I recently purchased an Edge 520 for training purposes but also expected a suite of navigation features. I am dismayed as I discovered there is no on the fly route creation like lezyne has, as I cannot simply open the Garmin Connect app and type in an address for it to take me to with rerouting and everything built in if I go off course.

My question is this, am I mistaken? Is there a way to enter a particular location/address when I'm out and about and have it start navigating me there using the map and course recalculations if I go off course?

Also, are there any options if I've simply gotten lost? I heard of a "return to start" option but have not been able to find it, am I going to have to hope my phone has enough service for google maps if I'm in an unfamiliar location?

There are (should be) two return to start options if you get lost, one to follow your footsteps, the other takes you in a "as the crow flies" path.

Can the 520 display messages from apps on your phone? You can do the routing in Google Maps and have it send alerts to your Garmin?

I'm leaning towards refunding this and getting a wahoo elemnt bolt, does the EDGE 520 Plus have any on the fly navigation features?

You can use an app called Open Route (on iOS for sure, don't know about Android) and create a route in that app. Then you can "send" to another app on your phone, and you can select Garmin Connect. Then it will open in Garmin Connect and you can then Bluetooth it over to your head unit. Pretty easy after you've done it a few times.


It works better with my Bolt, because you can use the .fit file and get turn by turn. Apparently DC Rainmaker said he was able to use the .fit file on his Garmin and got the turn by turn. I've not tested it.

If it has maps, you can touch the location on the map you want to be routed to.

:'( can't find open route on android

The 520 only has a base map. Make sure you put some detailed maps on it and give it a go before you refund:

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/05/...705800810.html

But being so close to the release of the 520+ I would just return it and get the 520+.

This^^^^^^^^^^


I would do this too if I could. The 520+ is getting pretty good reviews already. Better mapping and such. I have the now standard 520 and the mapping is pretty lousy. I use it rarely but I wish it was better detailed. Go for the 520 plus or move up to the 800 or 1000 line. they are geared more for mapping the 520 line is anyways if I am not mistaken.

The maps look better (they have more detail) but they don't change how the 520 does navigation.

It's a bit fussy because the 520 doesn't have much memory.

The 520 isn't really a navigation unit.

It will do basic track following and display turn instructions included in the TCX file you load to it.

The Wahoo provides the same level of navigation (but appears to do it in a nicer way).

You can create routes on the Wahoo app but that requires internet access.

Doesnt change the way it navigates but at least give you the ability to look around on the map and get around if you really need to. Its impossible to do that with the base maps.

That's what I said.

It's still weak compared to a unit that really supports maps. You can't pan the map.

The OP was looking for a higher level of navigational functionality. It wasn't clear that using different maps won't provide that.

NJ has this correct that the 520 is likely the weakest at navigation of the Garmin units - 520, 820, 1000, 1030. Also the cheapest.

Some internet research would have told you this, however (sorry, but this is a standard complaint/limited functionality of the 520).

The 1000 or 820 might be the better option if you want some re-route capability on the head unit, but in truth the best method is to use an online app (RideWithGPS, Garmin Connect) and create a new route in the online app, then follow that. You obviously need a separate device like a smartphone to do this, accessing the internet via database or WiFi, then creating the route on an app, then downloading to the device.

Wahoo can do this as well, and actually doesn’t do on device re-routing if I recall correctly.

The 820 has the all of the navigation functionality but it has some properties that make it less suitable for navigation than the larger units. The 1030 is better for navigation than the 1000 (mostly because of the screen).

1- it seems like the CPU on the 820 is a bit slow. It's small size means it has a small battery. It appears the CPU runs a bit slower than the larger units to conserve power. This is really only an issue for navigation (navigation works better with a faster CPU).

2- the screen on the 820 is smaller and square. An elongated screen (like the larger units have) means you can see more of what is ahead on the map. A bigger screen is also better for navigation.

Everything requires compromises/trade-offs.

I am mostly interested in navigation, which means my focus is on how well that use is supported.

Speaking of the 520, can those with aging eyes comment on the ledgibility of the screen in different lighting conditions? I had to sell my Edge 500 because I struggled with reading the font(s) even with putting only 2-3 on the screen at once.

Is the Edge 520 better in this regard?...or...is there a better cycling computer that is easiest to see with bigger font size? I mostly want speed, power and heart rate shown on the screen at one time.

Thanks

The Wahoo mght have the most readable screen.

The 520 might generally be a bit harder to read than the 510/500.

The Wahoo and the 520 have similar features. The Wahoo displays much better maps and the 520 has (I believe) better exercise/performance related stuff.

The navigation stuff is similar (but the Wahoo might look better).

The new 520 adds the more sophisticated navigation that the 820 and others (units with maps) provide.

I haven't had a 520 in front of me, but check out DC rainmaker's reviews He usually offers a size comparison with the screens on.

Here's one link for the 520 (not 520+): https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/07/...-edge-520.html

I have the 510 myself and can read it well, but have younger eyes. With only three or four fields on one screen, I think it would work well. The screen has a much better contrast than the venerable 500.

At this point, I am considering simply returning and purchasing the 520+, any ideas when this will be available in store? I would hate to return this then wait 3 weeks without a head unit to obtain one.

Garmin has a reputation for shipping units that are 95 % done, then fixing the remaining bugs in production. Especially with their Edge units. The 520+ probably won't be as mature a product the day it hits the shelves as a lot of people would like. Food for thought.

I just bought a 520 a few weeks ago and was tempted to return it and get a plus but... I generally refuse to buy a garmin that hasn't been out for at least a year for the reasons you mentioned.

If you need nav - the 520 is not your head unit. the 1000 series are probably best. Or personally, if I get really lost and need real nav, I'm using my phone. YMMV. I only use my garmins to follow a predetermined course.

LOL
Higher Screen brightness setting helps

I have the 520, use 6 displays
the addition to make this work
Change my sun/riding glasses to 1.5 bi-focals

Even big fonts will be harder to see next year.
My next riding glasses will be: Bi-focals 2.0

An honest question: what are you really going to use it for? I bought a 510 right when it came out because I was coming off of the super-base model 200 from back in the day. I wanted better navigation, but not full maps. I do a few events a year where there is a course available for download. I don't have maps, but it does the job well enough to keep me on track, and I SUCK at directions in unfamiliar places.

While I like the bling factor of the newer models, I have so far resisted because I find that I don't need that much in the way of nav features. Plus, we all have our phones in a jam. (Pro tip: on many phones, you can download a section of maps so that you do not need 4G, etc. to navigate sufficiently as GPS always works well on your phone)

I'm asking/going on about this because in your first post you said it was mainly for training, but you expected X amount of features from nav as well. So how important is this feature to you? You're setting yourself up for a situation with lots of hassle and extra money just for a feature that your were suddenly surprised to find out doesn't exist. Unless you see yourself using the feature at least 3 or 4 times a year, I don't see the need to go crazy.

But hey, if you just really want to 520+, go for it.

When it comes down to it, I had a much cheaper Lezyne Micro C GPS which had much of the same functionality and the ability to auto recalculate if I went off course. I was simply very surprised when I found a much more expensive Garmin or Wahoo couldn't do the same thing.

Frankly, I'd love to use this for training, then afterwards, pull out my phone and send a dynamic route to the device to a particular town or place, and have it reculate if I take a scenic road on occasion.

If you're wondering why I don't simply continue to use the Lezyne Micro C, it's because it ONLY HAS 3 DATA FIELDS... and I also enjoy the dynamic workouts through the Connect IQ apps that Xert provides on the Garmin device.

If you must have fully functioning navigation, the Garmin Edge 1030 is the way to go. I upgraded from the 520 and I couldn't be happier. The biggest downside is the price.

Besides a fully functioning cycling computer, you can allow the unit to offer up courses on the fly based on your choice of distance and elevation gain.

FYI, at present the 520 Plus is not shipping until reported bug fixes are in place. See info at DC Rainmaker.

I find the 520 easier to read than my old 800 - the display is higher resolution and "crisper" for lack of a better word. However, if your farsightedness keeps you from reading it, you may be doomed. I got contacts last year that are multi-focal so they have a bit of reading correction built in and I can read them just fine. YMMV I use it with 8 fields on the main screen. My normal readers are +1.5 if that helps.