GPS or Traditional bike computer

[steve]

I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice but not
required.
I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
merits of both systems? Which is more accurate. On the surface it
seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
and walking. Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
comment? As a runner this would be a nice feature.

Thanks
Steve

 

[bicycle_disciple]

On Feb 2, 6:10 pm, steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
> Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
> incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
> etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice but not
> required.
> I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
> GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
> merits of both systems? Which is more accurate. On the surface it
> seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
> then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
> and walking. Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
> comment? As a runner this would be a nice feature.
>
> Thanks
> Steve

Steve,

Garmin probably has an additional foot pod or something to be used
while running or walking. However, it seems true that you can use
Garmin while outdoors, not on your bike.Garmin is nice if you're
bothered about routes and getting lost and such.

I think this extra functionality will make Garmin nice to have. I have
seen a lot of my triathlete friends wearing these around. if I were
you, I would just go with a simple cyclocomputer that doesn't have
depend on satellites in outer space. While I appreciate technology, I
feel things like these really take the thinking out of our brains and
make us stupid.

Ron
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 2, 5:10 pm, steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
> Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
> incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
> etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice but not
> required.
> I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
> GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
> merits of both systems? Which is more accurate. On the surface it
> seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
> then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
> and walking. Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
> comment? As a runner this would be a nice feature.
>
> Thanks
> Steve

Garmin 705 with maps and a wired computer for more accurate mileage
reading.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:10:39 -0800 (PST), steve <[email protected]>
may have said:

>I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
>Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
>incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
>etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice but not
>required.
>I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
>GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
>merits of both systems? Which is more accurate. On the surface it
>seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
>then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
>and walking. Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
>comment? As a runner this would be a nice feature.

Garmin has more functions but less specific accuracy; it estimates
your motion based on a low-granularity calculation algorithm, where
the Polar is directly measuring everything. If you run around in a
circle 10 feet in diameter for an hour, the Garmin will most likely
say you stood still. The Polar won't. For intensely straight-line
cycling, this probably makes little difference. For mountain biking
on a twisty trail, the GPS-based measurement will be significantly
off...but the other functions might outweigh that consideraiton for
some people. You have more info; a bit more research and you can make
an informed decision.

I don't use either of them. I stopped caring how far I'd come and how
fast I'd travelled a while back. I just ride; when I get there, I get
there.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[buzz66]

No contest get the Garmin Ege 305 with cadence & heart rate sensor.

splitting hairs on the accuracy thing. Remember the Garmin 305 has a
wheel speed sensor as well.

The Garmin is more accurate, than the wheel speed based equipment.

 

[buzz66]

Just because the position accuracy is rated to 10 metres doesn't mean
you ride around in a 5 metres diameter circle and it wont register a
thing.

What it does mean is that the accuracy of let say 100km travelled will
be innaccurate to the tune of upto 10 metres.
Typical accuracy is around 4 metres.

I am yet to see a wheel based system be that accurate over any
distance greater than 20 km

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
> Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
> incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
> etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice but not
> required.
> I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
> GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
> merits of both systems? Which is more accurate. On the surface it
> seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
> then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
> and walking. Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
> comment? As a runner this would be a nice feature.
>
> Thanks
> Steve

I have both a conventional bike computer (wheel magnet/sensor) and a Garmin
Edge 305 (without the wheel pickup). On a 100 mile ride, the difference
between the two will be less than .25 miles. Which is the more accurate, I
can't say! But I can tell you that it's nothing to worry about. The Edge 305
is plenty accurate. It's main problem can be the relatively-short battery
life, which starts at maybe 10 hours/charge and then slowly increases to as
much as 12-13 hours (after maybe 6 months of use) before beginning to lose
capacity after a couple of years. So you definitely need to make sure you
keep it plugged in when not in use!

One other nice thing on the Garmin is that the heart rate sensor battery can
be replaced by the user, unlike most Polars.

The Polar's speed reading is remarkably accurate as well. It doesn't
calculate speed based on time between two short intervals, but rather via a
doppler-shift effect from the satellites.

The only significant downside (aside from the battery life) is a screen
that's not the easiest to read. Pretty low contrast. The new '605 & '705 fix
that, but at very high cost. You can pick up a current model ('305) for very
little money these days, typically much less than a Polar unit.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[peter]

On Feb 2, 3:10 pm, steve <[email protected]> wrote:

My comments are based on using a Garmin GPS as my cyclometer for over
9 years now. I'm not a big fan of their 'cycling specific' models
like the 205/305 (no real maps - which is a big plus point of GPS) or
the newer 605/705 (too expensive for what you get), but they do work
well for their advertised functions. As Mike J. noted, their battery
life is limited to about 10 hours so be sure you're ok with keeping
the unit charged up all the time.

> I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
> Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
> incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
> etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice but not
> required.

Note that one application of the Garmin GPSs is that they store the
exact path and times all along your trip. So if you later ever want
to see exactly where you went on a group ride (say where you only
really saw the wheel in front of you), you can plot it on a map and
see where you were. This also works nicely when traveling and taking
pictures, either on a bike ride or any other means of transportation.
If you take the pictures with a digital camera it'll keep track of
when each picture was taken. If you also have the GPS along it'll
keep track of where you were at any given time so you can later use a
variety of soft/freeware to determine exactly where each photo was
taken. Much easier than jotting down notes for each shot while on
vacation.

> I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
> GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
> merits of both systems? Which is more accurate.

Both are very good. If you're very careful about calibrating your
wheel circumference then I'd still give the edge to the wheel sensor
method. But the difference is really small. On group rides my GPS-
based distance at the end comes out somewhere in the middle of others
who almost all use wheel-sensor based cyclometers. And it's a plus
that you never need to recalibrate on switching tire sizes or brands.
Speed accuracy is also good, but does show more fluctuation than
cyclometers using wheel sensors. And it doesn't pick up small changes
in speed quite as quickly.

> On the surface it
> seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
> then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
> and walking. Is this really true?

Yes, I use my Garmin GPS just about everywhere I go - that includes
hiking, kayaking (really nice to know where you are when the fog comes
in on the ocean), driving, and even flying (to identify landmarks
spotted below) as well as cycling. Of course one drawback of this is
that I don't use the cumulative odometer to track just my cycling
mileage and my current 'Max Speed' reading of 608.2 mph isn't
indicative of a really fast downhill run.

 

[Lou Holtman]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:10:39 -0800 (PST), steve <[email protected]>
> may have said:
>
>> I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
>> Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
>> incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
>> etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice but not
>> required.
>> I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
>> GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
>> merits of both systems? Which is more accurate. On the surface it
>> seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
>> then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
>> and walking. Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
>> comment? As a runner this would be a nice feature.
>
> Garmin has more functions but less specific accuracy; it estimates
> your motion based on a low-granularity calculation algorithm, where
> the Polar is directly measuring everything. If you run around in a
> circle 10 feet in diameter for an hour, the Garmin will most likely
> say you stood still. The Polar won't. For intensely straight-line
> cycling, this probably makes little difference. For mountain biking
> on a twisty trail, the GPS-based measurement will be significantly
> off...

Is that your own experience? I find the Garmin very accurate in
measuring distance, even in this sort of circumstances. Speed is the
problem with the Garmin.

> but the other functions might outweigh that consideraiton for
> some people. You have more info; a bit more research and you can make
> an informed decision.

Good advice. If you decide for a GPS device I would buy the 705 instead
of the 305.

>
> I don't use either of them. I stopped caring how far I'd come and how
> fast I'd travelled a while back. I just ride; when I get there, I get
> there.


You must be getting old ;-).

Lou

 

[bdbafh]

On Feb 2, 9:35 pm, Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:10:39 -0800 (PST), steve <[email protected]>
> may have said:
>
> >I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
> >Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
> >incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
> >etc. Being able to download to a computer would be nice but not
> >required.
> >I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
> >GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
> >merits of both systems? Which is more accurate. On the surface it
> >seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
> >then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
> >and walking. Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
> >comment? As a runner this would be a nice feature.
>
> Garmin has more functions but less specific accuracy; it estimates
> your motion based on a low-granularity calculation algorithm, where
> the Polar is directly measuring everything. If you run around in a
> circle 10 feet in diameter for an hour, the Garmin will most likely
> say you stood still.

Actually, I've used the Garmin Edge 305 indoors on the trainer for
monitoring heart rate during workouts. Its quite surprising how much
distance I've traveled while the rear axle was securely clamped in the
trainer.

There is satellite drift that the Edge 305 will log as distance
traveled.

Is the 705 shipping? I thought that it wasn't due out until March?

The battery on the 305 still leaves me wishing for a next generation
device.
I'm not even getting 4 hours out of the unit these days, even with
current firmware loaded (mini-USB AA charger to the rescue).

-bdbafh


> The Polar won't. For intensely straight-line
> cycling, this probably makes little difference. For mountain biking
> on a twisty trail, the GPS-based measurement will be significantly
> off...but the other functions might outweigh that consideraiton for
> some people. You have more info; a bit more research and you can make
> an informed decision.
>
> I don't use either of them. I stopped caring how far I'd come and how
> fast I'd travelled a while back. I just ride; when I get there, I get
> there.
>
> --
> My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
> Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
> Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[still just me]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:35:17 -0600, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't use either of them. I stopped caring how far I'd come and how
>fast I'd travelled a while back. I just ride; when I get there, I get
>there.

My sympathies too. Just get out there and ride. When you're done,
you're done. Unless you're into Olympic training it all seems rather
superfluous. Maybe I care roughly how far I go in roughly what amount
of time... but my body tells me all I need to know about exertion
rates without scientific instruments with GPS accuracy.

 

[Brian Huntley]

On Feb 2, 9:35 pm, Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't use either of them. I stopped caring how far I'd come and how
> fast I'd travelled a while back. I just ride; when I get there, I get
> there.

I can see that when you're out for a ride, but when you're bicycle
touring it's sure handy to know how far you are to the next food/water/
camp/turn, assuming you also have some knowledge of what's ahead. Even
if you don't, it's a good reminder to stop and eat or whatever, before
you bonk without realizing it.

I can also think of a few times it would have been nice to have a GPS
instead of a bike computer, just so I could turn it off for a while
and not be reminded about the horrible lack of headway I was making
into the wind.

 

[datakoll]

On Feb 2, 6:10 pm, steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
> Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
> incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
> etc. Being able to download to a computer  would be nice but not
> required.
> I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
> GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
> merits of both systems? Which is more accurate. On the surface it
> seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
> then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
> and walking.  Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
> comment?  As a runner this would be a nice feature.
>
> Thanks
> Steve

the heart monitor is most useful after the ride. A monitor allows uh
monitoring heartbeat rate for recovery for example the morning after
when you rise (or in a worse case scenario...) and find the heart rate
SLOWER tha the heart rate was the morning before the ride. We're
talkin' hard exercise here.

The GPS is largely a toy. Unless you ride cross country and chart
speed zones or ride new routes over cross country then GPS looses
advertized supposed usefulness. Multiple corner flat out cross country
riding could use a GPS. Cross country bike requires pre ride mapping
caws the bike is so slow: there's no time for backtracking.
There are times in new territory where you can get lost but a compass
and map cover that ground.
I have a 76GPSCsx. The road view is a trip and useful here in Florida
where you want to get the right bridge or avoid the tourists but
that's in a truck. The roads are a complete mess. Even the cops ahve
no idea where they are.
Outback on a bicycle, itsa kick to blow into a country intersection,
check the GPS map and turn left zoooooom and not stnad around with
your finger stuck in your ^^%%##! wondering what.
I have two moments in ten years where I was lost: both times a compass
was enough to get my to. the sun angle and lack of time sense misled
me into a non-grid roads in a gridded road area.

In the truck, a GPS is a big deal as it saves gas from wandering
around looking for.

 

[datakoll]

On Feb 3, 11:45 pm, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:10 pm, steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm considering buying either a Garmin Edge 305 Deluxe Wireless Bike
> > Computer or a Polar CS 400. I want to be able to read altitude,
> > incline, cadence, heart rate, calories burned & the usual speed time
> > etc. Being able to download to a computer  would be nice but not
> > required.
> > I understand that the difference between these is that the Garmin is
> > GPS based while the Polar uses traditional wheel sensors. What are the
> > merits of both systems? Which is more accurate. On the surface it
> > seems to me that the Polar would measure distance more accurately but
> > then what do I know. However, the Garmin claims it can be used running
> > and walking.  Is this really true? Does anyone with experience care to
> > comment?  As a runner this would be a nice feature.
>
> > Thanks
> > Steve
>
> the heart monitor is most useful after the ride. A monitor allows uh
> monitoring heartbeat rate for recovery for example the morning after
> when you rise (or in a worse case scenario...) and find the heart rate
> SLOWER tha the heart rate was the morning before the ride. We're
> talkin' hard exercise here.
>
> The GPS is largely a toy. Unless you ride cross country and chart
> speed zones or ride new routes over cross country then GPS looses
> advertized supposed usefulness. Multiple corner flat out cross country
> riding could use a GPS. Cross country bike requires pre ride mapping
> caws the bike is so slow: there's no time for backtracking.
> There are times in new territory where you can get lost but a compass
> and map cover that ground.
> I have a 76GPSCsx. The road view is a trip and useful here in Florida
> where you want to get the right bridge or avoid the tourists but
> that's in a truck. The roads are a complete mess. Even the cops ahve
> no idea where they are.
> Outback on a bicycle, itsa kick to blow into a country intersection,
> check the GPS map and turn left zoooooom and not stnad around with
> your finger stuck in your ^^%%##! wondering what.
> I have two moments in ten years where I was lost: both times a compass
> was enough to get my to. the sun angle and lack of time sense misled
> me into a non-grid roads in a gridded road area.
>
> In the truck, a GPS is a big deal as it saves gas from wandering
> around looking for.

A drwaback is crashing. You will crash if you ride often and bashing
the GPS is 50/50. Another is loosing it or forgetting where it as or
having it stolen. Is there a latin or greek abomination for parinoia
of loosing expensive and small electronic gadgets? If yu can burn a
$100 bill like people burn MP3 players then big deal.
I like my 10 year old cateye enduro for its simplicity, pleasing
shape, inexpense and the fact it is 10 years old and still IC humming.
I guess you culd fell the same about a Garmin GPS.
I'm looking to ride over (thru) the Rockies on the Kettle. What would
be more fun? with or without GPS?

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:54:32 -0800 (PST), Brian Huntley
<[email protected]> may have said:

>I can also think of a few times it would have been nice to have a GPS
>instead of a bike computer, just so I could turn it off for a while
>and not be reminded about the horrible lack of headway I was making
>into the wind.

Navigation in unfamiliar territory is the one place that I find the
potential usefulness of GPS to have some allure, but alas, my budget
suffereth not such fantasies.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[still just me]

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:20:46 -0600, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Navigation in unfamiliar territory is the one place that I find the
>potential usefulness of GPS to have some allure, but alas, my budget
>suffereth not such fantasies.

Rand McNally has a paper GPS for $3. That's what I use. On days I read
it wrong I enjoy the diversion.

 

[Tom Sherman]

still just me wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:20:46 -0600, Werehatrack
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Navigation in unfamiliar territory is the one place that I find the
>> potential usefulness of GPS to have some allure, but alas, my budget
>> suffereth not such fantasies.
>
> Rand McNally has a paper GPS for $3. That's what I use. On days I read
> it wrong I enjoy the diversion.
>
I always liked the large RANS seat back bag, since I could carry the
Rand McNally "Detailed Road Atlas of the Entire State".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

 

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:27:57 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> may have said:

>still just me wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:20:46 -0600, Werehatrack
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Navigation in unfamiliar territory is the one place that I find the
>>> potential usefulness of GPS to have some allure, but alas, my budget
>>> suffereth not such fantasies.
>>
>> Rand McNally has a paper GPS for $3. That's what I use. On days I read
>> it wrong I enjoy the diversion.
> >
>I always liked the large RANS seat back bag, since I could carry the
>Rand McNally "Detailed Road Atlas of the Entire State".

Though there have been some slightly exaggerated tales of my ability
to do seat-of-the-pants navigation in "forn parts", I must admit that
I prefer to have a good map when I can get one. What occasionally
rankles is the situation in which the map turns out to be not so good
("It says there's a bridge here.") or the locality it depicts has
decided that road signs are like badges...and they don't need any road
signs. (Houston has this malady in certain areas.) A stellar example
of this latter phenomenon was encountered in a small town in Illinois
about three years ago; a series of turns were unmarked in the progress
of a state route through the town, with the result that I had to go
into dead reckoning mode and wend my way through several neighborhoods
by main guesstimate until I got to the street that I suspected was
probably the one I wanted. To the consternation of my passenger,
instead of continuing on back toward the center of the town, I turned
onto that road in the direction I was confident we needed to go, and
began proceeding along it, watchful for the possible appearance of a
route marked that might confirm or deny the accuracy of the selection.
Just about the time that hysterics began to ensue from he seat on my
right (We had to be lost, it was most firmly stated) a route marker
appeared which confirmed that we were, indeed, dead on course.

I will admit that I've managed to get onto the wrong road a time or
three, but sometimes those turn out to be less wrong than expected.

GPS might add another layer of amusement, as I'm sure I would be even
more darkly entertained by a fanzy gizmo providing misleading
information in realtime than I am by maps that are merely misdrawn.



--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[still just me]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:07:18 -0600, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Though there have been some slightly exaggerated tales of my ability
>to do seat-of-the-pants navigation in "forn parts", I must admit that
>I prefer to have a good map when I can get one. What occasionally
>rankles is the situation in which the map turns out to be not so good
>("It says there's a bridge here.") or the locality it depicts has
>decided that road signs are like badges...and they don't need any road
>signs. (Houston has this malady in certain areas.) A stellar example
>of this latter phenomenon was encountered in a small town in Illinois
>about three years ago; a series of turns were unmarked in the progress
>of a state route through the town, with the result that I had to go
>into dead reckoning mode and wend my way through several neighborhoods
>by main guesstimate until I got to the street that I suspected was
>probably the one I wanted. To the consternation of my passenger,
>instead of continuing on back toward the center of the town, I turned
>onto that road in the direction I was confident we needed to go, and
>began proceeding along it, watchful for the possible appearance of a
>route marked that might confirm or deny the accuracy of the selection.
>Just about the time that hysterics began to ensue from he seat on my
>right (We had to be lost, it was most firmly stated) a route marker
>appeared which confirmed that we were, indeed, dead on course.
<snip>

Actually, while some people are able to exhibit a complete non-sense
of direction, I think map reading, navigational ability, and utilizing
a sense of direction are learned skills. I think that these skills,
like basic mathematics, are an important part of brain development and
exercising logical reasoning and deduction.

I fear that the younger generation will not develop these skills, much
to their general detriment - as well as not know what to do with a map
unless the GPS is blinking an arrow in the proper direction.

 

[datakoll]

On Feb 4, 11:07 pm, Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:27:57 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> may have said:
>
> >still just me wrote:
> >> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:20:46 -0600, Werehatrack
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Navigation in unfamiliar territory is the one place that I find the
> >>> potential usefulness of GPS to have some allure, but alas, my budget
> >>> suffereth not such fantasies.
>
> >> Rand McNally has a paper GPS for $3. That's what I use. On days I read
> >> it wrong I enjoy the diversion.
>
> >I always liked the large RANS seat back bag, since I could carry the
> >Rand McNally "Detailed Road Atlas of the Entire State".
>
> Though there have been some slightly exaggerated tales of my ability
> to do seat-of-the-pants navigation in "forn parts", I must admit that
> I prefer to have a good map when I can get one.  What occasionally
> rankles is the situation in which the map turns out to be not so good
> ("It says there's a bridge here.") or the locality it depicts has
> decided that road signs are like badges...and they don't need any road
> signs.  (Houston has this malady in certain areas.)  A stellar example
> of this latter phenomenon was encountered in a small town in Illinois
> about three years ago; a series of turns were unmarked in the progress
> of a state route through the town, with the result that I had to go
> into dead reckoning mode and wend my way through several neighborhoods
> by main guesstimate until I got to the street that I suspected was
> probably the one I wanted.  To the consternation of my passenger,
> instead of continuing on back toward the center of the town, I turned
> onto that road in the direction I was confident we needed to go, and
> began proceeding along it, watchful for the possible appearance of a
> route marked that might confirm or deny the accuracy of the selection.
> Just about the time that hysterics began to ensue from he seat on my
> right (We had to be lost, it was most firmly stated) a route marker
> appeared which confirmed that we were, indeed, dead on course.  
>
> I will admit that I've managed to get onto the wrong road a time or
> three, but sometimes those turn out to be less wrong than expected.  
>
> GPS might add another layer of amusement, as I'm sure I would be even
> more darkly entertained by a fanzy gizmo providing misleading
> information in realtime than I am by maps that are merely misdrawn.  
>
> --
> My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
> Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
> Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

TOPOZONE maps are downloadable. Google Earth is incroyable. See Ryan
C's backyard!! Baja Trekker sez GErt is more accurate printed than
marine charts.
With Gert, hehehe, try finding a place you know (then find one you
want to know) headed into a hilly area, lower the altitude to near
ground and tilt horizon with exaggerated terrain on. There is an OT
map source in RBT with 'datakoll' that's fairly extensive BUT fairly
obsolete with Google.
Is GPS worth it? costs are low but replacements not.
Planning is fun though and more than useful once you get there. Off
course.
One factor not foreseen until experienced is a lost problem. GPS will
consistenly tell you where you want to go IS over there where a map
and compass may not and surely not BANG NOW.