GPSMAP 62S vs. Oregon 400i

I got the 62S for two main reasons. With age, near sightedness is a problem, and it is hard to rely on reading glasses in the woods. So I needed a better display than my Oregon 400i could offer. While the 62S has a lower resolution than the Oregon 400i, that lower resolution seems to make it easier for me to read it, and the brightness of the display is helping too, so that problem (of mine) had been addressed.

The 3-axial compass is easy to calibrate, easier than my Droid Incredible, and once that done, it is a pleasure to use, no more trying to level things out. Beautiful. Compared between the two and my trusted Brunton Eclipse and had the same results, all three compasses indicating magnetic north where it should be.

I tested both units on the road near my house, a complete square shaped circuit, mostly in the open but the south side, especially on the outside of the road comes next to tall trees in full foliage. First time around, I walked on the inside, clockwise. The second time around, I walked on the outside, still clockwise and I reversed the GPS position.
At first, in the open, I noticed both units being very close in numbers, in single numbers even, sometimes just a foot away from each other, well they actually were, as I held one in each hand! But further down the separation grew to six feet, the 62S always being the best. I had WAAS acquisition, quite strong on both units, satellite 48. I lost it for a brief moment on the southern leg on the Oregon, but it came back. Now on the second time around, still on my east leg, I noticed the Oregon becoming less precise, much less so than the 62S. I also noticed the WAAS reception was not so good on the Oregon and it was on satellite 33, whereas the 62 was on 48. I lost WAAS on the southern leg on the Oregon, while I did not on the 62S. Precision went down to about 18ft on the 62S but was double that on the Oregon at nearly 40ft. I was watching the satellite screen all the time on both units.




So how do the track look and compare?



On the left, the Oregon 400i's screen and on the right the 62S.

You can see that the scale is different as going to 120ft did not allow to have the entire picture on the 62S' screen.OTOH, on the Oregon at 200ft the two tracks almost blended, due to the higher resolution, I guess.

I would have been very pleased with either, as they show me on the correct side of the road, and this is not a major thoroughfare, mind you.

Look at the NW corner. On the outside, I had to decide when to cross the street and the way I crossed is better shown on the 62S than on the Oregon 400i. Looking at the SE corner, on the outside, I had to leave the edge of the road as it was overgrown there and the 62S shows it a bit better. Really, I am nit-picking, yet the 62 is the winner!
The maps displayed are not the same. The Oregon has Topo 2008 and NY 1:24000 topo that is displayed, whereas the 62S had the Garmin 1:24000 NE on a uSD card.

I will now put those tracks on an aerial in TopofusionPro and see if the win stays with the 62S.

OK, now we are talking magnification (click on the picture is you need to see it larger) and I see nothing further to add. The two units are darn good, with victory by points to the 62S because it tracked me more accurately in those corners and its WAAS fix was much more stable.

I was tempted to dig up files from the past, but then I remembered that GPS constellation would be different and also the GPS software and firmware would not be the same, thus introducing uncontrolled variables, so I'll stay away from that.

This is a work in progress, I'll add more as I do more. For now both units will accompany me in my forays, but I have a very sound feeling about the 62S. Scott from GPSFix fame told me he had tested the 60csx vs. the 62S and the display of the 62 is at least as good if not better than the 60csx because of the added colors. And his eyes are better than mine, I believe, certainly not as old.

I remembered I had a Gilsson external amplified antenna which I had not used since I got the Oregon. I found it nevertheless and since today is a rainy day, all I want to do is indoors testing. So here are the screens:

Left is with the Gilsson external amplified antenna, right naked 62S, same location, well read the UTM! I am indoors BTW. Location is as correct as I can place it on an enlarged aerial, altitude is right too, the only difference is the GPS precision circle and stronger reception of the satellites in general with the external antenna. Notice that WAAS is working fine (full bar with the external antenna) but I'm not far from a window. IMO, for SAR work, I don't see the need for the external antenna. I'll put it in/on my radio harness, to be used if conditions ever necessitate it, but not as routine use. I also noticed that the MCX connector is quite difficult to detach. I even used needle nose pliers.

Scott (GPSFix/wikis) had trouble transferring tracks adn Geocaches wirelessly. I tried too, from the Oregon 400i to the 62S and although both units indicated transfer completed 100%, I could not access these tracks on the 62S. Now upon checking via computer, I can see those files in the GPX folder! I have just restarted the 62S, still no-go! We may have a minor bug there!

The 62S at its worst!

I left my 62S on by my keyboard at my desk. I don't remember what I did check, but I forgot the unit on for just over an hour. Now my shack and computer are in the basement, facing a wall that is below ground. Behind me are stairs and the living room and only part of a window is visible, double pane glass, window treatment and behind it there is a huge tree in leaf. Most GPS units have no reception here, maybe if I hold them up so they have a better angle at the window and the satellite geometry is just right, but in most cases, I have no reception. Well, I have a track of 148 points, .52 miles long, my 62 being set at marking a point every 5 yards!

So here is the display on the 62S' screen:

And here on TopoFusionPro:

Well I measured the total deviation, north-south was 70 meters and east-west was 50 meters.

Frankly, I've seen much much worse from earlier Garmin units. Why did my 62S do that, simply the signals from the satellite were bouncing all over the place, my below ground wall being just two feet from the 62S, as well as my desktop computer and HF radio and other ham gear. I always like to know how my equipment will function in extreme conditions and although I did no set up this test, the results are interesting and actually, IMO quite good. Tomorrow, I'll leave the 62S in outdoors for a hour and we'll be able to compare results. Satellite geometry will be different but the placement should give it quite an advantage.

OK, so today, I left the OR400i and the 62S on the table on my deck, is good position to acquire satellites for over an hour and a half. Here are the results:

Screen size tell you which is the OR and which the 62S (ok the latter is on the left). Well, both did well, both in a 20ft diameter circle. Length of the "track" was different, maybe due to the extra sensitivity of the 62s' antenna? Now I did not take a screen dump of it but under a more normal working scale like 120, 200, etc. you can't even see that drift on the screen. Now for those of you who are looking for a 35mm film canister (Geocachers), you need to search for it in 314 square feet, a circle that has a radius of 10 feet.

Topofusion and kmz files for the Oregon/Colorado/Dakota

I happen to be one of the beta testers for Topofusion and a few days ago, I had requested  from Scott Morris, the brain behind Topofusion to check out is kmz file export would be possible in Topofusion (TF). I got my answer yesterday night with a new beta version ot TF Pro that can do exactly that. Topofusion offers you WYSIWYG, what you see is what you get on your Oregon/Colorado/Dakota.

Anything on TF's screen can be sent to the Oregon, topo map, aerial, color aerial etc. Even custom maps, and TF really shines here as the georeferencing is simpler and much faster than Google Earth and if you downloaded the mapping tiles ahead of time, you don't even need internet access to georeference a user map.


What more, I made these maps using a 6-megapixel picture taken with a camera I use for SAR. When on a search, I hate having to play with cameras settings or with jpg file that need to be shrinked etc. It is all easy to do but these are details that distract me from my main task. Once the user map is georeferenced in TF, the screen display is 1274 pixels wide by 853 in height sending out a kmz files of 106-140KB.

Also, I enlarge the screen display on TF and made three kmz files, the UTM grid helped tremendously in making sure I don't have huge overlapping areas or worse, holes in my coverage.


Once on my Oregon, the three files are there on screen, and I can scroll seamlessly from one area to the other.

Thank you Scott, for coming up with so far the best and easiest way of sending maps to the Oregon!

Raster pictures on my Oregon

A couple of days ago, we had a search in Highland Forest Park, NY. Stryder, my dog never got out of the truck, as the victim was found by the Sheriff's department trailing bloodhound, but since I had the time, I started making a raster map of the park fr my Oregon. I quickly took a couple of digital pictures of the park's trail map, two maps, one for snowshoeing trails and the other for x-country ski trails (they are getting ready for winter fun).

I did not change the camera's settings (6 megapixel camera) when I took the pictures. That gave me files of about +/-2.5Mb. Georeferencing with Google Earth was ok, but I really prefer the quick method that Topofusion has, just click on 3 points on the layer and the base map/aerial. Much simpler, quick and easy. I talked to Scott of Topofusion about making kmz layers with TF, especially as if I download the maps prior to leaving home, I can then use TF even without internet access.

The screen dump below is of the 2.5 Mb file

This screen dump is with a jpg taken at 2 megapixels resolution giving a kmz file of +/-950Kb. The map is a 24K topo map in both these pictures.

This last picture is the same as above the only change being the map, this time it is the Garmin Topo 2008.

I noticed that the re-draw of the screen is faster with the smaller kmz files, but still the 2.5 Mb files were quite usable. That means that if I have to do some hasty work and don't reset the camera back to 2 megapixels, the results are not going to bite me back. Actually the lesser trails show better on the larger files and since I would be moving at pedestrian speed, screen redraw speed is of lesser importance and it is more important to me to better see the secondary trails too. I also have ample room on my 8GB uSD card.

Another lesson learned is that when you have two kmz files of the same area, only one shows on screen. I have not managed to find out the reason why  one has precedence. The only solutions I see for now are either move one file off my uSD card (needing a computer -which I have in my truck) or putting them on two different uSD cards (and try not to lose/misplace those - good luck).

More maps for my Garmin GPS units

I have lately been experimenting with a slew of new maps for Garmin GPS units. The first one I added was the NY State Snowmobile trail map layer http://www.gpssledmaps.com/maps/ny.php . Here are two examples:

The layer is completely transparent and can be seen on top of any map. Snowmobile trails are very twisty and windy and in the field, you never know where they will lead you. Now with this layer, I know and this may be a real factor in some search in the future. Good to have and if distracting, the layer can always be turned off on the GPS.

Topo maps, 1:24ooo were not, so far available as Garmin GPS maps for NY State. No longert true. http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/111 Here is a sample and comparison:

While the contour lines are better than ever, and the road data is much more up-to-date, wetlands are missing. But then they are available on Topo 2008, so now I have both layers on my GPS. But you can only access one at a time. So I use whatever gives me what I need most where I currently am walking.

Road maps: Till now you had to shell a good sum for a mapset that was good for use only on a single GPS unit. Well go here http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/19/ and get yourself a road map set that is quite good. Some areas are not covered and do not expect turn-by-turn directions, but you can have quite a large area on your 2GB card.

Finally, if you want or need topo maps for Canada, here is a free source: http://www.ibycus.com/ibycustopo/

Not all sets are complete and some are updated every so often, so check each site again from time to time. There are more free maps available for various purposes and locations. But this is just a sample of what is available and what might be useful if you are in NY State or the north east part of the US.

Here are directions on how to switch between maps on your Garmin 60CSx GPS
http://www.miscjunk.org/mj/mp_mapset.html

Here are directions on how to load maps on your GPS:
http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/tutorials/how-to-load-maps-on-my-garmin-gps-unit/

If you don't have a copy of Mapsource, go here:
http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/tutorials/how-to-install-mapsource-if-it-didnt-come-with-your-gps/

Comparing sensors in a Garmin Oregon 400i, a Garmin 60CSx and the Yaesu VX-8

My house temperature was 65-66 degrees when I turned on my VX-8 and the sensor registered 77 degrees. Later on it got to 82 degrees. Well, that's the temperature inside the VX-8 so I guess some energy is converted to heat, and I was not transmitting. So all I can say, the VX-8 would make a dismal rectal thermometer... But if you want to know how hot it is in the unit, well I guess the number is in the ballpark.

Altitude:
I compared three instruments, a Garmin 60CSx GPS, a Garmin Oregon 400i and the VX-8. I looked at both GPS and barometric altitudes.

	Barometric altitude	GPS altitude
Garmin 60CSx	1072	1069
Oregon 400i	1081	1079
Yeasu VX-8	1092	1030

Measurements were taken in a single location (my living room) at about the same time, meaning very little change in the GPS constellation. The Garmin units show consistency and a difference of 9-10 feet. The VX-8 is in the ballpark but the GPS altitude is not as good. According the the topo map the altitude is 1055. Since I was not in the basement, maybe I need to add 8-10 feet or so and the map contour lines definitely predate the house...

My conclusion is not to try to land a plane using any of these three instruments only... Otherwise, gosh, it is good enough for me.

I also checked the GPS' precision in location and here the news are excellent! The table below shows the decimal part of the minutes in both longitude and latitude numbers, all in WGS 84 datum.

Garmin Oregon 400i and 60CSx	Yaesu VX-8
,758	.765
.878	.874

Now, this is only anecdotal data, a single measurement in the comfort of my living room, not taken in any extreme type of weather and conditions. But for me it is good enough.