App: Improve rerouting settings

[Tom]

@linux-user

Next unvisited ViaPoint

Sure, you decide. I am fine with the new routing option Next unvisited ViaPoint

[devemux86]

Other apps (e.g. Locus) offer different rerouting options, so “Next unvisited waypoint” and at least one of the “Nearest point on route” and “Nearest waypoint” seem useful by some.

And looking at their guides, seems they work always with “nearest”, they don’t offer “next” like we do.

[linux-user]

Well, Locus Map doesn’t seem to have different waypoint types.
That makes things easier.

According to their (very good) docomentation they have two rerouting options.

• Point priority - Locus recalculates the route to the nearest transit (or ‘via’) point on the planned route. If there are no ‘via’ points, it recalculates the route to the final point.
• Route priority - used when you deviate from the original line and want to get back to it - Locus navigates you to the original line as soon as possible and on the nearest place - the line (route) matters.

for more flexibility - Point priority
for more strictly following the route - Route priority

@devemux86

they work always with “nearest”, they don’t offer “next” like we do.

Probably because they don’t have @Tom to test their routing strategy to its limits

Back to Kurviger

Currently we have:

• Nearest point on route : it’s the nearest coordinates on the route path (not waypoint).
• Nearest waypoint : it’s the nearest waypoint (i.e. via points, destination) of the route.
• Next unvisited waypoint : it’s the next waypoint (i.e. via points, destination) that has not been passed yet.

Additionally:
viaPoints - mandatory
shaping points - may be skipped

The rerouting options:

• “Nearest waypoint” - the idea is flexibility, right?
• “Next unvisited waypoint” - the idea is strictly follow the waypoints in sequence - right?
• “Nearest point on route” - the idea is what?

My personal preference would be Nearest waypoint which gives the flexibility to automatically skip waypoints. But this is in some ways in contradiction to the concept of viaPoints, which should be considered mandatory
So I would remove it in favor of simplicity.

“Nearest point on route” is a nice option at start of navigation, but as a rerouting option it does have the tendency to route you backwards.

[devemux86]

@linux-user

Locus Map doesn’t seem to have different waypoint types.

Off topic: it seems to have different waypoint types too.

[devemux86]

Quoting @boldtrn from another topic:

@boldtrn

The default behavior is to allow skipping parts of the route, which is awesome and extremely flexible. That’s the intended behavior, the other option is the strict routing where you have to visit every waypoint or even every part of the route.

Strict route following is different and may come in the future:

App: Strict navigation

Provide option to navigate along the route without shortcuts, i.e. follow the route strictly from one waypoint to another. When go off route, the rerouting tries to resume to the last omitted waypoint.

[devemux86]

@linux-user

viaPoints - mandatory
shaping points - may be skipped

Rerouting now works as described by @SchlesiM in waypoint types topic:

@SchlesiM

rerouting should of course only omit all shaping-points before the next unvisited visit-point - not those behind it. Because a detour/rerouting should only affect the part of my route which leads to my next unvisited visit-point, not the whole route. This way the impact will remain as minimal as possible.

[luckytown]

“Folgender Wegpunkt” und “Strikte Navigation” sollten beibehalten werden. Die beiden anderen Optionen nutze ich persönlich nicht.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Next waypoint” and “Strict navigation” should be maintained. I personally do not use the other two options.

[sprittfass]

Sehe ich auch so.2 Optionen reichen.
Danke für die tolle Software
Gruss Rolf

[linux-user]

Continuing the discussion from Kurviger 1.13.5 (Beta):

@linux-user

Do we need all this rerouting options
I think at the end two options should remain:

• a flexible one, which allows automatic skipping of waypoints that are “behind” you.
• a strict one, which doesn’t omit waypoints.

How do this rerouting options behave?

• Nearest point on route : it’s the nearest coordinates on the route path (not waypoint).
  It does guide you back to the route as soon as possible (but does not prevent from skipping waypoints).
  This can mean that you are guided to a point you have already been.

• Nearest waypoint : it’s the nearest waypoint (i.e. via points, destination) of the route.
  This allows to automatically skip waypoints.
  e.g. you can pass a waypoint on a street nearby.
  If a waypoint is behind you it won’t route you back.

• Next waypoint : it’s the next waypoint (i.e. via points, destination) that has not been passed yet.
  This is somehow a compromise between Nearest waypoint and Strict navigation.
  Usually it does not allow to skip waypoints, with one exeption.
  If you are on your route, it does not guide you back, even if there are waypoints behind you, that you have not visited yet.

• Strict navigation: It does never allow to skip a waypoint automatically.
  It does guide you to every waypoint you have not visited yet, even if that waypoint is already behind you.
  If you want to skip a waypoint, you have to do it manually.

Do we need all this options?

There does not seem to be a common consent:

• Some forum members say, the more options the better.
  Keep them all!
• Some forum members are concerned about the complexity of the app.
  Do (novice) users understand the behavior of this options, or would they be confused?

My personal opinion would be to keep only two:

• nearest waypoint: - because this is the most flexible one, and allows seemless skipping of waypoints.
• strict navigation - because this is ensures, that you don’t miss any waypoints.

What do others think.

What rerouting options do you want to keep, and why?

@luckytown

“Next waypoint” and “Strict navigation” should be maintained. I personally do not use the other two options.

@SchlesiM

I think “nearest route point” and “nearest waypoint” could be removed. I don’t think those options are very useful. But depending on the route and your current position they could have quite undesirable effects.

@Uli_LH

WHO’s the one to decide, which options are more useful and which are less useful?
Only in very few cases can an agreement be reached.
And then any restriction of options is a loss for at least one part of the target group.
Therefore, it is better to leave the options as they are, if they have already been implemented by the developers, i.e. do not require new efforts.

@zaphod_42

@Uli_LH

Therefore, it is better to leave the options as they are, if they have already been implemented by the developers, i.e. do not require new efforts.

I agree … and I’d like to keep the “Settings | Routing | Waypoints in instructions” for same reasons.

[devemux86]

@linux-user

This can mean that you are guided to a point you have already been.

Rerouting to nearest point / waypoint during navigation is different from when is done at start of navigation.

During navigation there is travel history, latest version should guide to nearest point / waypoint after exit position.

[Patrick]

Manfred thank you for that summary, that is exactly what I needed after the big discussion.
You’re asking what others think, so for me…

@linux-user

My personal opinion would be to keep only two:

• nearest waypoint : - because this is the most flexible one, and allows seemless skipping of waypoints.
• strict navigation - because this is ensures, that you don’t miss any waypoints.

I agree, that is my opinion as well. More options in settings is ok, but the app itself should be as minimal as possible - and now that we have this awesome new strict navigation, the distinction is clear and easy to make

[WalterG]

It is most time only written “waypoint”. In beta 1.13.x we have different waypoints.
We should differentiate between via points and shaping points.
Via points (with optional announcement at navigation) and Shaping points (without announcement at navigation). It is fine that both types are listed and numbered in the waypoint list.

The differentiation is to less considered at rerouting. Yes, I know that somewhere is mentioned at rerouting the shaping points between rerouting location and following waypoint (via point or destination) will be skipped. But is this really what you want? There are some doubts.

At rerouting there are situations where this is not good and the advantage of shaping points can’t be used!

To show it I use an example of a route segment. The examples are made with website, where currently shaping points are not included.

We have a route segment, in the example from start to end, route type extra curvy. With no waypoints between start and end two important things are not touched. Therefore a via point is set at a fuel station. Another via point is set at a route section which should be part of the route. Instead of a via point here a shaping point would be more useful, because at this place you don’t need any instruction. It’s only for shaping the route. Point 2 (at the Must Be Section) could be a shaping point.

(4) Injoux-Génissiat - Chindrieux | Kurviger

Behind the fuel station there is missed to use the correct route (see green arrow). A rerouting will be made (for this waypoint 2 is inserted). You see the whole route.

(5) Injoux-Génissiat - Chindrieux | Kurviger

And now I show you why there are doubts for the until now prefered behaviour.

(6) Injoux-Génissiat - Chindrieux | Kurviger

(7) Injoux-Génissiat - Chindrieux | Kurviger

(8) Injoux-Génissiat - Chindrieux | Kurviger

(9) Injoux-Génissiat - Chindrieux | Kurviger

At first considering the Must Be Section (set by Via point OR Shaping point) with online routing and route option Extra curvy (picture A) and option Fastest (picture B) similar to the offline routing:
A)

B)

And second ignoring the Must Be Section (set by Shaping point) because it is skipped (automaticly), recalculated with online routing and route option Extra curvy (picture C) and option Fastest (picture D) similar to offline routing:
C)

D)

Which recalculation mode is necessary that the recalculated route looks like picture A or B when at the Must Be Section there is set a shaping point instead of a via point?

[devemux86]

Thanks for the detailed description.

Note that allowing via points and shaping points to have the same weight in rerouting,
then nearest / next waypoint (also in strict) will be any of both: a via or shaping point.

Navigation panels will show distance and time to next any of via or shaping points.
And top-left nav panel will show direction / distance to any of via or shaping points.

There cannot be half solutions in rerouting vs UI, any change will affect all of them.

[devemux86]

So the most sane (and expected) options seem to be(?):

• Nearest waypoint
• Strict navigation

[Wolf]

Ich brauche nur den

“nächsten unbesuchten Wegpunkt”

wenn ich mich verfahren habe.

[devemux86]

Nearest or next, one of them.

[linux-user]

@Wolf

Ich brauche nur den

“nächsten unbesuchten Wegpunkt”

V1.13.5(beta)
[DE] Das sind die Optionen die wir z.Z haben:
Siehe meine Erklärung oben
--------------------------
[EN] These are the options we currently have:
See my explanation above

[zaphod_42]

Vielleicht verwirrt ja auch die “etwas unpräzise” Übersetzung ins Deutsche:

• Nearest route point = Nächstgelegener (oder nahester) Routenpunkt
• Nearest waypoint = Nächstgelegener (oder nahester) Wegpunkt
• Next waypoint = Nächster (oder folgender) Wegpunkt

[devemux86]

@Wolf

Ich brauche nur den
“nächsten unbesuchten Wegpunkt”
wenn ich mich verfahren habe.

“Nearest waypoint” is calculated after exit, so it’s the nearest of next ones, seems the logical choice.

[Wolf]

@devemux86

“Nearest waypoint” is calculated after exit, so it’s the nearest of next ones

Dann ist das wohl OK so
Denn der nächstgelegene Wegpunkt könnte auch der sein, den ich eben verlassen habe.
Ich möchte vermeiden, dass ich zu einem schon erreichten Punkt zurückgeführt werde oder, z.B. bei Umleitungen, in einer Schleife stecken bleibe.