Automatically skipping shaping points Part 2

[Steve Jarrell]

@RetiredWingMan "Not everyone will find it to their liking but that's life. Understand what it is and how it works and carry on."

I agree with you completely. It doesn't matter one bit if I like it or not..... I just need to know what it's going to do and I'll be glad to "carry on"! If ANYONE can explain to me how the skipping of waypoints actually works consistently I'd appreciate it.

Please explain "what it is and how it works", and I'll gladly work within those constraints. It doesn't work like the documentation states. It doesn't work consistently. That has been documented not only by my first post, but by other posts in this thread.

@Marinus-van-Deudekom responded earlier in this thread: "While Diving parallel to the route all of the shapingpoints on the road were skipped automaticly. Sometimes trying to get me back to the skipped shapingpoints. When I finally got past the roadworks the route was picked just as intended. So it works."

This is exactly what I'm talking about with the inconsistency. Why sometimes? Why not all the time? Which shaping points were skipped completely and which tried to reroute? What if it wasn't obvious that you were on a detour and that you knew that you were skipping shaping points on purpose and that you could ignore the reroute instructions?

@Nick-Carthew responded "the algorithm is programmed to try 3 or 4 times to get you back to a skipped shaping point". If this is the case, why doesn't the algorithm do this for every skipped shaping point?

The app did skip several shaping points for me perfectly when I was on a detour a couple of days ago without trying to reroute me back to them even one time. However, today it tried to reroute me back to a single shaping point that was just a few meters off of the main route. Which behavior is correct?

At a minimum the documentation should be changed to state what happens when "Skip waypoints automatically" is enabled because it does not skip shaping points automatically consistently as documented. Also, if the app is rerouting back to a skipped shaping point that should be clearly indicated.

Best regards,

Steve

[Steve Jarrell]

I would start another thread with this question but since it's so related to this one I'll go ahead and ask it here.

How can I tell quickly if I'm being rerouted back to a previous shaping point? If the next turnaround point is several miles / kilometers away and possibly makes several turns it can be very difficult to tell if you're being rerouted back to a prior point.

I'll repost my screenshot from my first post here, and as you can see it's obvious here that I'm being rerouted backwards, but if the turn around wasn't this obvious that only indication that I'm being rerouted to a prior shaping point is the number of the shaping point itself (41) which frankly means nothing to me as I use a lot of shaping points.

Thanks!

Steve

[Hans van de Ven MR.MRA]

Steve I see that point 41 is not on the route line but along it. I also see that there is a kind of roundabout at that point, a view point or something like that? Always place the points on the route line. What works for me is if I want to go to that view point, for example, place a via point just before the exit and indicate in the via point that I have to turn right if I want to go to the view point. If I decide to continue driving for whatever reason, then I have at least touched the point and it does not have to be skipped. The app will indeed try to bring you back to the missed point 3 times. You can also press the point once and confirm that you want to skip it.

[Corjan Meijerink]

Let me put an end to this as I'm the only one that can

Viapoints will never be skipped automatically. Simply as that, end of discussion.
Shapingpoints however can be skipped automatically. They are however still part of your route and not that unimportant that they can be skipped immediately. Not everyone is religiously marking every crucial waypoint a viapoint. We have to make the majority happy, which we did.

Skipping waypoints is so bloody easy that a situation where you are redirected once or twice back to a missed shapingpoint is fine. You can always skip yourself and if you keep ignoring it, the waypoint will be skipped eventually.

So, what is the logic?

• Are recalculations enabled? Yes, continue. No, user needs to navigate back to route himself
• Are we moving? Yes, continue. No, route back to the missed waypoint. This is to prevent skipping waypoints automatically while refuelling, having lunch.
• Is skipping waypoints enabled? Yes, continue. No, route back to missed waypoint (even if shaping and hence it will never be sipped)
• Is it a via? Yes, return the viapoint. No, continue
• Are you more than 30 km away from the shaping? Yes, return back to shaping. No, continue. This is to prevent skipping shapingpoints too far on your route.
• Are you within 100 meters of the shaping point? Yes, go to next waypoint immediately. No, continue.
• Is it your first deviation? Yes, return back to missed waypoint. No, continue. This results in always having a route back to your missed waypoint. You need at least 2 recalculations

If you get here, we will determine the nearest logical marker on your route. In short, we calculate routes till the next 10 markers and select the marker to which the distance is shortest as the waypoint to skip to. In this process viapoints will still never be skipped.

When the determined nearest marker is not your current missed waypoint you will be sent to that marker. If the nearest marker is still the one you missed, you will be sent back to that one. So the shape of your route and waypoint placing is quite important

If all else fails the amount of recalculations are still counted. When you have 4 (or more) recalculations the missed waypoint will always be skipped for the next.

So that's it.
It works quite well for the majority but obviously there are scenario's where you can fool it. Changing it is not hard for me but we had it way more aggressive and then people complained too many shaping points were missed even when it made sense for the algorithm.

People make routes will all different kind of waypoints and placement / density of them. Everyone needs to be satisfied. We already have a lot of configuration options, I don't yet feel something to allow users to influence the parameters of this logic.

As people indicate here, the algorithm does it's work to send you around roadworks and stuff like that but yes, you will always need a second recalculation and then the road layout around you and your own waypoint placement will still influence the route

Over and out.

[Corjan Meijerink]

A proposed change that could make sense is the part where if the nearest found waypoint is still the one you missed we just take the next waypoint as the one to go to.

As now if you miss a shapingpoint and do not have other one placed nearby you will be sent back to the missed one at least 4 times. After 4 times you will be sent to the next one but that might not even be correct anymore given the amount of route you’ve driven (this highly depends on the roads where you are).

If doing such a change, you know for sure that you are always sent to at least the next waypoint when having a second recalculation for a missed waypoint

[Corjan Meijerink]

So after reading all your posts @Steve-Jarrell the main conclusion is.

• Shaping points are not skipped consistently as it depends on placement of the next waypoints and the current road layout. So it is consistent for the algorithm but maybe not for user perspective
• You always needs at least 2 recalculations (which makes sense as you still placed that waypoint for a reason to ride that specific road)

Full explanation of the logic can be found above

The main reason for the conservative behavior is that people do still tend to stick to their route. Meaning that the general public prefers being recalculated back to missed point rather than it being skipped immediately.

[Con Hennekens]

@Steve-Jarrell said in Automatically skipping shaping points Part 2:

then it's not working as designed or documented.

Excuse me my bluntness, but I really don't think it is up to you how the app is designed...
I would hate it, if shaping points are skipped first time I don't hit them. That would screw up my meticulously planned route... I am shaping a route for a reason.

[Con Hennekens]

@Corjan-Meijerink said in Automatically skipping shaping points Part 2:

The main reason for the conservative behavior is that people do still tend to stick to their route. Meaning that the general public prefers being recalculated back to missed point rather than it being skipped immediately.

And I think that is great, since skipping a waypoint manually is so simple.
What some people seem to forget is that MRA is about scenic routing. Shaping points are there for a reason.
Keep up the good work, and thanks for the elaborate explanation!

[Marinus van Deudekom]

@Corjan-Meijerink Thnkx for a clear explanation so we can move on driving and enjoying

[UwB]

I agree with Steve's opinion 100%.

It's strange that there are people who deliberately activate a function that automatically skips points when I "pass" them, but then don't want it to happen!!

Then turn it off!
Perhaps it would be possible to have an option where you can set how "aggressive" the function is via a switch.
A: For those who want it to skip automatically, and that's that.
B: For those who want it but don't really want it...

Sorry... But I also read the function the way Steve sees it, and it doesn't do exactly that for me either!
"Automatic" means that I don't have to, and don't want to, mess with the software while driving!

[Con Hennekens]

@UwB said in Automatically skipping shaping points Part 2:

"Automatic" means that I don't have to, and don't want to, mess with the software while driving!

The joke is: you don't have to...
You know you are allowed to disobey the voice in your helmet, and go your own way. The logic Corjan explained will catch up... Or you simply press the skip button...

It is strange that there are people who plan their routes, and then don't seem to want to ride that route at first possible occasion...

[Con Hennekens]

@UwB said in Automatically skipping shaping points Part 2:

A: For those who want it to skip automatically, and that's that.

In that case I favor a separate forum for users where they can claim that the app does not stick to their planned route. I really do not want to read all that...

[Nick Carthew]

I am very happy with the logic used and I feel that those that aren't happy and want a change or even more settings are in the minority. Thank you for clearing this up so concisely @Corjan-Meijerink

[Mzokk]

As a user I'm happy with the current handling of missed shaping points. I find in any case once you pass the next shaping point on the route it stops asking for a return if you go through the next shaping point. I too have used Garmin navigation devices since the Streetpilot 2610 in 2004 and still have 5 Garmin units. I regularly use a Zumo XT and Zumo 340 and 390 on my old BMW R1150GS. The Zumo XT drove me towards seeking an alternative navigation method (That and buying an Africa Twin with Android Auto). I use MRA for navigation on that bike now and only use the XT for POI's with proximity notifications. I can use the XT now but when I first got it it drove me mad with repeated u turn behaviour. Thankfully through the Zumo Forums I found workarounds but MRA (for me) is just a better navigation method now.

[Herman Veldhuizen]

@Con-Hennekens No user will complain if the app gives a distinctive warning if deviating from the route. Then the users are themselves to blame for having missed a shaping point. Additional thing could be a change of cursor.
I have seen several posts where this feature is requested and I also think that this is useful. As @Steve-Jarrell said it is not always easy to know if you are on a de-tour and that the app is trying to send you back. Result : focus is more on the map than on the road.
Osmand has an option for this ("Announce deviation from route").

[Herman Veldhuizen]

@Con-Hennekens And what some people seam to forget is that the app has the potential to be much more that just an app for bikers. I know that my use case is a bit odd, but I also know that there are many more persons like me and that this an an untapped market potential. The skipping logic is core and the main reason for me not to recommend MRA yet to my colleagues.

[Steve Jarrell]

@Nick-Carthew Thank you Nick.

I would respectfully just ask that:

a) somehow we be notified clearly that we've missed a shaping point and that we're being rerouted back to it so that we can manually skip it if we want to, and

b) the online docs and the information screen in the app be clarified to tell us what to expect when we do miss one. This second items should be very quick and easy to accomplish.

These changes would not change the generally accepted logic as it stands right now regarding shaping and via point routing.

If I you understand correctly, then right now the logic is that if you miss a shaping point MRA will try to route you back to it several times (we don't know the exact number) just like it does a via point before giving up and actually skipping it and continuing to the next shaping point or via point.

Is that correct?

Best regards,

Steve

[Steve Jarrell]

@Con-Hennekens Thanks Con. I do truly appreciate your input. Have a great day!

Best regards,

Steve

[Con Hennekens]

@Steve-Jarrell said in Automatically skipping shaping points Part 2:

a) somehow we be notified clearly that we've missed a shaping point and that we're being rerouted back to it so that we can manually skip it if we want to,

I agree that that such a notification could be useful indeed.
I cannot assess if this is something within current possibilities of the HERE platform that MRA is built around.

b) the online docs and the information screen in the app be clarified to tell us what to expect when we do miss one. This second items should be very quick and easy to accomplish.

It would certainly be great if Corjan's info above got mentioned in the the online doc. I think it will be at some point. But with a fast evoluting software it is difficult to keep the documentation up to date.

[Steve Jarrell]

@Con-Hennekens Yes, I understand completely. I started a software company in 1990 and just sold it in Oct. 2020 after transitioning it to a software as a service company in mid 2000, so I'm really familiar with the struggle of trying to juggle the priorities of updates, documentation, business administration, customer support, sales and marketing, etc.

It's definitely not easy, and in my opinion MRA is doing the best job overall, by far, of any of its competitors.

Best regards,

SteveJ