Zumo User Forums

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.

Fxwheels wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 11:03 pm Put more shaping points to negate this.

Yup! Try to out-think the XT by putting a shaping point everywhere it could potentially route differently. I have not been very successful at that, but it is always my intention.

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.

Except for others 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?

sussamb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:05 am

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.

Except for others 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?

As above! If you are skipping it then you are either avoiding it or the road is closed or something like that therefore the zumo will re route you as per the settings to the next point

I'm a firm believer in have lots of shaping points to keep you relatively on course if you skip one

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.

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:23 am [I'm a firm believer in have lots of shaping points to keep you relatively on course if you skip one

I've been trying to determine how many 'extra' shaping points I need. I don't want them so close together that the XT is constantly working, but I want them close enough to keep me on route if I skip one. I'm finding this difficult as the XT seems to come up with new & innovative ways to screw up. Not long ago I skipped a via point and the XT wanted me to go about 6 miles off my designated route to get to a 75mph interstate, travel 4 miles, then travel back 6 miles to my next point. The point was 3 miles away on the road I was traveling on.

Has anyone compared routing results between the Faster Time and Shorter Distance Calculation Modes? Faster time seems to be the common setting. I don't understand why, other than compatibility with "Faster" in Basecamp. The routing @rbentnail described is common, but I haven't seen any discussions about switching to Shorter Distance. Is there a reason for sticking with Faster Time?

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. I don't understand why, other than compatibility with "Faster" in Basecamp. The routing @rbentnail described is common, but I haven't seen any discussions about switching to Shorter Distance. Is there a reason for sticking with Faster Time?

Shorter distance will do just that even if it means taking you on single track roads with grass growing in the middle that you wouldn't want to be on just to save a few metres

So, we have the choice of "bad" or "worse". It sounds like Shorter is worse so I'll stay away. Paved/unpaved errors in the maps are bad enough.

Peobody wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:15 pm So, we have the choice of "bad" or "worse". It sounds like Shorter is worse so I'll stay away. Paved/unpaved errors in the maps are bad enough.

Totally! I have used it once! and that was more than enough