Ok then a last last post: yes, I do. Just please take this as a proposal. Also then would be fine to make the context menu entries bigger as they are… distance between the entries around 3 times bigger than now and with Bold Font and bigger and big touch areas in order to not mix it up while driving and not select the wrong one with the motorcycle gloves.
Cool. I would consider this as a workaround until the “via / must be visited” waypoints and “shaping / can be omitted” waypoints feature is available:
When pressing the blue arrow, forcing to show the submenu in every case:
I guess it is possible to identify and remember the last passed waypoint (starting with 0)
Option 1: Route to next waypoint in sequence of the planned route
Option 2: Start (like already available)
Option 3: Stoppage (route to next but one waypoint in sequence of the planned route after skipping only the 1 next waypoint of the sequence…)
Option 4: Next waypoint to GPS position (like already available and driving me crazy)
I think I can then pull my socks up and remember not to use option 4 …
Ok I stay tuned, but for this weekend I will temporarily take another nav system for the Dolomites.
Mean a specific context menu or all of them?
We generally use Android’s default fonts, sizes per theme (except nav panels).
It’s considerable work to visit every UI element and apply custom appearance settings.
Android offers font size options under system “Settings | Display”, that could help in the meantime until we can review the UI.
No need to visit every UI element.
Mean all context menus. I played already around with bigger Font sizes on OS level, but this has the disadvantage that the navigation and information bars on the top get too big and use too much of the screen. This reduces the available space for the most important thing, the actual driven route.
If especially the context menus could be size increased, I think this should be just fine for every motorcyclist who mostly handles the smartphone with thick touch capable gloves.
That’s how Kurviger worked some time ago. And there were many complaints. There are many cases where you don’t start at your starting point. For example you stop at a road stop and stop the navigation. Start it again, suddenly you are in the middle of your route, why should you have to delete waypoints?
I think we had a discussion here in the forum to change the behavior to must visit all waypoints as an opt-in setting. But I think we dropped that in favor of allow to set certain waypoints as must-visit points.
I think that’s not a good solution. Hitting a large blue button with gloves can be done easily by everyone. Reading text, deciding for an option, and then trying to hit it with gloves is not nice.
That could work via an option (nearest point | follow waypoints) in Settings, so that during navigation no dialogs suddenly appear. Though still remains that need to re-implement different code paths to support different workflows.
I think to resolve, this Kurviger needs to keep track of past way points. When recalculation route due to stop or something, and starting up again, it should automatically route to next way point that it has not gone through and also have a setting that asks if recalculate should go to nearest way point or next way point.
Perhaps a proposal as a compromise, because I had an similar topic today:
Would it be interesting to give the user the chance to select “next waypoints” and additionally the selection " waypoint nr …“…” (entry of the number?) while importing a file and/or recalculation of a route?
Today I had a tour: we came to a blocked road because of some cable installation - and we followed a lokal information how to drive.
The tour was there like a large circle and because of the lokal signs we came nearly in the middle of the circle. The plan was to go to the south first, and then came back after driving aroung in a large circle. Rerouting was disabled . After a lot of km I’ve thought that I could do the rerouting (blue arrow) to find the way back to south on the planned track.
I didn’t imagine to be to near on the way back - and for sure it happened the not planned action: After e recalculation Kurviger planned a new track directly to the north and then the way home, withouth the planned large round tour. Unfortunately the rest of the track before was eliminated. So I’ve driven with another navigation tool to the next large city (I’ve remembered the name), there I’ve restarted Kurviger and imported again the origin kurviger-file (with information “next waypoint”). Then we’re back on the planned tour.
But a little bit complicated - and not easy to explain in english
So my idea was today: if I’m able to import the route and calculate with “next waypoint” - it would be interesting to have the function " waypoint nr…" as an alternative.
In my simple thinking I’ve thought that you still have the GPS-information of each waypoint, so to restart a route a planned waypoint with his GPS-coordinates should be possible?
The task would be "bring me from my actual point to waypoint nr. - and then follow the route as planned… "
What do you think about this?
Would this be possible in a further development?
Thanks and best regards
Juschka
In the past there was a note from devemux86 to configure the target for recalculation of the route when you are off the route. This seems to be a good idea.
Currently in navi mode when you are off the route the navi info Panels are empty and the “blue arrow” appears. Touching the “blue arrow” sometimes a Dialog appears and/or recalculation is started when you have Internet Connection.
Content of the Dialog: 1. A button to save the actual route. The Name of the route file could be automatically a timestamp and the Format could be *.kurviger. So you don’t have to manipulate more dialogs. When the user wants other names or formats e.g. he can Import the route file later and Export it with other Name and Format. 2. Short note what to do. 3. Selection of target via radiobuttons. In the draft you find some items. Juschka had a nice idea, to ad a selection item: “Waypoint no …”. 4. Bringing back note (red in draft).
Pre activatet selection item Comes from the Settings mentioned below.
Similar to this draft the selection Dialog in the Routing Settings for Off The Route Bringing Back Calculation could be. There you don’t need the save button (1) and bringing back note (4).
That’s only a proposal without knowing what is possible or not. Thanks to the developers what they are giving us in app and web.
Title says “Rerouting changes the planned route”. I did not use the blue arrow Action and therefore I don’t know like it works.
Is rerouting when being Off The Route possible like “Extending the route”? Is it possible that the actual route stays and only the calculated route from Location Off the Route to target in actual route is added?
Only a question to understand how recalculation works.
Thanks for the effort to provide the dialog!
But it’s much text and none really will read it, specially while on road with navigation active.
Also export has already its detailed place, would like to keep things simple and not mixed.
The rerouting was always performed from user location towards nearest point.
Unless if begin navigation, when the dialog asks if want rerouting to start instead.
The blue arrow simply allows to trigger rerouting with a tap (when is disabled).
I think WalterG’s idea with the long tap on the direction indicator and the dialog is very good (apart from the saving option which should stay where it already is).
Thanks for the quick answer. Perhaps there are some missunderstandings.
Content of the Dialog you see as draft in the picture. It’s much compacter than the words following “Content of the Dialog”. It’s my intention to use as less text as possible in dialogs.
But the user should understand what he is doing. Do reduce text to a minimum sometimes is a long process.
Text in the picture is just a draft. Text can be changed or shortened.
This Dialog only appears if you touch blue arrow a Long time to select your “actual preferences” for bringing back (recalculation) to the route. This Dialog and Blue Arrow Action (Long tap) IMHO only makes sense when Settings for “Off The Route Calculation” (in my words “Bringing back”) are implemented.
Following my words “Content of the Dialog” is an explanation to the text in the picture following “Draft of Dialog”. This explanations are not in the Dialog itself. They only give more info to that what is in the picture. Some things of these explanations perhaps could be part of a documentation to the Dialog. With Content more the items (numbered 1 to 4) were meaned I would prefer in the Dialog.
Sorry for confusing, but it’s hard to describe in english what i mean.
You don’t like the save button in the Dialog or what do you mean with saving option?
Isn’t it good if you can safe your unsaved route only with one tap in this Dialog and you have not to open more dialogs for this Action?
In my opinion it’s fine if you only have to do one tap to save the unsaved route and with an other tap then select your actual prefered target when it differs from the target selected in the Settings for Bringing Back to actual route (These Settings actually are not implemented, but mentioned by devemux86 in the past).
Actual workflow without saving actual route and without selecting preferred target (with number of taps):
Blue Arrow Tap (1 Tap)
The workflow to check or manipulate the target proposed by me is (with number of taps):
a) without saving actual route, check without manipulation of target:
Blue Arrow Long Tap > OK (2 Taps)
b) without saving actual route, check with manipulation of target:
Blue Arrow Long Tap > Select your actual prefered target > OK (3 Taps)
c) with saving actual route, without manipulation of target:
Blue Arrow Long Tap > Save Button Tap > OK (3 Taps)
d) with saving actual route, with manipulation of target:
Blue Arrow Long Tap > Save Button Tap > Select your actual prefered target > OK (4 Taps)
Due to this workflows the Blue Arrow Long Tap perhaps for some users could be the prefered Blue Arrow Action because of Information to the target they will be brought back and with only one more tap they can save the actual route. Is it possible to save the actaul route with less taps?
This Dialog IMHO only makes sense when “Bring Back To”-Settings are implemented.
Blue Arrow Action perhaps is more important when Offline Routing is available. Therefor it’s worth to have a view on user friendly use handling of it.
Sorry for confusing, but it’s hard to describe in english what I mean. Currently I have problems using the Features of the forum. I have to learn much! Though I like the discussion to improve the app. Be free to answer, can respect each answer.
The whole discussion boils down to one question: How should Kurviger treat waypoints that you have “passed” (= left “behind” you) while being off route?
Currently Kurviger skips automatically waypoints that are “behind” you even if you haven’t visited them.
That’s a feature, that could lead to unwanted results in some cases at round trips.
Mario (@SchlesiM) has excellently explained the possible situations above.
The arrow (blue traffic sign) points you back to your planned route.
When you tap on it, it does calculate a way back to your planned route.
IMHO that’s an easy understandable behavior.
Any menu popping up here makes things more complicated and I wouldn’t like that while navigating.
I think, a (relatively) simple and clean solution would be some sort of settings, where you tell Kurviger how to treat waypoints that you haven’t visited.
Something like:
You have lost your route and want a (one time) recalculation - vehicle is possible moving.
Now you want to long press the blue arrow (vehicle may be stopped at a traffic light)
Chances are, that you accidently trigger a short tab
IMHO the one time recalculation feature is only useful if it can be triggered quickly by a short tab.
If you want questions to be asked, then better stop navigation and start it again.
…
