Garmin gps routes or tracks

[firestarter]

Ey up, I've just recently dug out a gps I got on here a bit back and had a play it's an old oregon 400t if it makes any difference with open source maps and an os but that appears to be a picture of a map in a file I think.

Anyway I downloaded a track and ran the 3 peaks and it was sound, as I had my map anyway and if I wasnt sure I had a quick look where I was and it worked but I created a route yesterday and ran it and it beeped at every way point I'd made and I just followed the arrow I didnt need to strain my eyes on the little map screen or even look at the paper map it was so easy

But it seems general consensus it to use a track rather than a route even though to me that sounds odd, am I missing something obvious or is it a case of whichever you prefer, I'm a little confused. I've done lots of searching and still unsure tbh cheers

[Bearbonesnorm]

If you want to produce a route to follow make your file a track. Your garmin should play nicely with that.

[sean_iow]

The issue is that for some units (my etrex 30 for example) there is limit to the number of points that can be in the route. I'm guessing your test run wasn't too long?

Once the course you're following is bikepacking length there will be too many points and the end will be missing. That's why I have to use a track and follow it on the screen.

[firestarter]

Ah I see no it was only a short run, it seems such a shame you lose the audible warning as it's kinda what I thought it would do while on route (well it does it just doesn't on a track lol) how bizarre, such a useful feature ah well back to the playing around with it, I thought I had it figured cheers

[sean_iow]

I always thought it was a shame to loose the warnings as well. It was designed for walking so the trips would be short enough for each days walk to be a separate route.

I've ridden as far in a day as it would take me 10 or 20 to walk

Also, when off road the line on the ground won't always match that on the map you created the route from so you'd get 'of route' warnings lots of the time.

[Bearbonesnorm]

With regard to the track / route thing and using a hiking derived gps, I think it perhaps pays to think of it as an aid to navigation rather than thinking of it as a satnav as you'd have fitted to a car. In reality, there's really no need for turn to turn directions or off route warnings when you're riding a bike.

[firestarter]

Both valid points, I had thought my being able to use the compass screen instead of a map with my aging eyes was a bonus but I guess I'll have to use my readers lol

[Bearbonesnorm]

I think that after a little practice, following the line becomes almost instinctive. Off road there's often no great requirement for absolute accuracy.

[whitestone]

In GPS terminology "routes" are a series of waypoints (or points on a map) that the device will find its way between via the most appropriate route. They aren't a specified line on the ground. This makes sense for say a car sat-nav where you punch in a destination and the device figures out the best way there and will make adjustments should you go off-route or there are diversions due to roadworks, accidents, etc. If you are in a large vehicle then you should have a unit that will have extra inbuilt rules to avoid obstacles like low bridges or narrow lanes.

Off-road it's a bit different as there isn't that database of information stating whether a particular track or bridleway is passable or even if they are linked up. A BW might only really be rideable on a bike in one direction but it's fine for horses and pedestrians in both.

A GPS "track" is the track of someone's wanderings, i.e. a record of where they've been but is also the result of tracing out a line on a map. Because of the limitations of "routes" it's a "track" that you want when you wish to follow what most people would call a "route". Just confusing terminology.

Actually there's a slight difference between a track recording and one created on a computer. The track recording will have timestamps of when you were there for each point on the track whereas that field will be empty for the computer generated one.

Here's Garmin's help file on routes and tracks - https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp ... 6B965.html

As Stu says, just because you've a navigation device it doesn't mean you can turn your brain off

[firestarter]

I'll take a look at the link and cheers for the info , I quite liked the idea of brain off Haha cheers

[lune ranger]

Ah I see no it was only a short run, it seems such a shame you lose the audible warning as it's kinda what I thought it would do while on route (well it does it just doesn't on a track lol) how bizarre, such a useful feature ah well back to the playing around with it, I thought I had it figured cheers

If you use a cycling specific unit - an Edge something or other - you can make routes as long as 240km and they work fine. St least this was my experience with an Edge 800.
You might consider splitting long rides into multiple routes. Not as neat as a single file but at least you keep the navigation functionality as well as the mapping.

[firestarter]

Cheers for the info