Why would you want to create a track?

Something that puzzled me this weekend.

I wanted to create a route to follow, the only way I could do this in OruxMaps was to create a track and then load it as a route. this made me wonder, why you would create a track instead of a route?

The problem I found with creating the track and loading as a route was it's made up of a high number of waypoints which means when loaded as a route the screen/map becomes inundated with waypoint icons and difficult to read. I selected to hide the waypoint icons in the preferences but the map is still displaying the labels. If I load a track I have recorded as a route the icons and labels are not displayed which is much better.
Is it possible to be able to create a 'route' that displays in the same way?

Thanks,

Keith.

Setting the waypoint problem aside: as far as I understand, tracks/routes are basically the same thing; but the name "track" implies that its'a path you have recorded, whereas "route" a "reference" path.
Then, probably the "track creator" should be renamed to "route creator", as this is semantically more correct...

I'm unable to duplicate what you're seeing. Say I record a track adding no additional waypoints. I save it, then reload it as a route. What I see is that route--plus (just) two waypoints that were automatically created by the app--one marking where I started recording, the other where I stopped. As I've loaded it as a route, I can now "follow" that route another time, and if I like, record a separate track. If, on the other hand, I load it as a track, I can continue extending that track. The wording has always seemed clear to me. You always record a track. Later, you can either reload that data as your current track, or as a route.

barte wrote:I'm unable to duplicate what you're seeing. Say I record a track adding no additional waypoints. I save it, then reload it as a route. What I see is that route--plus (just) two waypoints that were automatically created by the app--one marking where I started recording, the other where I stopped. As I've loaded it as a route, I can now "follow" that route another time, and if I like, record a separate track. If, on the other hand, I load it as a track, I can continue extending that track. The wording has always seemed clear to me. You always record a track. Later, you can either reload that data as your current track, or as a route.

Hi;

twoten has created a track by hand, using 'Track creator'.

A track and a route can exchange their roles

A track is something that you edit, add or delete points of track or wpts.
A route is something that you load in the viewer but you can not modify.

If you are creating a track by hand, then at this moment is a track, not a route. But then you can load it as a route

I do not know if I've explained.

What I can do is add an option for when you are using 'Track creator' create only track points and no wpts. ok?

orux

I see the point of barte and orux about wording, definitely makes sense the way it is. :-)

Orux: when you load a route created with Track Creator, are you essentially navigating from one waypoint to the next--whether those waypoints are shown or not? Or are you actually following a track that behaves like any other track?

barte wrote:Orux: when you load a route created with Track Creator, are you essentially navigating from one waypoint to the next--whether those waypoints are shown or not? Or are you actually following a track that behaves like any other track?

With all the routes you have to choice (is equal to all routes, created or not with track creator):
--follow the route: you will see in the dashboard information about the route (time to the end, distance,....)
--wpt navigation: OruxMaps will only see the wpts, not the path; you will see in the dashboard information about next wpt (time, distance,...)

Now with 'track creator' for each point you create a track point and a wpt.

If you navigate from wpt to wpt, definitely you have to create all wpts. Or with the new option I am going to implement (create wpts selectively) create only a few wpts.

But if you want to follow the route, creating many track points, and without wpts, then you can not navigate from wpt to wpt.

orux

orux wrote:
Now with 'track creator' for each point you create a track point and a wpt.

As far as I understood, twoten's problem was exactly this

lalelale wrote:Setting the waypoint problem aside: as far as I understand, tracks/routes are basically the same thing; but the name "track" implies that its'a path you have recorded, whereas "route" a "reference" path.
Then, probably the "track creator" should be renamed to "route creator", as this is semantically more correct...

This was exactly the way I looked at it, sorry barte, as Orux says, I created a track by hand using 'Track creator', I didn't make it clear.

Orux wrote: What I can do is add an option for when you are using 'Track creator' create only track points and no wpts. ok?

This would be a good option, another idea is have an option to create route under the 'Route' menu which would be more logical.

Orux wrote:But if you want to follow the route, creating many track points, and without wpts, then you can not navigate from wpt to wpt.

So does that mean when you load a track as a route that has been saved from an earlier walk and it doesn't display waypoints you can't 'follow' it?

Another idea comes to mind, if you can't follow a route that has been created and loaded without waypoints, could you just hide the icons and labels?


Going back to my original post, why would someone want to create a 'track' manually other than use it as a route?