# View gpx files in Google Maps



## Mtn-Rider (May 21, 2010)

Here's a simple way of seeing your GPX files in Google Maps. It displays individual tracks in full-page Google Maps pages for easy browsing and sharing of track logs maps. No fancy anything, just the big track maps like you always wanted to see them, give it a go at:

Uploads link: http://geo.gillcouto.com/upload.cgi
Demo link: http://geo.gillcouto.com/uploads/4c224139a5/


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

like http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/
or http://www.mappingsupport.com/p/gmap4.html ???


----------



## stumonky (Mar 27, 2004)

I can do that in 3 easier steps:
1) double click on the gpx file (opening in Google Earth)
2) save as kml - then upload to your server of choice
3) paste the link into Google Map, viola

Ex: copy and paste this: http://www.nomambo.net/NOMAMBO_Spillway_Map_2-13-10.kml into Google Map.

From there you can generate a link (far right in Map) which you can copy & paste to wherever for a direct link to your map, like this.


----------



## Mtn-Rider (May 21, 2010)

Kind of like those but just a bare-bones big map page for those who like to keep it simple. It comes in very handy when you don't have access to Google Earth.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Websites that offer Google Maps visualization of GPS files are a dime a dozen nowadays. Why reinvent the wheel unless you have something truly better out there to offer?

You can't even embed your maps into a forum like this one. Many out there do.


----------



## Mtn-Rider (May 21, 2010)

Lighter is sometimes better. No matter how you look at it, it's just another available option.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Mtn-Rider said:


> Lighter is sometimes better. No matter how you look at it, it's just another available option.


"just another option" isn't much good unless it's different in some substantial way.

If you did it for your own $hits and giggles (or for a project of some sort), that's fine. But if you did it for other people, then why? What feature was lacking in ALL THE OTHER OPTIONS that made you decide to do it again?

Additionally, I've run across some other Google Maps API applications that seem to have a difficult time parsing large .gpx files. How does yours handle those? Can yours handle .gpx files with waypoints in addition to tracks? How about geotagged photos?


----------



## Mtn-Rider (May 21, 2010)

NateHawk said:


> "just another option" isn't much good unless it's different in some substantial way.
> 
> If you did it for your own $hits and giggles (or for a project of some sort), that's fine. But if you did it for other people, then why? What feature was lacking in ALL THE OTHER OPTIONS that made you decide to do it again?
> 
> Additionally, I've run across some other Google Maps API applications that seem to have a difficult time parsing large .gpx files. How does yours handle those? Can yours handle .gpx files with waypoints in addition to tracks? How about geotagged photos?


I've got some time to kill right now so I'll use it to respond to your message, I take it as constructive criticism anyway. I'll say you're pretty much right. This basic mapper is no improvement over anything out there. I only created it because I had all the pieces from other projects and spent a couple of hours gluing them together. The reason I did so is because everything else I used had too much stuff I didn't want, like ads, too many options, cheesy map sizes, or whatever got in the way of a plain simple map. I'm used to pouring through maps and all I ever see are just the maps. When you go to any of fancy gps mapping websites you get a flood of bs that I don't even care about. All I want is a big map, nothing else. It's been running for months with nice results and I thought others here might find it useful since I use it mostly for mtb.

You're also right in that it's wasn't made for others, it was made just for me, and made available to anyone who might find it useful in my opening post. The uploader currently ignores waypoints found in gpx files. Handling large gpx shouldn't be a big deal, most of the problems arise when trying to map such large track logs, it all runs on Google Maps in-browser JavaScript and it's pretty slow and wastes a lot of runtime memory even though they did a great job making it relatively efficient. My mapper currently has no gpx filesize restriction but viewing the maps may be slow for very large files. You can greatly improve gpx track logs in Garmin MapSource very easily. Files can often be reduced to 1/10th the size without much loss of track detail.

Hope that explains things.


----------



## stumonky (Mar 27, 2004)

NateHawk said:


> Websites that offer Google Maps visualization of GPS files are a dime a dozen nowadays. Why reinvent the wheel unless you have something truly better out there to offer?
> 
> You can't even embed your maps into a forum like this one. Many out there do.


I'm with Nate. At this day and age - why wouldn't you have Google Earth? It's free for one and interlaced into everything. I'm not criticizing your ideas, but as Nate said for me replace my standard mapping protocol it will need to be superior and accommodating to everything out there.

I'm a Hydrographer by profession and you wouldn't believe the capabilities survey and CAD/GIS software functionality has back to Google (including our own internal database). For example, If I am doing a bathymetry survey in the Mississippi River, I can now export my data straight into a kml file and send to a client to see in real world. Before this, it would have required me to export xyz, dxf, geotiffs into CAD/GIS and render as PDF (unless the client had GIS/CAD).

Futuristically speaking, versions of Google Earth will incorporate user input gpx files for trail routes. As I understand it, some of the input into city biking routes are a result of the new features of Map.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Mtn-Rider said:


> I've got some time to kill right now so I'll use it to respond to your message, I take it as constructive criticism anyway. I'll say you're pretty much right. This basic mapper is no improvement over anything out there. I only created it because I had all the pieces from other projects and spent a couple of hours gluing them together. The reason I did so is because everything else I used had too much stuff I didn't want, like ads, too many options, cheesy map sizes, or whatever got in the way of a plain simple map. I'm used to pouring through maps and all I ever see are just the maps. When you go to any of fancy gps mapping websites you get a flood of bs that I don't even care about. All I want is a big map, nothing else. It's been running for months with nice results and I thought others here might find it useful since I use it mostly for mtb.
> 
> You're also right in that it's wasn't made for others, it was made just for me, and made available to anyone who might find it useful in my opening post. The uploader currently ignores waypoints found in gpx files. Handling large gpx shouldn't be a big deal, most of the problems arise when trying to map such large track logs, it all runs on Google Maps in-browser JavaScript and it's pretty slow and wastes a lot of runtime memory even though they did a great job making it relatively efficient. My mapper currently has no gpx filesize restriction but viewing the maps may be slow for very large files. You can greatly improve gpx track logs in Garmin MapSource very easily. Files can often be reduced to 1/10th the size without much loss of track detail.
> 
> Hope that explains things.


Fair enough. While I appreciate for mapping purposes, reducing the detail of a track file might work fine to still give you a good representation of where the trail goes, that's simply not an option for me. I keep track of my fitness information, also, and maximum recording frequency is necessary to capture information on cadence and heart rate, especially.

I also use a combination of web applications and desktop applications. For web purposes, I am looking primarily at sharing. For mapping and fitness, I use desktop applications. I agree that most web applications offer lame map sizes and a bunch of clutter. That's partly why I primarily use Gmap4 now. It lets me customize the map size for my uses and it doesn't give a ton of fluff that gets in the way of the information I want to present.

Its main drawbacks are that you have to host the files yourself and that to customize the map, you have to do some link customization. It would be easy enough to make the process easier by letting a user choose options graphically so the website spits out the code for you. And that's where GPS Visualizer comes in.


----------



## Ted Reinhard (Nov 15, 2010)

NateHawk said:


> Websites that offer Google Maps visualization of GPS files are a dime a dozen nowadays. Why reinvent the wheel unless you have something truly better out there to offer?


What about adding colours to see the elevation: http://www.maplorer.com/view_gpx.html


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ted Reinhard said:


> What about adding colours to see the elevation: http://www.maplorer.com/view_gpx.html


Meh. That's not an earth-shattering make-or-break kind of feature. I can count a number of ways to do this already, anyway. Again, it's not new, it's not unique, so why would I change what I do already to include it?


----------



## Mtn-Rider (May 21, 2010)

The intent of creating this little gpx viewer was to create simple maps with a minimal number of features using the Google Maps API. The goal was to merely view gpx track logs on a full-page maps with any web browser. No fancy pointless distractions is what makes it better, or at least I think so.

In short, that means no additional features any time soon. Thanks for the suggestion anyway!


----------



## Ted Reinhard (Nov 15, 2010)

NateHawk said:


> Meh. That's not an earth-shattering make-or-break kind of feature. I can count a number of ways to do this already, anyway. Again, it's not new, it's not unique, so why would I change what I do already to include it?


Well, I don't know... maybe because you like it? Some people like the colors to intuitively estimate the slope at a glance.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Ted Reinhard said:


> Well, I don't know... maybe because you like it? Some people like the colors to intuitively estimate the slope at a glance.


as I already pointed out, there are many other ways to color a line according to elevation. Most are far more powerful than the converter you linked to.

Take for example:
http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/


----------



## Ted Reinhard (Nov 15, 2010)

OK, I tried harder. What about following the marker while moving the mouse over the elevation profile, which moves the perspective in 3D?

http://maplorer.com/view_gpx_3D.html

Ted



NateHawk said:


> as I already pointed out, there are many other ways to color a line according to elevation. Most are far more powerful than the converter you linked to.


----------

