Automatically skipping shaping points Part 2
-
wrote 10 days ago last edited by
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.
-
@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...
wrote 9 days ago last edited by 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"). -
@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!wrote 9 days ago last edited by@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.
-
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
wrote 9 days ago last edited by@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 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.wrote 9 days ago last edited by -
@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
wrote 9 days ago last edited by@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 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.
wrote 8 days ago last edited by@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
-
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.
wrote 8 days ago last edited by@Corjan-Meijerink Thank you. That's very, very helpful!
(Sorry that I didn't respond sooner but I just saw this as we've been out riding since early morning)
Steve
-
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.
wrote 8 days ago last edited by@Corjan-Meijerink Thank you very much!
A walk-through of the logic was very helpful and it makes perfectly good sense. It clears up a lot of my confusion (and I'm easily confused!
) about exactly what's happening and why.My main problem happens when I don't know that a waypoint has been skipped for whatever reason and I'm being routed back to it. As you pointed out, and I agree 100%, it's VERY easy to skip a waypoint IF you realize that you're being routed back to it.
If there's any way possible I'd like to suggest a future enhancement where if, for any reason, the user is being routed back to a skipped waypoint that there be a clear indication somehow.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Steve
- 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
-
@Steve-Jarrell glad this helps
I will take it into consideration for future improvements! -
@Steve-Jarrell glad this helps
I will take it into consideration for future improvements!wrote 7 days ago last edited by@Corjan-Meijerink Thank you very much!
Steve
-
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
Follow up question.
Corjans description says this:
"Are recalculations enabled? Yes, continue. No, user needs to navigate back to route himself".
I might misunderstand this, but doesn't this mean that in @Steve-Jarrell example he shouldnt be send back to the missed shaping point if recalculation is disabled?
I always have this one disabled. Sometimes the app sends me back sometimes not. I have not been able to find a pattern in this but hope to have a video of such a case one day. -
wrote 5 days ago last edited by
My usage of MRA is low just because the issues discussed in this topic. It is not consistent indeed. Yesterday i did a small test and everything works wunderfull. Both in the app only and Android Auto. But many times it was the opposite and MRA forced me to skip manual. While i think this is job for the software. When this happens. Many times i stop MRA and proceed the route with a different app which doesn't forced me to press some buttons. When i ride i just want to follow the routeline, trust it is the correct direction without concerns i am send back to a point i can't reach (i did not missed a shaping point on purpose).
With this i mind i miss a logic in @Corjan-Meijerink list of logics.
- When back on the original route (i.e after roadworks), or still on the original route, skipped all missed shaping points which should be skipped already and proceed to the next waypoint.
This logic is an extra step when the other logics for autoskip should skip a shaping point but somehow it didn't autoskip.
-
My usage of MRA is low just because the issues discussed in this topic. It is not consistent indeed. Yesterday i did a small test and everything works wunderfull. Both in the app only and Android Auto. But many times it was the opposite and MRA forced me to skip manual. While i think this is job for the software. When this happens. Many times i stop MRA and proceed the route with a different app which doesn't forced me to press some buttons. When i ride i just want to follow the routeline, trust it is the correct direction without concerns i am send back to a point i can't reach (i did not missed a shaping point on purpose).
With this i mind i miss a logic in @Corjan-Meijerink list of logics.
- When back on the original route (i.e after roadworks), or still on the original route, skipped all missed shaping points which should be skipped already and proceed to the next waypoint.
This logic is an extra step when the other logics for autoskip should skip a shaping point but somehow it didn't autoskip.
wrote 5 days ago last edited by Herman Veldhuizen 6 Jan 2025, 10:49@M.-Schrijver I agree with you. MRA Nav being a multipoint system it is no surprise that this is the core and complex.
Currently the app has one way of dealing with a missed point.
I strongly feel that it is impossible to make everybody happy with one algorithm. But I can also understand the reluctance to expose parameters to an internal algorithm.
But, as mentioned before, maybe there is a way to offer multiple algorithms whereby at least one is easy to understand and document.
I stumbled across LocusMap the other day which has Point priority and Route priority navigation. I dont know if it is of any use for us but I found it interesting.