Garmin eTRAIL CD

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone noticed this?

What exactly was I supposed to notice, because I think I
failed to notice.

Quoted message said:

eTRAIL: 200 of the best walking routes in the U.K. and
Ireland garmin.comindex.htmlOpen ↗

Looks the same as the one I got something like a year or so
ago. It's okay, but nothing special. Too expensive for what
it is. I think sitting down with an OS map is a better way
to plan walks.

Have fun, Paul

Quoted message said:

Anyone noticed this?

eTRAIL: 200 of the best walking routes in the U.K. and
Ireland garmin.comindex.htmlOpen ↗

Yes, this has been out for quite a while, probably a couple
of years or more.

The Whitbarrow scar walk (see above thread) is off this CD.
The route is okay but very short on detail.

I got it at the same time as I got my first GPS and
wasn't very confident at using it as you can download
routes straight to GPS and just follow it when you get on
the track.

If a second CD came out I'd probably get it but it's just a
very small part of my walking itinerary and most of my walks
are from my own knowledge or my own planning.

Okay for a starter with GPS though and for unfamiliar areas.

--
Dave Newton

Lake District walk&image site daves-lakeland-daves-lakeland-Open ↗
mountains.co.uk

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyone noticed this?

eTRAIL: 200 of the best walking routes in the U.K. and
Ireland garmin.comindex.htmlOpen ↗

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

If this is the same one I'm thinking of it got slated in a
magazine article (nope, can't remember which one). It's
route up Bidean nam Bian was about 100m out and placing you
in mid-air. The vendors said it was up to people to check
the accuracy of the routes and couldn't be held responsible!
It kind of puts you off a wee bit :-) Far better to spend
your cash on mapping software and plan your own routes and
take the responsibility on yourself I think.

KRO

Paul Cummings said:

What exactly was I supposed to notice, because I think I
failed to notice.

Well I hadn't heard anyone mention this before.

Quoted message said:

Looks the same as the one I got something like a year or
so ago. It's okay, but nothing special. Too expensive for
what it is. I think sitting down with an OS map is a
better way to plan walks.

I agree. I prefer to plan my own walks anyway. Someone here
was asking about waypoints for the Pennine Way recently so
maybe they'd find it useful?

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

KRO said:

If this is the same one I'm thinking of it got slated in a
magazine article (nope, can't remember which one). It's
route up Bidean nam Bian was about 100m out and placing
you in mid-air.

Surely they weren't using 6 figure grid refs?

Quoted message said:

The vendors said it was up to people to check the accuracy
of the routes and couldn't be held responsible!

That's ridiculous! Fair enough to say that they can't be
held responsible for any consequences of following the
routes, but for a professional product like this the
manufactures should check and ensure the accuracy
themselves. Do the OS do sloppy surveys and then say it's up
to the user to check the accuracy of the maps? The whole
point of maps is that they should be accurate, within
reasonable limits of course.

I'd be wary of downloading routes produced by amateurs and
wouldn't trust their accuracy without checking them myself
first, but I'd expect more from a professional product.

Quoted message said:

It kind of puts you off a wee bit :-) Far better to spend
your cash on mapping software and plan your own routes and
take the responsibility on yourself I think.

Absolutely. I always plan my own walks so this CD would be
of little use to me anyway.

If I were to publish a route of my own I wouldn't just plot
it on the map then publish it. I'd walk it first and mark
more accurate waypoints enroute.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

KRO said:

If this is the same one I'm thinking of it got slated in
a magazine article (nope, can't remember which one).
It's route up Bidean nam Bian was about 100m out and
placing you in mid-air.

Surely they weren't using 6 figure grid refs?

Quoted message said:

The vendors said it was up to people to check the
accuracy of the routes and couldn't be held responsible!

That's ridiculous! Fair enough to say that they can't be
held responsible for any consequences of following the
routes, but for a professional product like this the
manufactures should check and ensure the accuracy
themselves. Do the OS do sloppy surveys and then say it's
up to the user to check the accuracy of the maps? The
whole point of maps is that they should be accurate,
within reasonable limits of course.

I'd be wary of downloading routes produced by amateurs and
wouldn't trust their accuracy without checking them myself
first, but I'd expect more from a professional product.

Quoted message said:

It kind of puts you off a wee bit :-) Far better to
spend your cash on mapping software and plan your own
routes and take the responsibility on yourself I think.

Absolutely. I always plan my own walks so this CD would be
of little use to me anyway.

If I were to publish a route of my own I wouldn't just
plot it on the map then publish it. I'd walk it first and
mark more accurate waypoints enroute.

Paul

I was planning a trip to Ben More Assynt later this year and
found that Anquet (=OS) mapping had the wrong height data
for Conival. The map says 987 meters but the arrow and path
profile say 1119 meters. Quite a difference for
professionals :-)

Theo

theo said:

I was planning a trip to Ben More Assynt later this year
and found that Anquet (=OS) mapping had the wrong height
data for Conival. The map says 987 meters but the arrow
and path profile say 1119 meters. Quite a difference for
professionals :-)

Yes, that's one of the well-know big errors. Most of the
time the height data is pretty close though.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

theo said:

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> schreef
in bericht

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I were to publish a route of my own I wouldn't just
plot it on the map then publish it. I'd walk it first and
mark more accurate waypoints enroute.

Quoted message said:

I was planning a trip to Ben More Assynt later this year
and found that Anquet (=OS) mapping had the wrong height
data for Conival. The map says 987 meters but the arrow and
path profile say 1119 meters. Quite a difference for
professionals :-)

My SRTM derived data gives 965 m in the middle of the
topmost contour. The value at the spot height is 950 m and
looking at the 3-D map in Ozi the highest point is 974 m but
it's on the 950 m contour :-(

Though I reckon it is pretty good for heights measured from
more than 100km away that cost me nothing.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"
95/284 5/219 c.100/300 (>900m with drop>100m )