Via point converts to sharping pount

Hi Stephan,

OSMand uses a different methodology for route planning. Locus Map is not OSMand, sorry.

Hi Michael,

"different methodology" sounds nice, but the question is, to how many or to which kind people is the locus methodology (more) useful.

That's true for via points created for POI's this makes sense.

My via point are converted in route planner from sharping points because of route recalculation.

For this it doesn't make sense.

It might be difficult to distinguish between two different types of via points.

Therefore let me ask a question if I can avoid via points for route recalculation.

I used route priority for a long time but this has some drawbacks. The most important one is that it wants to guide you back to the point where you lost the route even when you are back on track somewhere later.

Is it possible to change route priority this way or add an additional priority for this change?

Hi Michael,

you wrote route priority has a drawback because it forces you "... back to the point where you lost the route". Check Locus settings > Navigation > Advanced > Strict route following - uncheck it.

It's already unchecked.

I know this also this annoying problem. If you stop the navigation of the track, and restart the navigation, the routing back to the track is different, than the here from the support explained methods. In my opinion the results of my method is more useful, but it is annoying, because I have to stop my bicycle ride, so I can tap around the screen, to do the necessary things.

And the result of my method is more similar, what other apps do, loosing the track.

But perhaps the support can explain, why the developers think that the methods provided by locus is useful to the majority of the users.

First thanks for optimization of recalculation. Much appreciated.

I'm not sure if I have the full overview about the change but sounds logical so far.

I'll check the beta version and report back.

Did you understand that the issue of this thread, the thread you mentioned and the issue of this threat https://help.locusmap.eu/topic/track-abfahren-navigieren-zum-startpunkt-wenn-der-zielpunkt-n%C3%A4her-liegti are related.

I never understand the sense of shape points. It may be logical. For example I had a track of 55 km, a kind of circular route. Have a look at this track . I needed 17 points. Which I converted to via points. Because all this points were no POIs.

So I compared a similar method in Osmand to Locus. The aim 6 points should behave like via points.

In Osmand I need 50 seconds. See the screencast.

In Locus 81 seconds. See the screencast.

In Locus I need 42% more time, because of a logical thing. And nobody yet explained, why this should be better.

Perhapsit would be more clever, to let the people decide what they need.

So there should be possible to decide whether this points are by default should be shape points or via points.

There should be a third setup. Locus offer the the same result, like Locus would offer, if someone stop the navigation and restart the navigation.

Hello Stephan,

missing screencast for Locus Map app. Anyway, why is important for you to have all points as "via points"? You use recalculation with point priority and needs to pass over all these points?

It is probably doable to add the option that all new points will be "via points", but I need to have a clever reason for this. Thanks.

Here it the other screencast. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1m-gEl5MpXTCeo5EizLPtsmj6gv_q7rAb

The clever reason is live is easier and less waste of time. I do it in this way, because your recalculation system I have to use, using shape points waste also my time.

If I am loosing my way or I decide to do a small detour, because I do not like the suggested way, I have to dismount from by bicycle and have to stop the navigation and restart. I am living in a area with a high density of ways. So I can do nearly every time small detours, without really leaving the way.

For example in Iceland you have to go the same way back, if you are leaving or loosing the way. In high populated areas like western germany, you can go forward after loosing the way, and you will find a way back to your track.

I do it with locus, and it is annoying. I did it with Osmand and I liked it.

Sometimes I am so pissed of, so I switch back to Osmand. In spite the fact Osmand jabbered me to death.

The only reason I started to use locus, was that I get in a very easy way the voice hints of Brouter.

I have written yesterday a mail to Arndt Brentsch how to bypass the restrictions of Osmand to brouter to transfer the voicehints of brouter to Osmand. One of the reasons for this suggestions was, the usability of Locus compared to Osmand is not so high and after the start of the Locus abo the people will get a better Locus, but they can get the same advantages for much less money.

I am planning since 2000 50.000km on such small devices. For example I did a trip through germany, starting without a plan, planning every day in the morning a day trip on a smartphone in a tent. So I tested many apps, because to get a easy live.

The only advantage of Locus is the better integration of Brouter. If it is easier to use Brouter with Osmand, this advantage disappear. You have POI in Osmand without paying. This POIs are better searchable. You have offline addresses without paying. You can sort (Salesman Problem) your via points, you can change the order of via points. Disadvantage, no connection to google services and the other way round.

I hope this was clever enough.

0 Links

Thanks Stephan for the video and long post. I understand that OSMAnd has all the stuff for free, but this is not the point, so please back to the problem. My main question was why you need a "via points".

If you take another way, what you want to happen? You want from the app to recalculate track that will go from your "current location", back to track and continue along the existing track without losing whole plan, right?

For this exists two options:

a) exactly what you do > many "via-point" and recalculation set to "Point priority". Then every recalculation computes a route to next not-yet-passed via-point. So in this case, your request is valid. Anyway if you change shaping-point to via-point immediately, it may be a little faster.

a) "Re-calculate" option set to "route priority". The app will do not change the shape of planner route, but will try to snap you back on track. Here is anyway issue in current version and system does not work best. But will be fixed in next (beta) version as I wrote before.

---

So from my point of view, correctly working "Route-priority" system should be what you need right?

So from my point of view, correctly working "Route-priority" system should be what you need right?

Yes.

Anyway if you change shaping-point to via-point immediately, it may be a little faster.

No. It would not. In this way of planning, you have to change the points. Because very often, the routing leads you for a undefined distance the same way to a via point and back. So you have to do it twice, thrice or more often.

The best interface would be in my personal, that a active route can be treated like a planning in the routeplanner.

Big good visible icons for the via points which are drag and dropable. And inserting via points by tapping on the map.

"The best interface would be in my personal, that a active route can be treated like a planning in the routeplanner."

For this Shape Points are useless, as their only function is in the planner, so Via Points are the correct ones to be used. But the production of even a simple *standard Via Point in Locus is discouragingly slow by the used production method.

"It is probably doable to add the option that all new points primary will be "via points".

Optimal: The default primary created points are Shape Or Via by free choice. Thumbs up !

*Standard Via Point: By fixed (pre)set <name><cmt><sym> (config.cfg)

My favorite: TTS silent (no name) Via point, functional at (auto) re-calculate by Point Priority method.

"but I need to have a clever reason for this"

Navigate use route (auto)re-calculate => Point Priority select !

Only single segment, between two successive Via Points, is changed by a re-calculate action. Other (original design) segments in a track are for sure kept intact.

Point Priority guarantees minimal mutiliation of original track after (auto)re-calculate action.

If new recalculation works I will use route priority but nevertheless this solution sounds fine for me.

Ok ! Preferably fast production by prefilled (planner-serial) <name><cmt> (Via 1, Via 2 etc)

I am also fine. But there is a third way to create points of a route. Long Tap, a address is plopping up an a menu in the bottom of the screen with three +. Than one have to tap one of the crosses. For this kind of inserting points it is also the need to decide whether they should be by default via or shape.

Starting point of this threat was, moving a via point should not change the point back to a shape point. Is this new option also valid for moving via points?

Long click, good point. Should be working on this as well but I'll rather check it.

You mentioned moving via-points that change to shaping points. I firstly changed this behavior in case, this setting is enabled, so they did not change. Anyway, then I reverted it back. I still consider via-points as something more unique, something important in planning. And moving with them by finger just destroy this uniqueness.

So if you will agree, let's first try this new option and then we will see, if any additional improvements will be needed.

Planner Method: Create a route_track by a Start and Finish.

If necessary correct the route_track routing result by the drag and drop method.

Actual behaviour: Creates a new reference Shape Point.

By option: "New Point a Via Point".

Future behaviour: Creates a new reference Via Point.

Contradiction !

A position (fine) adjustment of that recently created Via Point transforms into Shape Point ?

I agree also with 0709. The most via points need finetuning. The first step of planning is a rough planning. I guess the used zoom is from level 10 to 13. No one can set at this zoom levels a precise via point. Technical is there the need to change the most via points.

Menion, there a different types of planning a route. Until now I did not understand the sense of shape points. You are shape point type, other people are via point types. I do not think, it is a good idea, to mix this two concepts of planning.

For a shape point type is a via point a exception, for a viapoint type a shape point are exception. So to make both sides happy, it would be reasonable, that one side have to change the type of point, if there is a need and not because of technical issues.

"Shape point type" :), you are probably correct. I just keep permanently in my mind main difference:

• shaping point: define just where I want to go with exception to miss it, if recalculation do its work
• via-point: wants to be notified on this place and have to pass it at all cost

With improved route-priority recalculation, I really believe this system will make a lot more sense.

Anyway, understand. I just have to re-think this setting, because it is a little hard to explain to users.

"via-point: wants to be notified on this place and have to pass it at all cost"

@Menion. Are you sure ? Or is this unexpected behaviour for you ? (Set auto re-calculate trigger = 100m)

Notice actual Locus flexibility: Via Point(s) if insisting by keep moving towards the next segment can be skipped.

Actual Locus: Via Point = Priority Point, as it seems is not a must pass at all cost ?

Video: https://youtu.be/FTsZaLohtto

Btw..you can enter and start the (partial) roundtrip (multiple Via Points) at any single segment..no problem.

Ah sure sorry, I wrote it incorrectly. In your case, the first recalculation correctly returns you back to via-point (which is what I wanted to say), but you found "a shortcut" and missed via-point which is correct.

So a better summary:

• shaping point: generally help to set up a route, so it only define its shape during planning. Recalculation with point-priority ignore these points.
• via-point: wants to be notified on this place and wants to ride over it if possible. Recalculation with point-priority use these points.

And here comes again my previous sentence: "With improved route-priority recalculation, I really believe this system will make a lot more sense.".

Because current workaround Stephan and probably others use, is to create a route from "via-points" and use point-priority recalculation to be sure, the app won't navigate them directly to target point, right?

I'm now trying to create a system when route-priority will be enough realiable, to keep you on the planned route (without via-points) and won't push you directly to the target in case, you take some shortcut, etc.

So if anyone interested in testing, please wait on next Beta version (hopefully tomorrow), thanks.

By testversion 3.37.2.10. Set: "New Point a Via Point"

New Point by Drag and drop of a Segment Point.

Produces a Shape Point. Expected is a Via Point.

Q Menion.

Actual default Via Point is represented by a very small red x Icon

Is a selector available for another prefered default Via Point Icon by sym ?

Good day Michael,

thanks for the feedback and patience with testing.

Result of calculation > it is a little complicated topic. You did not write which routing engine you used. Personally, for the car, I highly prefer GraphHopper with which I have a really positive experience. Brouter is very usable for hike & bike: main Locus Map purpose.

Anyway, both services are completely independent and highly dependent on the quality of OpenStreetMaps. So the problem may be in Locus Map (not probable in case of one-way roads), or routing ending (GraphHopper or BRouter) or OSM data itself. Both these options are unfortunately not in our power to change.

Anyway mechanism of recalculation in new version worked correctly for you, which is the most important information. For hike & bike, it will have a real benefit, perfect, thanks!

You should take in account, how a route calculation works. It calculate the way of the lowest costs. This can also mean, go back to your point of leaving the track.

The calculation do not know, that there is a accident, clossure or whatever instead.

I solved the issue in this way. I am using via points instead of shape points.

I am using for automatic recalculation "follow the track". For the manual recalculation "Recalculate the route."

So I can choose between the results.

Hmm, there already should be this mechanism in latest version 3.38+. In case of 2! ignored recalculation results (so you still ride forward even if navigation push you back), app place temporary no-go point behind you so next third recalculation should be forward.

You also mentioned some problems with result of routing, like one-way roads etc, but this is definitely not a problem in Locus Map itself, but more in the used router or in OpenStreetMap data itself.