Placement of waypoints

[Con Hennekens]

@D-Griffin, I am sorry, I answered your post before I saw the route you linked, so I want to add this:

The route you linked shows a destination only route. What I told about a an A2B route also counts for everything routed between 2 waypoints, like in your route. By having waypoints this far from each other leaves a lot of options for alternative routes being quicker. If you want specific roads to be followed, you will have to point them out by placing shaping points.

There is however one trick you can use: you can enable "Navigate route-as-track" in the app settings. In that case your "route" will be navigated as a track, and then the "leading back to a track" takes place whenever you deviate.

[D Griffin]

@Con-Hennekens Forgive my ignorance what is the difference between a track and a waypoint? I have watched all the online videos and I am convinced maybe I'm setting to many waypoints (I do set a lot!) which is causing this thing to get lost, skip waypoints for no reason or even skip waypoints I haven't even reached yet. I am just trying to find that magic distance between waypoints to keep me on track. Tonight I will be working on editing a route for a upcoming weekend ride. I know it has a lot of waypoints, so I'll go back thru and see if I can get rid of some and spread the others out. I really want to like the MRA route app, and I am trying to understand the best I can so I can trust it. I guess thats the real thing, I don't trust it which makes riding a little stressful. I will keep it up though and hopefully get this correct.

[Con Hennekens]

@D-Griffin said in Placement of waypoints:

what is the difference between a track and a waypoint?

A waypoint has nothing to do with tracks. Multiple waypoints can form a route. A route is formed by multiple waypoints (VIA or shaping-points). A track is a breadcrumb-trail. It can be recorded while driving (a tracklog) or it can be generated from a route (a route-track). The MRA app can navigate tracks as well as routes (of course...) but to be hones I think the track method has some limitations and also some problems. I advise to disable the "Navigate route as track" feature for now, and concentrate on navigating real and well designed routes.

I am just trying to find that magic distance between waypoints to keep me on track.

The use of the term "track" in this case is probably what's confusing you. Wit a route, simply designed in the MRA web-planner, and opend for navigation in the app (with the "Navigate route as track" feature disabled) is not a track, but a route

There is no "magic" distance between waypoints. It really depends on the density of roads in the area you are riding in. In mountainesque areas waypoints can often be over 20km apart, while is urban flatlands like the Netherlands sometimes you need multiple waypoints within a few kilometers. My thumb of rule is to place waypoints about every 5 kilometers, and I often check of something changes when I remove one. If nothing changes it is an obsolete waypoint.

You have to consider the skipping algorithm. If you can't reach a certain point, and the algorithm skips to the next WP which is only 500 mtrs ahead, it does likely not solve the problem of not reaching the previous one. It will then have to skip again, but that takes multiple recalculations. In the meantime you will likely be passing other waypoints and your navigation effs up On the other hand, if distances between waypoints are too large, an auto-skipp will eff up your route by cutting out a large piece of your route. The best practice is somewhere in the middle

[Guzzist]

@D-Griffin I don't want to come across as a high school teacher...
I mean it in a friendly way, but it's really a difference between operating Google maps and operating route planning tools. It would be easier for you (and for some who are going to help you) if you would become familiar with correct terms (wording).

As @Con-Hennekens explained:

• a route is a collection of (limited) routepoints, which are entered over a map during planning. The navigation tool is using the map and the roads in, to calculate the way to the next route point over that streets. And will give you instructions how to ride.
  Often such points are called imprecise as "Waypoints".

• a track is a collection of trackpoints, which can also be entered over a map. Or can be recorded during ride by navigation tool (MyRoute-App calls it then Tracklog).
  The navigation tool is using that points, to draw a line as overlay on the map. It does not have the need of a map to draw the line, because the points are close to each other. And therefore the navigation tool can not guide you! Exception: MyRoute-App can do it

Routepoints can get a name (and in MyRoute-App also a description) and will presented on the map. But a Trackpoint can't get a name and will not presented on the map (only a line from one to the next trackpoint).

• third type of a point (along gpx rules) is the real Waypoint. It can be entered simply as POI; then it's only visible as point on the map. Or it will be entered additionally as Routepoint; then it is also included in the route and affects the route.

May it sounds a bit complicated, but it is not. You may plan a route, save it as gpx file on your computer. Then open this file by an Text editor; it's readable and you can find the terms:
<wpt> which is a description of a way point, means a POI, which is not a route point!
There can be a couple of such way points in the file.
<rte> which is the beginning of a description of a route with a couple (min. 2) of <rtept> which each is a route point.
<trk> which is the beginning of a description of a track with many <trkpt> which each is a track point.

I tried to keep it simpl; some experts may not 100% agree. It's not necessary to understand everything in such a file. But it gives a you glimpse of the official terms and how to use it in discussions.

[D Griffin]

@Guzzist Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it. I have been doing most of my mapping via waypoints and have had pretty good success. However had a few rides that went not so great. So my question on waypoints I was really looking at is to much OK? When I plan a ride I want to take the roads I want to take, like I have said since I arrived at this forum. Google doesn't allow it, but MRA does. However sometimes this thing throws me for a loop and all I'm doing is trying to get all the info I can so i can understand better. Maybe I should play with the "tracks" and see if it works better. I have watched all the online You tube videos, however a few things have changed. Not everything thats on those videos is valid in MRA anymore, or maybe they improved it.

[D Griffin]

@Guzzist I feel I paid good money for a product and just want to understand it better, thats all! The more info a person can get the better a person can be. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, maybe I don't understand how MRA fully works yet. Maybe I though it was a product that it isn't. I don't know I just appreciate the feedback. I'm all for trying ideas, because thats more time spent on my bike! However I would like to have the confidence to plot a route across the USA and feel confident I will get there...This has not always been the case. I'm not quite there yet, however am willing to put in the time to get there and fully understand....

[Ronni]

@D-Griffin said in Placement of waypoints:

The more info a person can get the better a person can be <

Here's some more info to you. To Make you better.
I also tested for a long time to finde out, what was better, "many" or "few" waypoints.

When I plan a tour that I want to do exactly as it is, I have to add one or two more points. Of course, it's also important whether I've selected a fast or short tour in the settings. I mostly use the "fast" option now.

If I have a road without major intersections, I add a point at the beginning and the end of that road. If that's the most direct route, there's no need to add additional points.
If I want to turn at an intersection, regardless whether it's a major or minor road, I add a point on the new road shortly after the turn. (If you use the "spread out" option in the toolkits, the point is often placed in the middle of the intersection. This can sometimes lead in the wrong direction.)

I've actually used this approach to complete my planned tours so far and I'm fine with mit.
I'm currently planning my fourth tour through the French Alps with MRA. This time I will use Android Auto on a Carpuride W712D.

Greetings Ronni

[richard 3v]

Don't forget, with AA on a Carpuride you will not have all the functionality / information of the same route compared with using the native app on a phone / tablet.

I'm not saying this is better or worse, but it's something to consider.

[D Griffin]

@Ronni Thank you for the feedback. I will try that on my next route.

[EMW-motorridders]

I handle or fill the route automatically to +/- 45 WayPoints so you can go up to 50, which is not bad every 5-6 km and so you end up with +/- 300 km.
A nice day route in my opinion.
But the trick is to move your points strategically while comparing TTR and HERE at the same time but under the software behavior of TomToM.
You do through the eyes of someone who is a stranger to the subject matter.
It takes a lot of practice and it pays off afterwards. I have been working with MRA for over 10 years.

( limit 50 points per route is also useful if you want to export to another device, for example the Navigator 7 from BMW which is a stubborn system but much better than version 5 and 6 !

[Martin Wilcke]

@Guzzist said in Placement of waypoints:

Often such points are called imprecise as "Waypoints".

100% agree - and that's exactly what causes a lot of misunderstandings.

Many planning/navigation tools confuse the terms "route points" and "waypoints". Unfortunately, MRA is also inconsistent: while the RouteExperts documentation always refers to "route points" (which is in line with the GPX specification), the UI of the web planner and the app refer to "waypoints" when they actually mean "route points".

It would be helpful to stick closely to the GPX specification in terms of terminology; this could be implemented in MRA at some point.

[Con Hennekens]

A waypoint is just a location on a map. A route point is a waypoint that forms a route with other waypoints. A routepoint is just a type of waypoint.

[Martin Wilcke]

@Con-Hennekens said in Placement of waypoints:

A routepoint is just a type of waypoint.

No.
According to the GPX specification, both have the same data type (<wptType>), but one is a <wpt> and the other is a <rtept>. Same data type, different objects.

[Martin Wilcke]

For illustration, here is an example from my last planning session:

In this route, I'm about to add a fuel stop. By opening the "POI > search" tab and selecting "Fuel", a gas station symbol pops up.

I can now add this

1. As a Waypoint, this will be part of my route
2. As a POI, this will not be part of my route but a separate spot/point

When saving as GPX, 1. becomes a route point <rtept> while 2. becomes a waypoint <wpt>

[Marinus van Deudekom]

@Martin-Wilcke that's incorrect. Option 2 will just add a visible point on the map and had no effect what so ever on the route. The RouteXperts add those POI's in every viapoint in the route. That viapoint is something important in the route like a castle, museum gasstation etc

[Martin Wilcke]

@Marinus-van-Deudekom said in Placement of waypoints:

that's incorrect. Option 2 will just add a visible point on the map and had no effect what so ever on the route.

That's what I said: 2. is not part of the route. What exactly is incorrect?

[Marinus van Deudekom]

@Martin-Wilcke indeed Martin, misread your post

[Con Hennekens]

@Martin-Wilcke said in Placement of waypoints:

No.
According to the GPX specification, both have the same data type (<wptType>), but one is a <wpt> and the other is a <rtept>. Same data type, different objects.

Yes.
Both have the same datatype because they are both waypoints...
And of course they have different node names, because the need to be treated differently.

[Martin Wilcke]

@Con-Hennekens
I'm aware of this description, and it's likely the root cause of all this confusion because it mixes up elements and types.

This becomes clear when you take a look at the schemas:

<wpt> is an element, <rtept> is a different element. Both have the same type (<wptType>).

[Martin Wilcke]

@Con-Hennekens

A Trackpoint (<trkpt>) has the same type <wptType>, but you wouldn't call a track point a waypoint, right?