Need format advice

[+BCandMsKitty]

I have recently been asked to sit on a local trails committee. When I introduced myself, I told them (of course) about Geocaching. Suddenly I'm the GPS expert!

In order to not disillusion them, I'm coming here for some advice.

We are working on a new updated trails brochure complete with maps, descriptions, etc. etc.

We want to include GPS coordinates in the info balloon. The question is, what would be the best format(s) There will be room for two format configurations, and my question is ....

what is the most popular format for Auto GPSr units, right out of the box? (such as Nuvi, and Tom Tom. The thinking is to allow the majority of folks to enter the coords without having to change the options in their units?

Another assumption is that hand-held users will have no trouble with either of the proposes formats.

 

Here is a mock-up of what the info will look like in the brochure.

 

 

Will these two coord formats (MinDec, and Decimal) be compatible with the majority of users?

Or would there be something better?

 

Looking to the real experts to maybe help me out!

Edited February 21, 2015 by BC & MsKitty

[+BikeBill]

Geocaching generally relies on degrees, minutes and decimal minutes as shown in your first set of coordinates. Any of the popular GPSr's should be able to handle that. Some built-in car nav systems may not have that format set as default but I'm guessing that most of them can be changed to that format, too.

Edited February 21, 2015 by BikeBill

[cleo43]

For precision I'd choose the first, for easy of use the latter.

Tomtom will take both (and more) in spite of the format chosen in preference setting.

Garmin will chop the last digit (5 instead of 6) of the latter.

Just my HO.

[+palmetto]

If you're going to supply 2 formats, then Decimal Degrees and Degrees, Minutes, Decimal Minutes per your illustration.

 

What I wouldn't use is Degrees, Minutes, Seconds.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

If you're going to supply 2 formats, then Decimal Degrees and Degrees, Minutes, Decimal Minutes per your illustration.

 

What I wouldn't use is Degrees, Minutes, Seconds.

I agree with this.

 

One thing that should be mentioned however, is what datum one is expected to use. It seems often enough here in the forums that somebody's GPSr is set to the wrong datum. Maybe they don't know about datums, or have a "previously-used" unit that was set-up utilizing a different one.

[+Mineral2]

I think most GPSs come pre-set to the WGS84 datum, so that shouldn't be an issue.

 

Of the Lat-Lon formats, I don't think it's useful to include multiple formats. Most hiking guides seem to use the DD MM.MMM format along with geocaching.com, and I believe that's the default format in most GPS's as well. Personally, I find that when coupling coordinates with a paper map, the UTM system is easier to deal with, and I'm sure there are others who would agree with me. You might think about using the Degrees - Minutes for your first format and UTM for your second.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Thanks for the quick responses.

Keep any suggestions/opinions coming.

I'll have to distill them all to the lowest common ... well, you know ....

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I think most GPSs come pre-set to the WGS84 datum, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Yeah, I see that Groundspeak says that in the Help Center... but so many come her to ask why their unit is "so far off", be advised to check the datum and lo-and-behold, it is set wrong.

 

It would be nice if "pre-sets" were uniform, but it doesn't appear to be the case. It was set otherwise somehow.

[+Cardinal Red]

My least favorite format of the big three is the hdd mm.mmm, but it is the GPS default, so you have to go with it. Otherwise the most popular format is hdd.ddddd, and if you interact with coordinates via cell phone or online in general (other than geocaching) you will soon see just how popular it is. I think UTM will only confuse your target audience. Anyone that understands UTM should be able to deal with hdd mm.mmm and hdd.ddddd

 

That 6th decimal digit of the hdd.ddddd format would confuse newbie GPS users that had somehow found themselves in that format setting (What do I do with the extra digit?), and only 5 decimal digits should be fine for the cell phone crowd.

 

As much as I personally hate the idea of caching with a cell phone, I can not deny the exploding popularity of those devices. So I would probably reverse the order of those coordinate formats and put hdd.ddddd on top. I would also lose the dash after the word Coordinates (looks too much like a negative sign), and substitute a colon instead. And there is room for WGS84 below the word Coordinates. Anyone that does not understand its significance will just ignore it. But it might actually be welcomed by some, and an educational opportunity for others.

 

I think you have already done a pretty good job representing us geocachers to the Trails Committee. Whatever advise you decide is best will work fine. Just make sure you are there to verify the marked coordinates. Is there any chance a location can be so badly compromised after publication that it is no longer viable? What would you do then? Just something I would think about in advance.

[+BCandMsKitty]

My least favorite format of the big three is the hdd mm.mmm, but it is the GPS default, so you have to go with it. Otherwise the most popular format is hdd.ddddd, and if you interact with coordinates via cell phone or online in general (other than geocaching) you will soon see just how popular it is. I think UTM will only confuse your target audience. Anyone that understands UTM should be able to deal with hdd mm.mmm and hdd.ddddd

 

That 6th decimal digit of the hdd.ddddd format would confuse newbie GPS users that had somehow found themselves in that format setting (What do I do with the extra digit?), and only 5 decimal digits should be fine for the cell phone crowd.

 

As much as I personally hate the idea of caching with a cell phone, I can not deny the exploding popularity of those devices. So I would probably reverse the order of those coordinate formats and put hdd.ddddd on top. I would also lose the dash after the word Coordinates (looks too much like a negative sign), and substitute a colon instead. And there is room for WGS84 below the word Coordinates. Anyone that does not understand its significance will just ignore it. But it might actually be welcomed by some, and an educational opportunity for others.

 

I think you have already done a pretty good job representing us geocachers to the Trails Committee. Whatever advise you decide is best will work fine. Just make sure you are there to verify the marked coordinates. Is there any chance a location can be so badly compromised after publication that it is no longer viable? What would you do then? Just something I would think about in advance.

 

The coordinates were already provided by myself when we started putting the map/brochure together.

Remember, this is not for geocachers, but rather for the general public, and need not be as accurate as needed for a geocache.

Most, if not all the coords are for parking, or obscure driveways. Once in the parking lot, the trail head is signed, and will be starred (or pegged somehow) on the map. Small chance of the locations becoming compromised, unless the parking lot is moved, which I don't think is very likely.

 

The City is paying for the maps to be produced and printed, and I don't know how many they are going to do. It will be something that can be edited, for reprint. I also believe the city's IT department is going to put it all online too, which could certainly be edited quickly, and there will be info on the paper map/brochure that will point people to the website.

Here's sort of what it will look like. (first draft of the page(s), without the coord balloon)

 

Chatham-Kent Trails

 

Thanks for your food for thought!

Edited February 22, 2015 by BC & MsKitty

[+ecanderson]

For a newer TomTom, there's no 'out of the box' setting. It's perfectly happy to accept coordinate data in several formats, parsing them accordingly.

 

If you enter 40.01234 -105.12345 it will take that.

If you enter N40 01.123 W105 12.345 it will take that.

 

On the whole, it is easier to enter numbers in 40.01234 -105.12345 for most devices, though.

 

If you stick to the two above, I think you'll find that works for most others with a fixed format setting.

[+Bear and Ragged]

I think most GPSs come pre-set to the WGS84 datum, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Yeah, I see that Groundspeak says that in the Help Center... but so many come her to ask why their unit is "so far off", be advised to check the datum and lo-and-behold, it is set wrong.

 

It would be nice if "pre-sets" were uniform, but it doesn't appear to be the case. It was set otherwise somehow.

 

It is pre-set.

 

I think people like to 'Play' and press and click the buttons, usually before they know what they are doing...

 

Re coordinates... Can you put both?

with an explanation to see which set peoples device use?

Edited February 21, 2015 by Bear and Ragged

[+JohnCNA]

I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority of auto GPS owners would have no idea how to input and navigate to coordinates. This would apply to most phone users, too. That being said, providing the two most popular formats is a great idea. I have seen a few other parks do that and I love it when they do. Especially those in rural areas where address resolution in street maps is so poor. It would be great to have clickable links on the Web site, too.

[+BCandMsKitty]

I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority of auto GPS owners would have no idea how to input and navigate to coordinates. This would apply to most phone users, too. That being said, providing the two most popular formats is a great idea. I have seen a few other parks do that and I love it when they do. Especially those in rural areas where address resolution in street maps is so poor. It would be great to have clickable links on the Web site, too.

 

Yeah ... I produced all the coordinates, then the powers that be thought they wouldn't use them. Apparently they saw some other organization's maps that did include coords, so now they have decided to put them on.

 

Clickable links? Such as?

 

Here's the first kick at the cat for the site Chatham-Kent Trails

[+ecanderson]

Just be sure that when using coordinates, they are at least somewhere near a known road. I assume you'll be directing them to some sort of trailhead? Automotive units get fussy when they're directed to far from any mapped road, usually producing something on the order of "No route found".

[+BCandMsKitty]

Just be sure that when using coordinates, they are at least somewhere near a known road. I assume you'll be directing them to some sort of trailhead? Automotive units get fussy when they're directed to far from any mapped road, usually producing something on the order of "No route found".

 

I have thought of that, so almost all the coords lead to a parking lot, or to maybe an obscure driveway leading to a parking lot. Very few, if any, lead to a trail head, as those will be signed in the parking lot, and I believe the plan with the company that's producing the map is that the trail heads will be marked on the map.

Automotive units should have no problem with that.

[39_Steps]

The current Nuvi 56 auto gps for Canada may give an error if one types in more than five decimal places, as the 6th decimal digit will replace the 5th. It would better to truncate the display on the map to no more than five digit characters following the dot.

[+ecanderson]

Five after the decimal gets you down to about 1m resolution. Six is just excess that no consumer unit could possibly work to anyway.

[+JohnCNA]

I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority of auto GPS owners would have no idea how to input and navigate to coordinates. This would apply to most phone users, too. That being said, providing the two most popular formats is a great idea. I have seen a few other parks do that and I love it when they do. Especially those in rural areas where address resolution in street maps is so poor. It would be great to have clickable links on the Web site, too.

 

Yeah ... I produced all the coordinates, then the powers that be thought they wouldn't use them. Apparently they saw some other organization's maps that did include coords, so now they have decided to put them on.

 

Clickable links? Such as?

Like when you are on a store or restaurant Web page and they have a 'map' or 'directions' link. On my phone, clicking that opens Google maps and I can just click Navigate. That would make it really easy.

[+BCandMsKitty]

I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority of auto GPS owners would have no idea how to input and navigate to coordinates. This would apply to most phone users, too. That being said, providing the two most popular formats is a great idea. I have seen a few other parks do that and I love it when they do. Especially those in rural areas where address resolution in street maps is so poor. It would be great to have clickable links on the Web site, too.

 

Yeah ... I produced all the coordinates, then the powers that be thought they wouldn't use them. Apparently they saw some other organization's maps that did include coords, so now they have decided to put them on.

 

Clickable links? Such as?

Like when you are on a store or restaurant Web page and they have a 'map' or 'directions' link. On my phone, clicking that opens Google maps and I can just click Navigate. That would make it really easy.

Ahh!

 

I'll pass that on to the IT folks.

 

Thanks

[+BCandMsKitty]

The current Nuvi 56 auto gps for Canada may give an error if one types in more than five decimal places, as the 6th decimal digit will replace the 5th. It would better to truncate the display on the map to no more than five digit characters following the dot.

 

Yeah .. the example in the picture above was just a quick edit I did to show the project manager how it might look in the final version. There will only be 5 digits.

 

Thanks

[+dprovan]

I'm kinda surprised there's so much flexibility expressed here. I think it's beyond question: use N42° 19.896 W81° 59.361 only. Do not confuse anyone with an alternative. That is the format used for geocaching. There are times for the other formats, but this isn't one of them. Even if someone came up with a unit that has trouble with that format, I'd say the problem is with that unit, not with using the format.

 

By the way, be very, very careful to get accurate coordinates and label the right thing with the right coordinates. I have a multicache based on the fact that a trail in my area has coordinates on the trail signs, and they goofed some of them up, both with the wrong coordinates on the wrong sign and with coordinates that have no relation to reality. I find it terribly amusing, but I'm sure the authorities would be embarrassed as heck if they knew about it. (The real lesson of that example for you, unfortunately, is that it's quite likely no one will pay any attention at all to your coordinates, but I still strongly encourage you to present them.)

[wwjd7]

Personally, I favor the decimal format for readability, speakabilty (not a word but you know what I mean) and is less ambiguous, especially for newcomers. The decimal format is my default GPS setting.

Edited February 22, 2015 by radix4

[+BCandMsKitty]

I'm kinda surprised there's so much flexibility expressed here. I think it's beyond question: use N42° 19.896 W81° 59.361 only. Do not confuse anyone with an alternative. That is the format used for geocaching. There are times for the other formats, but this isn't one of them. Even if someone came up with a unit that has trouble with that format, I'd say the problem is with that unit, not with using the format.

 

By the way, be very, very careful to get accurate coordinates and label the right thing with the right coordinates. I have a multicache based on the fact that a trail in my area has coordinates on the trail signs, and they goofed some of them up, both with the wrong coordinates on the wrong sign and with coordinates that have no relation to reality. I find it terribly amusing, but I'm sure the authorities would be embarrassed as heck if they knew about it. (The real lesson of that example for you, unfortunately, is that it's quite likely no one will pay any attention at all to your coordinates, but I still strongly encourage you to present them.)

 

Thanks for your input.

 

However, this has nothing at all to do with geocaching! I have no interest in the best format for geocaching, but in the best format(s) to allow the most people to use them if they wish to.

 

The coordinates will be printed on the maps (and possibly included on the web page) ... not on any of the trail signs, and I will do my best to make sure they are accurate .. as accurate as need be to get people to the parking areas for each trail.

I couldn't care less if anyone ever uses them. My function as part of the Trails Committee is to lend whatever knowledge I have to making a good map/brochure, and that is why I posted here to get some input as to the most commonly used formats.

I believe I have gotten good advice, and this thread can be closed.

 

Thanks, everyone!

Edited February 22, 2015 by BC & MsKitty