GPX editor / route planner wish lists?

[Euan Uzami]

I don't know Basecamp either, but remember that ultimately whether a Route follows the road or not is down to what you choose in the GPS - regardless of whether it does or does not, in Basecamp or any other software.

This is why, on Ben's wonderful site, routes (rather than tracks) would be lower on my priority list than tracks.

If I set up a route (with relatively few points) and then ask a piece of software to calculate roads-to-be-taken* between the route points for me, I want to be confident that this is the same as my GPS will give. 

<peter kay>

I wanna moonwalk son, but life's a shithouse.

</peter kay>

Using Garmin Mapsource with the same OSM data as in my Garmin GPS  I can have this confidence.

I'm not really sure you can be confident even then.

Garmin mapsource may be able to be installed with the same data as in on your garmin but it still hasn't necessarily got the same routing algorithm.

But if I create a set of routepoints on software using different map data, and a different routing engine to my GPS I don't have total confidence that my GPS isn't going to do something totally different, and maybe quite bonkers when navigating between the points (maybe it's missing a crucial road or something).

That's why, if I have  software and map data different to my GPS (as is the case here) then I'd prefer to create a track, not a route, and manually try to keep my current position on the line of that track, rather than wait for my GPS to bing me and tell me to turn left in 100 metres.

Does that make sense?

* trying hard not to use the word "route"

It's been said before and I'll say it again, but the only way you can have 'total confidence' your garmin isn't going to divert you from the exact roads you intended to use is not to let it use its own routing algorithm - i.e. don't use 'follow road' routing. That's not what it's for. It will get you to a destination, using *some* roads, but they may not be the roads you would have chosen yourself. It's for things like finding your way to a travelodge or the train station in a strange town - not for navigating a whole pre-planned bike ride. That's what tracks are for.
The way I've intended routes as my site creates them to be used, is to follow on your unit - but in off-road mode, that way it will just remind you of the next instruction (and possibly beep when near it) but won't try and figure out every single turn. You figure out the turns beforehand, and just use it to remind yourself of them - not ask it to calculate them again and hope it comes up with the same result. However, I make no apologies for giving yourself enough rope to hang yourself with.

[Toady]

Sorry, I didn't intend to be contentious.

Using Garmin Mapsource with the same OSM data as in my Garmin GPS  I can have this confidence.

I'm not really sure you can be confident even then.

I can be moderately confident because that's what it normally does (ie confidence comes from experience) and also because I normally put my route points fairly close together/at junctions so there's little scope for disagreement.  I know it's a little gamble but I'm happy to take it when using the same map data and the same (OK similar ... from same vendor) routing engine but I wouldn't take it otherwise.

And from your explanation above you're not expecting me to take that gamble! I understand now.

[Manotea]

I use an eTrex Vista Cx, mostly programmed using Garmin mapsource & City Navigator maps using routes.

That’s mostly because (a) I like the pop up exploded displays for upcoming junctions (especially at night) and (b) mapsource has only limited support for "route" planning using tracks.

My approach to programming routes is to place editable waypoints midway on key roads, labeling them with town names and color coded flags, generally placing a waypoint every 5km or so.

This approach requires far fewer waypoints than the traditional waypoint every junction, and running my GPS display in autozoom mode, I generally have a view of the next waypoint coming up with a display titled “Toytown in xKm. 

I'm using a mapping gps so it’s generally pretty obvious if my GPS is attempting to direct me down some blind alley but that doesn’t happen often because I’ve restricted its decision making to what happens in the next 5km or so. Any “off road” sections I mark with flags; the GPS throws a tantrum when I wander off road but recovers automatically when I pop out the other side. I also have the option of loading a track as well as the route to provide a reference. This approach works "fine".

Things move on though and the trend is for maps to show off-road paths and nextgen GPS units (AIUI) to display tracks like routes complete with pop up display’s at junctions. The former makes mixing "routes" generated on maps which show off road cycleways et al with maps that don't problematic and the latter rather makes the  route based approach redundant and tracks/courses whatever you wantto call them are the future.

Regardless until my Vista dies for Ben’s tool to replace Garmin map products in my affections it would need to replicate Mapsource’s functionality in defining routes’s based on a set of editable waypoints (not routes based on  tracks with trackpoints rendered as a zillion uneditable routepoints, which is what most online utilities tend to do).

A bit late for the spec but this may inform some decisions.

[Euan Uzami]

I'm guessing you create the waypoints first, and then use mapsource's "Create Route From Waypoints" feature, right?
If you're asking can I replicate that, yes, absolutely.
But, if you want it to just create *straight lines* between the waypoints, that would be a route.
If you want it to go away to google and 'route by road' between the waypoints, then what comes back would be a *track* (like your willy warmer gpx, which fairly conveniently will prove quite useful for testing the fact that waypoints go off the bottom of the screen and need a scrollbar  .)

When mapsource actually does for 'create route from waypoints' is not to create routepoints from all the intermediate points from the on-road routing (it still only has one routepoint for each of your waypoints), but to store them in an extension, iirc. It would be better to just put them in a track though imho.

[Manotea]

I'm guessing you create the waypoints first, and then use mapsource's "Create Route From Waypoints" feature, right?

Yes

But, if you want it to just create *straight lines* between the waypoints, that would be a route.

what mapsource calls "direct" route mode

If you want it to go away to google and 'route by road' between the waypoints, then what comes back would be a *track* (like your willy warmer gpx, which fairly conveniently will prove quite useful for testing the fact that waypoints go off the bottom of the screen and need a scrollbar  .)

When mapsource actually does for 'create route from waypoints' is not to create routepoints from all the intermediate points from the on-road routing (it still only has one routepoint for each of your waypoints), but to store them in an extension, iirc. It would be better to just put them in a track though imho.

Not sure I quite follow...

In mapsource "follow road" mode, I define the (editable user) waypoints and then lace them together as a route; mapsource calcs and displays the route between them, however that is for display purposes only. The route between the waypoints is not written to the GPX; the gps recalcs the "follow road" route at load (which is what causes all the grief).

If you're saying your system would replicate mapsource "follow road" routing by calculating and displaying the "route" between waypoints, and write both the waypoints (with labels and bespoke flags) and associated route based on them AND/OR the associated (follow road) inter-route-point track segments to the GPX at the same time, that would be perfect!

[Euan Uzami]

In mapsource "follow road" mode, I define the (editable user) waypoints and then lace them together as a route; mapsource calcs and displays the route between them, however that is for display purposes only. The route between the waypoints is not written to the GPX; the gps recalcs the "follow road" route at load (which is what causes all the grief).

OK, I think I see what you mean. You lace them together (by which I presume you mean use mapsource's 'Create Route From Waypoints' feature) just in order to make sure you've got enough waypoints, yes?

I'll take the next bit step by step,

If you're saying your system would replicate mapsource "follow road" routing by calculating ...

yes, albeit using google's algorithm and data

and displaying the "route" between waypoints, and write both the waypoints (with labels and bespoke flags)

(the WAYpoints already exist - you've said you create them first, so it wouldn't need to write them again...see '<anal>' below )

and associated route based on them

yes, which is made up of ROUTEpoints, which it would create anew. One in the same place as each waypoint, which is exactly what mappoint does.

AND/OR the associated (follow road) inter-route-point track segments to the GPX at the same time,

yes, absolutely. This could be like you say instead of, or as well as, creating the route. I would recommend instead of.

Creating just the track would produce a GPX like your willy warmer 'full' , by the way, the way I'm thinking of doing it. (And this is the exact format of GPX that I like to navigate by - I like having waypoints there if I need them, but I navigate primarily from a track, not a route. Obviously also therefore what I would recommend, although I will provide the 'route' option as well if it's wanted.)


This is something mapsource can't do - which leads me to be curious as to how you did create it - did you create the track separately?

<anal>
The way I think of it:
A WAYpoint is its own entity, an orphan, it is its own free agent, nothing owns it and nothing is made up of them. 
A ROUTEpoint is what a ROUTE  is made up of, it cannot live outside of a route, and a route cannot be made up of anything else.
Confusingly, in the schema, http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1/ a routepoint has the same type specification as a waypoint. However, you can't just 'move' waypoints into a route. They have to be copied to routepoints, declared as <rtept> rather than <wpt>.

</anal>

[Somnolent]

Something in Manotea's post made me think of another "nice to have" but by no means essential feature:
In Mapsource the "flag" assigned to a Waypoint is user-selectable (and transfers to the Etrex).    The default blue flag is fine for most things.  I change to a small dot in urban areas where screen is cluttered anyway, and to a red flag for a control  (especially for Infos - on which I put a proximity warning also)

Any chance those options could be replicated for your "routepoints"

[Euan Uzami]

Something in Manotea's post made me think of another "nice to have" but by no means essential feature:
In Mapsource the "flag" assigned to a Waypoint is user-selectable (and transfers to the Etrex).    The default blue flag is fine for most things.  I change to a small dot in urban areas where screen is cluttered anyway, and to a red flag for a control  (especially for Infos - on which I put a proximity warning also)

Any chance those options could be replicated for your "routepoints"

A routepoint already is just a red dot on mine, but a waypoint can easily be made to be just a purple dot instead of a purple 'google marker' icon, yes.

[Manotea]

Creating just the track would produce a GPX like your willy warmer 'full' , by the way, the way I'm thinking of doing it. (And this is the exact format of GPX that I like to navigate by - I like having waypoints there if I need them, but I navigate primarily from a track, not a route. Obviously also therefore what I would recommend, although I will provide the 'route' option as well if it's wanted.)

The problem with tracks is that all eTrex (h)Cx users get is a line on a map. A route gives active navigational aides (beeps and popups at junctions). Why not let the user decide which to use by making waypoints, route and track user selectable?

As pppete notes, waypoints should ideally have user editable labels and selectable flags. I color code waypoints to distinguish between standard points, info and controls.

I use wingdb3 to generate a track from the route then copy it into the input gdb

[Euan Uzami]

Creating just the track would produce a GPX like your willy warmer 'full' , by the way, the way I'm thinking of doing it. (And this is the exact format of GPX that I like to navigate by - I like having waypoints there if I need them, but I navigate primarily from a track, not a route. Obviously also therefore what I would recommend, although I will provide the 'route' option as well if it's wanted.)

The problem with tracks is that all eTrex (h)Cx users get is a line on a map. A route gives active navigational aides (beeps and popups at junctions). Why not let the user decide which to use by making waypoints, route and track user selectable?

Oh yes, the route option will definitely be there.

As pppete notes, waypoints should ideally have user editable labels and selectable flags. I color code waypoints to distinguish between standard points, info and controls.

I use wingdb3 to generate a track from the route then copy it into the input gdb

I'll provide the option to convert it into a small dot rather than the google marker image but I'm loath to allow the user to change the colour of it, as the colour coding is integral to the way the map items relate to the items in what I call the 'explorer', i.e. the list on the right hand side. I could definitely have different shapes, though, but they would all be purple. Maybe a purple pencil for an info control, and a purple knife-and-forks symbol for a cafe, etc.

[Manotea]

Dots, diamonds, squares, K&F, etc. all work!

[frankly frankie]

The problem with tracks is that all eTrex (h)Cx users get is a line on a map....

To be fair though, the situation now is that we (h)Cx users are outliers.  Look at any sizeable group of cyclists (eg at an event start) and you'll find that we're part of a very small minority now. 
As such it's not really reasonable to tailor any new programming with these old devices in mind.

Similarly - because I often produce GPX files for distribution to groups of cyclists - I've had to review my standards over the last year to produce files that are friendlier towards the new devices.

[Euan Uzami]

The problem with tracks is that all eTrex (h)Cx users get is a line on a map....

To be fair though, the situation now is that we (h)Cx users are outliers.  Look at any sizeable group of cyclists (eg at an event start) and you'll find that we're part of a very small minority now. 
As such it's not really reasonable to tailor any new programming with these old devices in mind.

Similarly - because I often produce GPX files for distribution to groups of cyclists - I've had to review my standards over the last year to produce files that are friendlier towards the new devices.

edges, etc?
As well as what devices they use i'd be interested in how they use them. Do they use mainly use sparse routes, use (or try to use) complex routes, use just tracks, combination of track and route, etc ?

[PloddinPedro]

My two-penn’orth: I’ve always used just a plain Track only, with User Waypoints for Controls and Infos, with Proximity Alerts where relevant. It may be my imagination but I believe the Routing uses more battery power and I’ve never trusted the Garmin unit algorithm to choose the exact roads I want between Route points. And the method of customising waypoints with turn instructions has always seemed too much hassle.

The drawback with my method is that I don’t get a prompt if I go off course, which I am prone to do when my mind wanders and I forget to look at the unit!

Might be a case for a poll of sorts? Question (A) what model of GPS unit do you use? Question (B) do you use: (i) a Track only; (ii) a Route only; (iii) a Route with pop-up “turn” prompts; (iv) a combination of Track and Route. And any other alternatives people can come up with.

[Toady]

Might be a case for a poll of sorts? Question (A) what model of GPS unit do you use? Question (B) do you use: (i) a Track only; (ii) a Route only; (iii) a Route with pop-up “turn” prompts; (iv) a combination of Track and Route. And any other alternatives people can come up with.

I think a new thread on ways you do your navigation would be a good idea, as I'd like to know what others do and I don't want to pull Ben T's thread off the topic of his web service.  I had a browse to see of there was a suitable old thread that discussed all this, but didn't find one (although it gets discussed in many other threads en passant, there's no one dedicated one).

[PloddinPedro]

..
I think a new thread on ways you do your navigation would be a good idea, as I'd like to know what others do and I don't want to pull Ben T's thread off the topic of his web service.  I had a browse to see of there was a suitable old thread that discussed all this, but didn't find one (although it gets discussed in many other threads en passant, there's no one dedicated one).

I think that's a good idea and I'd start one if I could figure out how to do the poll thing and if I knew what all the options were!

[Euan Uzami]

Creating just the track would produce a GPX like your willy warmer 'full' , by the way, the way I'm thinking of doing it. (And this is the exact format of GPX that I like to navigate by - I like having waypoints there if I need them, but I navigate primarily from a track, not a route. Obviously also therefore what I would recommend, although I will provide the 'route' option as well if it's wanted.)

The problem with tracks is that all eTrex (h)Cx users get is a line on a map. A route gives active navigational aides (beeps and popups at junctions). Why not let the user decide which to use by making waypoints, route and track user selectable?

As pppete notes, waypoints should ideally have user editable labels and selectable flags. I color code waypoints to distinguish between standard points, info and controls.

I use wingdb3 to generate a track from the route then copy it into the input gdb

I've published to the test domain http://test.gpxeditor.co.uk
a "Create from waypoints" option.
At the moment it only does routes, not tracks, but will do tracks as well soon.
You drag them from the 'available' to the 'selected' box to choose which waypoints you want to use and drag them to reorder them as well.

I've refactored the marker icons as well slightly, so that the waypoint markers don't obscure the route's start and end markers.
Now, track and route start and end markers are just dots rather than the big google marker icon, with the intermediate route points just being black dots, so now waypoints are the only thing that uses the big google marker icon and they don't get in the way of the routepoints when you use this new feature.
Hopefully this isn't too confusing!

Haven't really tested it that much yet which is why i've only put it in the test domain , once i'm happy with it and i've done it for tracks as well i'll put it in the main site.

[Euan Uzami]

now done for tracks as well as routes and in the main domain.

[Euan Uzami]

I've put the elevation graph on http://test.gpxeditor.co.uk.

I've also refactored the menus so that some things are grouped together into sub menus, this makes it possible to have more features visible more of the time. Previously you had to 'stop drawing' to be able to access some things that are now available all the time.

Sorry to force you to have to get used to a new structure, but slight restructuring is a necessary evil as more things are added. However now I've got the ability to embed menus in submenus, adding new features should be more painless.

One other major improvement I've done is all modifications to tracks via the new 'Edit' menu are now undo-able, via a new menu item that appears at the bottom of the Edit menu when this is possible.
I've also put little arrows on that appear when you hover of a track to more easily tell which direction round it goes.

Another fairly important change is when you reroute, it automatically does a split at the point that you rerouted via (like a 'hard point' in bikehike) so that subsequent reroutes won't undo the effect of the previous reroute.

Next in line is actual numerical stats for elevation and (maybe, if it works) an overlay on the graph to show the change in elevation when rerouting, and then hopefully the routes database ... unless any other suggestions anyone would prefer first.

[PloddinPedro]

I've put the elevation graph on http://text.gpxeditor.co.uk.  ......................

Ben - is there a typo in the link? Should it be "teSt.gpxeditor"?

[Euan Uzami]

I've put the elevation graph on http://text.gpxeditor.co.uk.  ......................

Ben - is there a typo in the link? Should it be "teSt.gpxeditor"?

yes, sorry - http://test.gpxeditor.co.uk.

Updated

[Panoramix]

May be this is a known bug/feature as I haven't read the entire thread.

If I import a track and I then click "create route", the route is completely different from the track. Am I missing something or is this a bug?

It is a French route, the GPX can be found there: http://www.bikeroutetoaster.com/Course.aspx?course=495152

[Somnolent]

May be this is a known bug/feature as I haven't read the entire thread.

If I import a track and I then click "create route", the route is completely different from the track. Am I missing something or is this a bug?

It is a French route, the GPX can be found there: http://www.bikeroutetoaster.com/Course.aspx?course=495152

I couldn't get that to load in gpxeditor.
However I have previously noted that in "car" mode it puts viapoints in places off the track
Try changing to walk or bike before creating the route.

[Panoramix]

May be this is a known bug/feature as I haven't read the entire thread.

If I import a track and I then click "create route", the route is completely different from the track. Am I missing something or is this a bug?

It is a French route, the GPX can be found there: http://www.bikeroutetoaster.com/Course.aspx?course=495152

I couldn't get that to load in gpxeditor.
However I have previously noted that in "car" mode it puts viapoints in places off the track
Try changing to walk or bike before creating the route.

I have tried walk without success, bike doesn't work in France.

[Somnolent]

May be this is a known bug/feature as I haven't read the entire thread.

If I import a track and I then click "create route", the route is completely different from the track. Am I missing something or is this a bug?

It is a French route, the GPX can be found there: http://www.bikeroutetoaster.com/Course.aspx?course=495152

I couldn't get that to load in gpxeditor.
However I have previously noted that in "car" mode it puts viapoints in places off the track
Try changing to walk or bike before creating the route.

I have tried walk without success, bike doesn't work in France.

I did eventually manage to load your track, after downsizing it in bikehike to 500 points.
Certainly the results it gives when you create route in car mode are a bit 'odd' but in walk it looked as if all the viapoints were on (or very close to) the track.