Re: [Gpsbabel-code] [Gpsbabel-misc] Gpsbabel and 1.4.2 and 1.4.4 incorrectly handling gpxtpx extensions?

[Robert L. <rob...@gp...>]

>
> ...required
> by whom/what?
>
> By the schema, i.e. GpxExtensionsv3.xsd, gpx.xsd (1.1),
> TrackPointExtensionv1.xsd.
>

Please say that in the comment before committing.   Otherwise, fire away.

Aren't you removing the very data you're trying to test here?
>
> I don't think the TrackPointExtensions element should be a child of the
> wpt element, I think it should only be a child of a trkpt element.  The
> schema doesn't actually make this restriction, but it would seem like that
> was the intent from the name.
>

My concern is that this seems to be a moving target.  (All together now,
"THANK YOU, GARMIN!")   It's probable that we do this because we saw some
device or Garmin file that did this.  It's not clear if it still does.  It
looks like this file was derived from track/gtrnctr_power (which was also
from our writer).  I recall where those files came from.  I'll try to chase
the provenance of them up to see if there is/was a Garmin product that
really did that or if this is something we made up.



> Note that the hr and cad from the following wpt will NOT be recognized by
> the existing gpx reader, which is looking for /gpx/*trk/trkseg/trkpt*/extensions/gpxtpx:TrackPointExtension/gpxtpx:hr
> and /gpx/*trk/trkseg/trkpt*/extensions/gpxtpx:TrackPointExtension/gpxtpx:cad.
> Our code already assumes the assumption I want to make which was restated
> above.
>
> <wpt lat="51.506172000" lon="-0.035187000">
>   <ele>0.137000</ele>
>   <time>2008-08-20T07:04:48Z</time>
>
>   <name>LAP001</name>
>   <cmt>LAP001</cmt>
>   <desc>LAP001</desc>
>   <extensions>
>     <gpxtpx:TrackPointExtension>
>
>       <gpxtpx:hr>111</gpxtpx:hr>
>       <gpxtpx:cad>151</gpxtpx:cad>
>     </gpxtpx:TrackPointExtension>
>   </extensions>
> </wpt>
>
> so with -o gpx,garminextensions these are going to get dropped.  Without
> the reference change the test would fail.
>

I'm wondering if Garmin's fitness devices generate a waypoint that contains
average fitness data of a workout or something.

We really need some expertise in (or at least real world samples of)
Garmin's fitness files... I have an Oregon that I might be able to pair
with the HRM from an old Edge, but I couldn't fake shock if an Oregon did
things differently than a "real" fitness device like a current Edge,
Forerunner, Approach, or such.

If any readers have samples to share for us to study, please pipe up.

RJL