GARMIN 65s ? Any reviews?

[errisbogtrotter]

Hi folks. I'm possibly looking at buying a Garmin 65s handheld gps unit for limited use. This is when the terrain is gnarly and the weather is crap and I could do with a fixed waypoint from a uploaded gpx file. Normal caveat of navigation skills and common sense and experience not diminished by just following a arrow!!
Has anyone used one of these units? I would be grateful to know any feedback as to its pros and cons etc. Many thanks Tam.

[Gareth Harper]

I recently bought a 66sr. The 66sr is one of Garmin’s most accurate units as it locks onto multiple satellite systems - as opposed to just locking on to one system like most units.

I bought it because, 1. My Satmap Active 10 which I bought in 2010 had finally given up the ghost. 2. Satmap units weren’t available, and its looking like they probably won’t be again. 3. The Garmin 66sr was available. 4. I hate touch screens.

Things I like about it,

The overall size, it fits easily in my pocket.
Build quality is excellent – much better than Satmap
Accuracy – it is super accurate. Can stash my bag or hide my bike and tag and find again with confidence
It boots up and locks on very quick.
The screen is very easy to read in bright sun light
Big built-in battery

Things I don’t like,

The screen is tiny, even compared to my ancient 2010 Satmap
It is not very intuitive to use, that and the bloat ware (endless features) make it initially very frustrating to use – but you soon start getting used to it.
It will only hold 200 routes in one folder. It lists them in order of nearest first. I had well over 400 routes on my Satmap logically organised in multiple folders. This is one thing about the Garmin that will drive me nuts.
The price. Very expensive, and particularly so if you buy it with 1,25000 maps, which you’ll want if accuracy is your priority.
Miss my Satmap big time, but I’ll adapt to the Garmin, and hopefully I should get many years use out of it.
Lots of info and youtube videos etc on GPS Training web site. https://gpstraining.co.uk/

[errisbogtrotter]

Thanks Gareth for you feedback. I was looking at the 65s because I want to put in gpx files from WH etc and follow routes particularly through complex terrain in Scotland when the weather impedes vision. My main question is will it be able to do that with the garmin topo/explorer mapping? Or do I need to be buying the os 1.2500 mapping as a add on? If so....why? Thanks

[Gareth Harper]

Personally, I don’t see the point in having a GPS unit without OS maps, unless you are going to take the grid reference and check it on your paper map – which is a real faff.

I both upload gpx routes from walkhighlands, site routes and user routes, as well as making up my own. But a route is just a guide, not something to follow blindly.

I don’t follow the GPS, I use it to monitor my progress and check where I am – usually in relation to where I had planned to be (my route).

The GPS tells me precisely where I am. And if I can’t see that on a map, well I don’t know where I am. I also usually carry some sort of paper map – that gives me the big picture, and is handy if I want to or need to alter my planned route. A traditional compass tells me where to go. And remember keep your compass separate from your GPS (and mobile phones etc)

[Marty_JG]

I don't have that model but I do have another Garmin unit (Oregon) and experience of others (Trex, Montana).

You can often buy an out-of-date OS maps card on EBay for about £40, though they don't have many at the moment. Let's face it, it's a rare day the tops of a Munro changes substantially.

You can install user maps on a Garmin, though many baulk at the idea of an OSM based map I've found trails on it not yet on the OS (including the online version here). Certainly OSM has substantially more than 99% of the trails from here on it, I mean the basic paths and routes that the GPX files here follow. One of the go-to sites for such a map is TalkyToaster, he puts in NASA-provided height data and packages them up for use on a Garmin unit. Being vector (as opposed to the OS bitmap) you can zoom in without blur and it is quick to refresh. A Garmin unit can have both OS and OSM loaded onto it at the same time with room to spare so there's no reason not to have both. I prefer to navigate with the TalkyToaster OSM but like to peruse the OS maps for interesting highlights e.g. standing stones.

If you can afford it you might want to consider the Satellite communications version. A couple of hundred quid more, plus a monthly subscription, but you can txt your significant other that you're okay, alert authorities that you're not ok, etc.

I know the default advice here is to be based on pen & paper and use GPS as a backup, but Garmin units are the primary source of navigation for a lot of aircraft and marine vessels, they have paper backups but often only look at them for voyage planning or to maintain skills. IMO you can use GPS for primary navigation, with pen, paper, compass and spare batteries in a rarely-needed pouch.

[mproudfoot]

Having used a Garmin 64S as my primary nav instrument for 281 munros and many corbetts, I can tell you that they are absolutely fine for that purpose. Sure, make sure you have spare batteries, and a backup nav method or two, but using the Garmin just makes it so easy that even when I'm on the hills with my ML qualified friends, they'll invariably let me lead and occasionally ask "has the gps dinged?" if we're on pathless terrain. I will say that good maps are important, but even though I have the 1:25k OS maps on mine, the Topo Light ones that Garmin offers (£20 currently) is usually more than enough to safely follow a route loaded into the device, though if plotting on the fly, the more detailed ones might be a better bet.

As far as I can tell, the only real difference between the 64 and 65 series units is additional GNSS support plus more built-in memory (though I've never come close to using much of the built-in memory of the 64s).

[errisbogtrotter]

Thanks for your input. Question for you. When wanting to follow a specific precise 'path' over complex terrain, no visible path, maybe little or no visibility and hazardous crags if you go off course....are you better following a Track navigation or a Route navigation on a garmin gps? I have heard that when needing to follow a precise ' path' you need to be on track navigation as this is a breadcrumb function but I also found out that you don't get the beep of the gps on the track navigation. Thoughts and advice please......thanks.

[Marty_JG]

A route is dynamic, it tries to find an optimal path to your next waypoint; a route is typically a series of waypoints and it re-routes if you go off course.

A track is fixed, a trail of breadcrumbs.

Routes are perfect for car sat-navs, cycling, etc., but not useful for mountains. You do not want weird re-routing when trying to find you way. The GPS files here are tracks - if you deviate from the track you have to navigate back.

Note sometimes I plan a day on Basecamp using routes, but then I click it and Convert Route To Track & upload that to my unit.

BTW You can add Waypoints & set a proximity alarm for them.

[errisbogtrotter]

Thanks Marty that confirmed my understanding of what the difference is between route and track and that on mountains you need to navigating a track. Many thanks.