Placement of waypoints

[Martin Wilcke]

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

1. As a Waypoint, this will be part of my route
2. 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>

[Marinus van Deudekom]

@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

[Martin Wilcke]

@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]

@Martin-Wilcke indeed Martin, misread your post

[Con Hennekens]

@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]

@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]

@Con-Hennekens

A Trackpoint (<trkpt>) has the same type <wptType>, but you wouldn't call a track point a waypoint, right?

[Con Hennekens]

@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.

[Martin Wilcke]

@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]

@Martin-Wilcke, With that I can only agree