BaseCamp 3.3.0.2 Beta is available

Routing Issues

There seems to be routing issues with the BC Beta. Is Garmin aware of these or do you need additional examples where a route sent to a Zumo device, with or without shaping points, does not import the same route, sometimes dropping waypoints or destinations.

Falagar,
I don't have any waypoints with shopping carts.
At High Res, they show up starting at 0.2 miles
Higher - 0.7 miles
Highest - 2.0 miles (where hundreds of them are on the screen)

Thanks for the screen-shot. Looks like this does occur with CN NA 2012.3. I tested with an earlier version and could not reproduce it. I can with 2012.3.

Thanks again. We hope to have a fix for the final release.

There seems to be routing issues with the BC Beta. Is Garmin aware of these or do you need additional examples where a route sent to a Zumo device, with or without shaping points, does not import the same route, sometimes dropping waypoints or destinations.

We could probably still use a few more examples. That will help pin down the issues. They might not all be BaseCamp issues, but that will also help us work with the device teams to iron things out.

Thanks for your help, we really appreciate it.

Basecamp Beta Installation changes Basecamp 3.2.2 startup.
After Installation of Basecamp Beta the following happens on two computers (Vista and Windows 7): Each time after I open Basecamp 3.2.2 there comes the message "Wir möchten zukünftige Garmin Anwendungen..verbessern.." (We want to improve future Garmin Applications) and asks for allowance of data transfer. This message can't be stopped, independently from giving or denying the allowance and independendly from activating the box "Dont show this message once more."

What I can reproduce is that if you start 3.3.0.2 and then 3.2.2 afterwards, that we will ask the analytics questions.

But after you start 3.2.2 the second time the message should not be asked anymore (if you check the 'Don't ask me again' check-box). 3.2.2 will ask every time if you ran the Beta beforehand.

That's not ideal, but shouldn't be an issue once 3.3 final is released.

Are you starting 3.2.2 several times without launching the Beta and you still always get the message? That would be a bug, but I cannot seem to be able to reproduce it.

But after you start 3.2.2 the second time the message should not be asked anymore (if you check the 'Don't ask me again' check-box). 3.2.2 will ask every time if you ran the Beta beforehand.
.

That is, what I observe also. Not a big issue.

New Bugs:
0. Filter option on track with "automatic" is broken. A track with 1400 points (created by converting a route) gets filtered down to start and finish. Before the filter was a bit too aggressive in my eyes, but it worked pretty well. I even used the slider fully to the right with more points, and still ended up with 2 points only.
the max points option (that is more useful in general anyhow) is working right however (as are all other options)

1. Changing the thickness of routes and tracks is quite good, but not really perfect. Better would be to have routes besides the routed street and not on the routed street, so you can see the underlying roads. Everything else is only useful for motorcar autorouting going along highways. Or else move them X pixels asymetric from the road, so one can see the road...

2. Well now there is an option to minimize ascents on the routing tab, however there is still nowhere any information about the overall ascent/descent of a route!!!!! Actually the information shown on the "graph" or previously called elevation profile is now even less. Total ascent/descent furthermore should be included in the main route properties window (at least on all "outdoor" profiles like cycling, mtbiking, hiking, atv, dirtbiking and so on....)

3. If the profiles are more or less identical - then why include them. Hiking, walking, Mountaineering are all the same (except different avoidance preconfigured). Cylcing/mtbiking/tour cycling is just the same. ATV/Dirtbiking is just the same. Instead of overloading the menu, get rid of them - this will encourage use of custom profiles much more.

Old bugs or missing features:

0. Asymetric lines still broken see https://forums.garmin.com/showpost.php?p=82540&postcount=2

1. For maps that have no DEM, but contourlines, it would be great to also have an altitude profile for tracks created in Basecamp (use real altitude profile if track is from GPS) like the altitude profile that is shown for routes.

2. Since Basecamp 3.2 the autorouting avoidance based on bicycle, autocar, foot, emergency, taxi and so on is not respected anymore. Please bring it back. The new highway avoidance feature is good, but not if it only works for City Navigator, while it behaves completly random for all other autoroutable maps... (or at least provide a structure and tell which roadtypes (0x01, 0x02 and so on) are blocked on which setting, so that OSM maps - that by now besides City Navigator probably account for >90% of autoroutable maps used, can be properly configured).

We could probably still use a few more examples. That will help pin down the issues. They might not all be BaseCamp issues, but that will also help us work with the device teams to iron things out.

Thanks for your help, we really appreciate it.

Dave, thanks for pursuing this further.

And Falagar, I hope these two (one now) files provide some insight.

I am going to attach two (one, see below) more of my routes as .gpx files.

One is my "IN HOG Rally Arrival". (attached)

This route when transferred to the Zumo 550 from BC Beta, was slightly corrupted, but after a recalculate on the Zumo was perfectly usable. All of my waypoint flags showed up on the Zumo properly, and there were no straight line segments anywhere that I could determine.

However, I am unable to give you a completely accurate statement as to which maps, or versions of BC this route was created in. The reason for this is that I've been working on most of my routes for the past few months at different times. Some with the 2012.20 maps and the BC prior to the Beta version.

The second route I am attaching is my "NY HOG Rally Arrival to Home" file. (not attached, see note further down)

This one after being sent to my Zumo 550, has kind of corruption I saw on the earlier file I sent. Upon first being sent to the Zumo, the mileage is completely wrong, no Waypoints are listed, and when p;reviewed on the Zumo shows straight line segments, and only the Start waypoint and the first waypoint, all the other waypoints are missing, as is the Endpoint. Except for the straight line segment, it appears to follow the route set on my computer.

A recalculate on the Zumo does nothing to fix the route.

As with the other route I'm attaching, I cannot give you the correct history of how this route was created. I have been working on all of my up-coming season's riding for the past few months. I have to believe some ofit was started in map vewr2012.20, with the non-beta BC, and then continuing work in 2012.30 maps with beta BC.

However, to my way of thinking, this should not have any effect on a route being able to be used properly on the Zumo.

I understand with MS there are known issues with the routes on the Zumo 550 when routes have been worked on with different versions of the maps.

This should have been fixed for BC.

BTW, I am unable to attach the NY Rally route with all the corruption. The attach files area says I'm over my limit for attachments.

I do not know how to fix this.

Thanks,
Don

ps: I am going to re-create the NY Rally route completely with 2012.30 maps, and the Beta BC later today, and then see what happens when I transfer that to the Zumo 550.

New Bugs:
0. Filter option on track with "automatic" is broken. A track with 1400 points (created by converting a route) gets filtered down to start and finish. Before the filter was a bit too aggressive in my eyes, but it worked pretty well. I even used the slider fully to the right with more points, and still ended up with 2 points only.
the max points option (that is more useful in general anyhow) is working right however (as are all other options)

2. Well now there is an option to minimize ascents on the routing tab, however there is still nowhere any information about the overall ascent/descent of a route!!!!! Actually the information shown on the "graph" or previously called elevation profile is now even less. Total ascent/descent furthermore should be included in the main route properties window (at least on all "outdoor" profiles like cycling, mtbiking, hiking, atv, dirtbiking and so on....)

3. If the profiles are more or less identical - then why include them. Hiking, walking, Mountaineering are all the same (except different avoidance preconfigured). Cylcing/mtbiking/tour cycling is just the same. ATV/Dirtbiking is just the same. Instead of overloading the menu, get rid of them - this will encourage use of custom profiles much more.

0: Can you attach a gpx file of the track that get filtered down to just 2 points? I haven't been able to reproduce this issue?

2: Currently we do not calculate ascent/descent for direct routes. That will be in 3.3 final (or the next Beta, if there is one). Ascent/Descent will be displayed in the statistics on the route's properties page. For auto-routes, we already do this in the Beta.

3: It's not just about route settings for different profiles, it's about activities. A mountain-biker might prefer very different routes than a tour biker, and will get different routes once the maps and devices support it. We are just a little ahead.

As with the other route I'm attaching, I cannot give you the correct history of how this route was created. I have been working on all of my up-coming season's riding for the past few months. I have to believe some ofit was started in map vewr2012.20, with the non-beta BC, and then continuing work in 2012.30 maps with beta BC.

However, to my way of thinking, this should not have any effect on a route being able to be used properly on the Zumo.

I understand with MS there are known issues with the routes on the Zumo 550 when routes have been worked on with different versions of the maps.

In an ideal world, the maps you created the routes with should not matter, all we would look at is the via points and create a new route on whatever map you currently have selected.

Unfortunately that is not how it currently works.

Are there any issues when you create an entirely new route (with new via points) on the BaseCamp Beta?

You can choose a speed for a bicycle, but it makes no difference to the reported elapsed time. This was also the case with 3.2.

Steve

Also, BaseCamp doesn't recognize bicycle lanes the way MapSource does. I don't know if any Garmin Map products use bicycle lane restrictions, but OSM does, and quite a few Garmin GPSr owners use them.