking about. Unfortunately the iPhone/Touch application does not yet have a way to receive bulk waypoint information. So for now, if you want to use the Geocaching app on your iPhone/Touch, you'll have to type in and save each waypoint individually. I have noted in other threads that there is an "airshare" app that will allow you to download files to the iPhone/Touch. The application will support major file formats like PDF's, word documents and other documents. So, it's possible to port the information one of these formats and view the info from there. What would be nice is if you could load .gpx files through this application and open it in the Geocaching app. I have been going paperless with my iPod Touch already by emailing a group of cache PDF files to myself. It works but I was hoping that the iPod app would allow a quick bulk download. Someday true paperless caching that is convenient will be made possible - maybe in the next version of the app. Edit: Actually, a simple cache reader app for the iPhone/iPod Touch would suffice. Just download the .GPX files to it and take them with you. Edited February 6, 2009 by geojibby Quote Link to comment
BlueDamsel Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) Why don't you consider an Oregon 300 and buy the maps you need for it separately? The 300 can be had for much cheaper than the 400 and does have enough memory to hold topos for a fairly large area, plus an SD card slot for additional memory. Garmin does make a City Nav NT which covers Canada (I think they list the Canada only version at around $50-something), and there are third party topo maps available for Canada that work on the Garmins, and are free/low cost. A site for such maps gpsfiledepot.com lists an Ibycus topo map that they say covers most of Canada. With this and the world basemap that comes on the 300 you would probably be set for most situations. Oregons work great with Macs, and are one of the very few GPS units out there that are really Mac friendly. There is a full set of Garmin software for them. You can load POIs, geocaches, additional maps, plan road trips, manage tracks, etc. The one real upside to the Oregon series is that you really don't need your computer software at all for a lot of things. For example, geocaching can be done completely bypassing a program like GSAK or MacCaching altogether... the gpx files are just dragged and dropped into the Garmin's memory much like you would do on a thumb drive. When considering my last GPS purchase, I was looking at a 60CSx in addition to some other units. I decided against it simply because it is more difficult to load paperless info on it using a Mac system, even with a Windows emulator, and the paperless caching features of the Oregon are really, really slick. I can't tell you how much time they save me every time I find caches... the field notes that upload directly to geocaching.com make it so easy to do online logs you will wonder how you ever got by with other units that don't support field notes. The other day, I misplaced my USB cable and boy did I miss not being able to upload those notes from the day's caching! Maybe this setup still won't fit your criteria, but at least it's something to look into. You might want to check gpsfiledepot.com and see what they have. BlueDamsel Oh... another thing... If you do go with the 60CSx and you have an iPod with video, the MacCaching program can load cache pages on it via the Notes function of your iPod. They won't be perfect, but they will be enough to give you the basic info on the cache page unless it is really long. Also, one drawback is that the hints, even though they are included, are usually decrypted, so you have to be careful in scrolling down if you want to avoid the hint. I used my iPod quite successfully with my old GPS unit in this way. I basically chose the Oregon because since it was time to upgrade the old GPS anyway, I wanted to get one which would eliminate having to carry an additional device. The Oregon fit this criteria very well. BD Edited February 6, 2009 by BlueDamsel Quote Link to comment
+geojibby Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 When considering my last GPS purchase, I was looking at a 60CSx in addition to some other units. I decided against it simply because it is more difficult to load paperless info on it using a Mac system, even with a Windows emulator, and the paperless caching features of the Oregon are really, really slick. I can't tell you how much time they save me every time I find caches... the field notes that upload directly to geocaching.com make it so easy to do online logs you will wonder how you ever got by with other units that don't support field notes. The other day, I misplaced my USB cable and boy did I miss not being able to upload those notes from the day's caching! I had also considered the Oregon 300 unit but the research I did on the forums here said that the accuracy suffers along with the brightness of the screen. So, those two perils in mind, I am leaning towards the GPSMAP 60Cx along with my iPod Touch (that I already have). The true paperless of the Oregon totally rocks the set and its pure awesomeness! But with the other couple of drawbacks I figured I would save the $166 dollar difference in the units and try to do it with my iPod Touch. Maybe I'm out to lunch though! I'm open to hearing more opinion on the matter. Thanks for your comments! Quote Link to comment
BlueDamsel Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) When considering my last GPS purchase, I was looking at a 60CSx in addition to some other units. I decided against it simply because it is more difficult to load paperless info on it using a Mac system, even with a Windows emulator, and the paperless caching features of the Oregon are really, really slick. I can't tell you how much time they save me every time I find caches... the field notes that upload directly to geocaching.com make it so easy to do online logs you will wonder how you ever got by with other units that don't support field notes. The other day, I misplaced my USB cable and boy did I miss not being able to upload those notes from the day's caching! I had also considered the Oregon 300 unit but the research I did on the forums here said that the accuracy suffers along with the brightness of the screen. So, those two perils in mind, I am leaning towards the GPSMAP 60Cx along with my iPod Touch (that I already have). The true paperless of the Oregon totally rocks the set and its pure awesomeness! But with the other couple of drawbacks I figured I would save the $166 dollar difference in the units and try to do it with my iPod Touch. Maybe I'm out to lunch though! I'm open to hearing more opinion on the matter. Thanks for your comments! I can only give you my experience with it, but after finding over 100 caches with it since I've had it, I actually think it's more accurate than my previous two units. I don't know how it does compared to the 60CSx, though. I've been happy with the accuracy. The dim screen to me is not an issue, however, you're the best judge of that. If you're considering the unit at all, I suggest you go to a sporting goods store and ask to compare the two units side by side, outside. I actually had both units sent out, and did this myself, and with the backlight on, while slightly more dim than the 60CSx, the Oregons are still very readable in all lighting conditions. After 100 caches I can say I've never once had to struggle to read the screen. Even with this backlight on full all the time, using NiMHs I am getting a full day of caching out of each set of batteries. I have tested this several times, by just turning the unit on and leaving it on til the batteries run out and noting the time, and by using it actively in the field until they run out and noting the time. I can report 12 hours or more of active geocaching before I have to change. Given that I'm using rechargeables, battery life just isn't an issue anymore. I am not sure why Garmin didn't set the backlight on constant as a default and call the now-normal dim screen "power saving mode" To me, this was a big marketing mistake, because people hear "dim screen" and they are immediately turned off without even looking at the unit. Garmin also didn't do itself a service by putting the scenic backgrounds on it, which look attractive initially, but impair readability. I've changed mine out for plain white backgrounds and it is a big improvement. I do realize that some folks still feel it's problematic even after trying the backlight adjustments (everyone has different issues and preferences), which is why the only way to really judge is to take it out and look at it yourself. One of the BIG reasons I went with the Oregon is really just to get rid of carrying two separate devices via true paperless caching, the Mac compatibility without having to use a Windows emulator, the easy-to-use touchscreen interface, and the ergonomics of the device (which I love). Anyway, I don't know if this will help you or not, but every time I hear that "dim screen" thing I just have to address it, because I think it's really something that for many people would not be an issue if they set up the device as I have described. Good luck in your search! BlueDamsel Edited February 6, 2009 by BlueDamsel Quote Link to comment
+geojibby Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 One of the BIG reasons I went with the Oregon is really just to get rid of carrying two separate devices via true paperless caching, the Mac compatibility without having to use a Windows emulator, the easy-to-use touchscreen interface, and the ergonomics of the device (which I love). I appreciate your experience on this. I think the forums have "poisoned" the reviews of the Oregon because all you tend to hear about are the negatives, mainly the brightness and the accuracy. I currently use an eTrex H with the high sensitivity receiver and WAAS. It's totally bang on, all the time. I couldn't be happier with it for its $100 accuracy. I wonder about the reports about Oregon's accuracy. If it's at least as accurate as the bottom of the line eTrex H, then it's great! I wonder why Garmin wouldn't have included the same chipset from the MAP60CSx in the Oregon?? Then all of these issues would be non-existent! Quote Link to comment
BlueDamsel Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) One of the BIG reasons I went with the Oregon is really just to get rid of carrying two separate devices via true paperless caching, the Mac compatibility without having to use a Windows emulator, the easy-to-use touchscreen interface, and the ergonomics of the device (which I love). I appreciate your experience on this. I think the forums have "poisoned" the reviews of the Oregon because all you tend to hear about are the negatives, mainly the brightness and the accuracy. I currently use an eTrex H with the high sensitivity receiver and WAAS. It's totally bang on, all the time. I couldn't be happier with it for its $100 accuracy. I wonder about the reports about Oregon's accuracy. If it's at least as accurate as the bottom of the line eTrex H, then it's great! I wonder why Garmin wouldn't have included the same chipset from the MAP60CSx in the Oregon?? Then all of these issues would be non-existent! Have you been to the website gpsfix.net? I believe they do a side by side comparison there of accuracy with both the 60csx and the CO. It might help you make a determination to read what they say there. https://garminoregon.wikispaces.com/First+Impressions (scroll down to see the track comparison) Don't know if this will answer your accuracy question or not, but it might be worth reading. Isn't choosing a new device fun? There's absolutely not ONE device out there, by any manufacturer, that's the all in one perfect device..... drat. Every one is going to have pros and cons, and it's the choosing between "what's important to you" and the "tradeoffs". BlueDamsel Edited February 6, 2009 by BlueDamsel Quote Link to comment
+geojibby Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 Isn't choosing a new device fun? There's absolutely not ONE device out there, by any manufacturer, that's the all in one perfect device..... drat. Every one is going to have pros and cons, and it's the choosing between "what's important to you" and the "tradeoffs". BlueDamsel I will check out the links. Thanks! As for choosing a new device, that's exactly the trouble I have. There just isn't one unit that seems to do it all! So analyzing the trade offs is the tricky part! And, its a sizeable chunk of coin so you don't really want to make a bad choice either. So, we press on towards the tupperware! 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.