![]() |
Do yourself a favor and just get an Edge Explore 2, which can be had for just $250 if you wait for a sale.
|
I'm not keen on buying online, but my lbs has an Edge 530 on sale, quite a bit less than the Explore 2. Is that a good unit, especially for map quality and ability to take them from other apps?
|
Originally Posted by Christo613
(Post 23056407)
I'm not keen on buying online, but my lbs has an Edge 530 on sale, quite a bit less than the Explore 2. Is that a good unit, especially for map quality and ability to take them from other apps?
|
Originally Posted by Christo613
(Post 23056407)
I'm not keen on buying online, but my lbs has an Edge 530 on sale, quite a bit less than the Explore 2. Is that a good unit, especially for map quality and ability to take them from other apps?
|
Christo613
I bought a Edge 530 a few years ago after having a Edge 500 for a dozen years. Push buttons worked well for the Edge 500's limited features. However the Edge 530 has a lot more nifty features that I'd like to use on the bike while riding. However, button pushes make getting to those features cumbersome and take too much attention while riding. I really wish I'd paid the little bit of extra for a touch screen model. |
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23056524)
I really wish I'd paid the little bit of extra for a touch screen model.
I had a 530 Edge for a brief time, and found it a nightmare just to get data fields configured to my liking. Sooo many buttons to push in getting to menus, sub-menus, and sub-sub-menus. Yuck. I've now got a 1040 Edge, and the touchscreen allows me to change data fields while riding. It's that easy. |
I've had my Garmin 78s GPSMap for about 10 years now. It's a marine unit so it floats. I take it everywhere from wilderness canoeing, to city cycling to world trips. It's a good backup for when my Google Map can't connect and show that blue dot.
In another thread I discussed on line free open source maps that we use. |
how about the Etrex 22x? It does take AA batteries which seems a great advantage for autonomy.
|
Originally Posted by Christo613
(Post 23057596)
how about the Etrex 22x? It does take AA batteries which seems a great advantage for autonomy.
|
As mentioned earlier, I use an Etrex 20. The newer Etrex 22 & 32 looks about the same as the former Etrex 20 & 30. The Etrex 32 appears ot have an altimeter, compass, & wireless connectivity. The previous 30 didn't have wireless I don't think, though it did have the compass and altimeter.
The screen images on the Garmin site (Etrex 22) look the same as my 20. I'm sure they are both good units. I've used my 20 for 6ish years..no complaints. It always works and no surprises. |
Do you currently own a GPS of any sort? If not you might just have to make a dive into it and then learn what they do a don't do for you and why you really should have gotten this other GPS instead.
Information overload might have you not realizing exactly what the differences are between the features you will get from a GPS unit made for cycling as opposed to the features you will get from a handheld GPS. |
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23058701)
...
Information overload might have you not realizing exactly what the differences are between the features you will get from a GPS unit made for cycling as opposed to the features you will get from a handheld GPS. A friend of mine asked why I did not get a real GPS (meaning cycling one). I asked why I should, he said it is really nice to be able to look at a map to see where you are. I said I had a cycling specific map, a topo map, an automotive map, I could choose from any of those. (Actually have a couple topo maps.) He stopped talking. I am aware my GPS does not have blue tooth, does not talk to the ride sharing sites, but I do not care about that. Someone I know was talking about strava, I asked what strava was, he said it was software for cyclists, I said I do cycle touring, why do I not know about it. He said - I said it was for cyclists. Oops, foolish me, I thought that if you do cycle touring and if you do randonneuring, you are a cyclist. I load (from my computer over a cable) the tracks I need to follow for randonneuring brevets into my GPS. Works great for that. Since my Open Street maps do routing, I can do routing on my GPS too, although it often gives me some weird routes. The only thing I do not like about my GPS is that the buttons are small, in cold weather my heavy gloves or mittens sometimes have trouble pushing the correct button. But I do not know if that gets better with a cycling one. Does it? So, please tell me what I am missing from not having a cycling specific GPS, other than the lack of connectivity that I already know I am missing and have no interest in? |
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
(Post 23058788)
I am curious what you get from a cycling specific one that you do not get from a general recreation one.
A friend of mine asked why I did not get a real GPS (meaning cycling one). I asked why I should, he said it is really nice to be able to look at a map to see where you are. I said I had a cycling specific map, a topo map, an automotive map, I could choose from any of those. (Actually have a couple topo maps.) He stopped talking. I am aware my GPS does not have blue tooth, does not talk to the ride sharing sites, but I do not care about that. Someone I know was talking about strava, I asked what strava was, he said it was software for cyclists, I said I do cycle touring, why do I not know about it. He said - I said it was for cyclists. Oops, foolish me, I thought that if you do cycle touring and if you do randonneuring, you are a cyclist. I load (from my computer over a cable) the tracks I need to follow for randonneuring brevets into my GPS. Works great for that. Since my Open Street maps do routing, I can do routing on my GPS too, although it often gives me some weird routes. The only thing I do not like about my GPS is that the buttons are small, in cold weather my heavy gloves or mittens sometimes have trouble pushing the correct button. But I do not know if that gets better with a cycling one. Does it? So, please tell me what I am missing from not having a cycling specific GPS, other than the lack of connectivity that I already know I am missing and have no interest in? |
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged
(Post 23058812)
The fact that when you are touring and you need to haul a laptop around with you to get onboard routing kills it for me right there.
|
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
(Post 23058788)
So, please tell me what I am missing from not having a cycling specific GPS, other than the lack of connectivity that I already know I am missing and have no interest in?
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
(Post 23058788)
I am curious what you get from a cycling specific one that you do not get from a general recreation one.
And the screen size is bigger and has more pixels. GMap 64: 160 x 240 pixels. 2.6'' diagonal. 1040: 282 x 470 pixels. 3.5'' diagonal. 840: 246 x 322 pixels. 2.6'; diagonal. (The overall size of this unit is about half of the GMap 64,) https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b72a2ddfc6.jpg I'm surprised you didn't trot this picture out yet again. (What you are doing is fine. But there are things that the fairly-popular cycling units provide that are useful to other people.) |
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged
(Post 23058812)
You pretty much answered the question yourself. Read this and tell me that there are not features a majority of cyclists would enjoy.. https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/06/...th-review.html. The fact that when you are touring and you need to haul a laptop around with you to get onboard routing kills it for me right there.
Not on my last tour, but the one before, there were two occasions where the paper map gave me the best option, half the distance and a good road. I think it was because the GPS routing was not giving much importance to a local highway (county, not state or federal). |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 23058859)
This is silly. Iride01 was addressing the OP.
... Even the bigger cycling units aren't as big as what you use. ... And the screen size is bigger and has more pixels. ... (What you are doing is fine. But there are things that the fairly-popular cycling units provide that are useful to other people.) Size, you are correct., the cycling ones are smaller. Screen size, you have me there too. Other than the things I mentioned like electronic connectivity, I was hoping someone would say what things that the fairly-popular cycling units provide that are useful to other people since you only learn by asking. |
Tourist in MSN Possibly things you and others may or may not care about. That's part of the reason there are so many choices and each has some features the other doesn't. Or that the features, though seemingly the same thing work a little differently.
For sure I don't use most of those things. But some might find them important. I use to think that automagically uploading the ride to the various websites was being lazy. It didn't take but a connecting of the cable and a couple clicks to get the ride off my very old Edge 500. However my new Edge has spoiled me and I appreciate not having to take it off my bike and the fact it's uploaded before I even get into the house with the bike. None of those are going to be important just to ride a bike. We've ridden for years with nothing growing up. But once you've used some of them, you might find you don't want to do without them. My point for the OP was that they need to think about what it is that they really want from the GPS. They seem to be waffling back and forth between a handheld or one made for cycling. There are advantages to both. But neither will do all the same things or show data in the same way. The OP also needs to figure out what stuff they'd do on a PC or Mac or phone prior to the ride and what they'd do with the device during the ride. I'm not big on using my device for planning. Planning is done on the PC and very easily transferred to the device. The device is mostly for recording and getting info from the sensors. Some of which a handheld typically won't connect to. (AFAIK, since it's been a while since even looking at new handhelds). |
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
(Post 23058895)
I did not realize I was not allowed to ask a question.
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
(Post 23058788)
I am curious what you get from a cycling specific one that you do not get from a general recreation one.
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
(Post 23058788)
So, please tell me what I am missing from not having a cycling specific GPS, other than the lack of connectivity that I already know I am missing and have no interest in?
|
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 23058898)
Tourist in MSN Possibly things you and others may or may not care about. That's part of the reason there are so many choices and each has some features the other doesn't. Or that the features, though seemingly the same thing work a little differently.
For sure I don't use most of those things. But some might find them important. I use to think that automagically uploading the ride to the various websites was being lazy. It didn't take but a connecting of the cable and a couple clicks to get the ride off my very old Edge 500. However my new Edge has spoiled me and I appreciate not having to take it off my bike and the fact it's uploaded before I even get into the house with the bike. None of those are going to be important just to ride a bike. We've ridden for years with nothing growing up. But once you've used some of them, you might find you don't want to do without them. My point for the OP was that they need to think about what it is that they really want from the GPS. They seem to be waffling back and forth between a handheld or one made for cycling. There are advantages to both. But neither will do all the same things or show data in the same way. The OP also needs to figure out what stuff they'd do on a PC or Mac or phone prior to the ride and what they'd do with the device during the ride. I'm not big on using my device for planning. Planning is done on the PC and very easily transferred to the device. The device is mostly for recording and getting info from the sensors. Some of which a handheld typically won't connect to. (AFAIK, since it's been a while since even looking at new handhelds). Someone else on this thread says I was rude to you, If you felt I was rude, that was not intended and I apologize. |
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
(Post 23059149)
I was not aware of most of those features.
Other models can generate turn instructions for "route" files, which have a few waypoints. The cycling models can't use route files. This doesn't make much sense to me (maybe, it's to make things less complicated for people). I believe websites like Ride with GPS were created to serve the people using the cycling-specific Garmins. |
for me Bryton good feature and price
|
I think an Garmin Edge Explore is the best option if you can find a good deal on it, but if you for example own a Gamin Fenix watch already for example, there are mounts to install it on the handlebar, any you can also use it for navigation off the bike.
|
Originally Posted by Yan
(Post 23055511)
Do yourself a favor and just get an Edge Explore 2, which can be had for just $250 if you wait for a sale.
|
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
(Post 23058788)
I am curious what you get from a cycling specific one that you do not get from a general recreation one.
A friend of mine asked why I did not get a real GPS (meaning cycling one). I asked why I should, he said it is really nice to be able to look at a map to see where you are. I said I had a cycling specific map, a topo map, an automotive map, I could choose from any of those. (Actually have a couple topo maps.) He stopped talking. I am aware my GPS does not have blue tooth, does not talk to the ride sharing sites, but I do not care about that. Someone I know was talking about strava, I asked what strava was, he said it was software for cyclists, I said I do cycle touring, why do I not know about it. He said - I said it was for cyclists. Oops, foolish me, I thought that if you do cycle touring and if you do randonneuring, you are a cyclist. I load (from my computer over a cable) the tracks I need to follow for randonneuring brevets into my GPS. Works great for that. Since my Open Street maps do routing, I can do routing on my GPS too, although it often gives me some weird routes. The only thing I do not like about my GPS is that the buttons are small, in cold weather my heavy gloves or mittens sometimes have trouble pushing the correct button. But I do not know if that gets better with a cycling one. Does it? So, please tell me what I am missing from not having a cycling specific GPS, other than the lack of connectivity that I already know I am missing and have no interest in? With the Garmin cycling specific units, you can use your phone to search online for whatever location you need, and then immediately send that over Bluetooth to the GPS unit, which will then give you turn by turn callouts to get you there, including getting you back on track should you miss a turn. If you prefer to design your own route to the location instead of rely on the unit's built in routing, you can draw a route using whatever phone map app you prefer, and then similarly send that route to the GPS via Bluetooth. It is incredibly handy for touring. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:25 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.