.....Plus if you happen to place a waypoint 50 meteres off the road when plotting a route the XT will insist you visit it to let you carry on.....
Garry, it doesn’t matter if your waypoint is on the road or one metre, 50 metres or 100 km off it, the majority of Garmin devices will insist that you pass through the waypoint as a part of the route. That is just the way they work. It is not unique to the XP or a fault with it. If you want to avoid being dragged 50 metres off the road you want to be on, don’t place the waypoint there.
Alternatively and / or in addition:
1. When using the XT (or many other Garmin devices) don’t use a waypoint to shape a route, unless you DO need to pass through that point. Use shaping points instead.
2. If, when using the XT and whilst riding your route, you find that by mistake you have used a waypoint (when you meant to use a shaping point) or that you have plonked it 50 metres off the road you need to be on, or you simply change your mind about the need to pass through it, use the XT’s skip waypoint facility.
3. If, when not riding your route, you realise that you might have used a waypoint when you meant to use a shaping point (or visa-versa) use the XT device’s or BaseCamp’s ability to convert points from one to the other easily.
The routing on the 276cx is how i like it.....
Everyone accepts that. You have now got to accept that either your XT or XT’s in general are not routing and / or behaving as you would like or expect the device to. That is just a fact, like it or not. So far, all of the faults and foibles you have identified as being problems with the XT have (with the possible exception of the joining or rejoining routes) all been found to be either mistakes in the way the device has been operated or a misunderstanding as to how this branch of gps devices functions in comparison with other branches. The function of waypoints, as highlighted above, is a prime example; the XT is functioning and treating waypoints just as it should.
With Tomcat’s help we are getting closer to finding out another version as to how the XT deals with joining / rejoining routes and the function of the device’s unique ‘Closest entry point’ tool. All we have had otherwise is your versions. So far, Tomcat is reporting that his XT is behaving as he expects it should. Yours is not. Whether or not Tomcat’s next experiences with his XT will change his mind or whether you will change your mind, we do not yet know. They may, they may not. People have been patient with you, now be patient with them, please.
Not least, please stop the frequent references to and comparisons with the 276cx. Instead, limit yourself (at least within this section) to just the XT, please. From the device’s first and very recent appearance I have tried to rip-out comments on the XT’s performance from within other unrelated XT posts and threads, in the hope of keeping everything on topic. This thread and the parallel thread entitled, ‘part way along a saved route, stop the route then restart it. A problem....’ are evidence of that, along with the separate stickies on route transfer and hard cases.
If you would like a new thread on your opinions as to qualities, modes of operation, function and performance of the 27cx versus the XT, I will create you one for you willingly, editing other threads in the process. Or by all means start your own. Here’s a good example where someone wants an opinion on whether the Montana is superior to the XT for use far from the comfort of Western Europe
https://www.ukgser.com/forums/showthread.php/529805-Montana-or-Zumo-XT. The jury is maybe still out, as the XT is still very new. There again, bods’ opinions may vary, no matter what. We shall see.
Thank you.
Richard