Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => GPS => Topic started by: Redlight on 14 February, 2017, 10:15:00 am
-
OK, I'm going to take the plunge. My eyesight is now too poor to read a route sheet unless I retype it in 20pt, which would mean carrying a small novel around with me on some 600s.
So, unsurprisingly, all the manufacturers describe their products as Mac-compatible. But I know from bitter experience that Mac's can be funny beasts and some plug-ins simply don't work as well as they do on Windows machines. Can anyone recommend a sensibly-priced (i.e.£200 max) GPS that is definitely Mac-friendly? All I'm looking for is navigation - I'm never going to be posting my hill climbs on Strava!
-
My etrex 30 (older model, I assume the 20x/30x would be the same) shows up as an external drive on my macbook pro, and I can use basecamp to transfer routes and tracks if I don't want to dig through the folders.
But the screen is a bit small, and if you can't read a routesheet it might not be much use to you.
-
I used an Edge 800 with a mac, but all I used it for was to drop GPX files onto the Edge card.
I never had a problem with compatibility, although I never used any Garmin software.
-
I used an Edge 800 with a mac, but all I used it for was to drop GPX files onto the Edge card.
This approach ought to work with pretty much anything (there's no need to actually use that Garmin Connect browser plug-in rubbish). Unfortunately, unless you're just posting your hill climbs to Strava, it's only half the equation.
To do navigation, you need something to create GPX files in the first place, and that's where using a Mac will affect your options. Anything website-based ought to be fine. There's an OSX version of Basecamp. Third-party native tools will of course differ. What tools are best is going to depend on how you want to use the device to navigate: Do you want pop-up instructions at each junction, or are you happy following a line on a map?
-
Surely Apple must do their own iGPS? 80% of the functionality of other GPS, 100% more expensive, crap battery life but an easy to use interface and oooh look shiny!
Sorry IGMC.
-
I think that's called an iPhone.
-
I used Ride with GPS to plot stuff on and Openfietsmap for map tiles.
The reason I had a simple web based way of doing things, is because I use different computers in different places. I like to keep things easy, straightforward and simple and it was easy to make single GPX tracks of 1700km rides and follow the purple line and the brevet card kept track of the controls.
In the end I never got much out of Strava, so I didn't bother with it after a while. I took a look at the one some of the Auks used, what was it ?........ Nope, can't remember, but if I can't pick a simple piece of software and use it in a basic way after 5 minutes, then I think it's poorly designed.
-
I use Bikehike to create routes on a MacBook, and have downloaded routes to / uploaded tracks from both an eTrex and an Edge - no compatibility problems
-
You're welcome to borrow my Etrex 30x for a bit if you want to try it out.
-
if I can't pick a simple piece of software and use it in a basic way after 5 minutes, then I think it's poorly designed.
I've thought about this, and come to the conclusion that it's true if and only if the software is designed to be easy to learn. It's what Apple are good at, and something many software writers try to do, with varying degrees of success.
But it's not the whole story. There are plenty of pieces of software that aren't designed to be easy to learn, perhaps because they're designed to be highly efficient to use (eg. vi, or JAWS), and the trade-off for that is a learning curve. Or because they're designed to be versatile, and the trade-off for that is a complicated syntax (eg. awk). This doesn't make them poorly designed, it's just a different design objective.
And other software is complex, which means it takes time to learn. A piece of CAD software, for example, could have a lovely intuitive UI, but you're still going to have to take time learning how to use it to design things effectively. I'd put the eTrex firmware in that category. The UI itself isn't actually that complicated (it's just clicking around some menus and learning some terminology), but inherently you're learning how to use a complex navigation tool, and it's going to take time and experience in the same way that learning to navigate with a compass and map would (indeed, many of those skills are the same).
You could complain that an eTrex is much harder to use than a TomTom, but it's a bit like complaining that a car is harder to use than a bicycle.
A more legitimate complaint is that all the GPS navigation tools for bicycles are complicated eTrex-style swiss army knives, and why aren't manufacturers making simple ones that do one thing well. Market forces is probably the answer. There are plenty of simple to use devices for people who just want to know how far they've ridden (these generally just use a wheel sensor, rather than a GPS receiver). There are simple to use devices for finding the way to an address on the other side of town - you've probably got one in your pocket - they just aren't bicycle specific, because there's generally no need for them to be.
A simple to use GPS device that's optimised for audax is possible, but only likely to happen as an open source project; there's no money in it for commercial manufacturers. Hardware is expensive and difficult, so unless someone works out how to write custom firmware for a Garmin or similar, it's likely to be a smartphone app, with the limitations inherent with that hardware. More practically, open source projects tend to happen to fulfil the author's personal need for some tool. If J Random Programmer needs a GPS device for audaxing, they're likely to take the path of least resistance and learn to use a Garmin swiss army knife effectively, rather than embark on a complicated software project that's going to involve a certain amount of cat-herding vis standardisation of route data to be useful.
-
There's an OSX version of Basecamp.
Yes, theoretically. If you try to use it, however, it's buggy, slow and quickly apparent it's a bad translation from the Windows version (uses Mac inappropriate Windows UI conventions).
-
Sounds much like the Windows version, TBH...
-
That's true what you say, but a simple piece of routing software for bike riding shouldn't have a steep learning curve and should be so user friendly that even I can pick it up and use it straight away.
-
If you want a simple piece of routing software, use Google Maps (or Cyclestreets or something) on your phone, or buy that motorbike-oriented TomTom that Ningishzidda uses.
Audax routing isn't simple, and needs a GPS swiss army knife.
-
somewhat-related obligxkcd:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tasks.png)
https://xkcd.com/1425/
-
Of course it's simple. People just like to complicate it unnecessarily.
-
Of course it's simple. People just like to complicate it unnecessarily.
Fine. Let me know when your code's on github and I'll help test it.
-
You're talking about designing it, I'm talking about using it.
-
But the screen is a bit small, and if you can't read a routesheet it might not be much use to you.
Is that down to the maps making the screen cluttered? I don't have trouble with my eyesight but I would think that by reducing the amount of information on screen, it would make a small screen easier to use, so a device that uses breadcrumb trails rather than maps should be fine for audax.
Personally, I find it easy to follow the breadcrumb trail on my Edge 510. I set it zoomed right in so you can see turns clearly, and you can also set it to give you alerts if/when you go off route.
A bit of prior planning and route familiarisation using online mapping tools and Google Street View will help you navigate tricky junctions when you come to them in real life.
Audax routing isn't simple
???
-
You're talking about designing it, I'm talking about using it.
Okay, but as I say, the only way you get simple to use software for unprofitably niche applications is to write it yourself, or pay someone to do so. Otherwise you have to make do with complicated general-purpose software.
-
Audax routing isn't simple
???
Poor choice of words. I meant that it's a niche application that nobody wants to write simple to use software for, because there's no money to be made from selling it, and it's easier, for your own use, just to learn how to work a Garmin.
-
You're talking about designing it, I'm talking about using it.
Okay, but as I say, the only way you get simple software for unprofitably niche applications is to write it yourself, or pay someone to do so. Otherwise you have to make do with complicated general-purpose software.
First world problem. Existing online route-planning apps may have their flaws but they're more than adequate for the job.
RideWithGPS is pretty good and reasonably intuitive to use for making GPX files for audax navigation. Strava is mostly fine too. I generally use Garmin Connect for route plotting simply because it means my routes are available to download to my Edge via my phone anywhere at any time.
-
I meant that it's a niche application that nobody wants to write simple to use software for, because there's no money to be made from selling it, and it's easier, for your own use, just to learn how to work a Garmin.
OK, got you.
But to go back to the OP, and looking at it purely from a user's perspective, all the online route planning apps are equally useable on both Mac and PC. And if you're using a Garmin device, it's equally easy to get the routes onto the device whether you're on Mac or PC.
Basically, there is no disadvantage to a Mac in this context.
I'm not familiar with any current offline apps so can't comment on the differences between Mac and PC versions of those, but the online apps are so good that I've never felt the need to try an offline one.
-
I'd also like to see the population of the yacf audax board, not to mention the rest of the audaxing world, decide on which combination of shortest route / fastest route / avoid hills / avoid a-roads / avoid some a-roads / avoid COR / etc preferences constitutes "audax routing".
-
I'd also like to see the population of the yacf audax board, not to mention the rest of the audaxing world, decide on which combination of shortest route / fastest route / avoid hills / avoid a-roads / avoid some a-roads / avoid COR / etc preferences constitutes "audax routing".
I don't understand the question.
Audax organisers will design routes using their local knowledge and choose the best option for the particular ride, whether that's quiet lanes or fast main roads. The popularity or otherwise of any ride will tell you how successful they have been.
Strava's route planning chooses what it thinks is the best route based on the most popular (ie most ridden) roads in any area. It's very clever and a fairly reliable way of designing a route in an area you're not familiar with that will be pleasant to ride, but it can also end up making routes much longer than they need to be so isn't necessarily the best way to design an audax route.
Garmin Connect is terrible for route planning when you don't know an area because of its tendency to take you down non-navigable tracks - you need a bit of local knowledge to fix these glitches.
Basically, there is currently nothing out there than is better at route planning than an experienced human audaxer. I guess this is what Kim meant about complexity - no algorithm is nuanced enough to design a route that perfectly balances enjoyability and challenge in the same way an experienced human organiser can achieve.
Not that any of this is relevant to Redlight's requirements.
-
Basically, there is currently nothing out there than is better at route planning than an experienced human audaxer. I guess this is what Kim meant about complexity - no algorithm is nuanced enough to design a route that perfectly balances enjoyability and challenge in the same way an experienced human organiser can achieve.
Exactly. So expecting someone to magic up an app which is both a) sufficiently nuanced and b) simple enough for Aunt Maud to use is enough of a moonshot without even considering the range of configurability to account for individual audaxer's preferences.
So you're left with, as Kim says, using more complicated tools and learning to use them.
-
I'm not suggesting that there should be a programme which spits out made to measure audax routes.
What I am saying is, that if I want to put together a route and have a GPX come out the end, I don't expect to have to read a user manual just to find the start button.
RWGPS is easy to use, the other one I tried, I still can't remember what it was called, wasn't.
-
I can imagine a piece of software where you feed it a GPX route, which it then faithfully displays on a map, with minimal configuration options.
I can imagine a piece of software where you feed it a GPX route, which it uses to provide turn instructions whenever the route crosses a node on its map, with minimal configuration options.
I can imagine a piece of software where you feed it a CSV routesheet, which it uses to display the current instruction in large friendly letters based on GPS distance travelled.
I can imagine a small number of audaxers being extremely happy with these solutions. I can imagine people complaining about it being too complicated to create the right kind of GPX/CSV file. I can imagine people wanting a setting to change the colour of the foobar, and either being ignored, or it turning into exactly the sort of complex software that Aunt Maud is complaining about.
-
I'm not suggesting that there should be a programme which spits out made to measure audax routes.
What I am saying is, that if I want to put together a route and have a GPX come out the end, I don't expect to have to read a user manual just to find the start button.
RWGPS is easy to use, the other one I tried, I still can't remember what it was called, wasn't.
Oh. I thought we were talking about GPS receivers. :-[
-
I'm even more simplistic with those.
Don't forget I like to hit bits of wood with hammers and chisels and measure stuff with a stick.
-
Hitting things with hammers can be very therapeutic after dealing with software.
-
So expecting someone to magic up an app...
???
I can imagine a piece of software where you feed it a GPX route, which it uses to provide turn instructions whenever the route crosses a node on its map, with minimal configuration options.
Overkill for audax. Following a breadcrumb trail is easy enough and turn instructions are implicit.
I can imagine a piece of software where you feed it a CSV routesheet, which it uses to display the current instruction in large friendly letters based on GPS distance travelled.
You can manually enter turn instructions on RideWithGPS and link them to points on the track. It works but adding all the instructions for a long route is labour intensive and creates very large files - you could probably get away with just entering key instructions at tricky junctions, or to warn you of infos/controls.
I can imagine a small number of audaxers being extremely happy with these solutions. I can imagine people complaining about it being too complicated to create the right kind of GPX/CSV file. I can imagine people wanting a setting to change the colour of the foobar, and either being ignored, or it turning into exactly the sort of complex software that Aunt Maud is complaining about.
You can imagine audaxers being happy with anything? ;D
-
I can imagine a piece of software where you feed it a GPX route, which it uses to provide turn instructions whenever the route crosses a node on its map, with minimal configuration options.
Overkill for audax. Following a breadcrumb trail is easy enough and turn instructions are implicit.
You vision may vary. I use auto-routing on the USS recumbent because the only sensible place to mount a GPS puts the screen further away from my eyes and it's not always easy to read the map without turn popups when it gets cluttered. I expect some of those who have trouble reading in their cycling glasses would like to do similar.
It's not foolproof, and involves a lot more arsing about to create a suitable Route. But that's arsing about that you can do beforehand at home in front of your computer rather than having to stop riding and squint at things.
(On the upwrongs and ASS 'bent I'm happy with a breadcrumb trail.)
-
But the screen is a bit small, and if you can't read a routesheet it might not be much use to you.
Is that down to the maps making the screen cluttered? I don't have trouble with my eyesight but I would think that by reducing the amount of information on screen, it would make a small screen easier to use, so a device that uses breadcrumb trails rather than maps should be fine for audax.
The maps are fine - though zooming in and out is a bit fiddly with gloves - but the text displays can be hard to see while moving. I think you can set the font size, so maybe it's not such a problem. Actually following a track (I don't bother with routes) is pretty simple if you get the colours right, and you can remove the data fields from the map screen entirely if you want.
-
Most GPSs have options for simplifying the map display, everyone can choose their own sweet spot between
'I want to see everything there is all the time' 'cluttered and laggy' and 'clear and quick' 'where the hell am I'. Text data fields are certainly a problem on some models though - no font size options at all.
You can manually enter turn instructions on RideWithGPS and link them to points on the track. It works ...
Only for some models of Garmin (Edges, presumably) - other models will completely disregard any extraneous (non-positional) information embedded in a Track - possibly they don't even import it.
-
The maps are fine - though zooming in and out is a bit fiddly with gloves - but the text displays can be hard to see while moving. I think you can set the font size, so maybe it's not such a problem. Actually following a track (I don't bother with routes) is pretty simple if you get the colours right, and you can remove the data fields from the map screen entirely if you want.
I think this illustrates the paradigm shift that's required when moving from printed turn-by-turn instructions to GPS-based navigation.
Something like a Kindle, but slightly smaller, waterproof and GPS-enabled (to do what Kim suggests - ie link instructions to nodes) would be the kind of thing you'd need to effectively emulate a traditional printed routesheet.
Only for some models of Garmin (Edges, presumably) - other models will completely disregard any extraneous (non-positional) information embedded in a Track - possibly they don't even import it.
Fair point.
-
I'd also like to see the population of the yacf audax board, not to mention the rest of the audaxing world, decide on which combination of shortest route / fastest route / avoid hills / avoid a-roads / avoid some a-roads / avoid COR / etc preferences constitutes "audax routing".
Audax or not, Garmin are very bad at routing.
-
Something like a Kindle, but slightly smaller, waterproof and GPS-enabled (to do what Kim suggests - ie link instructions to nodes) would be the kind of thing you'd need to effectively emulate a traditional printed routesheet.
You could do that one quite competently on a suitable smartphone, I think. Since it's not displaying a map, the screen can be off except when approaching a turn or when prodded. And it wouldn't need any of the telephonic stuff switched on, either.
If I had any interest in that form of navigation, I might have had a go at writing such an app.
I'm looking forward to an e-ink GPS unit though. I suspect that manufacturers are too wedded to colour for a mono version to happen (maybe I'm unusual in my tolerance for viewing maps in greyscale), so the technology isn't quite there yet.
-
Well if you don't mind upping your budget slightly, or waiting for them to come on offer at £199 which they do from time to time I can thoroughly recommend the Wahoo Elemnt. It has an e-ink style mono display which is easy to read in different light conditions. I've been using one for the last few months and when linked to Ride with Gps it works a treat. You synchronize the device over wifi and it downloads any new routes to the device. The Elemnt then warns you 250 metres before your next course point which direction to take and at roundabouts which number exit to leave at.
You can also put in custom cues to warn you of upcoming controls which again it will prompt you about 250 metres beforehand. The 2 caveats to recommending this are that it doesn't like being switched off during a ride so it is best to leave it on during breaks and you need a smartphone with bluetooth smart to set it up with. It is not necessary to have the smartphone on you during a ride but all configuration of the device is done with a phone.
-
My solution to a simple, intuitive gps-based navigation device is a Suunto Ambit watch (specifically an Ambit2, which is the previous model to the current Ambit3 and hence can be picked up for under £200 if you shop around). I don't use a Mac, but know for a fact that they work perfectly with a Mac as I have at least one friend who uses that combination. Data transfer is via a cable and monitoring program constantly running on the computer, so transferring routes to the watch is just 'plug cable in' and the same for extracting data after a ride. Pre-existing gpx files can be uploaded to Movescount directly into routes and these will then sync to the watch.
It links to Suunto's Movescount web application, which includes a very easy to use, intuitive route creation facility. (It can be made complex, but the obvious way to use it is intuitive and effective.) All I do is create a route then annotate it with points of interest which, in the case of audax rides, tend to be simply left, right, bear left, bear right, cross, summit, etc. i.e. short statements which I put in at any junction or feature of note for navigational purposes. It's pretty much a transcript from a route sheet. It requires looking at where I'm going to go before setting off and considering whether an instruction is needed / interesting / useful, but I see that as good thing since then I pretty much know where I'm going, as I would do from perusing a paper map in advance. 100m. before any of these instructions, the watch beeps (quite loudly) and displays the instruction in large letters for a few seconds. Between those nodes I have the watch displaying distance to the next instruction / node / waypoint, in large type. Very simple, very clear and very like a route sheet which is constantly highlighting the next instruction. If someone gave me a dedicated cycling Garmin device, I'd not use it. Oh, and the other benefit is that battery life is between 16h and 50h, with the gps active and recording, depending on accuracy settings.
-
My solution to a simple, intuitive gps-based navigation device is a Suunto Ambit watch...
Maps?
-
Are you sure that a GPS device is going to be easier to read than a routesheet? I have difficulties reading a routesheet without glasses, but my Garmin 200 is no easier. I use bifocal safety glasses which are cheap and effective. Going for a technical fix may involve a vertigo-inducing learning curve ;)
-
The current problem with Garmin devices is the distinction between Tracks and Routes.
With Routes, you specify a small number of points, and it auto-routes between them along the roads it knows about, with prompts. And with routing assumptions you may not like.
With Tracks, it draws the track on top of the map, even where the map has no roads, but you have to follow it manually.
What we want is some kind of hybrid.
A 'Navigate Track', which actually works properly, and uses underlying roads where it can, and ignores any routing preferences, but goes off-road ( from the garmin maps PoV) gracefully as required, but continues to navigate from trackpoint to trackpoint.
-
My solution to a simple, intuitive gps-based navigation device is a Suunto Ambit watch...
Maps?
If that's a question of 'does it have maps?', then no. The route you've loaded in can be shown as a line, and you can zoom in or out on said line, but there's no underlying basemap. Pretty much like having an accurate line on a piece of paper which goes bleep at you and tells you where you are on the line and can be annotated. You can see where you are in relation to the line if you do choose to go off route - I've done that - not as good as having a proper map in that instance, but viable. My usage is basically to decide where I'm going and then go there and not deviate, so pretty much like an audax really. It's definitely not useful for random exploring. Well, /really/ random exploring of the 'I wonder where I am now' type would be supported very well... You can read off position as OS grid of course, so having a proper, paper map definitely covers all eventualities.
EDIT: to be clear, all knowledge of roads or maps is external to the watch. This is like following a Garmin track which you've annotated yourself. It'll go from point to point and the track you're following will be on roads if you've created it that way in Movescount (though you don't have to).
-
My solution to a simple, intuitive gps-based navigation device is a Suunto Ambit watch...
Maps?
If that's a question of 'does it have maps?', then no. The route you've loaded in can be shown as a line, and you can zoom in or out on said line, but there's no underlying basemap. Pretty much like having an accurate line on a piece of paper which goes bleep at you and tells you where you are on the line and can be annotated. You can see where you are in relation to the line if you do choose to go off route - I've done that - not as good as having a proper map in that instance, but viable. My usage is basically to decide where I'm going and then go there and not deviate, so pretty much like an audax really. It's definitely not useful for random exploring. Well, /really/ random exploring of the 'I wonder where I am now' type would be supported very well... You can read off position as OS grid of course, so having a proper, paper map definitely covers all eventualities.
EDIT: to be clear, all knowledge of roads or maps is external to the watch. This is like following a Garmin track which you've annotated yourself. It'll go from point to point and the track you're following will be on roads if you've created it that way in Movescount (though you don't have to).
OK, ta.
-
Are you sure that a GPS device is going to be easier to read than a routesheet? I have difficulties reading a routesheet without glasses, but my Garmin 200 is no easier. I use bifocal safety glasses which are cheap and effective. Going for a technical fix may involve a vertigo-inducing learning curve ;)
That's a fair point. However, what I have found on some events is that when the route is quite detailed I am having to stop and replace the route sheet far too often to be convenient (for example, on one last year the instructions for a >5km part of the route took up a whole side once reformatted. So there's an extra convenience factor involved.
Added to that the fact that I could get rid of my erratic Cateye computer and also record rides for DIY validation, and I think it does make sense to go down the technical route.
(Thanks to all for the advice so far - I'm going to try our Jsabine's Garmin and see how that works before making any decisions)
-
I thought I would lose the pooter after I got used to the GPS. It's still there :) The only function it has that the GPS doesn't is temperature and I suspect I could get some sort of ANT device to do that if I really wanted.
-
The current problem with Garmin devices is the distinction between Tracks and Routes.
With Routes, you specify a small number of points, and it auto-routes between them along the roads it knows about, with prompts. And with routing assumptions you may not like.
With Tracks, it draws the track on top of the map, even where the map has no roads, but you have to follow it manually.
What we want is some kind of hybrid.
A 'Navigate Track', which actually works properly, and uses underlying roads where it can, and ignores any routing preferences, but goes off-road ( from the garmin maps PoV) gracefully as required, but continues to navigate from trackpoint to trackpoint.
What I do is create a route which has a waypoint at each turn (plus some extra ones between turns if I feel like it). The waypoint is named with a simple mnemonic and a number which ascends (the numbers means it's easy to sort the waypoints by name to insert in a route).
So for instance:
001 STRT
002 L
003 E1
start, left, 1st exit roundabout
Navigate this kind of route in off-road mode. Auto routing doesn't get in the way.
I didn't invent this method. I was introduced to it by Jo. I've been using it since 2007, and have never found anything more reliable.
Generally I've found if I try to use on-road routing:
- the GPS is more likely to crash
- GPS recalculates routes to avoid perfectly good roads
- often wants to take unnecessary detours
Now, for Redlight's purposes, there are still problems here. I've found that more modern Garmins often render the waypoint name in a stupidly small font which is unusable.
For a hybrid, I draw a track which follows the route faithfully, but don't navigate it. I just have it displayed, in a colour which shows clearly, e.g. bright green.
I've tried using this method with the Edge 1000 and can't make it work.
-
I thought I would lose the pooter after I got used to the GPS. It's still there :) The only function it has that the GPS doesn't is temperature and I suspect I could get some sort of ANT device to do that if I really wanted.
Temperature, cadence and a bike-specific odometer. And it's there to tell the time and keep track of mileage when the journey doesn't justify the faff of a Garmin.
-
Eventually I used the follow the line on the screen method.
No notes, flags or other stuff.
Off road routing( whatever it's called). Basically I took the Garmins desire to decide for me, away from it.
Never bothered turning on the timer, as I never collected any ride data in the end.
It gives me a map, a line on it to follow and doesn't ever crash, even when the track is 1700km long. I can switch it of and switch it on without any issues.
-
Indeed - off-road Routing is 'some kind of hybrid' - just not quite the one Feanor had in mind. But it works better for me than either of the alternatives. After all, if you confine your cycling to on roads, then you don't really need a coloured line along the road, the kerbs and ditches will keep you going in the right direction, until you happen across the next waypoint.
With Routes, you specify a small number of points, and it auto-routes between them along the roads it knows about, with prompts. And with routing assumptions you may not like.
With Tracks, it draws the track on top of the map, even where the map has no roads, but you have to follow it manually.
What we want is some kind of hybrid.
A 'Navigate Track', which actually works properly, and uses underlying roads where it can, and ignores any routing preferences, but goes off-road ( from the garmin maps PoV) gracefully as required, but continues to navigate from trackpoint to trackpoint.