When defining the route ‘manually’, unless you, of course, tap on defined reporting points (RPs) or VORs, you always get a route made up of anonymous waypoints. For VFR this is, for example, quite impractical to read in the PIB.
Desired behavior: When defining the route ‘manually’ by tapping on the map, the nearest geographic place name (within a reasonable radius) should always be used as the waypoint name, instead of just ‘Waypoint’.
the idea is great …I’m still struggling a bit with the implementation though:
Depending on the length of the route, different resolutions of place names are required.
Example:
If I’m flying across Europe, an accuracy of a few kilometers is sufficient and I would prefer to get a somewhat larger town or city as the label.
If I’m flying locally around the church tower, a small village can already provide a sufficient label.
Tricky!
But I’ll add this to our to-do list and experiment with the topic.
If there are any ideas on this — bring them on
Thanks for your quick response. I understand your concerns. But regarding the route length: no matter how long the route is, shouldn’t a VFR waypoint indicate the nearest geographic place name?
For implementation and to avoid potential problems, here’s an idea: instead of a fully automatic name selection, which is often problematic, offer a choice from the (approx. 3–5) nearest places. I’ve briefly “sketched” this below. Maybe it could be more easily integrated into existing GUI concepts?
This feature would be purely optional, so waypoint names wouldn’t be ‘imposed’ on anyone who might not want them.
Then, of course, the question arises whether the waypoint’s coordinates (not just the name!) should actually be changed to that place to prevent misunderstandings in the route!
That would, of course, alter the original feature request somewhat, but I can imagine it would be quite usable that way.
…I’m still struggling a bit with the implementation though:
