@Herko-ter-Horst said in Recalculation of the route does not point to final destination.:
An even nicer implementation (IMO) would be to automatically recalculate to the nearest location on the track. Initially, this is the point where you deviate from the track, but when driving to avoid road works, following a signposted deviation or just deviating from the track in general for whatever reason, you'll most likely get to a place where a location further along the track is closer to you, and so it would be nice to have your navigation system recognise that and direct you there.
But... why do you want to complicate things and stick to the "track" stuff?
Initially, you set a destination, and want to go there.
You just follow the instructions and, when there is a roadblock, a nicer landscape, a better place to answer a nature's call, you drive there: the program then simply has to recalculate the route from the actual location to the destination as it did the first time you entered that destination anyway.
This is simple and straightforward.
Complicating the process leads to unexpected and unwanted behaviour.
I have no idea why people keep talking about "track": I know some of you carefully set up a route and then follow it, and that's fine.
But my use of the program is always to set a destination and eventually, no, almost all the time, leave the planned route at some point for one reason or another.
And my Garmin Zumo XT works the same way: when I don't follow its advices, it adapts to my will. (unlike my girlfriend...)
But Garmin's adventurous routins is FAR FAR behind what MRA offers in terms of small roads.
So please, keep it simple : it already tops competitors...