Import GPX to SA with waypoints

JorgeFD

Hi

I’m on Android. How can I import a gpx with waypoints in SA using QA? I never read about this. I know it is possible to tu QA to sync routes bit no waypoints

Egika

I have just recently synced routes with way points successfully to the S9 using QS and the beta version of the iOS suunto app.
Worked like a charm.

margusl

Suunto’s understanding of POIs in GPX is bit … peculiar. Meaning that the source of your gpx-files plays the most important part here.

You could either use Plotaroute (uploading your existing file there and just exporting it should do the trick) or Movescount route builder (there’s an option for exporting gpx), probably there are few others tools/services, but majority of other sources will not provide you with Suunto-compatible POIs in gpx-files.

luboskovar

@Egika You are right! I have just tryed import GPX with WP from QA to SA and WP are there! Unfortunately SA doesn´t support edit saved route If you would like to make change on the route, you have to do it in external editor and import new route once more.

Egika

@luboskovar yes

fritzbt2013

@luboskovar What’s QA? Thanks

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@fritzbt2013 QS apparently he means. Quantified-Self.IO

luboskovar

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos Exactly - QS

kabzior

OK, so here is my attempt to import a gpx route with WP to iOS SA using QS.
It is a 13,3 km route with 2 WP.
This is how it looks like:
text alternatywny

And this is the result in SA:
text alternatywny

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@kabzior that looks strange !

paata

@kabzior the same thing happened in my case when I used mapy.cz for gpx export and QS for import. Almost infinite amount of points.

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

It can be the way it’s created. If they add a wpt (waypoint) for each dot sure.

But that should not be the cases imo.

kabzior

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Import GPX to SA with waypoints:

that looks strange

Indeed…
Well, since I am a scientist, I decided to check it with three repetitions on different sites that I use

First off, here’s the route:
created in SA, it has 6.22 km and 492m ascent (the latter value seems wrong to me)
text alternatywny

Now let’s move on to the services that offer route creation and gpx export:

mapy.cz
komoot
mapa-turystyczna

text alternatywny

Okay, now that we have a mapped route, it’s time to import it into SA.
Below is the effect of importing a gpx file (saved in icloud) directly in SA (from the left: mapy.cz, komoot, mapa-tusrystyczna):
text alternatywny

Now exactly the same files, but sent via QS (same order):
text alternatywny

And finally a curiosity - summary of the distance/ascent from all three websites depending on the method of import (gpx file downloaded via web and uploaded directly or via QS):
text alternatywny

Conclusions:

None of the services allows you to import routes with WP, whether directly or via QS
Mapy.cz gpx imported by QS adds an infinite number of WP
The same route has a similar distance but completely different ascent depending on the site
The same gpx file has a different ascent depending on the import method (this is especially strange to me)

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

That’s a good report. I think it’s also mentioned in the api docs for suunto to get waypoints , they need to be inside the track, and with a valid lat,lon. No idea how services do that.

Imo suunto should improve this.

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

And just to add some context here. QS doesn’t touch anything from the file. It just does an API request.

kabzior

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Import GPX to SA with waypoints:

And just to add some context here. QS doesn’t touch anything from the file. It just does an API request.

QS is a great service, not to mention the presentation of data that is beyond the competition, but uploading gpx via QS is a bit faster and more convenient than uploading it to icloud and importing in SA (excluding the mapy.cz file of course).
It seems to me that there will always be some problems in various websites with route import with WP and the best solution is to simply allow editing of the route in SA. For me, the best service is mapy.cz because of its incredible accuracy, you can find the smallest forest paths there, and although the editor in SA is really comfortable, ergonomic and useful, the map layer in mapy.cz is simply better and I find planning routes more conveniently there. So I would like to import gpx from mapy.cz to SA (preferably via QS) and add points already in SA, which I can do, but only during import process, and if I decide to add WP then I have to start the whole process from the beginning.
However, what puzzles me the most are the differences in ascent when processing exactly the same gpx file. I understand that gpx from other services may have different values, but the same gpx uploaded by SA or by QS probably should not show a different ascent (each time the elev when using QS is greater than when uploading directly to SA). Strange.

Fenr1r

Approaching this non-scientifically, I took a look at a GPX, theoretically labelled with a few waypoints, exported by Mapy.cz, using different programs.

@kabzior Footnote/addition to Conclusion 2 (or maybe even its own number): “Mapy.cz does not export user-created waypoints in gpx routes.” Because what it exports are essentially tracks.

For starters, the points are “trkpt” not “rtept” and the GPX file doesn’t contain the names you might have chosen (i.e. selected from Mapy’s own offering as that’s the only way vs the default coordinates-as-labels) at all. (The KML does.)

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos I reckon you nailed it with

If they add a wpt (waypoint) for each dot sure.

Mapy.cz does name all the generated points with truncated versions of their coordinates. I guess it’s down to how the sites/programs choose to display labelled trackpoints in GPX imported as “routes”. E.g., Google Earth Pro considers that export to be a “track”. (The KML is a “route”)

While I like the appearance of Mapy.cz, I have to say it’s on them for not including the user-defined waypoint names, and not helpfully exporting the GPX as an unmistakeable route file. In their defence, they do sort of hint at a general limitation deep in the Help pages:

When exporting to a *.gpx format there are two types of output (route - only breakpoints, track - whole route)

PLEASE NOTE! Only GPX files containing “track” entries are supported.
Files containing entries “route” and “waypoint” are not supported and cannot be imported.

Another problem with the site is that only uses snap-to-road/-track. Great for the “the smallest forest paths”, useless for trackless areas.

Dimitrios Kanellopoulos

@Fenr1r I dont understand why it’s so hard in the GPX world for companies / services to keep it consistent and “compatible”. I bet they have their reasons but I would be interested to know why.

Not that I know well, but it’s remarkable this variance.

kabzior

@Fenr1r said in Import GPX to SA with waypoints:

Another problem with the site is that only uses snap-to-road/-track. Great for the “the smallest forest paths”, useless for trackless areas.

That is true, but this is where SA comes into play, their free-drawing is one of the best I have seen, easily beats komoot. And they use mapbox which is way better IMO than OSM (yes, I know mapbox is based on OSM), not as good as mapy.cz but still one of the best so far (not to mention Connect app with their google maps, that’s a joke). Mapy.cz with free- drawing like in SA would be ideal

TBH I do not know the first thing about gpx and that technology, what really confuses me is why I can not upload gpx from mapy.cz to SA via QS, while it works just fine when I upload the very same gpx directly in SA.

Fenr1r

@Dimitrios-Kanellopoulos said in Import GPX to SA with waypoints:

I bet they have their reasons but I would be interested to know why.

Yeah. Me too. So many conjectures.

In the meantime, perhaps the GPX file’s versatility is also it’s curse: it can sorta be made to work even when it shouldn’t. It might be that, following the manufacturers’ proprietary format domination, things went a little bit too wild west.