Many people find they can do away with this extra step.

I actually prefer it if I'm taking a long-ish ride on a route I don't know very well. The challenge is clipping it to my handlebars or brake cables so it stays put. I love digital technology, and it's what I do as my profession, but sometimes low tech is best for me.

I have no issues with what people prefer and it's even fine if people prefer not to use GPS. I just don't want people to draw the conclusion that doing certain things is necessary.

Cuesheets pretty-much only inform you about street names (and force you to learn where the street signs are). It's also a nuisance to keep track of what line is current.

GPS units can provide street names too. They also provide maps, which provide a better sense of how things are arranged.

In terms of information, cuesheets provide a narrow view and a GPS provides a wider view.

Quite a few people don't really use the maps on the GPS. In that case, it becomes something telling them what to do rather than something that provides information.

A properly formatted cue sheet is a thing of beauty and extremely easy to use. Cue sheets are an art form which sadly, has been lost.

Total distance, distance to next turn, turn direction and road name are all extremely easy to incorporate. Distance to the next turn is a very useful piece of information, something which the GPS units I have seen lack.

Below is an example. Notice the "For" column in the linked PDF. It is often easier to navigate with a cue sheet such as this rather than a GPS. It allows me to enjoy the scenery rather than stare at a computer the whole ride.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vi36nf9pw3...1mile.pdf?dl=1

@noglider try this. Folded into a quarter page size, it is attached to the bike using a document clip held to the stem with a zip tie.




-Tim-

I feel like Garmin's bike computers are years behind their watches, both in terms of features, and overall usefulness and software quality.

[MENTION=418438]TimothyH[/MENTION], thank you. That's even better than the sheets I make.

What navigation features are missing from the computers?

That's a reasonable cuesheet. It helps that it's a short ride.

The ones I create are similar.

(I probably won't consider also bring a printer and paper when travelling.)

The quarter page format should be standard. I find that location too far back (I haven't found way that I like that moves it in front of the bars.)

So is the manufacturing of buggy whips

Why are you limiting this to navigation features? The watches are far and away more advanced than the bike computers, in terms of exercise features, usability, and navigation to a lesser extent.

* I've been using the Recovery Advisor for 2 years before it appeared in an Edge (the 520).
* Garmin's newest watch supports ANT+ and BT sensors. (HRMs, PMs, cadence sensors, foot pods, etc)
* Edge units typically have a barometer, but can't use it to predict inclement weather without a data connection. Storm Warning is a pretty common feature on most barometric devices.
* Edges lack the sophisticated barometer calibration software in the watches.
* Edge units have no concept of training load.
* Edge units can't tell you what effect a particular exercise had on your fitness level, let alone break it out between your aerobic and anaerobic fitness.
* Edge units can't detect your LTHR.
* I think any of the Edges have wifi?
* I don't think Edges have proximity alerts either?
* I don't believe Edge units have Sight-n-Go.
* Better compass on the watches.

Why not? It's what the OP was focused on. And it's what the other posts were mostly focused on.

The Fenix 5x (which appears to have the best navigation features) is $700.

The 1000, 820 do. And the 520 too (I believe).

The screen is really small.

Less useful for a cycling device.

The 800 does (maybe, others do too) but it's tedious to use. You have to use the "POI Loader". Do the watches support "course points"?

No, the Edges don't have that. It's not really needed on a cycling device (maybe, it would be useful for MTB).

This might not be as useful on the Edge units as it might be on a watch.

Because I said "Garmin's bike computers are years behind their watches, both in terms of features, and overall usefulness and software quality." and then you asked for more detail. Neither of us were talking about navigation. I shouldn't have to explain why you shouldn't move goal posts.

???

I was talking about navigation. I was always talking about navigation. It's what this thread was mostly about. You started talking about other features (which I don't have a problem with). I asked about navigation.

You were asking me to elaborate on a claim I made which had nothing to do with navigation, and which we can now both see is true. And, true to form, you're being all weird because of it. I accept that you got confused, though, and we can move on now.

Bizarre.

And I asked what was different about navigation because that's what this thread was about.

I thought you might know something about it.

No one would have been able to guess that asking a question relevant to the thread would upset you so!

Thanks for this.