Cycle computer vs GPS

mgrant said:

sport tracks. My favorite non-obvious feature is the "export to google
earth" but it's packed with useful features.

Thanks mgrant, sport tracks is cool.

--
Chrashing

Regards,___________If the sun is shinning I want to be riding.
Ken
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrashing's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7501
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/46797

Chrashing said:

Thanks mgrant, sport tracks is cool.

Is it just me who can't get it to talk to the GPS then?

It sits there thinking for a bit, then the GPS turns off and the
program says it didn't work...

/returns to Fugawi

Phil

--
phil

"Cattle Prods solve most of life's little problems."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/915
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/46797

I've carried a Garmin GPSMap C60 on all my coker rides (1500km). It has
a quad-helix antenna and gets much better reception than the smaller
ones, but even so there are ocassional gaps where there were too many
overhanging trees. It generally works even inside my pack, but I wear
it on the outside anyway. It's a little conspicuous, but some people
(in Laos) just think it's a phone.

My cycle computer has been more reliable overall, but on the Laos tour
I found that neither one was perfect. The magnet or its detector would
get knocked out of place and it would be oblivious to my riding until I
noticed (hours later). Also I can't see the cycle computer while
riding, so I used the GPS to check distance on the go. Handy when
trying to decide whether it's worth taking one more crotch break before
the rest stop.

Another fun feature of a GPS is that you can use it to geocode your
photos. When I post my Laos photos (next week, I hope) each one will
have a link to a map showing exactly where the photo was taken. Hardly
necessary, but kind of fun.

I've been writing all my own software for dealing with the gps data. I
agree, it's kind of a pain.

--
sethg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
sethg's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11058
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/46797

I use a 'Magellan Meridan Gold ' (http://tinyurl.com/wy33)GPS reciever.
I am posting here because it seems most people on this thread use
Garmin.

I have never had a problem with my GPS system losing it's signal
because it is kept in a pocket or in a pack, the only time I have lost
it is when I walked into a building with a copper ceiling.

The speed, distance and tracking capabilities are all accurate, as long
as I can get at least 4 satalites(which is almost all the time)

The mapping software designed to work with Magellan recievers, called
Mapsend, is easy to use, not frustrating.

So, I would consider the biggest count against a GPS is buying a cheap
one. My Meridan cost me about $400 Cdn, and it's really accurate. Most
of the people complaining on this thread seem to be useing much cheaper
units. Unless you are willing to pay a little extra for a quality GPS,
it's probably better to stick with a bicycle computer.

--
madmattunipro

Life is not a journey to the grave with intentions of arriving in a
pretty well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly
used up, totally worn out, and loudly declaring, "WOW what a ride!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
madmattunipro's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/10763
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/46797

sethg said:

Another fun feature of a GPS is that you can use it to geocode your
photos. When I post my Laos photos (next week, I hope) each one will
have a link to a map showing exactly where the photo was taken. Hardly
necessary, but kind of fun.

I've been writing all my own software for dealing with the gps data. I
agree, it's kind of a pain.

Cool! Microsoft Research has an interesting project called 'WWMX
(World-Wide Media eXchange)' (http://wwmx.org/). The project puts
photos on a map to show where the photo was taken. The WWMX web site
has software available for download that will sync up digital photos
with GPS track data, based on the time stamp embedded in the photo, to
add the GPS data to the photo data. Then there is software that puts
the photo on the map and does some searching and other features.

There is interesting stuff that you can do with GPS data. The problem
is getting well designed software that will do it easily.

--
john_childs

john_childs (att) hotmail (dott) com
Gallery: http://gallery.unicyclist.com/john_childs
'Unicycling Bookmark List' (http://backcountry.unicyclist.com/) ::
'World Clock' (http://tinyurl.com/a99y3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
john_childs's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/449
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/46797

sethg said:

I've carried a Garmin GPSMap C60 on all my coker rides (1500km). It has
a quad-helix antenna and gets much better reception than the smaller
ones, but even so there are ocassional gaps where there were too many
overhanging trees. It generally works even inside my pack, but I wear
it on the outside anyway. It's a little conspicuous, but some people
(in Laos) just think it's a phone.

The quad-helix vs. patch antenna debate pops up on the GPS newsgroups
all the time. Anecdotal data tends to point to the quad-helix doing
better under tree cover and other challenging situations. But the
antenna type is only one variable and not the most important one. The
electronics in the GPS and the size of the antenna are more important
than the type of antenna. Quad-helix antennas tend to be larger than
patch antennas, but there is no reason why patch antennas can't be made
larger to even the matchup. In reality a GPS with a patch antenna and
a GPS with a quad-helix antenna will do just as well under tree cover
or other situations.

Most external antennas that people buy to get better reception (for GPS
receivers that can take an external antenna) are patch antennas.
People will plug in an external patch antenna to a GPS that has a built
in quad-helix and get better reception. Clearly there are other
factors at work than just antenna type.

I wouldn't base a buying decision on the type of antenna used in a GPS
receiver. I also wouldn't look for a super compact GPS receiver to
have the best reception. Shrinking the size of the antenna isn't going
to help reception whether it's quad-helix or patch.

The biggest issue with quad-helix or patch antennas is the way you hold
them to orient the antenna for best reception. Quad-helix antennas
want to be held upright while patch antennas want to be held flat.
Here's an article that talks about 'how to carry a GPS'
(http://www.mobilecrossing.com/support/carrying.html) for best
reception. If you just throw a quad-helix GPS and a patch GPS in a
pocket it is more likely that the quad-helix antenna will be oriented
better than the patch antenna. That is probably one reason why some
people get better reception with a quad-helix than a patch. But if you
know better you can put a patch antenna GPS in your pocket such that it
gets good reception too.

--
john_childs

john_childs (att) hotmail (dott) com
Gallery: http://gallery.unicyclist.com/john_childs
'Unicycling Bookmark List' (http://backcountry.unicyclist.com/) ::
'World Clock' (http://tinyurl.com/a99y3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
john_childs's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/449
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/46797