72e - MRA Observations
| Contents | First | Previous | Next Chapter |
Advantages of Creating Routes in MRA
There are quite a few. Here are some that I like
Route Point Names Retained
Pic 8 shows two versions of the Trip list that I have been using in the last few pages. The left hand side has come from MRA. The one hovering above to the right has come from Basecamp.
The same route points were used in both cases - I exported the GPX file from Basecamp to MRA - without any route information. All of the route points started with a two digit number. All had a short name of the town.
The Basecamp version has been modified by the XT. A number of the names have been changed - I've drawn a red oval around them - and you can see from the latitude, it has altered many of the locations. Not all of them have had their name changed, but points 01, 02, 03, 06, 07 & 11 have. 01 Penrith Exit - means something to me. 'A686' could be anywhere on a 36 mile strip of tarmac. And I have been through Hawes more times than I can remember. I didn't ever notice the road was called Turfy Hill. It is meaningless to me. I wanted it to be called Hawes. That's why I named it like that.
It isn't MRA that has developed a unique solution to this problem - it just brought it to my attention. It seems to have come about by not having the gpxx:Subclass tags that I highlighted in the previous section. Using Basecamp, if you edit all of those commands out (tedious, and you wouldn't do this unless like me, you were trying to find out what happens) or if you change the profile to be a customised Direct Route - the subclass string get replaced with a load of 0's and F's. And they don't get renamed either. The lat/long still gets modified slightly, however. But the XT calculates the route from the route points, and the names do not get altered. Not yet anyway.
(Incidentally, neither do they get altered if you create the points as Waypoints first)
I have yet to find out if the known odd routing behaviours change if the route has not been calculated first by a program like Basecamp.
Different Map Styles
MRA makes it easy to switch between different maps styles - OSM, Michelin, TomTom, HERE, Satellite, Hybrids and Open Topo maps. I quite like the clarity of the OpenTopo maps and the contour lines to help present an indication of the terrain. HERE are the maps used by Garmin, so I always switch back to those before transfer to the XT. I assume that this is necessary, but I've never done anything different to find out.
Import and Export
MRA can import routes and tracks in many different formats.
Import routes allows GPX, KML, KMZ, ITN, TRF, TPF, TAR.GZ. import tracks allows the first 3 of these.
POIs can be imported in OV2, GPX, CSV formats.
Routes and associated tracks and POIs can be exported GPX (4), ITN, TPF, TRF, KML, KMZ, OV2(POI), CSV(POI), TAR.GZ, PDF, HD Boom Box 2019 (track), HD Boom Box pre 2019 (route)
Direct Link to Google Street View
The side menu of an MRA route has a little figure which can be placed anywhere on the map to open up a Google street view page, which can be operated just like GSV - but it has a nice large window inset in the bottom left corner showing the OSM map and route. Its all Google's stuff embedded in MRA window, but with your route and map and it has their additional touches which makes it quick and easy to access.
Other Observations
Relating to Routes and The Zumo XT
There is no way that any satnav is always going to reproduce the route that you planned exactly if it has to recalculate. But there are steps that you can take to try to prevent it.
Some people like to lace up their route with lots of Shaping Points. This will work, but if you deviate from the route the satnav will be forever taking you back to the first one that you missed. So you could turn off auto-recalculation.
But that offers less flexibility than say converting a track to a trip. That gives turn by turn instructions, never recalculates, but if you deviate it will navigate you back to the route - usually the closest point.
Knowing that the Zumo heads for Faster roads, can help you to decide where to put shaping points. I usually place them half way along a road that I want to ride - but if that gives the opportunity to take shortcuts, then I'll place them 1/3 and 2/3 along a road. Or 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4. I never place them on junctions (except in this demonstration where I wanted to exaggerate the effect of not having a shaping point in place.
Placing the track on the XTs screen as well as the route is a very useful trick. It shows where the original route went and if things go weird on you, this will always be there. I have copied and edited one of the theme files to make the track appear a bit wider than the route - so the black track can be seen outlining the route when they coincide.
Shaping points are important. If you deviate from your route and rejoin it after missing a shaping point, then the stanav will let you continue. It will nag you in the meantime. If you turn off-route recalculation OFF, then when you deviate the satnav goes quiet. It doesn't say a word. And when you rejoin, even after missing out a lot of shaping points, it will just come out of its sulk and navigate you ahead. Not so if you miss Via Points - so placement of Via Points should really be reserved for stopping places - or just after the start of the next section after a stop.
Which MRA method would I choose ?
Until I know more about when the XT recalculates (and the 590 and 595) I am not happy with v1.2 which removes the shaping points.
I was always an advocate of Basecamp and had the settings such that both Basecamp and the Zumos would produce very similar routes.
But that is no longer the case. The XT seems to want to head for faster roads, and it will take a much longer route (in time as well as distance) in order to get to one. That seems to be the main routing algorithm, rather than taking a bit extra time to come up with whichever route is actually faster. So the route that is selected by Basecamp or MRA or any other mapping program is irrelevant. The XT is almost certainly going to produce something different. The problem then becomes one of - where do I need to route points in order to force the XT to take these roads. And for that, you only need to transfer the ALL of the route points and the track.
And that is exactly what MRA's gpx v1.1 provides. I hate that the XT then has to calculate the route - it takes time, but it does this much faster without an existing route in place !
MRA's route files have one really big advantage
A new feature was introduced with the XT. When a route is imported, it tends to change the name of the route points that you have used. So if like me you use a sequence number or add the mileage to the front of the name, then this information gets lost. "087 Sam's Cafe" means a lot more to me that "Innominate Lane".
It doesn't do it if you create the point as a Waypoint first - which is what I had started to do in Basecamp.
In those gpxx extension definitions, after each route point is a special hexadecimal string of characters. I have been unable to find out what these characters represent, although I suspect that is has something to do with the characteristics of the next section of road speed limit, road surface, vehicles suitability - that sort of stuff.
It looks like this '(- gpxx:Subclass -) 03003676CC01AFE609002116000057001400 (- /gpxx:Subclass -)'
I have had to change the greater and less than symbols to brackets - they get stripped on when shown on this site.
Anyway MRA misses this out and lets the Zumo fill it in. And guess what - MRA routes do not get the names of route points changed. I tested it on a Basecamp route. Leave these lines in, the names get changed. Take them out of the same route (or substitute a default), and the names do not get changed.
| Contents | First | Previous | Next Chapter |