Problem with creating itinery on TT Go930

qdosgolf · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 5

Hi, my first post here so be gentle with me! I have created an itinery with waypoints to a final destination. There are 16 in all. I created most of the waypoints from map references that i copied from my old garmin 2620. I have uploaded from the TT onto the TYRE program and the route is plotted visiting each of the waypoints. The same itinery calculated on my TT misses2 of the waypoints out. The waypoints are shown but not visited. I have tried putting extra wp's in in order to supplement the calculation but it misses those wp's out too. Can anyone shed any light on this because i have exhausted my knowledge of how to do it.

Cheers Chris

alanji · Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:29 pm Post subject:

It is caused when you set a waypoint as "City center" or POI and the TT software assumes you do not actually need to visit the exact location. Replacing the waypoint with a "point on map" resolves the problem.
_________________
Alan

Go 750 LIVE Europe Map 870.3406
Go 720 W Europe Map 865.3245
One XL W Europe. Map 715.1689
Dell Axim & TT3
Psion 5mx & Routeplanner

qdosgolf · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 5

alanji · Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject:

qdosgolf · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 5

Yes that's right, points 7 & 8 out of 16 will not get visited. What I did following your suggestion, was to go to 7 & 8 and delete them then add a point on the map into the itinery and then move it to the right location in the list. They are defo not POI's Confused

gatorguy6996 · Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:20 pm Post subject:

Were those two points perhaps off a mapped road? Maybe a park or something along those lines?
_________________
Garmin 1695 / 255 / 760 w/MSN - Droid w/Google nav + Navigon - Navigon 8100T - Dakota10 - GPSMap76C - GeoMate Jr.

qdosgolf · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 5

The 2 points in question were on made up roads, I know this because i've driven on them Laughing

, both are in residential locations.

Since my last post a friend took a look at my itinery and moved the 2 points slightly from there original location and the points are now included in the route. So problem solved

However, the points were definitely on the actual road because I deleted them and then relocated them and the name of the road was used as the itinery point name. So although sorted there is still a bit of a mystery. Incidently, if i convert one of the points to a destination it works fine but thats not how i want to do it.

Andy_P · Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:52 am Post subject:

Any chance you could give us the actual locations to try out for ourselves?
No need to give us the entire itinerary, if you don't want to, just the problematic waypoints if that would be OK.

qdosgolf · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 5

OK I have deleted all but the 2 locations that are giving me a problem and the route now includes them. So the plot thickens!

You are more than welcome to have the entire itinery if you pm your email address but i have already done this with a friend of mine and he has had the same results as me. So what's the next step??

Andy_P · Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:29 pm Post subject:

PM sent.

DaveMatthews · Regular Visitor Joined: Dec 25, 2004 Posts: 221

I'm getting exactly the same problem on my 940. However I found that if I got the unit to calculate the shortest route rather than the fastest (the latter being the default option), it happily included the two waypoints it had previously skipped.

I wonder if the problem revolves around WPs that are on roads for which the unit does not know the speed limit and therefore excludes from its plotting when the user has selected the "Fastest" option?

--

Cheers

Dave

Andy_P · Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:44 pm Post subject:

The TT doesn't use the speed limit information for route calculation, there is a "time to travel" value attached to every road.
but you're right, if that info is wrong for a certain section, that would affect the routing.

DaveMatthews · Regular Visitor Joined: Dec 25, 2004 Posts: 221

Thanks, Andy. I'm not sure, however, whether you're saying that as well as some "time to travel" data being incorrect, there is also a bug in "Fastest" routing algorithm. Irrespective of which algorithm you choose for calculation, the TT shouldn't decide to disregard any of the waypoints we have programmed - otherwise there's seems little point in having Itinerary functionality at all.

--

Cheers

Dave

Andy_P · Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:24 am Post subject:

I was just referring to your previous post, not what went before.

I agree with everything alanji said in the second post

DaveMatthews · Regular Visitor Joined: Dec 25, 2004 Posts: 221

Hmmm.. I disagree with TT's thinking on this, then. For example when I travel to work, I pick up three friends along the way, so I have a genuine need to pause at some specific, remote locations before getting on to the motorway. Now if I were to set up an itinerary with work as a destination and my friends' home addresses as waypoints, if I were to slavishly follow the TT, I wouldn't pick any of them up as the unit effectively does a Harry Enfield on me and decides "You don't want to go down there, you want to take the main road instead".

Even if you accept that the unit might guide you fairly close to a particular waypoint, in my case it decided that three miles away was close enough! (And, incidentally, contrary to Alan's observations, I had used the "Point on Map" feature, not "City Centre")

If it's a deliberate feature, it is not mentioned in the x40 user guide (nor, I assume, that for any other TT models). Interestingly, however, the guide gives two definitions of what a waypoint is: "A location on your journey where you want to travel through" and "[A point] on your journey to your destination that you want to pass". That second one is rather ambiguous - what precisely do they mean by "pass" - does it mean "pass by", in which case does that actually mean "by-pass"?!! Depending on how you intrepret its meaning, you could say it's in direct contravention of the first definition, in which case the whole idea of waypoints is rather meaningless.

--

Cheers,

Dave

	PocketGPS
	Web