Too many points?

There would appear to be a bit more you could learn about BaseCamp and route creation. There is no online GMAP or Bing Map tool that builds routes any faster than can be done using the same maps in BaseCamp and no need to save your [BikeHike] file and download it, no importing to BaseCamp, no Track to route conversion, no point filtering.

Spend a bit more time with BC and you might discover you could save a bit of time for riding... :cool:

I don't agree.

Also, I use a program called Ascent. An activity program that I upload my Montana into after every single ride. I have records of my bike rides going back to 2004 on it from my 305, then 705 and now Monty, and I can export any ride as a GPX and import it into Basecamp.

Yes, I can create a route in Basecamp, but I maintain that I need to use more computer controls on it than in BikeHike. It's quicker and simpler in BikeHike, and quite often I don't need/want turn-by-turn directions, so a pink line on the map if perfectly adequate.

Basecamp doesn't have a map of any use at all and I have to connect Monty to see the City Navigator or GB Discoverer maps. Ascent and BikeHike have mapping in-house courtesy of Google Maps, so if I'm just looking at ideas of routes or measuring distances, I can just click away and not have Monty connected via USB.

Horses for courses I suppose, but now I know how I can do what I want to do, I'm happy.

If people want to use Basecamp for everything, that's fine by me, but I personally don't, as I think the controls are too complicated to make it quick and simple.

Regards,
Mick.

And to clarify what I said the 50/250 point limits applies to waypoints. My 76CSx allows literally thousands of via's/shaping points to exist in routes (of any type).
I believe BaseCamp allows points in routes to be edited so they're "shaping points". Doing that, tedious as it is, should get one under the 50/250 limit.
A nice feature request for BaseCamp would be to have the track to route conversion use "shaping points" for all except the start and end points.

MapSource calls all non-waypoint points "via's" and I know my 1490T leaves them as "via's" (no conversion to waypoints). Now BaseCamp's "shaping points" are slightly different (under the hood) from what I've read so they may not be supported by all models as you say.
Now MapSource "via's" aren't exactly the same as the definition given in
POIs, Waypoints, Via-Points, Shaping Points 101

In my case I put via's on roads and/or road junctions to force a route a particular path. Works great for me and gets around the 50/250 waypoint limit :) I've been doing that for 10+ years.

Maybe a matter of definition, but as I see it, it works like this: When you are creating a route, everytime when you click on a road on the map a via point is created, but when clicking "off road" it wll be a waypoint (it won't stay that way in the device; more on that later). When modifiying an existing route by using the "rubber band" new via points/waypoints are created.

In the MapSource days shaping points were the hidden points that MapSource created automatically when recalculating a route in order to pin the purple line to the roads. You can't change or add to them manually, but they will be exported to the device. Depending on the device, it uses them or not at all. In the latter case the device will only use the via/waypoints and recalcutate the route (this applies to e.g. the 76CSx). So turning a track into a route using shaping points only might be an option in some cases (actually, the zumo 5x0, 66x and 3x0 series can do that by themselves), but not with a device that automatically recalculates a route upon import (or when you go off-route).
On the other hand, when a device does support those shaping points, the route will stay exactly the same as you created it (in order to get this to work, the route hase to be created on the same map as in the device though).
Only MapSource and BaseCamp can create a route with shaping points; a route created in another program will always be recalculated in every device (not to mention the fact that every map is different, causing via points placed on a divided highway in Google Maps to end up on the wrong side of the same highway on the Garmin map, with some huge detours as a result)

Using the name "shaping point" for an unannounced via point is rather confusing, because the "classic" shaping points still exist in BaseCamp, so I will call it a "silent" point. Some devices support silent points (the zumo 3x0 series, BMW Nav V, certain recent nüvi's), but others, including all outdoor devices don't. For those devices a silent point is treated exactly the same as a regular via point, so using silent points won't help you to avoid exceeding the 50/250 via point limit on any outdoor device.

As for the waypoint/via point confusion: internally in BaseCamp waypoints and via points are all kept together in a table, with a flag indicating whether it should be treated as a waypoint, via point or both. When you export waypoints and routes to a gpx file (used by the devices) they will get separated: a route only contains via points (a waypoint in a route is replaced by a regular via point), and the waypoints are stored as separate items in the same file, without any connection to a particular route.

Using the name "shaping point" for an unannounced via point is rather confusing, because the "classic" shaping points still exist in BaseCamp...

Agreed but for better or worse the term "shaping point" means an unannounced via point. A better name, IMO, would've been "unannounced via". Too late now.

Personally I don't care whether "via's" are announced or not since more often than not I put them at road junctions where I'll turn anyway. That said some users (mostly motorcyclists it seems) wanted unannounced via's so they got "shaping points" and support for them.

I am well aware that routes created by MapSource and BaseCamp contain a lot of points (I won't give them a name) that make them follow roads etc and that most models ignore those and only use waypoints and "via's" (announced or unannounced) for routing.

As I've said before I've been using a variety of techniques to make routes follow the path I want for over a decade. I've written software (not public) to convert routes to tracks and vice versa. I haven't used that software for a long time because I haven't needed to.

One of the biggest problem, IMO, is that a lot of this is totally undocumented at the user level (i.e. in model specifications) and that there are inconsistencies between model lines.

PS: I only used my 76CSx as an example since I happen to know, firsthand, it's limits. I don't know the limits of my other units since I've never run into them.

A better name, IMO, would've been "unannounced via". Too late now.

Agreed

One of the biggest problem, IMO, is that a lot of this is totally undocumented at the user level (i.e. in model specifications) and that there are inconsistencies between model lines.

Fully agree

PS: I only used my 76CSx as an example since I happen to know, firsthand, it's limits.

I mentioned it explicitly, because of this remark:

My 76CSx allows literally thousands of via's/shaping points to exist in routes (of any type).

It allows thousands of won't-give-them-a-name ;) points, simply because the 76CSx ignores them all. It does not allow thousands of via's; only 50 (for calculated routes) or 250 (for direct routes). But you already knew that...