Skipping a Via point...

[LennyO]

@Herman-Veldhuizen said:

note that via points can be skipped when you add a diversion to avoid a roadblock.

Very good point! Thank you!

[Mzokk]

@Herman-Veldhuizen Auto Skipping Via points makes no sense. You either want to visit somewhere Via point or get their by certain roads (shaping point). If you are putting in waypoints at locations you don’t actually want to stop at, use shaping points. Keep via points that can only be skipped manually if the user chooses not to visit a point otherwise places the user wants to visit could be accidentally missed.

[Herman Veldhuizen]

@Mzokk As long as there is a way to a) hide points which are only created to shape the route and to b) auto skip other points which actually represent optional stops. Thats whats I need for my use cases, period. The most logical way is to have anoption to make via points auto-skippable so it makes a lot of sense.

[Hubert Thoring]

@lenny-o
Skipping via points is a useful function because sometimes the time is not enough or the weather does something different from it than planned.

Pressing the function on the map on a suitable WP or SP is wonderful to drive there quickly and directly.

[Hubert Thoring]

@lenny-o :

How about reading the MRA manual in peace .. many things are explained well there. After that there are fewer questions

[LennyO]

@Hubert-Thoring What makes you think I didn't...... Sometimes people forget or mis-interpret the instructions or text. That's why this forum exists, no?

[Con Hennekens]

@Lenny-O said:

Believe it or not in a couple of years I am using the app, I NEVER needed to skip a VIA

That's not strange at all, since VIA points are ultimately set there to be visited .
I want to add a note though: simply driving through a VIA will register it as visited. You do not actually need to stop or skip manually of you hit them of course (like with any route point).

[Con Hennekens]

@Herman-Veldhuizen said:

As long as there is a way to a) hide points which are only created to shape the route and to b) auto skip other points which actually represent optional stops. Thats whats I need for my use cases, period. The most logical way is to have anoption to make via points auto-skippable so it makes a lot of sense.

Your use case is rather special of course and not completely in line for what scenic riders need. It's more of a logistical feature. Personally, if I see the many questions about VIA points, I think such an option would raise much more confusion then there already is.

Maybe a toggle on a shapingpoint to exclude it from the ETA information would help you?

[Herman Veldhuizen]

Such a flag would work for me but I would still find a global or route level setting more logical.
MRA has a lot of potential, i see it, it is up to the owners to grasp this potential or not. A low hanging fruit is the bus travel mode which HERE sdk supports. Many of the 7000 drivers in my company would download the app if they knew about it and if some of the issues are fixed they would start using it actively and start sharing routes.
Agreed, need to be careful not to make a swiss army knive. Note that Truck travel mode and scenic riding dont go very well together either.
In this respect I question how the new features in the upcoming release are added to the app. MRA should in my opinion think about offering some things as addons or have multiple types of apps in the store, all sharing the same core inside.

[Mzokk]

The problem with too many features is the app can become overly complicated. Auto skipping shaping points makes sense, having to manually skip Via points makes sense. I lead groups of between 3 and 8 riders on tour (Old friends) and put optional loops in the routes to accommodate the fact that as the number of riders in a group rises the time taken to complete a route extends. I prefer to deliberately skip Via points on the optional Loops, rather than just drive past them. Making the app more complicated is not the answer. The simpler it can be while carrying out its principle function (following a route) the better. Same goes for the Route planner. I use OSMand+ sometimes for motorcycle navigation and sometimes for Hillwalking and its good but there is a much steeper learning curve than MyRoute app Navigation Next. The route planner is simple and easy to use, particularly to change routes while on tour, this is a strength. I am also a proficient Basecamp user and still use a number of Zumo's but mainly now for tracks and waypoints and POI's I need proximity alerts for. Would it be good to all these features to the route planner?? I'm not sure as it would add complication for features maybe not many would use.

Doing a little testing the other day. You can see the the screen on my Garmin Zumo XT has the Skip Via point Icon on it. Garmin Gps's will auto skip shaping points but not Via points......so the same behaviour as MyRoute app.

[Herman Veldhuizen]

I am all for simplicity. Hence my remark at the end of my previous reply. Me too hate OSMand. But if I had a saying in the direction of mra I would not turn it into an app for bikers only. HERE works good on the main roads , but less good on the smaller roads is my impression. One day another app based on OSM or something else might come along. Then it is good to have multiple uses.

[Marinus van Deudekom]

@Herman-Veldhuizen for my motor trips by default I tend to use small roads only. Never had a problem using the Here map with that.

[Bouke Ent]

@Marinus-van-Deudekom said:

@Herman-Veldhuizen for my motor trips by default I tend to use small roads only. Never had a problem using the Here map with that.

maybe go to places were here map is not so good in detail then osm or tomtom.

there are a lot of places in even europe here maps are work in proces about details. does not mean others are overal better but if you say i had never had a problem then maybe your trips are perfect for here.

i did use garmin in russia and standard here maps were simple. when i did use osm i got a lot more details and options on my garmin.

i check MRA next on details in russia and it was still only global scale.

i agree in most places here maps are good in detail but still a lot where here needs to add more details to there map.

[Con Hennekens]

@Herman-Veldhuizen said:

MRA should in my opinion think about offering some things as addons or have multiple types of apps in the store, all sharing the same core inside.

In general I don't think the audience would appreciate in-app costs. I do understand what you say in favor of a more branche oriented app. But to be honest I think the MRA company is too small for that. Who knows, this might change in the future