How to tell OsmAnd to ignore a missed waypoint?

[EmmEff]

I created a route (not a track) using Furkot. I intentionally missed the first waypoint. Is it possible to tell OsmAnd to ignore the current waypoint and continue on with the next waypoint in the route? I spent the entire route (200km with 25 waypoints) trying to navigate back to the first waypoint.

I would OsmAnd to have a configurable option to allow either user input to skip the current waypoint and default timeout (time or distance) after which it will be ignored.

Sometimes it is just not possible or feasible to either (a) alter an existing route or (b) pass through all waypoints.

Thanks,

Mike.

[EmmEff]

Can anybody comment on this behaviour?

[Rodolfo]

I reported this issue a long time ago, but Victor did not see the need to solve it. See:
http://code.google.com/p/osmand/issues/detail?id=1570&can=1&q=waypoint%20reached&sort=-opened&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Summary%20Opened%20Milestone
If looks like there are no other users, who consider this to be an issue.
If so, please report.

Rodolfo

[David Short]

I sometimes like a route other than the one Osmand suggests so I insert a "via.." waypoint in a town. It seems that a solution would be to aim for the next requested waypoint until you are say 1 mile away (configurable) and then aim for the next one.. and so on.

[Poutnik Fornntp]

As far as I remember,  Trekbuddy raster map application uses similar approach for its GPX file navigation.
It has configurable advance distance, before switching to next waypoint - I used usually 50-100 m for bicycle )

Furthermore, it has manual option to step through waypoints, to which the app tries you to navigate to.
If I took e.g. unexpected local alternative, I cold make stepping to waypoint behind the joining to original route.

It think it also has option to navigate to the closest waypoint.


Dne neděle, 7. září 2014 10:17:14 UTC+2 David Short napsal(a):

[Poutnik Fornntp]

Ooop, the topic is not GPX file navigation related, so my comment is OT. :-)

Dne neděle, 7. září 2014 11:36:50 UTC+2 Poutnik Fornntp napsal(a):

[rhian g]

You can use the waypoints menu option to untick waypoints no longer to be used, or passed, Osmand then recalculates the route using the new set of waypoints. It is important to remove the visited waypoints though as just removing the unneeded ones forces a recalculation from present position to the first waypoint on the list.

[Rodolfo]

You may be right from the sofa-viewpoint, but the scenario is: I have set a waypoint to force passing Berlin left of right. Then I encounter a small detour or I did not place the waypoint exact enough, then Osmand tries to get me to the missed waypoint, while I am on a 4-lane highway, surrounded by hectic traffic. There is simply no place to stop and remove a waypoint! Navigation instructions are worthless from now on, so this big "Forget waypoint" button is a lifesaver, an emergency call.
Rodolfo

[rhian g]

I appreciate your problem, I had the same around Hamburg last weekend when Osmand insisted I went to Lubeck via Salzwedel. My solution is not an armchair one, it is one I have to use most trips and is very inconvenient if not dangerous, a "foget waypoint" or even better automatically forget waypoint is something that is needed. All I was offering was a temporary fix.

[Mike Frisch]

What seems to make the most sense and should be easiest to develop is to force an automatic recalculation towards the next waypoint in the route once your current location is closer to the second waypoint.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Osmand" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osmand/NzlJ5HNTfcM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to osmand+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Rodolfo]

Automatically skip a waypoint may not be so easy. Mike's idea to skip the waypoint if the distance to the next waypoint is less than the distance to the missed waypoint leaves the user in the first half of the distance between the two waypoints without helpful navigation, this could be a long time & distance! A time limit to skip a waypoint looks tricky, because in case of a forced detour, in a city 2 minutes is a long time without proper instructions, but on a motorway 5 minutes may be too short.
In my opinion, the only solution seems to be to ignore the intelligence of the app and use the intelligence of the user to skip a waypoint manually: Big button!

Rodolfo

[Mike Frisch]

In lieu of a button (or perhaps as a complement to the button), what about some logic to skip a waypoint if you are heading away from the missed waypoint and toward the next waypoint even after, say 100m, or so?

--

[Poutnik Fornntp]

Or, rather some distance before, what use with success some applications for GPX file routing..

Dne úterý, 9. září 2014 20:57:35 UTC+2 EmmEff napsal(a):

[Rodolfo]

That was exactly my idea in the beginning, but users who really want to visit the missed waypoint after a detour will lose their way(point).
Rodolfo

[Poutnik Fornntp]

But such users set it usually as a first destination, dont they ?
I think risk of missing wanted WP is lower than risk of routing get crazy.

Dne úterý, 9. září 2014 21:59:46 UTC+2 Rodolfo napsal(a):

[Rodolfo]

Since version 1.4, Osmand adopted the concept of the "travelling salesman" (also called "door-to-door") to sort waypoints in an optimal way.
So, like it or not, needed waypoints are not always set as destination.
Rodolfo

[Poutnik Fornntp]

Hmm, now I understand what  the author of Brouter had in mind, that OSMAnd took weird way to manage waypoints.....    OSMAnd tries to know better what a user want than the user himself.  Travelling salesman approach fails, if it is not what user want. Unless he really has such agenda, he want to visit WPs in order he defined. Users usually set order of a serie of WPs for the reason.

I hope such approach is just optional, I have seen so command to sort WPs in such a way.

Dne úterý, 9. září 2014 22:28:36 UTC+2 Rodolfo napsal(a):

[Rodolfo]

Sorry. I did not make myself clear. Osmand does calculate a route with waypoints in the order you defined them, 1,2,3 etc.... What I wanted to say, is that a "salesman" really wants to visit the waypoints, not just pass them. (To help him, there is this option to sort waypoints in an optimal order.)
Rodolfo

[Poutnik]

I see. But IMHO OSMAnd should count with the passing scenario as well,
e.g. by suggested manual stepping of waypoints. Either for waypoints,
either for GPX.

For managing it in high traffic - a voice command for that could be
interesting option, where possible.

Poutnik

Dne 9.9.2014 v 23:36 Rodolfo napsal(a):

[stf]

Considering that if you are trying to get a route longer than 300 km you get an informational box suggesting you enter way points to make it work better, there might well be waypoints you really don't care to visit. They were entered only because of a failing of OsmAnd and at the suggestion of OsmAnd.

[Mike Frisch]

FWIW, neither a voice command nor a button are optimal for my use. I use OsmAnd for navigating motorcycle rides and receive directions through headphones. I do not have a suitable microphone for issuing a voice command nor do I want to be taking my eyes off the road to find and press a button.

I think there is definite room for improvement of this aspect of navigation in OsmAnd. I hope the author(s) are reading along.

[Poutnik]

I see your point, but it can be usable for others.
I am afraid there may be no universal automatic solution.

Perhaps before starting following the route,
user should be asked, if OSMAnd should forget missed waypoints.

BTW, is not it potentially dangerous, riding noisy motorcycle
plus having additionally shielded your ears by headphones ?
It may happen you miss last moment warning sound
before something fatal may happen.

Poutnik

[Mike Frisch]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com> wrote:

BTW, is not it potentially dangerous,  riding noisy motorcycle
plus having additionally shielded your ears by headphones ?
It may happen you miss last moment warning sound
before something fatal may happen.

I appreciate your concern, however let's stay on topic. 

[Rodolfo]

Many opinions in this topic! One essential opinion lacks: the opinion of the author. Would you be so kind, please?
Rodolfo

[EmmEff]

To add to the discussion, here is a description of the autorecalculate functionality I took from a posting on another forum:

If you have a Garmin zumo or (NavIV/V), go to Settings > Navigation > Off route recalculation and choose disable. When you go off route, it will no longer automatically recalculate and you can just go back to the route how ever you want. Prompted will give you a popup every time you go off route so you can choose if you want a recalculation. If I have a pre-planned route, I set to disable and change it back to auto for those times that I don't care what the route looks like.

To clarify, it looks like Garmin has two options in this situation: "Disabled" and "Prompted".

"Prompted" would give the user the option of redirecting back to the missed waypoint or skipping it and going to the recalculating the route to the next waypoint. My proposal would be to have an option on "Prompted" that simply times out and skips the waypoint if there isn't user input.

"Disable" means if you are following a track/route and deviate from it, the GPS won't recalculate.

IMO, this is the best way to handle this compared to how it is now.

Any thoughts from others?

[pl]

There should be a button for skipping a waypoint during navigation.
Auto-skipping is rather difficult task and could be tricky.

[Poutnik]

Dne 13.9.2014 v 23:04 pl napsal(a):

>
> There should be a button for skipping a waypoint during navigation.
> Auto-skipping is rather difficult task and could be tricky.

I agree, but the autoskipping should still be the option,
as managing navigation device can violate safety during driving.

Poutnik

[Mike Frisch]

Why is this difficult? It's a very simple calculation to determine whether one is past an existing waypoint and heading toward the next. Why do people have such difficulty with this idea?

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:04 PM, pl <pl.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

There should be a button for skipping a waypoint during navigation.
Auto-skipping is rather difficult task and could be tricky.

[Mike Frisch]

Definitely. Being able to automatically skip a waypoint HAS to be an option.

Sent from my iPad

[poutnik4nntp]

OTOH there should be Option to preset, if waypoint(s) is/are to be skipped.

--
Odesláno z mého telefonu s Androidem pomocí pošty K-9 Mail. Omluvte prosím moji stručnost.

[Poutnik]

One possible way would be to have

AUTOMATIC option with automatic skipping waypoints by some algorithm, or switching  them at some distance to them.
MANUAL option, always heading to waypoint until passed through, unless skipped using signpost-like button and manually stepping the waypoints by left-right arrow.

Dne neděle, 14. září 2014 2:58:27 UTC+2 EmmEff napsal(a):

[Poutnik]

In fact, both options can be combined, based on automatic mode using  different values,
and still kept option of manual overriding

E.g
If switching radius is small, like 100 m, it is like salesman visiting way-points ( MANUAL ) .
You are already there.

If switching radius is large,  like 3 km, it is like skipping way-points ( AUTOMATIC ) . 
With paper maps, during city transit a/o while choosing proper motorway/highway ,
near WPs are often dropped by the side seat navigator in favour of bearing toward next one.

Dne 14.9.2014 v 09:13 Poutnik napsal(a):

--

[Poutnik]

Dne neděle, 14. září 2014 10:04:03 UTC+2 Poutnik napsal(a):

...........

 

If switching radius is large,  like 3 km, it is like skipping way-points ( AUTOMATIC ) . 
With paper maps, during city transit a/o while choosing proper motorway/highway ,
near WPs are often dropped by the side seat navigator in favour of bearing toward next one.

P.S.: The above apply well on long distance travelling scenario in general navigation context.
Waypoints of such a route are often considered rather being the areas of cities/town, or other area-like approximate location,
without any specific point intended to pass or visit.

 

[Bob Petit]

Has anyone fixed this yet. I just spent 20 minutes traveling the wrong way because I restarted my route after traveling 20 minutes and it sent me back to the first waypoint. Total waste of time. 

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, EmmEff wrote:

I created a route (not a track) using Furkot. I intentionally missed the first waypoint. Is it possible to tell OsmAnd to ignore the current waypoint and continue on with the next waypoint in the route? I spent the entire route (200km with 25 waypoints) trying to navigate back to the first waypoint.

I would OsmAnd to have a configurable option to allow either user input to skip the current waypoint and default timeout (time or distance) after which it will be ignored.

Sometimes it is just not possible or feasible to either (a) alter an existing route or (b) pass through all waypoints.

Thanks,

Mike.

[Mike Frisch]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Bob Petit <bobp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Has anyone fixed this yet. I just spent 20 minutes traveling the wrong way because I restarted my route after traveling 20 minutes and it sent me back to the first waypoint. Total waste of time. 

Not to my knowledge. There was no buy-in from the developers to actually add this highly useful feature.

[Clive]

Maybe create two distinct way-points, a routing one which is soft and is only used by the routing engine as an indication of the route you want to travel and a hard way point were you actually have to visit that point to continue on to the next one.

I know I recently had this very same issue while on a motorway.  I wanted to come off at a junction OSMand didn't seem to think was the best route.  So I placed a way point at the junction.  Routing when brilliantly up to the way point and then was absolutely useless after it, as it was trying to navigate me back to the junction again!  Because I was on a motorway I couldnt pull over to operate the device so had to navigate the old fashioned way via sign posts.  Needless to say I got very lost!

OSMand routing engine can be very illogical in this part of the world, taking me on the scenic route via small towns and villages which are very slow to get through due congestion, traffic calming and other speed restrictions, rather than good, open motorways/roads.  In many cases the shortest route is not the fastest!  A routing waypoint would be a huge addition for me :)

[Bryce F.]

This is exactly how I would like the application to work.  The ability to turn off auto-recalc or have it prompt to recalc would be wonderful.  It puts control in the user's hands.  I create elaborate backroads routes for fellow MINI Cooper enthusiasts.  Sometimes a road is closed or a short detour is needed in the group for a bathroom break.  Once I go off the GPX route I've loaded into OSMAND, all heck breaks out with the route trying to be smarter than me.  Give me the ability to go off the route and don't recalculate it please....I'll get back to my original route eventually. ;P

[Mike Frisch]

Even on a motorcycle, I'd like this ability or have the off-route prompts simply timeout and/or route back to the next, nearest point along the route. I cannot imagine how anybody would want a different behaviour. At least anybody who uses this app for routing.

--

[harry...@gmail.com]

The fact that OsmAnd tries to take one back to a missed waypoint is the reason I do not use them at all when navigating.  It is a real nuisance and the developers should take note of all the dissatisfaction this is causing.  I have taken to having my next waypoint as the destination and resetting for each of the stops.  What a bind but the risk of being sent back is too great.

Yours  Harry (R)

 

[Mike Frisch]

I'm with you... unfortunately, the developers have deemed this not an issue :(

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:28 AM, <harry...@gmail.com> wrote:

The fact that OsmAnd tries to take one back to a missed waypoint is the reason I do not use them at all when navigating.  It is a real nuisance and the developers should take note of all the dissatisfaction this is causing.  I have taken to having my next waypoint as the destination and resetting for each of the stops.  What a bind but the risk of being sent back is too great.

Yours  Harry (R)

 

--

[Lee Davis]

Without the ability to skip a waypoint multi-waypoint routing is nearly useless.  Garmin has the best algorithm - it navigates to the closest waypoint automatically.  This not only works well for skipped waypoints but also enables starting a route at a waypoint other than the 1st waypoint.  That matters for trips of several days.  

[Mike Frisch]

I've all but given up on osmand for this reason...

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:43 PM Lee Davis <leeda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Without the ability to skip a waypoint multi-waypoint routing is nearly useless.  Garmin has the best algorithm - it navigates to the closest waypoint automatically.  This not only works well for skipped waypoints but also enables starting a route at a waypoint other than the 1st waypoint.  That matters for trips of several days.  

--

[Poutnik]

OSMAnd would need something like  LocusMap ( PRO ) Navigation route autorecalculation with Route/Point priority.

   In case of Route priority, a user is rerouted back to route, regardless of waypoints.
  ( if waypoint are of no importance, just being route planning stickers )

   For Point priority, it recalculates the route toward not visited tviapoints or destination.
   ( if waypoints must be visited, like planned POIs or to be visited clients  )

Another idea able to be reused from Locus Guidance ( point to point following) :
         When you cross a defined approaching distance to a a waypoint, Locus switches to the next one.


Dne středa 25. května 2016 2:43:42 UTC+2 Lee Davis napsal(a):

[Mike Frisch]

That all sounds great. When will we get this capability? :)

--

[Poutnik]

When we switch to Locus ? :-P

Dne 25/05/2016 v 21:04 Mike Frisch napsal(a):

> That all sounds great. When will we get this capability? :)
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Poutnik <poutni...@gmail.com
> <mailto:poutni...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> OSMAnd would need something like LocusMap ( PRO ) Navigation route
> autorecalculation with Route/Point priority.
>
> In case of Route priority, a user is rerouted back to route,
> regardless of waypoints.
> ( if waypoint are of no importance, just being route planning
> stickers )
>
> For Point priority, it recalculates the route toward not visited
> tviapoints or destination.
> ( if waypoints must be visited, like planned POIs or to be
> visited clients )
>
> Another idea able to be reused from Locus Guidance ( point to point
> following) :
> When you cross a defined approaching distance to a a
> waypoint, Locus switches to the next one.
>

--
Poutnik ( The Wanderer )

My Brouter profiles
https://github.com/poutnikl/Brouter-profiles/wiki

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Lee Davis <leeda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Without the ability to skip a waypoint multi-waypoint routing is nearly useless.  Garmin has the best algorithm - it navigates to the closest waypoint automatically.  This not only works well for skipped waypoints but also enables starting a route at a waypoint other than the 1st waypoint.  That matters for trips of several days.  

It would be nice if Osmand paused navigation at a waypoint and asked what you wanted to do next.  Or understood the concept of pick and drop (this is also a shortcoming in garmin that makes that platform useless for me), where a drop stop can't be made before it's corresponding pick... 

[Mike Frisch]

I can understand how this might be useful in certain circumstances, however when driving or riding a motorcycle (like I am), I don't need/want the interruption. A prompt is fine, but eventually it should time out and proceed with route guidance. In my perfect world, I'd have the ability to configure the default behaviour, whether it be re-route, guide back to the route, or guide to next waypoint.

Mike.

--

[Rodolfo]

I opened an issue last week with a feature request that could be implemented without much work:
https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/2588
B.t.w. the consequence of a higher tolerance, say 250, is that you will receive the "waypoint reached..." message a few hundred meters before you actually reach the point.
Would that be a big problem?

[Dave Welsh]

Same thing for me, I would just as soon as it times out and moves onto the next way point. It can be a pain to see the warning, but if I know it will go away it is much easier to ignore.

[Dave Welsh]

I followed the link to the issue and read all of the responses.
I am not sure the issue was understood, because the response does not get us any closer to skipping the way point.

[Mike Frisch]

I have the same opinion...

It's possible I might skip a waypoint entirely and go to the next. I don't want these artificial limitations faking passing through a waypoint that's part of a route.  Adjusting the "tolerance" as to what constitutes passing through a waypoint does not help.

Mike.

--

[Rodolfo]

In my opinion, the best solution would be the one that requires the SHORTEST TIME to automatically skip the waypoint.
That was the essence of my feature request.

@Victor: As far as I can see, the setting for "Arrival announcement" only refers to the last point of the whole route (=the destination).
Announce Early=135m, Normal=90m, Late=45m, In the last meters=22.5m.
It doesn't seem to have anything to do with waypoints at all, or am I mistaken?.
What I asked for in issue 2588, was a similar setting for waypoints, but with a larger position tolerance, at least up to 500 m.

[Dave Welsh]

I kicked that ant hill.
Lets see what comes of it.

[Paul Johnson]

I'm wondering if a better solution wouldn't be a preference for stay on the current waypoint, skip to the  next waypoint, or pause and ask for user input. 

[Rodolfo]

The position tolerance (snap-radius) for waypoints has been changed.
The default radius is now 180 m. (was 120) but now the radius is also coupled to the snap-radius for the destination.
You can change this setting in the Settings menu -> Navigation settings -> Arrival announcement.
The 4 options there are: Early, Normal, Late and In the last meters
This sets the waypoint snap-radius to 270 m., 180 m., 90 m. or 45 m. respectively.
Hopefully the change from 120 to 270 m. will solve many of the "missed" problems.

Side info: For the destination, the snap-radius is unchanged: 135, 90, 45 or 22.5 m.

[Dave Welsh]

has there been any change in this or is it just dead and no changes are planned?

[Jan van Bekkum]

There is a quick access button option "Add first waypoint" already. A button "Remove first waypoint" would already help a lot.

[EmmEff]

What if it's not the first waypoint?

Also, I ride a motorcycle. It's probably not the best idea I'm poking around on the phone while riding. I've been using Scenic on iOS lately and it automatically stops routing back to the missed waypoint after a certain amount of distance/time. That's all I'm asking for.

[P Wat]

OsmAnd's determination to direct you back to a waypoint you missed, either deliberately or accidentally, is indeed an irritation. Previous contributors have noted that circumstances (eg traffic) do not always allow the luxury of stopping to make corrections on-the-run.  Being constantly directed back to a missed waypoint renders the rest of the route useless.
Paul Johnson and Jan Van Bekkum's suggestions are helpful.
IMHO it would be useful to be offered the option to "Re-route to the missed waypoint", or "Delete the missed waypoint and continue to the next", or "Skip the missed waypoint but keep it on screen to use later".
Paul W

[Mike Frisch]

It's (dead) simple math to determine if the direction of travel is toward or away from the next waypoint. Whatever waypoint is closest is the one the route should automatically direct to. A second, related setting would be "ensure route passes through all waypoints". If enabled, the route would always route to the missed waypoint. If disabled, routing is to the next closest waypoint.

There is no technical reason why this feature couldn't be implemented. Tt's simply an issue of the author(s) not deeming the feature desirable.

[Kevin Kenny]

Dumb question: Does OSMand make a distinction between waypoints

having the semantics of "this is my preferred route" and ones that

have the semantics of "this trip has multiple destinations?" If indeed

you have a trip where Alice wants to stop at point P to pick up Bob,

and then proceed to their joint destination at point Q, directing back to

Bob's place after passing by it is correct and desired behaviour.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to osmand+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osmand+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Dave Welsh]

Bob called in sick. There is no need to pick him up.

yet the program DEMANDS that you go to his place anyway.

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:42:43 AM UTC-5, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Dumb question: Does OSMand make a distinction between waypoints

having the semantics of "this is my preferred route" and ones that

have the semantics of "this trip has multiple destinations?" If indeed

you have a trip where Alice wants to stop at point P to pick up Bob,

and then proceed to their joint destination at point Q, directing back to

Bob's place after passing by it is correct and desired behaviour.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Mike Frisch <mik...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's (dead) simple math to determine if the direction of travel is toward or away from the next waypoint. Whatever waypoint is closest is the one the route should automatically direct to. A second, related setting would be "ensure route passes through all waypoints". If enabled, the route would always route to the missed waypoint. If disabled, routing is to the next closest waypoint.

There is no technical reason why this feature couldn't be implemented. Tt's simply an issue of the author(s) not deeming the feature desirable.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:45 AM 'P Wat' via Osmand <osm...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

OsmAnd's determination to direct you back to a waypoint you missed, either deliberately or accidentally, is indeed an irritation. Previous contributors have noted that circumstances (eg traffic) do not always allow the luxury of stopping to make corrections on-the-run.  Being constantly directed back to a missed waypoint renders the rest of the route useless.
Paul Johnson and Jan Van Bekkum's suggestions are helpful.
IMHO it would be useful to be offered the option to "Re-route to the missed waypoint", or "Delete the missed waypoint and continue to the next", or "Skip the missed waypoint but keep it on screen to use later".
Paul W

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Osmand" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osmand/NzlJ5HNTfcM/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to osmand+un...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osmand+un...@googlegroups.com.