Steve Orrell said:Can anyone help me with my queries? Does Anquet let you worth with your GPS data as well as
OziExplorer (both to and from GPS)
No. The basic problem with Anquet was that it was never designed for GPS use. The first version had
no GPS functionality whatsoever, it was added as an afterthought. Because of this, certain
fundamental design decisions were made which didn't suit GPS use, so making it work with GPS later
was like forcing a square peg into a round hole.
I wrote a review about Anquet once on this newsgroup, when I first tried it. groups.google.comgroupsOpen ↗
8& oe=UTF-8&selm=agt1k2%24f7m%241%40newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk&rnum=2
The basic problem with using Anquet for GPS is that they use slightly different concepts which don't
match properly. Anquet uses what they call "waypoints", "paths" and "routes". GPS units use what
Garmin calls "waypoints", "tracks" and "routes".
The problem is that an Anquet waypoint is not the same as a GPS waypoint, an Anquet path is not the
same as a GPS track, and an Anquet route is not the same as a GPS route. They've tried to bash these
pegs into roughly the same holes, but they don't work in quite the same way.
A GPS waypoint contains coordinate data, a name, a description, an icon, and height data. An Anquet
waypoint doesn't have a name or description as such, although they can be added as a separate piece
of information. This info is not sent to the GPS. You can choose icons for Anquet waypoints, but
they don't match the icons in your GPS and aren't sent to the GPS. You can't add height data either.
A GPS track is a series of track points connected together. Each track point contains coordinate
data, plus time and date, but no name. An Anquet path may look the same, but it's actually a series
of waypoints. Paths can be combined into routes. When you send a route to your GPS it sends each
point as a separate waypoint, thus filling your GPS with loads of waypoints.
A GPS route is a series of waypoints connected together. In practice you don't need to place many of
these, you only need a few key waypoints to form a route. Suppose you need to follow a twisty path
from one junction to another, you only need to place waypoints at the junctions. The next waypoint
will tell you where you need to go, but you don't have to walk in a straight line toward it. With
Anquet, it will send dozens of waypoints to the GPS tracing out every little twist and turn, which
is unnecessary. Most GPS units don't have a very large route capacity, but Anquet sends so many
waypoints that it will fill up many route slots to mark out just one route.
Of course, you can mark your paths differently in Anquet to take account of this, but then you're
not using Anquet in the way that it was intended. It was intended that you trace out the paths
accurately onto the map so that it can calculate the correct distance, ascent, Naismith time etc. If
you only mark path points at waypoint junctions that will come out all wrong. An Anquet path or
route should equate to a GPS track, not a GPS route, a route should be a different thing altogether.
Confused? Use Ozi for your GPS.
To be fair to Anquet, I've noticed that they have added more GPS features in the latest version and
I think you can now convert tracks to paths and vice versa, or something like that, but I'm not sure
because I've only looked at it briefly. I haven't seen enough improvements to persuade me to stop
using Ozi. Anquet just wasn't designed for GPS, although I daresay that it's quite usable for that
if you have no other option, and perhaps it doesn't seem as bad as I'm making it out to be if you've
never used a program like Ozi.
Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗
