Categories

My question is, if "list" is sync up with the "category" on the device, is that sufficient? In other word, "category" is represented as "list" in BC instead of inside the waypoint properties as in MS. Just a different UI representation.

You still need a way to "categorize" the individual waypoints. All waypoints in a list are not necessarily in or should be in the same category.

Recent comments by JBOURG (making it work on the unit) and KILLTIMER (lists != tags) are spot on....

Sure, lists in BC and categories in MS can be used as a rudimentary form of so-called "tagging". However, the true purpose of REAL tags are to add another dimension of classifying things. You see this in blog posts and book marks which might be organized into "folders", and then individually "tagged" with key words. You might want to find things "vertically" by folder (lists in BC), and "horizontally" (categories in MS). This forum even has 'tags' which are the "horizontal" dimension, in addition to the forum/topic/threading "vertical".

Here is an example of how I might use tags in BC:
First, all my lists would be by "adventure". One for my road trip to Ohio, another for my hunting lease, and another for stuff around home, and so on. That would be the "vertical" organization.

Next, I would "tag" (or categorize if you prefer that term) each waypoint (regardless which "list" it is in) with things like "car", "walk", "motorcycle", etc. I might also tag them by function: "water", "fuel", "geocache", "observation point", etc.

Surely you can see how this would be useful. Maybe I want to go to the deer lease, and have 'car' items on one device, and 'walk' items on another. Or maybe I want to look at all the geocache entries I can access on motorcycle or car, and ignore those reachable on foot only. Or perhaps I'm on my motorcycle (requiring high octane fuel), and want to ignore the fuel stops that I tagged for "car" because they only offer low-octane fuel.

One problem with this approach is collaboration with MapSource users on projects. I'm not even sure how it would work with sharing files among BaseCamp users.

Good question. Thanks for pointing that out :)

You still need a way to "categorize" the individual waypoints. All waypoints in a list are not necessarily in or should be in the same category.

Your waypoint do not go into a list automatically. When you create/put a waypoint into a list, isn't that categorizing your waypoint? Or am I missing something?

You see this in blog posts and book marks which might be organized into "folders", and then individually "tagged" with key words. You might want to find things "vertically" by folder (lists in BC), and "horizontally" (categories in MS).

I don't think the folder concept apply to "list", as a waypoint can exist in multiple list. You can use "list" as if they are "tag", create "car", "walk", "motorcycle", etc., and put your waypoint in the appropriate list(s).

Maybe the way I'm looking at it is just odd :)

It's not about the software on the computer it's about how the software on the computer supports the GPS. Right now BC doesn't do that all that well and that's the real point here. Let's not loose sight of the goal.

+1 ;)

Yes KFPANDA, you missed the points on page 2 that KILLTIMER and KGANSHIRT made regarding PND support for List's vs. Catagories.

• If the PND does not support LIST and you transfer your Waypoint data to the device, the User has now lost the intended "catagorization" of the Waypoint. Virtually all of Garmins pre-2011 GPS do not support LIST (actually none do currently).
  
• Many of Garmin's pre-2011 PND's support Catagories for Waypoints. If BC takes the approach of stripping Waypoint "tags" (attributes) you will have made the case for MOST Garmin PND users to abandon BC and stay with MapSource as eluded to by KGANSHIRT's very good Use Case Scenario on page 2.
  

I also very much want more Waypoint attributes and not fewer, as I requested during the BC-Beta phase - including Categories.

I just don't want to lose sight of more advanced capabilities that LIST and SMART LIST can provide if the PND supports same.

By the way, I still have several "old" Garmin GPS's that I still use even though I really like the Montana (obvious I'm sure).

Cheers,

I don't think the folder concept apply to "list", as a waypoint can exist in multiple list. You can use "list" as if they are "tag", create "car", "walk", "motorcycle", etc., and put your waypoint in the appropriate list(s).

Maybe the way I'm looking at it is just odd :)

Yes, a waypoint can go into multiple lists. But if you use my examples, one would end up with lists by "adventure" (e.g. trip to Ohio, vs deer lease) and also lists by "category" (e.g. car, motorcycle, walk). But then, you can only see one dimension at a time (all car, or all deer lease) and not both. That is my point: with true "tags" (or "categories") IN ADDITION to lists, one can get a 2-dimensional view: Think of a point in an X/Y graph, or a block in a matrix, or a cell in a spreadsheet.

Maybe this will help:

• this
  
• is
  
• a
  
• list
  

but, these, are, tags

Here is a visualization of a list with tags:

• NAME, CAR, WALK, Water, Fuel
  
• exxon, y , n , y , y
  
• well, n , y , y , n
  

Now, if I say "show all water", I'll get "well" and "exxon", if I say show all "walk", I'll get "well" again, but not "exxon". I can query up/down, or across, depending on what I really want to do. I can also query BOTH up/down and across.

Technically though, the list would be STORED as:

• exxon, car, fuel, water
  
• well, water, walk
  

And, of course, there could be any number of lists that contain elements stored in other lists. So if I made the same queries (e.g. "show all water") in a different list (trip to Ohio vs deer lease), the results would be completely different.

Yes KFPANDA, you missed the points on page 2 that KILLTIMER and KGANSHIRT made regarding PND support for List's vs. Catagories.

Let me clarify this again. I know "list" is not supported on the device and I understand it is important to our users. But let say we bring in category to BC. Is that something make sense to do from a data management perspective? Is it something useful or confusing (because of the overlap in functionality)? Those are questions we're asking ourselves and not meant to bring a open discussion here. It was meant to answer ken's question of why we don't just bring in category from MS as is.