BaseCamp 4.3.0.2 BETA is Now Available

BaseCamp 4.3.0.2 BETA is now available and can be downloaded here:

http://developer.garmin.com/apps/BC/BaseCampBeta_4.3.0.2.exe.zip

You will need to unzip the file before installing.

This release does not support XP.

You do not have to uninstall BaseCamp 4.2.5 and it will not overwrite that installation. The BETA and an official release of BaseCamp will live side-by-side but must be used separately. However the 4.3.0.1 BETA will be replaced.

Below is a list of changes. This is only a BETA release.

Added “Find Intersection” to the Find menu
Added parsing of the primary find text into address search fields
Improved ordering of auto-complete results
Improved street auto-complete results when searching for streets with prefixes and suffixes
Improved some usability issues with address and intersection searching
Improved recovery from corrupted cache information from device maps

Post here if you have questions.

The BETA is currently only for English users.

Before using this release, back up your data.

Please post any bugs you may find here. This release is to assist us in testing with a wider user base and wider set of devices. Bugs may be present, and any feedback is welcomed.

NOTE: We are aware of several issues with address searching on devices. We ask our users to please test this very well and let us know of the issues you find. Some of them will be duplicates of issues we have already found, but the advanced address search is new for this release and we need a good test bed to be sure that the feature is working correctly when we do the full release.

Again, thank you for all who participate.

0 SUSSAMB over 11 years ago

Simply that you have 2 different routes that are independant of each other, which is what I want. Anyway, you asked for a case, I've given it. Guess we both have to see what we get. I can cope with either implementation though I prefer separate (duplicate) waypoints, I understand fully that you don't.

0 BigLew55 over 11 years ago

That's why I think you may have misrepresented your side during this exchange.

You want independent routes, and my examples would have that. But if you didn't actually want to start back up at "Hotel L" in the morning, you would select an appropriate point to edit your route to, instead of editing an arbitrary "Hotel L1", that evidently doesn't even represent the hotel at all.

You can alter both routes whether they are "Point A" to "Hotel L" and "Hotel L" to "Point Z", or "Point A" to "Hotel L" and "Hotel L1" to "Point Z". It seems that your case would be supported.

In my case, with over 2200 db objects, I am very sensitive to duplication, plus, I am fundamentally opposed to forced duplication by rationalizing that it's preferred behavior. So, when you tell me that I need two waypoints (not routes) named the same to represent the same geographic location, I disagree that it makes more sense maintaining the integrity of the db objects, and avoid duplication.

Hasn't anyone heard of db normalization? This is the opposite of that.

I'm not trying to debate this with you. I am trying to make sure that both user stories are properly communicated to the developers. I certainly hope they will chime in again, too.

I am fully understanding of giving a soft warning on route divide similar to route duplication that asks if the user would like to duplicate routes. I think that is a good analogy for this process and logic. Some might want it, but duplication of db objects (waypoints here) should not be default behavior.

0 stuartmw over 11 years ago

In my case, with over 2200 db objects...

I hope you keep multiple backups of that database. If it ever gets corrupted you're in a world of hurt.

0 BigLew55 over 11 years ago

Yes, I do.

And I still haven't imported all of my old files, but I'm to the point where I only go looking for old items occasionally. If I imported the rest, it would probably only be ~100 tracks. Most of the points are in it now.

0 SUSSAMB over 11 years ago

That's why I think you may have misrepresented your side during this exchange.

I don't believe I've misrepresented anything. I simply prefer when I split a route to have one ending where I've split it and the other starting where I've split it that don't end/start with the same point. That to me for the way I work doesn't make sense and has caused me issues in the past so am delighted to see the change.

0 SUSSAMB over 11 years ago

In my case, with over 2200 db objects, I am very sensitive to duplication, plus, I am fundamentally opposed to forced duplication by rationalizing that it's preferred behavior. So, when you tell me that I need two waypoints (not routes) named the same to represent the same geographic location, I disagree that it makes more sense maintaining the integrity of the db objects, and avoid duplication.

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm just trying to explain why I feel that if you split a route it doesn't make sense to me that they end/start with the same point, since this means if I move that point in one it moves in the other. I also don't understand your use of the word duplicating. Nothing's being duplicated, two unique points are being created.

To end my discussion here would I mind if it stayed as it is ... no. Would I mind if the Basecamp team reverted to what we've had for years ... no (I could manage as I've done in the past). Would I want an option each time I split a route ... definitely not, that to me is the worst case as it means yet another click/choice when all I'm wanting to do is split a route :)

0 BigLew55 over 11 years ago

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm just trying to explain why I feel that if you split a route it doesn't make sense to me that they end/start with the same point, since this means if I move that point in one it moves in the other.

If you are not starting at the same point, you simply add the point you are starting at. I divide my route at layover or changeover points. I will create a trip that is 5 days long, and right before I load my GPS, I split it into 5 sections. Yes, I do stop on one route at point a and restart my second route the next day at the same point a(not point a1). If I were to meander across the street, I would not expect this to now be point a(or point a1), it would be a completely different waypoint that I would either plan for in Basecamp, or edit in my GPS.

I also don't understand your use of the word duplicating. Nothing's being duplicated, two unique points are being created.

Where two identical things now exist from one original defines duplication.

To end my discussion here would I mind if it stayed as it is ... no. Would I mind if the Basecamp team reverted to what we've had for years ... no (I could manage as I've done in the past). Would I want an option each time I split a route ... definitely not, that to me is the worst case as it means yet another click/choice when all I'm wanting to do is split a route :)

But it's fine for me to have to delete a point and then re-insert the original point every time I divide a route? I'd prefer a single click option!

0 stuartmw over 11 years ago

To end my discussion here would I mind if it stayed as it is ... no. Would I mind if the Basecamp team reverted to what we've had for years ... no

Agreed. I don't use BC for route creation anyway but IMO this is one of those things that one can argue either way. I could "fix" things in either case.

0 Former Member over 11 years ago

Could do that

Well you could simply rename the new route something different ... then it would be clear which one to delete.

Well, I could do that but that's defeating the purpose. I will now have two routes instead of one. It is added work on my part. Should not this program ask to replace the other route or duplicate it. I don't know of a route where I had that I wanted to duplicate it. Not one. And this a constant. I constantly change routes and update stops to my routes every week. This is a totally waste of time deleting the duplicate route.

0 SUSSAMB over 11 years ago

Unfortunately what you're asking isn't within the gift of the Basecamp developers. Basecamp cannot delete or amend routes on a nuvi, which is what I assume you're using? BC sends the new route to the nuvi which is then merged by the nuvi into its data, so your only option in the circumstances you outline is to delete the route on the nuvi itself.