Memory-Map for distances
MP
and was wondering how accurate the program is at measuring the distance when
using the Track feature. I do realise that it includes the elevation profile
and therefore must use the contours in calculating the distance but am still
wondered how accurate it actually is for hill walking.
Thanks,
MP
Alan White
Memory-Map doesn't take elevation changes into account when measuring
distance.
--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather
sandy saunders
It depends how 'accurate you want to plan your walks.
I use both MemoryMap and Anquet Mapping for route planning, and on return
compare the track-log from the walk against the planned route. More often
there is very little difference, less than 0.5 mile, so I can live with
that. The time when there may be a bigger difference is if I have followed
a path in the planning, but on the ground the path, over time, as deviated
from the map position; BUT, this is rare.
--
Sandy Saunders @ www.thewalkzone.co.uk
'Mountains or Mole Hills, summiting
still brings the same excitement!'
Craig Wallace
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 23:16:26 -0000, "MP"<m.pa...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Been looking at Memory-Map for measure out the distance for potential walks
>> and was wondering how accurate the program is at measuring the distance when
>> using the Track feature. I do realise that it includes the elevation profile
>> and therefore must use the contours in calculating the distance but am still
>> wondered how accurate it actually is for hill walking.
>
> Memory-Map doesn't take elevation changes into account when measuring
> distance.
Elevation changes don't make much difference to the total distance
anyway, unless its a really steep hill.
Eg a 15% gradient is only an extra 1% distance. Most hill walks are
probably not much steeper than that (on average).
I think Memory Map will have more inaccuracy in how closely you can
trace a track over the paths on the map.
And how accurate the maps are in the first place, or whether you
actually follow the path anyway.
--
Craig Wallace
http://craig.neogeo.org.uk
http://www.neogeo.org.uk
Alan White
<craigw84@fast_NOSPAM_mail.fm> wrote:
>I think Memory Map will have more inaccuracy in how closely you can
>trace a track over the paths on the map.
A track is where you've been.
A route is where you want to go.
Craig Wallace
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:53:40 +0000, Craig Wallace
> <craigw84@fast_NOSPAM_mail.fm> wrote:
>
>> I think Memory Map will have more inaccuracy in how closely you can
>> trace a track over the paths on the map.
>
> A track is where you've been.
>
> A route is where you want to go.
But Memory Map has the option of drawing either of them on the map. And
you can send either to a GPS device to follow if you want.
Also, in Memory Map to draw a route you have to click to place each point.
Whereas for a track you can just hold down the mouse button and drag to
draw, so easier to accurately follow a path.
Alan White
<craigw84@fast_NOSPAM_mail.fm> wrote:
>But Memory Map has the option of drawing either of them on the map. And
>you can send either to a GPS device to follow if you want.
>
>Also, in Memory Map to draw a route you have to click to place each point.
>Whereas for a track you can just hold down the mouse button and drag to
>draw, so easier to accurately follow a path.
Yes, Memory Map's got it wrong and it's misleading.
Imagine walking through the snow. Behind you is your track; in front of
you is your route.
Tim Jones
<alan....@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:21:56 +0000, Craig Wallace
><craigw84@fast_NOSPAM_mail.fm> wrote:
>
>>But Memory Map has the option of drawing either of them on the map. And
>>you can send either to a GPS device to follow if you want.
>>
>>Also, in Memory Map to draw a route you have to click to place each point.
>>Whereas for a track you can just hold down the mouse button and drag to
>>draw, so easier to accurately follow a path.
>
>Yes, Memory Map's got it wrong and it's misleading.
>
>Imagine walking through the snow. Behind you is your track; in front of
>you is your route.
Whats a farm track then ;)
In GPS terms the difference between a track and a route is the way you
use them on your GPS. It is perfectly correct that you can create and
upload either depending on how you wish to use your GPS.
Phil Cook
For GPS use a route is a set of linked waypoints.
A track is the actual non straight line path between the waypoints.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Cadair Idris in the mist.
http://www.therewaslight.co.uk
Alan White
wrote:
>In GPS terms the difference between a track and a route is the way you
>use them on your GPS. It is perfectly correct that you can create and
>upload either depending on how you wish to use your GPS.
I'm sorry but it isn't.
In the good old days when I bought my first GPSR, a Garmin GPS40 in
1994(?) (and still working), there was no confusion about this at all.
If you wanted to follow a route, you created the waypoints (not marks as
MM would have it) for that route and loaded them into the GPSR. I forget
what software I used then. When you got home, you downloaded your track
to see where you had been. It was as simple as that. The confusion first
started to manifest itself about ten years ago as GPSRs become more
common and the two terms became blurred because people were less
rigourous in their definitions. This wasn't helped when software
vendors, like MM, failed to appreciate that difference and the rot set
in.
Dominic Sexton
<alan....@ukgateway.net> writes
>On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:30:25 GMT, wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones)
>wrote:
>
>>In GPS terms the difference between a track and a route is the way you
>>use them on your GPS. It is perfectly correct that you can create and
>>upload either depending on how you wish to use your GPS.
>
>I'm sorry but it isn't.
>
>In the good old days when I bought my first GPSR, a Garmin GPS40 in
>1994(?) (and still working), there was no confusion about this at all.
>If you wanted to follow a route, you created the waypoints (not marks as
>MM would have it) for that route and loaded them into the GPSR. I forget
>what software I used then. When you got home, you downloaded your track
>to see where you had been. It was as simple as that. The confusion first
>started to manifest itself about ten years ago as GPSRs become more
>common and the two terms became blurred because people were less
>rigourous in their definitions. This wasn't helped when software
>vendors, like MM, failed to appreciate that difference and the rot set
>in.
As soon as Garmin allowed users to upload 'tracks' the situation
changed. Potentially confusing as it may be to those of us in at the
start that is how it is now.
The original Garmin situation of navigating 'routes' and recording
'track' was an artificial distinction. We all navigate our way along
tracks / paths in reality and the junctions of those tracks / paths may
be considered points along the way or waypoints. Garmin chose to call
the record of where the unit had been a track. They then chose to allow
users to save tracks and navigate along them.
When cycling I frequently use Garmin's navigate track feature with an
uploaded track. It is very useful because it doesn't clutter up the
waypoint memory of my Geko and it can have up to 500 points in the
track. I never use routes as they are limited to 125 waypoints and at a
junction the next waypoint might not actually be in the direction I need
to go initially (unless I manually place extra waypoints to avoid
confusion).
Having four times as many points available in a track means I can trace
my intended route out with a tool like http://www.bikehike.co.uk/ (which
allows me to race the route on an OS map or Google maps) then save it as
a GPX file which can be uploaded to the Geko as a track without losing
significant detail. That way I can easily see the direction I need to
head in at any turn and quickly see if I am heading off the planned
route.
If I am unable to define my planned route in 500 track points I can
split the route into sections. When I'm done with a track I can delete
it and do not have to mess about deleting waypoints too.
The Geko even constantly updates the distance to the end of the track
and the ETA.
--
Dominic Sexton
Alan White
<{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>As soon as Garmin allowed users to upload 'tracks' the situation
>changed. Potentially confusing as it may be to those of us in at the
>start that is how it is now.
Hmmph :-)
Paul - xxx
I use MM on a PDA and Laptop. At home I make routes by adding
waypoints in and 'joining the dots'. When out on the trail I follow
the routes, and the software records my tracks, ie where I've been.
However I can also subsequently follow previous tracks or routes,
depending whether I want to follow compass directions to waypoints in a
more ad-hoc manner, or follow the track taking my cues from how it
turns on the gps/pda and the lay of the land/paths I'm following.
Seems pretty easy, and obvious, to me ... ;)
--
Paul - xxx
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp
Tim Jones
<alan....@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:30:25 GMT, wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones)
>wrote:
>
>>In GPS terms the difference between a track and a route is the way you
>>use them on your GPS. It is perfectly correct that you can create and
>>upload either depending on how you wish to use your GPS.
>
>I'm sorry but it isn't.
>
>In the good old days when I bought my first GPSR, a Garmin GPS40 in
>1994(?) (and still working), there was no confusion about this at all.
>If you wanted to follow a route, you created the waypoints (not marks as
>MM would have it) for that route and loaded them into the GPSR. I forget
>what software I used then. When you got home, you downloaded your track
>to see where you had been. It was as simple as that. The confusion first
>started to manifest itself about ten years ago as GPSRs become more
>common and the two terms became blurred because people were less
>rigourous in their definitions. This wasn't helped when software
>vendors, like MM, failed to appreciate that difference and the rot set
>in.
>
No "rot has set in"!
The ability toi upload and use tracks created on MM is exceddingly
useful as long as you're clever enough to grasp the concept!
Alan White
Well, having used MM for about ten years I think we can assume that
I'm clever enough to have grasped the concept.
If you read my post more carefully, you'll see that it's the
definitions with which I was taking issue not the usage.
If you follow the thread more carefully, you'll also see that I've
tacitly accepted the reasons posted by Dominic Sexton earlier in this
thread.
So, what is your point?
Tim Jones
My point was that there is nothing misleading about MMs terminoligy as
you implied.. as long as we accept that a track has definitions beyond
your own trail behind you. It can also be laid by someone else for
you to follow and in the same way you can create a virtual track on MM
to follow with your GPS.
Alan White
wrote:
>My point was that there is nothing misleading about MMs terminoligy as
>you implied.. as long as we accept that a track has definitions beyond
>your own trail behind you. It can also be laid by someone else for
>you to follow and in the same way you can create a virtual track on MM
>to follow with your GPS.
But, as explained, I'd already tacitly accepted all that.
Bill Grey
"Tim Jones" <wilde...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4b1d6479....@news.btinternet.com...
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:40:31 +0000, Alan White
> <alan....@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:21:56 +0000, Craig Wallace
>><craigw84@fast_NOSPAM_mail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>But Memory Map has the option of drawing either of them on the map. And
>>>you can send either to a GPS device to follow if you want.
>>>
>>>Also, in Memory Map to draw a route you have to click to place each
>>>point.
>>>Whereas for a track you can just hold down the mouse button and drag to
>>>draw, so easier to accurately follow a path.
>>
>>Yes, Memory Map's got it wrong and it's misleading.
>>
>>Imagine walking through the snow. Behind you is your track; in front of
>>you is your route.
>
> Whats a farm track then ;)
A linear bog garden :-)
Happy Christmas
Bill Grey
"Alan White" <alan....@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:t70rh5hdjnlt16rp7...@4ax.com...
>>
> If you wanted to follow a route, you created the waypoints (not marks as
> MM would have it) for that route and loaded them into the GPSR. I forget
> what software I used then. >>
If I remember correctly you used to use Fugawi - and very good it was.
Happy Christmas.
Bill
Martin Richardson
>
>
> Imagine walking through the snow. Behind you is your track; in front of
> you is your route.
Sent on my HTC Hero
Phil Cook
Ha! I was wondering how you were getting on with all that white stuff.
Of course if is blowing a hoolie your route will be invisible and your
track will fill up in minutes or less. Erk!