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

App: Waypoint types

Via point numbers can appear in waypoints list too, along with their names.

I could show also shaping point numbers. Then all waypoints (via + shaping) will have a common numbering (like happens in other apps), which seems more convenient(?).

2 Likes

Next version will have improved numbering in map symbols and waypoints list:

4 Likes

Ich hoffe bei den vielen Wegpunkte-Themen bin ich hier richtig. :slightly_smiling_face: Ich bin heute wieder eine Tour gefahren und es kamen wieder die Koordinaten als Ansage statt Wegpunkt 1. Die Grunddatei für meine Route war t13170858_gruener ring leipzig.gpx (495,3 KB) . Diese habe ich auf kurviger.de hochgeladen und mir die Route angepasst https://kurv.gr/ZSLXv. Dann wie gehabt über exportieren in Google Drive verschoben und dort mit der Kurviger-App geöffnet. Ich dachte gelesen zu haben das keine Ansagen mehr erfolgen, wenn nur Koordinaten drinstehen oder das die Punkte automatisch mit Wegpunkt 1 und folgend benannt werden? Oder habe ich da etwas falsch verstanden? :thinking: Kurviger Pro 1.13.5, Android 10 (API 29), HUAWEI PCT-L29, 1080 x 2310 (480 dpi)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hope I’m in the right place with the many waypoint topics. :slightly_smiling_face: I did another tour today and again the coordinates were announced instead of waypoint 1. The basic file for my route was t13170858_gruener ring leipzig.gpx (495,3 KB) . I have uploaded these on kurviger.de and adapted the route https://kurv.gr/ZSLXv. Then I moved it to Google Drive via export and opened it with the Kurviger app. I thought I read that there are no more announcements if there are only coordinates or that the points are automatically named with waypoint 1 and following? Or did I misunderstand something? :thinking: Kurviger Pro 1.13.5, Android 10 (API 29), HUAWEI PCT-L29, 1080 x 2310 (480 dpi)

In app can suppress waypoint instructions with one of several ways:

  • Disable the waypoint instructions setting
  • Change via points to shaping points
  • Remove names from via points

Regarding website’s export of waypoint names, see the related discussion:

@devemux86 Danke, in der App habe ich aus jedem zweiten Wegpunkt einen Formpunkt gemacht. Da kam keine Ansage, das klappt. :+1: Mit dem Deaktivieren bin ich mir gerade unsicher. Würden dann gewollte Wegpunkte wie Pause oder Schloss noch angesagt werden? :thinking: Die Diskussion verfolge ich, soweit es mein Englisch bzw. der Google Übersetzer es zulässt. :sweat_smile: Das entfernen des Namens funktioniert nur in der App, wenn ich es richtig sehe? Teste ich auf der nächsten Tour. :slightly_smiling_face:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
@devemux86 Thanks, in the app I made a shape point out of every second waypoint. There was no announcement, that works. :+1: I’m not sure about deactivating it. Would you still announce wanted waypoints like break or lock? :thinking: I follow the discussion as far as my English or the Google translator allows it. :sweat_smile: Removing the name only works in the app if I see it correctly? I will test it on the next tour. :slightly_smiling_face:

To have waypoint instructions would need all together:

  • Enable the waypoint instructions setting
  • Use via points (no shaping points)
  • Add names on via points
1 Like

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.