"EXPERTGPS"

[Old Git]

Anyone use expertgps......  any views on the site, it looks good but I'm no expert... or I wouldn't need to use it

JohnT

[Hot Flatus]

Well you have to pay for it, it would seem. Have you tried www.bikehike.co.uk?

[Old Git]

Well you have to pay for it, it would seem. Have you tried www.bikehike.co.uk?

NO but i will have a look

thanks

JohnT

[Hot Flatus]

If you are looking to plot routes and download to pc/gps then it is IMO the best one....and it's free

[Old Git]

If you are looking to plot routes and download to pc/gps then it is IMO the best one....and it's free

That and to download Audax routes, from tinternet, and follow the turn by turn directions.

JohnT

[Hot Flatus]

My Bikely has downloadable routes but if you go down that route I would recommend that you replot the route yourself (on bikehike for example) as you will then be sure to have a complete route that works.

I never use other people's gpx files

[Old Git]

My Bikely has downloadable routes but if you go down that route I would recommend that you replot the route yourself (on bikehike for example) as you will then be sure to have a complete route that works.

I never use other people's gpx files

I have read that TCX file are better for turn by turn course, and to use a course and not a route? this is all gaga to me at the moment.... lots of reading to be done

thanks for your assistance

JohnT

[Hot Flatus]

What gps device are you using?

[bikey-mikey]

My Bikely has downloadable routes but if you go down that route I would recommend that you replot the route yourself (on bikehike for example) as you will then be sure to have a complete route that works.

I never use other people's gpx files

I use bikeroutetoaster, where you can save all your routes, including 'starter blocks', for example I have one that goes over the Severn Bridge to the first rbt at Chepstow, and I load that as the first step in any route to Wales that I am planning.  Similar across Bristol or past Bath on the C/Ps.  If you were doing these from scratch they would require some manual messing around cos the Cycle Paths are not used by the route planning websites, so adopting a "here's one I made earlier" appraoch, a la Blue Peter, makes sense...   

On bike hike, if I download the route using the first .gpx option, (gpx route) my Garmin won't use it, giving me a message that says something about only 100 points....  Should I use 'gpx track?  What's the difference?   

Bikehike is very useful to reverse entire routes, but you still have to go in and correct one way sections, especially when there are dual carriageway sections and large roundabouts..   

When using other people's gpx files, which on some rides is the only way, I tend to load them into bikeroutetoaster, and then check for oddities (way off road behind the hedge pee break expeditions, for example), and cut them out, then redownload, and then the file is in the format, the 200 metre warning mode and the number of way points etc that I always use, and that helps...

[Hot Flatus]

What gps are you using mikey?

[bikey-mikey]

MIne's a Garmin 705, about four years old now, and still going strong..

[Hot Flatus]

In which case download the files as 'gpxx route', NOT 'gpx'.

You'll then get perfect turn by turn routes, overcoming the waypoint limit obstruction you mention.

[De Sisti]

In which case download the files as 'gpxx route', NOT 'gpx'.

You'll then get perfect turn by turn routes, overcoming the waypoint limit obstruction you mention.

Would that be the same for an Etrex Vista CX?

[bikey-mikey]

In which case download the files as 'gpxx route', NOT 'gpx'.

You'll then get perfect turn by turn routes, overcoming the waypoint limit obstruction you mention.

Thx    I'll try that soonest !!

[Hot Flatus]

@ de sisti. I think not. Gpxx is for 705. I don't know but I expect the Vista has a higher waypoint limit

[frankly frankie]

On bike hike, if I download the route using the first .gpx option, (gpx route) my Garmin won't use it, giving me a message that says something about only 100 points....  Should I use 'gpx track?  What's the difference?   

This may not be exactly what you are asking, but the simple answer to "what is the difference between a route and a track" is,
* A Route has fewer points, spaced further apart (on the assumption that if you are on a road, you can't go wrong anyway, in the spaces between the points).  Its a bit like a route sheet with turn-by-turn instructions.
* A Track has more points, closer together (on the assumption that, maybe you aren't on a road after all so need your hand holding).  Its quite a lot like a highlighted map.

Bikehike unfortunately contributes to the confusion because it offers the option to "Download Route" (or upload, etc) where it should really say "Download route or track".  If fact, on its main planning page it's using the word 'route' in a completely different sense, not in the precise GPX-defined or 'Garmin' sense.

[phil d]

In which case download the files as 'gpxx route', NOT 'gpx'.

You'll then get perfect turn by turn routes, overcoming the waypoint limit obstruction you mention.

Would that be the same for an Etrex Vista CX?

At risk of being told otherwise by far more clever people, it is my understanding that Vista (and Legend like I use) won't take gpxx files(or tcx) but will accept gpx tracks with 500 trackpoints or less.  There are (at least) two ways of reducing a track with more than 500 trackpoints down to an "acceptable" number - in Garmin's Mapsource you can reduce a track down to whatever limit you want - it works by removing what it determines as non-essential trackpoints, leaving you with a slightly less accurate (but generally accurate enough) track, or the method used by MSeries of this parish, which breaks a track down into segments of no more than 500 points each.  This keeps a more accurate track, but might mean that you have to transfer each segment to your GPS separately (this is certainly the case with Memory Map).