Routing with Garmin's Montana/Oregon/62/78/eTrex XX

Discussion in 'GPS 101 - Which GPS For Me' started by Emmbeedee, Feb 9, 2013.

  1. Rocky TFS

    Rocky TFS Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Oddometer:
    763
    Location:
    Hailey, Idaho


    To stir the pot even MORE, I just came across this on the basecamp forum:

    Sample route with working (not displayed and without alerting) shaping points
    [​IMG] Originally Posted by FALAGAR[​IMG]
    I don't think the Montana supports this. I probably won't be in the next firmware release. Please contact product support and request that feature. The more people ask, the higher the chances it might get implemented."






    Hello Falagar,

    thank you for this information.

    I am using the Montana 650 with Firmware 4.70. At first I thought the Montana would not be able to handle Shaping points. Now I have created one route with CN Europe NT 2013.3 and it works fine with the shaping points.

    This route first is showing up 8 via points (10 points in total) and a direct route then it obviously recalculates the route and eliminates 5 of the 8 via points. These 5 points are marked as shaping points in the gpx-file but they are placed onto cross-ways. The lasting 3 via points (also marked as shaping points into the gpx-file) are not placed onto cross-ways but directly on roads. Therefore they are threated like via points. Please be advised that all points in this route are set to alarm in basecamp.

    I was not able to repeat such a route but I am sure the attached sample route that is working on a Montana 650 will help the R&D-Department to reproduce this routing behaviour.

    Please find attached the route into the gpx-file for testing.

    Regards and thanks

    Canario


    Vockenhausen Idstein (Alarm).gpx

    Haven't tried it yet, not sure something didn't get lost in translation....:rofl
    #21
  2. Rocky TFS

    Rocky TFS Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Oddometer:
    763
    Location:
    Hailey, Idaho
    OK, so I tried it. In BC, all intermediate points were greyed out (don't alert), as indicated.


    Sent it to the Montana 600 version 4.60, initial profile direct routing with topo. Looked at it in the route planner, all 10 points shown. Cancelled navigation.


    Changed profile to automobile, disabled CNNA, leaving only the global basemap. Set satellite to use with GPS off.
    Reset position to somewhere near Frankfurt, Germany.

    Started up the route again, got the message "do you want to simulate this route" said "yes".


    NOW it gets interesting: The GPS starts simulating the route, but in the nuvi dashboard, there is NO next point info, it's just a blank green field. Click on it and the route directions come up, but THEY are nothing but a thin line in each box, except the end point, as named in the file. The car is apparently following the route although I didn't wait for it to finish.


    OK so this is not a good test, we need someone with CNEU 2013.3 to simulate the route. However, there is SOME indication that the Montana is treating these intermediate points as shaping points. When you click on the green box at the top of the Nuvi dash and start paging down, there are at least a hundred of those blank lines before you see the end point.


    The OP's bit about the last three points not being at a crossroad but on the road and therefore are via points may be a red herring , since none of them showed on the Montana when looking at the route directions only the first and last as in the properties window in BC.


    It just keeps getting curiouser....:huh


    OK, next question is "What is different about this guys route from the ones we all have tried over and over with greyed out shaping points, or whatever you want to call them, that still showed up on the Montana as via points with blue pins????":muutt AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

    EDIT: I could not reproduce this behavior with the blank green next point field in the US using just the basemap and a 46 point route that I greyed out all intermediate points to not alert, so it could be another red herring. We need someone with CNEU to try the original file.

    OR MAYBE A PROGRAMMER WHO IS REALLY GOOD WITH XML!!:clap
    #22
  3. Ken in Regina

    Ken in Regina Adventurer

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Oddometer:
    22
    Location:
    Regina, SK, Canada
    The simple answer is that all Garmin personal navigation devices will recalculate the route rather than use the exact route transferred from the PC program. If the Montana does not, it is the exception.

    Caveat: I do not own a Montana but I have spent years hanging out in the Garmin fora (I'm the KGANSHIRT whose old point definitions have been quoted here) and so far I have not seen any models that will use a route without first recalculating it.

    Just so I don't violate the rules, this is based on the conditions that at the time you activate the route (eg. tap the GO button) the navigation device is using maps containing routing data and is set to a routing (non-Direct) profile/activity.

    As a minor postscript, the Montana 650 is on my purchase list once riding weather returns to the Great White North. It will replace the eTrex Legend HCx on my BMW F650GS.

    ...ken...
    #23
  4. Ken in Regina

    Ken in Regina Adventurer

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Oddometer:
    22
    Location:
    Regina, SK, Canada
    Ooops, I missed the point about whether the recalculated route would be identical to the route that Basecamp calculated.

    There is much evidence to indicate that there are differences between the routing calculations coded in Basecamp versus the way they are coded in the navigation devices. And also differences between various models of the devices. So you should not be surprised if you get some differences even if the same map product and routing profile/activity are selected in both the device and Basecamp. The simpler and shorter the route, the higher the probability they will be the same.

    ...ken...
    #24
  5. snooker

    snooker AttitudeIsEverything

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,737
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    Thanks KGhanshirt for that very useful info.

    Rocky, that's some confusing stuff...
    #25
  6. Albie

    Albie Kool Aid poisoner

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Oddometer:
    12,526
    Location:
    NWA
    One thing I've noticed over the years is that some units seem to be able to calculate the routes exactly as created while other units don't. The ZUMO, 478 and the Montana seem to do just fine, even the old Streetpilots.. I've never noticed a deviation between the created route and the navigated route while using those units.

    Units like the Oregon, 76, 76cx on the other hand seemed to have issues almost always re-calculating differently then the created route.
    #26
  7. Rocky TFS

    Rocky TFS Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Oddometer:
    763
    Location:
    Hailey, Idaho
    OK, I just did the test with BC. Original route was a direct route with one via point. It exported to a .gpx file of about 5 Kbits, which only contained the usual xml stuff and the three points, as expected.

    Then I removed the via point in the original route and switched it to Automotive activity in BC. This exported to a .gpx file of about 56 kbits, which contained the usual headers, etc. and about 280 lat/longs, none of which were specifically called shaping points in the xml viewer, just the start and finish were identified as via points. Upon simulating the route with CNNA and automobile routing, only the points where turns were necessary showed in the Nuvi dashboard's header field on the Montana and in the list of turns when that was clicked. (The only way you can see what points are in this route once transferred to the unit because you can't edit a follow-road route, only a direct one, unless you create it in the Montana.)

    This is exactly what you indicated!!:clap

    So it seems to me that this all boils down to semantics, and both Garmin and us users penchant for not being explicit in our use of the terms. As Albie posted above, if you can see it, greyed or not, in the route properties box in BC, the Montana will treat it as a via point. Period.:evil

    Bottom Line: We cannot see shaping points in either BC or the Montana, only by looking at the gpx file with a viewer.

    I know that for me, most of this confusion came from my years of experience with non routing GPS's, and thinking that I just HAD to put in a bunch of via points in order to make a route work more or less identically in BC or the Montana. Unfortunately, this is still true to some extent and varies a great deal depending on where your route is and what kind of roads you want it to be on. I've never had the least problem with the Montana and BC using CNNA to route me identically from major city to major city or most any town on secondary highways, but that's not what I bought this GPS for.

    Maybe that's why they called it CITY NAVIGATOR!! :rofl
    #27
  8. snooker

    snooker AttitudeIsEverything

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,737
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    In order to include background information on Routing in this single thread, Ken in Regina has agreed that I can post his comments from the Montana thread over here in this routing thread, so I will post them here intact:

    #28
  9. snooker

    snooker AttitudeIsEverything

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,737
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    And 1 more copied over:

    #29
  10. snooker

    snooker AttitudeIsEverything

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,737
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    Now for some of my observations.

    I am not agreeing with some of this:

    I don't think this is true IF the route was set to Direct in BC before moving it to the Montana (for a Non-Direct auto-routing usage), which is often a recommended way to use them. So you probably were not talking about this case? See below...

    1. Ok this makes sense and I think what you are saying is that on the Montana, if you go into Route Planner, select a Route, then you will only see the "Edit Route" choice if that route was set as Direct in BaseCamp when you transferred it to the Montana.

    When I do this for a Direct Route in BaseCamp that has 2 Waypoints + 48 greyed out Shaping Points, then you can see all 50 points listed line by line in Edit Route on the Montana. So the Montana is treating Shaping Points from BaseCamp as unannounced Via Points.

    So I really don't agree with Ken because they all show up in the list under Edit Route in this case:

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    2. However if instead it is a Non-Direct Route in BaseCamp then on the Montana (with autorouting on) you cannot get the "Edit Route" choice, so the only way to see the points in the route is to navigate the route then look at the top of Nuvi mode and click on the list of turns at the top. Here I agree the original haping points do not usually show up, instead it is the calculated "hidden" points.

    Yes I agree, but an "unannounced" Via Point. So despite all my efforts at naming things, these may be a Shaping Point in BC but are treated as an unannounced Via Point on the Montana.

    Well I don't understand what you mean by "we cannot see shaping points". See points on a map vs. See items in a list?? In BC they all show up as dots on the map and as greyed out Via Points under Properties, so are seen in both places...
    And on the Montana they all show up on the map as those "annoying" little blue markers right? but they don't show up in the Edit Route list unless it was a Direct route from BC. ?
    #30
  11. bnordgren

    bnordgren Curmudgin

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Oddometer:
    18
    Location:
    Montana, USA
    Hi. Newbie messing with a Montana 650t, having the routable openstreetmaps installed over montana. I just want to clarify (verify?) that this 50/51 point limit applies only to points you explicitly specify ("via points" or "shaping points") and not the invisible ones that the routing process adds ("hidden points").

    I just made a simple loop with 8 points (Alberton, Polson, Kalispell, West Glacier, Hot Springs, Thompson Falls, Saint Regis, Alberton) which generated 61 points in the "total" field. The difference, I assume, are the hidden points. This re-routed fine when transferred to the GPS. I was also able to hit GO, and it was quite happy to oblige.

    Is there a known limit on the total points? Some of the weekend loop routes I'm planning using City Nav Europe have quite a few hidden points in them.
    #31
  12. snooker

    snooker AttitudeIsEverything

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,737
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    I'm no expert but a newbie like you, however based on my experiments (see post 9) in the example below of a BaseCamp route with:

    51 total Via Points (49 Shaping + 2 Waypoints), saved in BaseCamp as a Non-Direct (Motorcycling) route, and also showed the total "Points" as 110... and the Montana was able to route it properly. Using CNNANT on both BaseCamp and Montana.

    So at least 110 is not a problem and I have NO idea even IF there is a limit. Perhaps someone else knows. But nobody has commented that there is any limitation on this as far as I know.

    Based on pure speculation as a software engineer myself, I would think that the Via Points you specify in BaseCamp are then "inputs" to the routing algorithm that it is "required" to satisfy... so that more input points would make the task more complex... Whereas the other calculated "hidden" points that become part of the "Points" total are more of a "result" of the algorithm simply matching the required route to the map data and it just records these "outputs" which are simple and do not make the problem more difficult like more "inputs" would.

    ...or not??

    [​IMG]
    #32
  13. ramz

    ramz Professional Trail Rider

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Oddometer:
    2,215
    Location:
    Salida, CO
    You really work at Garmin, don't you?

    Head of software development, or chief of algorithms?
    :rofl
    #33
  14. snooker

    snooker AttitudeIsEverything

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,737
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    right. head of the operational speculation department. :lol3
    #34
  15. snooker

    snooker AttitudeIsEverything

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,737
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    Some basics have been covered so far as to defining terms and showing limitations in the number of "points".

    What would be of great use IMHO is to now make this thread a repository for "How do YOU do routing?".. In other words a collection of what DOES work, aka your favorite "use model" or "Best Practices".

    So PLEASE POST any Best Practices for Routing in this thread. Make sure your GPSr is one of the devices titled in this thread though!!!

    When posting, give your GPSr model name and anything else important to know (like "activity profile" as it was uploaded from BaseCamp and as set on the GPSr, mapset and revision, etc.)

    These devices can do SO MANY things that beginners like me need a suggested starting point! It might not be perfect for everyone but it is a start!

    Thanks! :clap
    #35
  16. Emmbeedee

    Emmbeedee Procrastinators

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Oddometer:
    10,697
    Location:
    Near Ottawa, ON, Canada
    All good ideas. Thanks for putting some thought into this.
    #36
  17. snooker

    snooker AttitudeIsEverything

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,737
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    Ok I'll get the Best Practices Started. I'm calling this one:

    Transfer Routes from BC as Direct

    The main thing I have been experimenting with for routing was based on a suggestion by DRTBYK for the Montana, that I will summarize:

    1. Basically you would use BaseCamp, and set to your preferred Non-Direct routing activity. You should always use the exact same routing activity including the same avoidances (Interstate, etc) as you later plan on using on your GPSr.

    2. Then set Waypoints and/or Shaping Points until you like the final autorouting you see.

    (3). (At this stage in BC you can save it as a Track also... which is ultimately always more reliable than routes, but I digress...)

    4. Now the main point: Change the activity in BC to Direct *BEFORE* you transfer them to your GPSr.

    5. Now on the GPSr you should always use a profile that uses the same routing activity (and avoidances) as you had in BaseCamp. (Also use the same mapset).

    This will cause the GPSr to autoroute and since all settings are identical you will have the "best chance" of getting an identical route as you saw in BaseCamp (it has been debated whether the Montana uses the same or similar routing algorithm as BaseCamp).

    But there are more reasons to transfer a route from BC as Direct.
    One is that on the Montana you can use the Route Planner app and select the route and pick things like:
    - Reverse Route. (I use this to experiment with 1 Direct route to commute to work, then Reverse it to get home, as a trial). This will know the direction you are headed so the items like miles to finish will be correct.
    - Edit Route. You can insert, reorder, delete via points (gas stations!) and it autoroutes the edits either while you are currently navigating it or not.

    More Tips:
    - When you also transfer the Track to the Montana, you can quickly compare the Track (which is perfect and does not change) to the autorouted Route and see if it looks correct.

    - In BC, do not place shaping points right AT an intersection but rather after an intersection, and this minimizes the chance of autorouting locking up.

    - In BC, when you have the route the way you like it and switch to Direct activity, try switching back to your Non-Direct and confirm it autoroutes correctly (this mimics a fresh autoroute on the GPSr as much as possible).

    - Even DRTBYK admits that TRACKS RULE! They are absolute and are always reliable. In fact you can navigate a track and get some of the "miles to destination" features of a route, but not as complete. So it is worth it to always create a track and transfer it over if the ride is important!!!

    Here is the original post where DRTBYK describes this method. You can expand the page to see the discussion but I will quite him here:

    #37
  18. snooker

    snooker AttitudeIsEverything

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,737
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    Transfer Routes from BC as Direct

    Using the above method, here is an example of how to:

    Edit a Route on Montana:

    This only works if you have transferred a route from BC as a Direct route, as outlined above.

    Now on the Montana you are trying to autoroute it by using a routing activity of your choice but most like following the directions above so that the Non-Direct activity matches the setting you had in BC originally.

    The key is that on the Montana you must use the Route Planner app itself to edit the route. This works whether you are actively navigating the route or not.

    STEPS:
    1. In Route Planner you first select the route by name. This will bring up the options page (note that because this is a Direct Route you can also select "Reverse Route", kinda handy).

    2. When you select Edit Route then you see the Via Points, Shaping Points and Waypoints currently in the route to choose from. (You won't know what kind they are but the points match what was originally in BC as explained in earlier posts).

    3. To insert a new item before any existing one for example, click an item then on the next page you can pick Insert to insert an item before it.

    This simply inserts the new item and does not affect any of the already existing items.

    Here is a set of examples from the Montana Wiki that has a series of waypoints for a route:

    ...[​IMG]...
    Route Planner

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    This works for me, of course there are surely other preferred (even better!) ways... so post them!
    #38
  19. FireDog45

    FireDog45 Mid-life crisis sufferer

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Oddometer:
    1,189
    Location:
    Central, Ohio
    My 2720 would let me search along my current route or destination. I can't seem to find this feature on my Montana 600 running CNNA NT 2013.1.

    I set up a short basic route on the 600 (both route planner and where to) then went to Where To > menu > search near. The choices don't include "current route" or "destination".

    Am I missing something or is it not possible?

    (And if this is the wrong forum let me know and I'll repost)
    #39
  20. Emmbeedee

    Emmbeedee Procrastinators

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Oddometer:
    10,697
    Location:
    Near Ottawa, ON, Canada
    I think it's not possible. You might want to suggest it to Garmin, though, to see if they'll include it in a future software release.
    #40