How to import gpx - via Route or Route-Track?

[KaTo6668]

I'm a new user on MRA, but I have many years of experience with BC.
When I import a Google Maps *.gpx file with via points into MRA - what's the best way to do it?

1. If I import it as a Route-Track and generate a route from the track using MRA:
   MRA generates many waypoints but no longer indicates the via points (which isn’t a problem since we can easily convert the few necessary waypoints into via points).
2. If I import it as a Route:
   MRA imports the GPX file correctly and displays the via points correctly, but I don’t see any waypoints that define the exact path of the route.

My question is:
What is the best way to then - safely - follow the route using MRA Navigation Next (on android)?
What happens if the route needs to be recalculated during navigation and there aren’t enough waypoints set?
Will MRA Navigation Next calculate to the next Via point as there are no visible waypoints???
To be on the safe side, should I manually set additional waypoints along the route when importing as a route?

Many thanks for your feedback

[Con Hennekens]

@KaTo6668, Importing as route imports only the routepoints. The actual route is then calculated according to the settings (quickest/shortest, avoid options etc.) so the shape of your route can be different after import.

Importing as route track imports only the track (if available in the sourcefile) so you will lose any route points, but your track is shaped like the original route.

It all depends on your own preferences. I usually import both, and shape the route according to the track manually by adding shaping points. That way you do not lose routepoints, and you can add a lot of information to the route that can be handy while navigating. If you are not interested in such thing, navigating the track is perfectly fine.

[KaTo6668]

@Con-Hennekens Thank you very much for your fast reply.
Your approach is exactly what I had in mind.
Import route and track, compare them, and then finalize/shape the route with additional shaping points.

Maybe you can also answer the following question for me:
Unfortunately, shaping points in the MRA Routeplanner are displayed just as large as route points (via points), just with a different marker.
I believe I can hide shaping points during navigation with MRA Navigation Next?
Is that also possible in the MRA Routeplanner, or at least to display the waypoints much smaller? There may be reasons for the size of the waypoints, but for me, their size makes route planning confusing...
Thank you.

[Con Hennekens]

@KaTo6668, No there is no method for differentiating the size of shaping- and via points. Not in the planner and not in the app. To be honest I don't see a reason for them to be different in size. They both have the same purpose: define a route. If it is bothersome for you, you probably use too many routepoints to begin with

Also there is no way of hiding shapingpoints of a route while navigating. In the current public version there is an option to hide shaping points when the feature "navigate route as track" is enabled. But I need to warn you that in the upcoming V6 version things considering track navigation will be different.

Please uphold the the correct terminology:

• Routepoints are waypoints that define a route
• Shaping points are routepoints that can be skipped automatically when missed
• Via points are routepoints that cannot be skipped automatically when missed

[martin-phogel.de]

@Con-Hennekens sagte:
in the upcoming V6 version things considering track navigation will be different.

In which way?

[KaTo6668]

@Con-Hennekens Thanks again for your fast reply.
You're absolutely right; shaping points and via points define a route and are equivalent within the route definition.
But beside of the route definition, they are not equivalent.

A shaping point should simply defines the route's path. Even though you can add additional information to it in the MRA Routeplanner (color/text/icon, etc.) - for whatever reason. And since it’s really only meant to define the route’s path, there is a reason you can set the option in the MRA Navigator that it can be skipped automatically which -in my opinion- should be the default setting. That’s why I also don’t see a benefit why a shaping point appears at all during MRA navigation in the upper right corner.

A via point must or should be visited because it’s important to the planner for whatever reason (break, coffee, refueling, hotel, etc.).
That’s why I asked about different icon sizes in the MRA Routeplanner - because they aren’t all equally important.

And yes, maybe I sometimes use too many shaping points, but sometimes it’s necessary to define the exact route - and then things get confusing.
But that’s just my opinion, and I’d love to learn more about the benefit why you can assign additional information to a shaping point in the MRA Routeplanner - information that, in my opinion, is only relevant for a via point.
Even though I’m new to MRA and certainly don’t know many of its features yet, I really like the program