Re: GPSMAP 60Cx or 76Cx?

+ "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wolfgang+gnus20060605T152803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

| Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
|> Assuming one trackpoint per second, that is about 120 bytes per
|> trackpoint. That's a lot of bytes; enough to make me wonder if they
|> are using an XML based format. 8-)
|
| Sigh, they are using xml.

Why am I not surprised? 8-/ Oh heck, look on the bright side.
At least we don't have to guess what the data means.

| They also only log 6 decimal places of lat/lon which seems awfully
| disproportionate seeing how no other aspect of this format strives for
| any kind of efficiency.

Yeah, and OTOH elevations to the millimeter? Good grief.

But thanks for the info, it's helpful.

--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
-- Bertrand Russell
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GPSMAP 60Cx or 76Cx?
    ... are using an XML based format. ... Sigh, they are using xml. ... That would have been 16 bytes per trackpoint. ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • Re: GPSMAP 60Cx or 76Cx?
    ... are using an XML based format. ... Sigh, they are using xml. ... That would have been 16 bytes per trackpoint. ... I have the GPS Utility software. ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • Re: GPSMAP 60Cx or 76Cx?
    ... | I guess the files are not anything as simple as ASCII text files. ... Assuming one trackpoint per second, that is about 120 bytes per ... XML is the format. ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
Loading