# App: Waypoint types

**URL:** <https://forum.kurviger.com/t/app-waypoint-types/2821>\
**Category:** Implemented features\
**Tags:** implemented\
**Created:** [March 16, 2020, 5:08pm UTC](https://forum.kurviger.com/t/app-waypoint-types/2821 "2020-03-16T17:08:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 31

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SchlesiM](https://forum.kurviger.com/user_avatar/forum.kurviger.com/schlesim/32/1080_2.png) [@SchlesiM](https://forum.kurviger.com/u/SchlesiM)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 12:34pm UTC](https://forum.kurviger.com/t/app-waypoint-types/2821/31 "2020-04-08T12:34:07Z")

</div>

Yes, that’s the reaon why I would vote for an additional options in the rerouting settings:

- nearest point in route
- nearest waypoint _(means: both types)_
- next unvisited waypoint _(means: both types)_
- next unvisited visit-point _(means: without considering shaping-points)_

To be more specific: if the last (new) option is set, rerouting should of course only omit all shaping-points before the next unvisited visit-point - not those behind it. Because a detour/rerouting should only affect the part of my route which leads to my next unvisited visit-point, not the whole route. This way the impact will remain as minimal as possible. But also as reasoned as necessary.

Why a new option? Because this most probably still depends on the way someone uses the two types of waypoints. I’m pretty sure that there will be differences between - for example - (former?) Garmin users and those who are using Kurviger as straight forward and simple as possible (and therefore won’t even use shaping-points at all).

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.kurviger.com/t/app-waypoint-types/2821)._