How to import gpx - via Route or Route-Track?
-
@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.
@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 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.
@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
-
@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
@Con-Hennekens sagte:
in the upcoming V6 version things considering track navigation will be different.In which way?
-
@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
@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
-
@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
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 poin
For instance if you want to add some spoken information about that shapingpoint, or the place where you've placed it. If you add tekst in the textfield of a shapingpoint that will be spoken, if you've activated that in your settings. Like "a beautifull statue on your right"
-
@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
@KaTo6668 I think having the shaping point appear in the upper right is excellent, for me it is really useful as I colour code my shaping points
if there is some information about the road ahead I will colour code that shaping point pink & add text either into the point name or notes
it could be something like "Warning tarmac end - road turns to gravel ahead" or "Warning sharp right bend after blind crest"
seeing the colour coded point well in advance means I am well aware of the that a hazard is coming up aheadI don't want these points t be Via points as it is not necessary for me to pass them, but if I am on the correct path I would like the warning
if your only interested in times/distances to Via points just toggle through the 3 settings of the large ETA button at the bottom centre of the screen
-
@marinus-van-deudekom @brian-mcg
Thanks for your input about how you use the additional shaping points features. Never thought about to use them that way and maybe never will, but I understand how you use them and what your benefit is. Right now for me the scenarios you mentioned are still via point topics. But maybe I get it when I use MRA longer -
@marinus-van-deudekom @brian-mcg
Thanks for your input about how you use the additional shaping points features. Never thought about to use them that way and maybe never will, but I understand how you use them and what your benefit is. Right now for me the scenarios you mentioned are still via point topics. But maybe I get it when I use MRA longer
@KaTo6668 I rarely color my shaping points. Just pointed out the possibility
Have fun -
@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
@KaTo6668, it's quite funny how you confess to be new to MRA but have nor problem telling them or me how shaping points should or should not work...
Even though you can add additional information to it in the MRA Routeplanner (color/text/icon, etc.) - for whatever reason.
The reason is that it can be very helpful to add information to a route point, even if can be skipped automatically, why not?
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.
It IS the default setting... I am missing the point why that would be a problem.
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.
I think most users would get mad if it got dropped... Well, to be honest I think you should experience for yourself how MRA works. MRA is not trying to copy your previous method of navigation. Try to be a bit less biased towards that and just learn how MRA works. There are reasons for MRA to work like it does.
I am just an enthusiastic MRA user, and hope you will be one too!
Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebar to the saddle.
Check out RideSleepRepeat.eu, a biker community for sharing stays across Europe
-
@KaTo6668, it's quite funny how you confess to be new to MRA but have nor problem telling them or me how shaping points should or should not work...
Even though you can add additional information to it in the MRA Routeplanner (color/text/icon, etc.) - for whatever reason.
The reason is that it can be very helpful to add information to a route point, even if can be skipped automatically, why not?
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.
It IS the default setting... I am missing the point why that would be a problem.
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.
I think most users would get mad if it got dropped... Well, to be honest I think you should experience for yourself how MRA works. MRA is not trying to copy your previous method of navigation. Try to be a bit less biased towards that and just learn how MRA works. There are reasons for MRA to work like it does.
I think most users would get mad if it got dropped.
I will organize a party when the blue shaping points are dropped in the navigation.
I am glad i can put the same info to a shaping point as is possible with the Via Point. Because in my opinion Via points are the worst type of waypoints. I'se seen this on my last holdiay. Navigation on holidays gives enough food for discussion but due to the Via points in the routes some people almost dump their Zumo into the river.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login-
018335
-
055
-
4191.7k
-
0316
-
0313
-
05178
-
0213
-
09378
