[Loadstone] Checkpoints strategy suggestion

[Shawn Kirkpatrick]

I'd write more about route mode but it isn't even started yet. I'll know how 
it's going to work as soon as I start writing it. The first order of 
business will be to write a list checkpoints function and have a way of 
moving points around in the list so the ordering would be correct. Then the 
exact logic will have to be worked out, automating as much as possible with 
a manual override to correct if things go wrong.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Grzegorz Zlotowicz wrote:

> Hi,
> I know the lock point function, but it lacks the goto next or prev on the 
> checkpoints list...
> /The route mode sounds exciting, but the automation fraightens me a bit, I 
> mean - please don't forget about manual mode too...
> By the way could you write some more about this planned feature?
> Greetings, Greg.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shawn Kirkpatrick" 
> <shawn at loadstone-gps.com>
> To: <loadstone at loadstone-gps.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 11:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Loadstone] Checkpoints strategy suggestion
>
>
>> 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.
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Loadstone mailing list
>> Loadstone at loadstone-gps.com
>> http://www.loadstone-gps.com/mailman/listinfo/loadstone
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Loadstone mailing list
> Loadstone at loadstone-gps.com
> http://www.loadstone-gps.com/mailman/listinfo/loadstone
>