Tool to create a basic route for a eTrex HCx

[ChillyPanda]

What's a good free mapping tool that I can use to create a simple gpx route?

I've been using my eTrex Legend hcx happily now for a few years for touring and audax. I've always created tracks but would like to try out the Garmin's navigation function using the 'follow road' option.

I've tried the export route option on ridewithgps but it creates a turn-by-turn route which blows the 50/100 routepoint limit on the hcx.

I reckon that I should be able to get away with as little as 20-30 routepoints  for a 200km audax, well within the hcx's limit.

I'm running Linux Mint 17.2

Edit: I'm using Talkytoaster's routable OSM maps on my eTrex.

[Kim]

Garmin Basecamp.  Unfortunately it needs Windows (Or OSX).  I have a VM for the purpose.

The important thing when creating "follow road" routes is that you really want to use the exact same map as the eTrex is using, otherwise the results will be unpredictable at best.  Basecamp (or indeed Mapsource) will do this.  Online tools will not.

Ideally you'd use a tool that could run the same routing algorithm as the eTrex too, but in their infinite wisdom(!) Garmin chose not to do this with Mapsource/Basecamp.  So even under ideal conditions it's possible for the eTrex to make different routing decisions than the software you used to plot the route.  Much of the work of creating routes for "follow road" navigation is an exercise in persuading the algorithm to decide to use the roads you want to.  It can be frustrating.  (Top tip:  You want to put routepoints in the middle of sections of road you want to use, rather than at junctions.)

The pay-off of course is simplicity once you get out and ride it.  Turn warnings, arrows at junctions, automatic re-routing if you go off-route, that sort of thing.

My preferred approach is to combine a follow road route with a visible GPX track, so that I can see if the routing has done something stupid and chosen to ignore it.  You'll have to do this occasionally anyway if you (for example) use a pedestrian crossing of a major road to link two dead-end roads - a common cycling manoeuvre that auto routing won't understand.

[L CC]

Just filter the trackpoints from ridewithGPS. Or don't export the Track, export a Route (you can do this if you use the route planner, not if you upload someone else's track.

Basecamp is a pile-o-poo.

With Old Skool Etrex (Legend/Vista) don't use follow road, use off road, then you get turn warnings at the junctions and stick within the route-point limits. I'd still use a track too, to have a pink line track to follow, mind. You're not using the internal routing, you're following a pre-loaded route which wont follow the roads but will tell you when you need to turn.

Much as I hesitate to contradict Kim, I think I've probably done more GPS led miles in unfamiliar places.

[Kim]

Much as I hesitate to contradict Kim, I think I've probably done more GPS led miles in unfamiliar places.

You're not contradicting me, but you're replying in the manner of "How do I do $foo on a Mac?" "Install Linux."

Yours is a perfectly good - and indeed much more reliable - method of navigation (at least on a HCx eTrex where you get off-road turn warnings), but the OP wanted to know how create routes to use 'Follow Road' effectively.  I answered.  I agree that Basecamp is a pile of poo but - I hasten to add - I didn't write the bloody thing (you can tell: it tries to store everything you've ever done in an awkward-to-manage bloat library and there's no Linux version).

I use Follow Road from time to time - usually in "get me to the station" mode, but sometimes with tediously hand-crafted routes as described above - but it's not something I'd actually recommend to anyone who had to ask the question as it's got so many traps for the unwary that are difficult to sort out if you only discover them out on the road.  I only use it because I can't see the screen clearly on one of my bikes^[1], and follow road turn instructions are easier to see without stopping.

Following a Track by eye with careful use of proximity waypoints to ensure you're paying attention for things like info controls would be my actual recommendation.  That stuff works.



_{[1] Have attempted to solve this problem with n+1.  Injury prevents testing of the solution.}

[Phil W]

You could try GPS Babel which has a version for Linux. Create track as normal. Convert to route via GPS Babel. Simplify route to 50 points via GPS Babel.  Put the commands in a file, make it executable, and you could have quite a simple workflow that derives a GPX with both track and route.

[Kim]

The problem with algorithmically reducing the points like that is that it will tend to put them at the corners (ie. junctions) which is the exact opposite of what you want for Follow Road routing.

[Phil W]

The problem with reducing the points like that is that it will tend to put them at the corners (ie. junctions) which is the exact opposite of what you want for Follow Road routing.

And the problem the other way is the manual effort. Sure it might route on an alternate road for a while but that the point of also having the track showing. Plus you'll be off the intended route at most for 4km before the routing must return to a point on the original route. So built up, sure different roads, countryside not a major issue. Plus if you have mapping that prefers audax type roads the route will follow the organisers intended just as well as points midway along a road.

[Pingu]

Following a Track by eye with careful use of proximity waypoints to ensure you're paying attention for things like info controls would be my actual recommendation.  That stuff works.

This is my method.

[Phil W]

Actually you can simplify the route to only have points 4km apart without reference to maintaining any shape. So depends which way you do it, you don't have to end up with just points where the route curves the most.

[Kim]

And the problem the other way is the manual effort.

Well yes.  That's why Follow Road isn't generally worth the effort.

Sure it might route on an alternate road for a while but that the point of also having the track showing. Plus you'll be off the intended route at most for 4km before the routing must return to a point on the original route. So built up, sure different roads, countryside not a major issue. Plus if you have mapping that prefers audax type roads the route will follow the organisers intended just as well as points midway along a road.

IME the Garmin's routing algorithm is fickle and can only be relied on to find the worst bastard hills in the area or the nastiest of main roads, depending on which is least convenient at the time.  Inverse Larrington Manoeuvres (ie. adding some distance in order to massively increase the amount of climbing) aren't uncommon if you try to make it avoid main roads.

But you raise an interesting point:  If you accept that by using Follow Road it's going to deviate from the planed route at some point and accept that, then it's a matter of finding a workflow that achieves a 'good enough' approximation of what you want to do with a minimum of time spent fucking about in Basecamp.  I wouldn't be surprised if naively reducing routepoints to regular intervals works almost as well as crafting it by hand.


Dear Garmin:  If you released a unit that could strictly follow a track while issuing map-derived turn warnings, I'd buy one tomorrow.

[frankly frankie]

Don't the newer Edges do precisely that?  At least when used in conjunction with RWGPS?  [disclaimer - I've never used an Edge /]
I've seen several references to using an Edge in this mode, in this forum.  I assumed they display routing hints embedded in the Track comments tags (so yes - not map-derived, not directly anyway), which gives the illusion that they are 'routing'.  Most other GPSs simply ignore this embedded information.

So built up, sure different roads, countryside not a major issue.

Well I'd see that the other way around - being led down different roads in a built-up area is rarely a problem, its just one of 2 parallel routes less than 100m apart.   Taking an 'alternative' route in a rural area on a bike can result in you cycling several kilometres out of your way.
For this reason I like routing in 'Delivery' mode (only available on older GPSs  ) in towns because it tends to take you off the trunk roads, but that same mode outside of towns is a very bad idea, because it's indirect and that's not good when your next junction is 5km away ...
Out of towns, or with a newer GPS which has more limited options, I'd just use 'car'.

What's a good free mapping tool that I can use to create a simple gpx route?
I've tried the export route option on ridewithgps but it creates a turn-by-turn route which blows the 50/100 routepoint limit on the hcx.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but part of the problem is indiscriminate use of the word 'route'.  Most planners are just like RWGPS in that if you export a 'route' you get a broken file much as you describe (and all Garmins have low routepoint limits, not just the old Etrexes).  For this reason most people who use planning tools end up exporting a Track, which is much more likely to work, in its own rather dumb way.
But a Track is not supposed to be a navigational aid, that is the job of a Route (either 'direct' or 'follow road').  Nearly all the planners are dysfunctional in this regard.

I don't know about RWGPS but its easy to get the kind of Route you want in BikeHike for instance, simply by turning off the 'follow road' option before you start planning.  The problem now of course is that you can't see the planner choosing the right roads for you on screen.  But that doesn't actually matter because as Kim points out, unless its the same map (which it usually isn't) and the same routing algorithm (which it never is), all bets are off anyway.  All you can do is use plenty of points (but within your limit of 50).  50 points should be OK for a day's riding, but if not then simply create multiple shorter Routes, because the GPS can store 50 of them.

To be 95% sure that the routing will go where you want, yet conserving the number of points you use, try clicking on 'every other' road you want to use (rather than every road) and as Kim says, avoid placing the points on junctions, or close before junctions - 200m or so after each junction works much better, if your GPS is operating in 'follow road' mode.  The reason for this is that you don't want anything to interfere with the GPS/map-generated messages that appear during the approach to a turn.

[Phil W]

Unlikely to be several Km out of the way when you have two route points at most 4km apart by road. it'd have to think the alternate rural roads are super fast compared to the ones the organiser had in mind.

[Feanor]

The edged are able to navigate a Track, but it's much less functional than navigating a Route.

Whilst it's possible to work the way fboab does, it's not my preferred way.
If you want to use on-road autorouting, you need to do your homework ahead of time.

To save me re-typing it, here's my general advice on the topic:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=77840.msg1598273#msg1598273

[ChillyPanda]

Thanks for your responses.

I think what I'm understanding is that although there are tools to create a route, the device shouldn't be trusted to navigate a suitable route in real-time out on the road, as its routing results are unpredictable.

Perhaps this isn't a problem when touring when there may be fewer time constraints, but for an audax event I'd want the things that I do have control over to be as predictable as possible, given the things that could occur and are outside of my control, like mechanicals.

Still, I'd still like to see how capable, or not, the eTrex is at helping me to navigate a route which might be better than me just navigating a track by following the purple line. So I'm going to test two navigation methods next weekend on a shortish ~80km ride.

Here's my preparation workflow for each method:

1. Follow-Road navigation

1.1 Design a route using ridewithgps
1.2 Export the route to a GPX track file
1.3 Use gpsbabel to convert the track to a route
1.4 Use gpsbabel to reduce the route size to max 50 routepoints (which is the maximum allowed on the eTrex for on-road navigation)
1.5 load the new route GPX file to the eTrex
1.6 Select 'follow-road' navigation and let the device navigate me along the 50-point route. Hopefully this will be tight enough to prevent the eTrex navigating off-piste

2. Off-road navigation

2.1 Design a route using ridewithgps, as above
2.2 Export the route to a GPX route file (ridewithgps generates turn-by-turn cues as the routepoints)
2.3 If the route GPX has more than 250 routepoints then use gpsbabel to reduce the route size to 250 routepoints  (unlikely for a 200km audax but it's the max allowed on the device for off-road nav)
2.4 load the new route GPX file to the eTrex
2.5 Select 'off-road' navigation and let the device provide prompted navigation when approaching each routepoint

In both tests I will also load the route's 500-point track onto the eTrex and have it displayed on the map just to make sure that I'm staying on the intended roads.

Will report back.

[Kim]

I think what I'm understanding is that although there are tools to create a route, the device shouldn't be trusted to navigate a suitable route in real-time out on the road, as its routing results are unpredictable.

It's not that they're unpredictable, so much as they're inconsistent with the results obtained using different maps and routing algorithms.  It's not the device's fault any more than it's, for example, Google's fault.  It doesn't decide to send you in random directions or anything.

What's really needed (in the absence of a better "navigate a Track" mode) is a route-designing tool that uses the same maps and algorithm as the eTrex.  (Basecamp is half way there, as it lets you use exactly the same map.  But the algorithms differ, so the results can still be inconsistent.)  In the absence of such a tool, you have to accept the inconsistencies (or sanity check every route you plot *on the eTrex*).  With a bit of practice you can learn to second-guess the eTrex's routing and design routes that mostly force it to go where you want.  Mostly.

Perhaps this isn't a problem when touring when there may be fewer time constraints, but for an audax event I'd want the things that I do have control over to be as predictable as possible, given the things that could occur and are outside of my control, like mechanicals.

Indeed.  (Actually I'd argue that it's worse for touring than for audax, as with audax you want to get from A to B without wasting too much time, which is the sort of thing that routing algorithms are good at, while with touring you're more interested in having an enjoyable experience on the way even if it isn't the most efficient route.  The real answer is that with touring you can always take time to stop and read a map, rather than trusting a GPS receiver to tell you what to do, so this sort of navigation becomes less relevant anyway.)

[Panoramix]

I don't like online tools and I use Qlandkarte GT (http://www.qlandkarte.org/) and have used Viking in the past (https://sourceforge.net/p/viking/wikiallura/Main_Page/). These are free software and can be found on most linux distros. They have their quirks but might work for you.

[ChillyPanda]

I used qlandkarte for a while but it stopped working.

Now I use Viking to both verify my tracks and to upload my tracks/routes to the eTrex. It's the only *nix tool I know of that will connect to the HCx using USB without fuss. Unfortunately, it's not possible to draw routes with Viking, as far as I know.

I've never tried Mapsource.

[andyoxon]

ChillyPanda,  I have also tried the two routing options on my Vista HCx, but in the end preferrred the simplicity and accuracy of following a downloaded gpx track.  Autorouting in particular kept deviating from my route, so binned it as an option.  I also tried autorouting with a track displayed and an 'invisible' Route line set, but sometimes found the 'pop-up arrow map' a little unclear in built-up areas anyway (could just be me), and I still sometimes missed that the auto-routing had deviated from the track...  edit. With 'Off-Road' routing I wasn't so keen on all the set-up/prep beforehand, and the pop ups at every point the Route was anchored to the track.

To make the coloured but thin track line more visible for navigating I save and export the full track with ridewithgps, then I export the same gpx again from ridewithgps but limited to 500 points.  I then also generate, from the full track, a second track with WinGDB3 converter (free download - works well) also limited to 500 trackpoints.  I upload both the two 500 trkpt versions of the same track to the Vista HCx.  Owing to the diff algorithms the tracks do not perfectly superimpose and are  more visible on the screen.

I also connect up the waypoints with the Route tool, but don't navigate it.  Useful, as the thick Route line mostly converges on key waypoints as one approaches.

[Panoramix]

I used qlandkarte for a while but it stopped working.

Now I use Viking to both verify my tracks and to upload my tracks/routes to the eTrex. It's the only *nix tool I know of that will connect to the HCx using USB without fuss. Unfortunately, it's not possible to draw routes with Viking, as far as I know.

I've never tried Mapsource.

I am on Windows now but qlandkarte GT works for me to draw routes, I can't comment for uploading routes as I don't have an older etrex.

Qlandkarte is an older version, then there was qlandkarte GT and now there is Qmapshack that I haven't tried : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/QLandkarte

[drossall]

All you can do is use plenty of points (but within your limit of 50).  50 points should be OK for a day's riding, but if not then simply create multiple shorter Routes, because the GPS can store 50 of them.

50 points on an HCx? You can have 500 points in a track on an HCx, which is one of the advantages of tracks. You can have 250 in a route, as some others have said. 50 was the earlier eTrex models.

[ChillyPanda]

All you can do is use plenty of points (but within your limit of 50).  50 points should be OK for a day's riding, but if not then simply create multiple shorter Routes, because the GPS can store 50 of them.

50 points on an HCx? You can have 500 points in a track on an HCx, which is one of the advantages of tracks. You can have 250 in a route, as some others have said. 50 was the earlier eTrex models.

I could have misunderstood but I think frankly frankie was referring to routepoints, which is limited to 50 points per route in follow-road mode on the HCx.

[drossall]

Probably right then. My HCx has gone missing, so it's hard to check, and I'm pretty sure Frankly Frankie is more expert than me.

[Kim]

Yeah, 50 routepoints max (250 for off-road).  Same on the eTrex 30.  In practice that'll get you at least 100-150km of typical audax conditions, more if it's further from civilisation.  Start a new route from a convenient control partway round, and it's a non-problem (indeed, it cunningly avoids any unwanted shortening of cyclic routes).