Which GPS

[meic]

You can (I nearly always do) plot a track in your computer or on line and download that to your GPS. They are often created in the virtual world instead of by going out and riding.

Personally I always ride following a downloaded track rather than a route but I am in a minority there.

[George Riches]

Personally I always ride following a downloaded track rather than a route but I am in a minority there.

Sounds to me that you use a track as a route. But it all depends on what you see as the difference between a track and a route.

With the definition used by Dave Martindale, routes are plotted on maps and downloaded. Tracks can only be made by the GPS device as it tracks your movements.

Here's a GPS tracker:


No map, no navigation. It just uses Global Positioning by Satellite to record where you've been. When you get home you upload the data to your computer. Possibly use Google Maps to show where you've been, possibly create a route for downloading to a navigation device.

[patricktaylor]

Personally I always ride following a downloaded track rather than a route but I am in a minority there.

Sounds to me that you use a track as a route. But it all depends on what you see as the difference between a track and a route.

With the definition used by Dave Martindale, routes are plotted on maps and downloaded. Tracks can only be made by the GPS device as it tracks your movements ...

I'm with meic. I prefer to follow a track on the GPS map rather than navigate a route. The fundamental difference between a .gpx track and a .gpx route is the xml markup used to define the positions along the path. How they are used in practice is another matter.

Tracks can be made on mapping websites as well as on a GPS. It depends on how you choose to export the file. Come to that, you can write your own .gpx track in a text editor.

[Cunobelin]

Personally I always ride following a downloaded track rather than a route but I am in a minority there.

Sounds to me that you use a track as a route. But it all depends on what you see as the difference between a track and a route.

With the definition used by Dave Martindale, routes are plotted on maps and downloaded. Tracks can only be made by the GPS device as it tracks your movements.

Here's a GPS tracker:


No map, no navigation. It just uses Global Positioning by Satellite to record where you've been. When you get home you upload the data to your computer. Possibly use Google Maps to show where you've been, possibly create a route for downloading to a navigation device.

Sorry - but you can draw tracks in several of the programs including Memory Map!

[George Riches]

Hmm. A lot depends on what you mean by the word track.

Certainly a map can display both where someone has been and indicate when someone else should go if they want to follow. But I think it's useful to distinguish between the two concepts.

I suspect people ride a route with their GPS device and then upload the track data to the web, without bothering to filter out the 95% of the data which is superflous to describing the route. But that limits the usefulness of the data, as it is often too large to be downloaded to a sat-nav.

[George Riches]

The fundamental difference between a .gpx track and a .gpx route is the xml markup used to define the positions along the path. How they are used in practice is another matter.

Take a look at the definition of gpx.

e.g. the definition of a track segment:
A Track Segment holds a list of Track Points which are logically connected in order. To represent a single GPS track where GPS reception was lost, or the GPS receiver was turned off, start a new Track Segment for each continuous span of track data.

The definition of a track point:
A Track Point holds the coordinates, elevation, timestamp, and metadata for a single point in a track.

The definition of a route:
rte represents route - an ordered list of waypoints representing a series of turn points leading to a destination.

You can ignore the timestamps in a track and claim that it's a route, but it pays to be clear what you are doing.

[piedwagtail91]

i always use tracks. in about 7 years of using gps i've only once used a route and never used a .gpx.they're just too much hassle.i've only recently started getting the .gpx files out of my gps memory card so that i can use them in openstreetmap.
i plot rides on tracklogs and send it to the gps as a saved track. any waypoints in the gps are cafes, bike shops and poi. 500 trackpoints is usually enough for about 100 miles of riding.

[patricktaylor]

... You can ignore the timestamps in a track and claim that it's a route, but it pays to be clear what you are doing.

Sorry George, but I'm not sure what you're driving at. I've summarised the markup differences to my own satisfaction at least. Different methods of generating .gpx files will add different headers and additional tags but the essential structures of Waypoints, Routes, and Tracks are quite distinct. See also the GPX 1.1 Schema Documentation.

[George Riches]

Sorry George, but I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Some might think I'm being pedantic. Comes from years of writing requirements for software engineers

Anyway I only think about getting a GPS device - I don't use one. I normally use paper maps which I print and laminate myself. I hope that will help keep my map reading skills in condition.

I might buy a GPS tracker to record how fast I traveled over various terrains, to help with updates to OpenSource map or to provide suggested routes on the web. But I don't really think I want an on-bike electronic device which displays maps or aids navigation.

[meic]

I dont think you are being pedantic but using definitions and terminology in an inappropiate place.
As this is a chat about GPS's it is pretty appropiate to stick to the terminology as defined in the GPS handbook. Your definition of a track may be correct but it isnt the same as that which is used by the majority of GPS users and taken from the Garmin GPS manuals.

I have only ever come across the definition of a track which i am using in dealings with GPS users and think that it is a much more appropiate usage of the term track in this user based setting.

The word Alumina has three different, yet correct definitions depending on whether you are a chemist, geologist or material scientist.

[George Riches]

After a quick look at the Garmin manual, it seems to me that the tracking data is termed a track log. When that data is saved it's called a track. That track data can be used for navigation.

Or you could upload the track data (which is just the saved tracking data) process it, removing the superflous data, and download it back calling it a route. Which can also be used for navigation.

Trouble is much software for converting a track to a route isn't much good:

Memory-Map goes about this task in a very simple and stupid way: it simply knocks out every second trackpoint, regardless of whether it's in the middle of a straight section of road (where its loss will not be noticed) or marking a corner, where its loss will divert the track so it cuts the corner.

[meic]

Yes,

Those of us that ride following a tracklog do not want a route.

The GPS shows the tracklog on the screen and you just cycle along with the GPS drawing over that tracklog with the one which you are making.
If the two tracks diverge, you are no longer going where you intended.
Then you make your way back to the track using your own intelligence not trusting some "autorouting software."

[patricktaylor]

... If the two tracks diverge, you are no longer going where you intended.
Then you make your way back to the track using your own intelligence not trusting some "autorouting software."

I've tried "making my way back" using my intelligence and it doesn't always work. It helps to store a few waypoints of key locations in case you want to deviate. Then you can navigate back.

The advantage of 'following' a track over a 'navigating' a route is that you have double the number of positions (500 instead of 250) - on my GPS anyway - and I'm pretty sure it saves on battery too.

If you have a Garmin with the Trackback feature, you're supposed to be able to 'navigate' a track, but in reverse, and I find that pretty useless. I suppose you could first reverse your track before you put it on the GPS - I haven't tried that.

[meic]

"The advantage of 'following' a track over a 'navigating' a route is that you have double the number of positions (500 instead of 250) - on my GPS anyway - and I'm pretty sure it saves on battery too."

This has me confused.

If i was to use a route it would only have waypoints for places where I have a choice of directions. Then i would use luck, general direction, autorouting or a typed reminder to let me make that choice.
With a tracklog you have a detailed sketch of where you should be going to be followed more or less exactly.
This needs a lot more than twice as many points as the routing.

[fossil]

i use bikehike a lot where i can make my own "track's" then if it's a big one clik on the options , and the reduce the trackpionts to 500

the outcome is very usable