Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Just have recognized workaround above works for CCS waypoints, but not for SUCs.
  2. thought it may would be an Option to use the „max charging“ parameter per charging waypoint. tried that by entering e.g. 80kw for a reduced S75D, but seemed to not have any impact on charging time. But maybe I am just using it wrong...
  3. Thats a even more simple solution. Good suggestion. +1
  4. Hi paul, I think you are starting another use case here. In this thread It was supposed that there are thousands of networks which then are way too many to get them excluded by hand. So therefor just bind to one network as a one click solution for people who know what they are doing and to save time. on the other hand if you only want to exlude a small numbers of providers, your idea also has its Benefits. I‘d therefore say let’s implement both options rather than beating up what’s best 😛 in the end, your function seems like a button-side up implementation of my suggestion and other way round. Benefits here depending on the specific use case e.g. (A) bind flatrate + hpc charge providers or (B) exclude insufficient providers in the overall route planning process. This implemented in the „more options“ Menü per (A) bind on Route and (B) exclude on Route Dropdown with simple „tick in the box“ of the Provider list and everything is a dreamer.
  5. Ah understood, Makes more Sense now. In my usecase i want to travel from very south Germany to very North via network „ladenetz“. In that case there are only 2 chargers which are delivering more than 150kw. i can Travel the Route if i charge the car approx. to 95% each Time at both „ladenetz“ chargers (Model 3 Lr RWD 18“ Aero). As charge rate decrease heavily over 90% SOC, it Seems this Bonus gets eaten up be Charger networks from other providers e.g. ionity where I may only would have charged to only ~50%. Seems that the „preferred Bonus“ in my usecase may Really could benefit from Tuning. As of today, a better Route Planer does Never give me the Chance to only charge with These two Chargers on the Route (also if i select them manually as waypoint), the Tool instead will try to use ionity or other Networks to save travel Time. Unfortunately this only saves me 12min on a 880km Trip. If there is a „tune Update prefered Provider Option“ or whatever May be useful to allow that abettereouteplanner does only recognizes the pre-selected Provider of my active Choice - than i am happy about It. I also have the feeling that the matter of @Eugenius would also benefit in here. it would also be ok to receive a Message like „Route is Not do-able with your Choice, please try Auto-routing without provider fixation“ if Route planning fails. As said, i only wanted to bring it up as an optional setting for the use case of e.g. flatrate users on a specific network. In this usecase other prefered networks may are unfortunately not really a good alternative and the users actively using this option should be happy to understand if or if not they can do the travel with the network/provider fixation 🙂
  6. Thats right and i also thought that can be a workaround, but someone that Method Seems Not to „force“ These Providers. If at least a Route with another Provider is somehow faster, it Seems that abetterrouteplanner then prefers other Chargers. So it would be way better to implement a additional „Force Provider XYZ“ Funktion Next to the „prefer Function“, to make sure to bind abetterroute Planning to a specific Provider. If then a Route cannot be plannend, then the prefer method can happily assist.
  7. Description: Filter/Select (CCS) unique Charging Provider for route r Use Case: As a user of a charging flat or as a user with a bonus system I want to be able to calculate a route with my preferred charging provider only, so that I do not have to hassle and loose time with 100000trillions of (CCS) charging stations I cannot use while manually scrolling and searching in the map while all charging stations need endless time in a calculation process, which I do not want nor saves efficient commuting power on the website. Remember, the more details you can add, the faster we can build out new features!

Contact Us

Bo - Lead Developer and Tesla owner: bo@abetterrouteplanner.com

Jason - New Car Models, Developer and Bolt owner : jason@abetterrouteplanner.com

Idreams - Forums Administrator, Forums Developer and Tesla owner : idreams@abetterrouteplanner.com

  • Create New...