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

App: Waypoint types

A post was split to a new topic: Rerouting question

That means, that " Einstellungen / Routenberechnung / Wegpunkte in Anweisungen" only affects waypoints with names?

That’s correct.

At the start I implemented them differently (like most routers?):

  • All via points participate in turn instructions / navigation
  • Only shaping points do not participate / alert for arrival

But community asked only the named via points to alert for arrival.
Because there are some external imports that set unneeded names in via points causing problems.

Since there is the “Waypoints in instructions” option in settings, is that the best decision?
Certainly it’s more flexible.

1 Like

And I’m not sure about one point in 1.13.9:

When rerouting with setting “next waypoint”, shaping points located before this next waypoint are disregarded and can be automatically omitted. Correct?

That’s correct, see also the related discussion above.

1 Like

Yes, see also this explanation:

That’s why I don’t use shaping points.

1 Like

Thank you, that’s exactly why I plan to do in future:

  1. no shaping points

  2. points to be driven through where I do not need any turning instructions, but which should stay on the route: unnamed visit points

  3. for real intermediate destinations, for which I would like to have turn instructions: named visit-points

1 Like

And this is, why there should be changed anything! I tried to give the reason in my post you refer to. There i mentionened:

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

It should be possible to consider shaping points at rerouting!

Why? One point is: To use shaping points in the route with there marking which is not so dominant than the marking of waypoints.

In my post I had an example where I tried to describe this.

To come back to this thread (waypoint types):
We should try to use the advantages of the type shaping point!

1 Like

I definitely agree with that

All shaping points are used in rerouting (after next via point).

The primary question is: rerouting should be done towards next via point or next shaping point?

Via points are the “must visit” points, shaping points are less significant only for route geometry.

As already explained, making them equal will change also all navigation algorithms and UI info:

Currently we have 3 rerouting strategies available

  • nearest waypoint
  • next waypoint
  • strict navigation

I would like to combine those in the following way.

  • For shaping points

    • use nearest waypoint (so they can be skipped if they are behind you)
  • For via points let the user chose:

    • use next waypoint
    • or use strict navigation

And of course shaping points should not appear in the navigation pannel.

To difficult to implement?

Now we are a little off topic. But in the context I try to answer here.

In my opinion not only the shaping points after the next via point should be used. I would prefer when rerouting would be done to next (perhaps “next” should be the point selected in “Rerouting mode”) point, which can be a shaping point or a via point.

Shaping points and Via points are Waypoints. In the “Rerouting mode” as selection are “Waypoints”. For this both (Via points and shaping points) could be considered

But the route segments with a shaping point in my opinion are “must visit” segments. That I tried to say in my detailed description linked by @devemux86. For this perhaps the shaping points should be set “must visit” too (only a thought, I don’t know the real solution).

It would be nice, if there is a possibility to use shaping points as described above.

@devemux86 if wanted, don’t hesitate to move this post from “App: Waypoint types” to “App: Improve rerouting settings”.

I thought turning instructions (distance / time in navigation panels, direction / time in top-left nav panel) are only displayed for waypoints with names? Unnamed waypoints go unnoticed there, I thought? So there wouldn’t be a problem as long as no name is given fo shaping points?

And for rerouting my suggestion would be that you can generally choose between “only via point (shaping points ignored)” and “via or shaping point”. The default can be “only via point (shaping points ignored)”.

This setting should then affect both “nearest waypoint” and “next waypoint”, otherwise it will be too complicated.

For me shaping points also are “must visit”.

Yes, but why would we need then shaping points at all?
If we don’t treat shaping points different, than we don’t need them.

Then following common sense, all via points should be in turn instructions (named or not).
(we cannot bend the common rules as we like for only some cases)

Also have you seen how shaping points (or via points) are used in other routers?
(we should not try to reinvent the wheel)

Shaping points:

  • No name, only numbered
  • decent marking (only a point with number)
  • not mentioned in turn instructions
  • considered in routing as waypoint

Shaping points are a big advantage when you not only give the route types and avoid types for the routing but if you force the routing to use prefered must visit segments in your route. Sometimes you have to set some shaping points to reach this. And then the decent marking is a big advantage when showing the route.

Via points:

  • numbered, can be named by user
  • dominant marking (a “flag” with number)
  • mentioned in turn instructions
  • considered in routing as waypoint

To be friendly to other statements: This could be the solution. Because all nonamed Via points you don’t want at turn instructions can be replaced by Shaping points.

3 Likes

I agree with @WalterG

For me this would be OK:

  • Turn instructions for all via points (named or not)
  • No turn instructions for all shaping points (named or not)

But configurable whether shaping points are taken into account when rerouting or not. (Or always take them into account)

Shaping points still differ from via points as follows:

  1. are shown as small dots
  2. do not provide turn instructions

What makes clear differences to via points.

Nevertheless, it would be important to be able to take shaping points into account for rerouting (configurable or always).

For example, you can create POIs or planned breaks as via points, see them clearly on the route and receive turn instructions for them.

Sections that you want to drive through, but which are not necessarily defined by a certain geographical point, but define an important section of the route, can be defined by shaping points.

Just my suggestion …

3 Likes

The thing is that first implementation was as described by @WalterG:
(then users complained for imports, etc. and we started the changes…)

1 Like

The desires of the users at the end not always allow us to work economical. Sometimes we spend time for work with not so useful features.

But introducing the shaping points and your first implementation is a big gain for the app. To differ named and unnamed via points for turn instructions was a (little?) unnecessary detour. But at the end drawing the right conclusions makes the app better!

When the shaping points and the named via points are available in the published version of the app users will recognize the advantages. Some earlier desires loose priority and perhaps investing time to it is unnecessary.

IIRC the issue was, that coordinates were exported into the name field.
I think this is solved now on the website: Website: Export and waypoint names.