Messages

It looks to me as the 2 Everytrail pages are zoomed to show the complete track, a shorter track should be zoomed in more than say a coast-to-coast track. Was there a way to zoom into only a portion such as a trailhead section?

Okay, this is where I'm coming from:  When you go to Facebook, do you spend a lot of time looking at each and every single post/status update from all of your friends, or do you skim through only some of them and only spend time looking at the ones which catch your eye?  If you click on a link someone posts, don't you skim through and skip most of the article, unless what you're seeing also catches your eye?  So out of the following two screen shots, which would more likely get people to actually spend time looking?  :


1. This is what "recently made trips" on EveryTrail.com look like, if someone clicks on a link I post on Facebook or the link above:




2. This is what the default zoom level on EveryTrail looks like if you post a trip which you had "created quite a ways back":



The second screen shot (default zoom level of the past) I would think catches people's interest much more, and they can easily see that blue dot moving around on the map where the pictures are at, versus when it's way zoomed out. 

I would think making a map with a default zoom level which isn't "so zoomed out" would be more likely to get noticed if I post on Facebook.  That's why I care, and is one point of view.

Your first link is set to private

The link is not showing up?  Since it has the word "code" in it followed by some letters and numbers, others should still be able to see it if they're given a direct link.

However, I just changed it from private to public, and its map is still is way zoomed out relative to the size of the GPS track!

I'm looking for a way to let others experience my hikes by posting a track of where I went onto a Google Terrain map, with a picture slide show to the side.  TrimbleOutdoors.com doesn't automatically cycle through the pictures like EveryTrail does, you have to manually click the next icon, plus it now costs money.  EveryTrail.com used to be perfect, but now any trips you put together are so far zoomed out on the map that the picture locations don't make any sense to those who view it.  I've experimented, and cannot change the default map zoom view.  Plus, if you post on Facebook, it doesn't show a map icon like it used to.  It would be nice to find a website which does that just like those RunKeeper posts you see from your Facebook friends, presenting a small map on their News Feed.

Here is what I mean by EveryTrail.com trips being zoomed too far out, to the point picture locations don't make sense: http://www.everytrail.com/view_trip.php?trip_id=2184689&code=b0816c1362442d8b2618c1ba6d2a9bf0

This is how they used to look, zoomed in close enough: http://www.everytrail.com/view_trip.php?trip_id=1616229

Does anyone know of any websites which allow you to post trips on Facebook, but not zoomed out too far like EveryTrail now just recently changed to?

You could possibly look into the "Above the Timber" map for Colorado.  I found a review on Amazon.com for the Garmin 24K Topo Southwest, from a guy who lives in Colorado.  He said he likes the Above the Timber better, because it shows BLM land and names of the national forest roads, while the Garmin 24K Southwest doesn't.  He said that's a big deal for him because he lives in Colorado. 

I debated between the Utah version of this and the Garmin 24K Southwest.  I finally went with the Garmin 24K, but only because I wanted the shaded relief and more states.  However, it appears unlike the Garmin 24K, Above the Timber has BLM, state lands, and labeled National Forest Service road numbers, I believe.  Also, looking at screen shots of what each looks like, the Above the Timber has better contrast visibility.

Guy from Colorado's review: http://www.amazon.com/review/R20TTN5FBBY4P0/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R20TTN5FBBY4P0

Above the Timber map for Colorado: http://abovethetimber.com/index.php/gps-maps/states/colorado

You can also download a free demo of Above the Timber to see what it's like.  To contrast it, there's also a demo of the Garmin 24K Southwest at http://www8.garmin.com/cgi-bin/mapgen/webmap.cgi?smap.x=329&smap.y=265&p=24051713&l=0&u=1&v=0&cp=4B21D85AFEFD585A&z=3&w=480&h=360&d=0&k=1&sc=1&rz=-2  Just zoom in to see the topo of a particular area of Colorado.

Can the Oregon auto-archive when the tracklog is full (10,000 points)? I didn't think it could, although the Montana can definitely do this.

What I do know is if I drive so many hundreds of miles, with the Oregon set to record every 1/100th of a mile, part of the track will be cut off from the last time I turned it off and then on.  when I look in the "Archive" track section, I'll see something labeled Auto Archive such and such time /date.

Hi, I emailed Delta Airlines if it's okay to use a handheld GPS when being a passenger in one of their airplanes.  They responded back with it's okay at cruise heights, although not when taking off or landing (apparently some airlines even say no GPS whatsoever).

Since I'm flying with Delta in a couple of weeks to Hawaii, I thought it could be fun to make a GPS tracklog to share on Facebook, and geotagg pictures I take out the window (probably would be more fun taking the pictures when I'm flying over the Continental U.S., rather than the open boring ocean part of it).

Anyway, would there be any special settings I'd need to set my Garmin Oregon 450 to, for the tracklog and geotagging to work properly?  Are there only a certain number of points in a track before the GPS archives it and starts a new one?  Because of that, would I need to tell it to only record the track every mile, rather than how I have it now at 1/100th of a mile?  Would I need to go to the time settings and tell it to not detect what time zone it's in, so that it'll allow me to "geotagg from track" later on?  If I don't do that, would BaseCamp get confused because it would see multiples of the same time within the same track?

Be aware that GPS signals do not penetrate water very far.  I would not expect geo-tagging to work well, if at all, while underwater.

I'm not so concerned about GPS signal under water, as I've actually found out it doesn't at all work by experimenting with the IPX7 rating of my Oregon 450 by placing it underwater in a huge glass bowl out of curiosity.  Immediately I got the "lost signal" message.

My real concern is I'm trying to figure out whether this particular underwater camera could double as my above water along with underwater camera, versus just buying an underwater case to use on my regular camera.  I asked about how accurate GPS integration in a camera is because that feature could be a potential plus in influencing my buying decision.  That's why I was curious about how accurate GPS cameras are, compared to the"Geotagg Photos using Track" feature in BaseCamp with my Oregon 450 is already capable of. 

I guess on one hand, having GPS integration may make geotagging much more hassle free, and you don't have to worry about the problem of getting the wrong geotaggs because you didn't realize you should have synced their clocks by a minute and thirty seconds.  Although, on the other hand, since GPS needs to get a fix on the satellites in space when you turn it on, I'm not sure if having to turn the camera on and having to wait would limit the accuracy of this method of geotagging, versus my traditional BaseCamp/syncing Oregon 450 method because that option leaves the GPS on for hours?

Part of the reason I am asking about GPS snapshot cameras, I'm going to a family reunion in Hawaii in May.  Since I'm planning on snorkeling when there, I'm debating between getting an underwater camera case to use with the digital camera I've already had since 2007, versus buying an underwater digital camera that can be used to 33 ft underwater.  I'm trying to make a comparison, and don't know if I should let a feature like built in GPS influence my decision that much?

The digital underwater camera just went on sale at Costco in my area because a newer version is coming in.  However, since this camera is a more recent model than the one from 2007, I'm wondering if the picture quality would be better than a camera from 2007, or not really.  It also has a built in GPS, so I'm not sure if that means it would be a better camera, or if to make up for putting that feature in they have to make other aspects lower quality.

I'm not sure how much you know about cameras, but the camera I still own from 2007 is a Canon Powershot A720 IS, and the one I'm thinking about getting which is waterproof and GPS is a Nikon Coolpix AW100.

I found a site comparing specifications of the two http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_PowerShot_A720_IS-vs-Nikon-AW100  My Canon Powershot A720 IS has wider aperture, faster max shutter speed, and longer exposures.  The Nikon AW100 has a CMOS instead of the CCD sensor, higher max ISO capacity, larger sensor, etc.  So, I feel confused since I don't know too much about cameras.

Since I don't already have a smartphone, and it costs $30/month or so to have one, that's why I was curious about a GPS snapshot camera, versus using the camera I already have with my Oregon 450 to sync the time stamps with GPS locations.

I was thinking about getting a snapshot camera with an embedded GPS inside of it, to geotag photos so I can know where I took my photos at. Right now, I use BaseCamp with the GPS tracks from my Garmin Oregon 450, to find coordinates for my pictures. I was wondering what tends to work better?

The drawback with geotagging photos using my GPS unit tracks, I have to make sure I tell it to adjust the time by negative 20 seconds (or whatever the difference happens to be at the time of snapping a photo), so that the camera's time stamps can be synced with the GPS. In addition, if I happen to clear the GPS track log before I have the chance to geotagg a photo, that's an obvious problem. I also have my tracks set to record every 100th of a mile, so I don't know if that would throw off the accuracy of a photo?

On the other hand, since most people don't leave their digital cameras on the entire time when on a hike, I would be worried if it takes a while for a GPS embedded snapshot camera to get a good enough fix on satellites to get a decent geotagg location for its pictures?

What's better? Which tends to be more accurate?

I am curious because there are some issues that I think could make my GPS better with one of their future software updates, if that's something they can do? Is there a certain department at Garmin to write to that you know of?

For example, I have the Garmin Oregon 450. I think the track back isn't good for this model. It just "tracks back". If your hiking track overlaps itself (such as a figure eight), the unit doesn't use intelligence to have you take the shorter of the two distances back, but rather has you follow the same exact way you came, even if you have to go 50 feet in the opposite direction first before the arrow points you back in the correct direction. However, on the Garmin eTrex Vista HCx that I tried out earlier, it not only allows you to track back, you can click where on the track you want to track back to and the unit will tell you the shorter distance on your track in order to get there. The eTrex doesn't force you to completely track back your figure 8, but rather if the track overlaps itself you can just take the shorter distance. I think that would be neat if there was a way to make the Oregon 450 like that in a future software update.

Or another one, you know how the shading from the maps you buy from Garmin can affect your visibility on a touch screen like the 450, if "shaded relief" is set to on? You know how labels for waypoints for contrast have that small white box background behind them, and how user waypoints aren't affected by the shading from shaded relief while the default waypoint labels are? I wonder if Garmin with a software update could make all labels on the screen like that, even labels for the elevation contour lines, so that shaded relief doesn't affect screen visibility so much?

I've been thinking about later going on a 100 mile hike through the Uinta Mountains in Utah, the Highline Trail.  To make it less of a hassle in changing the batteries, especially if my hands are greasy when going through all that backpacking/camping, I've heard that lithium last longer than alkaline/rechargeables? 

Has anyone here had much experience with lithium in their GPSr?  By the way, I have a Garmin Oregon 450, an energy guzzler which is rated for 16 hours on the specification sheet, but really only 10 hours if you don't have the screen set to turn off after you haven't touched it for a couple of minutes.

I've seen both the Energizer Advanced and Ultimate Lithium batteries at Walmart, but I'm not sure how well these work, and to what extent it's advertising hype when they say lasts "9X" longer than ...."  I'm not sure if they set up their numbers a certain way to make it look good, like a lot of advertising does.  The batteries I use right now are 2500 mAh AA rechargeables, so I don't know how they'd compare.

Thanks for the suggestions!

Also, I am wondering if anyone knows if using an EXIF editor would invalidate your claim that it's your picture, if you try to claim copyright later on if someone's using your photo for money, or not really?

Hi, I enjoy the geotagging feature in BaseCamp.  However, I have an issue I don't know how to fix   

You know how BaseCamp gives you the option of stating how much time your GPSr and camera are offset by so that you can get correct geotagging?  I forgot to do that, and so BC gave me the wrong coordinates for a picture that I really care about.  So, I though about using that feature again to fix the issue, using the correct time offset (by an hour).  Unfortunately, earlier I had already split my track for that hike in half and erased the return journey portion of the track, because I prefer to remember the distance "one-way" on hikes rather than the "round-trip" mileage.  So, I wasn't able to get the track geotagging feature to write the correct GPS coordinates on top of my mistake of one hour offset.

Next, I tried dragging and dropping my picture on the correct portion of the BaseCamp map where my Bird's Eye Imagery tells me the correct location should be.  It wouldn't work because the "drag and drop picture" feature only works if the photo doesn't already have geotag coordinates, and thus the wrong coords are blocking this from working   

Is it best to somehow remove GPS coordinates EXIF data?  Or some other easier method to fix it?  I don't know anything about editing EXIF data, so if that's the best option, any advice would be appreciated!  Also, I'd prefer not to touch any of the other EXIF data on the picture, in case I have to make copyright claims to my picture later on.

have you seen Garmin's interactive page that shows this map in action?

I went there earlier, but you can't click on a place to see if it says "(such and such city) BLM" or"(blank) National Forest)".  With my Oregon 450, I can click and a label will appear in a box at the top of the screen.  The GPS File Depot Maps for Utah have BLM's, National Parks, National Forests, labeled.  I didn't know how the Garmin 24K are in having these things labeled.