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

Rerouting issues

Ah OK thanks for explanation. Right, didn’t think of it.

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?

1 Like

Hi Tom, thanks for editing your post and saying that :slight_smile: 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 :smiley: it’s good to hear you didn’t mean it! :slight_smile:

And I’m sure he’ll do something about the routing problems when possible

2 Likes

Your reports are often a bit emotional :slight_smile:. 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 :wink:.

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.

1 Like

:+1:

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:

1 Like

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 :slight_smile: ), 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.

Yes, this is exactly what I am missing. How long will it take for such an option?

There is no ETA for any feature, when there is free time and will, then could be implemented.

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.

1 Like

Sure, but I doubt that this was the reason here.

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.

probably this happened… probably Kurviger guided to turn left and I took the magenta left instead of the green left

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

this was the planned route. Kurviger completely skipped wp7,8 and 9 without telling to turn right.

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).

1 Like

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.

It will with strict route following, there cannot exist and should not wait any flexibility there.

1 Like

Of course if I talk of an option 4 I would like to also have the manual options via the context menu available as told.

I there is a road block, I still can use avoid roadblock and if I need to skip 1, 2 or more wps, I would like do this manually, not automatically.

I was not starting to change the route, I just missed the right left turn from 2 which are close together and this is exactly what I expect a navigation system to correct for me by telling to return and guide me to the path back of the planned route.

I guess you are talking of the change between wp4 and wp5, but what with skipping wp 7,8 and 9? There is no reason for doing this.

Not automatic, but hopefully still manually by using the context menu.

@devemux86
since this is really important for me, can you confirm that even with an option 4 - strict follow route the manual context options will still work?

What I like for example much better as in Navigon is that the wps are numbered. In Navigon Cruiser for example you can also set many wps and they are strictly followed. It always guides me to my planned unvisited waypoint

and if I want to skip a wp I can on the run, not needing to stop, just wipe to the left


and use “Aktuelles Ziel überspringen” (skip next waypoint) and directly get a new calculation. If I want to skip more wps, I just use this quick link again. If I want to check the result I just use “show complete route” and can see that it was correct and follow my way. It’s a matter of seconds, not needing to go into submenus or to stop driving.

Navigon Cruiser has other issues for examples it get stuck sometimes when using overlaying apps. Kurviger is stable and doesn’t get stuck with overlaying apps… big benefit. If this option 4 - strictly follow route (with manual skipping wps option via context menu would come into Kurviger I am the happiest motorcycle driver in the world. :innocent: :wink:

1 Like

Cannot make promises for unimplemented features, we’ll see in the future what is possible.

1 Like

That is obvious to me.
If you re-import the route, the app cannot know that you had already visited some of the WPs.

I had a similar issue, while testing “next unvisited WP” feature.
That’s why I suggested to change the behavior at navigation start.

A post was merged into an existing topic: App: rerouting options at start of navigation