I am looking into purchasing a GPS to use on my canoe trips. I have done a bit of searching, but so many of the results are from 2 or more years ago. I know technology changes so fast, that anything even talking about 2015 models can be out dated.
I would like to have the GPS on during trips, marking portages, and leaving a trail for me to use when I get back home. I also am sure I will use it a few times to "verify" my position, but will always have map and compass.
So the question becomes what bells and whistles should I be looking for? Downloadable maps? battery life? Touchscreen or buttons?

I really have no experience with them, so I am not sure what features are ones I will want. Any help from you guys pointing me in the right direction would be great.

Thanks in advance!

GPS units have not changed much over the last 5 years or so. Hit the limits of handheld single unit function, in my opinion.
Biggest changes recently have been wi-fi communication tween devices.
My choices hover around buttons over touch screen, and integration with good mapping programs at home. I keep logs of trip tracks and print my own maps.
Accuracy and reliability among leading units is comparable. I recently switched to Garmin, based on experience with handheld and automotive versions, from Delorme PN's due to the purchase of Delorme by Garmin. Both my PN60's and 62st are very similar and Garmins' mapping program has improved. Battery life has been similar between various units with similar capabilities, screen size, display functions, memory capacity, around 20 hours, continuous and on/off use.
Commonly have mine on for 8 hours at a time and can get 3 days trip use and tracking on a set of lithium batteries, will switch out every 2 days and save the used batteries for backup, or home use. When I purchased my current 62st I avoided the new 64st because I do not use the wi-fi connectivity.
I do like the 3 axis electronic compass, color screen, high resolution, and ability to display sat/aerial/photo and custom maps.
As you mentioned print maps and compass are my primary methods of navigation. The ability to carry a full set of different view maps is a big plus accomplished with a good GPSr. Take your time in learning it's functions and field use, I found geocaching to be very good training and fun to do.

butthead

I'm still using a Garmin Etrex Vista Hcx. This model was released in 2007, so clearly not cutting edge technology. But it works, I'm happy with it, and I have no reason to replace it with something newer. Since I rarely reference it during a trip and it performs all the functions that I have an interest in, that's all that matters to me. I have a bicycle clip that it rests in and is attached to the foot brace in my Wenonah Prism. I can generally see enough detail to determine what I need to know. If I need to see something up close, I simply unclip it. The lanyard is looped around the thwart, and the thing just stays in the canoe (99% of the time) while I'm paddling.

dd

I'm with butthead on many of his points. I bought my Garmin 62st in June 2011, along with the (also discontinued) Upper Midwest Fishing Guide map chip, and it still feels like it provides me with everything I need. Sure, there are some things that could be better: the limit on number of tracks and waypoints and sizes of custom maps could be higher, navigating around the on-screen keyboard to rename items is a bit quirky, some of the on-board file management is not always real obvious... and, I suppose, scrolling around the state during planning sessions is sometimes painfully slow and maybe a newer unit would solve that. But overall, for a gps that was introduced around 7 years ago, it still seems like it's a unit that will serve me well for a number of years to come. I passed on the 64st because it didn't offer anything new that was of value to me. Maybe it's like cell phones of the past year or so... more folks are hanging on to them longer because they don't see the need to pay so much more for so little improvement.

Short story, gymcoachdon: Don't be put off by results from as little as 2 years back.

OK, did a little shopping and research, and I think the Garmin GPSMap 64 is the family that I will be purchasing. Better antenna than the smaller etrex or Oregon, etc. Is that hype or true?

In that group you have the 64, and up one level is the 64s. This adds the 3 axis compass, which was noted as a nice feature, and adds $50. The next step up is the 64st, which has topo maps included for another $50, and 8 GB internal memory vs 4 GB.

Will I be using other maps? Are there maps that will have portages and campsites already mapped? Or will I add those to the existing maps?

Should I buy the ST for the extra 4 GB internal even if I don't use the topo maps that are included?

I have no idea what the internal memory is for, so I am not sure if it is necessary, nice to have, or completely unnecessary.

Also, how much memory is needed with the SD card?

Thanks again, I feel like I am making an informed decision based on the few answers I got already.

Too bad you weren't looking during REI's holiday sale. They had the same GPS I bought earlier this fall to replace the one I lost at the end of my BWCA trip.... eTrex 30 bundle w/the 100k topo and year of satellite imagery for under $200. I feel like I got a good deal when I bought mine in September for closer to $250.

I GPSMap 64st was what I was seriously considering before I settled on the eTrex. Occasionally I wish I had got the 64 instead. I believe it has a faster CPU in it making screen redraws happen quicker than on my 30. I know when I'm scrolling on the map now I have to occasionally stop so it can update the screen.

Regarding memory, you'll be able to put all sorts of maps and keep tracks for eternity on a 32 or 64gb card. Another possibility would be to get several smaller cards and keep them for special purposes.

Looking at REI website, the st is listed as having 4 gb internal memory, same as the s. However, on the Garmin site when comparing the 2, it shows the st as having 8 gb. If they are the same, would I be using the maps included, or would I be loading them from another source anyway? Don't want to pay the extra $50 if its not necessary, or helpful.

The st version includes a 100K US Topo, it takes up 3+ GB of internal memory. It is worth the $50 extra in my view. 62st and the early 64st had 4 GB internal leaving 581MB free. Current 64st has 8 GB internal. Both accept mico sd chips and I install custom maps and BirdsEye maps to the chip. The larget the internal chip makes for longer startup and map loading. You can use 64 GB chips, I prefer 4 GB chips and seldom fill them. Curently have 2.7 GB free on a 4 GB chip with 13 individual BirdsEye maps a custom map and hunting/hiking GPX fles.
The Etrex 20 is very comparable in performance including reception, smaller physical size with a bit more difficulty using the controls in my case. Only offered with a base map.
I am a fan of the BirdsEye Topo raster subscription, Canadian NRC Topo and US map downloads, 1 year subscription, all you can download, $30. Garmin lists it as 50K but it includes 25K USGS Quads.
GPS FileDepot is another good source for maps and waypoint files/overlays.

Waypoints and trail tracks have been posted here for anyone to use, BWCA Quetico.

butthead

Don - You sound like you have the very same questions I had when first getting into a decent gps with mapping capabilities. Maps options are perhaps the most confusing. Many here would poo-poo getting Garmin's st versions, saying that the base 100k topo map it includes does not have the detail that add-on 24k maps have. I pretty much brushed that advice aside, due to the wide coverage provided by the base map in the st model vs the smaller regions covered by each 24k map. And, if there is better topo detail available than what I have already, I must not need it, especially on the water. I got the UMFG chip I mentioned above (and leave it in 24/7) strictly for lake depth contour lines -- covers 6 or 7 states, some of Canada, most of the BWCA lakes I'm on.

Do a search in this forum for 'garmin' or '62' or '64' and you'll pull up more than enough reading for the week, including links to the Arch Harris BW/Q waypoints and tracks that butthead alluded to above.

Thanks guys, looks like a 64st for me. After purchase I will be back for more info! You guys are the best, quick answers, even if they are to questions already asked many times! Love this forum!

I have had 4 Garmin units over the years only upgrading them for more features. There are many here with great help and advice. I agree with 99.9 of what Butthead said, except the buttons. I've had iPhones for many years and it works very similar to that. In my opinion the touchscreen is the way to go. Very easy to move around the screen. No worries about what button to move or push, just touch and follow the prompts. Anyway I would suggest you try both before you buy. I have the Montana 650 with the Garmin chip that makes it like a Nuvi, and the 24000 topo chip when in the woods. What ever you decide make sure it has a spot expandable memory chips. If you chose the 64 you will have a fine GPS.

A quick Google search, and I scored a 64st on sale for 269.99 with free shipping from Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Priority Mail, arrives in 2-3 days.

Opps, I was typing and you were buying. Enjoy your new GPS.

Fun with maps on a 62st.
100K Garmin map
BirdsEye Quad
MN Topo from GPSFileDepot
Red Pine Mapping
100K Garmin with camps and portages

.2 mile scale Shell Lake Con Island, screenshots from my 62st.

butthead

quote butthead: "Fun with maps on a 62st.

100K Garmin map

BirdsEye Quad

MN Topo from GPSFileDepot

Red Pine Mapping

100K Garmin with camps and portages

.2 mile scale Shell Lake Con Island, screenshots from my 62st.

butthead"

Far be it for me to give technical advice to you, butthead, but I hate it when the pictures cover the text, and it seems this happens since the last update on the site. Maybe adding a return after the image, before the text will eliminate the problem.
*edit*
ok this is weird, after I "fixed" your post in my reply, your pictures aren't covering the text in your initial post...maybe the problem was on my end? This is why I don't give technical advice.

That is cool that you have so many choices...what do you find yourself using most often? Now I am really looking forward to playing around with it when I get it.
Butthead may be my new bestest buddy...

Yeah the first look at (opening a post), results in merged images and photos. Close and reopen thread everything lines up right. Have not found a fix, tried a bunch of approaches.

Those are map choices I currently have with the Garmin setup, and a single Birdseye Topo Raster subscription (color aerial/sat images are another subscription). When using Delorme Topo and their subscription service (now discontinued) photo/sat maps NOAA Harbor charts and much more were available. I tend to display the easiest to see maps, for the situation. 100K for canoe tripping, of the NOAA charts for border routing. Backpacking/hiking/geocacheing the Quad display and or aerial/sat imagery.

butthead

Nice purchase! Next, you will want to get Garmin's BaseCamp software (free) and play with saving your adventures.

BaseCamp on iMac, displaying lake depths from UMFG map chip (available while gps unit is connected to computer), campsites and portage tracks from the Arch Harris collection:






...Just noticed how the Red Pine Mapping image in butthead's post shows the two sites on Con Island that have been closed for many years...

So...the GPS arrived, and I got some batteries in it, got it turned on, then disaster struck. My wife caught me, she took the GPS, boxed it up, and it is under the tree.
I've got to be more careful.
I guess downloading maps and overlay questions will have to wait a few weeks.

If you are like me, you will ultimately lament the amount of landscape taken up by the mapping icons and resort to creating your own. Here is a sample of some of those that I've found useful.



With smaller icons, I find that more precise markings are the outcome. BTW: I tend to use the graduated green dots to specify the quality rating of campsites ... the larger the dot, the better the campsite. (If you can't identify the first column, they signify spotting of deer, caribou, mouse, wolf, bear, and eagle (never came up with a good one for otter); all wildlife I've spotted on various trips.) The final icon in the right column is a thunder bird, which I use to mark pictograph locations.

dd

dd,
when you say making your own, how did you go about it?
I really like your icons, well thought out it seems.

quote gymcoachdon: "dd,
when you say making your own, how did you go about it?
I really like your icons, well thought out it seem."

As a starting point, you might take a look at THIS OVERVIEW of the process. If you actually want to make one from scratch (which I did for some of the illustrated samples), you'll need to have an editor that manipulates individual pixels (smallest icons tend to by 16 X 16 pixels). If you are using a Windows based operating system, Paint (a standard part of the delivered OS), is sufficient. If you want to start with an existing image and edit it, you'll likely need to re-size it to 16 X 16 and manipulate individual pixels to fine-tune the image. I might also add, that it helps if you make the image background transparent, so the mapping elements behind the icon are visible. It is somewhat time intensive, but something that will focus your mind on a cold winter's evening.

Keep in mind that I have an older unit and I wanted to go with the smallest possible icons to minimize the amount of screen real estate that was used to display icons (generally less useful to me than actual map details).

dd

BTW: Since I have an Information Technology background, this kind of thing is exceptionally simple for me, but there is a bit of a learning curve if your are starting from scratch.

You can do some editing within mapping programs,


butthead

quote butthead: "You can do some editing within mapping programs,


butthead"

Here is what the smaller sized (custom) icons look like in comparison to Garmin's standard ones. Standard icons tend to run 48 X 48, 32 X 32 or 24 X 24 pixels. I did create a blue (water color) background on a couple of icons (walleye and reef marker) because they would always be placed over water.



dd

I like the tutorial, dd. I might try that on some icons. But I really only notice icon clutter when zoomed way out. In field use, I am usually zoomed in to a point at which they aren't a nuisance.

quote mirth: "Too bad you weren't looking during REI's holiday sale. They had the same GPS I bought earlier this fall to replace the one I lost at the end of my BWCA trip.... eTrex 30 bundle w/the 100k topo and year of satellite imagery for under $200. I feel like I got a good deal when I bought mine in September for closer to $250.


I GPSMap 64st was what I was seriously considering before I settled on the eTrex. Occasionally I wish I had got the 64 instead. I believe it has a faster CPU in it making screen redraws happen quicker than on my 30. I know when I'm scrolling on the map now I have to occasionally stop so it can update the screen.


Regarding memory, you'll be able to put all sorts of maps and keep tracks for eternity on a 32 or 64gb card. Another possibility would be to get several smaller cards and keep them for special purposes."

I have more or less the same setup as mirth with my etrex 30. There are more bells and whistles that you can buy with the Garmin etrex series to expand memory and functions. However, this model has worked well for me over the past 4 years and is watertight and rugged.

quote schweady: "I like the tutorial, dd. I might try that on some icons. But I really only notice icon clutter when zoomed way out. In field use, I am usually zoomed in to a point at which they aren't a nuisance.
"

Pretty much the same for me. I do like easily recognized icons and use a bunch from several sources. Delorme programs had a very large selection.

butthead

quote butthead: "

quote schweady: "I like the tutorial, dd. I might try that on some icons. But I really only notice icon clutter when zoomed way out. In field use, I am usually zoomed in to a point at which they aren't a nuisance.
"

Pretty much the same for me. I do like easily recognized icons and use a bunch from several sources. Delorme programs had a very large selection.

butthead"

Perhaps you would enjoy a couple of these.



dd