Dynamic Auto Zoom (how ME I would call it now to avoid the "automatic Auto Zoom" irritation of terms) is one of the most important features for cruising, in my view.
So let’s go ahead to argue about this feature, if you don’t mind.
A Navigation mode
Question: To which parameter is dynamic Autozoom linked?
It could be, for example,
distance to next instruction point,
speed,
curvyness,
building situation (cities or overland).
Following recent observations, dynamic auto zoom is directly correlated to "DISTANCE to next instruction point" - is that correct?
Although it already works well - and just to continue the discussion - could SPEED not be an even better parameter, because speed reflects a combination of ALL the parameters above?
B Following mode
In every case - DISTANCE would not work with the pure following, non navigation mode, because there are no instrution points.
But, as already mentioned above by others, a Dynamic Auto Zoom would be a great feature also for this mode, for example to be able to forsee the street running or buildings for security reasons.
So, at least in case B you need another parameter, and again SPEED could be a good choice, I believe.
C Conclusion
Doesn’t it then make sense to choose SPEED in both modi as parameter for Dynamic Auto Zoom?
There isn’t any dynamic or fixed distinction with current options.
Just set auto zoom on / off and select your min / max zoom levels.
Navigation will play seamlessly between them.
Already mentioned above that auto zoom currently works with next turn instruction (when min ≠ max).
There are no immediate plans to transform Follow mode to Navigation.
Having a route can navigate. Follow remains a very simple alternative.
Speed certainly remains on our radar for future enhancements.
Don’t think that offline routing automagically solves all world problems.
When desktop waits routing to complete, mobiles won’t ever be faster.
CPU on that case will work overtime too, consuming battery as always.
I am actually not sure. I think speed is an important parameter and could in some way influence the zoom.
With Kurviger you often have to turn on very small roads in the middle of nowhere. If the zoom depends on speed, you would be cruising for example with 100km/h, this results in a pretty low zooom that offers a lot of overview to see the next couple of curves etc. Now there is a turn coming up.
When using the distance to next instruction, the display will zoom in and show you details about the turn. If you are 200m away from the turn, you can already see all relevant details.
When using speed, 200m before the turn you might be still going around 100, maybe you already slowed down a bit. But you wouldn’t see all relevant details for your turn, because you need to slow down first. I think it should be the other way around, see details about the turn and then slow down.
But speed could be an important factor for the zoom. For example, when slowing down and there is no turn close, the app could zoom in to show details. When speed reaches 0, the app could start to slowly zoom out again to show overview.
Don’t agree: Me I often use Following Mode in cases I don’t use navigation, for example when I am very familiar with the roads used, that is mostly the case in my home region.
But although then I use Kurviger in Following Mode to have this overview of street running, as other users already mentioned as well.
Why then do not even improve this not unimportant feature by an (optional) Dynamic Auto Zoom in Following Mode? Could be an unmique selling point particularly for bikers.
Follow mode is not aware of any routing, not its job, that is intended for navigation.
In follow mode can introduce only other GPS variables, like speed in a common way: fast > zoom out, slow > zoom in.
Want to to pick this up again and continue to argue:
Had a (very nice, thx to Kurviger) trip on last Sunday and tested several settings for min and max dynamic auto zoom.
Again I came to the observation - and following suggestion:
When the dynamic zoom uses distance to next instruction point, I am not completely satisfied, because, when I have for example 5 km to the next instruction point, dynamic auto zoom chooses my minimum zoom factor, but
on a straight section of the road which I take with about 100 km/h I would like a low zoom in to have an overview over a more far section of this road,
when I move on a more curvy road but with a good view (flat landscape, no buildings, woods, hills etc) which I take with, let’s say, 80 km/h, i would prefer a medium zoom,
but when this road or a another section of it is really curvy and the road is not clear and I slow down to 50 km/h I would like to have a strong zoom in to see how the curves are continued.
How could this be realized? The navigation technology by itself can’t easily realize that.
But the rider’s (resp. driver’s) intelligence does - by choosing an appropriate speed, adapted to all these cirumstances (mostly … )!
So why don’t use this intelligence to control the dynamic zoom?!
If you have a distance of 200 m to the next turn “on very small roads in the middle of nowhere”; and have still a speed of 100 km/h (!), I guess you KNOW this turning point - and then indeed you don’t need zooming in early.
But in the most cases in such a situation, if the road is unknown to you, you WILL SLOW DOWN, and the dynamic zoom will zoom in accordingly - and this makes sense.
The factor of the correlation beween velocity and zoom may then indeed be an object of another discussion and experiences (or an option to be chosen itself by the user) - but this correlation basically seems to me an intelligent feature and an important unique selling point for Kurviger (in navigation mode as well as in following mode).
(… perhaps forgotten to stress again, what is my issue: )
… an that are the reasons, why I still would like to argue in favor of “controlling dynamic auto zoom by SPEED” instead of “distance to next turning instruction”.
I agree with you, speed could be an additional factor for choosing the zoom-level and I also think this makes sense.
Or more importantly, I don’t know this turn and don’t even realize that this was a turn until I missed it. Before auto zoom this happened from time to time in an unknown area and usually with strong sunlight, so smartphone readability was reduced anyway, during that time I mostly use the map to navigate.
You drive on a nice rural road and don’t see a possible intersection, so you just drive (or ride). Unfortunately, my favorite example is not on Mapillary, but for the sake of argument, let’s have a look at this intersection, this is still a lot better than the intersection I am talking about, but it is pretty minor, has no street signs, on first sight, this looks like a random rural road, but Kurviger would like to turn onto it. Another example, that I almost missed is this intersection, you come up a nice curvy road, and just after the last curve, you turn left where the parking symbol is, it’s pretty nice narrow road, but easy to miss, so you just drive, I usually don’t use voice output during navigation, so I am limited to the screen.
I agree, I think this makes a lot of sense in following mode (only option anyway) and is a nice addition to distance of the next turn, I just think it shouldn’t be the only variable.
I agree, but completely in the opposite direction of what you expect. Please don’t only think and propose what is your favorite. I also would like to keep using Kurviger. I see that others prefer a different way, so please make it optional. If you make a speed dependable zooming what I appreciate, then please make 2 setting options, one for zooming in at low speed and 1 for zooming in at high speed.
I would simply expect “the more speed, the more zoom in”.
Reason:
I never slow down much before curves, even not in unknown areas except before switchbacks and this is what I want Kurviger to show me before… If I have a good speed, then I don’t care what comes in 500m or more, I want to see the curvature 30-50m (max. 100m distance) in front of me, big and with a good contrast in the middle of the screen starting with the GPS arrow at the bottom of the screen.
This can be the case, but doesn’t have to be. Mostly not with my driving style.
NO, I can adapt the speed and incline position if necessary, for sure not because I don’t know the area.
Hi Tom - thank you for your reply - very interesting!
In my view it shows three things:
First, how different the daily experiences of us all are,
secondly, how important these communicated experiences from the daily different practice and discussions are - and therefore this forum is,
thirdly, how important it is to keep Kurviger as flexible as possible to match these different behaviors and driving styles - i.e. allow as much options as possible (perhaps in an addiitional "expert mode / menu" as we already discussed in the old forum) to let the users make their choices and customize Kurviger to their individual needs.
Please don’t get me wrong, I really don’t want to discipline you , but in those situations I’d prefer to keep my eyes more on the street than on a small display.
But as Uli already mentioned: everbody has his own way to use a tool like the Kurviger app. So I also 100% agree, that it’s always better to make things configurable for all the specific personal needs, than to predefine how to use it.
But regarding the possible configuration elements, I think Kurviger is quite balanced yet.
This thread became very long already. Therefore not so easy to follow and understand what has been agreed/disagreed on.
I just want to raise my vote for having also a speed dependent zoom in/out option.
Today I tested the settings and my conclusion is the speed option is definitely missing. Zooming only by distance to the next instruction is too limited. While driving thru smaller villlages where the next turn is a couple of kilometers away, kurviger uses the lowest (?) zoom level I set. This setting is ok while driving outside of the village, but while within a village I would prefer another zoom level.
Thanks for sharing your test results. I agree with you here. Speed is an important factor for zooming and we are considering to add a speed-dependent zoom in the future.
Happy to read that a speed dependet zoom will come in future. I miss that too espacialy when running through small villages where no waypoint is inserted in the route and therefore the waypoint based zoom doesn’t applay. I had that experiance several times here in the Apenin. The villages are sometimes very curvy with several posibilitys of small street left or right. And unfortunatelly it is not every time obvious which one to chose. In this cases I’m very slow and a quick check to the map would realy help. But at the moment in those cases the map is zoomed out and the details can’t bei seen. (and imagine that 5 bikes behind mee have to turn too in case of my wrong decision…
On the other hand I like the waypoint dependet zoom a lot, because it starts to zoom into the map while I’m still driving at higher speeds which gives a very good impression of what is comming up.
Therefore a combination of both zoom types could possible be the optimum?
Hello together,
one questuion about the distance dependet auto zoom function. It works perfectly for me with instruction points genereted by the routing tool. But it does’t work with waypoints that I added manually to the route. Do I have a wrong setting in the menue? Or is that behaviour not desired?
Could be useful because self generated waypoints are sometimes or mostly of special interest within the trip and therefore a zoom into the map could be helpful.
What do other users think about such suggestion?
Regards Frank
Dynamic auto zoom works with turn instructions, as those are active route elements.
Waypoints don’t even need to be on route, though there are plans to enhance them.
)!
)
