tracks or routes?

Darren G <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Finally bitten the bullet and got myself a gps (I was feeling very left
out in here), and now trying to work out the best way to use it for
navigation (rather than track recording). There appear to be two
options for downloading routes: routes of waypoints or tracks of
trackpoints.

AFAICT the main advantage of waypoints are that they let you use the
internal navigation of the GPS to lead you a route, but while limiting
the number of points on a route. Whereas tracks let you have up to ten
thousand points but other than following dots with an arrow I can't see
how you would use them for navigation.

Am I being dense and missing something?

Thanks

(GPS is Legend C, already got tracklogs s/w)

You sound as though you didn't know why you were buying the GPS! :-)

I have recently acquired Tracklogs s/w (Not impressed with the 1:50,000
maps for detailed route planning).

I use two alternative methods, if it is important to keep closely to a
route I plot a track and upload it to the GPS as a saved track.
( use only enough points to fairly closely follow the route)
Then I set the option to DISPLAY ON SCREEN, and simply follow the track
using the map screen.
You can of course do a TRACKBACK.
The advantage of this method is that I get a quite accurate measure of
distance and total ascent, thus giving the walk a grade of effort.

The other method of use when generally exploring an area and choosing
where to go ad lib, is to plot waypoints all over the largest area I am
likely to cover, and wander about as the mood takes me. I always print
out a map with all the waypoints on, and thereforecan always see at a
glance where I am, relative to waypoints, on the map screen.
This is the most fun way to use it, IMO.

I did try a route of waypoints last week, but only decided to start
following it half way round the walk, just to watch the arrow for a
change. In brief, it fooled itself at once by telling me to go back
to the last waypoint. I haven't yet worked out why, but it may be that
the particular point was closest when I told it to NAVIGATE ROUTE, but
had already been passed.

I almost always have the map screen displayed, this gives a better check
on position en route.

The third way, on a familiar walk, is to navigate using the map only,
and simply record a track for examination afterwards.
--
Gordon

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Darren G <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Finally bitten the bullet and got myself a gps (I was feeling very left
out in here), and now trying to work out the best way to use it for
navigation (rather than track recording). There appear to be two
options for downloading routes: routes of waypoints or tracks of
trackpoints.

AFAICT the main advantage of waypoints are that they let you use the
internal navigation of the GPS to lead you a route, but while limiting
the number of points on a route. Whereas tracks let you have up to ten
thousand points but other than following dots with an arrow I can't see
how you would use them for navigation.

Am I being dense and missing something?

Thanks

(GPS is Legend C, already got tracklogs s/w)

Not familiar with the legend C, but in general I thought that 'tracback'
(against a saved track) would do just about the same as 'follow a route'
would do, in terms of giving you a map, and a pointer to where you were
supposed to be next.

Personally I use routes with waypoints (even though you are limited to
50, you can fairly easily chain them together), and just use saved
tracks to store a 'pseudomap' of roads/footpaths/whatever else in the
area (although entering even 500 track points manually isn't terrific
fun).

If you are playing with multiple routes (or tracks) putting them in the
same folder and using the 'view nearby objects' option in the tracklogs
software is pretty handy (took me a while to trip over that) since you
can then see several routes (or tracks, or whatever) displayed at once.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the venerable
person Gordon <[email hidden]> said

<big snip>

Quoted message said:

I did try a route of waypoints last week, but only decided to start
following it half way round the walk, just to watch the arrow for a
change. In brief, it fooled itself at once by telling me to go back
to the last waypoint. I haven't yet worked out why, but it may be that
the particular point was closest when I told it to NAVIGATE ROUTE, but
had already been passed.

<snip>

Yes, they do do that, especially noticeably on circular walks, where it
can take them a while to catch on to where you are going. You have to
watch for that, if you are using it to give you an ETA to make sure you
are home for supper. 8>.

I find that using the 'find waypoint' for the next one you really want
to go to, and then using a 'goto' command on it, causes it to reconsider
where you need to go next, without losing the fact you want to go round
the route (at least it works for me with my ETrex venture).

Like you, I frequently wander about with just a map screen showing a
selection of waypoints, plus the roads/paths (and sometimes rivers)
which I have bothered to digitise/enter as 'saved tracks'.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Darren G <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Finally bitten the bullet and got myself a gps (I was feeling very left
out in here), and now trying to work out the best way to use it for
navigation (rather than track recording). There appear to be two
options for downloading routes: routes of waypoints or tracks of
trackpoints.

AFAICT the main advantage of waypoints are that they let you use the
internal navigation of the GPS to lead you a route, but while limiting
the number of points on a route. Whereas tracks let you have up to ten
thousand points but other than following dots with an arrow I can't see
how you would use them for navigation.

Am I being dense and missing something?

Thanks

(GPS is Legend C, already got tracklogs s/w)

You sound as though you didn't know why you were buying the GPS! :-)

It did read a bit like that didn't it :-)

Bought it for 3 main reasons:

1. a backup for map and compass, for whiteouts and in case of getting
lost

2. to generate a log of where I've been for several purposes: to answer
the how high/far without getting out the pins and string; to allow me to
record photo locations and places to revisit; to improve my eta/effort
estimates

3. to explore its potential in other areas, esp. as a primary navigation
tool, I.e. will it let me spend more time looking at the view rather
than at a map.

1 & 2 I'm OK with. It's 3 that prompted the question, I.e. what are the
options and when to use each one.

Quoted message said:

I have recently acquired Tracklogs s/w (Not impressed with the 1:50,000
maps for detailed route planning).

I've got a couple of 1:25k which I'm more than happy with for route
planning. Used to use it pre-GPS just to have a manageable printout and
not to have to wrestle with a full OL map.

Quoted message said:

I use two alternative methods, if it is important to keep closely to a
route I plot a track and upload it to the GPS as a saved track.
( use only enough points to fairly closely follow the route)
Then I set the option to DISPLAY ON SCREEN, and simply follow the track
using the map screen.
You can of course do a TRACKBACK.
The advantage of this method is that I get a quite accurate measure of
distance and total ascent, thus giving the walk a grade of effort.

let me get this clear: you aim the position indicator at the track and
follow it. Without any terrain or other markings on the screen, how
easy do you find it to relate the little screen to reality? And how
much time do you spend watching the screen?

Quoted message said:

The other method of use when generally exploring an area and choosing
where to go ad lib, is to plot waypoints all over the largest area I am
likely to cover, and wander about as the mood takes me. I always print
out a map with all the waypoints on, and thereforecan always see at a
glance where I am, relative to waypoints, on the map screen.
This is the most fun way to use it, IMO.

Agree. This should have been in my list above, as I do this with a map
and I can see the advantage of doing it this way.

Quoted message said:

I did try a route of waypoints last week, but only decided to start
following it half way round the walk, just to watch the arrow for a
change. In brief, it fooled itself at once by telling me to go back
to the last waypoint. I haven't yet worked out why, but it may be that
the particular point was closest when I told it to NAVIGATE ROUTE, but
had already been passed.

One of the advantages I saw of using waypoints rather than a track is
that it will give you a few targets leaving you free to pick a route on
the fly between them, with as many deviations as felt like, while
providing the heading/distance to the next waypoint.

Thinking about this on the fly, would it make sense to combine both.
Put in the major 'vias' as waypoints along with a detailed track log.
This allows navigation by going to next major waypoint while providing a
detailed track on the map screen which can act as a detailed route but
knowing it can be deviated from as the waypoint headings will adapt as
required.

Quoted message said:

I almost always have the map screen displayed, this gives a better check
on position en route.

The third way, on a familiar walk, is to navigate using the map only,
and simply record a track for examination afterwards.

Thanks. Very helpful, and reassuring to know I wasn't being too dense
:-)

--
Darren

Darren G <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Bought it for 3 main reasons:

1. a backup for map and compass, for whiteouts and in case of getting
lost

I have managed for years by using a map, and very occasionally having to
get the compass out. Then when I got a GPS (I have had 4 now!), I
realised it made the compass almost redundant, but not the map.

Quoted message said:

2. to generate a log of where I've been for several purposes:

3. to explore its potential in other areas, esp. as a primary navigation
tool, I.e. will it let me spend more time looking at the view rather
than at a map.

My 2) and 3) were the opposite way round. I was using the GPS to
confirm the route my companions were navigating from route descriptions
- which I don't trust, and I often put in a waypoint manually estimated
from the 25,000 map, for a point we should be heading for, while they
were poring over description and map. I then said "follow me", and
after some hesitation they did. :-)

2) came later after the advent of 12 channel GPS and PC mapping
software.

Quoted message said:

1 & 2 I'm OK with. It's 3 that prompted the question, I.e. what are the
options and when to use each one.

[....]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I use two alternative methods, if it is important to keep closely to a
route I plot a track and upload it to the GPS as a saved track.
( use only enough points to fairly closely follow the route)
Then I set the option to DISPLAY ON SCREEN, and simply follow the track
using the map screen.

let me get this clear: you aim the position indicator at the track and
follow it. Without any terrain or other markings on the screen, how
easy do you find it to relate the little screen to reality?

Aaah! I do have a map printed out with the track shown, and usually a
few waypoints, but I simply look at the map screen and head in a
direction to converge with the track, assuming that we aren't already on
it. We mainly do path or track walking, so it it's more often a case
of following the track and glancing at the GPS from time to time if and
when there is any doubt. I have learned to leave trackless rough
ground to those with bags of surplus energy to waste. :-)

I used a combined track and waypoint method yesterday, but as is often
the case on a local walk near civilisation, the ROW walled track as
shown on the map did not seem to exist, and we finished up with the
ignominy of following yellow arrow signs!

Quoted message said:

And how
much time do you spend watching the screen?

I only look at it when walking off the edge of cliffs, to satisfy the
Luddites in the group.
A lot of the time it's in the shoulder pouch, until required.

Quoted message said:

[....]

Quoted message said:

One of the advantages I saw of using waypoints rather than a track is
that it will give you a few targets leaving you free to pick a route on
the fly between them, with as many deviations as felt like, while
providing the heading/distance to the next waypoint.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

Thinking about this on the fly, would it make sense to combine both.
Put in the major 'vias' as waypoints along with a detailed track log.
This allows navigation by going to next major waypoint while providing a
detailed track on the map screen which can act as a detailed route but
knowing it can be deviated from as the waypoint headings will adapt as
required.

A detailed track gives you the chance to check for the on-the-ground
presence or accuracy of paths shown on the map. This doesn't matter
for my kind of find-your-way walking, but if you want to repeat the walk
with someone else, or give them details for their own use, it helps if
the paths actually exist.
Maybe this is irrelevant to you if you're a 'wild walker'.. 🙂
--
Gordon

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
[...]

Quoted message said:

I only look at it when walking off the edge of cliffs

I wish you hadn't said that. I'm leading a few friends on their first
Snowdon Horseshoe next Sat, and it will the first outing with the new
GPS. Seeing as there is a reasonably good path plus a thousand other
people to follow, I shall use it to get familiar with its capabilities.
Though must remember that ridge is probably a more accurate route than
my track across Crib Goch! It will be interesting though (IMO!)to see
what route we took on the scrambles up CG and up to CyD

Quoted message said:

A detailed track gives you the chance to check for the on-the-ground
presence or accuracy of paths shown on the map. This doesn't matter
for my kind of find-your-way walking, but if you want to repeat the walk
with someone else, or give them details for their own use, it helps if
the paths actually exist.
Maybe this is irrelevant to you if you're a 'wild walker'.. 🙂

Bit of both, depending on location, energy and who with.

Thanks for the benefit of your experience.

--
Darren

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the venerable
person Gordon <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I did try a route of waypoints last week, but only decided to start
following it half way round the walk, just to watch the arrow for a
change. In brief, it fooled itself at once by telling me to go back
to the last waypoint. I haven't yet worked out why, but it may be that
the particular point was closest when I told it to NAVIGATE ROUTE, but
had already been passed.

If you keep walking it will realise you're not going to the missed
waypoint and will jump on to the next one you're heading for. works
for skipped waypoints of even skipped whole sections of route.

Quoted message said:

Yes, they do do that, especially noticeably on circular walks, where it
can take them a while to catch on to where you are going. You have to
watch for that, if you are using it to give you an ETA to make sure you
are home for supper. 8>.

With circular walks the tip is not to do circular walks, i.e., always
add a tail to one end, so that it is easy for you and the GPS to
differentiate between start and end of the walk.

Quoted message said:

I find that using the 'find waypoint' for the next one you really want
to go to, and then using a 'goto' command on it, causes it to reconsider
where you need to go next, without losing the fact you want to go round
the route (at least it works for me with my ETrex venture).

But if you simply keep heading where you want to go, it soon realises
what you're up to and readjusts itself automatically. No need to press
any buttons.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Darren G said:

let me get this clear: you aim the position indicator at the track and
follow it. Without any terrain or other markings on the screen, how
easy do you find it to relate the little screen to reality? And how
much time do you spend watching the screen?

<snip>
If you have a GPS unit which has the ability to store tracks, then you
navigate a track by means of the track menu. You can use either the
*map* screen, where your position is indicated by an arrowhead,
animated man, (or whatever) and you can see your position relative to
your intended route at all times. Or you can use the *compass* screen.
You can see when you are tending to wander to left or right, and when
a turn is coming up. This actually works very well, and if you forget
which way you should be going, you can always look at the *compass*
screen. 😉

As I now need reading glasses to see the detail on a map, and prefer
to use walking poles, navigating by map and compass is not nearly as
straightforward as it used to be, and I can't do it on the move. I
still carry map and compass, but very rarely do they come out of my
pack. On many walks I never refer to the map at all, doing my map work
before the walk using Memory Map 1:25,000 maps, or Oziexplorer. I use
a Foretrex 201 (which fits happily on my wrist) and any time the path
is not obvious, or there is a choice, then I glance at the GPS.
Fortunately I can see this well enough without glasses!

Incidentally, if you navigate by tracks rather than routes, using lots
of points rather than a restricted number of waypoints, then there is
less chance of the compass screen relating to a point already passed,
ie the wrong way. Waypoints are still useful if you want to identify
where you are in relation to a particular place, because they have
names, whereas (track)points are anonymous.

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> said
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I find that using the 'find waypoint' for the next one you really want
to go to, and then using a 'goto' command on it, causes it to reconsider
where you need to go next, without losing the fact you want to go round
the route (at least it works for me with my ETrex venture).

But if you simply keep heading where you want to go, it soon realises
what you're up to and readjusts itself automatically. No need to press
any buttons.

That's the theory, but actually I've been 2 miles into a circular walk,
and it's still telling me that the next waypoint is the last one, and
that I've got 2 miles to go, and that I'm heading the wrong way. 8>.
Pushing a couple of buttons solves that problem.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> said
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I find that using the 'find waypoint' for the next one you really want
to go to, and then using a 'goto' command on it, causes it to reconsider
where you need to go next, without losing the fact you want to go round
the route (at least it works for me with my ETrex venture).

But if you simply keep heading where you want to go, it soon realises
what you're up to and readjusts itself automatically. No need to press
any buttons.

That's the theory, but actually I've been 2 miles into a circular walk,
and it's still telling me that the next waypoint is the last one, and
that I've got 2 miles to go, and that I'm heading the wrong way. 8>.
Pushing a couple of buttons solves that problem.

This happens because it thinks you have just missed the waypoint, and
directs you back to it, I'm pretty sure. I will try the experiment
again, because with respect I don't think it is as self-recovering as
Chris says. I thought it was until that last walk!
--
Gordon

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I find that using the 'find waypoint' for the next one you really want
to go to, and then using a 'goto' command on it, causes it to reconsider
where you need to go next, without losing the fact you want to go round
the route (at least it works for me with my ETrex venture).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if you simply keep heading where you want to go, it soon realises
what you're up to and readjusts itself automatically. No need to press
any buttons.

Quoted message said:

That's the theory, but actually I've been 2 miles into a circular walk,
and it's still telling me that the next waypoint is the last one, and
that I've got 2 miles to go, and that I'm heading the wrong way. 8>.
Pushing a couple of buttons solves that problem.

The waypoint skipping I mentioned is certainly not going to work if
the unit thinks you're going the other along the walk. That's a
fundamental basic assumption which skews everything. That's a special
nasty problem with circular walks (end adjacent to start), which is
why I advised adding a tail to distinguish start from end, and make it
easier to select the right direction.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Gordon said:

GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I find that using the 'find waypoint' for the next one you really want
>to go to, and then using a 'goto' command on it, causes it to reconsider
>where you need to go next, without losing the fact you want to go round
>the route (at least it works for me with my ETrex venture).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if you simply keep heading where you want to go, it soon realises
what you're up to and readjusts itself automatically. No need to press
any buttons.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's the theory, but actually I've been 2 miles into a circular walk,
and it's still telling me that the next waypoint is the last one, and
that I've got 2 miles to go, and that I'm heading the wrong way. 8>.
Pushing a couple of buttons solves that problem.

Quoted message said:

This happens because it thinks you have just missed the waypoint, and
directs you back to it, I'm pretty sure. I will try the experiment
again, because with respect I don't think it is as self-recovering as
Chris says. I thought it was until that last walk!

What I mentioned won't work if it gets the direction wrong, which is
easily done and harder to correct on a circular walk. See my reply to
the previous post.

If you can't get it to select the right way round a circular walk at
the start, then wait until you've walked a bit into it, and then
reselect the other direction. It's the proximity of you to both start
and end which confuses it.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> said
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's the theory, but actually I've been 2 miles into a circular walk,
and it's still telling me that the next waypoint is the last one, and
that I've got 2 miles to go, and that I'm heading the wrong way. 8>.
Pushing a couple of buttons solves that problem.

The waypoint skipping I mentioned is certainly not going to work if
the unit thinks you're going the other along the walk. That's a
fundamental basic assumption which skews everything. That's a special
nasty problem with circular walks (end adjacent to start), which is
why I advised adding a tail to distinguish start from end, and make it
easier to select the right direction.

I think you missed a 'way' in the second sentence.

The issue I have is that I often start from (and end at) my house, and
it's nice to have the right distance (so no fake tails, or endpoints 2
miles away).

What appears to happen is that the GPS decides to skip =all= the
waypoints (I can reverse the route as much as you like) except the
finish (or start), which may well be the nearest. If I tell it 'go to
waypoint001', it then displays the correct ETA, remaining distance etc.
Alternatively (as Gordon suggested) it may be that it doesn't think I've
actually started and is still trying to direct me to the start (but I
don't think so, since if that were the case it ought to skip forward to
WP0001 when that one is closer, and it doesn't. On one occasion I was
out at WP0005 or something, and it was still giving me the straight line
distance back to WP0000).

It doesn't do this all the time, but enough to be annoying. It may
depend on how far WP0001 is away from the start I guess, or it may just
be a glitch in Garmin's ETrex software (wouldn't be the first one).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This happens because it thinks you have just missed the waypoint, and
directs you back to it, I'm pretty sure. I will try the experiment
again, because with respect I don't think it is as self-recovering as
Chris says. I thought it was until that last walk!

What I mentioned won't work if it gets the direction wrong, which is
easily done and harder to correct on a circular walk. See my reply to
the previous post.

If you can't get it to select the right way round a circular walk at
the start, then wait until you've walked a bit into it, and then
reselect the other direction. It's the proximity of you to both start
and end which confuses it.
--

We were over halfway round the walk when this happened. I even tried:
STOP NAVIGATION, REVERSE ROUTE, NAVIGATE, but couldn't persuade it to
look for the next waypoint.
Perhaps there was something silly which I had overlooked.

A walk round a local hill is called for, attempting to pick up the route
halfway, when I'm not in a hurry. :-)
--
Gordon

Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The waypoint skipping I mentioned is certainly not going to work if
the unit thinks you're going the other along the walk. That's a
fundamental basic assumption which skews everything. That's a special
nasty problem with circular walks (end adjacent to start), which is
why I advised adding a tail to distinguish start from end, and make it
easier to select the right direction.

I fell for that one too, and we had this discussion once before. I made
the mistake of finishing a route back on waypoint 1. I now have a
separate finish waypoint, GOTO waypoint 2, and start the route when we
are close to it. I only use routes to get an idea when we will be
reach the finish, or a pub en route.
--
Gordon

Gordon said:

Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This happens because it thinks you have just missed the waypoint, and
directs you back to it, I'm pretty sure. I will try the experiment
again, because with respect I don't think it is as self-recovering as
Chris says. I thought it was until that last walk!

What I mentioned won't work if it gets the direction wrong, which is
easily done and harder to correct on a circular walk. See my reply to
the previous post.

If you can't get it to select the right way round a circular walk at
the start, then wait until you've walked a bit into it, and then
reselect the other direction. It's the proximity of you to both start
and end which confuses it.

Quoted message said:

We were over halfway round the walk when this happened. I even tried:
STOP NAVIGATION, REVERSE ROUTE, NAVIGATE, but couldn't persuade it to
look for the next waypoint.
Perhaps there was something silly which I had overlooked.

A walk round a local hill is called for, attempting to pick up the route
halfway, when I'm not in a hurry. :-)

If you know which waypoint you are heading for, force the machine to
go to it by doing a GOTO.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

What appears to happen is that the GPS decides to skip =all= the
waypoints (I can reverse the route as much as you like) except the
finish (or start), which may well be the nearest. If I tell it 'go to
waypoint001', it then displays the correct ETA, remaining distance etc.
Alternatively (as Gordon suggested) it may be that it doesn't think I've
actually started and is still trying to direct me to the start (but I
don't think so, since if that were the case it ought to skip forward to
WP0001 when that one is closer, and it doesn't. On one occasion I was
out at WP0005 or something, and it was still giving me the straight line
distance back to WP0000).

It doesn't do this all the time, but enough to be annoying. It may
depend on how far WP0001 is away from the start I guess, or it may just
be a glitch in Garmin's ETrex software (wouldn't be the first one).

I have had this problem with my Geko 201 directing me back to the start even
when a couple of k into the walk. I usually reselect the Track (I use Tracks
rather than Routes mostly), Navigate, To End and that sorts it out. I am sure
it is not directing me to the start point, as the distance to go is given as
the distance back to the start/end rather than this plus the distance round
the walk.

Phil Cook <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

>This happens because it thinks you have just missed the waypoint, and
>directs you back to it, I'm pretty sure. I will try the experiment
>again, because with respect I don't think it is as self-recovering as
>Chris says. I thought it was until that last walk!

What I mentioned won't work if it gets the direction wrong, which is
easily done and harder to correct on a circular walk. See my reply to
the previous post.

If you can't get it to select the right way round a circular walk at
the start, then wait until you've walked a bit into it, and then
reselect the other direction. It's the proximity of you to both start
and end which confuses it.

Quoted message said:

We were over halfway round the walk when this happened. I even tried:
STOP NAVIGATION, REVERSE ROUTE, NAVIGATE, but couldn't persuade it to
look for the next waypoint.
Perhaps there was something silly which I had overlooked.

A walk round a local hill is called for, attempting to pick up the route
halfway, when I'm not in a hurry. :-)

If you know which waypoint you are heading for, force the machine to
go to it by doing a GOTO.

I did, I did! It wasn't the kind of walk we'd get lost on, but I
wanted to be able to pick up the route. That gives the ETA.
--
Gordon

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have had this problem with my Geko 201 directing me back to the start even
when a couple of k into the walk. I usually reselect the Track (I use Tracks
rather than Routes mostly), Navigate, To End and that sorts it out. I am sure
it is not directing me to the start point, as the distance to go is given as
the distance back to the start/end rather than this plus the distance round
the walk.

you can navigate the track on the geko? On my etrex you can only nav
the routes (apart from by following the track manually)

--
Darren