For as long as I can remember âWPâ was short for âWaypointâ. I think it would be universal and understandable to everyone (also non-english users - e.g. like me). Both âPointâ and even more â#â could be confusing what they refer to⌠Thatâs my three cents.
I donât mean to be rude, but in all seriousness I wonder: why should we change this at all? Just so that a person does not have to rename the default waypoints (without names)? Strange âŚ
Such a request would not even be answered at Garmin or TomTom, I think.
Indeed, waypoints you want to watch in the new waypoint panel
are usually those with custom names, i.e. the interesting points.
Waypoint 14, Point 15, #16, WP 17: numbers are not memorable.
In my opinion, it is not about remembering waypoints. When navigating, one just want to know the distance to the next waypoint. I donât care what itâs called. Anyone can set waypoints or shaping points wherever they want. The one give it a name, others donât care about names.
I find the abreviation âWPâ universal, Garmin for example also uses âWPâ as an abbreviation for waypoints by default.
But I also find â#â universal for a marker or waypoint. This does not need to be translated. Anyone who wants to name their waypoint can do so and has no problem at all interpreting # 14 as waypoint 14. What else should it be in a route planner and navigation system?
Anyone who wants can also interpret a problem into anything, like always in life.
Why not using glasses? Would solve some problems without destroying graphics and text at large zoom levels.
I had already mentioned elsewhere. No problem, I can tell again why. On the one hand, the temples hurt behind the ear at some point, and on the other hand, I donât like varifocals. Besides, with glasses you always have an area where the frame is in the way. My distance vision without glasses is still good, (with single vision lenses visual acuity 1.2), only the middle and near range doesnât work much without glasses anymore. Thatâs the way it is in old age. I can read the big font without glasses. Thatâs my preferred setting. I could just as well ask: why does this bother someone and why do you want to talk me into glasses or contact lenses? The Kuviger app is able to provide big font size. In donât want anything else. Another question could be: who is seriously bothered by the abbreviation of waypoints with WP or # especially when most users seem to rename the WPâs anyway?
We can use the same display as in the waypoints list [Number. Name]:
- 11.7 km ⢠4. Nice place!
Or display the number only for unnamed via points:
- 11.7 km ⢠4. Waypoint
Would also work well and easy to implement I guess
After further testing I guess there is a little misunderstanding.
Before the change the font size in the next waypoint panel was the same as in the distance panel and a longer text was abreviated with 3 dots at the end. Now the size is smaller in the next waypoint panel and longer texts are written in 2 lines and not centered any more, but left justified. This I find not so good. It should be centered consequently.
Also I didnât mean to keep the number if the waypoints have special names.
If the waypoint are renamed, then the number is not necessary and should disappear.
Additionally now that the number is listed first, 2 lines are not necessary, I would keep it in one line and same font size as the distance panel and abreviate with 3 dots at the end, for example â112 km ⢠4. WegpunâŚâ but if renamed then â112 km ⢠Burg Ramsteinâ or with big font size â112 km ⢠Burg RâŚâ in one centered line above the distance panel and turn-by-turn symbol (in landscape mode it is correctly centered between the turn-by-turn symbol and the distance panel).
I had also secretly thought that shaping points would not be counted when numbering waypoints, so that they would appear consecutively numbered like 1, 2, 3, 4⌠(not in the planning mode, only in listing in the next waypoint panel). That was my thinking error. Now I perceive that the shaping points are counted and then after waypoint â112 km ⢠4. WegpunâŚâ would appear â225 km ⢠17. WegpunâŚâ for example. This is then a little confusing, deriving from human thinking: The driver knows in his or her mind that he or she has planned 4 intermediate stops, then the driver would know if heading to Stopovers 3 or 4 see â112 km ⢠4. WegpunâŚâ. If written as 17. or 18. waypoint, then no one knows anymore if it was the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th planned stop
Hope I have explained it well now.
All is just a proposal, we are in Beta mode.
Thanks for the testing.
Everything to be implemented was mentioned above (no one answered):
No, the font size in all the top panels is the same.
It can not be too large as they show a lot of text.
We test different implementations in Beta.
This is how Android text views works.
I wanted to ask that, we can remove the numbers in named waypoints.
The numbering of the waypoints (via + shaping) is continuous (as on the website).
Otherwise it would be very confusing to use them.
That is why we have the custom names,
you should name the via points or use shaping points.
Precisely, we are in testing mode.
Your middle name I guess âŚ
To make it clear: I will not use the next waypoint panel, the number in the distance panel is enough for me - so I donât care about this discussion here anyway. And I wonât say anything more about the fontsize either. Not to mention the overlay apps, which steal the last bit of your map.
But: The numbering of the waypoints should remain as it is - basta!
As already mentioned recently: Why donât you name your x waypoints as you want them, e.g. â(4) Burg RâŚâ? Then would appear: â113.9 km - 11. (4) Burg RâŚâ.
Just to save this little effort, all here should âdance to your tuneâ? Strange.
Because we are in beta mode - Iâd like if Emux goes back to âwaypoint xxâ âŚ
Precisely, we test things and I can revert anything.
Like the waypoint names or the App: Waypoint number in distance panel.
I have not yet decided on anything that will be final.
actually I wanted to ignore your comments, but this is a personal attack, which violates the forum guidelines. There seem to be people who have to give their two cents about everything, even if itâs inappropriate, such as contact lenses in response to font size, and who canât stand it when someone disagrees with them.
yes thanks
agree.
ok didnât know
sure, no problem with that. We are living in a democracy and you are the boss
Very good to put the panel next waypoint and the distance .
As for adding the waypoint number to the name I donât think itâs necessary, as I put the name I want to see just name and no need to add anything else (except the distance in front as it comes out now).
As for the waypoint example if I put the name âBurg Ramsteinâ I would like to see â112.5 km ⢠Burg Ramsteinâ and not â112.5 km ⢠11.Burg Ramsteinâ, in this second case there are two numbers too close that can lead to confusion when taking a quick look at gps.
If we leave the original name now shows us â1.2 km ⢠1. Waypointâ, I like more â1.2 km ⢠Waypoint 1â
I would also ask if the distance can be shown in the waypoints list
Good job, thanks !
Please create new topics to discuss new suggestions.
Waypoint numbers are dynamic (only names are fixed).
Rerouting, skip next waypoint, avoid roadblock change them,
as passed waypoints are removed (only next ones are used).
Waypoint numbers may be useful in routing, not in navigation.
Names should be set on important waypoints (used in panels).
Letâs return to the last more understandable name appearance.
As this panel is more useful to display custom waypoint names.