I do not fully agree: In Garmin Navigators (Zumo and also BMW Navigators) one big difference between ShapingPoints and ViaPoints is, that ShapingPoints do not have to be “reached”, they are skipped automatically if you drive a detour etc.
ViaPoints have to be reached - so if you do not Skip them manually, Garmin Navigators might guide you backwards on the planned route to the “not reached” ViaPoint.
From my point of view this is the most important difference between those 2 kind of points…
You can already use the “Next unvisited waypoint” option for that kind of rerouting.
This is more if a navigator is flexible allowing automatic skip of waypoints or not (a different option).
We cannot fill the UI or the implementation with so many workflows, must use some sane defaults.
The above discussion started more about what happens with next waypoint types during rerouting.
I 100% agree with this.
- stopover points (or viaPoints) -> must not be skipped automaticaly
- shaping points -> can be skipped automatically
My ideal rerouting strategy would be a combination between “next unvisited waypoint” and “nearest waypoint” something like this:
Use nearest waypoint
unless a “stopover waypoint” would be skipped
Then use “next unvisited stopover point”
That’s exactly what I meant by asking how shaping points will be handled in case of rerouting.
In my opinion a differentiation would be a helpful (and consequent) addition to the way those both types are displayed.
Therefore there would be 2 types of waypoints:
- shaping-points: can be omitted in case of rerouting
- visit-points (or via-points): cannot be ommitted automatically (only the user deletes them, changes them into a shaping-point or uses the “skip next waypoint” function)
I think there wouldn’t be any new/addtional UI elements necessary to support such a behaviour because its just the internal logic of the rerouting algorithm.
So that just means that shaping points, as they don’t participate in turn instructions / voice guidance,
they shouldn’t participate at all also in rerouting. Rerouting uses only via points (like in 1.12 version).
Yes, that’s the reaon why I would vote for an additional options in the rerouting settings:
- nearest point in route
- nearest waypoint (means: both types)
- next unvisited waypoint (means: both types)
- next unvisited visit-point (means: without considering shaping-points)
To be more specific: if the last (new) option is set, 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. But also as reasoned as necessary.
Why a new option? Because this most probably still depends on the way someone uses the two types of waypoints. I’m pretty sure that there will be differences between - for example - (former?) Garmin users and those who are using Kurviger as straight forward and simple as possible (and therefore won’t even use shaping-points at all).
(moved discussion in its related feature topic)
I really like and appreciate the way you take care about keeping topics and discussions structured and well organized .
That seems complicated and there are still the “Avoid roadblock” and “Skip next waypoint” reroutings, we cannot have multiple options in every UI rerouting process.
Also how about round trips, are their auto generated intermediate points supposed to be shaping points (now they are) or yellow via points? If they are shaping points then a rerouting that skips them will lead back to start.
So probably the most simple workflow is to keep the UI options unmodified.
And use shaping points only for rerouting from nearest / next waypoint to the end, so can maintain the rest route geometry.
I can understand your thoughts quite well. Nevertheless it would really improve Kurviger’s functionality and make the two waypoint types much more useful. I think other manufacturers (like Garmin) had similar motivations for implementing such features in their rerouting algorithms.
In my opinion a regular (visit) waypoint should always be default (also if creating roundtrips). Because shaping-points have a somehow less obligatory character so that the user should decide about it.
Sounds like a reasonable solution and helps to keep things as simple as possible. So the existing option “next unvisited waypoint” (for example) would result in a behaviour like my suggested “next unvisited visit-point”, right? I think that would be absolutely sufficient.
Round trip intermediate points are set for shaping the route, so they’re meant as shaping points.
But since that could produce other rerouting issues, I can revert them back to via points.
Exactly, like you described:
(I will see how this can be implemented)
Exactly. From a human point of view you’re absolutely right, of course. But from a “computer’s point of view” this may lead to loss of the initial intended routing plan.
One of my friends returned his BMW navigator because he thought
a study of computer science was necessary for the operation.
Are we not moving in the same direction here? (And I’m not kidding!)
No, I don’t think so. But for this reason it is very important that things should be kept as simple as possible (and this is something devemux86 is really very aware of). And to keep in mind that all default options and functions should work properly for “basic” users without the need to “learn” too much aspects.
But if someone is willing to “dive deeper” he will be rewarded by having a really powerful tool which can be adjusted for his very personal and individual needs.
And there’s a difference between discussing “internal” algorithms and using them later as a regular user (when all those “internal” aspects aren’t visible any longer but instead the app just “works”).
The discussed improvements were implemented in Kurviger 1.13.3 (Beta).
Wouldn’t it be helpful to name the “shaping-points” differently? The expression is already used by Garmin - it could therefore lead to misunderstandings. Just an idea …
They’re named like that because they’re the same waypoint types and so the term is well known.
I set up all routes on the website and then transfer it to my cell by URL link. How do I select which waypoint type on the website? How could I convert over 100 routes from stopover points to shaping points? Could you make the default shaping point on app and website and then manually select points to be stopover points. Could there be a 2 switches on app, 1) notify shaping points, 2) notify stopover points?
Waypoint types in app are according to the standards.
Via points have turn instructions, shaping points don’t.
You can change them in their menu or list (seen here).
Better discuss that in website’s feature topic:
I like and support this idea (or a default selection in the option menu), because most of my waypoints are shaping points.