waypoint advice

[SimoninEaston]

I'm pretty new to this so I'd like some advice on the number of waypoints to add...
I'm using Xpedition to plan routes and I can see the advantage in only adding a waypoint when there's a fairly obvious feature - a bridge, or a junction. The A10 beeps at me when I get near so I know to look out for the feature. But this means my routes are polygonal in shape and don't quite follow the line of the paths (and presumably under-report the length of the route).
If I go the other way and click a waypoint every time the intended route changes direction however small a change, I end up with a route that is fairly close to where I will actually walk but has dozens of waypoints most of which aren't really relevant - well, not in the sense that they indicate a land-mark worth looking out for... which way is the correct way??

[sussamb]

Whichever is correct for you ... you could do it either way. Personally I insert loads of waypoints so my route is how I want it.

[lostme]

I also insert lots of waypoints so as to get a reasonable guide of the distance I will be walking.

[SmellyBoots]

The issue is whether you want to follow waypoints or whether you follow a route. Like the others I prefer to follow a route and then it's easy to see when you veer off course.

The SatMap records the track you have taken precisely and that is unrelated to whether you have plotted a few or many waypoints.

[SimoninEaston]

[SmellyBoots]

It does. But it depends on how you do it. If you plan a route on SatMap Xpedition then you will typically put in a large number of waypoints otherwise you just end up with a weird shaped route. That is what I meant by route.

Some folk plot a "route" directly into the machine by simply putting in a few key waypoints.

The route colour and density can be made a different colour (yellow) and more transparent in the routes menu. It's all in the very comprehensive user guide which is on the web-site . Go to Routes Menu, highlight a route, click Edit and scroll down to find Edit Active Route Colour. Simples.

[SimoninEaston]

I'm still struggling with the best way to use a 'route' - here's what I found during this week-end's walk...
I made 2 routes on Xpedition. The first employed many waypoints added by perusal of the 1:25k mapping, which, as you will know, includes field boundaries, so I as able to add w'points that more-or-less followed the footpaths exactly. This had + and - points, for example the route guided us exactly across fields from gate/stile to gate/stile. On the other hand the blue stripe of the route obscured useful detail on the map...
The elevation profile obtained from the first was much more accurate than the one obtained from the second.
The second route I made had fewer w'points and so was more obvioulsy polygonal in appearance, and less 'accurate' but the plus was that the blue stripe was there as a guide, but was often slightly to one side of the actual route taken, meaning I could see our exact position as we walked along a footpath.
I suppose my question is the same one that I poised earlier - Is there a right way and a wrong way? - and I imagine your answer will be the same - No, use it to suit your preferences! but I'll ask for comments anyway!

[LostMike]

Hi SimoninEaston.

In my view, the right way to use the Satmap is to use it so that it is helpful. The wrong way is to use it so that it is a burden or of little use to you.

How do you want to use it? I normally plot a fairly detailed route along the lines of your first method. I see no value for my normal walks in taking the second option. If I were in a competition that required me to get to a few designated points then I might use your second method but I don't do that sort of thing. What I want it to be able to look at my device and see if I am near where I thought I should be. So if the cursor is on or near the track then things seem to be going well. If it is not then I need to start checking.

As for the pre-plotted track covering up what you want to see, I am aware of at least two approaches to this problem. One that has been suggested here is to plot the route slightly off to one side. Then the expectation would be to have the cursor move alongside the track line and have the map under the cursor un-obscured. Personally I do not use this and find it difficult the come to terms with. What I do is select a fairly light and transparent colour (set from the settings options) so that I can see through the track line if I need to.

Though if I know where I am supposed to be going, and have plotted the route myself, and if the cursor is on the track/route, I feel that I am most unlikely to need to see what is under the cursor or track line.

Does that help at all?
_________________
LostMike
Satmap A10. Platform 21
Software version 1.5.9193
Satsync 1.525

[WalkerDan]

I've always been perplexed as to why you need to plot a route on a Satmap to follow. If you know where you are going before you set off i.e. from point a to b, or following a path from one place to another a glance at the Satmap every now and then will give you reassurance that you are on the right path and I can't see the benefit of adding another line to the map which obscures what the map already shows.

[dales]

A line on the map is helpful in remembering exactly where you planned to go, especially in unfamiliar terrain with a choice of paths. (The alternative is to zoom out, and to scratch your head if you've forgotten).

Dales.
_________________
nuvi 2599LMT-D, oregon 700, basecamp, memory-map.

[ChrisJakarta]

@WalkerDan: I'm sure you're right - IF you're only walking for a couple of hours, and not for eight hours every day for a week or more AND if you don't have frequent senior moments like some of us. There's no way I could have remembered my daily planned 15+ km routes, together with poor weather alternatives (often needed), for my two-weeks hiking in the Dales last autumn. But then, I am getting on a bit...

Chris

[SimoninEaston]

[WalkerDan]

I like to remain flexible on a long walk and not always get too regimented into following a pre-planned route. I still carry an OS map and use that or a printed out map of a smaller area I'm walking and look at that more often than using the Satmap. As I say I never used to scribble a route on an OS map and don't intend starting now. If you need to use the Satmap to navigate a route it might be easier just to drop waypoints at key points. Just a thought.

[SimoninEaston]

[AliOnHols]

I used to plot my routes almost exactly, taking up many hours of planning and transferring to the A10, only for me to change my mind mid-walk and take a different route. Like you, I found that the more precise you plot the route, the less of the map you can see.

Nowadays I tend to just drop a waypoint on the map at about 10m before and 10m after a turn or a fork in the paths. This warns me that a turn is coming up and then confirms that I am heading off in the correct direction, I may also drop one or two additional waypoints between the changes in direction just so that the profiles and distances of my intended route resemble something like that I may actually be walking/cycling.

This way, I can see much more of the map detail, the A10 confirms my position if in doubt and, If i do detour off route, I have not lost so much preparation time.

Like others have said above, I also always have a paper map with me, for the bigger picture.
_________________
Garmin Nuvi 2599
Android with CamerAlert, OsmAnd+, Waze & TT Europe.
TomTom GO 730, GO 930, GO 940 & Rider2.
SatMap Active 10 & 20.

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!