Garmin inreach mini

Discussion in 'GPS 101 - Which GPS For Me' started by telejojo, Oct 6, 2018.

  1. motokeith

    motokeith Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Oddometer:
    923
    Location:
    Falcon, CO
    That more or less sums it up. The Explorer also has some additional compass, barometric pressure, and accelerometer sensors that the SE lacks.

    Personally, I went with the Mini because I already have a Montana as my primary GPS device and the usability of the Mini paired with the Earthmate app far exceeds the small screen and buttons of the Explorer or SE in terms of a communication or secondary navigation device.
    #21
  2. jojojones

    jojojones Long timer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Oddometer:
    1,290
    Location:
    Northeast
    the screen and functionality is poor. Yes you can follow a track but it would be very very hard while riding...maybe walking. i sold my plus and got a mini that I keep on my jacket.
    #22
    bimmerx2 likes this.
  3. RadicalTireSkid

    RadicalTireSkid BURNOUT WHEELIE!!!!!

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Oddometer:
    789
    Location:
    Dallas/Ft Worth
    ok yea i was looking to just replace my normal garmin (swap out and resell old unit). looks like that's not a great idea. I'll probably end up with the mini. Wanna make up my mind soon because of a big trip to Moab this May.
    #23
  4. jojojones

    jojojones Long timer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Oddometer:
    1,290
    Location:
    Northeast
    Locus map pro on a $149 motox4 beats ANY dedicated gps hardware.
    #24
  5. Addapost

    Addapost Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Oddometer:
    495
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    But you know that's not what this is right?
    #25
    jojojones likes this.
  6. jojojones

    jojojones Long timer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Oddometer:
    1,290
    Location:
    Northeast
    He wrote "normal Garmin" so I assumed a Garmin gps so I made the suggestion. Thanks
    #26
  7. Addapost

    Addapost Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Oddometer:
    495
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I agree with you 100% the phone is the way to go for gps nav. I use mine as my primary navigation. Maybe someday a phone will be able to send signals up to the satellites so we won't have to go through a Garmin type unit for that feature. Take care.
    #27
  8. RadicalTireSkid

    RadicalTireSkid BURNOUT WHEELIE!!!!!

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Oddometer:
    789
    Location:
    Dallas/Ft Worth

    even when you lose cell signal?
    #28
  9. motokeith

    motokeith Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Oddometer:
    923
    Location:
    Falcon, CO
    The GPS receiver in a smartphone or tablet operates independent of cell signal and there are plenty of navigation apps that store the maps on the phone. Even Google Maps allows you to download sections of maps for use without access to internet. The Earthmate app functions fine for navigation by using the phone's GPS receiver when there is no inReach device currently paired to the phone.

    But this thread is about the inReach devices, which people choose because of the ability to communicate or summon aid sans cell signal, so touting mobile phone navigation apps is kind of comparing apples to oranges in that regard.
    #29
    jojojones likes this.
  10. advNZer?

    advNZer? Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Oddometer:
    3,613
    Location:
    Wellington,New Zealand
    the phone gps is communicating with sattelites, independent of cell or internet service.You do not need either for a smartphone to work as a gps
    #30
  11. Addapost

    Addapost Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Oddometer:
    495
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I know the a cell phone doesn’t need a cell signal to receive a signal from a gps satellite. That is not what this thread is about. The phone is not “communicating” with the satellites, it is only listening. The same is true for any normal dedicated gps, in order to calculate where they are on earth they only listen to the satellites. This is different, this is about special units like the Garmin Mini that actually CAN communicate up to the satellite, allowing two-way comm. I was saying that it will be nice someday when a “normal” cell phone can do that alone. As of now they cannot. Of course sat phones can but those again are a different thing.
    #31
    ohgood likes this.
  12. 250senuf

    250senuf Long timer

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Oddometer:
    3,841
    Location:
    Nelson area, Kootenai, BC, Canada
    Addapost: Posts 29 and 30 were in response to post 28.
    #32
    Addapost likes this.
  13. jojojones

    jojojones Long timer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Oddometer:
    1,290
    Location:
    Northeast
    taking a step back...post #20 wanted to know the benefit of the nav features on some inreach devices. imho it is not good at all and hence I suggested getting a mini and then rely on a phone for primary gps nav functions or if you already have a gps nav hardware use a cheap phone as plan B...the screens and functionality on even a cheap phone far surpass the inreach nav function. This is seperate from the emergency comms features that inreach owns at least for now.
    #33
    RadicalTireSkid and Addapost like this.
  14. Twospot

    Twospot Adventurer

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Oddometer:
    73
    Location:
    NJ
    I currently have a SPOT and I am thinking of switching to an InReach. How is MapShare? Does it show a nice layout of your track on a map? SPOT's site sucks and although Spotwalla is better, that has it's own annoyances.
    #34
  15. jojojones

    jojojones Long timer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Oddometer:
    1,290
    Location:
    Northeast
    Mapshare looks nice but is very limited. If you have a phone why even bother with the inreach just use a modern Android app for navigation and keep the inreach for only emergency use.
    #35
  16. advNZer?

    advNZer? Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Oddometer:
    3,613
    Location:
    Wellington,New Zealand
    ok i mis interpreted your post
    #36
  17. John F

    John F Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2015
    Oddometer:
    449
    Location:
    South Windsor, CT
    Give it time. Already my phone seamlessly switches between cell towers and WiFi for data and to make or receive phone calls. It’s just a matter of time before satellites and other systems are added to the mix.
    #37
  18. SRTie4k

    SRTie4k Northeast Explorer

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Oddometer:
    2,573
    Location:
    Nude Hampster
    FWIW, phone calls are not made over wifi unless you have a service that supports that, such as Google Voice.

    Also, I doubt satellites will ever be used for phone calls. Nevermind the technical aspects of latency (ever talked on a sat phone?), the infrastructure for cell towers is so dense and cost of satellites is so high that it wouldn't ever make sense. More likely cell towers will continue covering more and more sparsely populated areas, and wifi/VOIP calling will become the norm (not that that helps in areas not covered by wifi anyways).
    #38
  19. John F

    John F Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2015
    Oddometer:
    449
    Location:
    South Windsor, CT
    My iPhone on Verizon supports WiFi calling, and it’s seamless. At km 381 on the James Bay Road and at Mirage Outfitters on the TransTaiga I was making and receiving phone calls as well as surfing the web.
    Yep, satellite will always be expensive, but as more and more picocells get deployed, and more and more open “community” WiFi hotspots get deployed (both short range, for maximum frequency reuse) eventually satellite will be combined into the mix. A plan including satellite will no doubt be more expensive for a long time. But I guarantee you, within 20 years such a plan will be available. Think of it as an Iridium phone that will use a conventional cell tower or WiFi hotspot if one is available.
    #39