[closed] Using routes or tracks to plan a hike?

[torup1]

Hi,
I'd like advice on when to use routes and when to use tracks. I had thought that a route was what you planned and a track was where you've been. But the documentation explains how you can manually create a track and then use path following, which seems to fit the bill for open countryside walking.
So what are the pros and cons of using routes v tracks for planning in AQ?
Thanks

[Yemble]

I presume that when you say "track", you are refering the the landmark known as "path" in AQ? So you are really comparing the creation of a "route" with that of a "path".

I see what you mean though, they are very similar in operation. Route creation is faster, but less flexible, since it does not allow for waypoint naming, or for freehand drawing. However, this does seem to be a duplication of functionality, so perhaps the two functions should be merged into one (with some configurable options)?

Unless I'm missing something?

[torup1]

Thanks for the info Yemble. Just for information I used the term 'track' because that's what it's called in the AQ documentation (under Landmarks).

[Psyberia-Support]

Tracks and paths are the same thing in the app, I just try to use "Path" when it's drawn by the user, and "Track" when it has been recorded. I"ll update the online help accordingly.

Routes are a bit different, you can see them as a sequence (ordered list) of waypoints. It's useful when you are just interested by some stages, but not the exact path to get to them. Each stage is a waypoint, which you can name or edit like any waypoint.

If you want to follow a particular path, then "Manually draw a path" would be better for you.