"Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert

[Martin Wilcke]

@Con-Hennekens said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

When a route that has the OSM (or TT) map set as basemap is opened in NN, it will always be opened as track, so there is no route recalculation on basis of the HERE map

There IS a route calculated with HERE based on and on top of the OSM route. It's one of the features I love about MRA: You can navigate an OSM and a HERE route at the same time and always choose which one to follow. Super handy if you want to navigate routes and tracks that aren't in HERE.

Here is another example, have a look at the white and blue lines:

https://www.myrouteapp.com/en/social/route/12990957?mode=share

[Con Hennekens]

@Martin-Wilcke, You are never navigating on an OSM map, Navigation ONLY uses the HERE map. The difference in your screenshot is something that should not happen, en it does not happen with the TT map for example. In my opinion something goes wrong with opening a OSM based route on the HERE map. It looks to me that the trackconversion loses way too much resolution when exported from OSM.

[Hubert Thoring]

The maps differ from each other, and where OSM or Michelin is more accurate, HERE has not found a road, at least in the example.

Michelin

OSM

HERE

[Martin Wilcke]

@Con-Hennekens said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

You are never navigating on an OSM map, Navigation ONLY uses the HERE map.

Yes, you're right. "Navigating" in terms of getting additional information, such as TBT instructions, is always based on a route calculated with HERE.
I meant "navigating" in a wider sense: when I come to a point where the lines diverge, I can choose to follow the blue line (with instructions) or the white line (on sight).

The difference in your screenshot is something that should not happen, en it does not happen with the TT map for example.

What exactly do you mean? If it's the separation on both lines in pic 2 around WP 3 & 4, it also happens when using TT instead of OSM. If I change the "Basemap" to TT in this example, the result is the same. Even if I export this route, re-import it as a route-track and start track navigation, it looks the same.

But this leads to another question: I always thought I'd only get both lines if I used "Routes as track," but I've now learned that's not necessary at all.
Can you explain the difference between starting navigation with or without "Routes as track" in this example? Is it just a matter of how, during a recalculation (when I deviate from the blue line), the route (blue line) leads back onto the track (white line)?

[Martin Wilcke]

@Hubert-Thoring

Exactly. That's why I use OSM for planning when I want to route tracks that aren't in HERE. I used this a lot, and it always worked. It's like having a "tarmac-based backup" at hand when things go wrong on the track

[Con Hennekens]

@Martin-Wilcke said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

I meant "navigating" in a wider sense: when I come to a point where the lines diverge, I can choose to follow the blue line (with instructions) or the white line (on sight).

You are already free to make that choice yourself, aren't you?

@Martin-Wilcke said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

it also happens when using TT instead of OSM

No, I tested your file, and with TT as basemap it loads just like it is, and does not lead me over A7. It just chooses a different curvy (tomtom) path, but leaves it intact when navigating.

@Martin-Wilcke said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

I always thought I'd only get both lines if I used "Routes as track," but I've now learned that's not necessary at all.

That's a misconception. The white line just represents the original route or track. If you look at your example from message 26:

WP3 and 4 are not on navigational roads (off road paths according to HERE) so the app is trying to avoid those. Whenever there is a navigational road on the HERE map, close enough to the waypoints, it will use those.

[Martin Wilcke]

@Con-Hennekens said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

That's a misconception

OK - so, if I plan a route with OSM that includes tracks not in HERE (as in #26 around WP 3/4), and I open it for navigation: What is the difference between having "Routes as track" toggled on or off?
And if there is no difference, what is "Routes as track" good for?

[Martin Wilcke]

@Con-Hennekens said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

You are already free to make that choice yourself, aren't you?

Sure. Even if I don't navigate a route at all. But that's not the point here, right?

[Con Hennekens]

@Martin-Wilcke said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

OK - so, if I plan a route with OSM that includes tracks not in HERE (as in #26 around WP 3/4), and I open it for navigation: What is the difference between having "Routes as track" toggled on or off?
And if there is no difference, what is "Routes as track" good for?

There will be no difference, since routes created in the OSM or TomTom map are opened as tracks anyway. The only way "route as track" does anything, is when you open a route based on HERE for navigation.

[Martin Wilcke]

@Con-Hennekens said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

The only way "route as track" does anything, is when you open a route based on HERE for navigation

Ahh, good to know.

And what is the difference then? Or, in other words, what is the difference between route navigation and track navigation?

I can't find an explanation in the manuals, and the app's info pop-up (regarding "Navigate routes as tracks") states: "Choose this when you prefer the accuracy of a track". What does it mean?

I don't want to be annoying, I just want to clarify my previous understanding.

[Con Hennekens]

@Martin-Wilcke, haha, nothing annoying to it The difference is mainly how the auto-skip function works. When navigating a route, the auto-skip can only skip to the next route point. When you navigate a track, it looks for a "logical" re-entry point anywhere on the track. Navigating a track certainly also helps when there are offroad parts in your track.

[Martin Wilcke]

@Con-Hennekens said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

The difference is mainly how the auto-skip function works

Yeah, that was my first thought, too. Thanks for the explanation.

And, you wrote “route point,” not “waypoint” - I can't believe I'm actually seeing this

[Hubert Thoring]

Thank you all. Reading along has helped me understand some of it better now; I had already suspected it, but now it's been confirmed.

[Con Hennekens]

@Martin-Wilcke said in "Route as Track" wird nicht wie geplant navigiert:

And, you wrote “route point,” not “waypoint” - I can't believe I'm actually seeing this

A route point actually is just a waypoint that defines a route