when importing route prepared with Basecamp, XT recalculates

[chris7444]

I see at least one reason for calculating when importing: durations. After loading a route, the GPS displays durations (overall duration, duration between waypoints).

Now Basecamp uses average speed limits that can be configured in the activity profiles. Looking at the motorcycle activity profile on the PC I believe the default settings are not adapted to Europe (eg in France highway speed limit is 130km/h, in Switzerland it is 110km/h and in Germany on some sections there is no speed limit at all).

I don't know where the GPS is storing the "average speed limits" but it has to use some data to compute the duration of the trip and trip sections because of the "Fastest route" setting. If the trip is crossing various country in Europe with different speed regulations it probably has to take that into account. For this reason I believe a calculation is needed.

[FrankB]

@chris7444

Just reading this post. If you set the routing profile in Basecamp be sure to set the Profile of the route. That is what is sent to the XT, not the Default.
Happened to me on a few occasions.

Route Profile.jpg (102.42 KiB) Viewed 2334 times

Off-topic: In the past I have always made sure that no recalculation is done on the XT. But lately I send a track from the route to the XT, and make sure that the route does get recalculated. When all is done I verify that the track and trip on the XT are the same.
Why do I do this? When you deviate from the route while driving, the route gets recalculated anyway. Possibly a route that I do not expect.

[chris7444]

@chris7444

Just reading this post. If you set the routing profile in Basecamp be sure to set the Profile of the route. That is what is sent to the XT, not the Default.
Happened to me on a few occasions.

Route Profile.jpg

Off-topic: In the past I have always made sure that no recalculation is done on the XT. But lately I send a track from the route to the XT, and make sure that the route does get recalculated. When all is done I verify that the track and trip on the XT are the same.
Why do I do this? When you deviate from the route while driving, the route gets recalculated anyway. Possibly a route that I do not expect.

Yes I did that.

[chris7444]

@chris7444
Off-topic: In the past I have always made sure that no recalculation is done on the XT. But lately I send a track from the route to the XT, and make sure that the route does get recalculated. When all is done I verify that the track and trip on the XT are the same.
Why do I do this? When you deviate from the route while driving, the route gets recalculated anyway. Possibly a route that I do not expect.

Yes of course. I am doing this also. I was asking because I was suspecting something wrong with my maps. I don't think this is the case.

[chris7444]

Happy with all the answers. thank you so much.
btw: finally found the "reply with quote" button

[jfheath]

If you want to post a gpx of the route - or send it as a pm - I'll take a look see if mine does the same as yours.

@chris7444 is absolutely correct. The XT comes up with very different routes from those produced by Basecamp, so you might want it to recalculate anyway - just so that you know what it is going to do. It just seems to take forever to calculate when the route is first transferred, whereas it is only a few moments for it to recaclulate a route once it has it in memory. I haven't got a clue why that would be.

If any of my routes take a long time to load, on transfer, I know I have done something wrong.

[chris7444]

If you want to post a gpx of the route - or send it as a pm - I'll take a look see if mine does the same as yours.

@chris7444 is absolutely correct. The XT comes up with very different routes from those produced by Basecamp, so you might want it to recalculate anyway - just so that you know what it is going to do. It just seems to take forever to calculate when the route is first transferred, whereas it is only a few moments for it to recaclulate a route once it has it in memory. I haven't got a clue why that would be.

If any of my routes take a long time to load, on transfer, I know I have done something wrong.

I sent you (PM) a gpx file with a bunch of screenshots taken on the Zümo and on the PC

I did some more testing this morning. The attached gpx file (exported from Basecamp) contains two routes and the corresponding tracks.
- a simple route ("0000 aix Les Bains to 0030 Rumilly") (start + 1 shaping point + destination). => Imported in no time
- a more realistic one ("0000 Nonglard xxx to Nonglard ...") . ~ => Imported in ~2mns.

note: Once the "realistic" route is loaded in the trip planner, if I hit the "Go" button, the GPS calculates the route to the "Next destination" chosen but this is a different calculation/story (calculates the route from the current location to the selected "Next Destination").

[chris7444]

Bravo to @jfheath who was able to produce a version of my route which loads in almost no time on my GPS. Problem may come from how some of the points and how they are positioned on the map. At least I know it is possible to design routes that can load in almost no time when importing. Investigating further to understand exactly what is wrong in my route(s).

In addition I could load jfheath's version of the route in almost no time with the unpaved road avoidance enabled as well as the country specific avoidances (eg a 40CHF sticker is required to use highways in Switzerland). I want to keep these avoidances enabled.

[Peobody]

At least I know it is possible to design routes that can load in almost no time when importing. Investigating further to understand exactly what is wrong in my route(s).

Please let us know if you figure it out. I would like to resolve my long calculation time on transfers.

@jfheath, Do you have sense about whether a route with 20 Via points will transfer slower than one with 5 Via points and 15 Shaping points? I ask because I have seen your comments that you convert most waypoints to Shaping points whereas I do not. One thing I feel confident about is that calculation time is not due to misplaced points (created with Waypoint flag tool). I am very meticulous about insuring that all routing points are exactly on the road. Any other points are almost always POI's added to the route from Search.

[jfheath]

@jfheath, Do you have sense

No. I was away when they gave that stuff out.

... about whether a route with 20 Via points will transfer slower than one with 5 Via points and 15 Shaping points?

Ah. No. It should not make a great deal of difference as far as I know. Subject to the number of points limits of course.
Via points mark the beginning and end of each 'section' of a route. A section has routing time and distances associated with it, so that the XT can display distance to Via and ETA for Via points. Some displays of the route also break it into timed sections which are defined by the Via Points. So there is a tiny overhead in working out and storing the sub total - probably completed in less time than it takes my fingers to typre the next letter. It isn't much.

I ask because I have seen your comments that you convert most waypoints to Shaping points whereas I do not. One thing I feel confident about is that calculation time is not due to misplaced points (created with Waypoint flag tool). I am very meticulous about insuring that all routing points are exactly on the road. Any other points are almost always POI's added to the route from Search.

This is an issue that irritates me a tiny bit. The names of route points may change on transfer and/or import. But they do not change the names of points that were created as Waypoints.

For long routes, I like to put either a sequence number at the start of my route points. app.php/ZXT-P09 Click the link and you'll see why. In this case the sequence number has been changed to a mileage expressed as a 3 digit number - obtained from Basecamp route calculations. It's close enough.

If I regard a route point as 'important', I will make a Waypoint and give it a number. And then they all appear in the correct order in the Route Pane in the bottom left of Basecamp. I can then highlight them all, and ask Basecamp to create a route from the selected waypoints. And because they were listed in the correct order (due to the sequence number), the route is built in the correct order.

I give it a mileage because I have found it useful in the past in Europe when I do not know the name of places or where they are relative to each other. At the start of every day, I will reset my trip to zero and follow the route. If I need to know where I am or what comes next or what points I have passed already, I just look at the names and my trip meter. Its preparation for the eventuality that I hope never happens.

'Important' places are for coffee stops, toilet breaks and such like. My Via points are placed on the road that I want to be on AFTER the break - and I use a shaping point to mark the cafe - so that I can ignore it.

But that link describes how I set up my routes.

---

Now - having said that. @chris7444 sent me his GPX file that he said was taking 2 minutes to calculate. Indeed it was.
I've spent much of the morning working out what is going on. He'd done everything absolutley correctly. All of my smart-alec answers were of no use. He had them all covered. So I started dissecting his route. But first I created a track and plotted a brand new route that followed the same roads. That imported in about 2 seconds, rather than the 2 minutes that his route took. (1 min 55 seconds). I sent it to him, and it worked on his XT too. So its not the map, its not the Zumo. It is something in the route.

SO I started trying to pinpoint the problem. There were some points on junctions. No, it wanst; those. 3 Waypoints. I moved those. No. A number of shaping points. No. A few Via points - rleocated and set them as shaping. No.
So last resort, I inserted a new route point next to the Waypoint and then deleted the waypoint. I did that with all 3 of them.
And that worked.

We reckon that one of thos points was rogue - having been obtained from the datbase of route points. But we don't know how, or which one as yet.

Its not that it is having trouble calculating the route. It is that something is forcing the route to be recalculated in the first place. It shouldn't do it. There was once a problem with a Garmin map where the Zumo map was called something like 2010.3 and the Garmin map was 2010.30 - and that was enough to tell the Zumo that the maps were not the same - so for 3 months, the Zumos all over Europe were recalculating every single route - because the names were different. Chris said that one of his maps had brackets after the name (). I thought that might be the issue - but his XT worked correctly from my routes. And I was having the same problem with his routes even after recalculating them in my BAsecamp.

So I am wondering if there is something in the database of points that makes the Zumo think the info has come from a new map. Something that tells it that the waypoint is not there in its database - therefore it thinks that the map must be different. I've not come across this before, but I very very rarely use the database. And when I do, I usually replace it with my own point. In my experience the location of hotels and campsites are only approximate - based on a few hotels that have been a couple of miles out. Its enough to make me not want to rely on it. In any case they take you to the front door. I want to know where to park the bike !

So I don't know, but we both suspect that the points in the datbase are possible the answer to his problem.
How to verify it ??


Work is still ongoing. Chris has a nice sunny day over there, so he's gone for a ride. Its raining here. And tomorrow, so I'm staying put.