unfortunately Kurviger still can’t manage correctly if a round trip contains crosswise routing. Even if the setting in routing mode is next unvisited waypoint, this doesn’t work.
When starting to turn around and driving to wp5 (= wp13 in the track), it suddenly deletes all wps from wp5 to and including wp16, which means my complete route is lost → 2nd problem
I had to stop and re-import the planned route… but it doesn’t brings me back to wp5, because it has “forgotten” that I had already visited all wps till wp4 -->3rd problem
I should have deleted all previous wps? A mess without proper spectacles.
The consequence was that it routes me to a new destination (maybe it thinks wp1 would be my next wp) and I lost my complete path. Green Arrow was the planned route.
Further on the route after I have found again the way by manually deleting wps (which was alone very bad because 5 bikes behind me were waiting until I sort out the app problems), it completely ignores a big beautiful round
Instead of guiding from wp6 to wp7, it directly took the way to wp10, completely ignoring wp7,8 and 9. This is really not what I am expecting when the setting is “routing to next unvisited waypoint”. It simply doesn’t work.
Kurviger should simply KEEP the sequence… also when the route contains crosswise waypoints… after wp4 there is wp5 and not wp17!! And after wp6 the next wp is wp7 and not wp10!! And it should keep knowing the already passed wps when I have to reload the planned route because Kurviger unattendetly deletes wps.
forgot to explain the voice guidance bug… I simulated the no internet connection by activating the flight mode… I use brouter fallback. It works in principle, but it loses the voice guidance then and even after deactivation the flight mode, the voice guidance remains lost… I had to switch off my bluetooth device and switch it on again to reconnect, then it worked again
Any particular reason to have such behavior towards developers and community? Does anyone really drive that way or expects them to invest time to such reports?
Everyone please study forum guidelines and if don’t like a feature can also skip it.
Why that sensitive?.. this is nothing against developers and community… I just was irritated because the app once more has disturbed a tour. It is not the first time where I have reported this bug. I think it helps contributing to sort out problems.
How is this meant? How should I skip this feature? I thought “route to next unvisited wp” is specially intended to keep the sequence of waypoints, isn’t it?. And it doesn’t work in round trips where you use the same road for the return or have cross-overs. Is it planned that it doesn’t work then?
Das Thema mit dem Überkreuzen kann ich Morgen mal testen, habe eine ähnliche Konstellation https://kurv.gr/mbuPV . Andere Frage, ist die Sperrung zwischen Helmbach und Breitenstein aktuell?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can test the topic with the crossover tomorrow, have a similar constellation https://kurv.gr/mbuPV . Another question, is the closure between Helmbach and Breitenstein up to date?
Ich vermute, diese Tour ist nicht kompliziert genug. Da sind zu wenige Wegpunkte um das Straßenkreuz. Das Problem besteht bei einer komplexen Rundtour und vor allem, wenn mehrere Wegpunkte auf kurzer Distanz eine exakte Route vorgeben sollen. Das Problem ist, dass kurviger einfach nicht die sequentielle Reihenfolge von Wegunkten einhält. Wenn ich eine Route plane, dann will ich, insbesondere bei der Option Route zum nächsten nicht besuchten WP, dass eine Navigation diese strikt einhält und nichtselbständig Wegpunkte löschst oder überspringt. Bei anderen Optionen kann sie das ja gerne tun, nur bei dieser nicht.
Coming back to “big sh…”. I excuse for this word. It was a personal huff directly after my tour because the app kurviger once more has deleted wps of my route and didn’t behave as expected when having the routing option “next unvisited waypoint” active. But even with it, I didn’t criticize people, I have criticized the behaviour of the app in a special case which was intended to strictly keep the waypoints in a sequential way… route from wp1 to wp2, wp3, wp4… not skipping and not deleting waypoints which haven’t been visited yet.
I have contributing to the goal of Kurviger to make the best motorcycle app by taking screenshots and time to describe the problem.
For my understanding after reading the guidelines this is not against anybody, neither the developer nor comunity member --> criticize ideas, not people
This “skipping and deleting waypoints” behaviour may have been requested by somebody, but I can’t imagine that it was a motorcycle rider. It makes only sense to me when somebody wants to get home or to the destination quicker… a motorcycle rider normally doesn’t want that. He/she wants that the waypoints willingly set and not made as a shaping point (I guess this can be skipped), not get deleted or skipped. The app has 2 other options “next routing point” and “next waypoint”. Such a behaviour maybe ok for these 2 options, but for the option “next unvisited waypoint” is for my understanding already in the word unvisited determining that NO unvisited waypoint should be skipped or deleted. I had specially asked for such an option and you have introduced it, great. But isn’t it a bug that should be corrected if it doesn’t behave like intended? Why else should there be such a 3rd option if it doesn’t act differently as the other 2 options?
Hi Tom, thanks for editing your post and saying that you’re absolutely correct, your post as it is now is a great bug report with lots of heart and detail put into it
I love this forum because honestly… It’s much better than lots of other motorcycle forums, because being nice is a TOP priority. You know that devemux86 is our app developer right? You’ll have to accept that when he says he feels attacked then…well it was an attack it’s good to hear you didn’t mean it!
And I’m sure he’ll do something about the routing problems when possible
Your reports are often a bit emotional . It would be nice if you take a few deep breathes before posting, this would make things easier for everyone. I often find that emotions don’t work well in text form - that’s why they invented smileys .
Usually issues can be reproduced with a few easy steps and with a route that only has a few waypoints. If too many things are happening it’s hard too reproduce and understand. If an issue only occurs after many complicated and non-reproducible steps happened, then it’s almost impossible to fix.
If you look at this in the simulation it seems to work correct. So it’s impossible to guess why it didn’t work for you.
What I think could have happened, if you missed the left turn to WP5, the navigation continues towards WP17.
After that, to be honest, I don’t understand what is happening.
Where do all these waypoints come from? They are not in the initially planned route. Kurviger won’t add random waypoints.
If you want your navigation to match your planned route, I would recommend to disable automatic rerouting and only do rerouting with consideration and care. No navigation system I have ever seen will perform the rerouting the way I want it to be, so I do this manually, using the rerouting button in Kurviger or by changing the route with a new waypoint.
I probably guide about 30 rides per year. So I know the issue, especially if you need to stop with a couple of bikes in the sun at 30°+ and need to turn around on a busy main road. Therefore, I think I know what I am talking about. Doing any quick fixes on the road, especially if you don’t have the time to double check the results, has never improved a route. What I often do when I take a wrong turn is to look at the map and see if there is for example a possible alternative route back to the route and then I follow that route on the map, without actual rerouting, this usually works a lot better than trying to fix the route.
Rerouting works as was agreed with users when was designed. Being flexible so can exit and enter the route freely at any point.
Its options are certainly not as mentioned, they’re quite different:
Nearest point on route: nearest coordinates on the route path (not waypoint)
Nearest waypoint: nearest waypoint (via points, destination) of the route
Next unvisited waypoint: next waypoint (via points, destination) that has not been passed yet
(flexibility currently allows to pass / skip freely and automatically any waypoint)
Extra options may come in the future with strict route following:
There is a difference between simulation and live routing
Even if I had missed it, with routing option “next unvisited waypoint” it should recognize that I have missed the direction to wp5 and send me back to wp5 instead of further route to wp17. Wouldn’t you agree?
these wps come from the track. I have imported the track again into kurviger web to better describe what’s happend.
This doesn’t help either because it would “assume” that I am on the return and further route to wp17 instead of telling that I am wrong and first have to pass wp5
You maybe don’t want to hear it, but this is not true… any other navigation app that I know is doing this, Navigon Cruiser, Navigon Europe, Tomtom Go, Garmin, Google maps, Calimoto (these apps have other weak points, do not want to discuss about them)… I like Kurviger, at least as long as this destroying the planned route doesn’t happen… when I have missed a waypoint and drive into the wrong direction, all these other apps come up with a warning to return and drive to my missed waypoint. In fact Kurviger is the only app which I know which ignores that, skips all interim waypoints and drives to the distination. I mean it can do this as told with the other 2 options, but if I have especially an option routing to “next unvisited waypoint”, then it should correct a missed waypoint and guide me back to the next unvisited waypoint, strictly (after wp4 I first have to pass wp5 till wp16 in order to drive to wp17. An other behaviour makes no sense to me for this special option.
Same here for this willingly planned detour… even if I have missed the turnoff to wp7 (human beings are not mult-tasking capable ), I would expect the routing engine to guide me back to wp7 instead of heading to wp10. Again, with the option route to “next unvisited wp” everything else makes no sense to me. In such an option any deleting or skipping waypoints shouldn’t happen.
Ok, then I have to further wait… hopefully not too long… (just thinking loud)… at least good to know that the problem is understood and there could be a solution.
Of course for such an option 4 - strictly follow wps in sequence, the manual (in no way automatic) deletion via the context menu should also work, but I think that’s normal… just want to mention it in case if not.
PS: also of course such an option also recognize when I have for example don’t set the wp exactly to the street… this can of course be automatically corrected (meaning if I have set it 10 meters or so besides the street), then it can be treated as passed… but I think this is already handled very well in Kurviger.
No, you left the route shortly before WP17, to me it would make that Kurviger would reroute you to WP17. You skipped Waypoints 5-16. If you had done this intentionally you would complain that Kurviger is not rerouting you to WP17.
How would Kurviger know that? It can’t guess your intentions. The default behavior is to allow skipping parts of the route, which is awesome and extremely flexible. That’s the intended behavior, the other option is the strict routing where you have to visit every waypoint or even every part of the route.
Unless you configure Kurviger to that, that usually doesn’t happen. There are very few roundtrip scenarios where this can happen.
That’s what should happen. As noted previously, I can’t reproduce the behavior you describe, so I have no idea why it behaved that way.
But no, I wouldn’t complain if Kurviger would not route to wp17, not with the “next unvisited waypoint” mode, since I thought this would already be the strictly follow wps in sequence mode… obviously it is not (just learned 15 minutes ago).
by knowing that I have activated option 3 and not 1 and 2
You are talking as if this option already exists. I understand devemux86 that it’s not.
Don’t understand this. How can I already now configure Kurviger to not skip wps?
But it doesn’t, see track picture. According to my planned route Kurviger should have taken the direction of the green arrow
Nevertheless the problem exists. I guess devemux86 has at least understood the problem. Can you please get in touch with him?
Ok, you say you and I understand that you want that flexible mode of skipping wps. Fine, but for me this is an only disappointment if Kurviger automatically skips wps. If this is option 3, I have no other chance than to accept it and ask for an option 4 - strictly follow waypoints in sequence (just including manual skipping of waypoints via context menu - exists already).
No, don’t just think about this specific scenario. Think about other scenarios as well. For example you have to go off the route because of a road blockage. You have a waypoint on the road blockage. Now you get back to the route and did not visit this waypoint. Should Kurviger try to route you back to that waypoint? Certainly not.
It’s not implemented yet.
I think that option was removed, you could recalculate the route to the destination.
I understand your problem description. But I can’t reproduce it. So I can only guess why Kurviger didn’t tell you to turn. At that point you already started to change your planned route.
you’re absolutely correct, your post as it is now is a great bug report with lots of heart and detail put into it
it’s good to hear you didn’t mean it! 
.
