Map My Ride Membership

Vélo

Has anyone here got a Premium Membership on Map My Ride?

It seems like it's worth doing as it only works out at $48 or is it a gimmick?

Do you find it beneficial?

Chips Lovell

I've given up on Mapmyride. I used to use Routeslip, which was bought out by Mapmyride. I've never been particuarly happy with it since that change. Interface is extremly cluttered, so much so its hard to see much of the map onscreen and it's very slow.

I now use Bikeroutetoaster, which is simple, clean, fast and free.

jollylee

Haha snap!


I use this free mapping site: http://bikeroutetoaster.com/Course.aspx

Its very informative and efficient once you used to it. I also use it to save my routes as .gpx files to send to friends and to compare routes. It gives a lot of info regarding elevation changes etc. Also gives que sheets with directions and gives estimated journey times with speeds you set yourself.

Vélo

I'm thinking of getting a Garmin in the future.
Can routes be downloaded from that site?

Chips Lovell

Aquinas73 wrote: »

I'm thinking of getting a Garmin in the future.
Can routes be downloaded from that site?

From the front page:

BikeRouteToaster.com is a course creation application primarily aimed at Garmin Edge/Forerunner owners although other users without a GPS may also find it useful for planning rides.

Vélo

Thanks for that.

I'm having trouble getting on to the site at the moment.

Will give it a go later.

Lumen

Google maps works well for Garmin course creation, I've found.

See gmap2tcx

I looked briefly at the toaster yoke, but the mapping seemed a bit limited.

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Google maps works well for Garmin course creation, I've found.

See gmap2tcx

I looked briefly at the toaster yoke, but the mapping seemed a bit limited.

It looks quite primitive, but it is very useful. It adds in "left/right turn here" notifications. This is handy if you are using a Forerunner.

Lumen

The way I imagine building a course is:

- Type in destinations (e.g. Enniskerry, Sally Gap, Knockraheen, Enniskerry)
- Drag route around.
- Download to Garmin.

This is how Google maps works.

I don't understand bikeroutetoaster. I can't see where to type in addresses. Do I have to actually find stuff on the map by scrolling around and zooming in?

Am I missing something?

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

The way I imagine building a course is:

- Type in destinations (e.g. Enniskerry, Sally Gap, Knockraheen, Enniskerry)
- Drag route around.
- Download to Garmin.

This is how Google maps works.

I don't understand bikeroutetoaster. I can't see where to type in addresses. Do I have to actually find stuff on the map by scrolling around and zooming in?

Am I missing something?

Just draw it. Tis simple.

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

Just draw it. Tis simple.

OK, I'm not missing anything then. Thanks

Diarmuid

Jsut tried BikeRouteToaster. That website is what MMR was trying to be for a long time. The autorouting works very well. Sweet.

blorg

BikeRouteToaster does work OK but the Google mapping it uses is a bit off reality in places which can see you going off course sometimes. I now use MapSource which is perfect, costs money though.

short circuit

I went for a ride in Wicklow this weekend. I used Bikeroutetoaster to map the ride and I got 1700mts of climb.

Once I came back, I loaded the data from my forerunner 205 to motionbased and without any correction, it gave me 3500 mts climb .. this I assume is garmin metres and completely wrong.

After I applied MB correction, it gave me 2200mts.

I uploaded the same data from the garmin into Sporttracks and that gives me 1800mts climb.

Finally, I mapped the exact same route on mapmyride and that shows only 1000 mts of climb.

Have any of you noticed this difference .... and which one do you trust ...

Raam

short circuit wrote: »

I went for a ride in Wicklow this weekend. I used Bikeroutetoaster to map the ride and I got 1700mts of climb.

Once I came back, I loaded the data from my forerunner 205 to motionbased and without any correction, it gave me 3500 mts climb .. this I assume is garmin metres and completely wrong.

After I applied MB correction, it gave me 2200mts.

I uploaded the same data from the garmin into Sporttracks and that gives me 1800mts climb.

Finally, I mapped the exact same route on mapmyride and that shows only 1000 mts of climb.

Have any of you noticed this difference .... and which one do you trust ...

Some may be due to errors, however...
You can configure what type of grade is actually considered a climb. I.e. the garmin may report every bit of gain as a climb, when in reality it's ever so slightly uphill.

short circuit

Raam wrote: »

Some may be due to errors, however...
You can configure what type of grade is actually considered a climb. I.e. the garmin may report every bit of gain as a climb, when in reality it's ever so slightly uphill.

Can I configure on the forerunner 205 ... how do I do it? Or is it on any of the websites ... again which one allows for it.

Raam

short circuit wrote: »

Can I configure on the forerunner 205 ... how do I do it? Or is it on any of the websites ... again which one allows for it.

Sporttracks lets you do it on the data that you retrieve from the garmin.
It's under settings, somewhere.

short circuit

Raam wrote: »

Sporttracks lets you do it on the data that you retrieve from the garmin.
It's under settings, somewhere.

Thanking you ... got it under settings .. its called elevation smoothing ... can get the elevation of the same ride anywhere from 2500mts to under 900 by playing with the scale ... finally left it at around 40 .. as at that value it matched the elevation from bikeroutetoaster ... looks like I have some reading to do to figure out a good value for that parameter

Raam

short circuit wrote: »

Thanking you ... got it under settings .. its called elevation smoothing ... can get the elevation of the same ride anywhere from 2500mts to under 900 by playing with the scale ... finally left it at around 40 .. as at that value it matched the elevation from bikeroutetoaster ... looks like I have some reading to do to figure out a good value for that parameter

The good news is that it doesn't change what you actually did on the bike
I wouldn't worry to much about it.

Lumen

short circuit wrote: »

looks like I have some reading to do to figure out a good value for that parameter

Surely you just pick the value that results in the most impressive number?

Or have I misunderstood the point of bike computers...

short circuit

Raam wrote: »

The good news is that it doesn't change what you actually did on the bike
I wouldn't worry to much about it.

Very true ... in either case I was dead when I got home ...

Lumen wrote: »

Surely you just pick the value that results in the most impressive number?

Or have I misunderstood the point of bike computers...

I like the way you think ... ... but I am a bit anal on having the numbers right ... not that I use them much once I know they are right .. :rolleyes:

Raam

short circuit wrote: »

Very true ... in either case I was dead when I got home ...



I like the way you think ... ... but I am a bit anal on having the numbers right ... not that I use them much once I know they are right .. :rolleyes:

It depends on what you class as "right". One persons "epic climb" is another persons "slight bump on the road". Slight exageration, but I hope it makes the point.