50-point limit for Etrex on-road routing

[Cudzoziemiec]

Slightly confused by this, but I'm still getting to grips with my Etrex 20, so not sure if I've done something not quite right or it's just the limitation of the device. I planned a journey on cycle.travel, saved it and downloaded it as a gpx route. When I came to ride it the next day, the Garmin refused to follow it, saying I'd exceeded its 50-point for on-road routing. It just gave me the message on an otherwise blank screen. I switched to off-road routing and it worked, but because that was off-road, the pink line didn't follow the road but went in a straight line from point to point. Not too much of a problem, but did lead to some wrong turns in a maze of little lanes. Someone told me it's better to download a track and follow the line, precisely for this reason – which makes sense, but (surprisingly to myself) I actually like it bleeping and telling me "Left on to New Rd", which it did even in "off-road routing". As this journey was only 38km, albeit twisty, how does anyone manage with this mode on eg an audax? As far as I can tell this limit isn't an adjustable setting. I also tried downloading it as a tcx file but that doesn't seem to be supported by the Etrex.

Explanations and advice, please. TIA

[Ian H]

If you want to follow a route, don't use a route, use a track.  I have on occasion manged to upload a few waypoints with a track so that I get warning of, say, controls. 

[R_nger]

I do both. Display the associated track on the map and use direct (off road) routing with alerts at turns on the route. In fact, for Audax rides I set up routes with one point per route instruction.

There are a number of experts in this area who will hopefully  be along shortly to describe this in clearer terms !

[Kim]

Indeed.

If you want to use on-road routing, you should really be plotting the route in Basecamp.  The algorithms don't match up, but at least the maps are the same.

I don't think I've actually used off-road navigation with a Route since I've had the eTrex 30.  Might give that a go and see what happens.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The main thing I'm getting here is "use a track not a route". 

If you want to use on-road routing, you should really be plotting the route in Basecamp.  The algorithms don't match up, but at least the maps are the same.

Will look into Basecamp. But presumably that – and the "track + waypoints" idea – will still run into the 50-points limit pretty soon?

[Kim]

Will look into Basecamp. But presumably that – and the "track + waypoints" idea – will still run into the 50-points limit pretty soon?

50 points is plenty for 100km or so (depending on how dense the map is with alternative routes you need to persuade it to avoid).  Beyond that you just use multiple routes.

[JonB]

As Kim says if you want to use routing with turn by turn prompts and auto zooming at junctions then you really need to get Basecamp downloaded.  I never use it to plot a route but you can use it to reduce the number of waypoints* so that it doesn't exceed 50.  The other thing here is that if it's circular you probably want to split it into 2 (or more) routes which effectively increases the number of waypoints you can have on a ride. If you don't do this it WILL get confused and try and take you to the finish when you're about 1k into the ride.

Having said all this, after a few months of experimenting with routing I now use tracks. I create a route in Ride with GPS import it into Basecamp, make sure it looks right, it tends to go in as a 'track' but sometimes if you download a route from somebody else it will appear as a route at which point I convert to a track. Send it to the Etrex and from the Etrex select the track from the 'where to' function and you get a nice heavy magenta line to follow but with no prompts so if you need to zoom in or out you have to do that manually.  Although less 'functional' than the routing option it's more reliable, I may give routing a go again at some point but follow the line just works!

Either way, it's worth getting hold of Basecamp.

*there may be errors in terminology here I get confused by the terminology ... another reason for using tracks

[Ningishzidda]

I went round Flowers to Furnace 100km with nine waypoints. Mind you, I don't use Garmin.

[frankly frankie]

... saying I'd exceeded its 50-point for on-road routing. It just gave me the message on an otherwise blank screen. I switched to off-road routing and it worked ...

Set your routing mode to Prompted, and that at least means you don't get locked out when a Route has more than 50 points.  All that happens is you get the prompt again and get to choose another option.  All Garmins have this limit. by the way, not just Etrexes.  The limit only concerns the number of points comprising a single Route - you could have 10 consecutive Routes of 50 points each and that wouldn't be a problem.  On a modern GPS like the Etrex20, there are various other points limitations but they are all high enough that you should never encounter them, even on a long multi-day tour.

That said, since it was only a 38km ride then some of the blame must go down to the software or planner that was being used - really it's a bit crappy if it can't define a 38km route, even in very laney country, with fewer than 50 points.  And in fact, since no commonly-used GPS can handle a Route with more than 50 points (in follow road), the software should at least issue a warning - I don't know of any that does.

I am one of the few people (it seems) who still prefers to follow a Route in 'direct' or 'off road' mode.  Provided you plan it that way from the start, there's no difficulty - having set your software to 'direct' mode, you just plonk a point on each place where you need a turn instruction - in typical UK laney country this averages out at about 1 point per 1km and you have a limit of 250 points in this mode, so that's enough for a long day ride.  (Though the point in a previous post about circular routes is a very good one - it's best to always treat circular routes as two - 'out' and 'back'.) 
OK so the purple line doesn't follow the road - but I've never understood why this is a problem for a road cyclist - the road itself is there for you to follow, it's not as though you have any option, the purple line-onna-screen doesn't add anything - and it always reappears when next you need it at the next turn instruction.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Thanks, FF, that's useful. In fact, I did try it in Prompted mode, but it seemed no different to Off-Road. Maybe I didn't try it long enough though. As for a warning, when you download a GPS file from cycle.travel it does give you four options: "GPX track (works on all devices), TCX course (best for new Garmins), GPX route (small file), KML (Google Earth)" and I now know that "small file" means "only use this for small files" rather than "this is a small file"! Also, tcx files might be best for some new Garmins but they don't seem to do anything at all on mine!

It sounds like your method would work well if originally planned with that in mind, so you'd put the points at junctions and they'd be instructions; but not if you've originally planned it as a route, or rather some software has. However, cycle.travel is back in favour with me now I've realised it was the device not it that wanted me to follow a footpath up a steep hill through a muddy field, so I'll try using that with Basecamp as an intermediary to see what happens.

[JonB]

I am one of the few people (it seems) who still prefers to follow a Route in 'direct' or 'off road' mode.  Provided you plan it that way from the start, there's no difficulty - having set your software to 'direct' mode, you just plonk a point on each place where you need a turn instruction - in typical UK laney country this averages out at about 1 point per 1km and you have a limit of 250 points in this mode, so that's enough for a long day ride. 

I used 'off road' routing for some time but only ever got audio alerts at waypoints, never turn instructions.  I came to the conclusion that this was something associated with the newer versions of the Etrex (or a problem with mine). In this mode it was apparent that it was no better than a track and it didn't have the advantage of the line staying on the road.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I've downloaded Basecamp and here's the first grumble.  No, it's not that it doesn't work – I haven't used it yet – it's the horrible smarmy voice in the introductory video, with one riff of bacground music on constant loop and telling you nothing. Still, it's American, what did I expect?*

*Blatant display of prejudice and lack of excellence!

[frankly frankie]

Thanks, FF, that's useful. In fact, I did try it in Prompted mode, but it seemed no different to Off-Road. Maybe I didn't try it long enough though.

I'm sorry, I didn't explain it very well.  'Prompted' isn't a routing mode as such, it just means that every time you select a Route you are asked to choose between 'follow road' and 'off road'.  Without this, if routing is set up to be always 'follow road' for example - which is how a lot of people do set it up - you essentially have a GPS that is broken when any Route with >50 points is loaded.

As for a warning, when you download a GPS file from cycle.travel it does give you four options: "GPX track (works on all devices), TCX course (best for new Garmins), GPX route (small file), KML (Google Earth)" and I now know that "small file" means "only use this for small files" rather than "this is a small file"! Also, tcx files might be best for some new Garmins but they don't seem to do anything at all on mine!

No, Etrexes can't handle tcx files. 
I don't know the particular planner you've been mentioning, but quite simply most online planners seem to have this in common: - that they happily and without warning produce broken Route files that no GPS can handle.  What they all seem to do, if you select Route as a download option, is to give you a Track file that has been crudely converted to 'Route' simply by altering the code such that every point is tagged 'Routepoint' rather than 'Trackpoint'.  This simply isn't good enough, because a Track may have thousands of points and still be usable, whereas no (Garmin) GPS can handle a Route of more than 250 points.  Just converting one to the other so crudely, without regard to these differing requirements, is dismal.
The popular BikeHike planner is a particularly bad example of this - if you just use it in what seems like the most intuitive way, you will end up with a broken file.  Despite that, if you use it in ways that aren't 100% intuitive, it's an excellent planning tool that can produce files (either Track or Route) that work well with the Etrex20.  RideWithGps is another very popular planner that will offer up broken files in exactly the same way.
(You were lucky, that your Route was so short that it didn't actually pass the 250-point limit, so wasn't a complete disaster.  If it had been longer, the first you'd have known about it was when the purple line just stopped in the middle of nowhere.  Many AUK organisers still offer GPS files for their events that do exactly this.  )

I used 'off road' routing for some time but only ever got audio alerts at waypoints, never turn instructions. 

Well yes - if you want nice verbose instructions on an Etrex, then you do either have to use 'follow road' or put a lot of work into hand-crafting your own direct Routes.  Ironically, if you do rely on 'follow road', it works best to place points NOT at junctions - but instead partway along roads in between junctions.  The reason for this is that the 'approaching waypoint' instruction will interfere with the more useful generated turn instruction, if you put a point too near the turn.

I use 'follow road' if I'm happy with 'quick and dirty' - which sometimes I am, sometimes not.

[Kim]

Ironically, if you do rely on 'follow road', it works best to place points NOT at junctions - but instead partway along roads in between junctions.  The reason for this is that the 'approaching waypoint' instruction will interfere with the more useful generated turn instruction, if you put a point too near the turn.

That and putting routepoints at junctions results in less deterministic behaviour by the routing algorithm.  If you put points in the middle of a road, it'll tend to route you along that road, rather than taking some other route.

[L CC]

RideWithGps is another very popular planner that will offer up broken files in exactly the same way.

Erm... I have to disagree here. I use this mode all the time for Off-Road Routing whilst also following a track.
What RWGPS does is provide a Route with a Routepoint for every Cuepoint in the written instructions. This means you don't get warned of crossroads if you're going straight on (if the road retains the same name) and do get told (to continue straight) when the road name changes, even if there's no junction.
This works from the Plan menu-not if you upload a track.