On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 12:34:12 -0800, sms wrote:

> Since
> my "kid" also went backpacking this week, I thought it was an
> interesting post.

The goal is to either learn from others or to impart knowledge to others.
I think about two dozen (or so) very good apps were tested in this thread.
That's _value_ in and of itself, is it not?

> A couple of months ago we were in Maine and found AllTrails very helpful
> and it has the capabilities he wanted, but it's definitely not free. But
> it's so straightforward to use that for us it was worth it to subscribe.
> We could have created gpx files and uploaded them and then known if we
> were going off-route. This would be useful in areas with no trails, and
> the route between Loma Prieta and Mount Madonna is not a route with
> trails the whole way, or even most of the way.

What's wrong with having two dozen hiking-related apps which are:
a. Fully functional
b. Free
c. Ad free
d. Login free
d. Cloud free
etc.?

What on earth do you have against fully functional free apps Steve?

Only you, the Campbell troll, and the nospam troll complained that these
fully functional free apps exist on both Android and on iOS Steve.

The fact that Avenza and Paper Maps works beautifully, for example, isn't
something you should be repeatedly complaining about, is it?

> My daughter went backpacking with her friend to a huge park in Santa
> Clara County this week, Henry Coe. It's not really a park you want to
> backpack in in the summer because it's very hot, but this is a good
> time. You can see the big differences in mobile coverage at
> <https://i.imgur.com/g61Ss5T.jpeg>, though even Verizon doesn�t have
> complete coverage.

I know the park well as do most people in the Silicon Valley who hike.
The one thing I don't like about it though is there is no shade.

Personally I prefer the Santa Cruz mountains because there's more variety.
> It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
> coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
> the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
> well as a matter of safety.

Rest assured I understood two things about your carrier coverage comments:
a. They don't matter for the case of intentional offline nav functionality
b. They do matter if 911 is your major concern (it's not for me though)

I'm not saying 911 wouldn't be a major concern in an emergency situation,
but I'm an old man Steve, with almost fully grown grandchildren and I've
never needed to call 911 in my entire life (hiking all over the place).

Again, I'm not saying access to 911 isn't a great thing but I am saying that
if the purpose of the thread is to ask for advice on _offline_ apps that
work both on iOS and Android, your posts extolling the virtues of Verizon
seem out of place, don't they?

Especially as I said most of the kids are on Verizon and on the iPhone.
They're "rich kids" after all.

On 1/1/2022 1:10 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:

> What on earth do you have against fully functional free apps Steve?

Many apps are "free" only if time has no value.

I have no objection to paying for apps that save a lot of time, as
opposed to cobbling something together from a bunch of different sources
just to save a few bucks.

While I don't have a lot of paid apps on my devices I do have a few.

On 1/2/2022 9:12 AM, sms wrote:

> I have no objection to paying for apps that save a lot of time, as
> opposed to cobbling something together from a bunch of different
> sources just to save a few bucks.

I really don't mind paying app authors directly for their work. And IMO
it's far better than paying them indirectly by watching annoying ads.

> While I don't have a lot of paid apps on my devices I do have a few.

I have quite a few. Most cheaper than a few sodas. BFD...

On 1/2/2022 8:31 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 1/2/2022 9:12 AM, sms wrote:
>
>> I have no objection to paying for apps that save a lot of time, as
>> opposed to cobbling something together from a bunch of different
>> sources just to save a few bucks.
>
> I really don't mind paying app authors directly for their work. And IMO
> it's far better than paying them indirectly by watching annoying ads.
>
>> While I don't have a lot of paid apps on my devices I do have a few.
>
> I have quite a few. Most cheaper than a few sodas. BFD...

Exactly. Though the only apps I have that have a recurring cost are All
Trails and my VPN app (the free VPN apps are not trustworthy and have
limited functionality).

All Trails proved very useful on our last vacation which involved a lot
of hiking in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. I expect to also use it
this winter for XC skiing and snow-shoeing (hopefully the good start to
winter snows will continue!).

One paid app I use quite often is TorquePro, an excellent OBD-II app.
Even though there are free OBD-II apps available, TorquePro was well
worth the small cost.

I've even sent small donations to authors of free apps that I use on a
recurring basis.

When you venture out into areas where there is no mobile phone coverage
it's nice to have a trail navigation app that doesn't require a huge
amount of work before you leave. Just download the trail maps for the
area and choose a route. If the trail is difficult to follow you'll know
when you're off route. You'll also know the distance and elevation of
the route. Sure you can do some of this with free apps, but it's more work.

We spend a lot of time hiking and bicycling in San Mateo, Santa Cruz,
Marin, and Monterey Counties. Since we're on Verizon's network we have
excellent mobile coverage and it's rare that we have no signal, though
there are occasionally trails that dip into ravines and valleys where
coverage is not available.

Here is San Mateo and Santa Cruz areas from the FCC maps:
<https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png>.

Here's down by Big Sur along Highway 1 from the FCC maps:
<https://i.imgur.com/ataZAOP.png>.

Here is the Yosemite West area from the FCC maps:
<https://i.imgur.com/9zJhPUq.png>.

Here is the Marin County area from the FCC maps:
<https://i.imgur.com/BCRhffC.png>.

Here is the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties’ greenbelt from the FCC
maps: <https://i.imgur.com/1w58JJA.png>.

On 1/2/2022 1:37 PM, sms wrote:
> We spend a lot of time hiking and bicycling in San Mateo, Santa Cruz,
> Marin, and Monterey Counties. Since we're on Verizon's network we have
> excellent mobile coverage and it's rare that we have no signal, though
> there are occasionally trails that dip into ravines and valleys where
> coverage is not available.

Not wanting to get into a pissing match between All Trails and Gaio, nor
into the coverage of the different providers, I just have one thing to
add. I'm not sure it works like this for All Trails like it does for
Gaio, but I've been in some pretty desolate areas and with the free Gaio
once I load a map with cellular data, even though I might lose coverage
temporarily, I can still zoom in and out and reference the elevation
changes ahead. It keeps the local area in memory I guess. Obviously,
it tracks and records one way or another and once you do get to a full
map it will accurately show your track. Though I have still not
purchased the premium stuff, I agree it is worth it and probably will at
some point.

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 08:12:58 -0800, sms wrote:

>> What on earth do you have against fully functional free apps Steve?
>
> Many apps are "free" only if time has no value.

Happy New Year!

In the new year I'm going to try to respect people more by trying to
_understand_ people better (as in why they think the way they think).

What I "hear" you say is that "free" maps somehow take you more "time".
But how?

> I have no objection to paying for apps that save a lot of time, as
> opposed to cobbling something together from a bunch of different sources
> just to save a few bucks.

How does downloading a "free" USGS map into Avenza or Paper Maps take any
more time than the method you're using today?

1. You install the app
2. You populate the app with the maps

I'm really going to try to better understand people in the new year.

So I have to ask you _why_ you think a "free" map app takes more time than a
paid map app given the map is the same USGS map in all cases, isn't it?
> While I don't have a lot of paid apps on my devices I do have a few.

I don't have _any_ paid apps on my phone and only a few on the PC (Office,
Adobe Acrobat, and TurboTax come to mind) but I don't see how paying for an
app saves you any time but maybe I just don't understand how you think?

Even my Acrobat is old as is my M$ Office simply because the older versions
work fine but each year I buy a new TurboTax (but that's about it for
payware and I can do anything anyone else can do, can't I?).

Given in the new year my resolution is to try to better understand people,
can you let me know what it is about a free app that you think takes more
time than if you paid for that same app (if anything, just paying for the
app takes more time as I wouldn't even know how to pay for something on a
phone).

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 11:37:06 -0800, sms wrote:

> When you venture out into areas where there is no mobile phone coverage
> it's nice to have a trail navigation app that doesn't require a huge
> amount of work before you leave.

I'm trying to figure out why you think it's a "huge amount of work" to load
a free USGS topo map into your current navigation app on your phone.

Where is the work?

> Just download the trail maps for the
> area and choose a route.

By the "trail maps for the area" I suspect you mean the maps that are
provided for each of the respective areas, is that right?

But they're just PDFs, aren't they?
(Or are they geoPDFs where your GPS location shows up as a blue dot?)

The reason I ask is if they're only plain PDFs, then your "location target"
button won't pinpoint with a blue dot where you are on that trail map.

> If the trail is difficult to follow you'll know
> when you're off route. You'll also know the distance and elevation of
> the route. Sure you can do some of this with free apps, but it's more work.

While a downloaded trail map for a specific park will likely have more
detail, it won't pinpoint where you are unless it's a geoPDF.

I haven't done it yet but there are ways to turn a regular PDF into a
geoPDF, which will give you _everything_ you could possibly want, won't it?

Would that be something others would like to know _how_ to do?

If so, since I'm always a purposefully helpful person with a kind heart, I
can perhaps see how much effort it is to create a tutorial so that anyone
can take any local park map and hopefully turn it into a working geoPDF.

> We spend a lot of time hiking and bicycling in San Mateo, Santa Cruz,
> Marin, and Monterey Counties. Since we're on Verizon's network we have
> excellent mobile coverage and it's rare that we have no signal, though
> there are occasionally trails that dip into ravines and valleys where
> coverage is not available.

Of the 7 or 8 kids on the original hike, I was told from another parent that
only 3 are left, where what's left is two Verizon kids and only one T-Mobile
kid (my grand daughter is the one and only T-Mobile child).

Most of the kids were on Verizon and they didn't have signal most of the
time but I haven't heard from the T-Mobile kid much as she is in contact
with her parents more than with me as I was really only their mapmaker).

They normally text like crazy but they're all surprisingly succinct
according to what I've been hearing.

One thing is they didn't know how to give their GPS coordinates so we really
need an app that makes it super simple for them, in some form like
a. They set up a mailing list ahead of time in their SMS app
b. Then they simply touch a button to send the location via SMS
c. When they finally have signal the SMS app should send it

For that we need an app that will repeatedly cycle when it has a message in
its queue so that it will send it even if it only has a ten second cell
window.

Does anyone know of a good emergency location delivery app like that for
both iOS and Android that we can use in the future when the kids hike?