Fxwheels wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 11:03 pm
When you click to Skip a via point, all it has to do is to continue navigating. Either to continue as nothing happened and the via point was never there, or, as you already had visited it. Simple as that.
But instead, the software is thinking: "hmmm, he skips the via, it means that the route is changing. So I have to recalculate it without that via point...".
Who is that "genius" who over complicated it?
Put more shaping points to negate this.
if you choose to skip a via point that means you no longer want to go there, so it doesn't make sense to just continue on route, if you want to do that why skip the viapoint?
Because I don't need to visit that via point for a reason (changed my mind), yet I do want to continue on the rest of the route. Why not? Or you just implying Garmin's programmer thinking here ?
jfheath wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:47 am
Adding more Shaping Points is the obvious answer, but it is not one that I like to use unless it is absolutely necessary.
My reasons are.
1 The shaping point pin a route to a particular bit of tarmac. If the route calculates to use that road anyway, then historically (before XT) there is no need to pin it down. If there is a need to deviate - traffic, road works, last minute decision to visit a different place, then my planned route is compromised, and what I want it to do in that situation is to take me from where I end up to my next plotted point.
If I have plotted shaping points every mile then this will not happen. I have to skip each one. Or find my own way back to the route and the XT will continue from there.
2 Skipping route point can be reduced to guesswork with the XT. It is good that Garmin now show the name of the point to be skipped. The Edit Route option also shows the next shaping point and the next Via point - so that you can choose which point to skip, and again they are named.
What is not so good in my opinion - and this seems to indicate a form of Garmin logic with which I am yet to fully understand - is that the names of route points are altered when a route is transferred from Basecamp. Also altered (and moved) are. Via points if you choose to change them to shaping points using the XT.
3 If I wanted to pin the route down so tightly, I would use a track and convert it to a trip, and follow that. What a 'trip-track' doesn't show is the distance or time to the next stopping place, (because it doesn't have any normal route points), and that can be useful information on long trips for rider and pillion. I'm cold / I'm tired / I'm hungry - We need to look for somewhere to stop. The XT says the next cafe is 10 mins away. But the Trip Track cannot show that.
It is a matter of getting used to how the XT behaves in different situations, and the observation that the XT might have had the opportunity to plot a route that visits a Via Point (or shaping point ?) from a different direction, and the route is then dictated by that direction, will certainly alter the way that I plot my routes. But I will still resist placing so many shaping points that all flexibilty is eliminated.
Well, in my area there're many different roads leading to the same places, so I have to set my shaping points carefully because the Nav will recalculate to a road I don't want to ride thru. If I'm getting off route for any reason, XT or 396 will recalculate to get me back at some point. At many times it workes well, other times I'd choose my own entry just glazing at the map. Admittedly I'd have to zoom out to find my magenta route, or switch to North Up or Track Up which gives bigger view area.
As for the faster time vs Shorter distance, it's also depending on how close are your shaping points. In many cases it will be the same routes, but yeah, can also surprise you as was said above.
Jumping on here as it seems very related to my "Cannot calculate the route" post. In my case that message was preceded by numerous u-turn directives that I ignored. This caught my attention:
Peobody wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 5:00 pm
Has anyone compared routing results between the Faster Time and Shorter Distance Calculation Modes? Faster time seems to be the common setting.
Not sure about the semantics of Faster Time. Does it mean it gets you there sooner or that the speeds are higher? I've always assumed the former.
2022 BMW R1250 GS
2002 BMW R1100S
1984 Honda VF700F
1969 Moto Guzzi Ambassador
tombarrington wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:58 pm
Not sure about the semantics of Faster Time. Does it mean it gets you there sooner or that the speeds are higher? I've always assumed the former.
I think we all have thought that Faster Time should create a route that would get you there in the shortest time. We have discovered that it puts an emphasis on routing over faster roads often illogically, adding both time and distance by going out of the way to get on a faster road.
2008 Honda GL1800 Goldwing
1995 Kawasaki ZG1000 Concours
zūmo XT linked to Cardo Packtalk Bold and iPhone SE.
Fxwheels wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 11:03 pm
When you click to Skip a via point, all it has to do is to continue navigating. Either to continue as nothing happened and the via point was never there, or, as you already had visited it. Simple as that.
But instead, the software is thinking: "hmmm, he skips the via, it means that the route is changing. So I have to recalculate it without that via point...".
Who is that "genius" who over complicated it?
Put more shaping points to negate this.
if you choose to skip a via point that means you no longer want to go there, so it doesn't make sense to just continue on route, if you want to do that why skip the viapoint?
Because I don't need to visit that via point for a reason (changed my mind), yet I do want to continue on the rest of the route. Why not? Or you just implying Garmin's programmer thinking here ?
Just saying that if you want to continue on route just do so, and go through the viapoint as normal. Just because it's a viapoint doesn't mean you have to visit it, you can just pass through it, or am I missing something?
sussamb wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:09 am
Just saying that if you want to continue on route just do so, and go through the viapoint as normal. Just because it's a viapoint doesn't mean you have to visit it, you can just pass through it, or am I missing something?
Since the early nuvi models, the question of how much "tolerance" the GPS has for a skipped Via has meant the difference between logical continuation of the route, and a recalculated disaster. By tolerance I mean how close do you have to come to the Via for the GPS to consider it as not being skipped or missed.
-dan
Zumo XT, 660, nuvi 760 and many retired units dating back to the GPS III+
2018 Kawasaki Ninja H2 SX SE
if you choose to skip a via point that means you no longer want to go there, so it doesn't make sense to just continue on route, if you want to do that why skip the viapoint?
Because I don't need to visit that via point for a reason (changed my mind), yet I do want to continue on the rest of the route. Why not? Or you just implying Garmin's programmer thinking here ?
Just saying that if you want to continue on route just do so, and go through the viapoint as normal. Just because it's a viapoint doesn't mean you have to visit it, you can just pass through it, or am I missing something?
That's right. But what everyone is talking about is why Garmin has to recalculate the route after you skip the via point, instead of living all as it is. The recalculation sometimes altering the route.
sussamb wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:09 am
Just saying that if you want to continue on route just do so, and go through the viapoint as normal. Just because it's a viapoint doesn't mean you have to visit it, you can just pass through it, or am I missing something?
Since the early nuvi models, the question of how much "tolerance" the GPS has for a skipped Via has meant the difference between logical continuation of the route, and a recalculated disaster. By tolerance I mean how close do you have to come to the Via for the GPS to consider it as not being skipped or missed.
-dan
I think about 30 meters (~yards). However earlier Nuvi models (I have 2012) do not use this complex software of today's Zumo. They have no concept of via vs shaping points. For them everything is a via point with alerting on arrival ("approaching via point so and so") yet without forcing you to go there and without the infamous recalculation. So it's something as a via/shaping point in one. Of course your route was clobbered with the orange flags, and always announcements instead of being quiet (as if a shaping point). No big deal, but it doesn't have the track option and way too slow.
sussamb wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:09 am
Just saying that if you want to continue on route just do so, and go through the viapoint as normal. Just because it's a viapoint doesn't mean you have to visit it, you can just pass through it, or am I missing something?
I think you are definitely missing something.
I want to ride my route by skipping a single point. I decided for some reason to not go to where that point is. XT seems to think, "since you skipped a point, you must not want to ride that route any more. I'll make you a new one based solely on the destination you chose!" But that's not the case at all- I want to continue on my designated route to my destianation. I do NOT want it to recalculate the entire route.
Russ B. Zumo 595 & XT
2007 & 2013 USA Yamaha FJR1300A
Gotcha but of course others may not, by skipping a via point they may wish to go direct to the next viapoint or the end of the route. If I skip a via point that's certainly what I want, I doubt if I'm alone. To do what you want somehow your device would first need to know you want to ride part of the route you planned and which part you want to miss, and so be able to plot a route for you to that point. I'm not sure that's a realistic expectation.
?
