Related

BaseCamp 4.3.0.2 BETA is Now Available

Former Member
Former Member
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
    I guess we're not going to agree on this, and as already posted by DPALWYK you can at least achieve what you wish by deleting the duplicate point. I simply prefer it the new way as often I split a route so I can create separate routes that end/start somewhere different.

    You of course have no need to delete the duplicate unless you wish to. In your scenario it would work just as well if you didn't.
  • 0
    I agree that we're not going to agree.

    Maybe you missed that I have to go back and update the subsequent route as well? So not only do I have to delete a duplicate waypoint (that I didn't want in the first place), I have to update the route so that it starts at the original one, so that I don't ALSO get ANOTHER duplicate when I load the routes to my GPS.

    Thinking this is normal does not make any sense to me. I understand tolerating some things, but I won't accept that it's "normal".

    Duplicates = BAD. I'm not sure how to make this easier to see.

    In your scenario, you could easily handle it more efficiently, by having the intended waypoints to start with. If you are moving your starting point, you arecreating a separate waypoint, and the duplicate one is now arbitrary. I still don't see how duplicates are useful if you are trying to properly plan a route.

    Could you give a better example of your case so I might understand?
  • 0
    I'll chime in and say if "I want to duplicate a waypoint I'll duplicate it". Don't do it for me. I find it an annoyance to have to cull out duplicates I never asked for in the first place.
    This thing with waypoints becoming Home1, Home2, Home3, etc. has bugged me ever since I got my Montana and moved from Mapsource to Basecamp.
  • 0
    I'm not sure why you have to update/delete anything in your scenario. I've just split a driving route, and I get one that starts at the initial start point and one that starts where I split it, which is what I'd want. Are you getting something different?
  • 0
    If you read my original and subsequent statements (that you seemed intent on debating), I stated that when I divided a route at a given waypoint, it created a duplicate (St. Louis Arch1) and the second route now started with this duplicated waypoint (St. Louis Arch1). When I divided the route at St. Louis Arch, I want the new routes to; 1. End at St. Louis Arch, and 2. Begin at St. Louis Arch (Not St. Louis Arch1).

    This actually occurs more at hotels, but the logic and user story is the same.
  • 0
    I did read that, and as I pointed out you don't need to do anything. Of course if you're unhappy with 2 separately named waypoints for the same place then you'll need to, but it wouldn't worry me.

    I think this has run it's course, you've made your point, you don't like it. I've made mine, I'm happy with it.

    I guess the Basecamp team will need to decide which side of the fence they wish to sit
  • 0
    A possible small bug:

    Dividing a route causes the waypoint at the divide to be duplicated. Let me know if you need more detail.


    Not a bug. By design. This is so that the two waypoints can exist independently such that you can now alter the position of one or the other without affecting the other route.


    OK, can you folks let me know if this has been recorded as a use case? There have been a few differing opinions. If you need something specific from me for an example, let me know.

    Thanks!
  • 0
    I did read that, and as I pointed out you don't need to do anything.


    You are wrong. I had to go back and change it to be correct.
  • 0
    When I divided the route at St. Louis Arch, I want the new routes to; 1. End at St. Louis Arch, and 2. Begin at St. Louis Arch (Not St. Louis Arch1).

    So, you want an option to share the same waypoint between the newly-split routes. I wonder if it's common for people to want a "end here" waypoint and a "start here" waypoint with such split routes even when they have the same coordinates.
Copyright © 1996-2025 Garmin Ltd. or its subsidiaries