[BigLarry]

What I would like to do is have the trails by color, line type and name in a legend to keep the map clean, as it has a lot of small sections and no room on the map. This is something I would like to print and copy for the Land manager, as we are making some changes after they logged it.

Most mapping programs are very sparse on features, and only very slowly getting better. Although the web based programs are evolving much more rapidly, each is very lacking in very many ways.

Programs like Garmin Topo include the whole US for only $80, but the tracks color can't be changed and the medium resolution contour lines are designed for GPS utility, not for paper maps. It's your worst choice.

Clearly the best program for this is National Geographic TOPO! which costs about $80, but that's per each state, or group of small states. It has great resolution and colors and shading, as it starts from a picture of the professional quality USGS maps for it's background. It allows you to split tracks into small sections and color each track differently with 7 colors and 6 line styles (42 combinations). The output looks like a professional quality map, and I sometimes print them on National Geographic "Adventure Paper" that's much tougher than regular paper and the ink jet print doesn't run in the rain. The maps look beautiful. There's no legend capability, but you can annotate as you wish. There's also a cheap ($25?) 3D add on that makes the maps look beautiful. See 3D example of one of my rides here.

For an example of someone (Bill Levey) who a few years back took a GPS and made some extensive maps of Henry Coe park with National Geographic software, see this web site. He removed the background, perhaps because Henry Coe is so huge (30-50 miles) that it makes too much clutter on the screen and is hard to download.
Look here for a smaller section where he left in the National Geographic topo background. All of his maps of the park can be found here. (I"vie done most of these trails - it's a fabulous remote park, 30 minutes from San Jose. My GPS is very valuable in navigating these remote trails.)
BIll Levi also allows you to download the NG source file and place it over the NG background yourself, so you can make waypoints if you have the NG software, which I do.

 

[Being]

Yes, National Geographic Topo! + PhotoShop (or any decent photo editor) will give you what you are looking for.

 

[Being]

I threw this together in five minutes.

 

[Dan'ger]

So, I rode some rough trail yesterday...

...and the Vista Cx held up great. Got some small amounts of air, rough, rocky terrain and none of it caused the batteries to bounce. I believe that I didn't even lose sattelite reception either.

The Elevation still does not read correctly. It seems to read the difference between the lowest point and the highest point not taking into account the ups and downs between.

 

[Being]

I made my picture smaller so most people won't need to scroll to see the whole thing. Doesn't this forum have like a [screenshot] tag that will auto-size the image for you?

 

[anotherbrian]

The bounce I've been experiencing is, as far as I can tell, due to the handlebar mount and the 2xAA batteries bouncing around under rough road conditions on the bars of my road bike or rough terrain on the bars of even my FS mountain bike.

That's a blast from the past. The bounce is a common problem with the Garmin III+ when used on motorcycles ... I could never reliably use the III+ on my BMW's (boxer motors shaking left and right) with the batteries, though had the luxury of wiring it in directly.

I suspect you could jam something into the spring contacts to reduce bounce on the 60CS (the Vista battery compartment is similar to the 60, I see in a later thread that that is what you ended up with).

Over the last ten years, I've bought a number of Garmin's, some still have their uses: 12, III+ (and external antenna), Vista (with re-radiating antenna), 60CS, and now an Edge 305.

 

[Being]

Testing some code I borrowed from an 0gre post

What do you think of this legend?
Tuesday ride with Dan from Nevada City. Click on the picture for a larger view. Then click the expand icon on that picture for full resolution.

<table width=100%>[TR][TD][/TD][TD]

[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[BigLarry]

Beautiful, clear

What do you think of this legend?
Tuesday ride with Dan from Nevada City. Click on the picture for a larger view. Then click the expand icon on that picture for full resolution.

That's real cool. Very nice. Lots of useful data presented very clearly and easily.

I'm afraid to ask how long that took. It seems you manually colorized the profile plot area.

 

[Being]

That's real cool. Very nice. Lots of useful data presented very clearly and easily.

I'm afraid to ask how long that took. It seems you manually colorized the profile plot area.

Thanks. It took about an hour after connecting the GPS to the computer. Photoshop's magic wand is ... well ... like magic. Breaking the single route into individual routes after generating the profile was the most time consuming part. Topo! is kind of wierd about where it lets you split a route.

 

[pacman]

Topo

Thanks. It took about an hour after connecting the GPS to the computer. Photoshop's magic wand is ... well ... like magic. Breaking the single route into individual routes after generating the profile was the most time consuming part. Topo! is kind of wierd about where it lets you split a route.

Zooming in 400% helps when splitting a track. For multiple tracks draw with a (dashed) hairline.

 

[Being]

Zooming in 400% helps when splitting a track. For multiple tracks draw with a (dashed) hairline.

:thumbsup: Good tips.

 

[Dan'ger]

breezetrees posted this thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=200372 about a Briones map for GPS but the process can be for anywhere that the USGS has a map. If you really want a detailed topo map for places and would reather spend the time than the money for maps, this seems like the process.

Unfortunately, I have had no luck as I had some problems downloading the segment of map I wanted to work on as a GEOTiff file and now my work internet connection is so slow that it's taking forever to try to do it today.

 

[BigLarry]

Means you're climbing 2000'/hour

I have a garmin vista, it has a barometric altimeter. There is a data field called "Average Ascent". The manual is not completely clear on what this means, so I would assume that this is the rate of climb over time, perhaps of all the climbs in the active log. On my rides this value almost always shows about 33 feet/minute, seemingly regardless of terrain. On some boring slog up a fire road at Coe, it's 33. On some less challenging terrain like Long Ridge, it's 33. (plus or minus a couple f/m). I just don't get why it always averages to nearly the same number.

Anyone else notice this or have any insight how average ascent works?

I tend not to read that parameter on the GPS, but it makes sense.

The point is if you're limited in speed by the climb (anything under 8 MPH), the climb rate doesn't depend on the steepness, or how far you go sideways in distance as you climb, but simple physics of your power and size. You need to create more energy to go up a certain height for more mass (E(Joules)=Mass (Kgram)*Height(meters)*g(9.8 m/s/s)) So the more power you can put out and the lighter you are, the faster you go up. Smaller guys generally climb better. Lance Armstrong climbs faster because he puts out more energy (over 500 Watts or 0.7 HP, for an hour) and only weighs around 160 lbs.

For MTB with lots of climbing, most people are limited by their energy output over their weight. At my size, I always consider total climb, and not so much the ride distance in determining my capability for a ride.

Note 33'/min is 2000'/hour. I used to climb around 1100'/hour. As I lost weight and became stronger, I'm now approaching 1800'/hour. I remember I was almost your pace that time we passed in Henry Coe, so it makes sense. I usually calculate my average climb rate by simple division, like when I climb Kennedy at 1900' in 65 minutes. I find I have the same climb rate independent of steepness, as you also note.

BTW, top anorexic pro road bikers with high power output climb at 4000'/hour. MTBR A riders can climb at 3000'/hour, (40 minutes up Kennedy). Menso did it in 35 minutes, or around 3300'/hour.

Lance climbed up Alp D'Huez at around 5000'/hour, or 100'/minute. He could climb Kennedy in 20 minutes. Shows clearly why he's a world champ.

 

[knobs]

Thanks for the rationale, Larry.

I'm not planning on climbing Kennedy anytime soon - there's no need to figure out how much I suck compared to Menso or Lance.

 

[BigLarry]

Ride any speed you like

Thanks for the rationale, Larry.

I'm not planning on climbing Kennedy anytime soon - there's no need to figure out how much I suck compared to Menso or Lance.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to make anyone feel bad. Actually, I don't see much value in non-professional riders being faster or slower than others. I mostly crunch the numbers just to see if I can keep up on rides.

None of us are as fast as Lance. He's so mutated from human form that he's practically an alien creature. We won't ever be as fast as the professional bikers either. Oh, unless, we turn pro, quit our jobs and live on the $25K/year the average pro biker gets if they're lucky, become 20 years old again, become shorter and smaller to the point you don't have an ounce of fat, get pro trainers, monitor every morsel you eat, get top equipment, ride 60 hours per week to the point you're always hurting and hate the thought of riding, ..... I'm just in awe of how exceptionally fast those super pros get. It's freaky really.

You're a typical MTBR speed, which is generally way above the norm. All of us have many people faster and slower than us. Be glad to enjoy your ride at whatever pace you take it. I've found the speed I'm riding has no bearing whatsoever on my enjoyment of MTB. Still doesn't. The only reason I want to get faster is so I can keep up with the fun MTBR rides without making them wait too long.

And you can surely ride up Kennedy if you can do Henry Coe and the big epic rides I've seen you do there. Personally, I'm just happy I make up Kennedy in less than half a day, which is what the average guy on the street would take, if they can make it at all. We ride on Wednesday afternoons, with a few MTBR guys out just having fun. I usually work late and can only make it now and then. But with me at Kennedy, everyone is guaranteed to beat someone.

 

[Jersey Devil]

Interesting discussions. I bought a Magellan eXplorist 500 about 2 months ago and love it. There was an inital learning curve involved as I'm sure all GPS devices require. I bought the Mapsend Directroute NA software (pricey at $150) because I wanted the streetrouting capability. I also have employed a little hack that gives me topo lines on the GPS unit, so I have almost the best of both worlds. The Mapsend TOPO 3D USA is the same price, doesn't have streetrouting capablities but from what I've read has better topo than Garmin and gives you fancy 3d views on your PC. I have used my eXplorist to get me aound on streets I don't know as well as find my way on trails I don't know. It is very accurate, on geocaches I'm usually registering maybe 6 feet off at the cache. Here's a link to a little track plotting I did : http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=2185306&postcount=14
and another: http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=2190703&postcount=17
Be sure to go to the link I gave on the 2nd post, it has alot of stuff you may find useful.

Ride on!

JD

 

[sungchang]

So BigLarry, cost being a major factor, which GPS would you recommend, eTrex Vista Cx or the 60CSx, or any other recommendation? I'm going to be using mainly for biking purposes and put it on either bar or stem, with occassional use for driving directions.

 

[addictionms]

you really really want to have the SiRFstarIII GPS chips, they are way better and way faster. I took a quick look at Garmin and the ETREX stuff does not appear to be SiRFstarIII. You can tell by looking at the manuals, the hot start for the ETREX is around 15 seconds, the hot start for the 305 is 1sec. the 305 has the SiRFstarIII.

I have an ETREX Vista and it takes forever to find itself, I also have a Pharos 525 (SiRFstarIII) and it is almost instant to find itself, and it does not get lost when on the seat of the car (read that in the woods) the ETREX Vista does.

Jim

 

[BigLarry]

Vista isn't that bad

you really really want to have the SiRFstarIII GPS chips, they are way better and way faster. I took a quick look at Garmin and the ETREX stuff does not appear to be SiRFstarIII. You can tell by looking at the manuals, the hot start for the ETREX is around 15 seconds, the hot start for the 305 is 1sec. the 305 has the SiRFstarIII.

I have an ETREX Vista and it takes forever to find itself, I also have a Pharos 525 (SiRFstarIII) and it is almost instant to find itself, and it does not get lost when on the seat of the car (read that in the woods) the ETREX Vista does.

Jim

The eTrex Vista isn't that bad. Because the 60CSx isn't rugged enough for the handlebars, I now use the Vista on the handlebars, and the 60CSx with the SiRFIII receiver in the camelbak. So I have simultaneous tracks for both GPS in various conditions.

For an example of typical and worse reception of the Vista, see this post. The Vista only looses reception on the north side of steep hills with thick trees, such as one of the examples in the post, and even then it gets a good part of the track. In real riding, those situations are rare and I do fine navigating with the Vista. The second example is much more typical, where I get very much the same tracks with the two, but an occasional reception glitch out of the Vista.

Yes, the Vista takes a few more seconds to start up, but it's doing that while I'm putting on my gloves and helmet anyway. It's a non-issue.

That said, for the best reception you indeed want the SiRFIII receiver.

 

[BigLarry]

So BigLarry, cost being a major factor, which GPS would you recommend, eTrex Vista Cx or the 60CSx, or any other recommendation? I'm going to be using mainly for biking purposes and put it on either bar or stem, with occassional use for driving directions.

In order of price:
eTrex Venture Cx $200 (-$50 rebate=$150) No magnetic compass or altimeter sensors, but can do high resolution color maps with expandable memory.
eTrex Vista Cx: $300 (-$50 rebate=$250) The best of the eTrex line. It has sensors, expandable memory, high resolution color maps. It can do everything same as the GPSMAP60CSx, but in a smaller rugged package. Unfortunately, like all the eTrex line, it's missing the more sensitive SiRF III receiver.
GPSMap60CSx: $400 (-$50 rebate=$350) The best for screen size, perfect reception, expandable memory, software, .. I use the 60CSx in the camelbak just to collect tracks with a little better precision in poor reception. In good reception, the accuracy of the Vista and 60CSx are very close. (See my previous post.)

Read more about what the sensors on this post. They may not be essential, but are nice: Mag compass for when standing still like in geocaching; and the barometric altimeter for a little better climb data. You can get altitude from the GPS, but it may only have say 100' rather than 30' accuracy.

The Vista and 60CSx can do full autorouting and recalculation if a wrong turn is made. The Venture can autoroute but it's not clear from Garmin's description if it can recalculate a route.
Note that for street navigation and routing, you need to buy street maps (Garmin's City Navigator v8) for around $130. On the trail, you can use Garmin Mapsource Topo maps that are around $75. You can switch from street to topo via a menu item on the GPS. You also need a microSD memory card to store the maps. 1 GB will store half the US, and is running about $45 some places. Do NOT use the "faster" type II memory cards. The GPS will fry them.
The maps also include the Points of Interest (POI). It's like a Yahoo Yellow Pages in your hand, showing you locations of food, gas, stores, ATMs,.. sorted by those nearest you, with address and phone numbers and auto routing to the found POI. One of the best features of the GPS really.

I'd suggest the eTrex line for cost and ruggedness on the handlebars. The above eTrex models even have a screen with about the same pixel count as the 60CSx, just smaller and more compact on the bars. The only thing the 60CSx really offers is the better SiRFIII receiver, which is indeed a big consideration. See my previous post above for a comparison of the relative reception.

Many bikers use the Edge, which also has the better SiRF receiver. But it's almost as expensive as the others. It also doesn't show maps, and the Li battery has a limited life and can't be swapped out on a trail.

Within a few weeks of use, Dan'ger and I have had survivability issues with the 60CSx, Dan broke his antenna twice on a couple endos. I lost buttons on mine even in the camelbak on an endo. But Blue Shorts has done OK with his 60CSx mounted to his shoulder harness. He's had his a couple months now.

Dan also had battery bounce (power off from short lost battery connection on bumps) with the 60CSx. Battery bounce can be helped with quality name brand batteries (rechargeable like PowerEx, Sony, Duracell, ..) that fit right, paper in the case for tighter fit, and springy foam behind the contacts. I've not had battery bounce in the camelbak with quality batteries and didn't need to fuss with it.

By comparison, I've had my eTrex Vista on the bars for three years of tough MTB trails, and it's still running fine. It's lasted three bike frames now. It's been tossed into the woods and against rocks countless times on bike crashes, yet bounces right back. It even bounced down the highway a couple times when I left it on the roof of my car. The eTrex line is near bullet proof. That's why the Vista is on my handlebars and not the 60CSx, even though I'd love the better reception.