Audax navigation

[freeflow]

[snip]

I really really don't understand why folks are buying cycling specific gps when a cheap, dedicated phone used simless for navigation duties only would only cost around £100-150 new.

Nav is a minor function to a large proportion of cycling gps users,

But is specifically what the OP made enquiries about. Your list of other item is pointless in that regard.,

[PH]

Been using such a setup for navigating long rides for nearly 10 years now.

Out of interest - What size phone do you use? I've gone the bigger is better route for my general phone, but feel it's too big on the bars. If I stick with OsmAnd I might look for something smaller - I might even have an old iPhone somewhere.

Usually the biggest I can lay my hands on. So these days the screen size is about 6.5 inches diagonal.

Thanks. Maybe it's just a matter of familiarity, but my phone just feels too big. Maybe I'll look at different mounting options before doing anything else.

[amediasatex]

I really really don't understand why folks are buying cycling specific gps when a cheap, dedicated phone used simless for navigation duties only would only cost around £100-150 new.

Well for me it's because my cycling specific GPS has as-good mapping (OS), better battery life, is lighter, significantly more robust, easier to use with gloves (and in the dark) due to having actual buttons I can interact with by feel instead of having to look/poke/swipe etc, and only cost £140* new.

*Garmin Edge Touring in case you're wondering, seems a little more expensive now, but then so is everything. It's a Navigation focused model without all the bluetooth/heartrate/cadence extra stuff.
I get about 10-12 hours battery life out of it when using it for nav, longer if just logging, and a small powerbank with a single 18650 battery gives me double that again for longer rides.

[Psamathe]

...
Nav is a minor function to a large proportion of cycling gps users, they use it for training/strava/competition uses.
Look at the long and incomprehensible list of updates for the Garmin 1040, there many more functions, but you get the idea.
...

Looking at updates just identifies aspects that have changed rather than the overall capabilities of the device. Nav is there and gives you directions. There have been some nav enhancements (e.g. course creation, off-course handling, etc.) but people are not calling out for more functionality as it does what is needed - tells you where to go (what more do you want?).

Ian

[Psamathe]

.... I bought a used Garmin Edge 520, but hated it! Fiddly, clunky and geared more towards performance than navigation....

Devices are designed to cover as wider range of potential markets as possible so they'll cover touring, navigation, training to appeal to as broad a customer base as possible. You are not obliged to use the training features. My Garmin probably has far more "performance" features than your 520 but I ignore then and just use the basic bike computer (distance, speed, time) as navigation and the other unsued featured don't get in the way and I don't even notice them. If I were a fitness training focused rider then I suspect I'd not really notice the navigation functions.

My laptop does loads of stuff I'm not interested in but I have not discarded it because of that - I just ignore and don't use those features.

Ian

[freeflow]

Maybe I'll look at different mounting options before doing anything else.

I've tried a number over the past few years. I now use a mount similar to this

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ROTTO-Motorbik ... 54&sr=8-56

as it has proved to be very reliable and simple to use.

[freeflow]

I really really don't understand why folks are buying cycling specific gps when a cheap, dedicated phone used simless for navigation duties only would only cost around £100-150 new.

Well for me it's because my cycling specific GPS has as-good mapping (OS), better battery life, is lighter, significantly more robust, easier to use with gloves (and in the dark) due to having actual buttons I can interact with by feel instead of having to look/poke/swipe etc, and only cost £140* new.

*Garmin Edge Touring in case you're wondering, seems a little more expensive now, but then so is everything. It's a Navigation focused model without all the bluetooth/heartrate/cadence extra stuff.
I get about 10-12 hours battery life out of it when using it for nav, longer if just logging, and a small powerbank with a single 18650 battery gives me double that again for longer rides.

Alas, my aging eyes prefer something bigger and easier to see. I'm also confused by this need to operate a device wearing gloves. I navigate. Once I'm navigating there is no need to touch the phone.

[amediasatex]

I really really don't understand why folks are buying cycling specific gps when a cheap, dedicated phone used simless for navigation duties only would only cost around £100-150 new.

Well for me it's because my cycling specific GPS has as-good mapping (OS), better battery life, is lighter, significantly more robust, easier to use with gloves (and in the dark) due to having actual buttons I can interact with by feel instead of having to look/poke/swipe etc, and only cost £140* new.

*Garmin Edge Touring in case you're wondering, seems a little more expensive now, but then so is everything. It's a Navigation focused model without all the bluetooth/heartrate/cadence extra stuff.
I get about 10-12 hours battery life out of it when using it for nav, longer if just logging, and a small powerbank with a single 18650 battery gives me double that again for longer rides.

Alas, my aging eyes prefer something bigger and easier to see. I'm also confused by this need to operate a device wearing gloves. I navigate. Once I'm navigating there is no need to touch the phone.

You said you didn't understand, I just answered from my perspective to try and explain. Your use case and requirements may be different to mine though.

I find the screen bright and clear enough to read even without my glasses but I've often had others say to me that they prefer bigger screens so that is something worth considering but may or may not be an issue for everyone.

I use the buttons to do things like start/pause/stop recording or routing, and to cycle between different info screens (trip/speed/time, mapping, elevation profile) and I very much appreciate being able to do this by touch, gloves or no gloves I prefer tactile* controls to touch screen when I need to be looking where I'm going.

In an ideal world that would all be available on one screen, but then that would require a significantly larger screen which would then start to compromise other aspects, like weight, battery life and the amount of room it takes up on the bars.

I have used phones for navigation before, I use the Garmin because I find it an overall better solution for my requirements, I'm not zealous about it though, you gotta go with what works best for you.

* Exactly the same reason I despise touch screens in cars, I don't want to have to look down at the dash/screen to do simple things like adjust the airflow, temperature or change radio stations or volume when tactile controls allow me to do it by feel while keeping my eyes on what's going on around me.

[ericonabike]

Horses for courses folks. I was looking for a cycling Sat nav, essentially, and I think the phone plus battery pack solution gives me that. Now that I've been advised that a sim free phone will also do what I want, may well try and pick up a cheapo used one, keeping mine for its original purposes. Others will want the additional functionality of something cycling-specific, but I've managed this far with just a map and mileometer, so happy to continue in that vein!
Thanks, as ever, for the interest and advice.

[nico36]

The best navigation system I have used is a Garmin Dakota, it runs on AA batteries and has a slot for an SD Card so you can put in OSLandranger maps (on an SD Card) or any other maps you fancy.
You can pick them up on Ebay for around £80. I've used the Dakota in every condition and it has never let me down.

[Jamesh]

I really really don't understand why folks are buying cycling specific gps when a cheap, dedicated phone used simless for navigation duties only would only cost around £100-150 new.

Well for me it's because my cycling specific GPS has as-good mapping (OS), better battery life, is lighter, significantly more robust, easier to use with gloves (and in the dark) due to having actual buttons I can interact with by feel instead of having to look/poke/swipe etc, and only cost £140* new.

*Garmin Edge Touring in case you're wondering, seems a little more expensive now, but then so is everything. It's a Navigation focused model without all the bluetooth/heartrate/cadence extra stuff.
I get about 10-12 hours battery life out of it when using it for nav, longer if just logging, and a small powerbank with a single 18650 battery gives me double that again for longer rides.

I've found mine very slow to calculate routes anything over 10miles and it struggles to do it in a reasonable time.

Also it does stupid little detours like down a cycle track and then back onto the main road a few hundred yards ahead..

[Psamathe]

I really really don't understand why folks are buying cycling specific gps when a cheap, dedicated phone used simless for navigation duties only would only cost around £100-150 new.

Well for me it's because my cycling specific GPS has as-good mapping (OS), better battery life, is lighter, significantly more robust, easier to use with gloves (and in the dark) due to having actual buttons I can interact with by feel instead of having to look/poke/swipe etc, and only cost £140* new.

*Garmin Edge Touring in case you're wondering, seems a little more expensive now, but then so is everything. It's a Navigation focused model without all the bluetooth/heartrate/cadence extra stuff.
I get about 10-12 hours battery life out of it when using it for nav, longer if just logging, and a small powerbank with a single 18650 battery gives me double that again for longer rides.

I've found mine very slow to calculate routes anything over 10miles and it struggles to do it in a reasonable time.

Also it does stupid little detours like down a cycle track and then back onto the main road a few hundred yards ahead..

Re: Route Calculation: Is this creating routes locally on the device or on loading external routes? On my 1030 I never had problems with performance creating routes (around 40 miles) locally on the device but strangely, I did find loading external routes (or rather starting to ride external routes) could be a bit slow (I believe it does a load of altitude calculations). One annoying thing on starting an externally created ride is it would go through its "calculating %ages" but if you set off before it had finished when it got to 100% it would restart the calculations as you were now starting at a different position. I found the delay could be shortened by staying put until it has done all it's calculations (which is actually easy as you select the ride and start and then finish getting ready). On my 1040 external routes seem to load without delay (I believe the processor is faster and the algorithms improved and it does not impose delays to starting.

Re: "Strange Detours": Again for on device created or externally created routes? This can be an issue for any route creation that considers traffic (or I suspect Garmin's "popularity routing" feature where preference is given to roads used a lot by cyclists). I certainly quickly disabled popularity routing feature for on-device created routes (on my 1030) as it was causing some very significant detours to get to a popular cycle path. For external route creation then I expect it depends on the balance between traffic levels on the main road vs traffic levels on the cycle path (given when your route is created the systems don't know what time of day you are cycling it so it may be trying to save you from rush-hour or school run traffic levels. I've not created any routes on my 1040 yet so I've no comparison to offer. So likely a feature common to a lot of the more sophisticated route planners.

Ian

[andrew_s]

The SIM is only there to give you a number and allow you to make / receive calls. GPS and offline mapping works independently.

Phone GPS is set up to expect to also be able to get position from triangulation to nearby network masts. With no SIM, that won't work, so expect it to take longer to get a GPS lock after turn-on, and to get more dodgy poistions in city centres where there are high buildings blocking a direct view of the satellites.


A further possible problem with using a phone for audax is that a phone USB port is designed to be used indoors, plonked on a table/desk.
Used on a bike with a power bank for long periods, possible problems are that if any water gets in to the port whilst it's being used for power, the port contacts can corrode, and that the weight of a cable flapping about due to road vibration can fatigue and break the port or cable.

[Sweep]

The best navigation system I have used is a Garmin Dakota, it runs on AA batteries and has a slot for an SD Card so you can put in OSLandranger maps (on an SD Card) or any other maps you fancy.
You can pick them up on Ebay for around £80. I've used the Dakota in every condition and it has never let me down.

interesting, though have always been wary of touch-screen.
which model do you use?
there are several I think.
Have you ever used an etrex 20/30 series? - if so interested in any comparisons you might have.

[Sweep]

On my 1030 I never had problems with performance creating routes (around 40 miles) locally on the device but strangely, I did find loading external routes (or rather starting to ride external routes) could be a bit slow (I believe it does a load of altitude calculations).
Ian

My Garmin Etrex's do this if you create a track which has no elevation data in it and then try to open that - it can take ages and even freeze - the etrex 20/30 series have a very slow processor. What the unit is doing is dragging the elevation data from its own map (I use openfietsmap) as it insists on having a track with elevation data.
I found the answer when creating the track on cycletravel was to select the "show altitude" option before downloading - this then gets added to the gpx for very little penalty in terms of file size - negligible. The tracks then load pronto and my garmin is happy to take the altitude data it is given.

If you open tracks in a text editor you can see the extra elevation (ele) data that has been added to the file.

As a bonus, following the track the garmin then tells me whether I am heading to a low point or high point on the bit of track I am on. Have you tried this?

On creating routes on the garmin, I only ever really do this up to a distance of 20 miles or 20km. I don't find it an issue in practice. In extremis, I usually have an idea of the way I need to go (can always do an osmanroute calculation offline) and can just get the garmin to calculate a series of hops between places I need to go through.