Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => The Knowledge => GPS => Topic started by: telstarbox on 16 August, 2017, 10:27:37 am

Title: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: telstarbox on 16 August, 2017, 10:27:37 am
A question for the Garmin crew.

I'm setting up a ride and so far I have prepared the routesheet and brevet card which both list the control locations and distances. In parallel with this I have been working on a route saved in Strava which I can then export as a .GPX file to distribute to riders.

I've never used a Garmin to navigate but if you use one, do you prefer it to show an 'alert' when you are nearly at a control? If so, is there an easy way for me to add these to the GPX file? If not then is it best to tweak the track, for example turning in and then out of the nearest side road?
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: T42 on 16 August, 2017, 11:30:43 am
Rather messing about with the GPX I created a separate file of waypoints for PBP controls, loaded them both into the Garmin (eTrex 30) and set both to show on the map. Then I added "Next Waypoint" and "ETA" data fields to the map display.  In conjunction with a list of controls and closing times taped to the top tube, it worked quite nicely.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: vorsprung on 16 August, 2017, 11:40:34 am
Unless you specifically test the file on a particular device you don't know how the extra info above and beyond a simple track line will work

So add whatever you like but don't assume people who aren't using an eTrex30 are seeing what you are seeing

I just make a vanilla gpx file with less than 10,000 points per track and that's what people have to deal with.  This has worked well, had no complaints

The LEL approach with one track per stage (per control) was pretty good I thought
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: telstarbox on 16 August, 2017, 12:26:06 pm
I don't know what devices people will bring, but a .GPX file should work universally shouldn't it?
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Pingu on 16 August, 2017, 12:35:47 pm
I use an etrex30. I prefer to create my own GPX files based on the routesheet, though I will check against a provided GPX if available. Like T42, I add the controls as waypoints separately.[color]
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: fuaran on 16 August, 2017, 12:44:19 pm
Yes, I think you should include the controls as waypoints, in the GPX file.
Anyone using it on their own device can then figure out what to do with them. eg you can set them as proximity waypoints if you want. Or create your own route based on them.

Its not always obvious from the routesheet, where the controls actually are. A GPX makes it a lot simpler to find them on a map.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Kim on 16 August, 2017, 01:11:34 pm
Yes, I think you should include the controls as waypoints, in the GPX file.

Seconded.  It genuinely wouldn't occur to me not to.

While I expect that some user/device combinations wouldn't make use of them, I can't believe the mere presence of waypoints in a GPX would actually cause problems navigating the track, would it?

Multiple tracks in a GPX seems to be a bad idea these days, from a usability standpoint if not a compatibility one.  Many people seem to expect a GPX to contain a single track and nothing else, and doing otherwise is likely to confuse them.  It also makes things easier to work with if the only tool you have available is a file manager (eg. on an Android phone).  I'll only bundle multiple tracks/routes in a single GPX for my own use.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: telstarbox on 16 August, 2017, 01:30:49 pm
Thanks everyone.

The GPX output from Strava is a long list of coordinates, for example:

Code: [Select]
<trkpt lat="51.45349" lon="-0.034780000000000005">
    <ele>29.200000000000003</ele>
   </trkpt>

So I also need to insert each control using
Code: [Select]
<wpt> </wpt> tags?
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: jiberjaber on 16 August, 2017, 03:14:49 pm
Perhaps just put the route on RWGPS, plonk some POI at the controls and circulate the link to that, then anyone can bake their own version suitable for their device.... otherwise you run the risk of a load of moaning because you didn't cater for $device etc...

Camaudax is a good example of this (though Nick also does offer the files in a few flavours as well)...

ETA: Here's an example based on your 3 rivers route (I just dropped the info's at random places to give you an example)

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/24276925
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: telstarbox on 16 August, 2017, 03:35:01 pm
That's great, cheers Jason.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: fuaran on 16 August, 2017, 03:42:41 pm
ETA: Here's an example based on your 3 rivers route (I just dropped the info's at random places to give you an example)

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/24276925
But it doesn't export the waypoints in the file unless you pay for membership.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Phil W on 16 August, 2017, 06:14:58 pm
Don't use RWGPS for this as it doesn't export the waypoints unless you have a paid membership. A simple GPX  with a track (less than 10,000 points)  and the controls as waypoints is perfect as a base GPX to provide. Made available as a download without needing to visit any online mapping service.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Ian H on 16 August, 2017, 06:40:05 pm
I use Basecamp or Gpxeditor to add waypoints.  Save/export as one file.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: frankly frankie on 16 August, 2017, 07:06:57 pm
I agree, Waypoints and Track in a single GPX file, is the way to go, and make the Waypoints accurate enough that they really do identify the control location (eg the entrance gate) - because riders will assume no less.
One reason to have control Waypoints is so that if the Track fails for some reason, the rider may still be able to 'Go To' the Waypoint.  So I would name the Waypoint starting with a number.

Code: [Select]
<trkpt lat="51.45349" lon="-0.034780000000000005">
    <ele>29.200000000000003</ele>
   </trkpt>

<hobbyhorse> Is it any wonder these files get bloated?   >:( The longitude and elevation here are defined to sub-molecular levels of 'accuracy'.  I know its not your fault, I know it's what Strava output, but speaking as one who still cares about bandwidth as much now as I did 20 years ago, this sort of stuff just makes me want to hit someone (possibly myself) with a bag of nails. 5 decimal places is sufficient to comfortably exceed the accuracy of the GPS system itself.  >:( >:( >:(</hobbyhorse>

Quote
So I also need to insert each control using
Code: [Select]
<wpt> </wpt> tags?

But not quite as simple as that.  Your list of Trackpoints is contained in a (or several) <trkseg> wrapper, and this (or these) in turn is contained in a <trk> wrapper.  That is your Track.  The Waypoints have to be outwith the tags enclosing the Track(s), they are not 'part of' the Track.  To be fully compliant, they have to be positioned before the Track, and immediately after the header which usually ends with a </metadata> tag.

An example fairly minimal Waypoint, which places a square red 'bike' symbol on a Garmin map:
Code: [Select]
  <wpt lat="53.0869" lon="-2.3379">
    <name>3 Radway</name>
    <sym>Bike Trail</sym>
  </wpt>

The following would add a proximity alert, in this case 200metres (especially useful for info controls, IHMO - though proximity also has to be set up on each GPS).  There's a limit of 10 (more than 10 will just behave as normal Waypoints).

Code: [Select]
  <wpt lat="53.0869" lon="-2.3379">
    <name>3 Radway</name>
    <sym>Bike Trail</sym>
    <extensions>
      <gpxx:WaypointExtension xmlns:gpxx="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3">
        <gpxx:Proximity>200.00</gpxx:Proximity>
      </gpxx:WaypointExtension>
    </extensions>
  </wpt>

Perhaps just put the route on RWGPS, plonk some POI at the controls and circulate the link to that, then anyone can bake their own version suitable for their device.... otherwise you run the risk of a load of moaning because you didn't cater for $device etc...

 :( This is the best and worst of all worlds IMHO.  Yes, all the above, but also you give a rider of limited understanding every opportunity to get it wrong and download an unsuitable file.   For this reason, and because it makes the organiser look a bit lazy  ;) I'm agin this.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: citoyen on 16 August, 2017, 09:22:18 pm
Seconded.  It genuinely wouldn't occur to me not to.

I'm the opposite - it wouldn't occur to me to do it. Because I didn't know you could.

Quote
Multiple tracks in a GPX seems to be a bad idea these days, from a usability standpoint if not a compatibility one.  Many people seem to expect a GPX to contain a single track and nothing else, and doing otherwise is likely to confuse them.

I've never tried to use a GPX containing multiple tracks, though I'm vaguely aware that such things exist. One was made available for an audax I did a while ago, the aim being to break the ride down into chunks containing no more than 500 trackpoints each - I didn't use it because I have a modern device that can handle tracks with more than 500 points.

I agree, Waypoints and Track in a single GPX file, is the way to go, and make the Waypoints accurate enough that they really do identify the control location (eg the entrance gate) - because riders will assume no less.
One reason to have control Waypoints is so that if the Track fails for some reason, the rider may still be able to 'Go To' the Waypoint.  So I would name the Waypoint starting with a number.

I can see the sense in that, and I'd like to adopt it as a principle. I get the basic idea that you open the GPX file in a text editor and insert the points manually, but I might need a few more pointers...

Quote
But not quite as simple as that.  Your list of Trackpoints is contained in a (or several) <trkseg> wrapper, and this (or these) in turn is contained in a <trk> wrapper.  That is your Track.  The Waypoints have to be outwith the tags enclosing the Track(s), they are not 'part of' the Track.  To be fully compliant, they have to be positioned before the Track, and immediately after the header which usually ends with a </metadata> tag.

I'm familiar enough with markup language for this to make sense but... Do the waypoints have to be included in their own 'wrapper'?

Quote
:( This is the best and worst of all worlds IMHO.  Yes, all the above, but also you give a rider of limited understanding every opportunity to get it wrong and download an unsuitable file.   For this reason, and because it makes the organiser look a bit lazy  ;) I'm agin this.

I've used RWGPS to plot my routes, but have downloaded them myself and processed them through GPSvisualizer to reduce the file size. I've also created 500-trackpoint versions for those who need such things. I have done this for both versions of my route, and I have also provided links to the routes on RWGPS. I am now I am slightly concerned that I am providing too many choices for riders of limited understanding...

Here's a tangential question: if I'm reducing a 200km track to 500 points on GPSvisualizer, what would be the recommended trackpoint distance threshold? I've experimented with this a bit but have yet to achieve satisfactory results.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: telstarbox on 16 August, 2017, 09:47:46 pm
Thanks for all the input above.

For info it's 100km with 5 intermediate controls so no issues with multiple days.

(If anyone on here does do the ride, I'm aware that my chosen controls for this one don't define the 100km minimum distance, but a) I'm expecting most people to treat it as a group ride b) I trust people not to cheat for the sake of an A5 certificate and no AUK points at stake.)   
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: citoyen on 16 August, 2017, 10:56:40 pm
I can see the sense in that, and I'd like to adopt it as a principle. I get the basic idea that you open the GPX file in a text editor and insert the points manually, but I might need a few more pointers...

OK, answering my own question, I've been having a play with bikehike and think I've got it sussed now...

I plotted the route in bikehike, added waypoints, then saved it as a gpx track. When I opened it in the text editor, this was at the top of the file, before the <trk>...

Code: [Select]
  <wpt lat="51.314920" lon="0.984210">
    <ele>0</ele>
    <name>INFO</name>
    <sym>Waypoint</sym>
    <type>Generic</type>
  </wpt>
  <wpt lat="51.115010" lon="0.642980">
    <ele>0</ele>
    <name>CONTROL</name>
    <sym>Waypoint</sym>
    <type>Generic</type>
  </wpt>
etc...

Presumably I can cut and paste this chunk of code into my existing GPX files - rather than re-plot all the variants from scratch.

Also, I presume I can strip out the <ele> tags, since they don't appear to contain any useful information.

Also, if I understand correctly, adding the gpxx extension to each waypoint as per frankie's code will provide a proximity warning. So...

Code: [Select]
  <wpt lat="51.314920" lon="0.984210">
    <name>INFO</name>
    <sym>Waypoint</sym>
    <type>Generic</type>
    <extensions>
      <gpxx:WaypointExtension xmlns:gpxx="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3">
        <gpxx:Proximity>200.00</gpxx:Proximity>
      </gpxx:WaypointExtension>
    </extensions>
  </wpt>
etc...

Does that look right?
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: fuaran on 16 August, 2017, 11:12:30 pm
It is worth giving the waypoints useful, unique names. If you have several points named "INFO", you might find that one overwrites the other. At least give it a number, eg INFO1, INFO2 etc.
Also don't make the names too long. Some older Garmins are limited to 6-character names.
You can add a description with the <desc> tag if you want more details.

Not sure how well that supported that proximity gpxx extension is. It will probably work on some Garmins, but not others. It should just be ignored by anything that doesn't support it anyway.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: citoyen on 16 August, 2017, 11:18:51 pm
It is worth giving the waypoints useful, unique names.

Noted.

Quote
You can add a description with the <desc> tag if you want more details.

Is there a handy reference somewhere of all the valid tags that can be included in waypoints?

Also, a list of all the standard symbols?
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: frankly frankie on 17 August, 2017, 09:57:20 am
Googling "Garmin waypoint symbol names" led to this:
http://freegeographytools.com/2008/garmin-gps-unit-waypoint-icons-table (http://freegeographytools.com/2008/garmin-gps-unit-waypoint-icons-table)

If you don't define a symbol at all, the Garmin will default, probably to Blue Flag (older models) or Blue Pin (newer models).  As you can see from the examples at the bottom of that page, the 'Pin' is certainly highly visible.
I find Small City very useful (I have it set as my default) to create an 'invisible' waypoint, ie one that doesn't clutter the map with a symbol, otherwise I tend to use Bike Trail which is visible but more compact than the default Pin.

The official GPX documentation (tags and attributes) is here:
http://www.topografix.com/gpx/1/1/ (http://www.topografix.com/gpx/1/1/)

A minimal Waypoint will work if just a pair of lat/lon coordinates and nothing else.  However I'd suggest the minimum spec should really also include a unique Name.  Everything else is optional.
A Name can be up to about 30 chars long, but as already noted there are display issues on small GPS screens.
When naming waypoints, I start with the number first, because otherwise if you do for example this
CONTROL1
CONTROL2
CONTROL3 etc
units with limited displays (6 chars max) will just list them like this
CONTRO
CONTRO
CONTRO
better to have
1CONTR
2CONTR
3CONTR

My take on waypoint naming (http://www.aukadia.net/gps/lwg_20.htm)

Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: citoyen on 17 August, 2017, 10:28:33 am
Googling "Garmin waypoint symbol names" led to this:
http://freegeographytools.com/2008/garmin-gps-unit-waypoint-icons-table (http://freegeographytools.com/2008/garmin-gps-unit-waypoint-icons-table)
...
The official GPX documentation (tags and atributes) is here:
http://www.topografix.com/gpx/1/1/ (http://www.topografix.com/gpx/1/1/)

Excellent, thanks. My google fu is obviously weak at the moment - I didn't manage to find either of those.

Quote
When naming waypoints, I start with the number first...

Good thinking.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: frankly frankie on 17 August, 2017, 10:36:31 am
Here's a tangential question: if I'm reducing a 200km track to 500 points on GPSvisualizer, what would be the recommended trackpoint distance threshold? I've experimented with this a bit but have yet to achieve satisfactory results.

I would leave it on the default settings, because only in this way would you get the full cleverness of the Ramer-Douglas-Peucker algorithm ...

Which I think goes something like:
* Find the point that lies closest to a line drawn between its two neighboring points, and delete it.
* Repeat (the distance of 'closest' will steadily increase) until the total number of points is reduced to the number required.

BikeHike is also very good for point reduction.  Better IME than the Garmin tools which tend to go too far (you set a target of 500 and it returns a point count of 237 ...)
Though GPSVis is of course a brilliant site for all sorts of things, I use it all the time.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: citoyen on 17 August, 2017, 11:55:41 am
GPX files for my event now updated to include Waypoints. I hope my entrants appreciate the effort I've taken on their behalf!
 
This has been a most instructive thread. I have also noted that the files downloaded from RWGPS give lat/lon to 6dp, but after processing the files through GPSvisualizer, they are cut to 5dp - presumably this is one of the methods it uses to reduce the file size, which is something I had been wondering about.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Phil W on 17 August, 2017, 12:08:02 pm
Here's a tangential question: if I'm reducing a 200km track to 500 points on GPSvisualizer, what would be the recommended trackpoint distance threshold? I've experimented with this a bit but have yet to achieve satisfactory results.

I would leave it on the default settings, because only in this way would you get the full cleverness of the Ramer-Douglas-Peucker algorithm ...

Which I think goes something like:
* Find the point that lies closest to a line drawn between its two neighboring points, and delete it.
* Repeat (the distance of 'closest' will steadily increase) until the total number of points is reduced to the number required
The algorithm works by defining a maximum distance (as in deviation from the line of the original track, not length of a track) the new track can differ from the original track.  So if removing a trackpoint causes the new track to differ by more than that maximum distance; it is not removed.  So I'd imagine the ones that work to get below a fixed number of points just adjust the maximum distance till you get there. Though I have seen some shockingly bad ones that just remove points at fixed intervals and leave a track no longer aligned to the original The algorithm is fast and so running it iteratively isn't a worry.  You also get a feel for what setting for a maximum distance brings for a particular length of track. For instance a 300km track will generally be reduced to about 2000 track points when the max distance fed into the algorithm is set to 10 metres. This is the default setting on my website (which indeed uses that algorithm plus the radial distance algorithm) for simplifying tracks.

Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: telstarbox on 04 September, 2017, 04:06:01 pm
Right, think I've sorted it. Many thanks all.

The GPX file below contains five "hand-written" waypoints with a unique 6-letter name, inserted between the metadata and the TRK section (which is generated from Strava). If anyone could double check this I'd be much obliged.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9N-QE1V7uI4eUxNVUx6UzNTQW8
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Somnolent on 04 September, 2017, 05:09:14 pm
If anyone could double check this I'd be much obliged.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9N-QE1V7uI4eUxNVUx6UzNTQW8

Didn't work for me.
html files won't open in the various software I use for looking at GPX files.
I tried manually renaming the file (changing the extension) & tried in a couple of different websites.
One failed to load, the other gave error msg: "XML error: Reserved XML Name at line 1"

Messing about editing an xml file seems like a bad idea on the face of it - far too much chance of a syntax error rendering the whole file unuseable.

There are various tools you can use to do this.
Mapsource is one (if you have it installed from the days when it was Garmin's current tool)
or among the online tools:
gpxeditor.co.uk (if you can get to grips with the slightly obscure UI)

doubtless there are others...
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: telstarbox on 04 September, 2017, 05:18:58 pm
I think that's because Google Drive is displaying the text of the file in the browser via HTML, but if you click the download button at top-right it should download the actual GPX ?
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Ian H on 04 September, 2017, 05:24:22 pm
If anyone could double check this I'd be much obliged.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9N-QE1V7uI4eUxNVUx6UzNTQW8

Didn't work for me.
html files won't open in the various software I use for looking at GPX files.
I tried manually renaming the file (changing the extension) & tried in a couple of different websites.
One failed to load, the other gave error msg: "XML error: Reserved XML Name at line 1"

Messing about editing an xml file seems like a bad idea on the face of it - far too much chance of a syntax error rendering the whole file unuseable.

There are various tools you can use to do this.
Mapsource is one (if you have it installed from the days when it was Garmin's current tool)
or among the online tools:
gpxeditor.co.uk (if you can get to grips with the slightly obscure UI)

doubtless there are others...

I copied/pasted the text and renamed it without spaces.  Works fine for me. 
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Somnolent on 04 September, 2017, 06:47:17 pm
I think that's because Google Drive is displaying the text of the file in the browser via HTML, but if you click the download button at top-right it should download the actual GPX ?

Ah - that works.  I blame lack of familiarity with Google Drive
(or sheer bloody incompetence on my part)
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: telstarbox on 04 September, 2017, 07:08:31 pm
Not at all. Thanks for checking :)
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Kim on 04 September, 2017, 09:19:43 pm
I think that's because Google Drive is displaying the text of the file in the browser via HTML, but if you click the download button at top-right it should download the actual GPX ?

Indeed.  Used to be that you could just stick a file on a web server and then arse about with apache configs to get the mime type correct so it would download rather than display.

Such is progress.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Phil W on 04 September, 2017, 10:52:43 pm
I think that's because Google Drive is displaying the text of the file in the browser via HTML, but if you click the download button at top-right it should download the actual GPX ?

Indeed.  Used to be that you could just stick a file on a web server and then arse about with apache configs to get the mime type correct so it would download rather than display.

Such is progress.

Html5 you just include a download attribute and optional file name override. Somewhat easier than needing to arse about with web server config.

https://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/att_a_download.asp
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Kim on 04 September, 2017, 11:04:03 pm
Html5 you just include a download attribute and optional file name override. Somewhat easier than needing to arse about with web server config.

https://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/att_a_download.asp

That's handy (though does of course require you have an HTML page to link to it).  *files away for future reference*
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Phil W on 05 September, 2017, 01:44:03 pm
Html5 you just include a download attribute and optional file name override. Somewhat easier than needing to arse about with web server config.

https://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/att_a_download.asp

That's handy (though does of course require you have an HTML page to link to it).  *files away for future reference*

Well I was kind of thinking you already had a few html pages since you were running a http server.  If you just wanted a basic index of files well you could just use FTP in which case you wouldn't be arsing about with MIME as FTP has no concept of that.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Kim on 05 September, 2017, 03:37:55 pm
Well I was kind of thinking you already had a few html pages since you were running a http server.  If you just wanted a basic index of files well you could just use FTP in which case you wouldn't be arsing about with MIME as FTP has no concept of that.

I was thinking in terms of making a direct link from someone else's CMS where you don't have full control of the HTML.  YACF for example.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Phil W on 05 September, 2017, 03:42:39 pm
Well I was kind of thinking you already had a few html pages since you were running a http server.  If you just wanted a basic index of files well you could just use FTP in which case you wouldn't be arsing about with MIME as FTP has no concept of that.

I was thinking in terms of making a direct link from someone else's CMS where you don't have full control of the HTML.  YACF for example.

But surely if you were arsing about with MIME settings on your Apache Server you had full control of the HTML as well?
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Kim on 05 September, 2017, 03:46:37 pm
Well I was kind of thinking you already had a few html pages since you were running a http server.  If you just wanted a basic index of files well you could just use FTP in which case you wouldn't be arsing about with MIME as FTP has no concept of that.

I was thinking in terms of making a direct link from someone else's CMS where you don't have full control of the HTML.  YACF for example.

But surely if you were arsing about with MIME settings on your Apache Server you had full control of the HTML as well?

Not on YACF I don't.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Phil W on 05 September, 2017, 04:13:22 pm
Well I was kind of thinking you already had a few html pages since you were running a http server.  If you just wanted a basic index of files well you could just use FTP in which case you wouldn't be arsing about with MIME as FTP has no concept of that.

I was thinking in terms of making a direct link from someone else's CMS where you don't have full control of the HTML.  YACF for example.

But surely if you were arsing about with MIME settings on your Apache Server you had full control of the HTML as well?

Not on YACF I don't.

Yes, but we weren't talking about YACF up to that point, we were talking about your need to arse about with mime setting on your Apache server..
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Kim on 05 September, 2017, 04:14:47 pm
I thought we were talking about putting GPX files up somewhere to be downloaded (as telstarbox did above, prompting this discussion).  Last time I did that, it was so I could link to it from YACF, so that people doing my ride knew the route.  This required appropriate MIME settings so the file would download rather than be displayed in the browser.

I've now learned that I could have created an intermediate HTML5 page with a link that forces a download.  That's useful, but less elegant in that particular case.

*shrug*
 
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: telstarbox on 05 September, 2017, 04:26:35 pm
I will tell my prospective rides to ensure that they download the actual GPX rather than saving as an HTML file, which won't be of much use.
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: frankly frankie on 05 September, 2017, 06:42:51 pm
I do sometimes wonder what people think their RH mouse button is for ...
Title: Re: Should I include controls in GPS file?
Post by: Kim on 05 September, 2017, 07:03:44 pm
I do sometimes wonder what people think their RH mouse button is for ...

Tormenting Mac users  ;)