InReach Tracking—Straight Lines Only?

No, I just double checked, it doesn't snap to roads when creating a route. If the website had the "snap to" capability, it would probably do so with the InReach tracking lines as well. But that's obviously not the case.

I mainly use the Explore Map page to import gpx files from other websites. I occasionally use it for safety too, when I'm on an unfamiliar hike.  The Garmin Connect webpage's Course map is a "snap to" map.  That may help for planning, but won't be of any use during inReach tracking.

So I guess we're stuck.  I recently hiked a loop trail and the inReach tracking points connected in a polygon shape. Very annoying.

Agreed, best of luck!

I agree that Garmin should make it an option whether to connect track points or not. However, there is a purpose for connecting the points. Without that, and depending on the trail and send interval, you could end up with a bunch of scattered points on MapShare without any obvious relation. By connecting them, you at least know the sequence (which point came before and after) and general path the person was following.

Having said that, Garmin could improve this a lot. The "Digital Atlas of the Earth" that the Explore website uses is both routable and GPS navigable. That means if the person is hiking a trail that the map recognizes, then it should be able to connect the trackpoints with a "line" or trace that follows the actual trail on the map. In fact, the Explore phone app essentially does this. If you provide it a destination Waypoint, it will navigate you turn-by-turn along the trail to that point. I expect MapShare will eventually get to that but obviously is not there yet. In the mean time, they should make the connecting lines thinner (or used dotted lines) with the option to hide them completely. 

I also agree.  There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to show only points. Adding straight lines = adding bad data to a map.  Would Garmin map an irregular property boundry by selecting 4 points a drawing a straight line between them?  Of course not!

Also why not have 2 interval times?  A time to wake-up and capture GPS coordinates and a second time interval between sat uploads.  I could have my inReach wake up once a minute and record my location but upload the series of points only once an hour.  Would that provide more detail while saving battery life?

I don't disagree with an option to only show points, but do disagree with several points made (over the last 7 months!  in this now old thread); straight lines == approximate data.  Maybe that's bad data, maybe that's good enough data.  Maybe that's extremely important data, and not stupid and useless as asserted early on...at least when point-order is not clearly evident in some other way, lines can help provide a timeline, which could be life-saving for some situations where the same area is covered over many days.  Imagine if only points are shown across many traverses through the same area during a single long trek - where is the person now?  Which is the last point likely close to their real location, where they now must be found quickly?  A bucket of points strewn across a wide area on the map in that case is a stupid and useless choice.

Since the points aren’t numbered and you’d have to look at the data behind them to determine correct order, straight lines remain useless. 

If you have to make up an off-the-wall scenario to justify straight lines, it’s a big clue you don’t really have an argument. There is zero reason Garmin couldn’t have the displayed lines snap to existing roads or trails—and that would be much more useful across a much wider variety of situations than straight lines. Having straight lines as the default and only option is, indeed, stupid and useless. 

Since the points aren't numbered, you'd have to look at points that have only one connecting line and not two to find the final emergency location.  Without more data, it'd be two possible locations, so it may take extra resources to find the person; but still not rocket science.

If you can only imagine strict situations with blinders on to see possible cases where a path might be better than points, it's a big clue that you haven't thought about the possibilities much, or have an agenda and really don't care, or aren't capable of designing a tool for pretty much everyone for emergencies and beyond.

Traveled paths are simply not courses or routes.  I do love lines snapped to roads and trails - I have a bug opened about that exact thing now for courses on Explore Web in fact.  But what about when someone goes off trail?  That happens sometimes - are you aware of those?  In emergencies, finding an off-route person is especially important, I've seen several cases in the last 2 months.  What about where the trail exists but isn't shown on the map.  What about where the trail route is different on different versions of the map, which I've seen far too often on TopoActive, USGS, and every other map source I've found?  Have you thought about those cases, because your comments don't indicate that at all?

I again agree that by-nature approximated lines as the only option may be less than ideal, but to just ignore all this and call it stupid and useless seems short-sighted at the least and totally dangerous at the worst.

Straight lines between points literally have nothing to do with anything. Literally. They’re not even an approximation. No one travels in straight lines cross country ignoring roads and trails. 

A much better approximation would, in fact, be to snap the lines to roads or trails depending on the mode of travel chosen. 

You’ve simply decided to be contrary and created an imaginary scenario you think it might be better to have straight lines. That’s not haw either travel or navigation work. If someone in a vehicle were to go missing, should searchers ignore roads and search along a straight line from the last waypoint? That would be stupid. Similarly for a hiker—it would be stupid to ignore trails. 

So, while there might be the odd situation where connecting the points with straight lines isn’t completely stupid, the vast majority of travel is going to be via road or path. And even in cases where someone in distress is off trail, odds are overwhelming they were on it at some point so the trail will need to be the starting place for a search. 

There is simply no good reason we can’t choose to have the points snap to trails or roads. In most cases, no lines and numbered waypoints would be more useful than straight lines, especially for motorized travel.