Calculate Round trips
Gathering feedback
I would like to propose a new feature (taken from garmin) :
When calculating a new route to a destination, Locus should propose a different alternative for returning back to the start position.This way I can see different places on the way back
There should be a way to input the maximum distance willing to be traveled along the route in that trip.For example < I would like to take my bike for a trip, or take a walk on a mountain, but I know that I cannot travel for more than 70 km on this day.Locus should propose one or two variants round trip (not the same way returning), taking into account the maximum 70 km distance to be traveled.Fast and easy way to plan a trip after each one's skills and power
I like this idea 
Such a feature is easier to implement on the routing level than on the level of front end application. The front end application must say somehow to the routing service it does not like the return route, if it folllows the forward route. It can be done by basically 2 ways.
To somehow purposely generate pass-through viapoints away from the forward route to decline the backward route.
To place nogo points (incoming feature) on the forward route so the routing service would avoid it. Currently, such nogo points are supported only by some routing services like offline BRouter or online GraphHopper.
I am not sure, how optimal would be results for this automated round trip generation. It may be optimal from point of view of routing preferences. But it may not be optimal from subjective point of human view. It can easily miss interesting POIs one must/would_want to see, as they are not relevant for the routing itself. If route is planned manually by visual choosing of POIs on the map, the route will be probably more interesting.
The generated route may easily end up as "route itself is the goal of the route", what can be good for a regular body training.
But, if the goal is rather "route serves as a connection of POIs I want to see", I would personally rather prefer to chose 2 or more viapoints manually, Good approach for not crossing the max length limit is keeping the distance to the most distant at approximately 1/4( winding roads) -1/3(less winding roads) of the total wanted length.
Such a feature is easier to implement on the routing level than on the level of front end application. The front end application must say somehow to the routing service it does not like the return route, if it folllows the forward route. It can be done by basically 2 ways.
To somehow purposely generate pass-through viapoints away from the forward route to decline the backward route.
To place nogo points (incoming feature) on the forward route so the routing service would avoid it. Currently, such nogo points are supported only by some routing services like offline BRouter or online GraphHopper.
I am not sure, how optimal would be results for this automated round trip generation. It may be optimal from point of view of routing preferences. But it may not be optimal from subjective point of human view. It can easily miss interesting POIs one must/would_want to see, as they are not relevant for the routing itself. If route is planned manually by visual choosing of POIs on the map, the route will be probably more interesting.
The generated route may easily end up as "route itself is the goal of the route", what can be good for a regular body training.
But, if the goal is rather "route serves as a connection of POIs I want to see", I would personally rather prefer to chose 2 or more viapoints manually, Good approach for not crossing the max length limit is keeping the distance to the most distant at approximately 1/4( winding roads) -1/3(less winding roads) of the total wanted length.
Yes, I want to use this feature as a mean of my mostly daily body training/fitness so I'm not so much interested in viewing some special POIs on the map.Of course it is not so much fun to go back on the same route as I came so this is why I like round trips.
I think the most usefull feature would be this limit of maximum lenght of total track, after which the routing engine will propose alternative trips. If I have to manually choose the forward and back tracks(on the map) AND meet the condition of maximum traveled distance... then it's time consuming. It's like trial and error : I place via points, calculate the route and if the distance is too much, then delete some via points, choose others and calculate route again and so on..
Much easier to automate this, because everybody knows how much can travel that day(personal fit/energy/tired, not so much time available for the trip etc) so maximum lenght of route it's from my point of view the first parameter to be taken into consideration
Aproximation 1/4 or 1/3 is very subjective and I prefer something certain
Yes, I want to use this feature as a mean of my mostly daily body training/fitness so I'm not so much interested in viewing some special POIs on the map.Of course it is not so much fun to go back on the same route as I came so this is why I like round trips.
I think the most usefull feature would be this limit of maximum lenght of total track, after which the routing engine will propose alternative trips. If I have to manually choose the forward and back tracks(on the map) AND meet the condition of maximum traveled distance... then it's time consuming. It's like trial and error : I place via points, calculate the route and if the distance is too much, then delete some via points, choose others and calculate route again and so on..
Much easier to automate this, because everybody knows how much can travel that day(personal fit/energy/tired, not so much time available for the trip etc) so maximum lenght of route it's from my point of view the first parameter to be taken into consideration
Aproximation 1/4 or 1/3 is very subjective and I prefer something certain
It is much easier to use automated solution, but not to automate it. :-)
Hmm, I would not use for regular body fitness training routing at all, as I would already know the available routes quite well. I would use a GPS application just for logging and eventually for some training purposes. But it is matter for preferences.
There is no certainty for routes of comparable lengths to be comparable in spent time nor effort. The route length is a false objective criteria for that.
Personally, I would make one-time session on BRouter web to create a bunch of GPX routes, that I would rotate. Also, I would not focus only on the length, but also on filtered total ascend and the route cost.
It is much easier to use automated solution, but not to automate it. :-)
Hmm, I would not use for regular body fitness training routing at all, as I would already know the available routes quite well. I would use a GPS application just for logging and eventually for some training purposes. But it is matter for preferences.
There is no certainty for routes of comparable lengths to be comparable in spent time nor effort. The route length is a false objective criteria for that.
Personally, I would make one-time session on BRouter web to create a bunch of GPX routes, that I would rotate. Also, I would not focus only on the length, but also on filtered total ascend and the route cost.
Replies have been locked on this page!