Placement of waypoints
-
For illustration, here is an example from my last planning session:
In this route, I'm about to add a fuel stop. By opening the "POI > search" tab and selecting "Fuel", a gas station symbol pops up.
I can now add this
- As a Waypoint, this will be part of my route
- As a POI, this will not be part of my route but a separate spot/point
When saving as GPX, 1. becomes a route point <rtept> while 2. becomes a waypoint <wpt>
-
For illustration, here is an example from my last planning session:
In this route, I'm about to add a fuel stop. By opening the "POI > search" tab and selecting "Fuel", a gas station symbol pops up.
I can now add this
- As a Waypoint, this will be part of my route
- As a POI, this will not be part of my route but a separate spot/point
When saving as GPX, 1. becomes a route point <rtept> while 2. becomes a waypoint <wpt>
@Martin-Wilcke that's incorrect. Option 2 will just add a visible point on the map and had no effect what so ever on the route. The RouteXperts add those POI's in every viapoint in the route. That viapoint is something important in the route like a castle, museum gasstation etc
Honda Goldwing GL1500,
Honda Silverwing GL 650
DMD2 T865X 8 inch Android tablet using MRA next for navigation
Garmin XT sold
Samsung S24FE mounted on a Quadlock and using Android Auto in my car -
@Martin-Wilcke that's incorrect. Option 2 will just add a visible point on the map and had no effect what so ever on the route. The RouteXperts add those POI's in every viapoint in the route. That viapoint is something important in the route like a castle, museum gasstation etc
@Marinus-van-Deudekom said in Placement of waypoints:
that's incorrect. Option 2 will just add a visible point on the map and had no effect what so ever on the route.
That's what I said: 2. is not part of the route. What exactly is incorrect?
-
@Marinus-van-Deudekom said in Placement of waypoints:
that's incorrect. Option 2 will just add a visible point on the map and had no effect what so ever on the route.
That's what I said: 2. is not part of the route. What exactly is incorrect?
@Martin-Wilcke indeed Martin, misread your post
-
@Con-Hennekens said in Placement of waypoints:
A routepoint is just a type of waypoint.
No.
According to the GPX specification, both have the same data type (<wptType>), but one is a <wpt> and the other is a <rtept>. Same data type, different objects.
@Martin-Wilcke said in Placement of waypoints:
No.
According to the GPX specification, both have the same data type (<wptType>), but one is a <wpt> and the other is a <rtept>. Same data type, different objects.Yes.
Both have the same datatype because they are both waypoints...
And of course they have different node names, because the need to be treated differently.
-
@Martin-Wilcke said in Placement of waypoints:
No.
According to the GPX specification, both have the same data type (<wptType>), but one is a <wpt> and the other is a <rtept>. Same data type, different objects.Yes.
Both have the same datatype because they are both waypoints...
And of course they have different node names, because the need to be treated differently.
@Con-Hennekens
I'm aware of this description, and it's likely the root cause of all this confusion because it mixes up elements and types.This becomes clear when you take a look at the schemas:
<wpt> is an element, <rtept> is a different element. Both have the same type (<wptType>).
-
@Martin-Wilcke said in Placement of waypoints:
No.
According to the GPX specification, both have the same data type (<wptType>), but one is a <wpt> and the other is a <rtept>. Same data type, different objects.Yes.
Both have the same datatype because they are both waypoints...
And of course they have different node names, because the need to be treated differently. -
@Con-Hennekens
A Trackpoint (<trkpt>) has the same type <wptType>, but you wouldn't call a track point a waypoint, right?
@Martin-Wilcke, I am sorry Martin, but how things get a designation in XML code has little to do with how things are called in human language. I am discontinuing this meaningless discussion now.
I am just an enthusiastic MRA user, and hope you will be one too!
Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebar to the saddle.
Check out RideSleepRepeat.eu, a biker community for sharing stays across Europe
-
@Martin-Wilcke, I am sorry Martin, but how things get a designation in XML code has little to do with how things are called in human language. I am discontinuing this meaningless discussion now.
@Con-Hennekens
It's not meaningless, but I agree: we should stop this discussion because it's probably not of interest to most users here.
As long as planning and navigation are entirely done with MRA, there is no need to know anything about GPX details. If, however, GPX data are spread around different apps and devices, it's at least good to know that there are other interpretations of waypoints and route points. Just to be aware and not get trapped
-
@Con-Hennekens
It's not meaningless, but I agree: we should stop this discussion because it's probably not of interest to most users here.
As long as planning and navigation are entirely done with MRA, there is no need to know anything about GPX details. If, however, GPX data are spread around different apps and devices, it's at least good to know that there are other interpretations of waypoints and route points. Just to be aware and not get trapped
@Martin-Wilcke, With that I can only agree
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
-
1412110
-
2362.4k
-
012239
-
1241.8k
-
0645
-
07136
-
06119
-
1151.3k