Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.
-
wrote on 31 Aug 2024, 07:48 last edited by ATLast
Hi.
I use the app to ride through small routes and thus I choose a destination and let the program guide me.
However, sometimes, I choose not the follow the computed route (road closed, better landscape, etc...) : I noticed that, when I choose not to follow the proposed route, MyRoute recalculates a new one but not to the destination: instead, it wants to send me where I left the planned route for the remaining part of the route.
This is incorrect: in this screenshot taken about 750m from my destination and after riding about ten kilometers against the program's will, it wanted me to drive an additional 17 km.
In this case, knowing the area, I could override the displayed route. But it is not the case when I don't know the region...
The expected behaviour would be : recalculation to the final destination.
PS: By the way, you will notice what seems to me a quality problem of the Here maps as buildings are wrongly displayed over the road. I tried selecting OSM map and the display was correct.
-
wrote on 3 Sept 2024, 07:42 last edited by Axel Härtl 9 Mar 2024, 08:00
Hi ATLast,
Under the assumption that you use waypoints: did you set this configuration: "skip waypoints automatically" (see second point on the German screenshot)?
I always monitor the distance to the next waypoint at the right top. If this value increases, then I am obviously moving away from the waypoint. In that case I manually skip that point by klicking on the waypoint. That works.
I admit that I didn't check the behavior of MRA without using waypoints. If you don't use waypoints, you only have two viapoints - the start and the final destination. These points are mandatory to ride to. Probably here is the cause of the observed misconduct.
Best Axel
-
Hi ATLast,
Under the assumption that you use waypoints: did you set this configuration: "skip waypoints automatically" (see second point on the German screenshot)?
I always monitor the distance to the next waypoint at the right top. If this value increases, then I am obviously moving away from the waypoint. In that case I manually skip that point by klicking on the waypoint. That works.
I admit that I didn't check the behavior of MRA without using waypoints. If you don't use waypoints, you only have two viapoints - the start and the final destination. These points are mandatory to ride to. Probably here is the cause of the observed misconduct.
Best Axel
wrote on 3 Sept 2024, 13:54 last edited by@Axel-Härtl, If you choose curvy options, you are in essence generating a track for navigation. When deviating from a track, indeed you are lead back to the track. This non-optimal. I am hoping for a future feature where the track will be picked up from wherever you hit it. But momentarily that is not the case.
-
@Axel-Härtl, If you choose curvy options, you are in essence generating a track for navigation. When deviating from a track, indeed you are lead back to the track. This non-optimal. I am hoping for a future feature where the track will be picked up from wherever you hit it. But momentarily that is not the case.
wrote on 3 Sept 2024, 16:04 last edited by@Con-Hennekens Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand the behaviour of MRA.
Best, Axel
-
@Axel-Härtl, If you choose curvy options, you are in essence generating a track for navigation. When deviating from a track, indeed you are lead back to the track. This non-optimal. I am hoping for a future feature where the track will be picked up from wherever you hit it. But momentarily that is not the case.
wrote on 14 Sept 2024, 08:30 last edited byThank you for your reply and explanation.
-
@Axel-Härtl, If you choose curvy options, you are in essence generating a track for navigation. When deviating from a track, indeed you are lead back to the track. This non-optimal. I am hoping for a future feature where the track will be picked up from wherever you hit it. But momentarily that is not the case.
wrote on 14 Sept 2024, 08:32 last edited by@Con-Hennekens said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
When deviating from a track, indeed you are lead back to the track. This non-optimal.
And even can be dangerous if you drive in remote area and, for example, are low on fuel: there is no indication you don't point to the final destination.
-
undefined ATLast referenced this topic on 14 Sept 2024, 08:39
-
undefined ATLast referenced this topic on 29 Sept 2024, 17:49
-
undefined Con Hennekens referenced this topic on 29 Sept 2024, 19:39
-
wrote on 29 Sept 2024, 19:54 last edited by
From the other therad I understand that you were not satisfied with my answer. I will give it another shot.
@ATLast said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
The expected behaviour would be : recalculation to the final destination.
Recalculation to the destination is a very frustrating pitfall for many Garmin users, and also for MRA Navigation users in the past. Garmin created a workaround by disbaling recalculation,MRA chose to change the app to reroute back to the point where you left off (in case of a track). There is logic to it too. If you tell the program to navigate a certain track, it is not far fetched to assume you want to drive as much of that track as possible.
For actual routes (with waypoints) there is an auto-skip feature in place. Also this feature will send you back to the route a few times. And after a few recalculations it will decide to skip that waypoint since it seems to be unreachable. Also here it counts that your meticulously planned route must not be compromised by mistakenly going off the line. Skipping manually is very helpful, but in tracks (also destinations with curvy options) that option does not exist because there are no waypoints.
So, the behavior you depicted as incorrect, actually is by design.
-
Hi.
I use the app to ride through small routes and thus I choose a destination and let the program guide me.
However, sometimes, I choose not the follow the computed route (road closed, better landscape, etc...) : I noticed that, when I choose not to follow the proposed route, MyRoute recalculates a new one but not to the destination: instead, it wants to send me where I left the planned route for the remaining part of the route.
This is incorrect: in this screenshot taken about 750m from my destination and after riding about ten kilometers against the program's will, it wanted me to drive an additional 17 km.
In this case, knowing the area, I could override the displayed route. But it is not the case when I don't know the region...
The expected behaviour would be : recalculation to the final destination.
PS: By the way, you will notice what seems to me a quality problem of the Here maps as buildings are wrongly displayed over the road. I tried selecting OSM map and the display was correct.
wrote on 30 Sept 2024, 13:18 last edited by@ATLast I have expereinced that behavior (and reported it as well) when I used the app for strictly A-B route - the app continually wanted me to make a uturn for over 20mi before it finally accepted that should redraw.
This was in a well known to me area, so not a big deal - had it been in an unkown area, as you mention, it would not have been so good.
-
@ATLast I have expereinced that behavior (and reported it as well) when I used the app for strictly A-B route - the app continually wanted me to make a uturn for over 20mi before it finally accepted that should redraw.
This was in a well known to me area, so not a big deal - had it been in an unkown area, as you mention, it would not have been so good.
wrote on 30 Sept 2024, 13:30 last edited byHi.
I work around the problem as follows:
When you reach a blocked road, you have to stop the navigation, drive about 7-10 km without guidance, then re-initiate a new route request to the final destination.
This avoids being sent back to the old route with the blocked road. -
Hi.
I work around the problem as follows:
When you reach a blocked road, you have to stop the navigation, drive about 7-10 km without guidance, then re-initiate a new route request to the final destination.
This avoids being sent back to the old route with the blocked road.wrote on 30 Sept 2024, 14:28 last edited by@ATLast good to know, thanks.
In my case, there were no road closures, just 4 or 5 to chose from!! And the app didn't like the one I chose!
-
From the other therad I understand that you were not satisfied with my answer. I will give it another shot.
@ATLast said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
The expected behaviour would be : recalculation to the final destination.
Recalculation to the destination is a very frustrating pitfall for many Garmin users, and also for MRA Navigation users in the past. Garmin created a workaround by disbaling recalculation,MRA chose to change the app to reroute back to the point where you left off (in case of a track). There is logic to it too. If you tell the program to navigate a certain track, it is not far fetched to assume you want to drive as much of that track as possible.
For actual routes (with waypoints) there is an auto-skip feature in place. Also this feature will send you back to the route a few times. And after a few recalculations it will decide to skip that waypoint since it seems to be unreachable. Also here it counts that your meticulously planned route must not be compromised by mistakenly going off the line. Skipping manually is very helpful, but in tracks (also destinations with curvy options) that option does not exist because there are no waypoints.
So, the behavior you depicted as incorrect, actually is by design.
wrote on 30 Sept 2024, 14:40 last edited by Herko ter Horst@Con-Hennekens said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
Recalculation to the destination is a very frustrating pitfall for many Garmin users, and also for MRA Navigation users in the past. Garmin created a workaround by disbaling recalculation,MRA chose to change the app to reroute back to the point where you left off (in case of a track). There is logic to it too. If you tell the program to navigate a certain track, it is not far fetched to assume you want to drive as much of that track as possible.
An even nicer implementation (IMO) would be to automatically recalculate to the nearest location on the track. Initially, this is the point where you deviate from the track, but when driving to avoid road works, following a signposted deviation or just deviating from the track in general for whatever reason, you'll most likely get to a place where a location further along the track is closer to you, and so it would be nice to have your navigation system recognise that and direct you there.
You'll still have to do a bit of work yourself (sometimes) to go far enough along to avoid whatever you're trying to avoid, but your nav system will eventually get you "back on track".
The same logic would also apply when you want to navigate using a track, but you don't want to start from the starting point of the track, you just want to get to the location on the track closest to you.
@ATLast said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
Hi.
I work around the problem as follows:
When you reach a blocked road, you have to stop the navigation, drive about 7-10 km without guidance, then re-initiate a new route request to the final destination.
This avoids being sent back to the old route with the blocked road.This works well when you're just driving and are fine with letting the nav system pick your roads. It wouldn't work when there's actually a prepared route/track that you would like to get back to, if possible.
-
@ATLast I have expereinced that behavior (and reported it as well) when I used the app for strictly A-B route - the app continually wanted me to make a uturn for over 20mi before it finally accepted that should redraw.
This was in a well known to me area, so not a big deal - had it been in an unkown area, as you mention, it would not have been so good.
wrote on 30 Sept 2024, 15:11 last edited by@GT-JWR said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
I have expereinced that behavior (and reported it as well) when I used the app for strictly A-B route - the app continually wanted me to make a uturn for over 20mi before it finally accepted that should redraw.
This will be taken care of ina next version.
@Herko-ter-Horst said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
An even nicer implementation (IMO) would be to automatically recalculate to the nearest location on the track. Initially, this is the point where you deviate from the track, but when driving to avoid road works, following a signposted deviation or just deviating from the track in general for whatever reason, you'll most likely get to a place where a location further along the track is closer to you, and so it would be nice to have your navigation system recognise that and direct you there.
I fully agree!
-
@Con-Hennekens said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
Recalculation to the destination is a very frustrating pitfall for many Garmin users, and also for MRA Navigation users in the past. Garmin created a workaround by disbaling recalculation,MRA chose to change the app to reroute back to the point where you left off (in case of a track). There is logic to it too. If you tell the program to navigate a certain track, it is not far fetched to assume you want to drive as much of that track as possible.
An even nicer implementation (IMO) would be to automatically recalculate to the nearest location on the track. Initially, this is the point where you deviate from the track, but when driving to avoid road works, following a signposted deviation or just deviating from the track in general for whatever reason, you'll most likely get to a place where a location further along the track is closer to you, and so it would be nice to have your navigation system recognise that and direct you there.
You'll still have to do a bit of work yourself (sometimes) to go far enough along to avoid whatever you're trying to avoid, but your nav system will eventually get you "back on track".
The same logic would also apply when you want to navigate using a track, but you don't want to start from the starting point of the track, you just want to get to the location on the track closest to you.
@ATLast said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
Hi.
I work around the problem as follows:
When you reach a blocked road, you have to stop the navigation, drive about 7-10 km without guidance, then re-initiate a new route request to the final destination.
This avoids being sent back to the old route with the blocked road.This works well when you're just driving and are fine with letting the nav system pick your roads. It wouldn't work when there's actually a prepared route/track that you would like to get back to, if possible.
wrote on 30 Sept 2024, 18:19 last edited by@Herko-ter-Horst said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
An even nicer implementation (IMO) would be to automatically recalculate to the nearest location on the track. Initially, this is the point where you deviate from the track, but when driving to avoid road works, following a signposted deviation or just deviating from the track in general for whatever reason, you'll most likely get to a place where a location further along the track is closer to you, and so it would be nice to have your navigation system recognise that and direct you there.
But... why do you want to complicate things and stick to the "track" stuff?
Initially, you set a destination, and want to go there.
You just follow the instructions and, when there is a roadblock, a nicer landscape, a better place to answer a nature's call, you drive there: the program then simply has to recalculate the route from the actual location to the destination as it did the first time you entered that destination anyway.This is simple and straightforward.
Complicating the process leads to unexpected and unwanted behaviour.
I have no idea why people keep talking about "track": I know some of you carefully set up a route and then follow it, and that's fine.
But my use of the program is always to set a destination and eventually, no, almost all the time, leave the planned route at some point for one reason or another.
And my Garmin Zumo XT works the same way: when I don't follow its advices, it adapts to my will. (unlike my girlfriend...)
But Garmin's adventurous routins is FAR FAR behind what MRA offers in terms of small roads.
So please, keep it simple : it already tops competitors...
-
@Herko-ter-Horst said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
An even nicer implementation (IMO) would be to automatically recalculate to the nearest location on the track. Initially, this is the point where you deviate from the track, but when driving to avoid road works, following a signposted deviation or just deviating from the track in general for whatever reason, you'll most likely get to a place where a location further along the track is closer to you, and so it would be nice to have your navigation system recognise that and direct you there.
But... why do you want to complicate things and stick to the "track" stuff?
Initially, you set a destination, and want to go there.
You just follow the instructions and, when there is a roadblock, a nicer landscape, a better place to answer a nature's call, you drive there: the program then simply has to recalculate the route from the actual location to the destination as it did the first time you entered that destination anyway.This is simple and straightforward.
Complicating the process leads to unexpected and unwanted behaviour.
I have no idea why people keep talking about "track": I know some of you carefully set up a route and then follow it, and that's fine.
But my use of the program is always to set a destination and eventually, no, almost all the time, leave the planned route at some point for one reason or another.
And my Garmin Zumo XT works the same way: when I don't follow its advices, it adapts to my will. (unlike my girlfriend...)
But Garmin's adventurous routins is FAR FAR behind what MRA offers in terms of small roads.
So please, keep it simple : it already tops competitors...
wrote on 1 Oct 2024, 12:58 last edited by@ATLast said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
But... why do you want to complicate things and stick to the "track" stuff?
I have no idea why people keep talking about "track": I know some of you carefully set up a route and then follow it, and that's fine.
You answered your own question: a track is an accurate representation of a planned route, not just a set of waypoints that has to be recalculated by the navigation system. It's also the best way to share a route with users of other systems/apps.
I don't tend to use MRA for A-B routes, I'll just use Apple Maps/Google Maps or the built-in navigation system of my car. If I'm driving for fun, I put in the effort to plan an enjoyable route (using MRA planner) and after that I just want to drive the calculated route (which is represented by the track), meaning I don't want my navigation system to recalculate it based on its own settings. I also don't want to have to skip waypoints if I (have to) deviate from it, I just want to be able to deviate as needed and be directed back to it after.
-
@ATLast said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
But... why do you want to complicate things and stick to the "track" stuff?
I have no idea why people keep talking about "track": I know some of you carefully set up a route and then follow it, and that's fine.
You answered your own question: a track is an accurate representation of a planned route, not just a set of waypoints that has to be recalculated by the navigation system. It's also the best way to share a route with users of other systems/apps.
I don't tend to use MRA for A-B routes, I'll just use Apple Maps/Google Maps or the built-in navigation system of my car. If I'm driving for fun, I put in the effort to plan an enjoyable route (using MRA planner) and after that I just want to drive the calculated route (which is represented by the track), meaning I don't want my navigation system to recalculate it based on its own settings. I also don't want to have to skip waypoints if I (have to) deviate from it, I just want to be able to deviate as needed and be directed back to it after.
wrote on 1 Oct 2024, 13:46 last edited by@Herko-ter-Horst said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
I have no idea why people keep talking about "track": I know some of you carefully set up a route and then follow it, and that's fine.
If you read it carefully, you will understand that I'm not asking what a track is - which I know - but why people are talking about it in this post.
-
@ATLast said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
But... why do you want to complicate things and stick to the "track" stuff?
I have no idea why people keep talking about "track": I know some of you carefully set up a route and then follow it, and that's fine.
You answered your own question: a track is an accurate representation of a planned route, not just a set of waypoints that has to be recalculated by the navigation system. It's also the best way to share a route with users of other systems/apps.
I don't tend to use MRA for A-B routes, I'll just use Apple Maps/Google Maps or the built-in navigation system of my car. If I'm driving for fun, I put in the effort to plan an enjoyable route (using MRA planner) and after that I just want to drive the calculated route (which is represented by the track), meaning I don't want my navigation system to recalculate it based on its own settings. I also don't want to have to skip waypoints if I (have to) deviate from it, I just want to be able to deviate as needed and be directed back to it after.
wrote on 1 Oct 2024, 13:47 last edited by@Herko-ter-Horst said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
I'll just use Apple Maps/Google Map
Both of these program have a lot of limitations that MRA doesn't have.
-
@ATLast said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
But... why do you want to complicate things and stick to the "track" stuff?
I have no idea why people keep talking about "track": I know some of you carefully set up a route and then follow it, and that's fine.
You answered your own question: a track is an accurate representation of a planned route, not just a set of waypoints that has to be recalculated by the navigation system. It's also the best way to share a route with users of other systems/apps.
I don't tend to use MRA for A-B routes, I'll just use Apple Maps/Google Maps or the built-in navigation system of my car. If I'm driving for fun, I put in the effort to plan an enjoyable route (using MRA planner) and after that I just want to drive the calculated route (which is represented by the track), meaning I don't want my navigation system to recalculate it based on its own settings. I also don't want to have to skip waypoints if I (have to) deviate from it, I just want to be able to deviate as needed and be directed back to it after.
wrote on 1 Oct 2024, 13:58 last edited by ATLast 10 Jan 2024, 14:01@Herko-ter-Horst said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
If I'm driving for fun, I put in the effort to plan an enjoyable route (using MRA planner) and after that I just want to drive the calculated route (which is represented by the track), meaning I don't want my navigation system to recalculate it based on its own settings.
Again, I'm fine whith the fact that people have their own way to use various programs, but again that's not relevant to my original post.
And by the way, MRA's ability to avoid towns, main roads, smaller roads, populated areas, etc... and still keeps me on paved roads is unmatched in any of the other navigation programs I have used and could save a lot of time and planning to those who want just a nice afternoon ride: no need to setup basecamp or Routeplanner: just set a destination 50 kms away and choose curvy roads. Give it a try: you might be surprised to discover roads you maybe didn't know existed in your surroundings!
And for me, in this roads and people tightly packed Belgium, it allowed me to go to places I didn't know I could reach without boring main roads or freeways.
I must admit I haven't tried Calimoto, because it doesn't work on Android Auto.
In the end, I wonder why MRA doesn't put more spotlight on a feature that no competitor offers, even Garmin!
-
wrote on 1 Oct 2024, 17:54 last edited by
@ATLast said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
But my use of the program is always to set a destination and eventually, no, almost all the time, leave the planned route at some point for one reason or another.
This is explicitly NOT the objective of navigating pre-planned scenic routes. People usually want to navigating as precisely as possible like they planned it. If you simply set a destination, and use some "allow" parameters the app will do exactly like you say from the next version on, UNLESS you decide to use curvy road options, which generates a track and the track will demand to be followed.
-
@Herko-ter-Horst said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
I have no idea why people keep talking about "track": I know some of you carefully set up a route and then follow it, and that's fine.
If you read it carefully, you will understand that I'm not asking what a track is - which I know - but why people are talking about it in this post.
wrote on 1 Oct 2024, 21:35 last edited by@ATLast since we are talking about A to B routes, what limitations do other apps have that MRA does not have? I think Google Maps and Waze are much better for simple A to B routes and provide better notification and handling of detours, traffic etc.
-
@Herko-ter-Horst said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
If I'm driving for fun, I put in the effort to plan an enjoyable route (using MRA planner) and after that I just want to drive the calculated route (which is represented by the track), meaning I don't want my navigation system to recalculate it based on its own settings.
Again, I'm fine whith the fact that people have their own way to use various programs, but again that's not relevant to my original post.
And by the way, MRA's ability to avoid towns, main roads, smaller roads, populated areas, etc... and still keeps me on paved roads is unmatched in any of the other navigation programs I have used and could save a lot of time and planning to those who want just a nice afternoon ride: no need to setup basecamp or Routeplanner: just set a destination 50 kms away and choose curvy roads. Give it a try: you might be surprised to discover roads you maybe didn't know existed in your surroundings!
And for me, in this roads and people tightly packed Belgium, it allowed me to go to places I didn't know I could reach without boring main roads or freeways.
I must admit I haven't tried Calimoto, because it doesn't work on Android Auto.
In the end, I wonder why MRA doesn't put more spotlight on a feature that no competitor offers, even Garmin!
wrote on 2 Oct 2024, 05:46 last edited by@ATLast Hi ATLast, in my opinion calimoto is far behind MRA. I had a calimoto subscription for some years and have canceled it. The options and, above all, the intensive further development based on user feedback at MRA are much better. So my advice - don't waste your time with calimoto - save it for your girlfriend.
Best, Axel
️
