Tracks vs Routes/Trips

[Gelo]

So if you're saving a file on your PC as .gpx which you made in BC, then connecting the XT to the PC via USB and moving the gpx file into XT2 /gpx/ directory - does the XT2 still use Tread, or makes a direct move to XT2? If the latest, then you in business. Just remember to put enough shaping points when creating a route in BC so the XT2 won't reroute somewhere in between them (all navs are doing it).
This simple PC to nav move is true for not only BC made gpx files, but also all gpx files that were made in all different 3rd party software. I often share .gpx files made in Furkot, Tyre, Harley-Davidson, etc., etc.

If it's the first, and tread is still interferes, returning the XT2 and getting the XT may be a better solution and saving $200 in the process.

As long as the Tread is linked to the XT2, anything that enters the XT2 by any method will destroy it. The Tread is the poison of the XT2, you have to unpair or uninstall the Tread for the XT2 to work well.
Garminn programmers are a disaster

[gwilki]

Well, tomorrow will tell. Today, I updated my BC from 4.6.2 to 4.7.5. I've been holding off because the old version was working just fine for creating tracks that I transfer to a Montana for kayaking. The release notes for the current version of BC say that one of the fixes was to address route conversions happening between BC and the Zumo. Now, the Zumo of the day was the XT, not the XT2, but I'm hoping.

I created a new route that will take me to a finish supplier that I deal with. According to the BC turn list, it works perfectly. I exported the .gpx to my PC. Then I plugged in the xt2 and copied the file to the gpx folder. After importing it, the turn list on the xt2 also looks perfect. So, if it actually works as it should tomorrow, my week's frustration will not have been for nothing. I'll report back after I run the route tomorrow.

[Fxwheels]

Garminn programmers are a disaster

100% agree

[jfheath]

I'm not so sure that the programmers are to blame.

The use of terminology that may confuse is probably an issue which is decided at a higher level. Programmers do the job that they are asked to do.
Whether a particular route point is called a Via, a stop, a destination, alerting is decided by somebody else. Ditto route, tracks, trips, courses; Favourites, waypoints, Saved locations.

This seemingly filters down to the phone help desk where I have had to question the meaning of what I was being told when the term 'waypoint' was used. It turned out that they mean 'Via Point' and didn't seem to be aware of the difference.

But not finding waypoints / favourites on the SD card unless it has already found at least one in internal memory - well that is very much like the schoolkid programming errors that I have seen.

[gwilki]

I can't speak to the competence of Garmin programmers, but this whole process has taught me a bit about how Garmin corporate thinks.

The engineer that I have been communicating with is very good at explaining why my problem is happening. His most recent email was particularly enlightening. In short, the issue between routes created in Garmin Explore and then run in Tread or on the XT2 comes down to "accuracy". I drew a route that, when it got to an intersection, made a right angled turn from the street that I was on to a connecting street. That was fine with Explore.

The problem came about because Tread/XT2 are so sophisticated that they "know" that is not the way a motorcycle would actually make that turn. The turn would, in real life, be an arc. The problem for Tread/XT2 was that the real-life arc would not pass through the point that I created in Explore - the right-angle-turn point. So, because Tread/XT2 is is programmed to take the route through that point, it had to find a way to do that. The way was to take me further along the highway I was on to the next exit. From there, the route doubled-back so that it could now pass through that point in a straight line. (I hope at least some of you can understand this convoluted explanation.) I find it amazing that the programmers could actually write a program that recognizes that we do not make right-angled turns at intersections.

The solution seems to be,in part at least, in better documentation. The solution to my problem is, in part, to create the route so that there is a point just before the intersection and one that is just after the intersection - on the road that I am turning onto. Tread/XT2 will draw the arc and get me there. That said, the engineer explained that their older applications, like Basecamp and Explore, do not "think" the same way that Tread/XT2 do. That is why Garmin is pushing us to create routes in Tread or on the XT2 itself. The difference in thinking is always going to cause issues when Tread/XT2 recalcutes routes drawn in other applications.

I would gladly create routes in Tread if Garmin would create a Tread application for the PC. My eyes are simply too old to be trying to create routes on either a cell phone or XT2 screen.

With any kind of luck, Garmin will be monitoring discussions like this one, and take them into account in future versions of Tread.

[Peobody]

The solution to my problem is, in part, to create the route so that there is a point just before the intersection and one that is just after the intersection - on the road that I am turning onto.

I recall that early in my BaseCamp education was learning not to place route points at intersections, but always somewhere down the road on which you were turning. There does not need to be a route point just before the intersection because you are already traveling on that road.

Also, it quickly became apparent how important it was to place route points precisely on the road and in the correct lane. I can not envision trying to do that on the touchscreen of a portable device.

[gwilki]

I recall that early in my BaseCamp education was learning not to place route points at intersections, but always somewhere down the road on which you were turning. There does not need to be a route point just before the intersection because you are already traveling on that road.

Also, it quickly became apparent how important it was to place route points precisely on the road and in the correct lane. I can not envision trying to do that on the touchscreen of a portable device.

There is no question that at least some of my problems are "pilot error" on my part. I'm used to creating tracks for my kayak paddling and routes are a whole 'nother animal.

I'm with you on the lane issue. On divided highways, it is critical that we don't try to ride in oncoming lanes. Like you, I can't see myself getting the points correct on a 3" screen.

[lkraus]

With one exception, I've not had any problem placing shaping points at intersections, probably because you don't have to hit them exactly. In Basecamp I usually drag-n-drop a route to an intersection (usually where I am not turning) because that quickly creates a shaping point.

Via points in an intersection are a bad idea. Approach and arrival announcements override the audible turn instructions (though the display may be correct). The exact position of the point within the intersection may have caused an issue I had with my 590. My route called for a left turn at an intersection, but the 590 wanted me to proceed straight ahead through the intersection, perform a U-turn, turn left, perform a second U-turn, and finally continue straight ahead through the intersection.

The one problem I've had with a shaping point in an intersections occurred when I used the XT to change a shaping point in an intersection (with a turn) into a via point. I think the struggle to announce the turn and the arrival at the point caused a conflict which caused the XT to reboot. So I no longer place even shaping points at intersections where I might turn.

[gwilki]

Update: I'm just back from my "test trip" and things are looking up. There was still one glitch that maybe someone here can help with.

I created this route in BC. I set a start point at my home address and an end point at my destination street address. Each of these was a waypoint.

I inserted shaping/do not alert points after each turn.

In previous experiments, I had issues when I set the route start point at my home and actually started running the route on my xt2 while sitting in my driveway. So this time I drove about a km away from my home in the opposite direction of my intended direction of travel. There, I hit go. The xt prompted for where I wanted to start. I chose the first option, which was my home address. The xt2 did not give any verbal direction, but the screen showed how to get to my house. I followed the magenta line. When I arrived at my house, again no verbal direction. The screen showed "arriving at 17 Drysdale" - my home address, then ended. It was like it took the start point to be the end point. So, I hit go again, and chose closest entry point this time. From then on, all was good. It took me to my destination.

Can anyone hear shed any light on why it behaved as it did?

[jfheath]

Yes. Well, yes, possibly.

You have to put your start point in such a position that you definitely will pass through it, and your satnav has been on long enough to get a decent fix on where it is. Such a point is rarely outside your house.

My start points are usually a mile up the road.

Instructions are not given if you turn off auto recalculations. It just goes quiet if you deviate from the route. I don't know if this matches what you did - but that is definitely what happens if you do not allow the route to recalculate. This catches out about half of the riders in a group ride congregating around the start. Half of them will pass through the start point when they set off. Half will not - the ones who were in the lead !!

Now - the route should continue to try to navigate you back to the start. Forever. That is what it does if you miss a via point. But there are circumstances when the route itself changes its characteristics - typically if the XT has recalculated the route, say if you press Skip. In those circumstances, I have noted that my route will start treating the via and shaping points as optional. Also I have recorded it removing route points as soon as I ignore the instruction to take the road that leads to it.

Take a look at your log files. If you have a lot of very short sections of track recorded, this could be a symptom of RUT behaviour. This is a situation that I described when the XT keeps making U-turn demands, seemingly to get you to go back to its original route, even when the route ahead offers a much better option. A better description is that it is trying to get you to the closest point of the route. With U turns allowed, the closest point is nearly always behind you. But so far, this scenario has only happened if Skip has been pressed at some point.

Always set your start point to be on the road that you intend to ride after you have set off. When you start the route on the. XT screen and you are asked to select the next destination, choose that start point. The XT will navigate you to the start and then continue.

Have U turns allowed. You can ignore them - but these requests alert you to the fact that you are not going where it thinks you should.

If the start point has been recognised as visited, this may be because you were close enough to it (but your description doesn't match that scenario). Or it may be because you have triggered the RUT scenario where the nature of the magenta line changes. Route points can be removed if you stray from the magenta line and when you rejoin, it will navigate you ahead.

If that happened with your start point, you were left with a magenta line with no route points except the end.

And here is a snippet worth knowing about routes with only shaping points - ie no Via Points. You can join the route at any location and the Zumo will navigate you from that point onwards. You have to be wary of this with a fig 8 loop, if you cross the route back to your house, it may take you there instead of taking you the way you intended.

(I edited this post to clarify a few things)