Author Topic: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20  (Read 6920 times)

Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« on: 20 February, 2013, 02:17:39 pm »
Hi guys

First time post so please be gentle with me !

I'm looking to get a GPS unit for navigating new routes primarily on the road but may use it for MTBing at a later date. My prime concern is to be able to create a route on my PC, download it to the unit and then for the unit to follow this exact route, ideally with some sort of prompt to notify me of turns etc. Not too concerned about whether it's touchscreen or joystick (as most data entry will be done on the PC) but would like it to be easily viewable whilst riding.  After doing a bit of research I think the above 3 models will do what I want but I'm not sure if one would suit me better than the others. They all have their pro's & con's and although I'm leaning towards the Dakota, the fact that I've seen a few posts about problems reading the screen in sunlight is putting me off.

I'd appreciate any comments of any owners of what they like/dislike about their units and what swung their decision for them

Cheers

Jim


Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #1 on: 21 February, 2013, 07:43:38 am »
I'll be interested to hear what's said.
I posted an enquiry about Bryton and OpenCycleMaps, but no-one said anything.
My experience of Garmin is that routing between distant waypoints is dodgy. They really need nannying around a comprehensive series of close waypoints, or a track.
They were not much use if a single selected destination is 25 miles away and there are motorways and/or dual carriageway trunk roads between you and the destination.

MercuryKev

  • Maxin' n Audaxin'
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #2 on: 21 February, 2013, 07:51:29 am »
I use a Etrex Legend HCX which is an older version of the Etrex 30 and if you use a set of routeable maps( Garmin city navigator, etc) it will do what you are looking for, as will the other units you mentioned.  My preference of those 3 would be the Etrex 30 and I've not really experienced the routing problems highlighted by Ningishzidda.

Wowbagger

  • Former Sylph
    • Stuff mostly about weather
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #3 on: 21 February, 2013, 08:56:04 am »
I have a Vista HCx too and I've played with an Oregon. I found the display on the Oregon less clear than the Vista.

You do not need to rely on City Navigator, which are expensive maps, for routing. I used Openfietsmaplite, which is part of the Open Street Maps project, is downloadable, and is by far the clearest of all the maps I've ever used. It's also free.
Quote from: Dez
It doesn’t matter where you start. Just start.

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #4 on: 21 February, 2013, 10:16:37 am »
although I'm leaning towards the Dakota, the fact that I've seen a few posts about problems reading the screen in sunlight is putting me off.

They are all difficult to read in sunlight - especially low sun ahead, ie riding east in the morning or west in the evening.
I do think the touchscreen makes it a bit worse - but it's only like the difference between 'very difficult' and 'very very difficult' and it is only in those particular situations. It's basically a reduction in contrast - whites go light grey and blacks go, er, mid grey, and all the other 60,000 colours fit in between.  NB these things are not iPhones!!  The backlight can help a bit, but is a battery hit.
[edit to add pic - (old) Etrex vs Dakota, in sunlight - this is about as good as it gets ...

Having had a Dakota briefly, I'd also say that the Dakota touchscreen is a bit less functional than the Oregon one, purely because it crams the same interface onto a smaller screen.  Maybe it's just my podgy fingers ...

Basically there are 3 choices to make -
1.  neat cyclecomputer-style, with USB-rechargable battery - or - blocky GPS-style, with AAs
(all the above use AAs)
2.  big screen (in a big box) - or - small screen (in a smaller box)
3.  touchscreen - or - button-driven

Big or small screen is a very personal choice.   Me, I think the Oregon is too big, on the handlebars.

Touchscreen or buttons - apart from the screen contrast thing, it's worthy of note that the UI is very much optimised for touchscreen use, and is the same on all three models.  This makes the Etrex feel a bit clumsy when you're navigating round the menus (it's alright in normal use though).  OTOH, there is a school of thought that the touchscreen is a slight safety problem - you really can't use it without staring at the screen, when maybe you should be watching the road ahead.

In terms of facilities, accuracy etc - they're all much the same.
when you're dead you're done, so let the good times roll

Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #5 on: 21 February, 2013, 10:54:43 am »
although I'm leaning towards the Dakota, the fact that I've seen a few posts about problems reading the screen in sunlight is putting me off.

They are all difficult to read in sunlight - especially low sun ahead, ie riding east in the morning or west in the evening.
I do think the touchscreen makes it a bit worse - but it's only like the difference between 'very difficult' and 'very very difficult' and it is only in those particular situations. It's basically a reduction in contrast - whites go light grey and blacks go, er, mid grey, and all the other 60,000 colours fit in between.  NB these things are not iPhones!!  The backlight can help a bit, but is a battery hit.
[edit to add pic - (old) Etrex vs Dakota, in sunlight - this is about as good as it gets ...

Having had a Dakota briefly, I'd also say that the Dakota touchscreen is a bit less functional than the Oregon one, purely because it crams the same interface onto a smaller screen.  Maybe it's just my podgy fingers ...

Basically there are 3 choices to make -
1.  neat cyclecomputer-style, with USB-rechargable battery - or - blocky GPS-style, with AAs
(all the above use AAs)
2.  big screen (in a big box) - or - small screen (in a smaller box)
3.  touchscreen - or - button-driven

Big or small screen is a very personal choice.   Me, I think the Oregon is too big, on the handlebars.

Touchscreen or buttons - apart from the screen contrast thing, it's worthy of note that the UI is very much optimised for touchscreen use, and is the same on all three models.  This makes the Etrex feel a bit clumsy when you're navigating round the menus (it's alright in normal use though).  OTOH, there is a school of thought that the touchscreen is a slight safety problem - you really can't use it without staring at the screen, when maybe you should be watching the road ahead.

In terms of facilities, accuracy etc - they're all much the same.

I notice the rubber band round the eTrex Legend :-)

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #6 on: 21 February, 2013, 11:38:58 am »
Purely cosmetic  ;)
when you're dead you're done, so let the good times roll

mcshroom

  • Mushroom
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #7 on: 21 February, 2013, 11:41:08 am »
The only differences I can find between the Etrex 20 and the Etrex 30 are a magnetic compass and a barometer. To be honest, I've decided to save the money and go for a 20.
Climbs like a sprinter, sprints like a climber!

fuaran

  • rothair gasta
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #8 on: 21 February, 2013, 11:47:02 am »
The only differences I can find between the Etrex 20 and the Etrex 30 are a magnetic compass and a barometer. To be honest, I've decided to save the money and go for a 20.
And connecting to ANT+ sensors, ie heart rate, cadence, temperature. Personally I think it is worth paying the extra for this, I like logging as much data as possible.
I don't think the barometer and compass are very useful (for cycling).

Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #9 on: 21 February, 2013, 11:59:35 am »
Go without a curry and beers this weekend and get the eTrex 30.  ;D

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #10 on: 21 February, 2013, 12:04:02 pm »
20 vs 30 - only the 30 has a data card*.  This alone is worth the extra, especially if you are into multiple maps.

* Actually, it doesn't, IYSWIM - as supplied it has a vacant data card slot.  Cheap!
when you're dead you're done, so let the good times roll

mcshroom

  • Mushroom
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #11 on: 21 February, 2013, 12:06:28 pm »
20 vs 30 - only the 30 has a data card*.  This alone is worth the extra, especially if you are into multiple maps.

* Actually, it doesn't, IYSWIM - as supplied it has a vacant data card slot.  Cheap!

eh?

Quote from: garmin
Add Maps

With its microSD™ card slot and 1.7 GB of internal memory, eTrex 20 lets you load TOPO 24K maps and hit the trail, plug in BlueChart® g2 preloaded cards for a great day on the water or City Navigator NT map data for turn-by-turn routing on roads (see maps tab for compatible maps). eTrex 20 also supports BirdsEye Satellite Imagery (subscription required), that lets you download satellite images to your device and integrate them with your maps.
Climbs like a sprinter, sprints like a climber!

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #12 on: 21 February, 2013, 12:45:29 pm »
The only differences I can find between the Etrex 20 and the Etrex 30 are a magnetic compass and a barometer. To be honest, I've decided to save the money and go for a 20.
And connecting to ANT+ sensors, ie heart rate, cadence, temperature. Personally I think it is worth paying the extra for this, I like logging as much data as possible.

I believe this also enables you to wirelessly transfer routes, waypoints, etc. between compatible devices.


Quote
I don't think the barometer and compass are very useful (for cycling).

The altimeter does improve elevation accuracy in very steep terrain, but whether that's useful is a personal matter.  I agree that the compass is pointless (bordering on actually unhelpful), though becomes worthwhile on foot.

Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #13 on: 21 February, 2013, 01:59:05 pm »
Thanks guys as FF points out earlier it looks like all 3 do the same thing so it really boils down to size. I think the Etrex screen maybe too small and as there isn't that much difference physical size between the Dakota and Oregon, the Oregon looks very tempting.

One more question though..... when following a route how does the display notify of approaching turns etc. A friend has an Edge 800 and this 'zooms' in with a very clear direction indicator at turns does the Oregon work in a similar way ?

Thanks



Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #14 on: 21 February, 2013, 02:02:48 pm »
The only differences I can find between the Etrex 20 and the Etrex 30 are a magnetic compass and a barometer. To be honest, I've decided to save the money and go for a 20.
And connecting to ANT+ sensors, ie heart rate, cadence, temperature. Personally I think it is worth paying the extra for this, I like logging as much data as possible.

I believe this also enables you to wirelessly transfer routes, waypoints, etc. between compatible devices.


Quote
I don't think the barometer and compass are very useful (for cycling).

The altimeter does improve elevation accuracy in very steep terrain, but whether that's useful is a personal matter. I agree that the compass is pointless (bordering on actually unhelpful), though becomes worthwhile on foot.

Now THAT should go on the ' A pun my sole' forum.

Auntie Helen

  • 6 Wheels in Germany
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #15 on: 21 February, 2013, 02:10:05 pm »
I believe this also enables you to wirelessly transfer routes, waypoints, etc. between compatible devices.
Woollypigs and I tried this - from my Oregon to his Oregon/Dakota (not sure which).

Nothing happened.

They were side by side, mine was set to send a GPX and his to receive, we left them together for five minutes - no joy.
My blog on cycling in Germany and eating German cake – http://www.auntiehelen.co.uk


Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #16 on: 21 February, 2013, 02:48:33 pm »
I believe this also enables you to wirelessly transfer routes, waypoints, etc. between compatible devices.

Nothing happened.

They were side by side..... left them together for five minutes - no joy.

(Sigh) sounds like my teenage experiences with the opposite sex  :'(

Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #17 on: 21 February, 2013, 04:05:09 pm »
I went for the 30 for the heart rate and cadence data. I still prefer my HCx Vista interface (menus, whatnot), but the case and mount are nicer on the 30 too. Oh, and it locks on to the satellites more quickly too (I hook up to the russian ones)

I just pulled my old memory card out of my Vista, and the 30 picked up the map no bother. Annoying that it doesn't archive tracks to the memory card. The only thing that makes me not regret upgrading from a Vista is the sensor data and the subsequent fun in Strava. Otherwise, I think the Vista / Legend are as good.

Wowbagger

  • Former Sylph
    • Stuff mostly about weather
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #18 on: 22 February, 2013, 12:02:32 am »
I agree that the compass is pointless (bordering on actually unhelpful), though becomes worthwhile on foot.

Surely a pointless compass would serve no purpose whatsoever.  O:-)
Quote from: Dez
It doesn’t matter where you start. Just start.

contango

  • NB have not grown beard since photo was taken
  • The Fat And The Furious
Re: Etrex 30 v Oregon 450 v Dakota 20
« Reply #19 on: 26 February, 2013, 07:05:53 pm »
Thanks guys as FF points out earlier it looks like all 3 do the same thing so it really boils down to size. I think the Etrex screen maybe too small and as there isn't that much difference physical size between the Dakota and Oregon, the Oregon looks very tempting.

One more question though..... when following a route how does the display notify of approaching turns etc. A friend has an Edge 800 and this 'zooms' in with a very clear direction indicator at turns does the Oregon work in a similar way ?

Thanks

I'd expect to see it zoomed in quite close to the junction showing you where you need to be going. That's what my old 60CSx did, and I think it's what the Montana does (don't use routing much for reasons I'll come on to), so I'd expect the others in the range to do the same thing.

If you want to follow a very specific route you either need quite a lot of waypoints to force the GPS to take a specific route, or set it up as a track which lets you do anything (including going off-road etc) but doesn't give you any warning of approaching junctions. Alternatively if you want to spend some extra cash and put a brick on your handlebars, I believe the newer versions of the Montana firmware allow you to set up a route on the PC, transfer it to the Montana, and the Montana will then navigate that exact route. The only condition as far as I can tell is that the PC and Montana must have exactly the same maps on them.

I usually use the track option. The routing on OSM is very hit-and-miss, the Navigator type maps often don't include cycle lane contraflows, bridlepaths and other cut-throughs, and using a track means I can plan a route beforehand using Google Maps to make sure bridlepaths and lanes are sensibly passable by bike and then just follow it precisely. Routing by Garmin's maps can add a lot to the distance because it doesn't know about cycling shortcuts, and routing by OSM has a nasty tendency to avoid a nice fast road with a nice wide cyclepath in favour of a bridlepath that turns out to be two inches of water over six inches of mud with lots of stinging nettles on both sides.
Always carry a small flask of whisky in case of snakebite. And, furthermore, always carry a small snake.