Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board GPS Recommendations

I'd like to get a good GPS to track distance and altitude during my hikes and biking. Any recommendations?

Thanks, Dave

Hi the basic functions are in all models on the market it's what you want the internal/external software to do and the amount of storage also uploads downloads and existing maps of the US , so as the functions increase price also and the great news is the the best model today is second best shortly, I use a Garmin about 10 years old but it still tells time and draws maps. Thanks Doug

I highly recommend GARMIN. I started off with Magellan years ago, then switched to Garmin. I have since owned two Garmins. Both work great. Right now I'm using the GPSmap76CS, on which you can load street and topo maps, including international maps. Although it doesn't talk like automobile devices (and I don't like it talking to me on hikes and climbs), it certainly beeps for all turns when driving. I use it for route finding in the mountains and deserts, map making, and car and airplane travel. However, I still have not seen any reliably precise altitude measurements for hiking purposes, so I use altimeters. It depends on how precise you want to be. When I use a topo map, I like to be within 50 feet or so of the contour lines, but I find my GPS devices can be off by more than a hundred feet in elevation. Horizontal positions, however, are quite precise. The GPSmap76CS does accurately track altitude changes over time and produces an interesting on-screen chart of elevation changes. I also always use a compass and map with my Garmin.

Dave,
My favorite GPS ia a Garmin GPSmap76S. I started with a Magellan in 1995 but was "blown away" by a peer with a Garmin. I switched to a Garmin 12XL and have been happy with them since 1996. Note that most GPSs are NOT accurate for elevation but are very accurate for "latitute and longitude." The first thing to remember about a GPS is that it is NOT something to bet your life on. ALWAYS take a map AND compass to back up the GPS. Second, know how to set up your GPS by ensuring you have the correct datum (usually WGS 84 but I have had to use NAD 27 in parts of southern rural California) and you know the coordinate system you will use (military grid reference system = MGRS, UTM, Latitude/Longitude, Decimal Degrees, etc.) and can the people "rescuing" you use that system? Also know that your GPS screen will freeze up somewhere around 15F in many cases rendering it useless unless carried next to your body, but then of course it is less accurate if it cannot reach the satellite signals. That is one reason why a traditional altimeter is unbeatable! Also remember that when your last battery dies your GPS is useless. I think GPSs are GREAT but most people do not seriously know their limitations and consequently set themselves up for potential disaster if they truly wander off of the "beaten path." If you are sticking to traditional trails it will be a fun "toy" to monitor your efforts, but even then can you properly employ your coordinates if you need to call in a rescue for someone that you discover in dire need of help and do you have a radio (proper frequency and sufficient power)/cell phone that will work with the local rescue outfit? There is a lot to consider and ponder when getting a GPS, but for sheer fun I still love my Garmin GPSmap76S.

For the best accuracy from a GPS Receiver make sure it's "WAAS Enabled". WAAS is short for Wide Area Augmentation System. It's a system developed by the FAA that increases GPS's accuracy.

hiiker

Trees, canyons and other obstructions block GPS signals, which are magnitudes weaker than cell phone signals. Unless one is constantly in the open, the mileage totals are inaccurate. When a GPS loses signal strength, it calculates a straight line to the previous point after it regains a sufficient signal. I often walk under trees and my GPS mileage can be half as much as the map distance. My bike mileage is much more accurate since I'm under open skies during the ride.

I own a Magellan and makes inferior maps; the Garmin is much better.

Another consideration is the cost of maps that can be downloaded to the GPS. A few years ago I was able to purchase a map of the 50 states, which included both a topo map and a street map of all the towns in cities for $100. Now I noticed that California alone is $100. My GPS allows an additional SD memory chip for detailed maps, which is useful when visiting other cities and places.

Garmin's 76 and 60 series are about the same, if not near identical, electronically. 76 is more waterproof, more bulky, not much heavier. I bought the 76 because the Garmin rep on the phone told me that they have returns of the 60's because the external antenna breaks off. The antenna is internal on the 76. I love it for hiking/driving/biking/screwing around. My kids love having a visual aid for learning lat/long, and they are only 7 and 11.

"I own a Magellan and makes inferior maps"

Please give an example. I have an Explorist 500 w/the Topo/street software. The only thing I've found inferior is the ease of loading the maps and geocaches. Otherwise maps have been very accurate.

i have a garmin 60cs and i love it never had a problem 3 years now i dont think they make that it is the 60csx now with sd card which is the only thing i would like on mine maps are preaty good i have found a few trails that didnt show up on the map in the sierria area but over all very good

A couple of years ago my friend and I bought two different brands. His a Garmin 76s, mine a Magellan Explorist 600. We both use them primarily on hikes and each have had reasons why we like our choices.

Last August we hiked Whitney via the NF. We each had difficulties gaining signal, but the Explorist actually had more satellites tracking both during tree coverage and in the shadows of the granite walls. I constantly had better readings than the Garmin in marginal areas as well as a speedier acquisition. However, without real analysis, it seemed that his open sky readings were better at accuracy, especially when WAAS satellites were acquired.

Interesting to note that on Thor with a high accuracy (the GPS said so) with lots of satellites, the Peak was not where it should have been and outside the accuracy given by both GPSs. Obviously someone moved the peak.

I had mine on for most of the four days we were packing. I had a pretty good track up the NF, up the JMT side and down the switchbacks all the way to the Portal. There were areas that I had only one or two Satellites but the track with some later editing looked pretty good. Also, the Explorist seemed to operate better in the colder temperatures.

We used them as toys, as tools sometimes, but the compass and maps were always in our front pocket.

Battery usage is a key choice as well. His Garmin used AAA’s, mine a Li unique to that line. Though we both prepared and had enough juice for the trip his batteries were changeable and also used with his camera. I also believe there is an antenna difference that affects sensitivity under different conditions. Also I believe Garmin recently updated the receivers for better sensitivity, reception and quicker acquisition.

Ha. I just RMA'd my second Magellan Explorist 600. When they work, they are great. Personally, I haven't had much luck with Magellan. Read some of the online reviews of the individual models before you buy.

The FAA, in extensive testing, has found that WAAS enabled GPS is sufficiently accurate on altitude that they base instrument approaches in the clouds into airports on GPS alone. In a plane with 3 GPS's they are typically within a few feet of each other (including one without WAAS) and far more accurate that either of the plane's pressure altimeters. I use a Garmin in climbing that has both pressure and GPS altitude and find that the GPS is usually more accurate as calibrated by known altitude waypoints (especially on multiday climbs) because normal changes in barometric pressure over time causes a barometric altimeter to become innacurate.

Thanks for the comment, Sierra Sam. My Garmin 12 uses GPS altitude, but it is not WAAS corrected. My 76CS is WAAS corrected, but the altimeter is barometric and not GPS. I've complained to Garmin about the 76CS not having GPS altitudes, but that's the way it goes. So, I've never used a GPS device with both GPS and barometric altimeter readings. I'll be looking for both features the next time I buy a GPS device, with the WAAS capability.

I like Shoeless Joe's next-to-last paragraph.

Tools and toys can enhance a climb. They can also sometimes help you out of a predicament or keep you from getting into one. But GPS receivers do not always work well in canyons and forests; batteries don't stay charged forever; displays can fade with the cold; and they are not immune to damage.

They shouldn't be relied upon to the point that you lose your map and compass skills. Sure, maps can blow away and compasses can be lost, but they are generally pretty reliable devices.

And nothing should be relied upon to the point that you are not continually aware of your surroundings.

I would say one's first line of defense in the wilderness should be vigilance and common sense; second, map and compass; and third, modern technology. Have fun with the last, but not to the exclusion of the first two.

"Ride due west as the sun sets.
Turn left at the Rocky Mountains."

Directions given to Jeremiah Johnson in the movie of the same name.

I love my Garmin 60CSx. Just make sure you get the "x" version or another GPS model with the new chipset that offers much better reception.

One drawback of the 60CSx though is when you hike, it doesn't record your distance very accurately in the Odometer. With biking and driving, it is spot-on, but it is often 30% low while hiking...I wish they would fix this.

But even with that, it's a great piece of gear and I like to know the total ascent of my hikes and look at the tracks in Google Earth, etc.

vchs,

I was referring to printing maps, not downloading maps to the GPS. Whenever I try to print a map, I get a thick line, while the Garmin has a fine line of my path. The maps are generally accurate, although there are errors. On one my hikes the GPS indicated I was walking in the middle of lake about 100 yard off shore although I had four five satellite signals.

Crap. I don't know how to do the quotation thing.

"I was walking in the middle of lake about 100 yard off shore"

LOL. Only one other guy has been able to do that. Im not looking to start a Magellan vs Garmin debate, I like both units. I think most people who have bought more than one GPS tend to stick with what they are use to. I started with the Magellan Pioneer then upgraded to the Map 300 and now have the Explorist 500. I may go to the Dark Side next time and try the Garmin. I use mine mostly for marking my "Hot Spots" for ocean fishing.

Two collateral benefits of a GPS is as entertainment and as a map teaching tool. On long trips people can see how close they are to the destination and the altitude, and a friend taught his children how to read maps by tracking their routes.

And of course it is a life saving device extraordinaire. I was caught in a white out on Mt. Rainer and my GPS brought me home without any problems.