[Loadstone] Checkpoints strategy suggestion

Shawn Kirkpatrick shawn at loadstone-gps.com
Sun Aug 9 10:03:52 BST 2009


What you propose sounds a bit like the route mode we want to implement. The 
route mode would use an ordered checkpoint list but figure out as much as 
possible automatically without the user having to tell it which way in the 
route they're going.
At the moment you can monitor a specific point by using the lock point 
function. Not quite checkpoint monitoring but close.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Grzegorz Zlotowicz wrote:

> Hello,
> the checkpoints subject is often discussed on the list, but as far as I know, the strategy i would like to suggest wasn't discussed yet...
> I know that the current checkpoints monitoring strategy can be useful for many users, but personally i haven't very good experiences with it - when more than one checkpoint is marked, I often got erroneous directions not to the point on my way, but to some other - I think it is the result of the gps position drift...
> Many times I also get the beginning of the checkpoint announce, and then - even before the distance and direction - other checkpoint, then again the first one and so on, so personally at the moment i'm using one cp at the time, selecting it manually or loading from file, but it isn't very comfortable...
> Strategy i'd like to disscuss is as follows:
> 1. In the default mode checkpoints monitoring would behave as usual, monitoring all checkpoint at once...
> 2. Function next checkpoint and prev checkpoint would switch this monitoring to the next or previous checkpoint - the order of points would be incherited from the file where they're saved, or from the order user checks one after an other...
> 3. I imagine, that in the program would be variable called for example checkpointnum, which by default would have value 0, meaning that all the points should be monitored as it's now.
> 4. When user call next checkpoint function, the value of this variable would be increased by 1, pointing after first usage to the 1st checkpoint on the list.
> 5. When user calls prev checkpoint, value of checkpointnum is decreased by 1, or if less than 1 - set to the last point in the checkpoints array.
> 6. When checkpointnum is non0, the program monitors only the checkpoint having this number in the array, ignoring all other.
> In this case, pressing key 5 in the nav mode would always give distance and direction to this point, even when user isn't actually moving, or Loadstone thinks so...
> 7. There could also be optional setting, if aproaching the monitored checkpoints advances the checkpointnum - if it's 0 nothing happens of course, but if non0, autoadvance is on and user approached monitored checkpoint, program would increase or decrease the checkpointnum - remembering what was last used command, i mean depending on if prev checkpoint, or next checkpoint...
> If we imagine, that the checkpoint list contains ordered points on the user way, such autoadvance would let him automatically track next interesting point on the way depending on if user is going the way from beginning to end or returning from end to the beginning...
>
> One prerequisite is of course, that all points in the list are in the correct order, which as i think is the case in most listings, but if they aren't - nothing happens, simply user doesn't uses this feature using instead the automagical program monitoring...
>
> I hope, that the implementation of such functionality would simplify the loadstone usage in many cases for the beginners and advanced users, and isn't as i imagine very hard and time consuming to implement...
>
> I'd like to hear from you what do you think about such solution?
> Of course in the above explanation i omitted some minor details, such as that if the checkpointnum is 1, user presses prev checkpoint, the program returns to the default all-monitoring mode...
> Also the message "next checkpoint is..." or "previous checkpoint is..." or - "last checkpoint is..." after calling the prev/next checkpoint function, seems rather obwious, letting user know when he is at the last checkpoint on the way, but as i said, these are rather minor details...
>
> Thanks for your time,
> greetings, Greg.
>


More information about the Loadstone mailing list