Routes vs courses

Ha! At times, I believe even Garmin doesn't know the difference between the two. Things that are called "courses" in one app or device are called "routes" in other devices or apps, and vice versa. Case in point: Using the explore.garmin.com website, one can create a route but not a course. Using the Explore app on mobile (this pertains to the Mini 2), one can create a course, but not a route. However, when syncing these two created entities to the Mini 2 device, both are listed under "Courses". The mind is baffled.

My best guess regarding the distinction between the two is that a route appears to consist of a set of user-generated routing points, connected by straight-line segments. A course, on the other hand, consists of user-generated course points, which are then connected via a path-finding algorithm using the available trails, streets and roads on a topo map.

If anyone else has a better explanation: feel free to chime in!

I don't think anybody actually KNOWS. The confusion is at least partially due to Garmin's continuing attempt make all the iR devices visible and useful to the entire gamut of Garmin web sites, mobile apps, etc. Originally, the term "route" was used in the Explore universe; "course": was used in the Connect universe. It was never clear what the difference was.

I do believe that the difference in navigation mechanics (straight lines between points vs. something like road routing) is at least partially a function of the device capabilities AND the available maps. And the manner in which the user CHOOSES to navigate. In some cases, the user's choice is buried in profile-specific settings in the standard profiles. OTOH, I have seen things which imply that there is some inherent difference between the capabilities between routes and courses.

And then there are true "tracks". Some devices can navigate those. Some cannot.

This has some marginally useful information. Or not.

https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=xTF7aj0YDq7TQrvaV8J0C6&productID=623975&searchQuery=course%20vs.%20route&tab=topics

This one talks about routes vs. tracks. Clarifies the bit about device capabilities.

https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=v0rJAHy2hq3prHjRlxdRw5

Then there is the ever-popular limit on the number of points in a route. I don't think the numbers in this article are correct. But the limits DO exist and are a pain.

https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=IteXAcl2wS9OSNejVgXIx8

Thanks. Actually my device (Montana) allows to create both and also allows to save course as route and vice versa. Therefore I am confused.... When I saved course as route I saw straight lines between waypoints, but after starting navigation it became exactly same path as for the course.... Will probably need to test it live and see what is up with both.

So basically the difference between a route and a course is the file format. .gpx (recognized by every mapping/navigation application) and .fit (Garmin-proprietary). Same thing with track vs. activity.

SOME iR devices, such as the 66i, allow you to "record" (yet another term for activity logging) in both .fit and .gpx format. This setting is buried under the advanced options in recording settings.

Edited to add: The .fit format accommodates "fitness" information which the .gpx format does not. This typically is of interest on wearable devices which have (at least some) sensors built-in. For example, your Garmin watch likely has a heart rate monitor. Typically (IMO) not very interesting on handhelds, including iR devices.

Thanks. Got now the difference. 

Thank you. 

One other comment about the file format.  .gpx is formatted text.  You can read and edit it (carefully) with any tool on any platform.  The fit format is binary formatted, so you can't read it with just any tool, and so manipulation is very much tool dependent.  As noted above it can store a lot more information related to fitness, and is somewhat more compact (not that this matters since these files are typically small).

It’s all par for the course