Transfer of avoid options

Q Emux. Have you already found a .kurviger file here in the tread to test in the app? Except the example from zaphod_42 but that’s a different circuit.

No, although it was requested many times, the author did not attach kurviger files.

But the report seems to be wrong anyway, those route urls speak for themselves.

Langsam wird’s lächerlich …
Hier das File mit differenzierten “Vermeidungsangaben”: Test mit Tourerabo.kurviger (17.2 KB) und hier screenshots von kurvigerPRO mit diesem File:

Also sogar “multiple route profiles” funktionieren im “alten” kurvigerPRO - mit einer Ausname: bei einer Neuberechnung verändert sich die Route, weil kurvigerPRO “multiple route profiles” nicht berücksichtigt.
Wichtig: die Vermeidungen werden ordnungsgemäß übernommen!

It’s getting ridiculous …
Here the file with differentiated “avoidance details”: test with Tourerabo.kurviger (17.2 KB) and see the screenshots from kurvigerPRO above.

So even “multiple route profiles” work in the “old” kurvigerPRO - with one exception: when recalculating, the route changes because kurvigerPRO does not consider “multiple route profiles”.
Important: the avoidances are taken over properly!


Wenn der Kurzlink ( zum Transfer in kurvigerPRO genutzt wird, erfolgt automatisch eine Neuberechnung und die Route ändert sich entsprechend - siehe oben. Jedoch bleiben die Vermeidungen wie in!

If the short link ( is used for transfer in kurvigerPRO, a recalculation takes place automatically and the route changes accordingly - see above. However, the avoidances remain as in!


“Ridiculous?” What exactly do you mean Wolfgang? I ask politely, no bullets.
Annoying is you have to beg the person who shares a link for a kurviger file.
Generally allow web download of the original unchanded design would solve this.
And sure more user friendly as not all people do read this forum intensively.
While the main tourer (re)edit functions remain locked for non tourers of course.

Willy, that wasn’t addressed to you. My comment was related to the avoidances which obviously were all set. I took the short link from entry 15 of this thread, eleminated some avoidances, explicitly used multiple route profiles and exported a .kurviger file myself - no begging necessary.
But now to your comments:
A TOURER can design a marvelous route with multiple route profiles and/or avoidance strength, export it to a .kurviger file and distribute it. This file can be imported by any kurvigerPRO user and the navigation works as long as no re-calculation takes place. (I’ve already written this in January.) The import via short link doesn’t work because of the automatic re-calculation.
The file or the short link can be used in too - for TOURER without limits, for nonTOURER the “special features” are eleminated, fair enough for my opinion.

Fine Wolfgang.
It is therefore not directly importable per link into the app itself.
I then understood your answer in January tnks. Even though it took a while before I realized it.

The question is, does it not make sense to allow a kurviger file download on the website itself.
The advantage for the “Tourer” is that he then only has to share the link, without any additional hassle. As has already been clearly shown in this tread.
A non-tourer can not do anything extra with it.
I thought it is worth mentioning. If denied, so be it.


1 Like

Danke Wolfgang, genau solche Bemerkungen verleiden es mir hier weiter mitzuarbeiten und Input in das Kurviger-Format zu bringen.
Lächerlich…? - ja diese Behauptung finde ich lächerlich.

Wenn ich auf der Homepage die Vermeidungsstrategien eintrage - dann wird gerade beim Übertrag auf die AppPro diese Vermeidungen NICHT übertragen.
Ich bin kein ITler und ich weiss nicht, ob es an der Homepage, am Browser, am Handy, an der App oder am Link liegt.
Ich berichte hier und freue mich, wenn Nutzer das als lächerlich abtun.
Danke aber ich bin raus, das muss ich mir nach 4 Jahren nicht antun


@juschka10001 please compare your screenshots above again!
In both the web and the app ALL avoid options are marked!
So that should be correct.

Additionally you have used individual “strength of avoidance” in the web, which is not yet supported in the app.
So different routing results can happen.

1 Like