Anquet v06

Nick Hopton said:

A typical walk for me might be a circular one perhaps 30-odd km long,
comprising many bits of interconnecting footpaths in the local area.

Is this an open area, or a mixture of forests and farmland tracks?

Quoted message said:

To navigate walks like this without stopping every five minutes to
consult maps, I need to be able to follow a track on the GPS that is
good to a few metres. Plotting a track like this takes lots of track
points. I also pop numbered waypoints on the track at intervals of
about 500 or a 1000 metres, so that I can keep track <groan> of where
I am. I think this is the way that many people navigate using GPSs
but unfortunately you can't plan walks in Anquet using track points

I'm not sure that it is actually. I don't navigate that way. I don't follow
tracks and I usually have no more than a dozen waypoints. The key thing is
to carefully choose where to place the waypoints, typically at critical
points like path junctions, bridges, summits, features of interest etc. How
I get from one waypoint to another isn't actually that important, and it
often isn't a straight line (although I'll add an extra waypoint or two if I
need to avoid a cliff or lake or whatever).

Of course, I usually walk on open ground which is often trackless, and I can
choose my route to suit the lay of the land. In farmland/forestry I'd use a
lot more waypoints.

If there are a lot of interconnecting footpaths, the main thing is to mark
the junctions. It doesn't really matter how much the paths twist and turn
between the junctions, you just need to know which way to turn at each
junction. If the following junction waypoint doesn't indicate the right
direction to turn, you may need to insert an extra "directional" waypoint
shortly after the junction. Or you could add some text to the waypoint
description, like "Turn left", or even "L" if you want to keep it short.

With careful planning you don't actually need that many waypoints, and you
don't really need a detailed track to follow, although it makes things very
easy if you do. But do you really want to spend the whole walk staring at
your GPS? If you just have waypoints at junctions, you only have to look at
the GPS when you reach each junction.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Nick Hopton said:

I didn't know that Anquet wasn't designed from the outset to work with
GPSs and that the GPS handling procedures were bolted on afterwards.
This must explain many of the problems.

This is only true of V1. V06 was written with GPS interaction in mind -
hence the change in terminology.

Quoted message said:

So, from our discussions I conclude that for me, at least, the main
problem with the system is that it is not possible to plot directly a
*track* on the map, save it and send it to the GPS. It is, of course,
possible to plot a *route* on the map using lots of waypoints and send
it to the GPS as a track, but this is a very unsatisfactory way of doing
things, there needs to be a clear distinction kept between *routes* and
*tracks*. My GPS and I suppose most GPSs can only store a limited number
of waypoints, but lots of track points, which is why the distinction is
important.

I still don't understand why you find it unsatisfactory to save a route
as a track? This gets around the maximum waypoints issue. Perhaps I'm
missing something in the way that Gartrip works?

Quoted message said:

There are still a few problems, one ought, for example, to be able to
right-click on a folder and then select 'hide' from the menu, to stop
its data from being displayed on the map.

The required action (on a database object) is Right Click - Close
Database. Alternatively, you can go into the "Appearance" tab for any
route and switch off the display of waypoints and/or make the route
transparent.

The problem of the truncated

Quoted message said:

boxes is a serious one and needs fixing urgently, I have hundreds of
programs on this computer and this is the *only* one that behaves in
this way.

I'll drop Anquet a line about all this and let you know what they have
to say (assuming that they give me permission to do this).

Regards, Nick.

Roy said:

In v06 it is possible to run an option to reduce the number of waypoints
on a route (or should that be routelet?). I don't know how the algorithm
works and if it would leave behind the waypoints you actually want. Then
again, I don't use GPS.

I've found this to be less than satisfactory as it can delete some
important waypoints.

druidh

Nick Hopton said:

Roy wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

In v06 it is possible to run an option to reduce the number of
waypoints on a route (or should that be routelet?). I don't know how
the algorithm works and if it would leave behind the waypoints you
actually want. Then again, I don't use GPS.

[...]

A typical walk for me might be a circular one perhaps 30-odd km long,
comprising many bits of interconnecting footpaths in the local area. To
navigate walks like this without stopping every five minutes to consult
maps, I need to be able to follow a track on the GPS that is good to a
few metres. Plotting a track like this takes lots of track points. I
also pop numbered waypoints on the track at intervals of about 500 or a
1000 metres, so that I can keep track <groan> of where I am. I think
this is the way that many people navigate using GPSs but unfortunately
you can't plan walks in Anquet using track points (not directly, anyway).

I've never experienced anyone plotting / walking to this degree of
"accuracy". TBH - perhaps a full mapping GPS would be better (I
appreciate it's also more costly). e,g, you could use your existing
software and Geko with a PDA.

druidh

Paul Saunders said:

druidh said:

As for the storing and handling of data, I've created a number of
databases for different purposes - planned walks, completed walks,
geocaches etc. Within these databases, I may have a number of folders,
perhaps with some geographical grouping. The advantage of the multiple
database approach is that each can be opened/ closed as required -
with as many open as your screen can cope with! Closing down any you don't
want at that time unclutters the screen.

I'm still using the "old" Anquet, v1.2.20, so I'm not familiar with these
databases. How do they compare to the Data Management and categories of the
old version?

Sorry Paul - I DO recall playing around with the Data management feature
but it's so long ago :-) The one issue I have with this feature is that
the "Naismiths" calculations are set at the System level. It's not
possible to set a default for each database.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Note that the earlier version of Anquet used the term "path" for a
section of a route - each route could be made from a number of
"paths". This nomenclature was dropped with V06 as GPS devices did
not recognise this construct.

So have they just changed the nomenclature, or are there more fundamental
changes to how the new Anquet works? I didn't like the sound of some of the
new changes so I still haven't tried it.

The new user interface includes an "Explorer" type window - much the
same as Windows Explorer. So, drag-and-drop of routes/routlets is
possible. I'm not aware of any GPS function which is now lacking - can
you think of something that was problematic before, and I can report back?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, it is still possible to create
"sub-routes" within each route, join them, copy them etc. So, a
classic use for me might be a sub-route from the car park to a
bridge, then another for a horse-shoe walk, then re-use the first
from the bridge to the car park by copying it and using the Reverse
option. Saves going over the same bit twice.

Which is basically how the original Anquet was designed to work.

Yep - and was one of it's strengths compared with, say, Memory Map. The
new multi-DB option just makes this a bit easier (IMO of course).

Quoted message said:

Paul

druidh wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A typical walk for me might be a circular one perhaps 30-odd km long,
comprising many bits of interconnecting footpaths in the local area.
To navigate walks like this without stopping every five minutes to
consult maps, I need to be able to follow a track on the GPS that is
good to a few metres. Plotting a track like this takes lots of track
points. I also pop numbered waypoints on the track at intervals of
about 500 or a 1000 metres, so that I can keep track <groan> of where
I am. I think this is the way that many people navigate using GPSs but
unfortunately you can't plan walks in Anquet using track points (not
directly, anyway).

I've never experienced anyone plotting / walking to this degree of
"accuracy". TBH - perhaps a full mapping GPS would be better (I
appreciate it's also more costly). e,g, you could use your existing
software and Geko with a PDA.

[...]

No thanks, the Geko is just fine for me, I keep the little walking man
on the line of the track and I know I'm on course. We all have our own
ideas about what suits us and for walking at least I don't see any point
in using mapping GPSs or PDAs. All I need to do is plot a track, pop a
few numbered waypoints on it, sent the track and the waypoints to the
GPS and print a map showing the track and the waypoints. My needs are
simple, but Anquet makes doing this very hard work. For example, for no
apparent reason when I'm plotting a track Anquet will suddenly decide to
change the directory where the points are being stored. I can't even
begin to understand why this happens, it's really not good enough.

The mapping, of course, is brilliant, but for me its functionality is
wrecked by the miserable, confusing way that I have to try and interact
with it.

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton,
Caversham, Reading, England.

Paul Saunders said:

With careful planning you don't actually need that many waypoints, and you
don't really need a detailed track to follow, although it makes things very
easy if you do. But do you really want to spend the whole walk staring at
your GPS? If you just have waypoints at junctions, you only have to look at
the GPS when you reach each junction.

I find that I don't even need waypoints at every junction. I omit a
junction waypoint if heading towards the next waypoint would tell me
which way turn to take at the junction, which it often does. So when
following a route I'll simply choose whichever exit is closest to the
direction the GPS is pointing me to.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm said:

I find that I don't even need waypoints at every junction. I omit a
junction waypoint if heading towards the next waypoint would tell me
which way turn to take at the junction, which it often does. So when
following a route I'll simply choose whichever exit is closest to the
direction the GPS is pointing me to.

Very good point! Now that's what I call intelligent waypoint placement. It's
surprising how few waypoints you actually need if you place them carefully
enough. Micro-navigation with multiple waypoints in a small area is rarely
necessary.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Latest Blog Post: A Photo or a Snap?
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

druidh said:

The new user interface includes an "Explorer" type window - much the
same as Windows Explorer. So, drag-and-drop of routes/routlets is
possible. I'm not aware of any GPS function which is now lacking - can
you think of something that was problematic before, and I can report
back?

It was a long time ago, but didn't Anquet choose where to put the waypoints
itself? Like every 100m or so?

The main thing that bugs me about Anquet and MM is that you can't create
"proper" waypoints. What I mean is that you don't have a choice of the
actual waypoint symbols used in the GPS (lots of pretty icons in Anquet, but
what use is that when they don't correspond to your GPS?) and you can't edit
the description field.

Or maybe you can now, I don't know. Like I say, I use Ozi and GPSU for my
GPS management so I'm not really bothered how Anquet or MM do it.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
Latest Blog Post: A Photo or a Snap?
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

druidh <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

With my Geko 301, the standard practice is to follow a Route. A Route
is made up of a number of waypoints.
A Track is something which the GPS creates as you walk/cycle.

It is not universally standard practice. I always use a saved track rather
than a route, placing waypoints only where I want them rather than at every
point the route changes direction.

Quoted message said:

It IS possible to download a route "as a track" and use the Geko to
follow this. This has the advantage of having more "waypoints"
(actually trackpoints) - but these are not listed as such in the Geko
Waypoints list.

Exactly, and not having them cluttering up the waypoint list seems an
advantage to me. I have had a case, where going on a ten day holiday, using
routes I would have run out of waypoint space (500) but tracks were fine.

Paul Saunders said:

druidh said:

The new user interface includes an "Explorer" type window - much the
same as Windows Explorer. So, drag-and-drop of routes/routlets is
possible. I'm not aware of any GPS function which is now lacking - can
you think of something that was problematic before, and I can report
back?

It was a long time ago, but didn't Anquet choose where to put the waypoints
itself? Like every 100m or so?

Don't recall that one.

Quoted message said:

The main thing that bugs me about Anquet and MM is that you can't create
"proper" waypoints. What I mean is that you don't have a choice of the
actual waypoint symbols used in the GPS (lots of pretty icons in Anquet, but
what use is that when they don't correspond to your GPS?)

Agreed - a proper pain. How hard could that be??

and you can't edit

Quoted message said:

the description field.

That one seems to have been sorted.

Quoted message said:

Or maybe you can now, I don't know. Like I say, I use Ozi and GPSU for my
GPS management so I'm not really bothered how Anquet or MM do it.

Paul

John Yale said:

druidh <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

With my Geko 301, the standard practice is to follow a Route. A Route
is made up of a number of waypoints.
A Track is something which the GPS creates as you walk/cycle.

It is not universally standard practice. I always use a saved track rather
than a route, placing waypoints only where I want them rather than at every
point the route changes direction.

Aye true - but this has only really been possible with the advent of
add-on software. As far as I know, it's impossible to manually enter a
Track into a GPS - i.e. the GPS was built to have Waypoints and Routes
as it's default.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It IS possible to download a route "as a track" and use the Geko to
follow this. This has the advantage of having more "waypoints"
(actually trackpoints) - but these are not listed as such in the Geko
Waypoints list.

Exactly, and not having them cluttering up the waypoint list seems an
advantage to me. I have had a case, where going on a ten day holiday, using
routes I would have run out of waypoint space (500) but tracks were fine.

Me too. And it saves having to find unique names for all your waypoints.
(although Anquet provides a "Prefix" option to help in this regard).

druidh

In article <[email hidden]>, druidh
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

John Yale said:

druidh <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

With my Geko 301, the standard practice is to follow a Route. A
Route
is made up of a number of waypoints.
A Track is something which the GPS creates as you walk/cycle.

It is not universally standard practice. I always use a saved track
rather than a route, placing waypoints only where I want them rather
than at every point the route changes direction.

Aye true - but this has only really been possible with the advent of
add-on software. As far as I know, it's impossible to manually enter a
Track into a GPS - i.e. the GPS was built to have Waypoints and Routes
as it's default.

Even some of the early Gamins (40, 45, 38) could have tracks loaded into
them from the Garmin PCX-5 software that ran under DOS.

When the saved tracks & trackback features were introduced it then
became practical to use saved tracks in place of routes.

Since then I have almost always used saved tracks in preference to
routes. The only potential advantage of routes is the eta to the
waypoints but that it negated by the fact that it is calculated over a
straight line and unless you use a lot of waypoints (leading to clutter)
it will not follow the actual route over the ground if it is not
straight.

--

Dominic Sexton

druidh <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With my Geko 301, the standard practice is to follow a Route. A
Route is made up of a number of waypoints.
A Track is something which the GPS creates as you walk/cycle.

It is not universally standard practice. I always use a saved track
rather than a route, placing waypoints only where I want them rather
than at every point the route changes direction.

Aye true - but this has only really been possible with the advent of
add-on software. As far as I know, it's impossible to manually enter a
Track into a GPS - i.e. the GPS was built to have Waypoints and Routes
as it's default.

OK, I hadn't thought of that. I think twice before manually entering one
waypoint manually, so the idea of entering a whole route manually never
occured to me 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It IS possible to download a route "as a track" and use the Geko to
follow this. This has the advantage of having more "waypoints"
(actually trackpoints) - but these are not listed as such in the
Geko Waypoints list.

Exactly, and not having them cluttering up the waypoint list seems an
advantage to me. I have had a case, where going on a ten day holiday,
using routes I would have run out of waypoint space (500) but tracks
were fine.

Me too. And it saves having to find unique names for all your
waypoints. (although Anquet provides a "Prefix" option to help in this
regard).

I use Tracklogs, which does not distinguish between Routes and Saved
Tracks until you upload to the GPS. For Routes it then auto names the
waypoints with prefix letters (from the initial letters of the name, or
your choice) and a serial number.

John