GPS to track mtb trails?

[bounceswoosh]

So this is kind of a question on a whim, but --

Today I just checked out www.mapmyrun.com . It lets you draw out your routes using the google maps interface, and then gives you info like miles, elevation change, etc.

It's great for roads, but most of my mtb trails are hard to find on the satellite map -- the trees block the view of the trail, and honestly I'm not that good at visualizing what the trail looks like from overhead.

So. If I had a GPS device, I figure I could take it with me on a ride, then load it into mapmyruns -- they have links to import from .GPX, from Garmin GPS, and from gmap-pedometer. Of course, not having a GPS device, I can't test any of that.

Usually I ride pretty well-travelled trails, so at this point in my life, I don't think I need the GPS to help me get un-lost; I just want to be able to map my rides and take advantage of tools that show me some stats about them.

So, does anyone know of a device that would work for this? I'd like it to be fairly cheap (whatever that means for GPS), and ideally be something I just turn on, throw in my camelbak, and ignore till I finish my ride.

[SheFly]

Yup - check out the Garmin 305 (or 205, depending on what functionality you are looking for - the 205 doesn't measure HR, and is less $$). I have one and love it for mapping road and MTB rides. It also gives you lots of great stats on your ride if you download the info - time, distance, altitude, amount of climbing, wind speed, weather, heart rate...

Unfortunately, mine is currently at Garmin for repair. It kind of got smooshed in the tailgate of my van at a race .

SheFly

[Irulan]

you do have to be careful. I find that I have a hard time making trackss if I am riding at any kind of speed. Also, tree cover can affect the track too.
We've been mapping our mtb are for the park we work with, and frankly the most accurate tracks are gotten with walking the trails.

[bounceswoosh]

I guess I'll have to see if their specs page describes the sampling frequency ... I can and have hiked the stuff I ride, but somehow that seems like a less fun way to gather data =)

Hadn't thought of tree cover affecting the usefulness of GPS ...

[Irulan]

I guess I'll have to see if their specs page describes the sampling frequency ... I can and have hiked the stuff I ride, but somehow that seems like a less fun way to gather data =)

Hadn't thought of tree cover affecting the usefulness of GPS ...

I've learned a lot in the last few months. Any recreational unit is only going to be accurate to within 20-30 on the best of days. For most of us that's plenty good enough.

I've got an etrex legend. I think the newer models might be a bit better, but wow after helping out some pros that were using professional grade GPS units ( $5000 each!!) that are accurate to within 12 inches, I'll never look at doing home made tracks the same way again.

Also, did you know there are web sites out there that will show you what times of day are best to be out to get the most satellite connection? I know, way too much info....we've learned a lot on our mapping project.

[wavedancer]

I have a Garmin 305 that I have found really useful in learning new trails and have actually used it to find my way out of an area when I got a wee bit turned around. It works best when mounted to my stem and it has survived numerous crashes. I have the one that includes HR and I have a cadence monitor that I use on my road bike. I have also used it while running and hiking and geocaching. It's a great tool and well-worth the $200 I paid for it. Garmin has their new 705 model out (color screen and other fancy stuff), so the older models can often be found at a discount.

You can set the sampling frequency to every second or every 5 seconds, I believe. The less frequent sampling is better for longer rides and also uploads quicker.

[SheFly]

The new bike-specific Garmins (205, 305, 605, 705) are better at with the sampling rate than some of the earlier handheld Garmins (way better than my eTrex Vista ever was). I agree that the Vista had a lot of problems with tree cover, but I haven't experienced the same with the 305. That one seems to be very reliable thus far...

Of course, it is still spring, and the leaves aren't yet at their fullest here in New England...

SheFly

[OakLeaf]

The 605/705 has an option to sample every second. That'll give a lot more accuracy, but obviously the downside is battery life (per the manual the battery lasts a max of about four hours) and memory capacity.

oooh---DH just got me a 705, just installed it, going for a ride this afternoon! I can already see the receiver sensitivity is much better than my Forerunner 301 (I can get a great signal in the house!)

[ima_bleeder]

I've got a Garmin 305 that I've been using year 'round. It works well for me in all kinds of conditions, including in dense forest on cloud covered rainy days.

It's exactly what I need for several reasons, not the least of which being that my local riding area is very large, and made up almoste entirely of unmarked trails that appear and disappear over time. There are no maps (except for a couple of bootleg maps created by friends of friends). I'd love to get the 705 so that I could load up topo maps of the area too, but that's a pretty penny and I can't afford it for just now.