Truncation of VFR reporting points
Not a EVFR 4 bug as such (it's always been a "feature" of EVFR). It's the truncation of VFR reporting points. They are truncated to 5 letters, as is the standard for IFR points. There are no such standard for VFR reporting points, and this truncation makes the app almost useless at places where the VFR points are longer than 5 letters.
Any chance of stopping this truncation in the near future. To make the matter worse, MGL and several other EFIS manufacturers use EVFR data, and MGL only show these truncated names.
Every aerodata object in our database has a "short code" and a "full name". For example VFR reporting points start showing the "full name" when you zoom in enough on them. This short/long name practice is unavoidable I fear. To see if we can maybe tweek the MGL data production a bit, do you have a few examples of cases that you think could be improved?
there are several in Norway....
The example above is as good as any. There is no way a normal thinking person will deduct the real name "Maridalsvannet" from "MARID". If you contact the ATC and say you are at "MARID", the ATC wouldn't understand what you are talking about, even if you spell it out. Also the reverse, the ATC tells you you are cleared to "Maridalsvannet", and you have no clue where that is. This is not "easy VFR", this is "confusion VFR" ? (seriously)
MARID is no short form of Maridalsvannet in any shape or form. It's unintelligible. There is no standard or precedence for truncating VFR reporting points anywhere in aviation, this is an EasyVFR "feature" exclusively, and it is utterly confusing.
Now, that VFR reporting points should be short simple names like N1, S, SE etc (November One, Sierra etc), like many countries have, is another matter entirely. It's just that this is not the case in Norway, Sweden or Denmark (at least).
Another thing is that it's normal to also use IFR points when reporting position to ATC, or as waypoints for flight planning. This truncation could accidentally mix VFR points with IFR points. Not hugely likely, but still.
Bottom line, this truncation is something that shouldn't be there. It serves no other purpose than confusion, and makes the app almost useless. I'm just saying, and as an instructor there is no way I can recommend this app to anyone flying VFR in Norway, Sweden or Denmark. It's one of those very basic and fundamental things that HAS to be correct.
I'm affraid its not as simple. VFR reporting points can even be more complex, in some countries its like "Crossing of A5 with railway bridge south of the city" etc. Its impossible to have all these long descriptions on the map at every zoomlevel. That is why EV (3 and 4) show a short ID when zoomed out and the full description when zoomed in, so at least some kind of reference can be made.
Also many EFIS systems we interface with (Dynon SkyView, MGL, GPX exports etc) require each waypoint to have some kind of unique ID, often strongly reduced in size (5-8 characters max often). We don't decide those limitations, its the manufacturers who do, and we just have to comply to it. We prefer consistency of our data across all platforms and systems that uses it.
I don't say its perfect, but its something. VFR reporting points are a constant source of confusion and will be as long as every country has it's own system I'm affraid. As a pilot we have to be aware of this, and realise how the different tools we use handle these all in their own way.
OK. Thanks for the explanation. What this truncation does is to add guesswork instead of removing guesswork. Other apps don't do this. If the matter was some obscure matter, no big deal. However, VRPs are core matter of flying VFR, thus this is a severe limitation of the app.