Sat Nav in Cars (Photo comment)

Chris Gilbert

Those people who never had the priviledge of using version 1
of Autoroute probably don't know that Grantham was deliberately
left out of it because the author had a passionate hatred for
Margeret Thatcher and chose to exclude her birthplace from the
location database.

chris

Jon O'Brien

In article <6FxzgyE+bUTHFwYk@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid (Gordon H) wrote:

> I have had to do that for huge artics before SatNav was available.
> They are now used for deliveries in some ridiculous areas; one
> wrong turn and they are in a jam...

Sadly, just another example of people becoming too reliant on technology.
Very similar to people making stupid mistakes because they believe what a
calculator tells them, having cocked up the data entry.

Jon.

Jon O'Brien

In article <jrNuYbInXSTHFw4W@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk (Malcolm) wrote:

> I doubt it is now considered "expensive", coming as standard
> for many cars and the GB Tom-Tom under £120. Still more than
> an OS map...

Yes, everything is relative.

> ...but slightly easier/safer to read when driving!

And only as useful as they are reliable. Which, as has already been
mentioned, does often depend on how they're configured.

Jon.

dino

Roger wrote:

> ISTR that someone
> suggested that at least one of the sat-nav suppliers actually had people
> driving the routes to get the data. I can't see that as a realistic
> option but I would be very surprised if whoever determined Garmins
> criteria had a UK driving licence.
>
I can confirm that as 100% true for Navteq in Ireland. A friend of mine
owns a caravan park and two of Navteq's employees stayed with him for a
couple of weeks in their measurment vehicle which is a modified
motorhome. He was amazed by the technology in terms of receivers,
cameras and measuring devices fitted to it nevermind the amount of
computer processing power and storage. The two guys' job was to drive
every single road in Ireland for the 2008 release of City Navigator V10

Dominic Sexton

In article <memo.20071128154927.1696E@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon O'Brien
<Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>In article <jrNuYbInXSTHFw4W@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk (Malcolm) wrote:
>
>> I doubt it is now considered "expensive", coming as standard
>> for many cars and the GB Tom-Tom under £120. Still more than
>> an OS map...
>
>Yes, everything is relative.
>
>> ...but slightly easier/safer to read when driving!
>
>And only as useful as they are reliable.

The fact is they are reliable in the vast majority of situations. If
they were terribly unreliable people would not trust them the way they
do. It is the generally high level of reliability that leads drivers
into a false sense of security in a small percentage of situations.

>Which, as has already been
>mentioned, does often depend on how they're configured.

Can, in some cases, depend on how they are configured rather than often.
Most, if not all, receivers with routing options default to 'fastest
route' and 'use motorways / highways' do the user has to go out of their
way to set them up wrongly.

--

Dominic Sexton

Dominic Sexton

In article <memo.20071128154927.1696F@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon O'Brien
<Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>In article <6FxzgyE+bUTHFwYk@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
>Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid (Gordon H) wrote:
>
>> I have had to do that for huge artics before SatNav was available.
>> They are now used for deliveries in some ridiculous areas; one
>> wrong turn and they are in a jam...
>
>Sadly, just another example of people becoming too reliant on technology.
>Very similar to people making stupid mistakes because they believe what a
>calculator tells them, having cocked up the data entry.

When an HGV driver with no knowledge of an area turns into a road which
appears to be perfectly passable at the junction how are they supposed
to know it will be impassable or a tight squeeze further down the road?

Once they have committed to the road it can be a major issue to try and
turn round or reverse a considerable way to a spot where they can turn
round. It isn't like reversing a car to the nearest entrance and easily
turning round so I very much doubt that there are many HGV drivers out
there who will turn down a road that look decidedly dodgy from the
outset.

--

Dominic Sexton

Roger

The message <7P6dnRxGNMjA-dDanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@pipex.net>
from "Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> contains these words:

> In practice I find that I have to force it to go through specified
> locations
> in order to tailor the route to what I consider sensible.

> But I have found route finding oddities. For example, when calculating a
> short route to a nearby location it takes a fairly straight line, i.e. what
> I'd consider sensible. But when calculating a route to a more distant
> location in the same direction, it will send me off the wrong way to
> link up
> with a bloody motorway, taking a huge detour in the process, when any idiot
> could see that it makes most sense to follow the first route then continue
> from there.

I have a rather elderly copy of AA Milemaster that is deficient in
several respects. It has its knickers in a twist (or nodes in the wrong
sequence) in several areas and the locations on the supplementary list
are each tied to a place on the main list which leads to the ludicrous
situation where you can be routed straight through your ultimate
destination on the way to the intermediate location on the main list,
which is much the same as the knickers in a twist problem with which it
might be associated. In both scenarios it can lead to longer routes
being chosen for you.

When I travel down to S Wales (when not diverting for hills off route) I
always follow the A49 from the M56 to Leominster. Milemaster just won't
have it even though the preferred route via the A483 is the same
distance. It takes the insertion of several vias to get it to follow the
route I prefer.

I have noticed with the Nuvi 310 that there are some calculating
shortcomings over or above the predilection for single track roads. The
particular instance I have in mind is when heading to the NE along the
A65. At Kirby Lonsdale it would have me turn right onto the A683 to
eventually join the M6 at junction 37. Normally when instructions are
ignored the ETA gets progressively longer as the unit tries ever so hard
to get you back on its preferred route (sometimes long after it is the
preferred option even in its own eyes) but in this particular case it
doesn't try and the ETA becomes sooner rather than later.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Roger

The message <M0buMIDVTUTHFwcd@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid>
from Gordon H <Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> contains these words:

> In one case I was unable to work out how to get back onto the main road
> (A556) to get us home, but turned up a narrow lane and trusted the
> SatNav. I was a bit uneasy on a single-track section, but it
> brought us out onto the main road within a couple of miles or so.

> I would not have been happy if I was driving a truck, which brings us
> back to the road sign!

That reminds me of an incident on the weekend Martin joined the Marilyn
Hall of Fame. We were heading for some miserable little Marilyn to round
the day off using the on road programming in Martins handheld (60cs?)
which probably has basically the same software as my Nuvi 310. It routed
us onto a single track short cut which I don't think was the quick
option anyway but we then met white van man who wouldn't back up all of
2 or 3 yards forcing Martin to reverse well over 100 which delayed us
further.

So, for those who still retain the ability to read a map (:-)) which
route would you take from SN 844137 to SN 857100.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Phil Cook

Judith wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:19:03 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
><pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>One thing that's often annoyed me with Autoroute is its tendency to choose
>>motorways whenever possible, sometimes adding considerable extra distance
>>(and expense) just to get there 1 minute faster. I know there's an option to
>>set preferred roads, but wouldn't it be nice to have a halfway option in
>>between shortest and quickest? Something that wouldn't go too far out of its
>>way to include motorways, but which wouldn't include stupid minor roads
>>either?
>
>Yes, I'd like a "Which way would any reasonable person go?" route.

I've got AA Milemaster installed on this computer and it is
interesting to see what it does routing wise! <erk> I often know the
alternative I want to take will be less hassle but getting the thing
to give me a figure on time and distance involves setting a couple of
"via" points.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Geal Charn above Glen Markie
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Oct07/wh11.htm

Chris Gilbert

Dominic Sexton wrote

> When an HGV driver with no knowledge of an area turns into a road which
> appears to be perfectly passable at the junction how are they supposed to
> know it will be impassable or a tight squeeze further down the road?
>
> Once they have committed to the road it can be a major issue to try and
> turn round or reverse a considerable way to a spot where they can turn
> round. It isn't like reversing a car to the nearest entrance and easily
> turning round so I very much doubt that there are many HGV drivers out
> there who will turn down a road that look decidedly dodgy from the outset.

There is a road just outside Macc that suffers from this. Any artic HGV
going down said road gets stuck on a tight bend, requiring an unhitch to
remove the cab frontwards and a five mile detour by the recovery truck
to remove the trailer backwards.

Chris

Jon O'Brien

In article <5aY8lj1sUZTHFwos@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk (Dominic Sexton) wrote:

> The fact is they are reliable in the vast majority of situations.

If only you could tell in which situations they were going to be
unreliable, then they'd be completely reliable. ;-)

> It is the generally high level of reliability that leads drivers into
> a false sense of security in a small percentage of situations.

No. The false sense of security is there /all/ the time. It may only be
proved justified in a small percentage of situations but it always
exists.

> ...the user has to go out of their way to set them up wrongly.

Give people options they can fiddle with and they'll fiddle.

Jon.

Jon O'Brien

In article <JaSwFR2EYZTHFwuM@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk (Dominic Sexton) wrote:

> When an HGV driver with no knowledge of an area turns into a road
> which appears to be perfectly passable at the junction how are they
> supposed to know it will be impassable or a tight squeeze further
> down the road?

They can't know. However, when routing was done manually, with reference
to maps, the people who did the routing would generally avoid sending
commercial vehicles through residential areas when alternatives were
available. Many would also call the delivery address and ask about access
if it was the first time they'd delivered to that location.

It's the blind trust of technology that's the problem, not the technology
itself. As is attested to by the fact that SAT NAV is specifically cited
on the road sign.

Jon.

Dominic Sexton

In article <memo.20071128172947.1696L@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon O'Brien
<Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>In article <5aY8lj1sUZTHFwos@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
>{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk (Dominic Sexton) wrote:
>
>> The fact is they are reliable in the vast majority of situations.
>
>If only you could tell in which situations they were going to be
>unreliable, then they'd be completely reliable. ;-)
>
>> It is the generally high level of reliability that leads drivers into
>> a false sense of security in a small percentage of situations.
>
>No. The false sense of security is there /all/ the time. It may only be
>proved justified in a small percentage of situations but it always
>exists.

It isn't false if the unit does what they expect it to! Which it does in
the vast majority of cases.
>
>> ...the user has to go out of their way to set them up wrongly.
>
>Give people options they can fiddle with and they'll fiddle.

I don't think most people do. Early adopters do but most folk are happy
just to plug it in, switch it on and use it. Only when they have
problems do they wonder if fiddling with it may help.

--

Dominic Sexton

Dominic Sexton

In article <memo.20071128172947.1696M@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon O'Brien
<Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>It's the blind trust of technology that's the problem, not the technology
>itself. As is attested to by the fact that SAT NAV is specifically cited
>on the road sign.

But in reality the problem is with HGVs driving down those roads not why
they drive there so really the sign should be no HGVs or a width,
height, length or weight restriction.

--

Dominic Sexton