How to Display Routes/Tracks Consistently in Units of Feet (Not Feet/Miles)

You can't. It has been suggested that they show more decimal places when the ft/mi, m/km switch occurs, but the change never happens.

For a track, you may be able to change the method of logging data on your device. There is nothing I know of that can be done for a Route (other than feeding coordinates into application that will calculate the distance). It's possible that a free application exists that will give you the info you need. This might do the trick - http://www.javawa.nl/analyser_en.html.

Out of curiosity, what is your interest/use in leg distance?

BaseCamp - Very Poor Accuracy in Leg Distances

RESPONSE: Thanks for your response. It amazes me how tone-deaf the Garmin folks are. They seem to want to make only "toys" rather than real GPS devices. They seem to have completely ceded that market to Trimble.

I have a GPSmap 76CSx that I use for collecting public transit speed profiles. I have never been successful in getting it to log more frequently -- it has some sort of internal algorithm. If a bus or train is going slowly, no problem. But if it's going fast, some of the legs will report as "0.1 mi" or "0.2 mi" which has ridiculously poor accuracy. If a export the Route/Track to CSV for plotting in Excel, I have mixed feet and miles units. Even if convert 0.1 miles to 528 feet, I could be off by up to 50%. That's really awful and shame on Garmin.

One work-around I discovered is to switch the units to metric, where, even for long legs, the leg is always reported in meters. Then , all of the data can be converted back to feet. I have also tried to use the latitude/longitude values to compute my own leg distance but I think that requires specialized GIS software to deal with different locations (I work in Toronto, Dallas and Salt Lake City). The folks in Kansas wouldn't want to make it easy, would they?

You should be able to do what you need on a 76 device.

Go to the menu>set-up>tracks. For the method choose time and set the interval to an appropriate value.

For example, 60 mph ~ 88 ft/sec so a time interval of 4 sec or less should do the trick. Keep in mind that settings are profile specific - i.e. different profiles can have different settings.

It amazes me how tone-deaf the Garmin folks are. They seem to want to make only "toys" rather than real GPS devices. They seem to have completely ceded that market to Trimble.

I have a GPSmap 76CSx that I use for collecting public transit speed profiles.

I don't think the 76CSx was ever designed to serve that purpose. It's also (probably) much less expensive than any models Trimble sells.

I have also tried to use the latitude/longitude values to compute my own leg distance but I think that requires specialized GIS software to deal with different locations (I work in Toronto, Dallas and Salt Lake City).

The GPS can compute the distance without "specialized GIS software".

I suspect the units use some form of the following:

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/warmup/aquifer/html/distance.html
http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html

I suspect the units use some form of the following:

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/warmup/aquifer/html/distance.html
http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html

I’m pretty sure that Garmin uses a Great Ellipse calculation. This would be similar to a Great Circle (2nd link above) but performed on an ellipsoid. The math gets messy when you move away from a sphere, so it might be hard to fine an online calculator. You might try googling Vincenty calculator or geodesy calculator.

Another method of calculating distance is along a rhumb line, but again, the math gets messy on an ellipsoid. (A rhumb line would calculate distance traveling on a fixed heading). Again, this might be hard to find.

I would think the first link could be incorporated into an excel spread sheet and give reasonable results.

The 76 should be fine for OP’s purpose. I would expect error would be less than 1 mph.

The 76 should be fine for OP’s purpose. I would expect error would be less than 1 mph.

Yes, it should be fine (I wasn't implying otherwise).

But he's complaining that it isn't a $3000-20,000 GPS unit (the sort that Trimble sells). That isn't reasonable.

Yes, it should be fine (I wasn't implying otherwise).

My apologies; I must have misunderstood your posts.

But he's complaining that it isn't a $3000-20,000 GPS unit (the sort that Trimble sells). That isn't reasonable.

I feel that the OP’s complaint is Garmin’s software decision to switch from feet to miles at 528 ft while limiting the significant digits to 1.

I think it is nice of Garmin to provide track analysis in their software. But I also feel that if Garmin provides a feature, it should be done in a proper manner.

As the OP pointed out, reporting 1 significant digit for miles implies an error of +/- 0.05 miles (+/- 264 ft) and making the switch at a leg distance of 528 ft really should be considered unacceptable.

I feel that the OP’s complaint is Garmin’s software decision to switch from feet to miles at 528 ft while limiting the significant digits to 1.

Garmin really isn't intending these products to be used like Trimble products (the comparison to Trimble products doesn't make sense).

In any case, it shouldn't be hard to change it (and no strong reason not to change it.. Maybe, they think more users would be put-off by more digits.

Increasing the digits suggests more accuracy which Garmin might not want to commit to.

I wish Basecamp would show cumulative distance (rather than just leg distance).

Metric doesn't have the miles/feet problem.