Kurviger.de | Application | Blog | Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Legal Notice | Privacy Policy

App: Improve rerouting settings

In combination with other features (e.g. skip next waypoint, Avoid roadblock, different offline routing engines etc.) things are getting more and more complicated.

Now, that we have waypoint types, do we still need all this options?
Wouldn`t it be enough to have only one re-routing option and let the user decide his/her preference by selecting the correct waypoint type :thinking:

  • via points: are mandatory
  • shaping points: may be skipped

So the only rerouting option beeing left, would be Next unvisited ViaPoint
What do others think?

1 Like

After all recent implemented features, that seems a valid suggestion, that will simplify many things.

1 Like

Nearest point on route is also useful, I use it by default. But it often tries to return me to point that is behind my bike. Even 5 km. It should direct me to te point in front of my wheels.

Human perception is completely different than mathematics.
That’s why another rerouting option is default & more useful.


If I want keep route exactly, I disable Rerouting. It’s fine for me.


This is another reason why I suggested to remove “Nearest point on route” from re-routing options.
I would instead keep “Nearest point on route” as an option at start of navigation

This way you can still use this routing option, without complicating the app unnecessarily.
IMHO “Nearest point on route” makes more sense at start of navigation, than as an option for automatic recalculation.

I find this flexibility a strength of Kurviger. Everyone can then find his/her preferred setting. My preferred option would be the new option “next unvisited Viapoint”, yes, but I would not exclude, depending of the goal of the tour to test and enjoy other options. Why not? If it is available, why delete the others?

By the way, can waypoint types and names also be set in the web planning version?

There was never a promise that the application will remain in the same state for all its life.
I manage the development and should keep things simple for easy maintenance in future.
It’s an ongoing process with things coming & going or else shouldn’t expect new features.

Please ask the questions in their related topics.

1 Like

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

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.

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

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

Back to Kurviger

Currently we have:

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 :thinking:
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.

1 Like

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

1 Like

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:

1 Like

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

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

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.

1 Like

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?