Weird Routing Behaviour - Major Success.

[Peobody]

FYI, .trip files can be named to something meaningful. The default format is ##########.trip but the name Salisbury_2hrs.trip works. I did not test the use of spaces in a .trip filename. I don't know how useful this could be since there is no way to identify the trip associated with a .trip file from the .trip file itself? @FrankB, please confirm this.

I mention this because I do not keep a lot of data on my XT so was thinking about the feasibility of storing modified .trip files off of the XT and copying them on as needed. I don't see that the effort required to do meaningful renaming would be worth any benefit.

[FrankB]

since there is no way to identify the trip associated with a .trip file from the .trip file itself?

The tripname can be found in the .trip file. My experience is that it can be found at the bottom of the file.

In the bottom half of the screenshot you can see the 'mTripname' keyword followed by the name. Each character takes 4 bytes. I guess it's UTF32
In the upper right part you see how Windows Explorer displays it, and in the upper left part you see the output of the Java program, that displays 1) the file name, 2) the trip name and 3) If it's modified.

(And this is not an effort to persuade you to use the Java program!)

tripname.jpg (370.49 KiB) Viewed 2540 times

[Peobody]

@FrankB, I should have anticipated that you would include the trip name as a connection between the .trip file and its trip. Nice touch!

(And now I might have to install Java just to check it out.)

[Rofor]

@jfheath

Oh thanks !

Have at lease one route created using trip planner on the 595. Call it something imaginative like "XT Route".
Have at least one route on the 595 that has been transferred from Basecamp, and has then been imported. Call it "BC Route".

Select Apps->Trip Planner->Saved Trips. The XT shows a couple of black 'headers' across the list. One above the 'Saved Trips' and another above 'Imported Trips' Scroll down to see what the 595 has please. Where are XT Route and BC Route located in the list ? Under what Banners ?

Here we go - as expected, 'BC Route' is listed under 'Imported Routes' and 'XT Route' is listed under 'Saved Routes'. Named the routes just as suggested from you, two nearly identical, short routes with one via-point in the middle, 'XT Route' was created directly on the Zumo 595 with the route planning tool and 'BC Route' was made with Basecamp and transferred via drag-n-drop to 'Internal Memory' - after a restart of the Zumo 595, it asks if i want import a new found route to the route planning app, and i said yes...

Did check, where the files are stored - 'BC Route' is in 'GPX/temp.gpx' and 'GPX/current.gpx' and 'XT Route' is only in 'GPX/current.gpx'. I add both files, if it is helpfully for you. Also here are the screenshots from the two routes:

Route planning app

7311.png (37.92 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

XT Route (created on the Zumo directly)

8236.png (58.44 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

XT Route overview

8743.png (262.23 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

BC Route (created with Basecamp and imported)

9914.png (57.26 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

BC Route overview

10482.png (288.6 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

gpx-files.zip

temp.gpx and current.gpx

(12.54 KiB) Downloaded 622 times

[jfheath]

Wow - thank you. So yes the 595 does make the distinction, just like the XT. But the 595 never had the RUT issue** - but neither does it have the ability to turn tracks into navigable 'trips'. WHich I think is significant. I think that imported is

** I never observed the RUT behaviour taking place on the 595 and I ran with it for quite some time. But I don't think that I ever formally tested it - and I gave it to my brother.

The issue with temp and current gpx files.

Temp.gpx is where data is stored when it is transferred to the Zumo
Current.gpx is where it is stored when it has been imported.

Temp.gpx is not used by the Zumos except to allow routes, tracks and Waypoints to be imported again.

However, every time you connect a USB cable to the Zumo XT and begin additional transfers, then the temp.gpx file gets over-written - which means that routes connot be imported again if this has happened.

I suspect the 595 might do the same - and that might depend on what file transfer mode it is in - as it requires temp.gpx to be added to, and you cannot add to a file on a system that uses media transfer protocol. But when I was doing a lot of testing, I had a 590 which I kept changing back and forth to a 595. I know that I tested it, but I couldn't say which Zumo I was testing it on.

The XT can only operate in MTP - it does not use 'Mass Storage' - which gives you a drive letter.

But of course, if you create the route on the XT - it never goes into temp.gpx. That is there just for transfer from Basecamp. Neither is temp .gpx used if you transfer the GPX file direct to the Gpx folder. Nor is it used if you transfer to the SD card. In both of those cases there is no risk of losing the files - so you can delete the route from the XT, and it will still be there to import.

At one time, I thought that this behaviour might have something to do with the RUT behaviour. I don't know how, but at some stage, data gets altered in that process. (names change). I still don't know when - but the trip files may reveal that.

[Rofor]

@jfheath - a quick question to you, which has appeared in the german Naviboard: do you know, how the transferred routes from Garmin Explore behave?

My thoughts - as far as i know, Explore ist only transferring via- or shaping points and the calculation of the route is done on the Zumo XT, so it should be the same as when i'm planning a route directly on the Zumo XT!? Is that right?

As i'm off from Garmin Explore (never tried it), i can't say whats fact...

[jfheath]

@jfheath - a quick question to you, which has appeared in the german Naviboard: do you know, how the transferred routes from Garmin Explore behave?

My thoughts - as far as i know, Explore ist only transferring via- or shaping points and the calculation of the route is done on the Zumo XT, so it should be the same as when i'm planning a route directly on the Zumo XT!? Is that right?

As i'm off from Garmin Explore (never tried it), i can't say whats fact...

Thats a very good question. As far as Explore is concerned, I don't know very much at all. I don't use it. What I have done is that I have experimented sitting in my study behind a desk without the wind blowing into my face. It's hardly practical experience. But as you may have anticipated, I have tried to put it through its paces.

What I did know at the time I played with it, is that the concept of a route Including Waypoints as an integral partof that route did not exist. You could have Waypoints. You could have a route consisting of straight lines. They could both be shown on the same map. But they were independent of each other. The Waypoint was not part of the route. There was no announcing on arrival as is the case with Via Points, no trip data showing the time or distance to the next Via.

This may have changed. I note that the ipad version of the Explore App and the Android version, both include a 'magnet' tool which makes the plotted route snap attract to the nearest road, which wasn't a feature at that time. But it is also attracted to the nearest BOAT, unsurfaced road, trail or footpath so you have to be very careful when using it. The last time I checked - a while back now, cos Ive been busy on other XT related stuff (!) - the same facility had not been implemented on the web version of Explore. The concept of a 'Course' is also part of the apps, but not the website. But its been a while....

In an attempt to avoid showing any further lack of practical knowledge, I can only point you to the section that I included, reluctantly, into the pages of 'Everything You Need to Know'. They are just desktop observations while I tried hard to make it be something that I wanted to use. I couldn't, but recognise that maybe others who go off road riding, could. I don't know.

I'm being a bit dismissive of my efforts - but I actually spent a long time trying to work out what it did, and I haven't seen anything else written down which describes the same information.

If your friends spot anything that is not correct, I'd be happy to correct it. It was correct on the XT that I had, at the time that I wrote it.

app.php/ZXT-P61

The whole of that chapter is related to Explore.

[jfheath]

Today I had to travel another route where the XT has always displayed RUT behaviour and demanded a 29 mile return loop - back the way that I had travelled, in order to reach my destination just 1 mile ahead.

I loaded the route from Basecamp, nobbled the .trip file with the FrankB byte change and set off.

It all worked perfectly, just as the previous test using the same route prepared purely on the XT.

Except there were a couple of weird anomalies in the route. A plot around an oval in a housing estate, and a random 'Skip ?' (no name given). It didn't affect the routing in any way. Both anomalies were too near to the location of the two Via Points for that fact to be ignored. I need to look back at the route and the screen shots to try to work out exactly what happened and why. And whether it is related to the nobbled Trip file.

Or whether it is related to a different scenario where I have noticed that recalculated routes sometimes approach a route point from a different direction, and that direction is then fixed. If your chosen route meets it from a different direction, then you haven't visited it.

I'll post back on this later.

[Stu]

and a random 'Skip ?' (no name given).

I had this!

I went out tonight with a route set with the intention of making it recalculate as much as possible

and all worked extremely well

I set the route while in the house and turned the sat nav in to sleep mode

When the sat nav powered up it asked me if I wanted to skip a waypoint but with a name! I thought I had just caught it! Maybe not

[FrankB]

Except there were a couple of weird anomalies in the route. A plot around an oval in a housing estate, and a random 'Skip ?' (no name given).

When the sat nav powered up it asked me if I wanted to skip a waypoint but with a name! I thought I had just caught it! Maybe not

General remark: I have noticed this frequently in the past at work. You solve one problem, and then you notice another. Was it always there? Was it introduced when the first problem was solved?

It's the reason why I still would prefer a Garmin solution. And as much as I'm excited about the Flag I found and how to correct it, I still believe it's a temporary solution.