Off topic: it seems to have different waypoint types too.
Quoting @boldtrn from another topic:
Strict route following is different and may come in the future:
Rerouting now works as described by @SchlesiM in waypoint types topic:
“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.
Sehe ich auch so.2 Optionen reichen.
Danke für die tolle Software
Continuing the discussion from Kurviger 1.13.5 (Beta):
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?
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.
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…
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
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.
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.
And now I show you why there are doubts for the until now prefered behaviour.
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:
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:
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?
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.
So the most sane (and expected) options seem to be(?):
- Nearest waypoint
- Strict navigation
Ich brauche nur den
“nächsten unbesuchten Wegpunkt”
wenn ich mich verfahren habe.
Nearest or next, one of them.
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
“Nearest waypoint” is calculated after exit, so it’s the nearest of next ones, seems the logical choice.
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.
Ich nutze nur “Folgender Wegpunkt”
I only use “Next waypoint”
The main difference between “Next waypoint” and “Nearest waypoint” is that “Next waypoint” leads back to last omitted waypoint, like “Strict navigation” but more flexible, so it’s already covered there.
While “Nearest waypoint” leads to the nearest of all “next” waypoints, seems what most navigators offer and so what most users expect.
We should also think about the history, and why we got all these rerouting options.
At the beginning we had only “nearest waypoint” - the flexible version
(well and nearest point on route)
Then users complained that waypoints may be automatically skipped; see Rerouting changes the planned route
As a solution we got “Next waypoint” (formerly called next unvisited waypoint)
Then users discovered, that you still can create situations where waypoints are skipped
So we got “strict navigation” - the strict version.
For users to understand the intention of this rerouting options and also for easy documentation we shoud only keep a strict and a flexible version.
Wir sollten auch über die Geschichte nachdenken, und darüber, warum wir all diese rerouting Optionen bekommen haben.
Am Anfang hatten wir nur den “nächstgelegenen Wegpunkt” - die flexible Version
(naja, und nächstgelegener Punkt auf der Route)
Dann beschwerten sich Benutzer, dass Wegpunkte automatisch übersprungen werden könnten; siehe Rerouting changes the planned route
Als Lösung erhielten wir “Nächster Wegpunkt” (früher “nächster unbesuchter Wegpunkt” genannt)
Dann entdeckten Benutzer, dass man immer noch Situationen schaffen kann, in denen Wegpunkte übersprungen werden
So haben wir also die “Strikte Navigation” bekommen - die strikte Version.
Damit die Benutzer die Intention dieser rerouting Optionen verstehen und auch aus Gründen der einfachen Dokumentation sollten wir nur eine strikte und eine flexible Version beibehalten.
Übersetzt mit www.DeepL.com/Translator (kostenlose Version)
… und kleinen Korrekturen von mir