Picture of the new GPSMap 62 serie :)

[+BeerMan-Qc]

from a flyer of RadioWorld:

 

Edited May 21, 2010 by BeerMan-Qc

[+SkellyCA]

That explains the R.E.I sale.

[+Pax42]

Interesting. The shape indicates Garmin decided to stick with the quad helix antenna.

[+geojibby]

Quad Helix = √

 

Also though, that infernal "Quit" button is still labeled quit. That's dumb. In this age of the information superhighway, that button should be labelled "Back" instead. Here endeth mine rant.

 

Looks awesome! I hope those prices are real.

 

Interesting. The shape indicates Garmin decided to stick with the quad helix antenna.

[+geojibby]

Quad Helix = √

 

Also though, that infernal "Quit" button is still labeled quit. That's dumb. In this age of the information superhighway, that button should be labelled "Back" instead. Here endeth mine rant.

 

Looks awesome! I hope those prices are real.

 

Interesting. The shape indicates Garmin decided to stick with the quad helix antenna.

[Grasscatcher]

Interesting. The shape indicates Garmin decided to stick with the quad helix antenna.

 

What makes you think that? (that the 62 will have a QH antenna)

The 76 Series also has a QH antenna but looks totally different, while being electronic clones with the 60 series.

 

The "knob" on the 60 series just appeals to folks that want the dog to have something to chew on or to break off when dropped.

 

Then again, who knows....since Garmin says that the lousy / non-existent WAAS performance in the Dakota-Oregon series is due to "Antenna design, maybe they intend on having a "Patch" antenna in the 78 Series and a "QH" antenna in the 62 Series.......and let the public do their "Testing" for them.

 

The same Oregon "innards" and two types of antennas?

 

Seems to be how things (testing procedures) work lately.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Grasscatcher

[+Branky]

I have an Oregon 550 and a 60Cx.

I would have SERIOUSLY looked at this one over the 550.

I am assuming it will retain the extenal antenna port which I really miss on the Oregon.

 

Here is hoping they don't have the teething issues the Oregon and Colorado did. The 60Cx series had a lot of issues when it was released.

[+Red90]

I am assuming it will retain the extenal antenna port which I really miss on the Oregon.

 

You need a Colorado. Best of all worlds..... Large screen, external antenna, quad helix....

[MtnHermit]

You need a Colorado. Best of all worlds..... Large screen, external antenna, quad helix....

You forgot to mention discontinued. Soon yours and mine will be collector's items.

[+Semper Questio]

Have to keep an eye on these. They may be the thing to get me to upgrade off my 60CSx.

[nspector5]

I am assuming it will retain the extenal antenna port which I really miss on the Oregon.

 

You need a Colorado. Best of all worlds..... Large screen, external antenna, quad helix....

 

Agreed...

[+StarBrand]

I am assuming it will retain the extenal antenna port which I really miss on the Oregon.

 

You need a Colorado. Best of all worlds..... Large screen, external antenna, quad helix....

 

Agreed...

x3

[flyjazz]

x4 on the Colorado. Sure would like to know a bit more on the reasoning for discontinuing the line. Perhaps Garmin thought the 62 was the way to go forward. My unit has been a rock solid performer since day one and that's over two years ago.

[+JJball]

It figures we get into geocaching right before the GPSMAP 60CSx goes on sale and buy one which is also right before the new 62 comes out. For another $50 we could have had this new 62!!!!

[+Tahoe Skier5000]

x4 on the Colorado. Sure would like to know a bit more on the reasoning for discontinuing the line. Perhaps Garmin thought the 62 was the way to go forward. My unit has been a rock solid performer since day one and that's over two years ago.

 

Personally, I think Garmin should have cut the Dakota if anything since the price point isn't all too attractive compared to the Oregon... and they are virtually the same GPSr.

 

Who knows though... I'm just glad they are continuing the 60series lineup. I probably won't buy one, but its good to always have options

[Grasscatcher]

Did you notice the 500mb internal memory........vs 1.7 GB on the new 78 series?

 

That won't sit well with the folks that just absolutely MUST have ALL of USA Topo, ALL of USA City Navigator, ALL of Canada and Europe PLUS Elebenteen Thousand Caches with all the comments,hints,etc,etc

[jholly]

Did you notice the 500mb internal memory........vs 1.7 GB on the new 78 series?

 

That won't sit well with the folks that just absolutely MUST have ALL of USA Topo, ALL of USA City Navigator, ALL of Canada and Europe PLUS Elebenteen Thousand Caches with all the comments,hints,etc,etc

 

That is what micro SD cards are for

[+Chrysalides]

Did you notice the 500mb internal memory........vs 1.7 GB on the new 78 series?

 

That won't sit well with the folks that just absolutely MUST have ALL of USA Topo, ALL of USA City Navigator, ALL of Canada and Europe PLUS Elebenteen Thousand Caches with all the comments,hints,etc,etc

Get a few more units. Problem solved.

[+Pax42]

Interesting. The shape indicates Garmin decided to stick with the quad helix antenna.

 

What makes you think that? (that the 62 will have a QH antenna)

The 76 Series also has a QH antenna but looks totally different, while being electronic clones with the 60 series.

 

The "knob" on the 60 series just appeals to folks that want the dog to have something to chew on or to break off when dropped.

 

Then again, who knows....since Garmin says that the lousy / non-existent WAAS performance in the Dakota-Oregon series is due to "Antenna design, maybe they intend on having a "Patch" antenna in the 78 Series and a "QH" antenna in the 62 Series.......and let the public do their "Testing" for them.

 

The same Oregon "innards" and two types of antennas?

 

Seems to be how things (testing procedures) work lately.

I've always assumed the "knob" on the 60 series helped cover at least part of the QH since the display is near the top of the case. The 76 (and 78) series have a good deal of space between the buttons and the top of the case so the QH can be tucked inside without the "knob". I've never had either model open so I could be mistaken.

[yogazoo]

I'd be fairly dissapointed with the "innards" of an oregon inside the GPSMAP 62. There are loads of features I still miss about the old 60CSX.

 

1) Night Mode (black background on the map is easy on the eyes at night)

2) Measuring distance between two arbitrary points on the map screen

3) EPE circle displayed on map

4) Stellar WAAS performance

5) SUN and MOON position displayed on compass page

 

It's been awhile since I've used a 60CSX and I know there is more functionality I missed but the point is that an Oregon dressed up as a 62 isn't what people who would buy a 62 are looking for. IMHO.

[alteredform]

ETA???

[+Red90]

I'd be fairly dissapointed with the "innards" of an oregon inside the GPSMAP 62. There are loads of features I still miss about the old 60CSX.

 

1) Night Mode (black background on the map is easy on the eyes at night)

2) Measuring distance between two arbitrary points on the map screen

3) EPE circle displayed on map

4) Stellar WAAS performance

5) SUN and MOON position displayed on compass page

 

It's been awhile since I've used a 60CSX and I know there is more functionality I missed but the point is that an Oregon dressed up as a 62 isn't what people who would buy a 62 are looking for. IMHO.

 

I would place a strong bet that it is slightly modified Oregon software. If they were going to add all of this, then I would have expected to see it on teh Oregons by now.

[+Red90]

You forgot to mention discontinued. Soon yours and mine will be collector's items.

 

For now, that is a good thing. They can be had very cheap. Much cheaper than an Oregon.

[lalittle]

I'm a little confused about this. According to the Garmin reps I spoke with a while back, the Oregon was essentially positioned as the successor to the 60csx. Where does the 62 unit fit into the current model line-up?

 

Thanks,

 

Larry

[+Pax42]

I'm a little confused about this. According to the Garmin reps I spoke with a while back, the Oregon was essentially positioned as the successor to the 60csx. Where does the 62 unit fit into the current model line-up?

 

Thanks,

 

Larry

It fits into the spot for users who love the 60csx, hate the Oregons, and want paperless caching.

[Grasscatcher]

I'd be fairly dissapointed with the "innards" of an oregon inside the GPSMAP 62. There are loads of features I still miss about the old 60CSX.

 

1) Night Mode (black background on the map is easy on the eyes at night)

2) Measuring distance between two arbitrary points on the map screen

3) EPE circle displayed on map

4) Stellar WAAS performance

5) SUN and MOON position displayed on compass page

 

It's been awhile since I've used a 60CSX and I know there is more functionality I missed but the point is that an Oregon dressed up as a 62 isn't what people who would buy a 62 are looking for. IMHO.

 

I would place a strong bet that it is slightly modified Oregon software. If they were going to add all of this, then I would have expected to see it on teh Oregons by now.

 

YZ, you can already do the measurement trick ....see the Oregon wiki.

 

WAAS performance- "They" (Garmin) say the problem is due to "Antenna Design" so , if they believe their own propaganda, the antenna should be different than the Ceramic antenna on the Oregons.....whether it turns out to be a Patch or a QH is pure guess right now. We will soon see...

 

Something sure needs to change because, while hiking in wide open ideal WAAS reception area, with both my 76CSx and my 550 side by side, the 76 EPE is 8-10ft with solid WAAS lock while 550 EPE is 20-40 ft and no WAAS lock.

 

Also, "they" need to improve screen visibility. Yeah, I know, some people profess that they are fine at present, but I believe that some of those folks are trying to put lipstick on a pig. (I have a 550 so I know)

NOBODY BUT NOBODY has claimed that the Oregon/Dakota screen has as good or better visibility as the old 60/76 series (I have a 76CSx), and the new 62/78 is supposed to be clearer and sharper.

[Forkeye]

Maybe Garmin is giving up on the touch screen technology for now,due to daylight read ability issues,most likely the 60csx followed buy the 76csx were probably their best sellers ,and the ones their customers were most pleased with.

[Grasscatcher]

I would already have a new 78S on order EXCEPT for one small detail......WAAS.

The absolute first day that our REI gets them in stock, I plan on taking my 76CSx to the store and compare WAAS acquisition "time to lock" with the new 78.

If the 78 is like the Oregon / Dakota....it stays in the store.

If it's like the 76, it gets to go hiking and live in a new home.

[alteredform]

Do we know when these are supposedly going to be released?

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

@ Forkeye - I doubt that the 76CSx is even in their top five handhelds. It perhaps used to be, but not now. It's currently #17 in handheld GPS at Amazon...

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/elect...ref=pd_ts_e_nav

 

@grasscatcher - Just remember that first acquisition takes awhile. Make it a fair test.

 

@alteredform - Word on the street is 78 series next week, 62 series in July.

[Grasscatcher]

RMB,

 

Yep, guaranteed "fair test".

 

...Fully understand the whys ,whats, and wherefores.......

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

Will be looking forward to the results. While you're at it, could you check the chipset software version?

[MtnHermit]

I would already have a new 78S on order EXCEPT for one small detail......WAAS.

Why is WAAS such a big deal? Yes, I understand it provides a more accurate position, but you're not a GCer setting/finding caches.

 

From my perspective, the WAAS-less signal is already much more accurate than the typical scanned trail on the typical map. But, that scanned trail provides enough info combined with what my eyes see to make correct decisions.

 

Even with WAAS these are not $2000 Trimble's doing land survey. It seems you only want the accuracy because it's possible, no meaningful application. If I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

[alteredform]

Arghhhh ....

 

Choices....

 

Delorme PN-50 (June) or Garmin 62 series (July)

[Grasscatcher]

I would already have a new 78S on order EXCEPT for one small detail......WAAS.

Why is WAAS such a big deal? Yes, I understand it provides a more accurate position, but you're not a GCer setting/finding caches.

 

From my perspective, the WAAS-less signal is already much more accurate than the typical scanned trail on the typical map. But, that scanned trail provides enough info combined with what my eyes see to make correct decisions.

 

Even with WAAS these are not $2000 Trimble's doing land survey. It seems you only want the accuracy because it's possible, no meaningful application. If I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

 

"Yes, I understand it provides a more accurate position, but you're not a GCer setting/finding caches."

Well, ....DUH...., then you understand why WAAS is a big deal. ......because it is supposed to be more accurate. And, no, I'm not a GCer, playing a game, but that is probably one of the LEAST important uses for a GPS. I was using GPS in my work long before "the GC game" was even started.

 

" the WAAS-less signal is already much more accurate than the typical scanned trail on the typical map"

The operative word in that sentence is "typical", and if you are satisfied with that level of "non quality" , fine.

If you buy a "WAAS capable" GPS unit you should expect an accuracy level of <3 m......you paid for it.

Oh yeah, do your own checking and you'll find that the map making tolerance for the official USGS 7.5 min Quads is 40 ft. That's just one of the reasons I laugh when a GCer whines about "my GPS is inaccurate, it won't get me closer than xx ft" (while ignoring all the other possible sources of errors /variations)

 

"It seems you only want the accuracy because it's possible, no meaningful application. If I'm wrong, I'm all ears."

Here's where you are wrong.

My hobby is mapping trails. (Hiking, ATV,Snowmobile) I want / expect a GPS that will accurately record it's position (and log trackpoints) and repeat with it's own previous results to "prove that accuracy".

Repeat with itself.....a really simple request right? Not anywhere as easy as it sounds when mapping in less than ideal conditions. (under canopy and in canyons)

 

FORGET the map, compare the data with itself, and know that it is accurate. If the data is accurate then all the visible errors when that data is displayed on any map are map errors. It's not a matter of getting lost or making bad decisions.

 

You would be surprised how many newer model GPSs (even some "serious tools") cannot repeat with themselves on a "out and back" single track trail .

[seldom_sn]

My hobby is mapping trails. (Hiking, ATV,Snowmobile) I want / expect a GPS that will accurately record it's position (and log trackpoints) and repeat with it's own previous results to "prove that accuracy".

Repeat with itself.....a really simple request right? Not anywhere as easy as it sounds when mapping in less than ideal conditions. (under canopy and in canyons)

 

FORGET the map, compare the data with itself, and know that it is accurate. If the data is accurate then all the visible errors when that data is displayed on any map are map errors. It's not a matter of getting lost or making bad decisions.

 

You would be surprised how many newer model GPSs (even some "serious tools") cannot repeat with themselves on a "out and back" single track trail .

 

Hi, Grasscatcher. As you know, we share the same interests, and I have run a few similar tests. However, I have never notice a difference in EPE or track repeatability with WAAS on or off on either my 60CSX. If the stars are in the right position, EPE gets down to around 11 feet, but WAAS doesn't seem to improve it. Also, my OR300 generally repeats the track better than the 60CSX although its WAAS is non-existent.

[+geojibby]

What seems so strange to me in the over all big picture of handheld GPSr units today is this – newer, updated units don't seem to be building on/including all the kick-@ss features of past successful units!

 

I mean, if you've got an awesome platform (*most* {sales} would agree that the 60CSx/Cx is such a platform), why not continue to ADD to it rather than scrapping alot of those great features when releasing the latest new spiffy model? (*most* would agree that the Oregon/Dakota series is lacking some of the best features put out in the 60CSx). I don't understand this.

 

If I was the head of a GPSr design team for any given company, I would seriously consider all the features that joe-six-pack GPSr user has loved in past designs (WAAS lock, good chipsets, variety of "advanced" functions like projecting waypoints, etc.) and wants in a new one (simple, convenient paperless geocaching, inexpensive mapping, EASE of use, etc.) and then, I would include them all so people wouldn't have to say "what functionality do I have to lose if I buy such and such a new unit?" Rather, the consumer would say "Awesome! This new unit has all I currently love about my old GPSr and more exciting options that make enjoying my outdoor hobbies more fun!"

 

Here endeth mine rant.

[freeday]

I'd be fairly dissapointed with the "innards" of an oregon inside the GPSMAP 62. There are loads of features I still miss about the old 60CSX.

 

1) Night Mode (black background on the map is easy on the eyes at night)

2) Measuring distance between two arbitrary points on the map screen

3) EPE circle displayed on map

4) Stellar WAAS performance

5) SUN and MOON position displayed on compass page

 

It's been awhile since I've used a 60CSX and I know there is more functionality I missed but the point is that an Oregon dressed up as a 62 isn't what people who would buy a 62 are looking for. IMHO.

Yes you're right.

I did not use the 62 but i am sure i will miss the following features too (because there will be the aweful oregon-system inside - just look at the blue-position-pointer)

 

*) no automatic daily logging like the 60

*) sight an go ?

*) position of sun and moon

*) still missing correct time of moving during hiking on the oregons

*) no day/night mode

*) no declutter-funktion

*) Position circle

*) calendar-funktion for the waypoints

*) A-B-distance on map screen

*) no recalculation option like the 60

*) status bar

*) smaller position-pointer

....

 

I hope, that the 62-screeen can be compared with the vista-screen during all weather conditions (also bright sun)

Edited May 22, 2010 by freeday

[MtnHermit]

What seems so strange to me in the over all big picture of handheld GPSr units today is this – newer, updated units don't seem to be building on/including all the kick-@ss features of past successful units!

 

I mean, if you've got an awesome platform (*most* {sales} would agree that the 60CSx/Cx is such a platform), why not continue to ADD to it rather than scrapping alot of those great features when releasing the latest new spiffy model? (*most* would agree that the Oregon/Dakota series is lacking some of the best features put out in the 60CSx). I don't understand this.

 

If I was the head of a GPSr design team for any given company, I would seriously consider all the features that joe-six-pack GPSr user has loved in past designs (WAAS lock, good chipsets, variety of "advanced" functions like projecting waypoints, etc.) and wants in a new one (simple, convenient paperless geocaching, inexpensive mapping, EASE of use, etc.) and then, I would include them all so people wouldn't have to say "what functionality do I have to lose if I buy such and such a new unit?" Rather, the consumer would say "Awesome! This new unit has all I currently love about my old GPSr and more exciting options that make enjoying my outdoor hobbies more fun!"

 

Here endeth mine rant.

You see the decision from only the customer's POV and not the totality of the Sales & Service that drives Garmin's decisions.

 

Take for example a feature on my eTrex and the 60/76 (a circle on the map representing EPE) and lacking on my Colo 300. Their are two "E's) in EPE, the newbe customer focuses on Error whereas Garmin focuses on Estimated. So Joe and Bob have "identical" 60CSx's and while standing side-by-side and Joe has an EPE of 15' and Bob 10'. Why? Tolerances, the time crystal, the thermometer, various resistors and other analog electronic components. So Joe calls CS and says my 60CSx is defective. Yada-Yada

 

A few hundred of these $50/hr phone calls and Garmin CS calls engineering and says get rid of that "kick-@ss feature".

 

So it isn't always the manufacturing cost that drives the inclusion or exclusion of a feature.

[MtnHermit]

"Yes, I understand it provides a more accurate position, but you're not a GCer setting/finding caches."

Well, ....DUH...., then you understand why WAAS is a big deal. ......because it is supposed to be more accurate. And, no, I'm not a GCer, playing a game, but that is probably one of the LEAST important uses for a GPS. I was using GPS in my work long before "the GC game" was even started.

I'm sorry I've ruffled your feathers, that was not my intent. I'm interested in a serious discussion on a subject that you know more about than I.

 

" the WAAS-less signal is already much more accurate than the typical scanned trail on the typical map"

The operative word in that sentence is "typical", and if you are satisfied with that level of "non quality" , fine.

If you buy a "WAAS capable" GPS unit you should expect an accuracy level of <3 m......you paid for it.

Oh yeah, do your own checking and you'll find that the map making tolerance for the official USGS 7.5 min Quads is 40 ft. That's just one of the reasons I laugh when a GCer whines about "my GPS is inaccurate, it won't get me closer than xx ft" (while ignoring all the other possible sources of errors /variations)

You see the root problem as one of accuracy, whereas I see the root problem as the lack of trails on the maps. Even the guesstimated scanned trails are a whole lot better than no trails. When I hike I follow the 18" wide path and I care not what the GPS says is the "correct" trail. I'm sure you do too.

 

"It seems you only want the accuracy because it's possible, no meaningful application. If I'm wrong, I'm all ears."

Here's where you are wrong.

My hobby is mapping trails. (Hiking, ATV,Snowmobile) I want / expect a GPS that will accurately record it's position (and log trackpoints) and repeat with it's own previous results to "prove that accuracy".

Repeat with itself.....a really simple request right? Not anywhere as easy as it sounds when mapping in less than ideal conditions. (under canopy and in canyons)

So where are all these hobby trails? Do you share like NWTrails? Website?

 

FORGET the map, compare the data with itself, and know that it is accurate. If the data is accurate then all the visible errors when that data is displayed on any map are map errors. It's not a matter of getting lost or making bad decisions.

 

You would be surprised how many newer model GPSs (even some "serious tools") cannot repeat with themselves on a "out and back" single track trail .

This is a correct point, BUT I'll still point out that any of the up & back tracklogs are still more accurate than the typical scanned trail. So either is an improvement. I'm all for accuracy, you're just more passionate than I. First all the trails then we can focus on accuracy. Besides, I try to do loop hikes, more interesting and that way I never knew my tracks weren't perfect.

[Grasscatcher]

Mtn Hermit,

 

Feathers not ruffled at all.

I'm just not very "couth" with some of my descriptions / replies.

 

We're both on the same page. I'm adding as many missing trails as I can.

[+geojibby]

This doesn't compute with me. If you have a good feature, make it better/easier to grasp for the consumer. Don't chuck it. And further more, if producers listen to customers and design products that match/surpass expectations, they create winning - read selling - products.

 

A few hundred of these $50/hr phone calls and Garmin CS calls engineering and says get rid of that "kick-@ss feature".

So it isn't always the manufacturing cost that drives the inclusion or exclusion of a feature.

[yogazoo]

Until the 78 or 62 hits the hands of consumers we'll all be speculating on what will or will not be features of these units.

 

The answer will come from this question; did they take all the features of the units cousins (76 or 60) and fit them into the Oregon platform or did they take the Oregon platform and fit it into the new sleeker shells of the 78/62's.

 

Time will tell.

Edited May 23, 2010 by yogazoo

[freeday]

I bet Garmin did NOT take all the features of the 60er unit

Otherwise i would be really happy and buy the unit.

[jholly]

Until the 78 or 62 hits the hands of consumers we'll all be speculating on what will or will not be features of these units.

 

The answer will come from this question; did they take all the features of the units cousins (76 or 60) and fit them into the Oregon platform or did they take the Oregon platform and fit it into the new sleeker shells of the 78/62's.

 

Time will tell.

 

My gut feeling is that they went back to the SiRF chip now that it is no longer legally encumbered. There is nothing that I have read that leads me to believe with any certainty that they will be Oregon based. Hotfix like the Oregeon? It was first released on the nuvi 255, a SiRf based unit. Two large black chips that have no identification arranged like the Oregon? You know with two large chips in the real estate for layout there are not a whole lot of choices. Besides, anyone got a picture of the new SiRF chip? Oregon software re-worked to work with buttons? Give me a break, that is a complete re-write of the firmware. Round ends so it much have the Oregon antenna? Really? Features specs like the Oregon? The 60/76 had a completely new chip and no changes on the features specs. Features specs don't necessarily translate to underlying implementation. Heavens knows two radically different computer architectures can run an O/S that has the same user features.

 

Time will tell.

[MtnHermit]

Hotfix like the Oregeon? It was first released on the nuvi 255, a SiRf based unit.

False. STM Cartesio. I have a Nuvi 2x5, their was much discussion and photos of the Cartesio at GPSPassion 2 years ago.

[yogazoo]

Two large black chips that have no identification arranged like the Oregon? You know with two large chips in the real estate for layout there are not a whole lot of choices.

Time will tell.

 

I'm pretty sure there are pictures of the innards of a new GPSMAP78 and I seem to remember the configuration looking exactly like the Cartesio. SirF? I wouldn't bet fifty cents on that one. (money, not the R&B artist. Well come to think of it I wouldn't bet the R&B artist either)

 

Oregon software re-worked to work with buttons? Give me a break, that is a complete re-write of the firmware.

 

Well, looking at the screenshots directly from the Garmin site it does look alot like Oregon styled software.

 

Like you said, only time will tell.

[MtnHermit]

Yep!!!

[+ryan3295]

Yep!!!

Actually that picture reminds me more of my Colorado using the R&R wheel to choose the various pages.

[+g-o-cashers]

Based on the internal pictures of the 78 on the FCC page it looks like it has the same electronics and GPS chipset as the Oregon x50, but it isn't possible to make a full conclusion based on those images. I'd bet my lunch money that the 78 and 62 have identical electronics and software (antenna design could be different) -- it just doesn't make sense for Garmin to have to support another platform.

 

Taking that argument a step further it seems to me they are probably leveraging the Dakota/Oregon x50 platform for these new units with some software changes to handle the hard-buttons vs. touchscreen. My guess right now is that we are looking at another STM Cartesio implementation.

 

I'm hoping to have a GPSMAP 78 as soon as they are available. REI is saying later this week to early next week as of this morning. GPSCity has moved their dates out to 6/5.