A Satellite Navigation and Global Positioing Systems forum. Sat Nav Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Sat Nav Banter forum » GPS and Sat Nav Newsgroups » sci.geo.satellite-nav (Global Satellite Navigation)
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

sci.geo.satellite-nav (Global Satellite Navigation) (sci.geo.satellite-nav) Discussion of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). Topics include the technical aspects of GNSS operation, user experiences in the use of GNSS, information regarding GNSS products and discussion of GNSS policy (such as GPS selective availability).

26xx - Saving tracks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 5th 04, 03:53 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,215
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

Seagull wrote:

gomez wrote:

Sure you have a use for it, but it does not belong in a device that is
exclusively designed for auto-routing.


That is a very arrogant presumption about what other people would
like/need to have.



It's not presumptiopn at all. As has been pointed out on this newsgroup
multiple times, trackbacks on an auto-routing unit make no sense because
roads have a direction associated with them. An autoroute can very easily
include one-way streets and divided highways. Following a trackback can
send you the wrong way down a road.


Despite the name, "trackbacks" can be used just as well when following a
route in the original direction. I actually use the feature much more
in that way than to go back the way I came. E.g. if someone once took
you to their remote cabin somewhere where the roads are poorly marked
you can then use the trackback feature to find your way back there
again. The autorouting capability might not be of any help since that
depends on the maps being accurate and including all the right roads.

  #22  
Old August 5th 04, 03:59 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
gomez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

On 5 Aug 2004 15:14:53 GMT, Seagull dropped the
following oil-slick:

gomez wrote:

That is a very arrogant presumption about what other people would
like/need to have.


It's not presumptiopn at all. As has been pointed out on this newsgroup
multiple times, trackbacks on an auto-routing unit make no sense because
roads have a direction associated with them.


Just because something has been said on this NG doesn't make it
gospel. Your A implies B is a specious argument.

An autoroute can very easily
include one-way streets and divided highways. Following a trackback can
send you the wrong way down a road.


Yes we know.

Now, the ability to reverse a route (meaning, revisit your via points
in reverse order) makes a lot more sense since the unit would calculate
a new route for you.


Which is something I have asked for before.

This is complicated by the fact that some road
geometries are not even easily reversed (think highway off-ramps that
have no corresponding on-ramp, and visa-versa), but it's still creating
a new route for you which is not the same as a trackback where you are
retracing your steps exactly.


Yes, we know.

Apart from which what makes you think the 26xx is
*exclusively* designed for autorouting?


Ummm...what makes you think it isn't?


I was querying your use of the word "exclusively. There are features
in the SP which need not be included if it *was* an exclusively
autorouting unit.
--
gomez
(not is hot to reply)
"The progress of the kart is more important than its direction"
  #23  
Old August 5th 04, 06:50 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Seagull
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

gomez wrote:

It's not presumptiopn at all. As has been pointed out on this newsgroup
multiple times, trackbacks on an auto-routing unit make no sense because
roads have a direction associated with them.


Just because something has been said on this NG doesn't make it
gospel. Your A implies B is a specious argument.


How is it specious? Please enlighten us. To paraphrase your own words,
just saying it doesn't make it so. I've laid out a pretty good case for
why trackbacks don't belong on the 26xx (and might in fact be extremely
dangerous). All you've done so far is disagree without providing a
counter-argument.

We don't have to agree on this point, but it would be nice if you laid
out a justification for your position.

Now, the ability to reverse a route (meaning, revisit your via points
in reverse order) makes a lot more sense since the unit would calculate
a new route for you.


Which is something I have asked for before.


And I'd like to see it to. Though that's not the same as a trackback,
though, so I still don't see where the disagreement is here?

Apart from which what makes you think the 26xx is
*exclusively* designed for autorouting?


Ummm...what makes you think it isn't?


I was querying your use of the word "exclusively. There are features
in the SP which need not be included if it *was* an exclusively
autorouting unit.


Like which ones? I suppose WAAS support qualifies, though that is
probably there for marketing reasons (it wasn't even present in the first
releases of the product).

Regardless, it's still very clear what the target market is. We can
argue the semantics of exclusive vs. some other term, but that doesn't
change the reality of the product.


Cheers,
-+JLS

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
  #24  
Old August 5th 04, 06:56 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Seagull
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

Peter wrote:

Despite the name, "trackbacks" can be used just as well when following a
route in the original direction. I actually use the feature much more
in that way than to go back the way I came. E.g. if someone once took
you to their remote cabin somewhere where the roads are poorly marked
you can then use the trackback feature to find your way back there
again.


This is a reasonable idea (unless you had big gaps in your track log
or GPS position jumps), though I think a better approach would be to
use MapSource to trace over the tracklog with the route tool (in direct
route mode) and download it to the unit as a route. That way you could
save it as a route in the GPS and not worry about the limited track log
space.


Cheers,
-+JLS

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
  #25  
Old August 5th 04, 08:24 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
gomez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

On 5 Aug 2004 18:50:03 GMT, Seagull dropped the
following oil-slick:

gomez wrote:

It's not presumptiopn at all. As has been pointed out on this newsgroup
multiple times, trackbacks on an auto-routing unit make no sense because
roads have a direction associated with them.


Just because something has been said on this NG doesn't make it
gospel. Your A implies B is a specious argument.


How is it specious? Please enlighten us. To paraphrase your own words,
just saying it doesn't make it so. I've laid out a pretty good case for
why trackbacks don't belong on the 26xx (and might in fact be extremely
dangerous). All you've done so far is disagree without providing a
counter-argument.


Ok. There are some users who have said they would find the trackback
feature useful on the 26xx (although I am not one of them). Is that
not justification enough? Whether it is or it isn't, the fact that
some road segments are directional is irrelevant to the case.

Now, the ability to reverse a route (meaning, revisit your via points
in reverse order) makes a lot more sense since the unit would calculate
a new route for you.


Which is something I have asked for before.


And I'd like to see it to. Though that's not the same as a trackback,
though, so I still don't see where the disagreement is here?


As it happens, I looked back at an earlier post on this where you did
disagree with me on this. Looks like you have now changed your view
(or maybe I didn't explain what I was asking for clearly enough).

Apart from which what makes you think the 26xx is
*exclusively* designed for autorouting?

Ummm...what makes you think it isn't?


I was querying your use of the word "exclusively. There are features
in the SP which need not be included if it *was* an exclusively
autorouting unit.


Like which ones? I suppose WAAS support qualifies, though that is
probably there for marketing reasons (it wasn't even present in the first
releases of the product).


Like being able to specify waypoints in latitude/longitude (surely
address search is sufficient). Like the presence of the off-road
routing option. Like the presence of track logging in the first
place.

It just occurred to me that, we may be intepreting the term
auto-routing in different ways:

1) Automatically calculate routes from A to B (via C, etc)

2) Calculate routes for use by an automobile.

I mean 1), I hope you do too (sic).
--
gomez
(not is hot to reply)
"The progress of the kart is more important than its direction"
  #26  
Old August 5th 04, 09:12 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Seagull
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

gomez wrote:

Ok. There are some users who have said they would find the trackback
feature useful on the 26xx (although I am not one of them). Is that
not justification enough?


That's justification for what you want, but it doesn't answer the
question of wether or not it is appropriate on the 2610 given its
design.

Whether it is or it isn't, the fact that
some road segments are directional is irrelevant to the case.


Not at all. That piece of information is /why/ trackbacks don't
make sense: in many cases, that piece of information makes following
trackbacks impossible (or at least illegal and dangerous).

As it happens, I looked back at an earlier post on this where you did
disagree with me on this. Looks like you have now changed your view


I have changed my view. I found a few cases where reversing a route
with vias makes some sense. They all involved situations where I wanted
to force a route through an area where the road data was inaccurate
or suboptimal, and using vias was the easiest approach to generating a
useable route.

Like being able to specify waypoints in latitude/longitude (surely
address search is sufficient).


Address search is not always sufficient. Sometimes the street address
information is missing or way off. Being able to enter a coordinate in
Lat/long is very handy and generally provides greater accuracy. A
handfull of businesses publich Lat/Long coords for their stores (REI is
a good example of one). This trend may increase with the market acceptance
of navigation systems.

Like the presence of the off-road routing option.


Maybe. Not sure I agree here but I can't think of a good argument.

Like the presence of track logging in the first place.


There a lot of people who use track logs. Very handy if you are wanting
to save rough estimates of mileage or a log of where the car was driven.

1) Automatically calculate routes from A to B (via C, etc)
2) Calculate routes for use by an automobile.


I am actually using 1) but with the caveat of "along a network".


Cheers,
-+JLS

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
  #27  
Old August 5th 04, 10:03 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
gomez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

On 5 Aug 2004 21:12:59 GMT, Seagull dropped the
following oil-slick:

That's justification for what you want, but it doesn't answer the
question of wether or not it is appropriate on the 2610 given its
design.


How about, after I filled up my motorbike with petrol, I forget to put
the magnetic tank-bag back in place and leave it perched on the
pillion seat. Some miles later it flies off and some miles after I
realise it has gone (this is a true case scenario for a friend of mine
this spring - fortunately he was riding in a group and the guy
following him definitely noticed).

I can't remember which way I came through all those quaint, twisty
lanes we have in the UK. I want to find my tank-bag. What do I do?
I am sure we can think ot lots of other reasons why you need to
retrace your actual route (subject to the provisos below)..

Whether it is or it isn't, the fact that
some road segments are directional is irrelevant to the case.


Not at all. That piece of information is /why/ trackbacks don't
make sense: in many cases, that piece of information makes following
trackbacks impossible (or at least illegal and dangerous).


Only if you are idiotic enough to try and follow it to the letter.

Like being able to specify waypoints in latitude/longitude (surely
address search is sufficient).


Address search is not always sufficient. Sometimes the street address
information is missing or way off.


But that is a deficiency in the map-data. Nothing to do with the
design of the 26xx.

Being able to enter a coordinate in
Lat/long is very handy and generally provides greater accuracy. A
handfull of businesses publich Lat/Long coords for their stores (REI is
a good example of one). This trend may increase with the market acceptance
of navigation systems.


And I agree with you. What at first sight to some might appear not so
useful actually *is* useful to other people. I think that's a qed
right there.
--
gomez
(not is hot to reply)
"The progress of the kart is more important than its direction"
  #28  
Old August 5th 04, 10:10 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,215
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

Seagull wrote:

gomez wrote:


Like the presence of the off-road routing option.



Maybe. Not sure I agree here but I can't think of a good argument.


Like the presence of track logging in the first place.



There a lot of people who use track logs. Very handy if you are wanting
to save rough estimates of mileage or a log of where the car was driven.

I think we're all agreed that it can be useful. But those things have
nothing to do with autorouting, which you agreed is defined as
"automatically calculate routes from A to B (via C, etc)
'along a network'."

So if tracklogs are a proper function of the 26xx series then those
models aren't meant "exclusively for autorouting."

  #29  
Old August 5th 04, 10:24 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Seagull
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

wrote:

Well I never did see where Garmin claimed that the 2610 was
designed for road navigation exclusively.


The implication is all over their marketing literature and Web site.

Look at
http://www.garmin.com/mobile/products.html and you'll see it's
under the "automotive" section.

From the product page:

Garmin has raised the bar for portable automotive navigation with the
StreetPilot 2610. This capable navigator offers everything you want in an
automotive navigation system--automatic route capability, voice prompts
and a large color display--for much less than built-in systems.

We can argue the semantics of what they literally say in black and white,
but the intended market for the 2610 is awfully clear.

I also believe
that the engineers at Garmin put more memory than they
currently need into all their units, as demonstrated all the
time by software upgrades.


It's also a matter of development time.

added, not to start an argument. It also comes to mind
that the 12 volt power receptacle in automobiles was not
designed to power a GPS but we are all glad it will also do
that.


I don't understand how this is relevant. The power receptacle is
a generic, multi-purpose 12 volt DC power source. That was its
intention.


Cheers,
-+JLS

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
  #30  
Old August 5th 04, 10:32 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Seagull
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default 26xx - Saving tracks

gomez wrote:

I can't remember which way I came through all those quaint, twisty
lanes we have in the UK. I want to find my tank-bag. What do I do?
I am sure we can think of lots of other reasons why you need to
retrace your actual route (subject to the provisos below)..


My view is that those provisos are the important issue.

Not at all. That piece of information is /why/ trackbacks don't
make sense: in many cases, that piece of information makes following
trackbacks impossible (or at least illegal and dangerous).


Only if you are idiotic enough to try and follow it to the letter.


And herein lies the point. The GPS should never tell you to do something
stupid. Routing you the wrong way down a one-way street or highway is
stupid.

Now, we can all raise the case where map data might be wrong and reality
doesn't match the map...but my argument is that the 2610 should never give
you a route that is inconsistent with the map data. The GPS can't do
anything about inconsistancies with reality because it has no way of
knowing the difference. But it shouldn't be disobey its own internal
map rules, becuase it knows what those are.

And I agree with you. What at first sight to some might appear not so
useful actually *is* useful to other people. I think that's a qed
right there.


Except "useful" and "appropriate" are not always the same thing.

Anyway, I think we've both made our points so I'll let this thread die.
I'll read your response if/when you send it out but probably won't clutter
the thread any further by rehashing my opinions.


Cheers,
-+JLS

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Sat Nav Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.