Memory map 2004 printouts

Bernard Hill said:

I've not seen this mentioned here before but a few days ago
I discovered a very nice new feature in MM2004.

You can print the maps with shading.

Have you tried printing out a route? My experience is you
can no longer see where you want to walk!

In article <[email hidden]>,
Chris <proteus1@gmxDOTnet.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

Bernard Hill said:

I've not seen this mentioned here before but a few days
ago I discovered a very nice new feature in MM2004.

You can print the maps with shading.

Have you tried printing out a route? My experience is you
can no longer see where you want to walk!

No, these were maps to *take* walking. Or driving, whatever.
And it was great for that.

You've always got the option of the plain vanilla map.

--
Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

Bernard Hill said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Chris <proteus1@gmxDOTnet.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

Bernard Hill said:

I've not seen this mentioned here before but a few days
ago I discovered a very nice new feature in MM2004.

You can print the maps with shading.

Have you tried printing out a route? My experience is you
can no longer see where you want to walk!

I usually only know the route after I have walked it.

As long as they keep shading off the paper maps.

Richard Webb

(RJ Webb) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you tried printing out a route? My experience is you
can no longer see where you want to walk!

I usually only know the route after I have walked it.

One of the advertised features of Memory Map is its ability
to interface with a GPS. In GPS parlance, a route is where
you intend to go, and a track is where you have been. It
falls short in both respects compared to OziExplorer, where
you can define the thickness of any route or track printed
out. If the printed track or route obliterates the map
detail, then this is not a good idea, IMO. Interestingly,
although not user-configurable, this was not the case with
Memory map 3. Go figure.

(RJ Webb) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you tried printing out a route? My experience is you
can no longer see where you want to walk!

I usually only know the route after I have walked it.

One of the advertised features of Memory Map is its ability
to interface with a GPS. In GPS parlance, a route is where
you intend to go, and a track is where you have been. It
falls short in both respects compared to OziExplorer, where
you can define the thickness of any route or track printed
out. If the printed track or route obliterates the map
detail, then this is not a good idea, IMO. Interestingly,
although not user-configurable, this was not the case with
Memory map 3. Go figure.

Quoted message said:

One of the advertised features of Memory Map is its ability
to interface with a GPS. In GPS parlance, a route is where
you intend to go, and a track is where you have been. It
falls short in both respects compared to OziExplorer, where
you can define the thickness of any route or track printed
out. If the printed track or route obliterates the map
detail, then this is not a good idea, IMO. Interestingly,
although not user-configurable, this was not the case with
Memory map 3. Go figure.

Its OS policy.. Why rely on them to smeg the maps up with
purple lines when you can do it yourself. Its a joke. I am
still waiting for the whole thing to settle down. Maybe the
O$ will wise up eventually, dont hold your breath.

Richard Webb

"Chris" <proteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (RJ Webb) wrote:

One of the advertised features of Memory Map is its
ability to interface with a GPS. In GPS parlance, a
route is where you intend to go, and a track is where
you have been.

Perhaps it is just me but I prefer to plan a route in Memory
Map with as many waypoints as are necessary to accurately
mark out the walk I want to do, I then convert this to a
track and upload this to the GPS. The weakness of this
method for me is that the MM/Garmin Legend combination only
seems to know one width for tracks, both downloaded ones and
"real time" ones.

I suppose this method is "wrong" but it sure works well for
me and the type of walking I do.

Does anyone know if the new (and hugely expensive) colour
GPS allow control of how the tracks are displayed?

Quoted message said:

It falls short in both respects compared to OziExplorer,
where you can define the thickness of any route or track
printed out. If the printed track or route obliterates the
map detail, then this is not a good idea, IMO.

I just print the map out without any route or track (but
with a mark for where I intend to park the car and the pub
half way around) and using a yellow highligher, trace out
the path ... again it would be nice if MM allowed one of
specific the colour / width of the track such that it could
do the "highlighting" itself.

rgds

Andy

Andy said:

Perhaps it is just me but I prefer to plan a route in
Memory Map with as many waypoints as are necessary to
accurately mark out the walk I want to do, I then convert
this to a track and upload this to the GPS. The weakness of
this method for me is that the MM/Garmin Legend combination
only seems to know one width for tracks, both downloaded
ones and "real time" ones.

I suppose this method is "wrong" but it sure works well for
me and the type of walking I do.

The main problem is where there is an intricate part of the
route, necessitating several waypoints in close proximity.
The route (and waypoints!) obliterate the detail. Yes, it is
possible to use a highlighter, but it seems to me we
shouldn't really have to. Converting to a track frequently
loses important detail of critical turns - ie it is poorly
implemented. Arguably it is much better (and safer) to draw
a track over the proposed route.

The fact that width of route or track cannot be altered is a
drawback (presuming it is not the result of OS pressure!),
but why were the routes/tracks thinner in MM3?

Bernard Hill said:

I've not seen this mentioned here before but a few days
ago I discovered a very nice new feature in MM2004.

You can print the maps with shading.

You can do that with Anquet too, i.e. you can print the 3D
maps (you can set an overhead view looking straight down).

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

"Chris" <proteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Andy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.

Quoted message said:

Converting to a track frequently loses important detail of
critical turns - ie it is poorly implemented.

Interesting, for me with enough waypoints used to draw the
route, the track is very very accurate. In fact, when zoomed
into 300ft scale on the Legend I can tell whether I planned
to be to the left or right of the path

"Chris" <proteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Andy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.

Quoted message said:

Converting to a track frequently loses important detail of
critical turns - ie it is poorly implemented.

Interesting, for me with enough waypoints used to draw the
route, the track is very very accurate. In fact, when zoomed
into 300ft scale on the Legend I can tell whether I planned
to be to the left or right of the path

Chris said:

The fact that width of route or track cannot be altered is
a drawback (presuming it is not the result of OS
pressure!), but why were the routes/tracks thinner in MM3?

Track widths and other stuff are user configurable in
Anquet.

Why so many OS restrictions with MM when Anquet doesn't seem
to suffer from the same limitations?

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

Chris said:

The fact that width of route or track cannot be altered is
a drawback (presuming it is not the result of OS
pressure!), but why were the routes/tracks thinner in MM3?

Track widths and other stuff are user configurable in
Anquet.

Why so many OS restrictions with MM when Anquet doesn't seem
to suffer from the same limitations?

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

Andy said:

Interesting, for me with enough waypoints used to draw the
route, the track is very very accurate. In fact, when
zoomed into 300ft scale on the Legend I can tell whether I
planned to be to the left or right of the path

If you have *enough* waypoints I dare say it works. It
seems it might be easier for you to create your track
directly, however.

Paul Saunders said:

Why so many OS restrictions with MM when Anquet doesn't
seem to suffer from the same limitations?

I can only assume Anquet paid more for their licence. It may
be an oversight, though, rather than deliberate.

RJ Webb said:

As long as they keep shading off the paper maps.

Quite. You should see what they've done to newer IGN
(French) maps. I find them harder to read than the original
"vanilla" version.

Martin.

"Chris" <proteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The fact that width of route or track cannot be altered is
a drawback (presuming it is not the result of OS
pressure!), but why were the routes/tracks thinner in MM3?

Just noticed this and I agree, width is too wide. Time for
an email to MM I think, they charge enough money. On the
same subject (MM) on MM 2004 there is a feature when right-
clicking on a track, it is "join track" how is this used?
Used in conjunction with my reduced track memory Summit I
might be able to join saved tracks together ???

KRO

KRO said:

On the same subject (MM) on MM 2004 there is a feature when
right-clicking on a track, it is "join track" how is this
used? Used in conjunction with my reduced track memory
Summit I might be able to join saved tracks together ???

If the end of a track in MM 2004 is close to the beginning
of another, you can join them. You can create tracks
manually to join existing tracks this way.

I can see a good reason for this. Recent GPS units have the
ability to follow a saved track as well as a route, which
gives you more accuracy than a route (unless you use loads
of waypoints), and without the clutter of waypoints on the
GPS map screen. If you are creating a track manually in MM
and you stop, there is no option to continue the track (as
there is with a route). By creating another track you can
effectively join it up to the first. If you decide to alter
a track, you can split and delete a section, and then add on
another section.

In your particular case you can join tracks, reduce the
number of points if necessary, and save back to the GPS.

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Bernie Hughes said:

Not so. Anquet can be run from CD also. I guess it would
be slower that way though.

It uses a cache for which you can set the size. Areas that
have been viewed previously remain in the cache so it
doesn't need to access the CD unless you view a new area.
Of course if you regularly look at new areas the older
stuff in the cache will be wiped so you'll need to reinsert
a (not "the"😉 CD for the local areas. Best to just stick it
all on the hard drive, it's only 2 gig for half the
country. The latest racing games are double that.

I haven't got one gig spare!

I know, I know - but getting a new PC would mean XP, and I'm
getting to know it via my mate's m/c first..... ;-)
--
Gordon