Weird Routing Behaviour (2)

[jfheath]

Well said John! I believe there is a consideration not mentioned, and that is that you can not navigate to a shaping point. This is especially important on group rides if a member or members of the group get separated. You need enough Via Points so as to select one as a meet-up point that is not so far ahead as to break the "group ride". I also think it is important to have some that you can select as a starting point should you have to restart the route on your satnav.

Until recently, I felt that shaping points were the cause of some problems with the XT but the testing results shared on this forum indicate otherwise. I don't believe that a 300 mile route containing all shaping points is wise though. Thoughts?

Thanks @Peobody . I have plenty of thoughts on this. I chose not to mention it becasue it raises a whole load of realted issues, which would detract from the answer that I was giving. But now you have asked the question that needs answering. So here goes. Take a deep breath. I may be some time.

I know that you know a lot of these things - so I am writing for anyone else that reads the thread - as well as answering your specific questions.


I like shaping points because I can ignore them. Typically when I plan a route I plan it for both me and my pillion. I have got plenty to do, but my pillion is sitting there with nothing but to enjoy the ride. So we may need to stop more regularly. So I put in optional stops. They go in as shaping points and pin point the location of the cafe or whatever. I then put a Via point after the cafe stop - on the road that I want to be on whether I stop at the cafe or not. Maybe two miles further up the road.

Then when it comes to deciding whether or not to stop, I can just ignore the instructions to turn off. Put up with the satnav nagging me for 2 miles and rejoin the route as the plotted route and I both head toward the next via point 2 miles ahead.

It also means that I can restart the route by choosing the next destination, when I accidentally stop it when fiddling with it in the cafe - because as you say, onlt the Via points appear in the list of next destinations when starting a route !

For anyone reading this from fresh. 'I can ignore Shaping Points' - is not what it sounds like. The stanav still has the job of getting you to visit them, and it will do that relentlessly if you are off route. As soon as you rejoin the magenta line though, it will stop nagging and focus on getting you to the next point ahead. As long as you do not miss out any Via Points.

Only the Via points are listed when you start a route for the prompt 'Select Next Destination'. None of the Shaping Points are listed. Because of this, and becasue you cannot guarentee that you will be able to get onto the actual start point of a route, and becasue you usually need to go and get fuel, food, negotiate traffic, road works, I NEVER put my start point at the place that I will start a route. It is always (say) a mile up the road at a location that I will have to pass through. In a large town, it will be way beyond the ring road.

When I choose that Via Point as the next destination, the stanav calculates a route to that point and when I reach it, it continues to navigate from there without me having to do anything.

The issue of how this looks on an XT screen when starting a route is described in the link below. It also shows what happens with the route if you choose each of the Via Point options.

app.php/ZXT-P32


Via points are essential to stop the problem that used to happen with the earlier Zumos like the 660s. If you had a circular route and put in the destination the same as your start the route would finish immediately you started it - because you had reached your destination.

If you had a figure of 8 route, at some point the route crosses itself. You go straight over the crossover point. But if you didn't go straight over - or if straight over involved travlling the same bit of road as the other branch of the figure of 8 - you might get the crossover wrong and end up doing just the bottom circle of the figure of 8.

The 660 would let you do that. In fact if the cross over point is an actual cross roads, and you went straight over (correctly to complete begin the top circle of the figure of 8), the 660 would continue navigating without any problem.

If instead, at the cross roads you turned right to complete the bottom circle of the figure of 8, you are on the route, you are heading in the right direction - the 660 wouldn't bat an eyelid - it would continue navigating as if this was the correct road.

So Garmin introduced a different concept. Without actually advertising the fact, they made route points that alert and route points that don't alert. They don't actually tell you (not that I have seen) that the alerting Via Points are 'must visit' points, or that shaping points can be missed out as I described above. But what Via Points do achieve is route that has some very definite staging posts. It divides a route up into clear sections and you have to complete the sections in the correct order. No more problems with figure of 8s or finishing a route before you have started becasue you are at the final destination. You have to visit the intermediat destinations first - the Via Points.

But you can have fun with this becasue the XT will do exactly the same thing. How ? Plot a route with no Via points. Use only shaping points (except for the start and end). Make it a figure of 8. You can do exactly the same trick that I have described above ! Turn off auto-recalc, and if you wander off the route the satnav goes dumb. It no longer talks to you. Rejoin the route anywhere , it will continue to navigate you ahead as soon as you join the route. It doesn't matter that you have missed a load of shaping points.

Playing around like that is really useful in fully understanding when you need Vias and when you need shaping points. And how many liberties you can take with what it is telling you to do.

The XT also performs a similar trick with tracks that have been turned into trips. There are no Via Points, no shaping points. Just a route. The route itself never alters if you deviate from it. What it does is to spot the closest point on the route to your current position and plots a route to take you there. So suppose you set off on a long thin clockwise oval out-and-back anti-clockwise route, initially heading north. The coming back route is on a road that is just a mile over to the left (west) in a number of places. If you wander off route to the left by more than half a mile, the XT is going to spot the closest point as being on the coming home road, and head for that !

No - my routes will always have a few Via Points. Usually placed just after my stopping places. So maybe 3 as well as the start and end. If I don't know or cannot remember where the cafe is, and I have to detour to get to it, I will put a Via Point just before the place where I have to make a decision. And call it something suitable. The satnav will then speak out to me. "In half a mile arriving at "Use B1234 for no coffee". The route will go to the shaping point at the cafe. If I don't want to stop, I will take the B1234 to reach the route after the coffee stop, held firmly in place by another Via Point.

But having the Via Points means that my data display can show the time and distance to the next Via, which my pillion finds extremely useful. If I put in too many of these Via, they become useless on the display. I need them about an hour or so apart so that I know which point it is. There is nothing more annoying for a pillion who sees that there is 45 mins to the next Via (stopping place), and when we reach it it is int he middle of nowhere and the actual coffee place is 20 minutes further on.

Because the transfer of data to the XT results in a name change of some points, but never with Waypoints, I usually create Waypoints in Basecamp. Give them the name that I want, and use those to be set as Via Points.

The XT allows you to edit a route in the trip planner. You can move points around, add new saved points, add new point tapped on the map.

You can even change the status of a point from Via to Shaping and from Shaping to Via. However, therein lies a problem. If you change a Via Point to a Sahping point, the XT relocates it and gives it a different name. Sometimes this is an insignifcant move. Sometimes it works out a nearby location (it seems to want to place it on its faster route from the preceding point to the next point), and puts the shaping point in a position that forces you to take the faster route. This is annoying because the original via point was probably placed where forced the route away formt he faster road.

This behaviour doesn't happen if you change a shaping point to a Via Point. So if you need points on the route so that you can choose them as the next destination, and you don't have a handy Via Point to choose from, then it is perfectly safe to change a Shaping Point into a Via Point. Not safe to alter a Via Point to a Shaping Point.

My prefeered solution - a route with say 5 Via Point sin total including start and end. Maybe 3 or 4 shaping points are necessary between each Via. The link above gives a good example.

[Fxwheels]

Agree wit all said above.
I don't know what was the logic behind repositioning the shaping point after converting it from a Via point. Was it done on purpose or a bug...
But this is not something you'd do too often if at all.

Now, in regards to re-entry to the route, as in your example when you by mistake cancelled it at lunch. Your Via point came to the rescue and you could restart from it. But, what if you didn't have that Via? You can try to figure out where is your next shaping point (can be a pain), convert it into a Via and restart there. But, what if that shaping point is farther away from where you want to rejoin the route at? Maybe you can drop a Via point directly on the screen at the nearest section of the route? (haven't tried it yet). And you didn't mention the "Closest entry Point".

And let me tell you, this thing selecting the destination (checker flag) from anywhere on the route (like in your map #3 example), and it would take you straight there disregarding the entire route is, eh... confusing and misleading. Maybe they should changed it to say "Straight to Fort William"?
But then again, if I want to go straight to Fort William, why do I need a planned a route? .
In my view, the checker flag should not be a point which you can click on, but merely a point to show the destination.

[Peobody]

Wow! I opened a can of John!

Thanks John for the detailed explanation. It confirms my thinking and reminds me of your method of dealing with potential stops. I have used it in the past but had forgotten about it in my planning for my May trip. I thought I was done with its route planning but a review is now warranted,

[jfheath]

Agree wit all said above.
I don't know what was the logic behind repositioning the shaping point after converting it from a Via point. Was it done on purpose or a bug...
But this is not something you'd do too often if at all.

The tech support seemed to think that it was a bug. They didn't know about it, but have been able to reproduce it. It has been passed on to the development team, with no guarantee that they will do anything about it. The same arror was there on the 595 as well. Foursquare was introduced with the 595. Whether that is relevant or not, I don't know. But I made the point anyway.

Now, in regards to re-entry to the route, as in your example when you by mistake cancelled it at lunch. Your Via point came to the rescue and you could restart from it. But, what if you didn't have that Via? You can try to figure out where is your next shaping point (can be a pain), convert it into a Via and restart there. But, what if that shaping point is farther away from where you want to rejoin the route at? Maybe you can drop a Via point directly on the screen at the nearest section of the route? (haven't tried it yet). And you didn't mention the "Closest entry Point".

That was one reason that for unknown areas, I used to number my points with the mileage. eg 123 Ft William. But route points often have thier names changed when transferred from BAsecamp.

Closest Entry Point is an option, which I deliberately ignored. This finds the closest point on the magenta line and take you to it. Irrespective of whether there is an actual point anywhere nearby. It ignores them. It then cancels all of the previous points after joinint he route, and follws the route, point by point from there on. BUT. It seems that this recalculation generates a different kind of route - a bit like when you press skip. If you subsequently deviate from the new route, it will enter into the repeated U turn loop scenario where it tries to get you back to the point of deviation.

And let me tell you, this thing selecting the destination (checker flag) from anywhere on the route (like in your map #3 example), and it would take you straight there disregarding the entire route is, eh... confusing and misleading. Maybe they should changed it to say "Straight to Fort William"?
But then again, if I want to go straight to Fort William, why do I need a planned a route? .
In my view, the checker flag should not be a point which you can click on, but merely a point to show the destination.

I think the choice of words here is misleading. (By Garmin, not by you !) First of all, 'Desination' to me means the end of the route. Garmin, if you read between the lines of their help pages, seems to use the term Destination and Via Point as the same thing. In other words, if you use a Via Point as a coffee stop, the the coffee stop is your next destination - the end of the next section of the route.

But many users will send the route out to club members - or to customers if they run a motorcyle tour bsuiness. people come from all over the palce,a nd on the first day of a tour, people will come from all parts of the world to join up somewhere on the first day. So you give them a route with a Via Point at all of the places where you have said you will meet up at a particular time. And like a train arriving at a platform, you stop and pick up more customers.
The customers have to be able to get there. They will not follow the route as a whole, but they have beens ent the whole route. So they load it, say go, and choose the Via Point (Destination) where they want to join the route. The satnav will take them there, ignoring the plotted route until they reach their chosen Via Point. ie their chosen destination.

From there they can follow the route as plotted, which is what the satnav will do without any further input from the rider.

So it is the choice of words that I think is wrong.

Its an easy fix. And if I am telling anyone I tell them - it says 'Select your Next Destination', but they have made a spelling mistake.
It should be spelled 'At which Via Point would you like to join this route'.

If you do that, it all makes sense, and it becomes a useful feature.

End of another canful !!

[Fxwheels]

I think the choice of words here is misleading. (By Garmin, not by you !) First of all, 'Desination' to me means the end of the route. Garmin, if you read between the lines of their help pages, seems to use the term Destination and Via Point as the same thing. In other words, if you use a Via Point as a coffee stop, the the coffee stop is your next destination - the end of the next section of the route.

But many users will send the route out to club members - or to customers if they run a motorcyle tour bsuiness. people come from all over the palce,a nd on the first day of a tour, people will come from all parts of the world to join up somewhere on the first day. So you give them a route with a Via Point at all of the places where you have said you will meet up at a particular time. And like a train arriving at a platform, you stop and pick up more customers.
The customers have to be able to get there. They will not follow the route as a whole, but they have beens ent the whole route. So they load it, say go, and choose the Via Point (Destination) where they want to join the route. The satnav will take them there, ignoring the plotted route until they reach their chosen Via Point. ie their chosen destination.

End of another canful !!

Just before we end the canful

I see exactly what you're saying in regards to "destination" as the next Via point, and it's totally fine. If I select a next or any particular Via point to start off, I do want to ignore re route before it and just go directly there to rejoin.
However, the Checker flag destination is what I was referring to. It confusing many riders because they may click on it thinking that XT will take them there using their planned route, yet instead it takes them directly to the end... So, to solve the confusion - by clicking on the Checker flag, there should be a warning saying something like "planned route will be bypassed" or alike.

I didn't see a reason why the Checker flag should be unlocked (clickable) at all, but after thinking of it a bit more, I thought that maybe Garmin gave us this option if for example you are somewhere in the middle of the route, you are tired and don't care to continue on it any longer. You say f-it, X-out the route and restart it by clicking on the Checker flag. Takes you straight there (probably highway/motorway). Eh?

End.

[Peobody]

I didn't see a reason why the Checker flag should be unlocked (clickable) at all, but after thinking of it a bit more, I thought that maybe Garmin gave us this option if for example you are somewhere in the middle of the route, you are tired and don't care to continue on it any longer. You say f-it, X-out the route and restart it by clicking on the Checker flag. Takes you straight there (probably highway/motorway). Eh?

I am glad that it works the way it does for exactly the reason you describe, or any reason that requires you to get to the ending waypoint as soon as possible. For me, it was a helmet issue that required a major route deviation to a city large enough to have motorcycle shops (Oklahoma City). Once new helmet was in hand it was a bee-line to that days Checkered flag.

[MattW]

Hi all,
New XT user, although I’ve been using Garmin navs since my i3
Just discovered the forum after googling for a solution to some weird behaviour on my first ride using a ‘route’ rather than just a simple endpoint.
It turns out that I’m not the first so hope, it’s ok to post to this thread rather than create a new one.

Basically, I created a 200 mile route around North Wales using MRA with start and finish waypoints and shaping points between. I uploaded this to Garmin drive as a GPX 1.1 file and it synced normally and calculated on the XT.
The first issue was that it wanted to navigate me really strangely to the start point (but that might have been because I’d not placed the starting waypoint accurately - possibly on the wrong side of the road). I got round this by cancelling the route and then manually selecting my first shaping point as my point of entry.

Then all was fine until I rode past a cafe a few metres down a side turn off the route and turned round to visit it.
When I restarted my ride, I rode back to the road I’d been on (which was the route I’d been happily following until I turned round) but all hell let loose with the XT constantly demanding that I make a U-turn.
At the time I had no idea what was going on and I cancelled the navigation and tried to restart it selecting ‘closest entry point’ but it continued to demand a u-turn. I gave up at this point and just selected the final finish waypoint and let it navigate ‘fastest’ to get me there (not the scenic route I’d planned! ).
After reading on here, I think I’m not the first to experience this behaviour.
Is it something I’ve done when creating the route (or because I’m using MRA)?
If it’s not ‘me’ is there any fix or workaround if I get this in the future?

I’m taking a group around Scotland in May and fondly thought I could create routes and share them with the other XT users but if we get the sort of behaviour I experienced last weekend, it could be complete carnage (none of them are very ‘technical’ users of satnavs - just ‘stick a postcode in and do what it says’ sort of people).

Any advice regarding this ‘make a U-turn’ issue would be much appreciated!
Thanks
Matt

[Mzokk]

Hi Folks I've just introduced myself and I'm watching this thread with interest. I'm an experienced motorcycle GPS user having aquired a Streetpilot 2610 in Mid 2004. (still have it still works) In use currently I use a Zumo 340 and 390 on one bike and replaced my BMW NavIV (which I was using on My 2020 ATAS) at Christmas with a Zumo XT. I have experienced this U turn weirdness with Basecamp routes on the XT and thought it might be fat fingers on my part. I have partly circumvented this by putting more announced waypoints in for example I put 8 (including start and finish) into a recent 190mile route and skip to route to the next way/via point it u turn issues arise. I've also experienced the multiple track log issues (about 30 in the case of that route). However I also get this if I have the sat nav on but I'm not using it the follow a set route. On runs from home I often take backroads without plotting a route in the hope that if I enjoy it enough I can repeat it. But even in this circumstance the Zumo XT breaks it up into multiple small segments. The other thing it does is report spurious speeds in the track log. My speed will jump from 55 to 175MPH for example. Anyone experience these last two odd issues? The Zumo340,390 and Nav iv don't do this.

[Peobody]

There is a lot of discussion on this forum about u-turns. If the u-turn is not associated with going off route then a couple of things that can trigger this are:

1. Waypoint on wrong side of the road, which you mentioned.
2. Misplaced Waypoint (one meant to be on the road but positioned slightly off).
3. A Waypoint the XT did not record as "visited". This has happened to me numerous times with fuel and food stops. The fuel pumps or the restaurant parking location is just far enough away from the coordinates of the Waypoint that the XT doesn't record the stop. @jfheath has an ingenious solution to this which I have adopted. That solution is to move the Waypoint to a spot on the road shortly before the actual location. It should be close enough that you can see the facility but on the road such that you travel through it before turning in to the facility.

As for u-turns. My best success with routes has been with lots of waypoints and no shaping points. You mentioned 8 in a 190 mile route. That would be low for most of my routes. I use BaseCamp for routing and spend a lot of time looking at route options the XT might calculate over and then placing waypoints that will force it to calculate where I want it to go. Folks here seem to have proven that shaping points do not cause the off-route u-turn issue so I am considering my "no shaping points" philosophy. I am following the developments of the u-turn issue with great interest.

[Fxwheels]

Hi all,
New XT user, although I’ve been using Garmin navs since my i3
Just discovered the forum after googling for a solution to some weird behaviour on my first ride using a ‘route’ rather than just a simple endpoint.
It turns out that I’m not the first so hope, it’s ok to post to this thread rather than create a new one.

Basically, I created a 200 mile route around North Wales using MRA with start and finish waypoints and shaping points between. I uploaded this to Garmin drive as a GPX 1.1 file and it synced normally and calculated on the XT.
The first issue was that it wanted to navigate me really strangely to the start point (but that might have been because I’d not placed the starting waypoint accurately - possibly on the wrong side of the road). I got round this by cancelling the route and then manually selecting my first shaping point as my point of entry.

Then all was fine until I rode past a cafe a few metres down a side turn off the route and turned round to visit it.
When I restarted my ride, I rode back to the road I’d been on (which was the route I’d been happily following until I turned round) but all hell let loose with the XT constantly demanding that I make a U-turn.
At the time I had no idea what was going on and I cancelled the navigation and tried to restart it selecting ‘closest entry point’ but it continued to demand a u-turn. I gave up at this point and just selected the final finish waypoint and let it navigate ‘fastest’ to get me there (not the scenic route I’d planned! ).
After reading on here, I think I’m not the first to experience this behaviour.
Is it something I’ve done when creating the route (or because I’m using MRA)?
If it’s not ‘me’ is there any fix or workaround if I get this in the future?

I’m taking a group around Scotland in May and fondly thought I could create routes and share them with the other XT users but if we get the sort of behaviour I experienced last weekend, it could be complete carnage (none of them are very ‘technical’ users of satnavs - just ‘stick a postcode in and do what it says’ sort of people).

Any advice regarding this ‘make a U-turn’ issue would be much appreciated!
Thanks
Matt

Look up couple of threads before as we discussed with @jfheath how to restart the route. But in short, always have the track displayed along with the route. If the route letting you down and acting up for some reason, a track is your friend here. Ditch the route and follow the track. Just be more attentive not to miss a turn (no speaking instructions), especially if you lead a group. (You don't want to U-turn everyone).