Messages

51

Beta Testing / Re: Elevation Tiles- Comments

« on: October 08, 2010, 08:14:20 AM »

Yep, an option to lock them together would be great.  I see both ways being useful though -- correlating them, or not.  Thanks.

Yes, there is the obvious "problem" that if tracks are shaded by elevation, a track would become invisible against identically shaded elevation tiles.
KenF
 

52

Feature Requests / Re: Merge/Delete Dialog

« on: October 07, 2010, 09:31:46 PM »

If a file is selected by right clicking from the "loaded file" window and then "Analysis" is chosen from the resulting "right-click" menu, the selected file becomes the default as shown in the "file for analysis" box.  This makes perfect sense.

If, however, a file is already selected in the  "loaded file" window and  "Analysis" is chosen on the top menu bar, the default in the "file for analysis" box becomes the first file shown in the "loaded files" window rather than the selected file. This is not consistent with the behavior described above and often has me "selecting" a file, clicking analysis on the top menu and then having to reselect the file.   

Could you make them behave the same way? (please?)

This continues to drive me absolutely batty.
It has to do with order of operations. If I have already selected a file, it should be simple to then select what I want to do with it. Conversely, if I decide and select a particular "analysis" that I want to perform,  I should then be able to choose the file. 
A huge frustration lies in selecting a file, then selecting an "analysis," only to find that the file must then be selected AGAIN.

KenF

53

Beta Testing / Re: Elevation Tiles- Comments

« on: October 05, 2010, 07:25:48 AM »

I do plan on adding more colors and the ability to select ranges for each color, not just the min/max as is now.

Having a transparent option for each color is a great idea I hadn't thought of.

Next step - There's some obvious correlation that can/should exist between elevation shading, track shading and profile shading
 
But, in particular, the horizontal or vertical  color coding of the profile tool should be able to match the elevation shading.

KenF

54

Beta Testing / Re: Elevation Tiles- Comments

« on: September 27, 2010, 03:22:58 PM »

Re: max/min - I could try.  It might be a tad slow to have always displayed, but perhaps if there was a second delay before it appeared it might be cool.

OK, call this a feature request but I see the max/min elevation having more than just passing interest.

How about not just identifying the max/min elevation of a view but providing a tool to tag those location(s) with something like a temporary waypoint(s)?

A simple version would simply identify any point that shares the max/min value and note that there are other with identical values.
A more sophisticated version would identify and mark numerous points, maybe with a threshold distance required  between them before they are considered "different" locations.
Or perhaps, instead of a point, a region which is the highest.

Hmmm....,

OK ....that can be done now to some extent with  the elevation tileset by using the "Get max/min from the current scene" option and then changing the min value manually to something like Maxelevation-100.

Never mind, what is needed for the elevation tiles is an option to have "transparent" as a color option, for areas tiles that are inside or outside the selected "elevation range."

[edited]
In other words, if an elevation isn't in the selected range, don't paint it.

That would greatly enhance the usability and flexibility of coloring by elevation.
It would also be nice to have user selectable "breakpoints" for elevation shading along with the selectability of max/min as it exists now.

How about adding more choices for color range like 7 instead of 5 and make  "transparency" an option for any of the custom color boxes, but especially for the first and last.  

Now I am starting to see some usefulness (well, stuff to play with anyhow) for the elevation tiles.
Did I mention they are too slow?  

KenF  

55

Beta Testing / Re: Elevation Tiles- Comments

« on: September 27, 2010, 12:49:04 PM »

Ken -- sorry about the confusion with the downloading tile.  The elevation data is there, so the downloading tile is misleading.

Yes I understood that possibility. I long ago learned not to necessarily believe that a computer is doing something just because it says it is.

But the time involved, in my case, would certainly seem consistent with a new download of elevation data.
 

When you change the 'shading preset' -- you mean the color scheme, right?  That will force a regeneration of all elevation tiles -- so that is the expected behavior, I think.

Yes color scheme from selectable presets - simply changing from "Classic TF"  to "hot/cold" will do it. 
But I also ran into the "downloading" behavior when switching to a 3D view even though the elevation tiles had been fully rendered in the 2D view. In other words from a nice colored (and shaded) 2D display of elevation tiles, I hit "3" and I see a display comprised of black and white "downloading" tiles, but in full 3D.


KenF

56

Beta Testing / Re: Elevation Tiles- Comments

« on: September 27, 2010, 11:19:43 AM »

Elevation was not slow enough to be annoying on my system.  (Q6600 2.4GHz).  In fact it does OK on my Win 7 laptop.

Example of what I am experiencing:  Looking at an elevation display representing  a 4x3 mile area right around home (and viewed regularly) - If I change the shading preset (and nothing else), the fastest redraw I have seen is about 40 seconds,  but it can takes several minutes.
This is on an an admittedly old machine running at 2.4 Ghz. 

The really annoying thing is how long it takes TF to exit (not just beta version).  10's of seconds.

And for me, exiting is instantaneous.

KenF

57

Beta Testing / Re: Elevation Tiles- Comments

« on: September 26, 2010, 10:46:00 AM »

Ken,

Wanted to clarify one thing -- are you talking about the redraw time when the tiles come in from being 'downloading' tiles to displaying?

Yes, that seems to be the case.  Lots of "downloading" even for areas where elevation data should have been acquired in the past.

  Or are you seeing slow redraws even after the tiles have been generated and are visible?

That seems to be true too. Example - when changing from "color aerial" display to "elevation" the whole process, downloading and all, seems to start over. The same thing seems to happen when  the "shading preset" is changed while viewing an "elevation" screen.

They are slow to come in, but once there, should be fast.

Not knowing what is going on behind the scenes I don't quite know what I am seeing - but it just seems agonizingly slow. MUCH MUCH slower than the other views that I typically use  (Color, MyTopo, or combo )

Re: max/min - I could try.  It might be a tad slow to have always displayed, but perhaps if there was a second delay before it appeared it might be cool.

Or maybe avoid constant on-the-fly calculation by just adding a control to allow showing it upon request for a given view, turn it off if and when the the view has changed.   

KenF

58

Beta Testing / Elevation Tiles- Comments

« on: September 24, 2010, 08:48:21 AM »

Just comments-
Wow! Is that S-L-O-W!
Any way to store data or imagery to speed it up?

Interesting feature but, for now, I cannot envision any real "use" for it. 
But that's just me. Maybe using it in some  "combo" display may prove beneficial.
For now, the glacial redraw speed is likely to inhibit my desire for playing with it much.

But one small detail that I do like is the "maximum/minimum" elevation (shown in "Relief/ Elevation Tileset Option" box) for the displayed view.
I would love to see those figures added as a "permanent" part of the displayed elevation data in the bottom bar, along with cursor elevation as is presently shown there. That would be an easy addition, wouldn't it?

KenF

59

Feature Requests / Projecting waypoints/trackpoints/tracks

« on: August 31, 2010, 04:41:21 PM »

I'd like to see a capability of starting with a known point and then creating a track or group of waypoints using vector information.

The most common example of this would be creating a track from a legal description, perhaps being able to simply paste legs into a table and then using the know lat/lon of starting point, convert and save it as a track. Or for that matter being able to create the track and then drag one of its points to a point on a TF display.

For any given point there could be an "on the ground" GPS reading and a calculated value based upon following the legal description starting with a different point as waypoint.

I have done some of this using my own calculations, but having it integrated into TF would be a treat.

While a "bulk" capability would be ideal,  even a simple "Project new waypoint" option for an existing waypoint would be very useful. Or does this exist and I have missed it? I see that the track drawing tool could be used to do this roughly but its resolution is pretty coarse.  
(And what ever happened to providing a tooptip for the draw track tool which also mentions "measure distance.")

KenF

60

Feature Requests / Track Profile - Multiple Data Overlays

« on: August 02, 2010, 10:46:08 AM »

Garmin finally got around to a software upgrade (2.30) for the Foretrex 401 to make HR data downloadable. (Yet they have not updated this info on the relevant web page. https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/downloadsUpdates.jsp?product=010-00777-00&cID=144&pID=30026)

TF handles the new download capability just fine.

So what I'd like to see is more graphical information available in the "Profile" box.   
A simple option to  provide multiple simultaneous choices (overlays) of the presently existing options in the "Y-axis" drop-down menu would do it.
 
KF

61

GPS, Trails, Training / Backup Trip Odometer Toggle track on/off

« on: June 08, 2010, 10:07:42 AM »

OK here's something for you Dakota/Oregon users to experiment with.
I was aware from my own tinkering that the "stopwatch" feature could be used as a secondary trip odometer since it provides running time and distance that can be turned on/off and reset independently of the regular trip odometer.
(I have no idea what they were thinking when they implemented a lap/split feature where marking a new lap erases the last one forever)

But here's the new discovery:  
I have heard from a couple of sources, including Garmin tech support, that the "stopwatch"  function is actually supposed to save a gpx track file which corresponds to the data accumulated while the stopwatch is running. That would seem to offer many interesting possibilities  

Of course, I have not yet been able to get this to work on my own Oregon.
[Edit: It now works with a software upgrade. I had ver. 3.20 before]  
The file is supposed to be called stopwatch.gpx and should be located in the garmin/archive folder on the device. [That is where it is found]

KF

62

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Oregon HR data

« on: June 05, 2010, 07:53:45 AM »

That's interesting about the data showing up on the concurrent Foretrex.  I've seen some flakiness with my HR and Dakota 20, but haven't paired up my forerunner at the same time to double check it.

Just to note -  If the Foretrex were doing its job and recording HR (Garmin says they're working on it), I would not have been carrying the Oregon as backup. 

255 is the value for 'no HR' in TF.  However, if it sees that value it shouldn't be writing it out, it should just not write out an HR value.  Are you seeing 255's in GPX files?

Yes, I have one file with over 5000 recorded 255's.

KF

63

TopoFusion Pro / Oregon HR data

« on: June 04, 2010, 03:44:17 PM »

I've been going round and round with Garmin Tech support regarding some flakiness I'm experiencing with HR recording on an Oregon 550 . They, of course, have resorted to the knee-jerk "blame the non-Garmin" software approach even though, in the GPX fles on the unit (100% Garmin created), there are dropouts where no HR data appears. And that occurs  despite the HR being shown on a handlebar-mounted Foretrex at the same time.

But that brings up a question. 

The corresponding .gpx files I get from TF have an HR value of 255 at those dropout points.  So, I am really just curious, is that how TF is handling the non-existent Garmin data?

KF

64

GPS, Trails, Training / Bye Bye Track Bird

« on: April 18, 2010, 05:25:03 PM »

http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/augmentation-assistance/news/failure-imminent-waas-geo-satellite-9841

65

TopoFusion Pro / Re: how do I update my aerial map

« on: April 18, 2010, 05:19:52 PM »

  Is it my garmin that puts the map into Topo or is satellites already part of TOPO's program?  If so how do I get updated satellites?

GPS Satellites and aerial imagery are two (mostly) unrelated things.

Your Garmin picks up satellite signals that it interprets to figure out a location on the face of the earth. There is no imagery involved.

TopoFusion (the name of the excellent product that this site is dedicated to) takes this position data from your GPSr  and overlays it on imagery that was previously created as maps or aerial photos (mostly taken from aircraft) and is accessible in various locations on the web as stored images. There is no "eye in the sky" providing "real time" images like you might expect to get from a weather satellite. So until that exists and is accessible to the general public (which it undoubtedly will be at some time, but don't hold your breath) all imagery will lag behind what may actually exist on the ground, often by many years.

But you can create your own maps or mark features with waypoints and tracks.

Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.
KF

66

TopoFusion Pro / Re: HR Support for Forerunner 301

« on: April 17, 2010, 05:18:18 PM »

Really?  It's a different heart rate strap?  Bummer.

My heart rate strap from the Forerunner 305, which is now fairly old, still works with the newer units.  Are you sure it's a different one?

That's the word on the street.
https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?t=162

I'm waiting for a direct response from Gamin email support but everything else I have found suggests that Garmin's HRM transmitters  are either compatible with the FR301 [127 kHz] or they are compatible with ALL other Garmins [2.4 GHz].
Yes, bummer indeed.
But that may also explain why the FR301 is so cheap-
For example here:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16858108234
Although even yesterday that site showed it as merely "out of stock" with a price of $99.99 and today it is "unavailable."


KF
 

67

TopoFusion Pro / Re: HR Support for Forerunner 301

« on: April 17, 2010, 12:21:18 PM »

Yep, TF definitely reads the HR data from the 301.

Thanks. But now I also see that the 301 and its corresponding HRM are not likely compatible with other Garmin units and their newer transmitters.
So much for that plan.
This may be a useful FYI for anyone else who may have thought of getting a cheap 301 to use with a pile of other Garmin hardware.

But if compatibility with other hardware is not an issue, ~$100 for a TF compatible GPS device (including the HRM transmitter belt) is a screaming deal.

KF

68

TopoFusion Pro / HR Support for Forerunner 301

« on: April 16, 2010, 07:50:15 PM »

I realize this is ancient history, but does the TF download of heart rate data now work with the Foreunner 301?

I ask because this unit is now available new at a very good price and I have always liked the same tiny form factor in my Foretrex 201.

Garmin still seems to be working on the storage of HR data in the Foretrex 401 (displays but doesn't store).
Aside from that the 401 is nice and has the same screen size as a 201 on smaller face area but it is thicker and a bit heavier

KF

69

Feature Requests / Re: master checkbox for files

« on: February 01, 2010, 07:14:31 PM »

Have you tried the toggles on the toolbar that turn off display of all waypoints or all tracks? 

Yup, that's useful,  but I have to give a thumb's up to the OP's suggestion of an "ALL-ON" or "ALL-OFF" toggle for the loaded files. I would actually like to see this expanded to include "Unload All",  "Unload Selected"  or, for that matter, an "ALL"  option for any single file operation. Of course I'd like to see some safeguards built in like "You are about to unload File.GPX, are you sure?" But that will still speed things up a lot. I usually end up with a BUNCH of recent files loaded and it would be nice to be able to
(1) Select all 
(2) Deselect a few
(3) Unload all selected 

This is strictly an interface issue, not a function issue.  All of this is doable now - just one file at a time.

KenF     

70

Feature Requests / Re: Merge/Delete Dialog

« on: January 23, 2010, 09:15:57 PM »

I'd never thought about that.  Seems reasonable enough, though multiple files can be selected, in which case it should... just have the first one selected come up?

That's what I would like to see. Or simply default to the "selected" file if there is only one. 
Simply because I have found myself, more than once, "analyzing" a file I had not intended because I thought I had already "selected" the one I wanted. Since this is only an issue of determining the "default" selection I expect that this will not impede "selection" of a file from the "analysis" menu.

KF     


     

71

Feature Requests / Re: Merge/Delete Dialog

« on: January 22, 2010, 02:59:07 PM »

Beta 3.961 out with this change.  I'm already loving it!

Thanks!
Now let me add a related request on the issue of "selected file."

If a file is selected by right clicking from the "loaded file" window and then "Analysis" is chosen from the resulting "right-click" menu, the selected file becomes the default as shown in the "file for analysis" box.  This makes perfect sense.

If, however, a file is already selected in the  "loaded file" window and  "Analysis" is chosen on the top menu bar, the default in the "file for analysis" box becomes the first file shown in the "loaded files" window rather than the selected file. This is not consistent with the behavior described above and often has me "selecting" a file, clicking analysis on the top menu and then having to reselect the file.   

Could you make them behave the same way? (please?)

KF
 
 

72

Feature Requests / Merge/Delete Dialog

« on: January 18, 2010, 04:17:04 PM »

The new
 Added option to load additional GPX/TCX files into “Merge/Delete Downloaded
  Tracks dialog.  Defaults to “Archive” or “History” dir, depending on GPS
feature will be very useful. In fact I already took advantage of it to recover some data from an "archive" file.

But the l-o-n-g  list of track segments that now appears reminds me of a detail that I have always found a bit frustrating. After using the "merge selected" function, the "selected" track defaults to the first track in the list. It would be oh-so-much-nicer if the newly created track remained "selected" after the  merge operation.

KF 

73

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Old DEM data

« on: January 15, 2010, 06:40:02 PM »

however some people do have 10m DEM data stored locally that is better than the 30m data that TF downloads automatically. 

I expect I have 10M DEM for the select areas that I did download. WOW! Looking at file dates, that was a long time ago.
Thanks for the clarification AND for evolving TF to the point that those archaic rituals are no longer necessary.

KF

74

TopoFusion Pro / Old DEM data

« on: January 15, 2010, 04:33:27 PM »

This arises as a matter of (1) housekeeping and (2) curiosity.
I have a far amount of (now ancient) DEM data in the TF directory designated for that under options/preferences.
Is that merely a legacy setting at this point?
Or is that data more detailed than that which is now downloaded concurrently with map data?
Despite my packrat tendencies with data and the tedium I recall going through to acquire it, I could just as easily benefit from cleaning up my TF/GPS installation.
Thanks.

KF
   

 

75

TopoFusion Pro / Re: "error writing log file"

« on: January 11, 2010, 11:48:02 AM »

D'oh!  I'm about to order a new HD myself -- all of mine are jam full of GPX, maps and photos. 

They have gotten huge since the last time I bought one! 

It's hard to imagine that there was a time when I had a  "state of the art" machine with a whopping 20 MB hard drive.
But then again, that WAS last century ...

KF

76

TopoFusion Pro / Re: "error writing log file"

« on: January 11, 2010, 11:07:55 AM »

You can ignore it if you aren't concerned with adding new files to the training log.  If you close the logbook window it should go away.

Problem diagnosed - Apparently the error was the result of my dedicated "GPS" partition becoming full.

KF

77

TopoFusion Pro / "error writing log file"

« on: January 10, 2010, 09:49:04 PM »

What file would that be referring to?

KF

78

TopoFusion Pro / Re: zoom box ? Why so weird ?

« on: December 27, 2009, 07:06:58 PM »

Why cant it be like every program I've ever used for the past 25 years?
pick a corner,
hold button down
release on other corner ??

And there is the issue of interface consistency - The "select points" tool and the "batch download" both work in the  manner described by the OP. 

 KenF

79

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Export or print larger than display?

« on: December 27, 2009, 03:44:58 PM »

I suppose you could draw a box around the area you want, and then choose a specific tileset, similar to how the Garmin Custom Maps export works.  It's likely to create some huge image sizes, but now that the tiling is there for Custom Maps, maybe that isn't much an issue.

I very much like how the custom maps export works by allowing choice of the output tileset. I don't find the original image export to be quite as intuitive, especially since a high resolution export involves a matter a faith - i.e.,  a large export is sometimes larger than what is displayed on the screen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a larger coverage area is displayed on the screen the tileset may also change, contrary the user's intention.

The interface I would like to see would be more visual and would involve several components.
1. A choice of output size (as X by Y pix or aspect ratio)
or
2. A choice of drawing a box around a displayed area,
and
3. A choice of output tileset,

If #1 were chosen then #2 would be automatically created/displayed  and vice versa.

KenF

80

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Export or print larger than display?

« on: December 26, 2009, 05:05:34 PM »

This is what I was trying, but my attempts have only been able to export current window contents. Is there anyway to get a larger area than the current window? Or does export only export the current window size?

I speak only as a user, not as a technical advisor, but is there some reason that you cannot resize the TF window to cover the area you want (including changing the aspect ratio to suit your needs)?  And the aspect ratio of the exported file does not need to be the same as the screen (uncheck "constrain proportions").  That would be a pretty common problem if you have a wide monitor screen and want to print to a standard printed page size like 8.5 x11 

But then I (and others) would love to see a selection box with Photoshop-like functionality where the view to be exported can be easily chosen without having to resort to entering numbers, i.e draw a box and export it.

Scott, ya' listening?
I realize this is not whiz bang cutting edge stuff, but it is certainly in line with the type of functionality that TF should have (IMHO) and is of more currency with the relatively recent addition of export of user created maps for newer Garmin units .       

KenF

81

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Export or print larger than display?

« on: December 26, 2009, 04:38:24 PM »

Can I print or export a larger area than the screen? I have a need to export a map the size of a printed page, which is typically larger than the screen size.

I think you will find most  of the functionality you seek by going to File/Export View and tweaking the various settings that are found there.

KenF  

82

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Heart Rate - Garmin Oregon

« on: December 19, 2009, 04:38:39 PM »

Are there any specific tricks for configuring an Oregon and/or TF to have heart rate recorded?

AND downloaded

If there's HR data in the track you are selected (it's OK if the location has them as files -- that's where TF gets the data) it should prompt you to save it as a TCX.

Just to follow up. I may have been experiencing a software glitch. I had some other flaky behavior (duplicate profiles showing up in the "select profile" menu) so I reinstalled the software for the unit.

It now seems seems to be working (even under the 3.41 beta software). It does, however, seem to require that the unit be in "mass storage" mode.  If it is, a list of files comes up in the "merge/delete"  dialog box. If it is not, "active log" is displayed.  And therein lies the "problem"....

So as an FYI to anyone who may run into this,  that appears to be the answer to my original question and reflects a behavior in the Oregon (and, I assume, other newer units) that is different from my older serial units that had no "mass storage mode" and were perfectly happy to download all data from the "active log."  Thus far, I am not aware of any other incantations or rituals that need to be involved.

KenF

83

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Heart Rate - Garmin Oregon

« on: December 17, 2009, 04:37:36 PM »

There has to be something there.

I acquired a Foretrex 401 too. Same problem. NO recording of  HR no matter what I do. I have asked Garmin whether it is supposed to be recording HR. No response yet.

Edit/Followup: According to Garmin the Foretrex 401 displays but does not record heart rate.   

KenF    

84

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Heart Rate - Garmin Oregon

« on: December 17, 2009, 10:45:20 AM »

So you are getting the exact same data (coordinates, time, etc) but without the HR now?  Huh.

Correct, there does not appear to be any problem with the "active log" entires other than the missing heart rate when loaded into TF using the merge delete dialog box.

Obvious thought - perhaps Garmin has modified their protocol or this version of the Oregon software (I wish they would use the more common term "firmware" even if it isn't completely accurate) has some glitch.

KenF

85

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Heart Rate - Garmin Oregon

« on: December 16, 2009, 09:24:59 PM »

Hmm, that is very strange indeed.  I always leave my tracklog on, too.  And mine seems to see / grab the HR data with it on.  I just downloaded tonight's night ride and it came up with a location as a path to the file, and saved to .TCX with the full HR data for the ride in tact.

I'll keep an eye out for it as I download more tracks.  Let me know if you learn anything more, too.

So much for reproducibility.  I just played with the same segment again and could not
get HR data into TF. Tracklog ON, Tracklog OFF, Spanner Mode, Garmin serial mode.  

What IS consistent is that if the "source" column shows "active log,"  HR is a no go. With a file path shown, HR appears as it should.

The Oregon 3.41 software is a beta.

KenF

86

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Heart Rate - Garmin Oregon

« on: December 16, 2009, 08:02:07 PM »

If there's HR data in the track you are selected (it's OK if the location has them as files -- that's where TF gets the data) it should prompt you to save it as a TCX.

For some reason it isn't seeing it.  Are you sure the track you are picking actually has HR data and isn't another track without it?

Otherwise, maybe send me the Current.gpx file.  I can mock up a fake USB storage and test it on my end.

Well, just to be as accurate as possible, I stopped the track recording,   cleared the track log, set the recording interval to 1 second, started the track recording,  went for a short walk, and then stopped the track recording.

Voila. It seems to be working as it should. Yes, TCX does come up as the default option for the first segment chosen.  I used TF to save both a GPX and a TCX. They appear to have identical information, including heart rate.   

But here's a tidbit that at least makes the "problem" reproducible.
I have always been in the habit of just leaving the track log on (with my older units) and that has never been a problem. It was on when I first encountered the "no HR" problem I described for the Oregon.

When it is on, the source column in the merge/delete dialog shows "active Log" and not a file location.  The same segment in the (presently very limited) active saves via TF with HR when the track log is OFF, but without HR if the track log is on. 

So I don't know whether I have just uncovered a "bug," a "feature" or just an annoying idiosyncrasy. But I expect it could have a software developer pulling his hair out (or just muttering under his breath).

KenF

87

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Heart Rate - Garmin Oregon

« on: December 15, 2009, 07:50:29 PM »

Hmm, I just tried it on my Dakota, and all seemed well.  In the merge/delete tracks dialog did it ask you to save as a TCX file?  That is the default when part of the track has HR or CAD data.

Somehow the HR data is getting stripped in there for an Oregon, I guess.  I'm not coming up with anything that could be different, but I'll keep thinking.  I'm pretty sure you have a recent version of TF, probably very recent.

Hmm.

The merge/delete tracks dialog is working exactly as it always has for me - (except for the speed - this is my first USB unit). There's a slew of track segments - I pick one and "save selected" ...

Oh wait,  if the unit is in "mass storage" mode I am seeing a list of files under "location" instead of a bunch of "active log" entries.  But none of the listed files are from today.

But back to your question - the dialog box  prompts for the name of a file name and defaults to GPX (I just tried the TCX option - still no HR data).

TF 3.95, Oregon firmware - 3.41 beta.
 
That's about it.

Ken F. 
 

88

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Heart Rate - Garmin Oregon

« on: December 15, 2009, 05:09:52 PM »

What about the GPX on the unit itself?  Look for Current.gpx in Garmin/GPX or maybe Garmin/GPX/Current

Yup. It's there. Both in the "Current" GPX file (which has not been deleted since I got the unit) and in a "saved portion" containing the last brief experimental snippet. Alas, TF does not pick up the HR data from the same snippet.

Let me clarify - TF does not pick up the HR data when the snippet is chosen in the "merge/delete downloaded tracks" box. TF does read the HR data properly by loading the snippet's GPX file from the unit.

KenF  
  

89

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Heart Rate - Garmin Oregon

« on: December 15, 2009, 04:54:29 PM »

No tricks that I know of -- the data should be there in the GPX file.  Have a look at the GPX and double check that it is there (it should be pretty obvious, the string surrounding the data is quite long).

Are you using TF to download the track?  It's possible it's getting lost in that saving process.  Maybe check the GPX on the unit itself for HR values.  I will test with my Dakota and HR strap on my next couple rides.

Hmmm... Yes, using TF. The GPX file ends up being plain vanilla - no HR data (not like the example file w/HR you sent me a while back).     

I have posed the same question to Garmin tech support.
KenF

90

TopoFusion Pro / Heart Rate - Garmin Oregon

« on: December 15, 2009, 04:27:12 PM »

Are there any specific tricks for configuring an Oregon and/or TF to have heart rate recorded? It's showing up on the screen of the unit but is missing from the corresponding recorded track.

KenF

91

TopoFusion Pro / Re: zoom box ? Why so weird ?

« on: December 15, 2009, 08:21:19 AM »

... but why use Custom Maps foir topos? Assuming you live in the US, you could check www.GPSFileDepot.com for 24K topos of your area. And those will store as maps. THis will free the space for more  aerial kmz files.

Noted. In essence I'm just starting to learn my way around this new device and while I have downloaded files from GPSFileDepot, I have not yet had them working.  My use of KMZ topos was just a matter of grabbing something, anything from TF to experiment with.   

It's good to know the GPSFileDepot files will not take up space which could be used for KMZ's.

But the limitation on loadable KMZ's is a huge downside (a Garmin problem, not a TF problem) as far as I can see. I would have hoped to store and use at least a few hundred megabytes worth of aerial imagery.  As it stands now, that ain't gonna' happen.

KenF

92

TopoFusion Pro / Re: GARMIN kmz export view total of 100 tile limit for all maps ??

« on: December 13, 2009, 10:36:07 PM »

You are correct, there is a 100 tile limit for the entire GPS.  Hopefully that limit is either increased or a method of turning on/off maps is introduced.

I am wondering whether 100 tiles will always be the limit. By way of example, I used TF to create a 135 tile KMZ and loaded it into Google Earth. It worked, but navigating/manipulation was VERY slow on my desktop machine. It may be that the Colorado/Oregon/Dakota units will simply choke on more data. I hope that is not the case.
 

93

TopoFusion Pro / Re: zoom box ? Why so weird ?

« on: December 13, 2009, 01:48:29 PM »

I suspect that the details of this feature will become more of an issue as folks may be wanting to select and export areas (especially KMZ uploads)  that do not correspond to screen aspect ratio. I hope to playing with this more soon.      

Yup.  I am starting to work with uploading KMZ files to an Oregon and would very much like to be able to accurately select  the imagery to be uploaded with a user-drawn box on the screen.

The KMZ upload capability of TF is impressive and relatively seamless to use.

On the other hand, Garmin seems to have crippled the usefulness by (1) imposing severe limitations on the amount of raster imagery that can be uploaded and  (2) preventing the user selectable choice of  two different tilesets that cover the same area (like topo and aerial imagery).

For example the limit is 100 "tiles."  I uploaded the 2M Topo imagery for a local area of roughly 10 x 7 miles. That was only 15 MB worth of data but used up 54 tiles.

In the space remaining I can upload some corresponding aerial imagery, but, as far as I am aware, it is not presently possible (on an Oregon 300) to switch between topo and aerial imagery covering the same area.

94

Feature Requests / Re: Zoom recenters on mouse cursor

« on: December 13, 2009, 01:10:39 PM »

Currently, the mouse scroll-wheel zoom stays centered on the map screen center in many of the tool modes.  I wonder if it would be possible to enable an option to select a change of this default behavior so that zooming in and out could simply recenter the screen based on the position of the mouse cursor instead?

I think I would like this too. Similarly, some time ago I suggested having the zoom OUT function (right click with the zoom tool) re-center the screen on the point that was clicked.  I would still like to see that too. 

95

Feature Requests / Re: Place Names

« on: December 01, 2009, 11:22:15 AM »

I was going to suggest some form of "bookmarks" wherein you can set a bookmark at a particular coordinate and have it available in the "Goto" menu ...

To follow up:
Fact of the matter is that your very own waypoints do become searchable via  "GOTO" if you add them  to the "city-small.gpx" or "city-large.gpx" files found in the "GIS" subfolder of the "tracks" folder.

That also suggests that there are probably other variations on this theme.
 
 

96

Feature Requests / Re: Place Names

« on: November 29, 2009, 08:25:13 PM »

I was going to suggest some form of "bookmarks" wherein you can set a bookmark at a particular coordinate and have it available in the "Goto" menu

but I really would like to be able to quickly zip over to a particular spot on the map.

Actually a version of this already exists albeit a tad awkward to navigate. You can create a .GPX file consisting only of waypoints of your "bookmarks," select the "properties" of that file and then bring up the list of waypoints. Double click on the one you want.

So maybe Scott could be talked into simply implementing a shortcut of this procedure. Like adding a "show waypoints" option to the right-click menu of a loaded file?   
KF

97

TopoFusion Pro / Re: zoom box ? Why so weird ?

« on: November 27, 2009, 10:00:42 PM »

I guess there are some advantages of the other method, I really haven't thought too much about it since implementing the zoom box some years ago.

The problem with choosing two corners is the aspect ratio of the TF window will not be the same, so you will never get exactly what you click on (I think most programs simply give you more than what you covered).

TF's zoom box stays the same as the aspect ratio of the window, but I suppose it is a non-standard way of doing it.  Anyone like it better?

An option for both would make sense.

In the meantime, try holding down CTRL and using the +/- (or pgup/pgdown) keys.  With CTRL down you get a very subtle change in zoom level -- very handy for getting what you want out of the export feature.

I think I am inclined to agree with the OP, although most of my zooming is controlled by the combination of the mouse scroll wheel  in conjunction with the pan tool. But having accurate control over the placement of a beginning corner of a zoom rectangle would be good. Photoshop is a good example of where a selected rectangular area (for zoom or any other function) is defined by an initial corner, yet the zoom rectangle can be normal (free form), fixed aspect  ratio, or fixed size.  And once "drawn" the defined box can be dragged around.

I suspect that the details of this feature will become more of an issue as folks may be wanting to select and export areas (especially KMZ uploads)  that do not correspond to screen aspect ratio. I hope to playing with this more soon.  

In any case, being able to make an export selection visually rather than by specifying X by Y figures would be a treat. I know in the past I have run into situations where I  struggled to get an export to accurately cover the area I wanted when the content of the export was intended to match a printed page. Sure, as a kludge one can export a larger area and then, for example,  crop in Photoshop, but it would be great to have all the functionality in one location.  

    

98

GPS, Trails, Training / Newest Garmin GPS units and TF

« on: November 16, 2009, 09:22:24 PM »

I know that I had visions years ago of what I would like my GPS techno-arena to include and TF has filled in a huge part of that vision. Newer Garmin GPS devices appear to be another step toward my perfect system.

So some of you folks must have some of the newer units that support TF uploads of TF created images (Oregon, Dakota and Colorado). Seems like the best of all worlds.

Presently I would be leaning toward acquiring a Dakota 20 for its size, price and general capabilities.
Downsides (from research) seem to be display readability (Scott?) and a mere USB 1.1 interface (if that is true).  Is it true that the wireless capability does NOT work with a  computer running TF? (understood that a Garmin USB dongle might be necessary) A shame if true.

So whady'allthink?

KF
   

99

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Garmin 310 + A.N.T. does it work with Topofusion?

« on: October 27, 2009, 07:58:22 PM »

I can send you a GPX with HR if you're interested.

Thanks, yes, I would be. If for no other reason than to have an example to play with (for example, as I bounce between TF and GE). Maybe I'll even be able to offer input for TF tweaks.  Also, I have been using a Polar HRM since last century (literally) and, while it still works well,  it might be nice to have "one stop shopping" when accumulating data (One can never have too much data).  I played briefly with an iBike power meter which offered the promise of most data in one spot, but I became tired of being an uncompensated guinea pig for a product that really did not do what it promised and required WAY too much tinkering.  TF on the other hand has always been good and has always been improving.

Thanks
KF
           

100

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Garmin 310 + A.N.T. does it work with Topofusion?

« on: October 27, 2009, 06:44:36 PM »

The Oregon and Dakota store the data in GPX files, while the Forerunner uses TCX. 
...
I just got a Dakota and will be experimenting with the HR support.

Just to follow up- Based on my cursory reading of a few bits of info, including posts here, I was lead to believe that  GPX did not support additional data like HR. But I have not looked into any of this in depth and I'll bet you have. Maybe you could post a GPX file with HR?  Also, I haven't looked - can TF provide a graphical display of HR?

And I was referring to Foretrex not Forerunner. (Note to Garmin: I hope you fired the folks that named these things way back when - how about new names so we don't get confused?) But for me, the Foretrex 201 has been a great little unit, especially when used with TF.

Also if you could, give us (OK,  me) your feedback on the Dakota. I expect your use of GPS comes closer to mine than just about anyone else who might write a review.  I also have an original Etrex Legend, have considered the newer Legend HCx, but the Dakota seems to have all the features/functions, plus a few more. Seems like a no-brainer if and when I get around to upgrading.     
Thanks.

KF