Suunto Routeplanner

[Willy]

@kemetter

Please consider the following purely for informational purposes.
As I was particularly curious about the Suunto web GPX export.
The web presentation is actually very well done.
The GPX export differs from what I expected

See attachments:
Suunto_route.gpx
Suunto_navtrk.gpx

The Suunto GPX export and a comparable copy as a GPX navtrk file.
The original GPX file was manually edited for this purpose using Notepad++.
The GPX navrrk copy therefore so do not contain any trackpoint timestamps.
A few GPX WPTs have been added with a Garmin-compatible sym.
One of these GPX WPTs also contains an operational web link.
The GPX WPT list is not unnecessarily cluttered with turn instructions.
See also the presentation in the Cruiser desktop version.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

[Willy]

@Mff73 said in Suunto Routeplanner:

It is more how routes and Waypoints are handled in Suunto routing current mecanisms.

@ all
The Suunto Web Planner gpx export includes items 1 and 2.

1. A “direct” gpx (rte) route. (Rarely used)
   Some apps treat such “direct” routes as tracks.
   Other apps may refuse to import or even do crash.
2. Suunto gpx extension.
   The gpx extension ensures the *association between gpx rtept and unique corresponding gpx wpt that contains the instructions.

Find some gpx variants. (Inclusive Suunto gpx extension).
Can a volunteer (watch owner) import, test and report pse ?

A_Suunto_route.gpx (Original rte export)
B_Suunto_track.gpx (rte converted to trk)

C_Suunto_route+wpt.gpx (A + extra wpt)
D_Suunto_track+wpt.gpx (B + extra wpt)

E_Suunto_navtrk.gpx
F_Suunto_navtrk+wpt.gpx

G_Basic_navtrk.gpx (Contains no gpx wpt nor gpx extensions)

• Association
  The required strict association is handled differently in a Plotaroute (Locus) gpx export.
  As this is applied in a very similar way as used in a Garmin tcx course_coursepoints file.
  The Garmin tcx course with coursepoints file is the “forerunner” of true track tbt navigation.

• In a gpx tbt navigation track this “fragile” association complexity is unnecessary.
  The instructions are directly attached in the relevant gpx (trkpt) trackpoints. (As well Cruiser and Locus map do navigate this file)

[Mff73]

@Willy
What do you want “us” to test?
Importability? Routability? Something else?
I read all your posts, all about gpx files, and still not sure to understand where you are trying to guide us.

[Willy]

@Mff73
Importability.
The reference is the A (rte) file. (Original).
Do file B to G import as well ?
“I am most curious about the B (trk) result”

• If succesfull than next
  Routability.
  Do files B to F show the TBT as well or not ?
  If nok than test STOP and over and out
  If ok than continue with a more complicated (multioverlap) track

[ChrisTrail38]

Hello @kemetter !
This is a great app for viewing and creating routes on a larger screen. Would it be possible to add a route generator that lets you enter parameters like “duration,” “distance,” and “elevation gain”?

[Willy]

@Mff73
Import of gpx (trk)tracks in the Suunto Web Planner is positive.
Simple compare by “manually” adding the tbt data in trackpoints.
Manual edit prone to “typos.” In previous files one right should be left.

• Out-and-return overlap track test file series.
  Observe compare and study, open in Notepad++
  1A_Suunto out and return rte.gpx
  1AA_Suunto out and return trk.gpx
  1B_Suunto out and return navtrk.gpx
  1C_Out and return navtrk.gpx
  1D_ A small file sized compressed gpz version is possible
  The upload of gpz or zip files is not possible in this forum
  1E_Out_and_return_course.tcx
  1F_Out_and_return_course.fit

The Suunto gpx extension only adds the via trackpoint bindings.
I seriously doubt this is sufficient for 100% TBT reliablility.
In the previous simple track the Suunto TBT generation is correct.
In the out-and-return track the Suunto TBT generation is incomplete.
Specifically 2 TBTs in the overlap return track section are missing.

True Track TBT file modes.
https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues/14147#issuecomment-1114034225

[atoponce]

Planning another long run of ~35 km, give or take. As expected, the Suunto Route Planner has non-uniform spacing between distance ticks on the x-axis:

• 0 km
• 1 km (+1)
• 3 km (+2)
• 6 km (+3)
• 8 km (+2)
• 13 km (+5)
• 16 km (+3)
• 18 km (+2)
• 24 km (+6)
• 33 km (+9)
• 35 km (+2)

This gives a skewed view of the elevation profile:

Compare to the uniform spacing using onthegomap.com:

[Mitch9]

@atoponce Yes, I can confirm this strange behaviour.

[brechtvb]

@atoponce same here

[baaaa]

The problem with how trails and roads are displayed is simply disastrous - even in the route planner, compare the map at nearly the same scale and see how drastically it changes!

https://routeplanner.suunto.com/?lat=49.851338&lng=22.607213&zoom=13.1&style=outdoo

https://routeplanner.suunto.com/?lat=49.851338&lng=22.607213&zoom=12.95&style=outdoor

These aren’t watches, but maps on a computer - what’s the point of hiding so many roads?

[davemaps]

Thank you for making this – it is much more convenient for me to make routes from my laptop than on my iPhone.

My question is regarding elevation data. It appears that the web route planner is using a very different algorithm or digital elevation model. It undercounts by about 50%! This makes it difficult to plan runs or rides in hilly or mountainous areas. Why is the calculation so different between each Suunto platform?

I made a route for a run today that was about 10.3mi (16.6km).

Suunto Route Planner (website):
Gain: 646ft (197m)
Loss: 656ft (200m)

Suunto iOS app route builder:
Gain: 923ft (281m)
Loss: 895ft (273m)

Suunto Vertical 2 watch (the recording of my run):
Gain: 1235ft (376m)
Loss: 1199ft (365m)

For comparison, here is the elevation estimate from the Strava website route builder:
Gain: 1354ft (413m)
Loss: 1333ft (406m)

[atoponce]

@davemaps I’ve always found wildly different estimations that I don’t know who to trust. For example, I’ve got a trail run loop tomorrow. According to the different mapping tools I use:

• OnTheGoMap: Gain and loss: 7700 ft (2346 m)
• Plot-a-route: Gain and loss: 7011 ft (2137 m)
• Strava: Gain and loss: 6555 ft (1998 m)
• Suunto RoutePlanner: Gain and loss: 6214 ft (1894 m)

I’ve found that OnTheGoMap gets really close to what my Race S calculates, provided I’ve got stable weather. Crazy that so many different mapping tools can vary so much.

[sky-runner]

@davemaps I think the difference can be explained not by the absolute data accuracy but by the data resolution and thresholds used by algorithms.

The difference is the most noticeable when I plan a running route on a rolling terrain with a lot of small changes in elevation rather than one large climb and one large descent. I find that the elevation data produced by Suunto App and probably especially the route planner tends to be quite smoothed with a lot of smaller changes in elevation disappearing entirely. In some places I may be going up and down through a substantial dip, but the estimated elevation data would show that as a steady climb. Because of this smoothness, a part of estimated elevation gain is lost with every small climb or descent - the more small climbs and descents there are the more difference in estimated data vs the actual measurements. And not only the total elevation gain and loss numbers that are affected but also climb guidance data for individual climbs - all of them are usually short by anywhere from 10 to 30 feet (3-10 meters).