GPS Advice – Recommendations

Happy with mine as well. Works much better than my previous model (an old Magellan something or other which eventually started taking forever to get satellite lock).

I have seen the multi-path issues, just this past week in fact in the Grand Canyon, where the track showed us venturing off the trail quite a bit. I think most GPS receivers would have similar issues in some sections of the GC (or comparable terrain) though, so I can't really fault the eTrex.

There are several free maps available for Garmin units available at sites like GPSFileDepot.com.

I use the Garmin Montana, which is the big screen version of the Oregon. As far as I can tell, their features and capabilities are quite similar. I have a car mount for the Montana, so also use it as my far GPS.

Being able to plan a hike on the computer at home and then transfer it to the Garmin handheld is terrific. I almost never hike without a previous GPS track I've recorded (or one I've downloaded from the internet) showing on the map on the handheld. It is particularly handy to be able to plot a custom route in the AMC White Mountain Guide Online and then export that track to my Garmin.

Likewise, terrific to upload my hikes to the computer as an archive for future hikes or just for fun.

I can count on one hand the rare times I've had a glitch with any significant GPS error. It's usually when I mistakenly shut the GPS off during a hike. This results in a lone random point off in the distance, althouth the track returns to normal immediately.

I use a combination of Garmin's barometric altimeter with GPS correction. I set the starting elevation at the trailhead from the topo map and then rely mostly on the barometric, but with GPS elevation correcting any drift. Honestly, I haven't found big differences in any of the altimeter modes for hiking. Maybe 100 feet max.

I think the smaller size of the Oregon probably makes it a better hiking GPS than my Montana.

I wish Garmin still made the Geko, but one with a much better antenna with much faster satellite acquisition and much better battery life. I have one of the first ones (a 101, I think) and it takes for-bloody-ever to boot up and provide any reliable information.

I don't use the GPS often, although admittedly it is nice to carry something that can record a track to download later and/or to provide a quick position check in UTM format. And weighs about 2 oz.

The Geko was awesome for my style of navigation. Sadly, mine is belly up.

I'd personally go with the etrex or any of it predecessors.

A cheaper simpler investment would be a 6 to 8 ounce external battery and the $20 iphone GPS app.I use the Gaia app for my iphone 4s, it works really well but will eat the battery up pretty quickly. It does take a minute or two to sync after taking the phone off airplane mode. You can preload USGS topo maps with the swipe of a finger, import tracks via a website online and export your own GPS tracks.

They still make the Garmin ForeTrex 401, which looks to be as light and small as the Geko was, with a bigger screen to boot. It also has a USB interface, which I don't think the Geko had (it was Serial).

I don't own one, so I can't speak to its performance. However, there are several reviews of this model on Amazon by people in the military using it and being very satisfied with its performance.

Link to a comparison chart of the three Garmin mapping GPS units – eTrex, Oregon, Montana:

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/catalog/product/compareResult.ep?compareProduct=113532&compareProduct=75226&compareProduct=87774

The differences are primarily size, screen, memory, and battery. Basic capabilities should be similar among the three.

Thanks for mentioning the ForeTrex, which is indeed very similar to the Geko.

Years ago I owned one of the Forerunners, which also was not very good in the antenna department, and it also had a built-in rechargeable battery that went bad very quickly with memory issues. Great to see that the Foretrex uses AAA batteries.

Garmin's replacement for the Geko would be the Etrex 10 not the Foretrex, although the functionality and features of the Etrex 10 and the Foretrex are the same.

The Foretrex is very tiny (it's not a handheld size GPS) and is made to wear on your wrist. I got rid of the wrist strap on mine and added a Velcro loop instead and wear it on my pack. This saved a bit of weight and got rid of the awkward GPS on my wrist (it's too big to be worn on your wrist IMO).

So if you are looking for a handheld replacement for the Geko, look at the Etrex 10. If you are looking for the smallest, lightest option that uses replaceable batteries, get the Foretrex. They work the same and both of the new Garmin offerings are a vast improvement over the old Geko because they both use Garmin's High Sensitivity receiver (it's not the antennae that is the problem with the Geko, it's the receiver… the receivers have improved a lot in the past ten years).

Ok, didn't know that about the receiver. Whatever the electronic choke point, it was/is a dismal performer.

I have an Etrex 30 that I use now, mostly for MTB for speed and distance using the handlebar mount, and occasionally for hiking when I want accurate distance and track info. Great little unit and superb battery life with lithium AA's. Not worth it (quite yet. anyway) to get another unit to save 3 oz on the increasingly rare occasions when I carry the GPS.

if you're just look'n for data, and not all the fallderall that they try and sell on us with extra features, then the old geko unit is what you used to want.
i own both a very nice bright green geko, and a newer/lighter/hard to find green, foretrex 401.

one vs the other :
the geko has a simpler menu and a bigger creen. i got fine battery life out if it, because i only use to to spot my locations, not follow me around. (so it runs not very long at a time)
the foretrex has more stuff to dink with, and a smaller harder to read screen. but … it is lighter, and Much newer than my geko.
it also has good battery life, and acquires a position lock it seems faster.

i replaced the geko for no fault, only because it is getting old, and i though the investment was good insurance.

i am not Bob (who knows a LOT about these things), and i don't know the difference between a route and a track, or between a heading and a bearing.
but i do have a compass, and even though they get all dorky up north, that's what i use to travel by.
the gps is extremely handy to locate camp "for sure" every evening, so i am not building the next day's navigation on false assumptions. it's sort of like balancing a checkbook, so you begin each new month with a credible reference point.

gps off'ness :
there is nothing really saying the maps are in the right spot either, ok.
alaska was mapped in what .. 1953, and they still use those points to nav off of.
i am told, that if you motor a barge down the mackenzie river, and watch your gps, it will be showing you to be plow'n mud.
it's about the same on the mac for all the barges, so from this we think the maps are off, not the gps.
the northwest passage has areas said to have maps showing things up to three miles off correct location. but i have not seen things more than a few hundred meters offset.