Zumo User Forums

In Basecamp, I converted a track to route.
The new route is exactly where the track is - logically and as expected.

When looking a the new route's properties, it only has a start and end point, but it still follows the many roads from the track. So, obviously the route has more waypoints/shaping points than it shows. I exported the route, and yes, it sure does have a lot of intermediate points during the way.
It may work like this, but the route takes more space than my custom made routes, having all these hidden shaping points.
Basecamp needs a "shrink route" function.

More interesting, I wanted to modify the new route using ALT while dragging the route.
This cannot be done without destroying the route, because this route modification works as if there are only the two visible waypoints (the start and the end points), not the many hidden points. In other words, modifying the route this way, will create a much changed route, with only three points (start point, new waypoint, end point).
Thinking about it, It makes a bit sense, as a bunch of the many hidden points would have to be deleted, for the modified route to make sense. Garmin could have built this into the source code, but didn't.
So what do the rest of you do - never convert a track to route?

Hi Thomsus,

To get round this when you open the route change the activity profile to direct. This will let you chose the number of shaping pints for the route. I did this recently with a 200KM track and chose 100 as the number of shaping points (it was a complicated track along little backroads with loads of junctions). Run convert to route. Obviously ther will be loads of little straight lines between the points created because of the direct profile. Once the route is complete change the profile to motorcycling and recalculate. Compare it to your original track and modify as necessary as you will be able to see the created shaping points. If you use the route converted using the motorcycling profile in one step and go off route then the unit will recalculate and take you to the finishing point instead of following the route as you only have a visible start and end.

Mzokk wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 9:00 am Hi Thomsus,

To get round this when you open the route change the activity profile to direct. This will let you chose the number of shaping pints for the route. I did this recently with a 200KM track and chose 100 as the number of shaping points (it was a complicated track along little backroads with loads of junctions). Run convert to route.

Hi Mzokk.

Unfortunately, I cannot seem to follow you.
When I open the track, there is no option to change its profile.
If I convert the track to a route, I can change its profile to direct, but still only the start and end points appear in its list.

Hi Thomsus,

Hopefully these screenshots will explain a little better of a track I converted to a route. Open the track and change profile at the top of the page to direct.

Click create route in the dialog box and select how many points you want.

Create the direct route this will not have turn by turn directions.

In the route dialog box change the profile to motorcycling and recalculate

this will give you turn by turn directions and the ability to edit the route. With in this case 100 shaping points.

Aaah, now I see.
The initial track must be changed from Motorcycling to Direct, outside of the dialog boxes (on top Basecamp as per your first screenshot).

It works perfectly - thanks!

@Mzokk, That's a nice method, and much more elegant than the way I've been doing it. Now, let's see if I can remember it!

Thomsus wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 7:48 am In Basecamp, I converted a track to route.
The new route is exactly where the track is - logically and as expected.

When looking a the new route's properties, it only has a start and end point, but it still follows the many roads from the track. So, obviously the route has more waypoints/shaping points than it shows. I exported the route, and yes, it sure does have a lot of intermediate points during the way.
It may work like this, but the route takes more space than my custom made routes, having all these hidden shaping points.
Basecamp needs a "shrink route" function.

More interesting, I wanted to modify the new route using ALT while dragging the route.
This cannot be done without destroying the route, because this route modification works as if there are only the two visible waypoints (the start and the end points), not the many hidden points. In other words, modifying the route this way, will create a much changed route, with only three points (start point, new waypoint, end point).

First, I don't worry about the number of intermediate ("ghost") points or file size. Basecamp always creates these "ghost" points in a route - see app.php/ZXT-P26. They don't count against the via or shaping point limits, and the file sizes are still pretty small. (I temporarily transferred my entire Basecamp database to my XT just as a test. About 20000 waypoints, 300 routes, and 250 tracks occupied only 150MB.)


I have track that follows 18 miles of a twisty highway. There are some smaller intersecting roads that can provide shortcuts, so a few shaping points can help keep a route on the highway if it recalculates. I converted the track to a route several ways and exported each route to a gpx for size comparison.

The track itself is 36KB. A simple right click conversion (start/end via points only) produced a file of 45KB. Tracing the track manually with 4 extra shaping points created a 49KB gpx. Using the "direct"/motorcycle profiles conversion with automatic via points added 191 via points in a 94KB file. Specifying 25 points brought the size down to 77KB, and specifying 5 via points brought it down to 54KB. So all are just a little bigger than the simple track-route conversion.

Open the track, and you can reduce the number of track points before it is converted to a route using the Filter button. Cutting the 486 track points in half brought the track size down to 19KB, and the converted route is also about 19KB. I don't feel the effort is worth the tiny space savings unless you are storing the files on 5¼" floppy discs.

I find using the Alt key awkward when moving/editing routes. Go to Edit>Options>General, uncheck the two boxes under "Edit Options." Now, with the Pan (hand) tool, you can simply grab the route with the left mouse button and drag it. Requiring the Alt key to drag a route might have some benefit, but I don't know what it might be.

In Basecamp I keep a list folder named "Temp", containing a list also named Temp, with nothing in the list, which I use as a work space for editing and experimenting. Anything worth keeping is moved elsewhere when I'm done.

There are a couple ways I have converted tracks to routes. The track I'm using as a basis for the new route goes in the Temp list, and then the "Create Route from Selected Track" result ends up in the same list. Working within that list, the original track and the new route are both displayed on the map. So I grab the route, drag it to the side and put it right back where it came from which creates a new via point (or shaping point) at that location. That does force a recalculation, but the track remains unchanged and I can continue dragging the route to the track until it matches the track exactly. Some route shapes (loops, mostly) tend to cause the route to double back on itself as you edit this way, making it hard to grab the right part to move. Mzokk's method avoids that problem.

Another option is to just create the new route the way I create any new route, but tracing along the track. Click the new route button, click the start point, click a few intermediate points in order along preferred roads (or track), and click the end. Drag-n-drop to fine tune the route, verify via/shaping point placement and you are done.

That's the way I would do it. With the track showing on the map create a route with start and end point corresponding to the track. Then 'rubber band' it as necessary so it follows the track.

Hi lkraus.

Thank you for the storage experiments. I agree with you, that such small data amounts aren't worth spending much time optimizing. But viewing a route with 20 rather than 200 points, looks and feels good.

lkraus wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 5:40 pm I don't feel the effort is worth the tiny space savings unless you are storing the files on 5¼" floppy discs.

I store all my data on 5¼" floppy discs. It keeps my data private, as nobody has such a drive anymore
Naarh, I cannot even seem to remember when I used 5¼" floppy discs the last time - probably more than 30 years ago

If it's worth anything to anyone, I can add that I've realized there's another way to shrink a track, using the GUI.
Open the track by double clicking it. It opens in a popup window. Move the window so you can see the track on the map behind it.
In the track window: Press and hold Shift to mark several contiguous points. On the map behind, the parts of the track marked, turns orange.
Press Delete to remove the marked (ghost)points.
Repeat as necessarry, leaving only few points.
The track is now shrinked - and a few KB's have been saved