Mapping vs Non-mapping GPS

[wombat4787]

Hi all,

I'm considering delving into the big wide world of GPS aided navigation. The way I figure I'll be using said GPS is in combination with a map and compass. Once I figure out I'm not where I think I am, or supposed to be, I'll have a look at the GPS, see where I'm actually located and make corrections as appropriate by referring to the map. To my mind, this means I'd be looking at a non-mapping GPS.

After looking at discussions here, it seems I may have the wrong idea. I've seen comments like "a mapping GPS is much more useful in the field" and "I wouldn't bother with a non-mapping GPS." Can somebody tell me why this is the case? If you get a very basic non-mapping then you need to use the base maps that are no doubt of limited resolution. So I can see an obvious, limitation here. But if you spend a tad more, you can get a non-mapping GPS that allows you to install more detailed maps. You can download your trip and put it into your favourite piece of software so you can see where you went for a wander and show your friends. All good.

I don't have any desire (that I know of anyway), to make customs maps. I figure I'll always work from the paper map and have the GPS as the ultimate, "You're really here dummy," type of thing.

Can those with first hand experience please shed some light on this topic and aid in the learning curve?

Thanks,

Peter

[photohiker]

If you get a very basic non-mapping then you need to use the base maps that are no doubt of limited resolution. So I can see an obvious, limitation here. But if you spend a tad more, you can get a non-mapping GPS that allows you to install more detailed maps.

Hi Peter,

A Non-Mapping GPS does not have maps, and you cannot install maps on it. My first GPS was a Garmin GPS60 which was a non-mapping GPS. I could load my planned walk route on it and keep track of where I was in reference to that route, but no map. Using it with a paper map, it was fine, but I wouldn't go back to it.

These days, I use a mapping GPS and I load the most appropriate maps onto it as well as my walk plan. I keep paper maps with me in case of failure or if I need to see the big picture which is difficult on a small screen. On the trail, I use the GPS and a magnetic compass. For me, this is the way to go.

[wombat4787]

Okay, so I've got the rough end of the pineapple. A non-mapping, is just that, no map. This is the type of thing you get with the bicycle GPS systems. So the very basic GPS (such as the Magellan Exporist 110) with a basemap loaded, is NOT a non-mapping GPS since it has a map?

Thanks...

[photohiker]

Okay, so I've got the rough end of the pineapple. A non-mapping, is just that, no map. This is the type of thing you get with the bicycle GPS systems. So the very basic GPS (such as the Magellan Exporist 110) with a basemap loaded, is NOT a non-mapping GPS since it has a map?

Thanks...

Yep. I had a look and it definitely has a map, so it's a mapping GPS. As you move through the landscape, the GPS pointer will show you where you are on the map.

The wrinkle is that you apparently cannot change or add to the installed map (why would they stop you from doing that?)

I'd suggest one that has an option for installing a better topo map if you are going to use it bushwalking (even if you don't take that option at the beginning)

Bit of discussion and map comparisons on GPS Australia for that GPS here: Magellan Explorist 110

[Ent]

Hi

The most basic device will simply give a location. Just make sure it has the datum used by the map. A Garmin 305 bike GPS only will display east/north references so pretty much useless with a paper map unless you can convert to the map datum.

Nowadays even the most basic ones give the ability to have a bread crumb trail so you can back track with them.

The next level is a black and white LCD that can load a baseman. The problem with these and even the colour versions is screen size and pixel count. By that there often is simply not enough resolution to get a macro view of the world.

All depends on price and planned need. Running a basic mapping GPS with contour Australia and Shonkymaps is good to try out providing it does not exceed your budget for a basic no mapping GPS.

Very much a case you get what you pay for.

Cheers

[Mark F]

My take is that as you really need to carry paper maps anyway, why not use them. I am very comfortable with my non-mapping Garmin ForeTrex 401 at 75 grams including batteries and has all the relevant datums. I understand the lure of a full mapping system but I am going to wait until the GPS manufacturers eventually embrace some more modern display technology that one can find in any smart phone. The gps manufacturers have always lagged what seems like a decade (most probably more like 5 years) behind the mobile phone/pda technologies and charge outrageous prices for what is outdated and quite simple technology apart from the gps chip. But many smart phones now use the same gps chips.

Example - Top of the range Garmin Montana 650 272 x 480 pixels on a 4" diagonal screen 130k pixels.
Samsung Galaxy S3 4.8” Super AMOLED screen with the 1280x720p resolution - 921K pixels 7 times more.

You can also examine things like battery life - not greatly different if you switch off the network capabilities on the mobile phone.
The main benefits that the gps manufacturers bring are more rugged and more waterproof and usually use AA or AAA batteries for simpler repowering options.

[photohiker]

Example - Top of the range Garmin Montana 650 272 x 480 pixels on a 4" diagonal screen 130k pixels.
Samsung Galaxy S3 4.8” Super AMOLED screen with the 1280x720p resolution - 921K pixels 7 times more.

You can also examine things like battery life - not greatly different if you switch off the network capabilities on the mobile phone.
The main benefits that the gps manufacturers bring are more rugged and more waterproof and usually use AA or AAA batteries for simpler repowering options.

To be fair, if you run your smartphone with the screen and GPS running and network off, it's battery performance still won't be a patch on the dedicated GPS. You can read the Garmin screen (well, most of them) in direct sunlight with the illumination off. Those nice big displays are great, but the trade off is in cost and battery life. Don't forget that Samsung makes those phones by the million and Garmin dreams of selling a million which must have some cost effect for Garmin.

Not saying that Garmin couldn't or shouldn't improve, just that it is probably hard to produce something with the big screen that is robust and has long battery life for a price that people will pay. When the tech filters down and becomes cheaper and is energy efficient, sure, but by then the smartphone will have an even better screen, Garmin will never catch up!

No problem with someone taking and using maps, do it myself.

[sthughes]

Mapping GPS are unnecessary, but convenient to save dragging the maps out regularly, particularly in poor weather.

I've taken to using a Google Nexus 7 as a GPS with Tasmaps loaded up. Apart from the obvious water/drop resistance issues it's fantastic. I can leave it tracking for about 4 days walking before the battery gives up. Can't help but think it would be easy as to build the thing waterproof in the factory. And at half the price with almost 8 times the pixels of the Garmin Montana, not to mention a quad core CPU, 1GB ram......

I guess I'm not so much hopeful Garmin will catch up, as dreaming Google might do a waterproof Nexus device! Or perhaps Garmin do a waterproof Android device with a big, replaceable battery. But I imagine they would screw it up by "improving" the Android OS with their own touches.

[Mark F]

Photohiker, I am not specifically suggesting that they use mobile phone screens but you only have to look at those on KIndles etc with their superb battery life to realise what is possible. Remember that GPS manufacturers were offering a maximum of 64kb of inbuilt memory long after the smallest USB stick was 512kb or larger (I do realise it is a different memory type). When electronic technology is superseded then the older stuff is dirt cheap - cents not dollars. I would expect the current top end screen in a gps to cost the manufacturer no more than $2 and that is being generous. I can currently buy a SIRF III chip for $1 in quantities up to 100 units. I do realise that far more goes into gps unit or phone.

The battery power issue is actually about the processor as well as the screen. Phones now have incredibly powerful processors compared to gps units and if you could run downgrade the processor and run a really simple operating system just doing gps and display like gps units do then the current phones would easily beat all gps units for battery performance.

Basically the gps manufacturers live in a technological world about 5 years behind the present and so buy their components at absolutely rock bottom prices. Even if they could get to 2 years behind because of their much extended product cycle I would be happy, I realise this is a bit of a rant but it just really annoys when the possibilities are there for the taking without even approaching the leading edge of technology.

[Taz73]

I have a nice Samsung S2 andriod phone but I would never trust it to perform out in the bush.

Phones and tablets run software that is far from stable.

I even have my doubts on the reliability of modern micro-components as I have seen many new tech devices go to custard for no reason.

I'll take my small screen, lower resolution, GPS anyday over a phone/tablet.

They are also drop and water resistant.

[photohiker]

Good points Mark,

Eventually, I think the tech will collide and there will be a robust phone/GPS from a smartphone company (or a GPS/phone from Garmin)

Right now, a dedicated GPS is the most realistic option because of battery flexibility and system robustness. If we waited for Garmin to catch up with Samsung before buying, that might never happen...

[steveh72]

Hi wombat,

I just use the basic Garmin e-trex 10 - non map loadable very basic GPS, & take paper map & compass still.

The e-trek has survived the washing machine and you can load several way points pre-trip which the GPS can then tell you how far you are away from each way point. The paper map like other "posters'" say does give good big picture of area and the GPS can tell me where I am on said map.

I must admist in Tassie you can electronicly bring up map of where you are walking (the LIST) & then hover mouse over waypoint which will then spit out co-ordinates which I just plug into e-trex 10 and build up my trip route in the ex-trex 10 that way.

I guess a map loaded GPS would take out the hassle of doing this, but then again I do enjoy the planning & research part of the trip anyway.

I do also like Plan B option of map & compass though for the batteries will never run flat.

Cheers

Steve

So I guess I'm like yourself.