Presumably due to the low processing power and memory of mobile GPS devices.
I have a circa 2002 eTrex Legend with the same limitations. Since then there’ve been orders of magnitude improvements in mobile processing power technology, *especially* in low power battery devices. And it’s apparently entirely passed Garmin by.
Exactly, the current state of the art is such that there is no excuse for such arbitrary limits memory is cheap, cpu is cheap, in fact it's often more expensive to get something with less power, less memory, and lower power use than it is to get something with less.
In any case, railing against the designers isn't going to get you anywhere. You need to learn to live with the limitations, just as others have done.
You can stop giving money to this godawful company.
Exactly, this is why now I have a Wahoo Elemnt bolt. It's not perfect, but it has met my needs admirably. I primarily looked at the wahoo based on the sheer number of reports of ultra racers who had their rides compromised by failing garmin's.
The file for tomorrow night's ride, as it comes out of ridewithgps has 4073 trkpt items in it.
A Track file. So this is largely a misunderstanding arising from the sloppy semantics in use (by nearly all of us) surrounding:
1. route - dictionary definition, a way to get from one place to another
2. Route - (my capital) a type of GPS file and navigation method, can be used to describe a route
Up to this point it all makes complete sense.
3. Track - (my capital) a type of GPS file and navigation method, can be used to describe a route
4. tracklog - a Track that has been recorded by a moving GPS.
This is where it just makes no bloomin' sense at all. What is the point then of having the different terms of route and track? It makes no sense.
If people could use the terms correctly instead of interchangeably, a lot of these discussions would go away. As I mentioned upthread, a lot of the blame for this must lie with some of the online planning sites such as BikeHike and RWGPS and others, who use the word 'route' as in (1) above, but in a GPS-ey context it's easy to suppose that they actually mean (2). Or even (3). And it's catching!
Well yes, the terminology doesn't seem to go out of it's way to make it clear. Not helped by the fact that apparently modern gps devices have a limit on the number of route points, but a much more reasonable limit on the number of track points...
I'm so sorry that I imagined my etrex 10 only showing the first 250 points of a ride and thus leaving me with navigational improvisation to do the remaining leg of my journey... so glad that it isn't a problem I had in 34 °C weather in Luxembourg.
Some might call that inadequate preparation on your part (RTFM applies).
It was inadequate preparation on my part to not check that the device I had bought didn't have some silly built in limit that makes no sense. That I conseed.
However, as someone with a background in embedded computer system development, I think that it is poor workmanship on those who made the device to go against simple tenats of good design such as the zero, one, infinity rule. I have spent my professional life trying to avoid falling for such traps and design out the need to.
Autorouting is only a feature on fairly recent models AIUI. You'd be better off using tracks if you want to follow a specific route.
And this is why it's so fscking crazy. To follow a specific route I need to use a track? What brain damaged moron thought this was a good way of doing the terminology?
RWGPS is notorious for producing bloated tracks. You can use Phil W's app to slim them down:
https://simple-gpx.herokuapp.com/
The track for the 1000km ride I did recently had 5166 points, and even that was far more than it really needed.
As do all the route planners. By having more track points, you can also have a more accurate impression of the total distance you're going to ride, this helps with better planning and better riding.
The track for the Race round the Netherlands, 1670km, has over 15000 track points. What's your point?
Why? it drives me nuts that I can't load a route with more than 250 points, that seems a silly limit. It goes against the zero, one, infinity rule of good computer software design.
Presumably due to the low processing power and memory of mobile GPS devices. In any case, railing against the designers isn't going to get you anywhere. You need to learn to live with the limitations, just as others have done.
Low power and memory? it's 2018.
I am not going to learn to live with a stupid limitation, I'm going to take my money elsewhere, it's the only vote I can have here. Why accept the inadequate? Why accept poor design? Why accept limitations that are entirely needless?
Tracks can perform both roles. I've never used routes and my GPS device (Edge 510) doesn't support them anyway, but that's not a problem because I get on fine with tracks.
https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=v0rJAHy2hq3prHjRlxdRw5&searchType=noProduct
See above for why this terminology is just brain dead.
J