Searching for a route

[Brett Bartick]

If one uses folders within folders to store routes, the search function will not find them. It seems as though the "search" function will only traverse (3) levels deep. That seems strange to me. Why not search the complete directory tree? At the very least, if you are going to limit the search depth, please document it.

[Albert van den Elsen]

I understand your question, but on the other hand, I have to ask myself why I would want to use more than three levels. There must be a reason for it, but the simplest way to help others is to adjust the tree structure to a maximum of three levels. For example: continent-country-, and then name the files below that with yyyymmdd and route name.
eg. Europe-Netherlands-'20250823-Routour Amsterdam', or something like that

I hope this has been helpful.
If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[Guzzist]

@Brett-Bartick said in Searching for a route:

...It seems as though the "search" function will only traverse (3) levels deep...

Thank you @Brett-Bartick for this input. I wasn't aware about.
I did a double check, because I have also folder structures, more than 3 levels p.e.:

• Routes / Motorbike / Italy / Trentino
  or
• Routes / Hiking / Switzerland/ Grisons
  or
• Routes / Biking / Germany / Bavaria

If I'm actually in the folder Routes, the search function will not find any tracks, nor tracklogs. Means: search will start, just in the actual folder downwards.
And yes: if I'm actually in the folder Routes - and the route I'm searching is in the folder Routes / Motorbike / Italy / Trentino - the route will not be found !

But - it's dynamic! Means: if I'm actually in the folder Routes / Motorbike - and the route I'm searching is in the folder Routes / Motorbike / Italy / Trentino - the route will be found !

So, you can have folder structure in 4 or 5 levels. But if search doesn't find a route you are looking for (because of 3-level search), go one level deeper.

Do I think, it's an issue? No.
Do I think, it should be improved for more comfort? Yes?
Will it be technically possible? I can't answer.

[Albert van den Elsen]

MRA Planner distinguishes between Routes and Tracks/Tracklogs, with two dedicated buttons for each. When you import a track, MRA Planner automatically assigns the route type, allowing you to sort accordingly.

If you specify the transport mode within the route, a symbol will appear next to the route name. Unfortunately, sorting by transport type isn't currently possible, but perhaps that's something for the developpe-team to consider for a future update.

I’d recommend rethinking the structure beyond organizing by country and province—perhaps by adopting a more integrated or thematic layout. With the current setup, it often takes more than three levels to reach specific routes, such as hiking trails. Using a structure like Country → Province → Transport Mode keeps it within three levels and improves accessibility.

Since users typically know which country they're heading to, searching outside of that context seems unnecessary. Once you navigate to the relevant country, the system searches up to three levels deep, which is usually sufficient.

Another option is to add a prefix to the route name to indicate the transport type—for example, “H-” for hiking or “M-” for motorbike. This allows all routes to remain in a single folder while still being sortable by name.

There are many ways to simplify the search experience. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things, and it may not align with your vision—but there's usually a workaround that can help solve the problem.

[Con Hennekens]

@Brett-Bartick, good find, I was unaware. I don't think it has been mentioned before on this forum Strange though as to why this is... It is not like the system physically searches through folders, like Windows Explorer does. This folder structure exists only virtually in a database. This is probably thought up to prevent many database hits while typing the first letter(s) of your keyword.