This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
This will probably been asked loads of times but I cant see it recently. I have started getting back into hill running after a fair size break away. I would like a GPS watch to record my distance, speed and altitude. No idea what's best suited but would like to hear folks advice on here.
Not looking for some all singing, dancing expensive watch just functional for the above needs at a reasonable price.
Not looking for some all singing, dancing expensive watch just functional for the above needs at a reasonable price.
In reply to fmck:
Depends what price you're looking at spending.
I've just bought a Garmin Forerunnner 10. Basic, cheap but does exactly what I need
Depends what price you're looking at spending.
I've just bought a Garmin Forerunnner 10. Basic, cheap but does exactly what I need
1
In reply to goose299:
I looked at this but I don't think it gives you altitude/ total height gain readings?
As far as money goes suppose up to £150 if that's reasonable thinking. Obviously if there's a watch that would suit cheaper then it would be preferable.
I looked at this but I don't think it gives you altitude/ total height gain readings?
As far as money goes suppose up to £150 if that's reasonable thinking. Obviously if there's a watch that would suit cheaper then it would be preferable.
In reply to fmck:
I suspect you'll get about as many different suggestions as you get replies to this post, I've been quite happy with my TomTom multi-sport (the runner is cheaper). One thing I've noticed about the GPS watches is they seem to log position less frequently than dedicated GPS units or mobile phone based apps which is great for battery life but less good for your ego if you regularly run very windy trails. On a 7 mile very wiggly cross country run my watch was under reporting by nearly half a mile as it had smoothed out some of the wiggle. On less stupid routes it is much more accurate.
I suspect you'll get about as many different suggestions as you get replies to this post, I've been quite happy with my TomTom multi-sport (the runner is cheaper). One thing I've noticed about the GPS watches is they seem to log position less frequently than dedicated GPS units or mobile phone based apps which is great for battery life but less good for your ego if you regularly run very windy trails. On a 7 mile very wiggly cross country run my watch was under reporting by nearly half a mile as it had smoothed out some of the wiggle. On less stupid routes it is much more accurate.
In reply to fmck:
I'd keep an eye on Sports Pursuit, there have been/are sales in TomTom, Garmin and Suunto watches (last seasons) which will give you what you want.
I'd keep an eye on Sports Pursuit, there have been/are sales in TomTom, Garmin and Suunto watches (last seasons) which will give you what you want.
In reply to galpinos:
Sportpursuits have the Garmin Fenix 2 at £195 at the moment. I know this is a bit above the OP's budget, but it's a decent watch and has a barometric altimeter, which might be good.
http://www.sportpursuit.com/catalog/product/view/id/520458
To the OP: be aware that altitudes measured using GPS fixes can be quite inaccurate, depending on the number of satellites visible. Accuracy is good if you're in open country, but can fall down quite badly in valleys and on steep slopes. Barometric altimeters don't suffer from this, although they do have the slight inconvenience of having to be calibrated against known heights.
It might also be worth looking at a couple of the lesser known brands - Soleus and Epson. Soleus are cheap, but I'm not sure what they have for altitude. Epson are new to running watches, but they might be worth a look.
Sportpursuits have the Garmin Fenix 2 at £195 at the moment. I know this is a bit above the OP's budget, but it's a decent watch and has a barometric altimeter, which might be good.
http://www.sportpursuit.com/catalog/product/view/id/520458
To the OP: be aware that altitudes measured using GPS fixes can be quite inaccurate, depending on the number of satellites visible. Accuracy is good if you're in open country, but can fall down quite badly in valleys and on steep slopes. Barometric altimeters don't suffer from this, although they do have the slight inconvenience of having to be calibrated against known heights.
It might also be worth looking at a couple of the lesser known brands - Soleus and Epson. Soleus are cheap, but I'm not sure what they have for altitude. Epson are new to running watches, but they might be worth a look.
In reply to fmck:
I just bought the TomTom multisport from Groupon for £100. Seemed like a good deal. No experience of it yet, so can't offer a review.
I just bought the TomTom multisport from Groupon for £100. Seemed like a good deal. No experience of it yet, so can't offer a review.
In reply to fmck:
I've got a Fenix 3 and my impression has been mixed. The watch has great potential, but feels in many ways as an unfinished product with features that are multiple (multiple sport profiles, multisport, track navigation, barometer alti), but poorly documented and buggy. On the Garmin forums the general opinion is that Ambit3 Peak (the Ambit3 with baro altimeter) is in general more accurate both in GPS reception, plotting and altimeter readings. The Fenix wins on the overall design, number of featues aimed directly at workout preparation and execution (workout planning seems to have been a weak side on Suunto at least when I bought the watch), smartwatch features like bluetooth connection to the cellphone etc.
The great thing about Fenix is battery life, which is good for 20h when recording each second, something that no cellphone will do, I guess. When not using GPS (ie when used as normal day-to-day watch) it's easily managing two weeks between charges, less when you use the smartwatch bluetooth features.
Bottom line: I got it as I wanted an barometer altimeter watch good for ultra running (so plus 15h battery life). With this criteria, the only selection was Ambit3 Peak, Forerunner 920XT and Fenix 3. I went for Garmin as I already had a Garmin before (so no training data migration involved) and I chose Fenix 3 as I liked it more. However, there seems to be an issue with GPS accuracy, at least on some serial numbers and there's been a large number of bad units replaced by Garmin. So the watch doesn't feel like a finished product. The price is also very steep.
Go to dcrainmaker.com and have a look by yourself at all the reviews there. They are aimed more at triathlon crowd, but they are very deep and well made, well worht looking before buying.
HTH,
RS
/edit: just saw the last line of your post stating you're looking for a basic watch. Therefore the above doesn't apply to you, as Fenix3/Ambit3 are rather top-line... However, I am not deleting the post as someone else might find it useful.
I've got a Fenix 3 and my impression has been mixed. The watch has great potential, but feels in many ways as an unfinished product with features that are multiple (multiple sport profiles, multisport, track navigation, barometer alti), but poorly documented and buggy. On the Garmin forums the general opinion is that Ambit3 Peak (the Ambit3 with baro altimeter) is in general more accurate both in GPS reception, plotting and altimeter readings. The Fenix wins on the overall design, number of featues aimed directly at workout preparation and execution (workout planning seems to have been a weak side on Suunto at least when I bought the watch), smartwatch features like bluetooth connection to the cellphone etc.
The great thing about Fenix is battery life, which is good for 20h when recording each second, something that no cellphone will do, I guess. When not using GPS (ie when used as normal day-to-day watch) it's easily managing two weeks between charges, less when you use the smartwatch bluetooth features.
Bottom line: I got it as I wanted an barometer altimeter watch good for ultra running (so plus 15h battery life). With this criteria, the only selection was Ambit3 Peak, Forerunner 920XT and Fenix 3. I went for Garmin as I already had a Garmin before (so no training data migration involved) and I chose Fenix 3 as I liked it more. However, there seems to be an issue with GPS accuracy, at least on some serial numbers and there's been a large number of bad units replaced by Garmin. So the watch doesn't feel like a finished product. The price is also very steep.
Go to dcrainmaker.com and have a look by yourself at all the reviews there. They are aimed more at triathlon crowd, but they are very deep and well made, well worht looking before buying.
HTH,
RS
/edit: just saw the last line of your post stating you're looking for a basic watch. Therefore the above doesn't apply to you, as Fenix3/Ambit3 are rather top-line... However, I am not deleting the post as someone else might find it useful.
Post edited at 09:55
1
In reply to fmck:
I have a Garmin Forerunner 610 which has a heart rate monitor strap too - you don't need to use this though. With both hrm and gps recording I get ~8 hours from one charge. You can reduce the frequency that it records at to conserve battery but I've never bothered.
So far it seems to record pretty accurate tracks, height loss/gain etc. I tried comparing the watch data (both distance and altitude) with memory map and both gave pretty much the same values.
The only negative is that it often takes several minutes to get a fix on the satellites. That said, once it's got a fix it seems fine and doesn't lose the signal.
I have a Garmin Forerunner 610 which has a heart rate monitor strap too - you don't need to use this though. With both hrm and gps recording I get ~8 hours from one charge. You can reduce the frequency that it records at to conserve battery but I've never bothered.
So far it seems to record pretty accurate tracks, height loss/gain etc. I tried comparing the watch data (both distance and altitude) with memory map and both gave pretty much the same values.
The only negative is that it often takes several minutes to get a fix on the satellites. That said, once it's got a fix it seems fine and doesn't lose the signal.
Post edited at 09:59
In reply to fmck:
I'll be keeping an eye on this thread as i'm on the market for something similar. My limited research to date has led me to garmin products and their forerunner range (210, 220, 225, 610, 620?). If it helps, their website has a "compare" function that allows you to er..compare their products which may be of use. I like the fact that you can link Garmin products to Strava (although I'm sure that other brands do this too).
I'll be keeping an eye on this thread as i'm on the market for something similar. My limited research to date has led me to garmin products and their forerunner range (210, 220, 225, 610, 620?). If it helps, their website has a "compare" function that allows you to er..compare their products which may be of use. I like the fact that you can link Garmin products to Strava (although I'm sure that other brands do this too).
In reply to fmck:
I've just bought the Polar M400 HR. I like it - gives me distances, splits and pace, altitudes, average and peak heart rate. The GPS is great, takes 5-10 secs to wake up and we're off. V. accurate. I wear it all the time because it also functions as an activity monitor. The calorie counter gives daft figures unless worn with the heart rate monitor.
Four things worth bearing in mind:
1. The watch needs recharging regularly (handy mini USB cable): I recharge mine weekly because I only use the HR monitor on long runs. With the HRM on, the thing demands to be recharged at the end of 4 hours.
2. The chest strap takes some getting used to: I imagine this is what women must put up with all the time with bra straps. A must if you are keen on accurate HR radings, those watches that measure HR at the wrist have a reputation for inaccuracy.
3. Syncing isn't as seemless as I'd like. Easy enough with a cable to my Macbook, but I have to try several times to get the watch and its Iphone app to talk to each other via Bluetooth. Not sure why. Still,like having the satisfaction of looking back over my week's mileage.
4. The watch doesn't vibrate: not a deal breaker for me, but may be a pain if you are doing interval training etc with headphones on.
I've just bought the Polar M400 HR. I like it - gives me distances, splits and pace, altitudes, average and peak heart rate. The GPS is great, takes 5-10 secs to wake up and we're off. V. accurate. I wear it all the time because it also functions as an activity monitor. The calorie counter gives daft figures unless worn with the heart rate monitor.
Four things worth bearing in mind:
1. The watch needs recharging regularly (handy mini USB cable): I recharge mine weekly because I only use the HR monitor on long runs. With the HRM on, the thing demands to be recharged at the end of 4 hours.
2. The chest strap takes some getting used to: I imagine this is what women must put up with all the time with bra straps. A must if you are keen on accurate HR radings, those watches that measure HR at the wrist have a reputation for inaccuracy.
3. Syncing isn't as seemless as I'd like. Easy enough with a cable to my Macbook, but I have to try several times to get the watch and its Iphone app to talk to each other via Bluetooth. Not sure why. Still,like having the satisfaction of looking back over my week's mileage.
4. The watch doesn't vibrate: not a deal breaker for me, but may be a pain if you are doing interval training etc with headphones on.
Post edited at 10:37
In reply to adityahs:
can I ask a couple of questions about your Polar?
1)Does it recharge from a standard mini usb cable? I know some of the Polars did/do. I can't find confirmation on the specs for the M400.(I would like a watch I can charge from a number of locations without carrying any proprietary cradle).
2)Will the GPS give datums in OS grid reference format?
On the interval training thing, If you are listening to a bleep track using your phone as an mp3 is it possible to pair the phone to the watch and have a different tone play for HR thresholds? I am pretty sure a friend of mine got something like this going with, I think, a Garmin watch and his iphone.
can I ask a couple of questions about your Polar?
1)Does it recharge from a standard mini usb cable? I know some of the Polars did/do. I can't find confirmation on the specs for the M400.(I would like a watch I can charge from a number of locations without carrying any proprietary cradle).
2)Will the GPS give datums in OS grid reference format?
On the interval training thing, If you are listening to a bleep track using your phone as an mp3 is it possible to pair the phone to the watch and have a different tone play for HR thresholds? I am pretty sure a friend of mine got something like this going with, I think, a Garmin watch and his iphone.
Post edited at 11:24
In reply to Fiona Reid:
Have you updated the latest firmware and the location data.
I have a 220 and it had a similar issue. There was a firmware release that fixed it.
Have you updated the latest firmware and the location data.
I have a 220 and it had a similar issue. There was a firmware release that fixed it.
In reply to fmck:
Have a look at the Garmin 225. Or look for a S/H 220 because the 225 has just been released.
Have a look at the Garmin 225. Or look for a S/H 220 because the 225 has just been released.
Post edited at 11:32
In reply to fmck:
Most only give altitude / height gain when you upload to your computer and whatever software you use will give you all sorts of information.
> I looked at this but I don't think it gives you altitude/ total height gain readings?
> As far as money goes suppose up to £150 if that's reasonable thinking. Obviously if there's a watch that would suit cheaper then it would be preferable.
Most only give altitude / height gain when you upload to your computer and whatever software you use will give you all sorts of information.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
My experience is that GPS watches are much more accurate that phones, you can usually adjust the sampling rate.
I would add that I am also happy with my TomTom, Runner Cardio in my case. Quite different though if you are used to Garmin, which I had previously.
My experience is that GPS watches are much more accurate that phones, you can usually adjust the sampling rate.
I would add that I am also happy with my TomTom, Runner Cardio in my case. Quite different though if you are used to Garmin, which I had previously.
Post edited at 12:31
In reply to goose299:
The 10 doesn't give altitude does it?
I keep getting reconditioned 410's.. I'm not a fan of the watch tbh, signal isnt great, bezel a pain, but its simple, gives me speed, distance, altitude, decent battery. I get them for around £65 or so.
The 10 doesn't give altitude does it?
I keep getting reconditioned 410's.. I'm not a fan of the watch tbh, signal isnt great, bezel a pain, but its simple, gives me speed, distance, altitude, decent battery. I get them for around £65 or so.
In reply to ultrabumbly:
I've used the original cable, but think you can use any.
Sorry, don't know.
Good idea: don't know if the Polar Flow App will do this, will check it out. The main reason I don't actively pair my watch and phone when i run is because this will drain both their batteries. My silly Iphone 5 needs charging each night: leaving the Bluetooth on and pairing it with something else just gets it all hot and bothered and prone to dying.
Maybe it's just me, but I fear i've become hostage to a number of devices with short battery lives that demand attention: I wish the tech companies would just get together and agree on a single industry standard so i don't have to carry 7 different chargers on me. I had hoped the mini-USB would be that standard, but perhaps not.
> (In reply to adityahs) can I ask a couple of questions about your Polar?
>
> 1)Does it recharge from a standard mini usb cable? I know some of the Polars did/do. I can't find confirmation on the specs for the M400.(I would like a watch I can charge from a number of locations without carrying any proprietary cradle).
>
> 1)Does it recharge from a standard mini usb cable? I know some of the Polars did/do. I can't find confirmation on the specs for the M400.(I would like a watch I can charge from a number of locations without carrying any proprietary cradle).
I've used the original cable, but think you can use any.
>
> 2)Will the GPS give datums in OS grid reference format?
> 2)Will the GPS give datums in OS grid reference format?
Sorry, don't know.
>
> On the interval training thing, If you are listening to a bleep track using your phone as an mp3 is it possible to pair the phone to the watch and have a different tone play for HR thresholds? I am pretty sure a friend of mine got something like this going with, I think, a Garmin watch and his iphone.
> On the interval training thing, If you are listening to a bleep track using your phone as an mp3 is it possible to pair the phone to the watch and have a different tone play for HR thresholds? I am pretty sure a friend of mine got something like this going with, I think, a Garmin watch and his iphone.
Good idea: don't know if the Polar Flow App will do this, will check it out. The main reason I don't actively pair my watch and phone when i run is because this will drain both their batteries. My silly Iphone 5 needs charging each night: leaving the Bluetooth on and pairing it with something else just gets it all hot and bothered and prone to dying.
Maybe it's just me, but I fear i've become hostage to a number of devices with short battery lives that demand attention: I wish the tech companies would just get together and agree on a single industry standard so i don't have to carry 7 different chargers on me. I had hoped the mini-USB would be that standard, but perhaps not.
Post edited at 12:45
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Oh, thanks, I will investigate the firmware stuff.
My watch takes 2 minutes or so to get a fix versus 3-4 seconds on my phone. For longer runs it's fine as I'm often changing shoes or whatever but if going straight from home / work I just want to basically just run straight away.
> Have you updated the latest firmware and the location data.
> I have a 220 and it had a similar issue. There was a firmware release that fixed it.
Oh, thanks, I will investigate the firmware stuff.
My watch takes 2 minutes or so to get a fix versus 3-4 seconds on my phone. For longer runs it's fine as I'm often changing shoes or whatever but if going straight from home / work I just want to basically just run straight away.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I've had three 405/410s over the past few years. Awaiting the death of mine so I can replace it with something. Battery in them is poor, GPS signal takes forever to set up, that bezel is hell. But, as with you, I kept getting a cheap replacement. Time to move on for me.
I've had three 405/410s over the past few years. Awaiting the death of mine so I can replace it with something. Battery in them is poor, GPS signal takes forever to set up, that bezel is hell. But, as with you, I kept getting a cheap replacement. Time to move on for me.
In reply to Fiona Reid:
2-3minutes is fairly normal. Turn it on earlier.
Phones are 'always on' so that will be the difference in what you are expecting to see and what actually happens.
2-3minutes is fairly normal. Turn it on earlier.
Phones are 'always on' so that will be the difference in what you are expecting to see and what actually happens.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
A phone uses assisted gps and takes a rough set of coordinates from the cell towers. It is then a much shorter process to find which satellites it needs to fully acquire to get a proper fix. Non phone gps start up times will vary, typically dependent upon how far you have moved and/or how long since they were last switched on. If you use a phone with gps on but the "phone" itself in flight mode or where there is no phone signal it will give similar times to give an accurate position.
A phone uses assisted gps and takes a rough set of coordinates from the cell towers. It is then a much shorter process to find which satellites it needs to fully acquire to get a proper fix. Non phone gps start up times will vary, typically dependent upon how far you have moved and/or how long since they were last switched on. If you use a phone with gps on but the "phone" itself in flight mode or where there is no phone signal it will give similar times to give an accurate position.
1
In reply to fmck:
If this guy does not answer your question, I don t know who will... http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-reviews
If this guy does not answer your question, I don t know who will... http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-reviews
In reply to Fiona Reid:
How often do you use your watch, and does the location you run vary significantly?
My 220 only takes a minute or so if it's not been used in a while or I've travelled a considerable distance. If I use it daily/every couple of days then it locks on in seconds.
As someone said, might need a software update via the Garmin site. I also think syncing with Garmin express means the watch downloads almanac data, which gives a quicker gps fix, although I don't bother.
How often do you use your watch, and does the location you run vary significantly?
My 220 only takes a minute or so if it's not been used in a while or I've travelled a considerable distance. If I use it daily/every couple of days then it locks on in seconds.
As someone said, might need a software update via the Garmin site. I also think syncing with Garmin express means the watch downloads almanac data, which gives a quicker gps fix, although I don't bother.
In reply to fmck:
I have a Garmin 620, it seems to have been discounted recently – I wonder if it will soon be replaced with a wrist HRM version. Anyway, I no longer need to put the GPS in the garden for a few minutes before a run as I used to do with the now 12 year old 301 as usually by the time I have locked up it is locked on. I really like this watch and just use it all nearly all the time between running.
I have a Garmin 620, it seems to have been discounted recently – I wonder if it will soon be replaced with a wrist HRM version. Anyway, I no longer need to put the GPS in the garden for a few minutes before a run as I used to do with the now 12 year old 301 as usually by the time I have locked up it is locked on. I really like this watch and just use it all nearly all the time between running.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I usually run from work back to my house and it can't find the satellites in my office
Ah, okay. Although I'm pretty sure I have my mobile setup to only use GPS for location as it uses less battery that way. I also have location turned off until I actually want to use it.
> 2-3minutes is fairly normal. Turn it on earlier.
I usually run from work back to my house and it can't find the satellites in my office
> Phones are 'always on' so that will be the difference in what you are expecting to see and what actually happens.
Ah, okay. Although I'm pretty sure I have my mobile setup to only use GPS for location as it uses less battery that way. I also have location turned off until I actually want to use it.
In reply to Ridge:
Usually once a week. Mostly I run from work to my house, thus same starting point each time.
I've just updated to the latest firmware (I was using 2.9, now on 3.0) and the watch got a GPS fix after about 1 minute which is a big improvement.
> How often do you use your watch, and does the location you run vary significantly?
Usually once a week. Mostly I run from work to my house, thus same starting point each time.
> As someone said, might need a software update via the Garmin site.
I've just updated to the latest firmware (I was using 2.9, now on 3.0) and the watch got a GPS fix after about 1 minute which is a big improvement.
In reply to Fiona Reid:
If you turn the watch on when on your way to work so it gets a fix it will probably fix quicker for your run home. Do you work in an area with a lot of high rise buildings? That would definitely slow down getting a fix.
If you turn the watch on when on your way to work so it gets a fix it will probably fix quicker for your run home. Do you work in an area with a lot of high rise buildings? That would definitely slow down getting a fix.
In reply to fmck:
Ive got the 10 and quite like it....you get alt/height info later when you download into Garmin connect. I guess the thinking is it's not info that you need during the course of the run unlike your speed numbers.
edit - should probably add the only thing I would change is the battery life which is a bit short at 4-5 hrs.
> I looked at this but I don't think it gives you altitude/ total height gain readings?
> As far as money goes suppose up to £150 if that's reasonable thinking. Obviously if there's a watch that would suit cheaper then it would be preferable.
Ive got the 10 and quite like it....you get alt/height info later when you download into Garmin connect. I guess the thinking is it's not info that you need during the course of the run unlike your speed numbers.
edit - should probably add the only thing I would change is the battery life which is a bit short at 4-5 hrs.
Post edited at 11:25
1
In reply to Ridge:
There are a few tall buildings about but I usually walk right out into the open and wait for it to pick up a signal. I might just try dangling it out the office window for a few mins before I head out running in future.
> If you turn the watch on when on your way to work so it gets a fix it will probably fix quicker for your run home. Do you work in an area with a lot of high rise buildings? That would definitely slow down getting a fix.
There are a few tall buildings about but I usually walk right out into the open and wait for it to pick up a signal. I might just try dangling it out the office window for a few mins before I head out running in future.
Been following this thread with interest. I was wondering if anyone could help me with some info - is it possible to get the 610 to display OS Grid ref's instead of Lat Long on the 'Where Am I?' screen? I can't find this info anywhere.
Thanks,
Peter
In reply to PeterM:
I don't have a Garmin watch but I have used many Garmin devices over the years. Typically you will need to change the units (in the same place you choose between metric and imperial) to have position displayed as BNG.
When you set up screens there are some Position(subtype) datafields that overide the base setting, be careful in case the whereAmI is customisable and you can do so and still have it show Position(LatLong)
I don't have a Garmin watch but I have used many Garmin devices over the years. Typically you will need to change the units (in the same place you choose between metric and imperial) to have position displayed as BNG.
When you set up screens there are some Position(subtype) datafields that overide the base setting, be careful in case the whereAmI is customisable and you can do so and still have it show Position(LatLong)
In reply to ultrabumbly:
Ta for that. My apologies. I did not make my situation clear. I am looking at getting a 610 or possibly a FR15. The 610 has way more features than I need but is only £30 more. The FR15 definitely can't display OS grid refs, but if the 610 can only display as Long Lat then it is not quite worth the extra for me.
Ta for that. My apologies. I did not make my situation clear. I am looking at getting a 610 or possibly a FR15. The 610 has way more features than I need but is only £30 more. The FR15 definitely can't display OS grid refs, but if the 610 can only display as Long Lat then it is not quite worth the extra for me.
In reply to PeterM:
It's hard to tell. I had a look at the 610 manual online but can't find anything that indicates being able to display OSGB, in fact it doesn't even state the units displayed. It looks very much like it just provides an arrow that points back to the start or other marked point and maybe a distance.
The sad thing is it would be a simple thing to enable on mist watches , but they only tend to offer it on very expensive models, which the 610 isn't in the grand scheme of things.
You'll have to find a 610 owner to know for sure.
It's hard to tell. I had a look at the 610 manual online but can't find anything that indicates being able to display OSGB, in fact it doesn't even state the units displayed. It looks very much like it just provides an arrow that points back to the start or other marked point and maybe a distance.
The sad thing is it would be a simple thing to enable on mist watches , but they only tend to offer it on very expensive models, which the 610 isn't in the grand scheme of things.
You'll have to find a 610 owner to know for sure.
Post edited at 13:35
In reply to ultrabumbly:
Thank you. Very much appreciated. As Ridge said it seems to be a definite promoted feature on the higher end watches - Fenix/Tactix, but not mentioned or just not available on anything of the others.
Thank you. Very much appreciated. As Ridge said it seems to be a definite promoted feature on the higher end watches - Fenix/Tactix, but not mentioned or just not available on anything of the others.
In reply to PeterM:
Never needed that function and don't go in to Rainmaker type detail about such things, sorry!
Never needed that function and don't go in to Rainmaker type detail about such things, sorry!
In reply to PeterM:
It will display as British OS Grid. But that's not a constantly displayed field. I suspect to access it you have to go through the Waypoint process to mark your current location.
I think the OP is looking for something that will record the values. So anyb of the Garmin devices will do that.
The 220 syncs through Bluetooth to Garmin Connect via the iPhone 4S and above so you don't need a PC to analyse your runs.
It will display as British OS Grid. But that's not a constantly displayed field. I suspect to access it you have to go through the Waypoint process to mark your current location.
I think the OP is looking for something that will record the values. So anyb of the Garmin devices will do that.
The 220 syncs through Bluetooth to Garmin Connect via the iPhone 4S and above so you don't need a PC to analyse your runs.
Post edited at 15:04
In reply to Fiona Reid:
During a run?
It's not listed as a field.
> The 610 will definitely display OS grid ref.
During a run?
It's not listed as a field.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The 610 will display the current grid ref, but it doesn't change dynamically as you move - you have to exit out that menu and go back in again. A bit of a pain, but it will do what you want with a few button pushes.
Whereas the Garmin 910, for example, will show the grid ref changing as you move, once you are on that screen
The 610 will display the current grid ref, but it doesn't change dynamically as you move - you have to exit out that menu and go back in again. A bit of a pain, but it will do what you want with a few button pushes.
Whereas the Garmin 910, for example, will show the grid ref changing as you move, once you are on that screen
In reply to The New NickB:
That is the big issue for me. I went for the 220 as it has standard buttons as opposed to a touch screen. The touch bezels on the earlier Garmins had issues, so I figured it was something else to go wrong, especially in the rain.
> I've just retired a 610, touch screen just became too unreliable.
That is the big issue for me. I went for the 220 as it has standard buttons as opposed to a touch screen. The touch bezels on the earlier Garmins had issues, so I figured it was something else to go wrong, especially in the rain.
Post edited at 18:53
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...