Forget satnav - it's quicker using a map, Which? tells motorists

"Bohica" <bohica@m> kirjoitti
viestissä:yFo5h.38167$r4.32990@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >Forget satnav - it's quicker using a map, Which? tells motorists
>
> <snip>
>
> I've contemplated getting a satnav, but then decided I didn't need it. I
> hardly ever get lost going places, and always remember how to get there
> should I ever need to go again. I simply use road numbers on road signs
> and remember landmarks on the way. If I'm going somewhere for the first
> time, I sit looking at the map for about 5 or 10 mins the day before and
> commit to memory things like the road layout and landmarks on the map,
> like bridges, or pylons or on a town map, the shape of buildings. If I'm
> looking for a street, I envisage driving down the road and then count down
> the other streets or roads that proceed the one I want to turn down.
>
Let's say the route is rather complex (I have an awfully bad memory myself).
You start your day on Long Island in Greenport at 449 Flint Street. Your
task is to get to the address of 289 Carlton Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
When you have reached this location you further drive to the address of 2652
Morton Avenue in Norfolk Would you describe the route turn by turn, please.


> I wonder how many accidents have occured recently with people being more
> interested with what's happening on the little screen in front of them,
> rather than the big windscreen?
>
This is an issue. You are right.

"Mike Lane" <invalid@mac.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:0001HW.C17D0E69001BEC22F04075B0@news.cab le.ntlworld.com...
>
> I think a unit dedicated to use in-car may be better in this respect. I
> have the Garmin StreetPilot 2610 which has the specific option to avoid
> toll roads. I've used it in France with this option set and it does
> seem to avoid them completely.
>
This is very much true. Limited memory capacity (115MB) of my device is one
more feature which is by no means ideal for navigation in very large a
region (like the Western Europe or North America). To load all the maps of
the Western Europe requires at least 10 times but perhaps more like 15 times
more spacious memory in the terminal today. So, in practice I have to carry
my laptop along as well. It isn't a bad idea in the grand tours (like the
one I completed last summer) but in many instances it would be an attractive
possibility to travel without it. I suppose my third terminal will have much
faster processor, support for both Galileo and GPS signals and a flash card
voluminous enough to store all the maps (when available) required on any
journey.

"Bohica" <bohica@m> wrote in message
news:yFo5h.38167$r4.32990@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
....
> I wonder how many accidents have occured recently with people being more
> interested with what's happening on the little screen in front of them,
> rather than the big windscreen?

On a decent system, you don't look at the screen while driving. You listen
to the instructions being given.

Colin Bignell

"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> kirjoitti
viestissä:7_-dnS6d371BJ8rYnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Bohica" <bohica@m> wrote in message
> news:yFo5h.38167$r4.32990@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> ...
>> I wonder how many accidents have occured recently with people being more
>> interested with what's happening on the little screen in front of them,
>> rather than the big windscreen?
>
> On a decent system, you don't look at the screen while driving. You listen
> to the instructions being given.
>
One more shortcoming in my terminal: there is no voice line but I have to
stare at the screen.

Following up to Mike Lane <invalid@mac.com> :

>not to mention a small fortune to buy them


How much did the sat nav cost you , plus map CDs etc?
--
Tim C.

Following up to The Reid <dontuse@fellwalk.co.uk> :

> Not to mention highlighting speed cameras.

why would you need that function Mike? ;-)
--
Tim C.

Following up to Mike Lane <invalid@mac.com> :

>> How much did the sat nav cost you , plus map CDs etc?
>>
>
>That's an unreasonable comparison.

Not at all. You're comparing the cost two navigation tools. Maps and a GPS
system. You should include the total cost of each.
1) Maps, pencils and perhaps some paper to scribble on.
2) GPS unit, map data. Arguably a PC to plan your route comfortable at
home as well.
--
Tim C.

Following up to The Reid <dontuse@fellwalk.co.uk> :

>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:35:04 GMT, Mike Lane <invalid@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>Garmin charge 300 US dollars for the map
>>data of Europe, (but it's included in the initial cost of the GPS unit)
>>and about 70 dollars for an update about once every year if you choose.
>>For comparison, the cost of paper maps to cover just the British Isles
>>at a scale of 1:50000 takes over 200 maps at a cost of around 1300 UK
>>pounds. (Maybe one would get a discount for quantity though :-)
>
>I'm not sure thats a fair comparison either, the 1:50000 map has a lot
>more data than the CD surely? I never use that series for car
>navigation, you want something smaller scale. I think map + GPS is the
>answer.


I don't know what the different models are like, but I'd agree there - Maps
may well have contour lines and individual buildings marked - and there's a
bigger choice printed map styles - some more clear than others, whereas the
GPS maps tend to concentrate on the roads. Horses for courses, naturally.
Plus maps are cheaper to run (no batteries).
--
Tim C.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:47:57 +0000, The Reid wrote
(in article <ncnll21b9kk8isk7bvtdf1tse1mfamq619@>):

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:35:04 GMT, Mike Lane <invalid@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Garmin charge 300 US dollars for the map
>> data of Europe, (but it's included in the initial cost of the GPS unit)
>> and about 70 dollars for an update about once every year if you choose.
>> For comparison, the cost of paper maps to cover just the British Isles
>> at a scale of 1:50000 takes over 200 maps at a cost of around 1300 UK
>> pounds. (Maybe one would get a discount for quantity though :-)
>
> I'm not sure thats a fair comparison either, the 1:50000 map has a lot
> more data than the CD surely?

It's hard to say. Navteq maps used by many GPS systems contain little
topographical detail, but have an awful lot of data on the roads
themselves which paper maps will not have. As well as the basic
geometry of the road, dozens of attributes are recorded for each
section of road - things like lane configuration, one-way roads, no
right or left turns, roundabout layouts, single or dual carriage-way,
street names, house numbers and so on. The Navteq data for the British
Isles occupies about 160 Mb - i.e. quite a lot - (the complete works of
Shakespeare are around 5 Mb for comparison)

--
Mike Lane (UK North Yorkshire)
To contact me replace invalid with mike underscore lane

"Mike Lane" <invalid@mac.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:0001HW.C1812AF5000B7897F04075B0@news.cab le.ntlworld.com...
>
> It's hard to say. Navteq maps used by many GPS systems contain little
> topographical detail, but have an awful lot of data on the roads
> themselves which paper maps will not have. As well as the basic

Space is an issue in road maps. For instance Garmin (Navteq dbase) City
Navigator road map for Western Europe project all of Finland in size 110 MB.
Even not so detailed topographic maps would require roughly 10 or so times
more space. For instance a third party toporaphic atlas for Finland called
Vapaa-ajan kartta is very much like that.

And naturally speed is also a critical issue: typically terminals are built
around a processor which is not decently able to calculate zillions of
vectors to faciliate a frame of a topographic image and project it on
screen. These processes should be repeated in high frequency in order to pan
the map fast enough to keep the motor vehicle which is moving at velocity of
120 km/h on the visible part of the map all the time. Response times would
be far too lengthy so that instant mapping would do any good. Naturally
processing power is increasing all the time and perhaps already today
fastest recreational terminals (other than PCs) are able to instruct
motorists on detailed topographic maps.

Also, the size of most screens constitutes a bottle neck: it wouldn't be
anyhow beneficial to stare complex drawings on surface of that tiny three
inch screen. It would be quite a mesh indeed. Naturally a very high
resolution would be a solution but on the other hand that would require
lots of processing power......

All in all, as long as we don't have too fancy gadgets, we can say that most
motorist are willing to drive from one address to the next one using solely
a road network. They don't very much care about topographic features on the
map. It isn't too relevant.