Anybody have any experience wtih GPS watches?
I have been on the hunt. Is there a watch that will actually give me long/lat coordinates so I can find myself on a topo map without triangulating my position?

Jeremy

I have had a Garmin Forerunner 305 for over 4 years. I really like it. I use it mostly to record hikes, rides, and runs and to get mileage and elevation. I tend to navigate by more traditional means. It does provide lat/lon information, among many other things. You can download a manual from the Garmin Web site if you want a lot of detail on features.

I also have the Forerunner by Garmin. Use it mainly for road biking. Amazing what information you can get off it. Charting your course, speed and heart rate at any given point. Also lat/long, with a map overlay for referance. Still finding new things that it does.

Thanks.
I looked at the Garmin 405 pdf manual.
Nothing in there about lat/long info.
???
Jeremy

From a review

I have a 305 but I think this is roughly what I would have to do. In this case, the watch is not as convenient as a normal GPS unit. I do not normally display lat/lon but the information is certainly in the downloaded files.

If you don't mind my asking, why the watch and not a handheld unit?

I already have a screen based GPS on my iPHONE and am actually kind of curious how that would do in the back-country. Motion X is an app I have seen recommended. I am reluctant to spend a bunch of money on another piece of equipment which is basically similar to my iPHONE and then of course my car GPS. Plus, I kind of liked the idea of having a heart rate monitor to use this for tracking excercise stuff as well. Thanks for that review - it was great and highlights a need for a good quality watch product for the backcountry. I'm leaning towards a good handheld unit now. I want good battery power too. I've been lost before in the sierras, lost my 7.5 minute map somewhow and I love the idea of the security that these devices provide.

Don't iPhone GPS apps require cell reception in order to work?

No, not all of them. They use both, but can be used without reception. However, the big flaw with the iPhone as a GPS is battery life. You're looking at 4-5 hours battery life with an iPhone in GPS mode.

Many of the handheld units have heart rate monitors that you can team them up with. I use a heart rate strap with my Oregon 550 when I bike and jog that transmits the info to the GPS wirelessly. It's pretty nice.

Battery life is a significant issue. My Garmin 305 watch will run all day, but it must be recharged. A typical handheld unit takes AA batteries. I took my eTrex Vista Cx on the entire JMT and only changed batteries a couple of times.

I find the watch to be convenient and the handheld to be more useful overall. I use both at different times. Generally, I am not using the GPS extensively for navigation and opt for the watch as being easier to deal with.

I do not have an iPhone but was not impressed with friends' experiences. As I understand it, the phone uses cell towers when possible in order to save battery life. There is a GPS receiver chip, but it drains the battery quickly. As a stand-alone GPS unit, it did not look great to me.

+1 on the Garmin 405. I use mine every day for running, but also took it up Whitney last summer. I enjoyed seeing my tracking info on Google Earth after the trip. Alan's observations on battery life are correct. I charged mine before my trip and had it die on the second day at Iceberg Lake. It will give you lat long coordinates, but I have never used that feature.

Kent

I think I am going IPHONE on the cheap for now. I don't do alot of off trail stuff (though maybe would if I had an oregon unit). I really only want it to tell me lat/long info that I can correlate with my map to find my position because of snow cover on the MMWT. I'm heading out 6/26 and I'm certain there will be lots of snow cover and I'll need some route finding training wheels (i've always been bad at triangulating). Any thoughts on aps?

Love, LOVE my hand held. Last the whole day turned on, on AA, routes, barometer, altimeter, compass, etc, etc...and highly accurate.

Guess where I'm at?

So much for that new 14,505 elevation!

I'm curious as to how they got that new measurement Steve. I'm going to take another reading in two weeks to see if it's consistent...(if I make the summit, don't want to get ahead of myself here).

My understanding is that it came from an adjustment in the mean tide figure used to establish sea level. GPS units will either take the altitude from a pressure reading or from the topo data. In either event the altitude reading will be keyed to the topo data which will probably not reflect the tide data change which was done just in the last couple of years.