Zumo User Forums

Am I remembering correctly that when I go off-route, and then return to it on the other side of a shaping point, that the XT will continue navigating as if the shaping point never existed? Assumption: The shaping point is a non-alerting waypoint.

Peobody wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:04 pm Assumption: The shaping point is a non-alerting waypoint.

Terminology:
A shaping point is always non-alerting.
The term waypoint does not have to be in a route. When it is, it's either a Via, or a shaping point.
source: app.php/ZXT-P04

Now for your question. I think that you're right, provided that you get back ON the route on the other side of the shaping point

FrankB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:28 pm Now for your question. I think that you're right, provided that you get back ON the route on the other side of the shaping point

Thanks.

FrankB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:28 pm Terminology:
A shaping point is always non-alerting.
The term waypoint does not have to be in a route. When it is, it's either a Via, or a shaping point.
source: app.php/ZXT-P04

I know. I always feel that I need to clarify whether the shaping point was created by either setting a waypoint to non-alerting or using the insert tool (or ALT key-'rubber banding". I guess I am uncertain about whether any behaviors are different between the two.

Peobody wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:04 pm Am I remembering correctly that when I go off-route, and then return to it on the other side of a shaping point, that the XT will continue navigating as if the shaping point never existed? Assumption: The shaping point is a non-alerting waypoint.

It should. I was testing the new Android Auto MRA next app on my Africa Twin on Wednesday. I had the XT and the App execute the sam route and thats how the XT behaved when I missed a shaping point (on purpose) to test the App.

Peobody wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 5:12 pm I know. I always feel that I need to clarify whether the shaping point was created by either setting a waypoint to non-alerting or using the insert tool (or ALT key-'rubber banding".

I know that you know that. I regard you as very knowledgeable. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

Peobody wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 5:12 pm I guess I am uncertain about whether any behaviors are different between the two.

In the past I did some tests and exported Basecamp routes to GPX. I then did file compares (With WinMerge) and saw no real differences.
The only difference I remember is when you first add a Waypoint that you later add to a route. You' ll see a different value for 'SubClass' and the point will keep its name when imported into the XT.
As far as routing and announcing concerns, the only thing that matters is <ShapingPoint> or <ViaPoint> in the GPX. The corresponding terms in Basecamp are 'Dont alert on arrival' and 'Alert on arrival'.

FrankB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 6:54 pm The corresponding terms in Basecamp are 'Dont alert on arrival' and 'Alert on arrival'.

This reminds me of another oddity that I have figured out. It is BaseCamp related but is relevant here because in my experience, every route point created with the New Waypoint toll is automatically set to alert, but every route point created with the Insert tool or Alt+drag is not, but some are. @jfheath has explained that behavior to me but the fact that these points can behave differently on creation contributes to my thinking that they are different. There is no need for any further explanation. This will sink into my thick skull at some point.

I'm a tad late with this.

In the 660 days I had observed a difference between the 'drag and drop' points and points that were named points. That wa the start of me just getting to grips of how the Zumos navigated routes and dealt with missed points. The 550 that I had was very determined to visit certain points, the 660 less so. Then I got an offer I couldn't refuse based on swithcing out the 660 for the 590. And I never did find out fully how the 660 worked - although I have some notes.......

So when the 590 arrived, I wanted to test the same sort of thing. That lead to the observations that are still present throught the 590, 595, 39x and 34x.
If you have S1 S2 V3 V4 S5 S6 S7 V8 S9 and you have reached V4, then you detour and rejoin the route between S6 and S7, the Zumo will navigate you ahead to S7. Until you rejoin the route between S6 and S7, the satnav will continue to try to take you back to the first missed point - you had passed V4, so it was trying to get you to S5 when you had to deviate - so it is still trying to get you to S5.

This is observed differently if you turn off automatic off route recalculation. The satnav goes quiet when you go off route. Not a word. When you approach the magenta line between S6 and S7, the instruction as you approach will be to turn towards S5. But as soon as you head towards S7, it will navigate you ahead.

------------------
S1 S2 V3 V4 S5 S6 S7 V8 S9

You are not allowed to miss out a Via. So if you do the same thing from between V4 and S5, but instead, rejoin the route between V8 and S9, the satnav is still trying to get you to S5 - and that is in a different section of the route. So it will continue to navigate you to S5. It will not let you continue ahead. If you press SKip, then you will see that S5 is the next one in the list. If you go back to between S7 and V8 and then face the direction of V8 - then it will navigate you ahead to V8, then on to S9.

-------------------------------------

An odd observation.

I have noticed that when I bypass shaping points like this, then the 'skip list' - ie the points that shown when the skip button is pressed, still retains S5 as the next point. Even though I have joined the route and it is heading for S7, and it is quite happy for me to continue.
I couldn't work out what was goin gon here, and when I got home just before the end point - I checked the skip list and every single point that I had passed through was still there. I skipped each one turn.

I didn't understand this. I still don't. I just have a flag that says that the XT is behaving slightly differently. But I tested the behaviour that I described in my first two sections of this reply - and that behaved exaclty as I had said.

But something off had happened on that route. I passed through my start point after setting off, but the XT didn't seem to acknowledge it. I skipped the start point, and it seemed to be heading for the next point. It was doing everything correctly in terms of navigating me ahead, but th skip list wasn't being cleared as I went through points. But we now know that skipping a route pont seems to create a completely different type of route. (I still think it behaves more like a track-trip).

This is still there in my head, and needs testing. But this was also the day when I came across the phantom Via Point. The point that the XT had inserted at my point of deviation. So I had a route which was subject to RUT behaviour. I suspect that my return journey may have been related to whatever was going on on that day. Now that we have the ability to nobble the mImport byte, it is one of the things that I want to retest.

-----------------

Routes are best with a small number of Via Points that will definitely be visited. I don't use them for coffee stops. I use shaping points for that. I use Via Points on the main route after the coffee stop - so that I pass through the Via whether I stop for a break or not.

Peobody wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 5:12 pm I always feel that I need to clarify whether the shaping point was created by either setting a waypoint to non-alerting or using the insert tool (or ALT key-'rubber banding". I guess I am uncertain about whether any behaviors are different between the two.

No - you may have picked up that from me. It is actually irrelevant whether a route point was originally created as a Waypoint or not.

When I got my XT, it came with v2.30 of the software (I think it was). I was intrigued by this new facility - Closest Entry Point - I wanted ot know what it did. It was in the same section as 'Select Next Destination' - and that headed only for the Via Point that you selected.

And it turned out that so did CEP. It just selected a Via Point for you - the one that was closest to your current position. I was most disappointed. I expected it to head for the closest point on the route and continue from there. It didn't.
There were a series of updates after that up to 2.90 and then to 5.90 - something like that.
Each update resulted in different behaviour. I spotted that it had changed so that it included Waypoints but not shaping points. Then I noticed that it would head for shaping points If they had first been created as Waypoints. Then it would head for any route point. But it still wasn't closest entry. That came next.

That development was interesting - and I thought that it was odd that they made a separate case for points created as Waypoints. All that matters is that it is a route point - via or shaping. And it occurred to me that maybe one of the programmers thought that a Waypoint was any route point - in the same way that MyRouteApp uses the term 'waypoint'.

So ever since then - if I am testing behaviour, I use 4 types of point. Via, Shaping and Vias and Shaping that have been first created as Waypoints. Mainly because if it is down to a programming fault, it might be the same person !!

The drag and drop method can land on a point that isn't showing on the map. If that point is in the BAsecamp database it may become a Via and it may be a waypoint. Insert doesn't always produce a shaping point.

I've got a link to a video I did showing this. I'll find it and add it to this post......(goes away).......
It is not quite what I thought - but it sort of demonstrates the 'landing on a waypoint' idea. Dunkeld Hilton Hotel about 1minute in.

Link

jfheath wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 8:38 pm Routes are best with a small number of Via Points that will definitely be visited. I don't use then for coffee stops. I use shaping points for that. I used Via Points on the main route after the coffee stop - so I pass through it whether I stop for a break or not.

I have used logic similar to this in the past and am trying to incorporate it into a routes being created for a group of which two of the three members prefer to ad-lib it rather than plan for lunch and fuel. I'm less adventurous so am creating potential lunch and fuel stops as shaping points. I am then creating via points shortly before each one and naming them with instructions, like "If no lunch stay on 76". Following the instructions will keep us on route or bring us back to the route if skipping one of those shaping points.

Peobody wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 9:36 pm I am then creating via points shortly before each one and naming them with instructions, like "If no lunch stay on 76". Following the instructions will keep us on route or bring us back to the route if skipping one of those shaping points.

For these type of instructions you could also use a GPI file. A GPI file has POI's and can be created with the poiloader. Agreed, it's not as easy to create them as normal GPX files. But it does want you want: Give a warning, or instruction, but has no consequences for the route. In fact they will pop up even if you have no route active.

I use them for 'Streckensperren' in Germany. That are roads where motorcycles are not allowed in the weekend. Other common applications are speedcams.

Edit: JaVaWa, who has also created an online version for the RUT fix, has a very good tool called RTWTOOL, that can create the GPI files from a GPX. https://www.javawa.nl/rtwtool_en.html

Peobody wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 7:48 pm This reminds me of another oddity that I have figured out. It is BaseCamp related but is relevant here because in my experience, every route point created with the New Waypoint toll is automatically set to alert, but every route point created with the Insert tool or Alt+drag is not, but some are.

In Basecamp, every time I drag a route and drop it in an intersection or on a freeway ramp, a shaping point is added to the route.
If I drop the route anywhere else, on or off road, a via point is added.
There may be more subtle differences, but I've not encountered them.

I use this difference to build a route quickly, with minimal via points and seldom any waypoints. Set Start and End points, let BC create a route, modify as needed by dragging. Intermediate stops (which are seldom intersections) become via points, everything else is just shaping. I place shaping points by dragging the route to the preferred roads and dropping it at intersections I will pass through, but not where I'm actually turning. Add extra shaping points the same way, grab the route at an intersection, drag it to the side, and then put it right back where I found it - instant shaping point inserted in exactly the right place.

If I do want to use a waypoint, I insert it right after BC has created a minimal, Start-End route, so there is less question about the correct order of points, then I will do any shaping necessary.