"Paul Saunders" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve Orrell wrote:
>
> > Can anyone help me with my queries? Does Anquet let you worth with your GPS data as well as
> > OziExplorer (both to and from GPS)
>
> No. The basic problem with Anquet was that it was never designed for GPS use. The first version
> had no GPS functionality whatsoever, it was added as an afterthought. Because of this, certain
> fundamental design decisions were made which didn't suit GPS use, so making it work with GPS later
> was like forcing a square peg into a round hole.
>
> I wrote a review about Anquet once on this newsgroup, when I first tried it.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=anquet+maps+review&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
> 8& oe=UTF-8&selm=agt1k2%24f7m%241%40newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk&rnum=2
>
> The basic problem with using Anquet for GPS is that they use slightly different concepts which
> don't match properly. Anquet uses what they call "waypoints", "paths" and "routes". GPS units use
> what Garmin calls "waypoints", "tracks" and "routes".
>
> The problem is that an Anquet waypoint is not the same as a GPS waypoint, an Anquet path is not
> the same as a GPS track, and an Anquet route is not the same as a GPS route. They've tried to bash
> these pegs into roughly the same holes, but they don't work in quite the same way.
>
> A GPS waypoint contains coordinate data, a name, a description, an icon, and height data. An
> Anquet waypoint doesn't have a name or description as such, although they can be added as a
> separate piece of information. This info is not sent to the GPS. You can choose icons for Anquet
> waypoints, but they don't match the icons in your GPS and aren't sent to the GPS. You can't add
> height data either.
Latest version allows named waypoints to be created and sent to the GPS. Height has been around
for while.
> A GPS track is a series of track points connected together. Each track point contains coordinate
> data, plus time and date, but no name. An Anquet path may look the same, but it's actually a
> series of waypoints. Paths can be combined into routes. When you send a route to your GPS it sends
> each point as a separate waypoint, thus filling your GPS with loads of waypoints.
>
Only if you so choose. You can choose only to download waypoints, all nodes or re-sample at a set
distance to create intermediate waypoints. I find this actually better for general hillwlking - not
much use having a big arrow poiting you directly to the next waypoint if theres a corrie / cliff /
river / loch etc in the way!
> A GPS route is a series of waypoints connected together. In practice you don't need to place many
> of these, you only need a few key waypoints to form a route. Suppose you need to follow a twisty
> path from one junction to another, you only need to place waypoints at the junctions. The next
> waypoint will tell you where you need to go, but you don't have to walk in a straight line toward
> it. With Anquet, it will send dozens of waypoints to the GPS tracing out every little twist and
> turn, which is unnecessary. Most GPS units don't have a very large route capacity, but Anquet
> sends so many waypoints that it will fill up many route slots to mark out just one route.
>
Again - you select how frequently you need a waypoint.
> Of course, you can mark your paths differently in Anquet to take account of this, but then you're
> not using Anquet in the way that it was intended. It was intended that you trace out the paths
> accurately onto the map so that it can calculate the correct distance, ascent, Naismith time etc.
> If you only mark path points at waypoint junctions that will come out all wrong. An Anquet path or
> route should equate to a GPS track, not a GPS route, a route should be a different thing
> altogether.
>
> Confused? Use Ozi for your GPS.
>
> To be fair to Anquet, I've noticed that they have added more GPS features in the latest version
> and I think you can now convert tracks to paths and vice versa, or something like that, but I'm
> not sure because I've only looked at it briefly. I haven't seen enough improvements to persuade me
> to stop using Ozi. Anquet just wasn't designed for GPS, although I daresay that it's quite usable
> for that if you have no other option, and perhaps it doesn't seem as bad as I'm making it out to
> be if you've never used a program like Ozi.
>
I know you have tried to make clear that you were referrring to an earlier version of Anquet, but
think you need to try the later (and latest) versions. Personally, I'd rather miss out on a few
esoteric GPS functions for the other ease of use factors (like the fact that all the mapping data is
there and that features such as 3D are now built in).
druidh
I agree absolutely with you. If I have bought a 1:25000 OS map I will do what I like