Separate routing strategy for individual routes

[moving-bits]

Taken from #8304 (comment) by @MagpieFourtyTwo:

Although I am aware of c:geo's KISS aspiration, but nevertheless: What's about two different routing strategies - one for standard routing and one for individual routes? And, to KISS (for "standard users"), perhaps handle them as one until user decides via option to have two, to be able to set them differently? This option my e. g. enable additional menu entries in "Routing" ...?

[MagpieFourtyTwo]

As for me, e. g., standard settings would usually be "Routing = Car", "Individual Route = Walk|Bike" ...

[MagpieFourtyTwo]

With the new Quick Settings popup in map, control of different Routing Strategies would be really easy and pretty intuitive:
We "just" need a second row of Routing Strategy symbols below the currently shown symbols for "normal" routing, plus a grippy headline like Routing for individual routes and that's it - at least for the GUI part. ;)

BTW: Below these "Individual Routing Strategy symbols" the line [_] Automatically route to individual route (if exists) would fit in even better. ;)

And in the row of indiv. route symbols there would perhaps even be some space to place a [Clear] button. Perhaps at the rightmost position, to separate it a bit from the strategy buttons ...?

[fm-sys]

My two cents...

1. IMHO two different routing strategies would probably confuse "standard users"
2. Switching the routing strategy would be more time consuming for users like me, who always use the same routing strategy for both normal and individual route.

If this feature really necessary, it would need to be optional. But as Walking and driving at the same time is quite difficult anyway 🙃 and switching the routing type is done in nearly no time (thanks to the new map popup 👍) is don't see a real advantage...

[Lineflyer]

I agree to @fm-sys

[MagpieFourtyTwo]

Confusion: Discussed this earlier and already came to the conclusion, that it should be optional like [_] Use different routing strategy for standard and individual routes which defaults to false.

Advantage: This of course depends on personal workflow, but at least for ours there is a big one, as we seldomly do DriveIns, thus always have (at least) two different routes: The one to the parking lot (Car) and the one to the first coordinate (Walk or Bike). And if both routes use the same strategy, you always have to switch forth and back, to e. g. find an appropriate parking lot. Which gets even more important, if you do several Multies in one tour ...

Moreover, when doing a Multi with MTB, OSM resp. BRouter oftenly does not show the best route, but of course uses just the paths which are tagged as "can be used with bike" - but in fact (nearly) every route that can be done by feet can be used with a bike too, even if you just push it, walking at it's side. One may now think, hey, that's easy, cause you can generally switch routing strategy to "Walk", but in fact the "really nice trails" are tagged to be "bike only", so Walk-routing will of course avoid them ...

Seeing this while planning the tour is one thing, but to not miss the right spot to switch routing strategy is a IMO unnecessary strain for a tour, esp. if you're guiding a group of people, which rely on your decisions. Being able to set up two routes, like e. g. a standard to the final (which takes to long way) and an individual one for the "fun short cut" - and being able to do so before you head off with the bikes - would be a big relief.

TMALSS: In fact a second routing strategy (which BTW would even be perfect to immediately compare two different strategies compared side by side) would make life for some people a lot easier.