This might be the same as "Fighting City Hall" but for the user of Garmin GPS for about 11 years and the MapSource Product, BaseCamp is not an equal replacement. First of all, MapSource is more intuitive and easier to navigate on my pc, which I do all of my route planning. Second, I am able to store separate files. I do one each for long rides, say 2 weeks / 3000 miles / 250 waypoints. I do a separate file for each year for shorter trips of a few hours, thus I have 2012, 2011, 2010 ... files. As for the Route Properties -> Directions screen, I can cut and paste it directly into Excel so that I can use this data to develope route itineraries. Instead of a row and column structure that is used with MapSource, BaseCamp pastes all the data in one column that is very difficult to work with, taking a lot of time to spread it back out into different columns. I use the Categories feature quite a bit to diferentiate things such as food, fuel, attractions, Harley Dealers, route plan, etc. I cannot do this with BaseCamp. Everything about the data in BaseCamp is difficult to work with. I am sorry but unless Garmin can restore features and make it easier to find your way around and save files BaseCamp is a looser in my mind.
...wonder why it's limited to only some parts of a map :confused:
I don't know.
I've looked, in Google Earth and BaseCamp 4.1.1, around N36.53959 W82.14231 which is an area where MS 6.16.3 crashes with CN NA NT 2013.40 maps as I detailed in this post, and I don't see any road or other feature of significance.
I don't know the coordinates of regions in Europe where the same problem occurs. "Near Mondragone" isn't very useful to me.
Well I have a folder named "States". Under the folder States I have lists named for every state I have camped in . If I want to save just that state, the waypoints, and routes stored in the that list, I will click on the state list, and then "File", "Export". This will export that list and all in it to a .GPX File. This can be loaded into MapSource. If you have a program that will open a GPX file it should be able to import it...
You can also Backup the entire "Collection" then delete anything you didn't want. You can then backup the new "Collection" using a different name and keep the files seperate.
Is it a bit of a PITA ? Yes... but it will work. It just depends on how much you want to do to keep your method of files.
Well I have a folder named "States". Under the folder States I have lists named for every state I have camped in . If I want to save just that state, the waypoints, and routes stored in the that list, I will click on the state list, and then "File", "Export". This will export that list and all in it to a .GPX File. This can be loaded into MapSource. If you have a program that will open a GPX file it should be able to import it...
You can also Backup the entire "Collection" then delete anything you didn't want. You can then backup the new "Collection" using a different name and keep the files seperate.
Is it a bit of a PITA ? Yes... but it will work. It just depends on how much you want to do to keep your method of files.
FWIW BC
It has been my experience that complex routes moved to MapSource by this method may not be maintained exactly the same. If you want exact routes, then you must convert them to tracks. Waypoints are not a problem.
I've been away for awhile and just getting caught up here. There is something that gets overlooked in all the discussion about Basecamp versus Mapsource.
Garmin had a broad vision of where they wanted to go with their desktop software. Unfortunately, because of the tools used to build Mapsource and the way it was originally written it was impossible to get there using Mapsource. So they decided to start with a completely clean slate .. a new design and new development tools.
I don't argue with that.
They also decided that to get where they wanted to go they needed a "proper" database structure underneath the new program.
I don't argue with that.
I'm an IT professional of 40 years so I understand the driving force behind Basecamp; I really do get it.
What I have never agreed with is some of the collateral damage .. the fallout from the details of their new approach.
First, and only in my opinion, they royally screwed up the database design. As we can see from many examples of troubles and questions posted in here, the database design they chose is simplistic and has caused them problems in two significant areas: difficulty or impossibility to provide some functions, and user interface difficulties.
I'm not sure how much of the user interface problem is from the design of the user interface itself and how much is forced by the underlying database design. It is certainly a victim of both so it likely doesn't matter how much of which.
The biggest issue is the lack of discoverability of many of the features and functions. Many users would never show up here, or on Garmin's support lines, if the UI designers made more effort to make things easily discoverable. This is especially important when they have never bothered to create a manual for the program. It's a shame to do the monumental amount of work that Basecamp represents and automatically limit the audience to those who are either sufficiently technically knowledgeable AND stubborn enough to figure it out for themselves, or those who aren't afraid to look for forums like this one and ask "stupid" questions.
And the majority of questions we deal with in here ought to be "stupid". That is, the feature/function being asked about should be simple. The result is that many, including some of us with years of technology expertise, feel downright stupid when first trying to do things in Basecamp that should be simple. Or wondering if it actually does something that so obviously it should do but there is absolutely no clue whether it will nor how.
And even after finding out that something can be done, and how to do it, we are often left perpetually frustrated because it's neither as simple as it should be to learn, and because it's sufficiently complicated that we need to relearn it every time we want to do it; it never becomes intuitive.
Even those who like Basecamp *always* end up by admitting that "it's a lot of work to learn how to use it but it's really worth the effort". !!!!!
Overall, Basecamp is proving to be most of what its designers envisioned for it and probably more. There are some great new features either complete or well on the way. And lots more to come.
This is all because of their decision to start fresh. Clearly the right decision.
Unfortunately there are some of us who got caught in the collateral damage. There are some things we came to depend on in Mapsource that Basecamp cannot do at all and will never do (for example, categories). And there are some common uses that are a lot more difficult than they need to be (for example, exploring and comparing multiple versions of routes that use many of the same waypoints/POIs).
And there is still the performance issue.
As far as the competitors, Basecamp is already so far ahead of Streets&Trips and Street Atlas (the only other serious desktop trip planning programs) in almost every possible way that there's no longer any real basis for comparison.
But I continue to use Mapsource simply because it does some things I want to do that Basecamp can't and never will do, and some that are simply too much hassle in Basecamp, by comparison. Fortunately I've not yet encountered any of the map issues that have already been mentioned and Mapsource still works fine with my current Garmin devices and the one I plan to buy next.
Much like my Nuvi 765T, they will also have to pry Mapsource from my cold dead fingers.
It has been my experience that complex routes moved to MapSource by this method may not be maintained exactly the same. If you want exact routes, then you must convert them to tracks. Waypoints are not a problem.
Yes. We have long known that the route calculation in Basecamp is not exactly the same as in Mapsource.
But route calculation in Mapsource and Basecamp have never been exactly the same as the route calculation in the navigation devices.
And the route calculation in the devices is not exactly the same across product and model lines.
It's a potentially bigger mess when transferring to the navigation devices than it is transferring between Basecamp and Mapsource.
Imagine sharing a complex route with friends who use various Garmin devices. The only sure bet is that you will all start and end in the same place. :D
Unfortunately, because of the tools used to build Mapsource and the way it was originally written it was impossible to get there using Mapsource. So they decided to start with a completely clean slate .. a new design and new development tools.
Well as an ex-developer (not PC) I can say that any code worked on by multiple developers over the course of 12 years isn't going to be pretty. Spagetti code comes to mind. /shudder. In my world (embedded systems) technology changes usually required a complete redesign of the system (hardware/firmware) and that "solved" the problem--but not always. I've had to maintain code that I didn't write. Not fun.
First, and only in my opinion, they royally screwed up the database design.
Agreed. It was probably done for pragmatic reasons--that is a lot of code existed for the GDB file format used by MapSource. My biggest complaint, as I've voiced many a time, is the (very IMO) restrictive single database design.
And there is still the performance issue.
That's a consequence of going with .NET. That is a semi-interpreted framework (that is its not native processor code) so there's a performance hit. The assumption by Microsoft (who sells .NET development tools) and developers is that most people have fast CPU's with plenty of RAM and hard disk space. Gone are the days when you could run your OS and software with 4MB of RAM (Windows 3.1) or even 640KB (MS-DOS days).
The bottom line is the BaseCamp is what it is. None of the above "issues" are going to change--they're already baked in. As long as I can continue to use MapSource, and that may not be much longer given map incompatibility issues, I will. The same goes for my beloved 1490T.
... Agreed. It [new database design] was probably done for pragmatic reasons--that is a lot of code existed for the GDB file format used by MapSource.
Not to start an argument but just for the record, as Falagar and at least one other developer have stated, there is no file compatibility with Mapsource. The only thing they "reused" from Mapsource was the .GDB file extension. I wish they had not done that because it only creates confusion, to no useful purpose.
My biggest complaint, as I've voiced many a time, is the (very IMO) restrictive single database design.
Yes.
That's [poor Basecamp performance] a consequence of going with .NET. That is a semi-interpreted framework (that is its not native processor code) so there's a performance hit. The assumption by Microsoft (who sells .NET development tools) and developers is that most people have fast CPU's with plenty of RAM and hard disk space.
I do. Might not be a gamer, but a quad-core 3.0GHz CPU, 4GB RAM and 7200rpm hard drive isn't exactly chopped liver.
Most Basecamp users don't notice it because they don't use Mapsource. I see the contrast every time I have to wait .... and wait ..... and wait for Basecamp to load after I've been using Mapsource for days or weeks. I swear it's getting slower but I don't use it often enough to say for certain.
The bottom line is the BaseCamp is what it is.
Yes. I suspect I will become a two-program user. I'm interested enough in the Adventures feature of Basecamp that I may start using it for that and geotagged pics from my phone and latest digital camera. And Mapsource for route planning and managing my waypoints across multiple devices.
