Charles Dixon-Paver <char...@kartoza.com> writes: > Routes are an ordered combination of points, which indicate the position > and direction, whilst tracks are a log of the receiver position over time.
True. > In practice, if you were just tracking a hike through the forest, it's > probably not of great importance, however if you were doing field capture > of high fidelity data (e.g. a road network, with specific start and end > positions in a street, with the direction indicating traffic flow etc), you > would probably find the distinction has significantly more value. A That's not really how it ends up in practice usually. A route is basically a plan for a navigation session, sort of "start here, then go here, then go there". Routes are typically created as a planning operation, and then loaded onto a receiver (or you can create them on the device, but you are using it as a computer when you do). Tracks are typically a record of observations, and thus represent a history of where the device was. One can transfer a track to a device, and can typically also say "route along this track". One thing to note about GPX is that there is a standard and then there are extensions. https://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1/gpx.xsd So it may be that the navigation program the OP is using stores information about distance and time. GPX proper is just a list of waypoints. From that one can of course compute distance, but not time. I am not sure if Jimi created "tracks" or "routes". I would suggest reading the GPX file with a text editor to understand what files are in there. If it is unreadable due to poor formatting choices (a belief that whitespace doesn't matter in gpx becuase it is for computers not humans :-( ), gpsbabel as a filter to read and write gpx may help.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Qgis-user mailing list Qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user