BaseCamp 4.3.0.2 BETA is Now Available

Former Member over 11 years ago

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 Former Member over 11 years ago

I will. I think we are good, but we are working hard to make this a great release. I don't know that these changes will make it into the release but we do releases all the time so we can keep you posted.

0 Former Member over 11 years ago

Grr, I don't know why I can't reproduce this problem. I am even using your data I have tried adding and removing layover and departure time and going to and from the detailed view and I do not see the issue happen. Frustrating :(

With latest Beta, I deleted "corrupted" routes (i.e. those with overtyping waypoints) and recreated them. Try as I might, I can't get them to overtype. Problem solved. Thanks.

0 Former Member over 11 years ago

A couple of points please.

1. What is the Optimize button meant to do please?
I created a route around Scotland and thought I would try the optimize button. The results were:
Before Optimization: 1991 miles and 40 hrs 34 mins
After Optimization: 2413 miles and 48 hrs 16 mins
Similar figures obtained from other routes.
Hard to see what is Optimized so an explanation would be welcome please.

2. Routing seems very odd when some "Route Options" are set - particularly avoidances.
Same Scotland trip (from Birmingham UK) sends me across to Ireland and back (twice) on ferries if I set Interstate to Avoid and Ferries to not Avoid. The difference between setting ferries to avoid or not is:
2129 miles and 45 hrs 46 mins (Interstate - Avoid, Ferries - Avoid)
2680 miles and 104 hrs 19 mins (only changing Ferries to Not Avoid)
I can't think of a reason why my trip should be 500 miles longer and take over twice as long simply because I am happy to take a ferry, if that is quicker.
All trips were set to "Faster Time". Bizarrely, setting it to "Curvy Roads" was shorter and quicker than "Faster Time". I don't understand.
(Note: The reason for changing the ferries setting was that there are many ferries in Scotland that save loads of miles/time. But I don't want to go to Ireland twice when going on a trip to Scotland - fabulous place that Ireland is.)

Happy to send routes to Garmin privately if required.

Ferries issue seems to be resolved thanks.

0 Former Member over 11 years ago

Agree

Duplicating waypoints never makes sense to me. If I wanted to start from a different point, I would have put a separate point in my route. After thinking about this overnight, I still can't conceive of a reason that I'd want a duplicate such as "St. Louis Arch" and "St. Louis Arch1". It just makes a mess that I have to clean up.

If there is a reasonable case for duplicating this, I'd recommend the option of duplication for the user. Otherwise, if it's not a bug, I'd consider it a design flaw.

I agree with BIGLEW55. If I wanted a duplicate, I would have made one, otherwise let the user decide. Likewise, when I make a route just to find out that some stop is missing, and go back in and put in the stop, and transfer it back to my gps, I now have 2 routes with the same name and have to search each of the routes to find out which one to delete. I deliver for a living now and this makes no sense to me. Try changing routes on a weekly basis and see what I mean. It's a headache.

0 SUSSAMB over 11 years ago

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

0 BigLew55 over 11 years ago

I have yet to see a use-case for the way it is now with duplicating. I would be interested in seeing an example of how the logic is applied in a manner that makes duplication preferrable.

Otherwise, saying that "duplication is acceptable" is rationalization for not fixing it.

0 SUSSAMB over 11 years ago

OK, here's one I use all the time. As a walker I download or prepare long routes, this year for example I walked a 88 mile trail. Having prepared the route I then need to split it around where I'm intending to overnight, so I need a waypoint at the end of the day's trip and one at the beginning of the next. In your example it would be Arch and Arch1. Doesn't worry me at all that one waypoint has a 1 at the end and the other doesn't. I could rename them if I wish to or simply leave them as they are. Either way one is the end of one day and the other the start of the next. Now I'll adjust both routes (which are now unique) to fit in with exactly where I'm planning to spend my overnight stop.

0 BigLew55 over 11 years ago

...so I need a waypoint at the end of the day's trip and one at the beginning of the next. ...

So, do you stop and start in the same spot? (Arch & Arch1 are the same spot.)

0 SUSSAMB over 11 years ago

Sometimes, sometimes not. Either way with unique routes it's never an issue.

0 BigLew55 over 11 years ago

I'm not talking about the routes. I agree you want two routes. I'm only concerned with the waypoints. Once you split them, they would behave independently. I'm only concerned with having two waypoints that represent the same geographic location.

Original route: "Point A" to "Point Z" 88 miles.

I decide to overnight at "Hotel L".

So I divide the original route into
"Point A" to "Hotel L" and
"Hotel L" to "Point Z".

If I decide in the morning that I am going to start from "Restaurant M", I am still not starting from "Hotel L1".

This is the part that I can't get my head around. What does having one route end at "Hotel L" and one start at "Hotel L" have to do with route integrity?