# What apps are you using during rides?



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

What are some of the apps you are using when on rides? I am right now trying out Ride with GPS, but it's not the best with tracking. Last week I discovered the MTB Project app from REI, which tells you all the rides in the area, but atm it sadly it doesn't track or let you follow the trail with the app. I feel like that is a bit of an oversight on their part.


----------



## scatterbrained (Mar 11, 2008)

Strava and Trailforks.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Don't use any during a ride, I used to use Endomondo and have used strava once or twice when I forgot to charge, or just plain forgot my gps. But afterwards I use strava to view.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Fitbit Surge wristwatch. It tracks my ride data, which, I sync with my phone after the ride, which puts the data on Strava.


----------



## Leafkiller (Sep 2, 2018)

I used to use MayMyRide but feel in love with Strava. Although I might switch back to MapMyRide here soon.


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

Generally I only use my Garmin if I'm familiar with the trail system. Then upload to Garmin connect and Strava for viewing. If I'm in a new area I'll use Trailforks to find my way.


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

Google Maps, Locus Maps, Maps.ME and I STILL get lost all the time.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Tinder.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I stopped using MapMyRide a little while back because it kept stopping on me mid-ride. It would pause then wouldn't start up again. Their tech support was of no help fixing it so I moved on. I did like the ability to have audible alerts though, not that I used it every time but in certain situations I liked it telling me what time it was or how long I'd been out.

I currently use *Trailforks* linked to *Strava* for trail rides and *Slopes* (a ski app) linked to Strava for DH park days. Slopes is cool because it knows when you're heading up the chairlift and doesn't count that as part of your ride. It also displays the ride in a 3D topo image with flyover replay.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

None. Cell service is weak at best on our trails

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike Aswell (Sep 1, 2009)

I like Mountain Bike (pro version i.e. paid) from Runtastic.
It's fairly accurate for time, duration, elevation, splits, etc. There's enough worthwhile data to make it interesting to me. I don't have a desire to share or compare data with others. So it's all I need.

I will use Trail Forks or MTBProject if I am doing a ride I have never done before and it's not a well marked trail system.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

I use my Wahoo ELMENT Bolt when I ride both on and off dirt. Strava is second if I don't use my computer. I also have Trailforks on hand when I need it for maps.


----------



## Zomby Woof (MCM700) (May 23, 2004)

I use Strava


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

andytiedye said:


> None. Cell service is weak at best on our trails


If you just want tracking, you don't need cell service for stuff like Strava when out on the trail, and you can always use offline maps.  No Tinder or Grindr tho...


----------



## SoDakSooner (Nov 23, 2005)

Not while riding, but set my watch and review everything after the fact on Garmin Connect and Strava. I also have trailforks and mtb project loaded. I also use an app on the garmin called routecourse, You can preplan the route and download to the GPS and it gives you turn by turn directions. Also gives ETA and distance remaining if you want to look at it.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

andytiedye said:


> None. Cell service is weak at best on our trails
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I think they all use gps rather than cell.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

andytiedye said:


> None. Cell service is weak at best on our trails
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Don't need it for Strava or Trailforks. (Strava will use GPS only satellites, which almost certainly are available on your trails, then uploads when you have data. Trailforks downloads the whole map so it is available offline.) Both are even more useful on trails with bad reception.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

TheDwayyo said:


> Don't need it for Strava or Trailforks. (Strava will use GPS only satellites, which almost certainly are available on your trails, then uploads when you have data. Trailforks downloads the whole map so it is available offline.) Both are even more useful on trails with bad reception.


You can even use a phone with no cell or data plan and up/download via wifi.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Trailfork sounds interesting. I take there is a mobile app? I also record my rides with my Samsung Gear Sport, but I think their cycling function is more geared for on-road than off.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Nat said:


> I think they all use gps rather than cell.


GPS on a cellphone uses position data from the GPS satellites AND from the cellular network if available.
It may be wildly inaccurate if GPS reception is poor (due to tree cover) and cellular service is nonexistent.
Of course, the phone is useless for communications then as well. It is also big and fragile.

I'd rather carry my InReach, which has a better GPS than most phones, can communicate via the Iridium satellites, and is significantly less fragile and less expensive than my phone.
I could, with some effort, upload that stuff to Strava, but for what? I already know I am slow and getting slower. Quantifying that isn't my idea of a good time.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

^^^ the accuracy of my phone GPS has been great for years in the mountains in areas devoid of all cell connectivity, often better than my Garmin Edge devices. These have been a number of Samsung Galaxy phones going back 8 years or so. IDK about other phones.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

I have a Pixel 3 and its good enough for gps, but sometimes when I start my drive it shows me pointing in the wrong direction. It corrects itself once I drive a few feet. I've only done one ride with my phone on the mountain as I just got a phone mount for my bike and it was good on the mountain. My Gear Sport is good enough when I've used it for hike. In the city it would sometimes show me on the wrong side of the street, but that's less of an issue on the trails.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Lone Rager said:


> ^^^ the accuracy of my phone GPS has been great for years in the mountains in areas devoid of all cell connectivity, often better than my Garmin Edge devices. These have been a number of Samsung Galaxy phones going back 8 years or so. IDK about other phones.


I have seen some absolutely horrendous locations obtained from phone GPS receivers when cell signal was unavailable. I've seen pictures geotagged with the location of the 1 cell tower a mile away from the photo's actual location when the phone had poor cell reception and no GPS reception. I make zero assumptions about quality location from phones. Sometimes they're solid, but other times they are absolute trash.

I see it when looking at Strava Flyby for my rides, too. People with dedicated GPS receivers by and large have solid locations for trails. Tracks from phones are all over the place. Some are good/comparable to the dedicated receiver, but many wander all over the place.

You cannot judge positional accuracy by looking at reported distance totals. Cannot cannot cannot.

That said, I do use a few apps. MTBProject, Trailforks, and Strava all live on my phone. None of them are my primary tools for anything. But I have them in the event I need them. I mostly just use my phone to take pictures when I'm riding, though. Otherwise, my riding time is my disconnect time. I'm in the woods to ride. To enjoy the scenery. To see nature...wildlife, plants, etc. To enjoy the company of good people.


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

Pandora.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

No apps while riding.
Garmin Connect, Strava and Velo Viewer after the fact.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Funoutside said:


> I have a Pixel 3 and its good enough for gps, but sometimes when I start my drive it shows me pointing in the wrong direction. It corrects itself once I drive a few feet. ...


That's because it's not using a compass and can't know which direction you're pointing. Once you start moving, it assumes you're pointed in the direction of motion. Any GPS device without a compass has to work this way.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Lone Rager said:


> That's because it's not using a compass and can't know which direction you're pointing. Once you start moving, it assumes you're pointed in the direction of motion. Any GPS device without a compass has to work this way.


What I want to know is why my phone occasionally can't pin down my location with the GPS.

This is reflected worst when I use street nav apps like Waze and it seems like every couple of seconds, the position jumps far enough that the app thinks I'm on a different street and it recalculates, telling me to go a totally different direction. It's happened a couple of times now and it's maddening. Always in the most unfamiliar places when I need it most, too. It's probably made worse since those apps assume you're on a street, so your location gets "snapped" to the nearest one.

Would be interesting to see how a tracking app like Strava shows what's actually going on.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

^^^ IDK about your phone. Is it Android or IOS? Mine have been Galaxy S5 through my current S8 and have been solid GPS wise. I have an app, GPS Status, that shows the output of all the phone's sensors (accelerometers, temp, gyros, compass, ambient light, etc.) and also shows a diagram of the positions and signal strengths of all GPS satellites, position accuracy... It will show GPS, Glonass, Gaellieo, etc, satellites but so far my phone is only receiving the first two. I'm using the free version of the app. I don't think it affects accuracy, but it allows you to see what the phone is receiving.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Lone Rager said:


> ^^^ IDK about your phone. Is it Android or IOS? Mine have been Galaxy S5 through my current S8 and have been solid GPS wise. I have an app, GPS Status, that shows the output of all the phone's sensors (accelerometers, temp, gyros, compass, ambient light, etc.) and also shows a diagram of the positions and signal strengths of all GPS satellites, position accuracy... It will show GPS, Glonass, Gaellieo, etc, satellites but so far my phone is only receiving the first two. I'm using the free version of the app. I don't think it affects accuracy, but it allows you to see what the phone is receiving.


It's an LG V20.

It's weird. It's a problem that seems to persist even after rebooting the phone. And it'll happen on my phone yet my wife's phone (same model) works perfectly fine.

I had a Galaxy S5 for awhile and while the GPS on it was "fine" and better than many from a phone perspective, the touchscreen would get possessed by the devil if it got sweaty. Being in the southeast and midwest, that's just a bad combination.


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

I just use Trailforks. No cell signal required. Trail maps/regions are downloadable. And now that Trailforks has support for other activities (hiking, jogging, etc.), it covers all the bases for me. Low battery consumption too.

Used to use Runtastic, but they dropped support for desktop browsers, so I dropped them. Might be an OK app for those not wanting to use a desktop.


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

I have the paid version of RWGPS. You can select map types like OSM so trails are shown on my iPhone. Also can follow other rides or routes and create a route on your computer with cues. Plus the cycling clubs I belong to also use RWGPS so I have availability to all their routes. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

NordieBoy said:


> No apps while riding.
> Garmin Connect, Strava and Velo Viewer after the fact.


Why? so you can see where you rode?


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

Trail Fork looks interesting, but I think it mislabeled some of the trails in my area as it said one trails I've ridden on my graven bike as hard and another as no suitable for any bike, unless I choose all bikes in the filter. Otherwise, I like that I can filter by difficulty, which is something I would like to see MTB Project offer.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Funoutside said:


> Trail Fork looks interesting, but I think it mislabeled some of the trails in my area as it said one trails I've ridden on my graven bike as hard and another as no suitable for any bike, unless I choose all bikes in the filter. Otherwise, I like that I can filter by difficulty, which is something I would like to see MTB Project offer.


With resources like Trailforks and MTBProject, there is a major thing OTHER than the app itself that determines what you can do with it. And that's the underlying data that it's displaying.

Trailforks recently expanded activity types, and that includes bike types. That's a BRAND NEW feature that's in beta (as described on their website). What that means is that for all the data they had on their website, they have now added extra fields that need to be populated with different activity/bike types. The way Trailforks works is that the USERS have to add that information. Unless things have changed, Trailforks does not REQUIRE all of the information about a trail to be included when it's posted. You can post some GPS data and that's it. MTBP has some minimum data quality standards that they want you to follow when listing trails, which is part of the reason why its database is built out more slowly. I see people posting illegal trails on Trailforks ALL. THE. TIME. Lately, I've been seeing trails added in my area and I had no idea there were trails in the spot, but I actually don't know for sure the legality. I suspect they're not legal, but all I've got are suspicions.

Ratings are also community sourced. You can suggest something else if you disagree. But keep in mind that ratings often take into account distance, grade, AND technical features. Though sometimes, technical features ARE NOT considered. Locally, the USFS publishes ratings for its trails and the two factors for the ratings are length and grade. This tends to correlate well, because the steeper trails often have nastier rocks and roots exposed. But even crowdsourced trail difficulty rating systems like TF and MTBP use the ratings posted on the trail signs as a starting point. Just because you can ride a gravel bike on it may not mean anything. There are some gravel roads in my area listed as advanced routes. So?


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

I did not know this as I just downloaded the TrailForks app, but that makes sense. The app showed me a trail that was .2 miles long, with 10ft elevation change, and app labeled it as intermediate. But, you are correct it rider skills do come into play here too. The road i am referring to isn't rated by the USFS or the state. I'll have to make sure to look out for the illegal trails, cause I have a suspicion one of the trails it's suggesting near me is a for hikers only.


----------



## Joe Handlebar (Apr 12, 2016)

TheDwayyo said:


> Tinder.


Don't you use that in order to GET riding. During a ride? You da bomb.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Funoutside said:


> I did not know this as I just downloaded the TrailForks app, but that makes sense. The app showed me a trail that was .2 miles long, with 10ft elevation change, and app labeled it as intermediate. But, you are correct it rider skills do come into play here too. The road i am referring to isn't rated by the USFS or the state. I'll have to make sure to look out for the illegal trails, cause I have a suspicion one of the trails it's suggesting near me is a for hikers only.


Trail ratings only make sense when compared to other trails in the same area. As much as you might wish they were consistent around the world, they are not and likely never will be, no matter how many organizations release "standardized" rating systems. It seems like there always will be entities that use their own ranking criteria.

What's labeled as an intermediate trail in most of the midwest would probably be labeled a beginner trail where I live now. Ratings on some trails I've ridden take technical challenge into account almost exclusively and don't consider length or grade (which, in those cases, are considered separate rating scales since you can look at a GPS track and get length, max grade, and avg grade pretty easy). Little short connectors like you're describing are often ignored. They're often either labeled beginner or intermediate by default by whoever uploaded them because in the grand scheme of things, the rating doesn't usually matter for trails that short.

There was a public meeting locally not too long ago where the USFS and the local club were talking about a major trail reroute. The USFS determined that the trail as it is now is completely unsustainable and will be closed if nothing is done about it. To do something about it, the local club got a grant for the project. It's a major destination trail and a LOT of riders like that it's a technically challenging descent and want its replacement to also be technically challenging. The trail has been around for a very long time. The part being rerouted has been open to bikes since at least 1992 (I have a guide book that old that shows the preferred direction of travel for bikes as climbing, though nobody today would ride up the trail). I'm not sure anybody knows how long the trail has existed. It may be older than I am.

One person at the meeting kept talking about how the trail rating is such-and-such and just wasn't grasping how that trail rating was determined (which USFS staff described!). The USFS staff described that the trail rating was determined decades ago and the criteria of length and grade were used because the rating system was conceived for hikers climbing the trail. It's amazing that mountain bikers descending that very same trail actually agree on using the very same rating now, but it's purely coincidental. This is why crowd-sourced ratings online can actually be useful. Trailforks even has separate mtb and hiking rating scales on their website.


----------



## Dennis1987 (Jul 16, 2017)

.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

andytiedye said:


> GPS on a cellphone uses position data from the GPS satellites AND from the cellular network if available.
> It may be wildly inaccurate if GPS reception is poor (due to tree cover) and cellular service is nonexistent.
> Of course, the phone is useless for communications then as well. It is also big and fragile.
> 
> ...


I find a 7.5 minute USGS quad topo map to still be the best for navigation but GAIA gps is pretty effective too. I typically use the GAIA app when I hike but I don't see why one couldn't use it while biking for help with navigation. Trailforks is good for finding fun trails to ride. Strava is good for fitness purposes.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

There are a heck of a lot of trails that are not on the USGS topo maps. OSM has virtually all trails as well as contour lines. What does the USGS topo maps offer that's an improvement over that?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I don't know what OSM means but I like big paper maps because they give more info and more context. Scrolling on a small screen is like looking down a tube. It's like using the nav in your car to go across the country versus seeing the course on a map. Electronic is easier because you just punch in the destination and follow the arrow but the map gives more info about where you are in relation to everything else.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

Nat said:


> I don't know what OSM means but I like big paper maps because they give more info and more context. Scrolling on a small screen is like looking down a tube. It's like using the nav in your car to go across the country versus seeing the course on a map. Electronic is easier because you just punch in the destination and follow the arrow but the map gives more info about where you are in relation to everything else.


There's a lot of truth that paper maps give you the best overall view of an area, but, and this is the rub, there's just no way that the US Geological Survey is able to keep up with the new trail systems being developed and that have been developed in the past 10 years or so. In essence, there's no way you could can use a USGS Topo in most places to generate a ride, especially in any area that's been developed specifically for mt. biking. The advantages that an app/site like TrailForks has it has the most updated GPS tracks of trails that are being ridden as we speak.

The thing folks mistake a lot of times is to forget to bring paper with them when they are venturing way into the outback. A good Topo on a GPS will locate you. The paper Topo will tell you how to get someplace if you are lost.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Nat said:


> ... Scrolling on a small screen is like looking down a tube...


If the info isn't on the map, the size is pretty irrelevant.

Out on a ride I'm not exploring maps. I did that at home I using a decent size monitor to view maps and lay out rides. I will on occasion print out a map or two for use while hiking/backpacking.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Catmandoo said:


> There's a lot of truth that paper maps give you the best overall view of an area, but, and this is the rub, there's just no way that the US Geological Survey is able to keep up with the new trail systems being developed and that have been developed in the past 10 years or so. In essence, there's no way you could can use a USGS Topo in most places to generate a ride, especially in any area that's been developed specifically for mt. biking. The advantages that an app/site like TrailForks has it has the most updated GPS tracks of trails that are being ridden as we speak.
> 
> The thing folks mistake a lot of times is to forget to bring paper with them when they are venturing way into the outback. A good Topo on a GPS will locate you. The paper Topo will tell you how to get someplace if you are lost.


Like I said, I use the quad maps for navigation and Trail Forks for finding bike rides.



Lone Rager said:


> If the info isn't on the map, the size is pretty irrelevant.


That's not true at all.



Lone Rager said:


> Out on a ride I'm not exploring maps. I did that at home I using a decent size monitor to view maps and lay out rides. I will on occasion print out a map or two for use while hiking/backpacking.


Like I said, I use the quad maps for navigation (e.g., hiking, backpacking, bushwhacking) and Trail Forks for finding bike rides.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Lone Rager said:


> There are a heck of a lot of trails that are not on the USGS topo maps. OSM has virtually all trails as well as contour lines. What does the USGS topo maps offer that's an improvement over that?


There's a lot of value in the WAY information is displayed. USGS maps are great in that the symbology has been standardized for decades. The value of using them in paper form is that you CAN pinpoint your location on them (regardless of whether you're on a trail or not) using standard backcountry navigation methods, a number of which can be applicable. True that the old ones miss a ton of newer trails, but the value of the displayed trails will depend on where you live and ride.



Nat said:


> I don't know what OSM means but I like big paper maps because they give more info and more context. Scrolling on a small screen is like looking down a tube. It's like using the nav in your car to go across the country versus seeing the course on a map. Electronic is easier because you just punch in the destination and follow the arrow but the map gives more info about where you are in relation to everything else.


There's HUGE value to using a paper map in the field so you can see more of the landscape at a glance. I have digital maps on my phone, but I would much rather use a paper map for certain tasks. Planning a ride at the trailhead is one of them. I had a high quality, up-to-date large format paper map of a local trail network opened up on the hood of my car one day at the trailhead before starting the ride. My wife and I were pointing at the map and deciding our route for the day. Some lady walked up to me extolling the virtues of MTBProject for that particular trail network. Ok, sure, MTBProject DOES show those trails well. Yes, I have it on my phone. Also, I've submitted quite a few trails there, to the extent that MTBProject has sent me 2 free jerseys over the years to thank me for my work. I just prefer the large format paper map for some things, and the lady seemed upset about that decision for some bizarre reason.



Catmandoo said:


> There's a lot of truth that paper maps give you the best overall view of an area, but, and this is the rub, there's just no way that the US Geological Survey is able to keep up with the new trail systems being developed and that have been developed in the past 10 years or so. In essence, there's no way you could can use a USGS Topo in most places to generate a ride, especially in any area that's been developed specifically for mt. biking. The advantages that an app/site like TrailForks has it has the most updated GPS tracks of trails that are being ridden as we speak.
> 
> The thing folks mistake a lot of times is to forget to bring paper with them when they are venturing way into the outback. A good Topo on a GPS will locate you. The paper Topo will tell you how to get someplace if you are lost.


Not quite. You can locate yourself perfectly well with a high quality paper map, the right gear, and the right skills. Your phone app can also screw up your location perfectly well, too. The phone app might try to navigate you to a location, but it might do a pretty piss-poor job of it. Using a paper map to get someplace in particular also requires specific gear and skills. None of them are perfect tools in all situations. They all require knowledge and skills and sometimes extra gear to use intelligently. Plenty of idiots let their phones or GPS get them into trouble.



Lone Rager said:


> If the info isn't on the map, the size is pretty irrelevant.
> 
> Out on a ride I'm not exploring maps. I did that at home I using a decent size monitor to view maps and lay out rides. I will on occasion print out a map or two for use while hiking/backpacking.


Here's the thing...you can use old USGS topos as the basis for high quality updated maps. You can use the underlying data to build high quality up-to-date paper maps. Locally, we've got excellent coverage of our trail networks on trail maps produced by a local cartographer. I use them WAY more than Trailforks or MTBProject simply because I prefer looking at and handling paper maps more than screwing around with my phone when I'm sweaty and the glare makes the screen difficult to see and all that crap.

I also produced such a paper trail map for a riding area that had a distinct lack of paper maps for a bike shop several years ago. I was in discussions with that shop owner to make a revised version since his stock was almost gone and there were new trails to include, but he decided to close his shop instead. Nobody else has been interested in paying me to make that paper map again, and I'm not interested in printing and selling the maps myself. I could produce the digital files for someone new if they wanted to get them printed since I still have the data for the original project.

What I don't see the point of is giving people **** for their choice of map that works for them. They're carrying a map, which is a huge victory for self-sufficiency and backcountry preparedness all by itself. That's great that you like OSM. My preferences are different, but I always have more than one possible way to navigate. The number of people who carry nothing is far too large. And the number of people who don't account for the possibility that eventually, a battery-powered digital device that relies heavily on wireless data connections is going to fail you when you need it is likewise far too large. The farther "out there" that you go, and the more others rely on you, the more you need to consider backups and backups of backups.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

^Yep. When you learn to really see the contour lines the map takes on a 3-D effect to where you can mentally predict the terrain and get the lay of the land rather than just a snapshot. When you learn how to triangulate you can find your location using landmarks and a compass even if there's no trail. I learned those skills as a backpacker and land surveyor. A lot of people learn it now for the sport of orienteering. 

Digital devices are useful because they can tell you "you are here" and "go this way." With a map you have to interpret the info and make those choices yourself. A combination of the two methods gives the most possible info.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Check out the Fatmap app. It's really neat.

https://about.fatmap.com/

Here's a screenshot:


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

So, what again do USGS maps have that is lacking on OSMs? 

I used and am familiar with USGS maps for orienteering going back over 50 years starting in the Boy Scouts. I've moved on.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Summary: the batteries never run out and you get better situational awareness. 

Practice until you master topo maps, Lone Rager. You’ll get it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

Lone Rager said:


> So, what again do USGS maps have that is lacking on OSMs?
> 
> I used and am familiar with USGS maps for orienteering going back over 50 years starting in the Boy Scouts. I've moved on.


There's a good website I follow called Adirondack Almanack. Every week or so they publish the DEC Ranger reports of rescues in the region. It's remarkable how many hikers only have a smartphone with them to navigate as well use as a flashlight and many are unexpectedly surprised that when they get lost and the phone can't help them then it runs out of battery power. Often they make the 911 call when they realize they are lost, the operators often tell them to power down so the phone battery lasts, as the 911 system can get a GPS location (or near enough) to get a rescue group to them IF the phone battery is functioning.

Of course we mostly only read about those who don't know what a paper map is, or know how to use a GPS device, those folks likely learned some basic map skills, then got lost and are able to find their way without bothering 911.

When do you need a paper map ?, when you are heading someplace that loss of the electronic device will see you in trouble. Go read the very sad story of Geraldine Largay, an AT Thru-Hiker who disappeared in the Maine woods in 2013. No compass, no cell service. She was 1/2 mile off the trail and died there while awaiting rescue.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

^^^ Two different arguments, paper vs electronic and OSM vs USGS. You can have either either way. One is current and has the trails I use, the other isn't. 

People getting lost is on them, and in the cases you mention, their misuse of technology. Hikers got lost before cell phones and GPS existed.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Nat said:


> I currently use *Trailforks* linked to *Strava* for trail rides and *Slopes* (a ski app) linked to Strava for DH park days. Slopes is cool because it knows when you're heading up the chairlift and doesn't count that as part of your ride. It also displays the ride in a 3D topo image with flyover replay.


Interesting. I use Ski Tracks for ski days, and it does the same thing, but AFAIK doesn't offer the Strava connection. I log each run as a separate ride on park days, and it's annoying to do. If I could just run a ski tracker in the background, that would be much nicer.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

evasive said:


> Interesting. I use Ski Tracks for ski days, and it does the same thing, but AFAIK doesn't offer the Strava connection. I log each run as a separate ride on park days, and it's annoying to do. If I could just run a ski tracker in the background, that would be much nicer.


https://getslopes.com/partners/strava/

One drawback about Slopes is that it assumes you're skiing or snowboarding (makes sense, it's a ski app) so there's no setting to show that you're biking. Therefore any fitness tracking is inaccurate if you use apps for that function.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

would sure be nice if a standalone GPS hit the market aimed towards the shuttle/DH/park/chairlift rides where it could either detect that you were on a lift/shuttle somehow, or a quick button press that would disable logging while you were in transit from the bottom to the top.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

On my roadie, Garmin 520+. Everything else, Garmin Fenix 5. It syncs to Strava and that's where I track my ride data.

I have Trailforks on my phone, but rarely use it. I usually plan ahead enough not to need it.



Harold said:


> would sure be nice if a standalone GPS hit the market aimed towards the shuttle/DH/park/chairlift rides where it could either detect that you were on a lift/shuttle somehow, or a quick button press that would disable logging while you were in transit from the bottom to the top.


Hit stop on the Garmin, and it doesn't track the movement. You'll get a straight line towards where you hit start again. But no elevation or distance gained. That's what I do on lift days. I'll come home with 30 miles and 800' of elevation :lol:


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Sidewalk said:


> Hit stop on the Garmin, and it doesn't track the movement. You'll get a straight line towards where you hit start again. But no elevation or distance gained. That's what I do on lift days. I'll come home with 30 miles and 800' of elevation :lol:


I don't really do lift riding, so I've never used it this way. I just assumed those straight segments I see on others' lift days accumulated distance and elevation, since they're connected. Would be nice if they didn't "connect" on the map at all, since you did hit stop, and not the lap button.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Strava doesn't heading-up track, so it can't easily be used to follow a map.

Trailforks is pretty good, but doesn't have sensors, so you still need Strava to record the ride.

So... Sadly, one has to run both at the same time or use something like a Garmin 530.

For my Turbo Levo, I use the Blevo app, and it does it all well. On my manual bike, I use my Garmin 520.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

rsilvers said:


> Strava doesn't heading-up track, so it can't easily be used to follow a map.


what is this? are you trying to say that because strava doesn't display the map screen with heading-up, you can't use the north-up orientation to follow a map? Sounds like a personal problem to me. It just requires a little bit of spatial orientation skills. Or...just rotate your phone until it points north and orients the map to the landscape.

Still, the point of Strava was never to navigate. It's always been more about recording your fitness/training than about navigation.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

rsilvers said:


> Trailforks is pretty good, but doesn't have sensors, so you still need Strava to record the ride.
> 
> So... Sadly, one has to run both at the same time or use something like a Garmin 530.


You can link Trailforks to Strava so that Strava will record your ride data even without running both apps at the same time.

https://www.trailforks.com/ridelog/stravaguide/


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Yes, I am saying that I expect a moving map to be heading-up. You use your car nav as north up? I mean if it was 2009 and there were no other apps, then maybe I would have to pick one that didn't rotate, but every other one does.

People have been begging Strava to add like one page of code to fix this for five years, and nothing. It is as if they don't have any employees.

https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us...rection-you-re-moving?mobile_site=true&page=2


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Nat said:


> You can link Trailforks to Strava so that Strava will record your ride data even without running both apps at the same time.
> 
> https://www.trailforks.com/ridelog/stravaguide/


I don't think that will allow Strava to see your Blutooth speed, power, or heart rate sensor unless you run Strava during the ride.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Harold said:


> I don't really do lift riding, so I've never used it this way. I just assumed those straight segments I see on others' lift days accumulated distance and elevation, since they're connected. Would be nice if they didn't "connect" on the map at all, since you did hit stop, and not the lap button.


Most people don't hit stop, so they are getting credit.

As an example, I did an enduro this past weekend. I opted to skip the lift and pedaled the whole thing. I ended up with 30 miles and 4000' of climbing at the end on my 520+. Another kid had 15 miles and 1000' of climbing. A third person 17 miles and 3000'. Mine was the true gain with barometer. The second stopped his on the lift to not get credit. The third never stopped his GPS.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

rsilvers said:


> Yes, I am saying that I expect a moving map to be heading-up. You use your car nav as north up?


Actually I always set my car nav to north up. I've spent decades looking at paper maps and you should always create a map with north at the top, so I'm able to orient myself quickly when north is at the top. When someone makes a map with north not at the top it's like looking at one of those clocks on which noon isn't at the top -- all wonky.



rsilvers said:


> I don't think that will allow Strava to see your Blutooth speed, power, or heart rate sensor unless you run Strava during the ride.


Oh, yeah I don't use those things so I don't know about them.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

rsilvers said:


> Yes, I am saying that I expect a moving map to be heading-up. You use your car nav as north up? I mean if it was 2009 and there were no other apps, then maybe I would have to pick one that didn't rotate, but every other one does.
> 
> People have been begging Strava to add like one page of code to fix this for five years, and nothing. It is as if they don't have any employees.
> 
> https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us...rection-you-re-moving?mobile_site=true&page=2


You're going to die on this hill? Like I said, Strava has NEVER had navigation as a high priority. You basically have no maps with that app if you don't have cell reception. And even if you do have maps, you don't see the terrain around you because they're just using vanilla Google maps. If Strava wanted to prioritize navigation, then they've got bigger fish to fry than map orientation.

Are you saying that you mount your phone to the handlebars of your mountain bike and never touch it? Honestly, that's a pretty terrible way to deal with your phone on the trail. I ride with a lot of people who use their phone as their primary tracking (and navigation) device. NOBODY puts their phone on their bars. Modern phones are simply too large, for one. As such, phones typically go in people's pockets, or even into a pack. In that use scenario, is it really a problem to pull the phone out and rotate it?

Me, I'm flexible enough that I can manage navigation in BOTH ways, depending on the device and the use scenario. When I'm driving, heading-up works best. Why? I'm not stopping in the middle of the freeway traffic at 70+mph to look at my phone. I'm not reaching to grab it when I want to see the map. My Garmin? Meh, either way is fine. I change the setting sometimes. It lives mounted on my bars all the time (it's small, out of the way, and doesn't flop around on its mount in rough terrain) so heading-up works best if I'm following a Course on the pavement. But on mtb rides, following Courses doesn't work that great, and I don't navigate while riding, anyway (I stop when I need to look at a map on a mtb ride). On my phone? Whenever I look at a map on my phone in the woods, it's in my hand. I prefer North up. I'm in "backcountry navigation" mode and not "car navigation" mode.

Speaking to "backcountry navigation" mode, I like and use paper maps, too. Guess what - no heading-up option. Lots of people navigated just fine with paper maps for a lot longer than GPS devices and cell phones have ever existed. People have been rotating paper maps on their own for decades. Expecting your cell phone app to be idiot proof and to avoid any need to actually learn and develop any skills is a recipe for trouble. I recommend learning how to navigate without relying on your device to automatically rotate the map for you.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Nat said:


> Actually I always set my car nav to north up. ..


Me too. Car nav, bike nav, cell phone...always north up, otherwise I get disoriented.

Some people tend to think in terms of relative directions; go back, forward, turn left, right. Others tend to think in absolute directions; Go or turn north, south, east west.


----------



## Flachlandradler (Mar 25, 2020)

I always use the Bikemap app on my iPhone. I really like it because it lets me plan routes on my phone as well as on my PC, so I can actually plan routes in advance and then just synchronise them to the app and ride them. Navigation also works without a data connection which I find really useful but that's because I'd like to keep my phone data for other uses.


----------



## mike_of_earth (Aug 1, 2016)

Wahoo Element Bolt to record the ride stats. For trails I know I don't need direction. For those where direction is needed, and for deep in the mountains, I map it out on GAIA GPS and download it with all the layered maps I need. Amazing tool for spots with no service.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

So I use MTB project which Is nice when your phone have cell coverage, however last time I did lost due to absence of coverage and unfamiliarity with trail system;

However I have question, can you link / upload any of the Trailforks/mtb project trails to Garmin wearable devices such as watches ?


----------



## Asgarde (9 mo ago)

The Cyclope bike app is great too. It allows, in addition to the classic functions of a cycle computer, to connect the cyclists in them. You can know the position of the other riders, have the time gap, create your bike route, communicate by voice like the professionals with their headset.









Cyclope - bike route planning - Apps on Google Play


Communicate between cyclists by voice like the pros with their headset




play.google.com












bike app, route planner, bike ride, GPS | Cyclope


Cyclope is a bike app that connects cyclists by location and voice like professionals with their headsets. Bike computer with bike tracking, route planner, cycle route, gps, weather and forecast... Know the gap in time that there is between you and others cyclists. Communicate with voice or...




www.cyclope.dev


----------

