I have been told to use Here…

Jörgen

I have been told to use Here maps in planning to get the same route when using navigation.

This is the planned route.

This is the route in Navigation.

Why is there a difference route now?

The settings are the same.

Rob Verhoeff

@Jörgen It works for me... It has been said before: "Use as few waypoints as possible, but as many as necessary."

I have based the route as much as possible on your image. Therefore, it's better to post a link to your route instead of an image.

https://www.myrouteapp.com/nl/social/route/8755938?mode=share

Corjan Meijerink

Would be interesting to see if you bring the app online, the result is the same.

I agree with @Rob-Verhoeff

Drabslab

@Jörgen

Next is obviously recalculating the route with the "fastest route" in mind and is getting you back to the highway after point 2.

I feel that the advice given on this forum as regards using only a few waypoints is a bit misleading. There is no useful indication of what "Use as few waypoints as possible, but as many as necessary." actually means.

To me (perhaps only me) setting up a route means that "if you insist to use a particular road (perhaps a michelin green road) then put a waypoint on that road a few 100 meters from the point where you want to get on that road, and another one a few hundred meters from the spot where you want to leave that road". I do that always, so also when the routeplanner automatically calculates the route over that piece of road.

This usually forces the navigation device, or software, to actually follow the path you intended and not to recalculate based on how it is set up internally. Clearly you end up with more waypoints than strictly needed, but as waypoints are for free I don't see the damage in doing that. No need to exaggerate either, a days riding gives 50-100 waypoints (using the smaller roads).

I would in any case never have a route the length I see in your screen dump with only 2 or 3 waypoints. In such case I would leave home with a simple A-B navigation to point 2, and then another A-B navigation starting in point 2 to point 3.

I hope this helps a bit

Hubert Thoring

@Drabslab @Jörgen : ich denke das in der Regel die Grenze bei 50 WP reicht, für eine schöne 350km Tagestour, mit der Einstellung schnellste Verbindung und Autobahn so wie Bundesstraßen ausgeschlossen …

Bei Max 50 WP kann man auch zur Not gut als zweite Lösung auf alternativen umschwenken ….

Con Hennekens

@Drabslab said in I have been told to use Here…:

Next is obviously recalculating the route with the "fastest route" in mind

Next will use whatever your setting was in the planner, so that would theoretically not lead to differences.

@Drabslab said in I have been told to use Here…:

There is no useful indication of what "Use as few waypoints as possible, but as many as necessary." actually means.

Personally I find it useful, in planning stage, to delete some WPs here and there to see what happens (and hit CTRL-Z to restore them). Deleting one WP without leading to big changes of the route is an indication of having enough waypoints. Deleting two consecutive WPs without leading to big changes of the route is an indication of having too many. But having one too many is less of a problem than having one to little. Sometimes it is advisable to have a WP each 3 to 5 km, but in mountainesque suburban areas sometimes one WP each 10 to 20 is perfectly fine. Bear in mind that of the distance between WP is large, the bigger the deviation will get in case of skipping one. What also helps a lot is not being too frantic about exactly following a route

Con Hennekens

@Peter-Schiefer, what you are forgetting is that scenic routes take a lot more waypoints to define the route unambiguously then highway travel from Köln to Bordeaux. Especially if you want to make the route equal over all maps.