Oregon Vrs Dakota GPS

[Jord]

I've looked at the Garmin web site but apart from the physical size is there much of a difference between the two units? Has anyone got experience of both? Feedback?

[piedwagtail91]

i've  found this site useful  http://garminoregon.wikispaces.com/
i've only got experience of a vista hcx and more recently an oregon 300 so can't really answer your question, though the oregon is  a lot better than a vista in almost every way except for the screen where is is in some cases ( bright sunlight) slightly worse, though not by much..

[frankly frankie]

I have a Dakota 20 (and Legend HCx) but no experience of the Oregon. 

Its not just screen size, the Oregon screen is also much higher-resolution.  From what I've seen, this is particularly advantageous to the fonts and map legends, which I find a bit blurry on the Dakota.

The bigger screen size makes the touchscreen buttons on the Oregon more usable than those on the Dakota, where they can be grouped rather too close together for comfort, with my fat fingers.   ie, the Dakota interface is just the Oregon one, scaled down.

The smaller screen on the Dakota gives it an advantage in battery runtime, and the lower resolution supposedly makes it slightly brighter, though personally I think this is marginal at best.  And of course the smaller overall package is probably nicer on the handlebars.

In terms of software and facilities, they are very very similar, though not quite identical.  Which IMO puts them a long way behind the Vista/Legend, which is far more configurable and capable especially for Route-following.
The actual receiver is the same in all four models, though presumably the Oregon has a bigger aerial than the others.   

[Jord]

So by the sound of it both units are really much and such! I suppose it depends on price - currently on Amazon the Dakota is quite a bit cheaper than the Oregon.

[Auntie Helen]

I personally like the size of the Oregon - on my huge and heavy trike it looks about right, and the screen is nice and big. I'd definitely go for the Oregon again. I got mine just before Christmas for a shade over £200 from a website whose name escapes me but is easily googleable - Handtec maybe?

[Jord]

I was in a local shop today and both the Oregon and Dakota models where there side by side - I think the  Oregon is the one I'll go for as it is not exactly huge. A satmap was also there which was comically big to my eyes!

[frankly frankie]

Whichever you get, download Garmin Webupdater and use it to update the unit software (fresh batteries before doing this!).  Recent updates have added significant new facilities, and are unlikely to be installed in any unit that's been on the shelf for a month or more.

Also a tip is to backup your Oregon or Dakota GPS, to hard disk.  Just copy the entire file structure you find in the memory when you connect it via USB.  The files aren't protected and its just too easy to wipe the basemap in error, or something.  So back it up. 

[revrob]

In terms of software and facilities, they are very very similar, though not quite identical.  Which IMO puts them a long way behind the Vista/Legend, which is far more configurable and capable especially for Route-following.
  

It's a bit off-topic, but, FF, would you mind explaining why the Dakota 20 is not as good as the Vista/Legend HCx for route following, please?

I though I'd decided to go for a Vista HCx, but the Dakota 20 is only £40 more expensive - however route-following is something I'd like to be able to do.
 

[frankly frankie]

It's a bit off-topic, but, FF, would you mind explaining why the Dakota 20 is not as good as the Vista/Legend HCx for route following, please?

The Dakota ( and I think the Oregon too) has far fewer configuration options when it comes to route-following.

For example, where the Legend C offers you Car/Motorcycle, Bus, Emergency, Taxi, Delivery, Pedestrian, Bicycle as routing options - the Dakota only has Car/Motorcycle, Pedestrian, Cycle.   That might not seem too bad except 'Delivery' actually works quite well for cyclists.
Where the Legend offers Off-route recalculation Off/On/Prompted - the Dakota doesn't.
Where the Legend offers various calculation methods Quickest/Quick/Better/Best - the Dakota doesn't.
Where the Legend offers follow road methods Faster time/Shorter distance - the Dakota doesn't.

Similarly the Tones prompts (eg bleep as you approach a turn) are less configurable on the Dakota than on the Vista/legend.

Also (I admit this is purely subjective) the auto-routing on the Dakota just doesn't seem to make the right choices as often as on the Etrex.  I don't spend a lot of time in this mode but that is the impression I get.

Also there's a bug (or was last time I checked) whereby the 'Next' waypoint name cannot be displayed, in normal usage.

These are all Route-related things - for people who prefer to follow Tracks, none of the above is an issue and the Dakota/Oregon do have some good Tracks-related tricks.

Really, it mostly comes down to, are you a fettler/fixer or do you want something that 'just works'.  If the former (like me), definitely get the Etrex Vista/Legend C, and work with Routes.  If the latter, then look at the Oregon or Dakota, and maybe work with Tracks.

[PloddinPedro]

The Dakota ( and I think the Oregon too) has far fewer configuration options when it comes to route-following.

For example, ..............
These are all Route-related things - for people who prefer to follow Tracks, none of the above is an issue and the Dakota/Oregon do have some good Tracks-related tricks.

Really, it mostly comes down to, are you a fettler/fixer or do you want something that 'just works'.  If the former (like me), definitely get the Etrex Vista/Legend C, and work with Routes.  If the latter, then look at the Oregon or Dakota, and maybe work with Tracks.

I'm a confirmed "Tracks" man, but I confess this is because on my Map60CSx I could never get the Route-following function to work even remotely reliably, whatever permutation of user options I chose! I've no experience of any of the Legend series, but as the Map60 is the same generation, I've just assumed they're basically the same in this regard.

I've been considering the Oregon as an upgrade, one of the reasons being that it looks as though it will carry a far greater number of saved tracks than my Map60C; size-wise, the Oregon is an improvement on the housebrick sized Map60! So as a "Tracks" man, I'm interested to learn what the "some good tracks-related tricks" are - ?

[frankly frankie]

Yes it will store 200 tracks.

The tricks are introduced with a recent downloadable software upgrade.  They include:

the ability to display a profile graph half-screen, in conjunction with a map or with up to 6 data fields, if you are following a Track with elevation information this becomes a predictive elevation, comme ca -

(this is Dakota - Oregon is same but bigger

when following a Track with elevation information, the GPS will insert 'virtual waypoints' corresponding to spot heights (and lows) and will also insert any 'actual' waypoints that happen to be adjacent to the Track

there is no Route here - but the track has this info embedded.

And you can use this to display a countdown to the next summit (or waypoint) like this -

in other words track use can become a bit more route-like, but without the extra prep that routes require.

[PloddinPedro]

The tricks are introduced with a recent downloadable software upgrade.  They include:

the ability to display a profile graph half-screen, in conjunction with a map or with up to 6 data fields, .....

when following a Track with elevation information, the GPS will insert 'virtual waypoints' corresponding to spot heights (and lows) and will also insert any 'actual' waypoints that happen to be adjacent to the Track.

And you can use this to display a countdown to the next summit (or waypoint) like this -

in other words track use can become a bit more route-like, but without the extra prep that routes require.

That's very interesting, Francis, thank you.

Off the top of my head, the only one of the three functions you illustrate that I'm likely to use is the "countdown to next [summit/waypoint]". As far as elevation is concerned, I generally prefer not to know until the last possible moment - I only get frightened!

The countdown thingy might be good though - one of the things I don't think I can do with my 60CSx in tracks mode is display distance to [end/next info/control]. However, I'm always confused by the terminology when it comes to "Waypoints" - I know you've explained this in Arrivee but it never seems to stick! In this context, are we talking about Waypoints I've input myself (usually in Mapsource or Memory Map and commonly representing Info and/or cafe controls) and not "route waypoints" ("Via points"? Presumably not these since we're talking Tracks?) Or is it what I'd call Trackpoints, i.e. where I've created a track in Mapsource/MMap following a series of user defined trackpoints and then transferred the track as a .gpx file into the Garmin?

[Jord]

Out of interest which maps are you following in the screen shots?

[frankly frankie]

Those screenshots show Metroguide, with SMC contours overlaid and styled to display green.

The Waypoints would be proper 'user waypoints' eg added using the waypoint tool in Mapsource or Mem Map etc.
So you could just plonk a few down, say difficult turns or event control locations - and the track-following would pick them up and use them.  It's not something I've explored in depth - more of a Route man myself.

[Jord]

I have just added one of those screen protector sheets to my Oregon and it does seem to make it easier to read the display. I'm not sure if it was just the conditions today - overcast - but it was very easy to read where as on Tuesday I had to have the back light on all day!

[Auntie Helen]

Do you have a link to the screen protector thingie?