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 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 âflagâ 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 donât want at turn instructions can be replaced by Shaping points.
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:
are shown as small dots
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.
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.
The route is built by shaping points added on map:
Add via points
Via points are places you want to go through when navigating the route - the voice navigation will notify you of them and in case of route recalculation the via points are not detoured.
Hmm âŚ
âin case of route recalculation the via points are not detouredâ
Does this mean, that Locus treats via points different than shaping points?!
Point priority - Locus recalculates the route to the nearest transit (or âviaâ) point on the planned route. If there are no âviaâ 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.
But both options could lead to skipping waypoints.
So why do they say:
âin case of route recalculation the via points are not detouredâ
Fully support this statement! I plan my routes always with about 3-4 Stops (routing points) but about 15-20 shaping points (yes I like the proposals of kurviger but I still use also the old map for planning). Skipping of shaping points due to detour recalculation makes sharping points function useless for me.
So the only needed change seems to be that shaping points must participate in rerouting,
even if they are before the next via point. Does everything else work the way we need it?
Well, this is then different as proposed above: here and here
If you donât want to have different rerouting strategies (strict for via points, flexible for shaping points)
than, the only difference (between via points an shaping points) would be: