View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
M_A_R_K Occasional Visitor
Joined: May 25, 2004 Posts: 25
|
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
DavidW,
You articulate your position well. However, slightly lengthy. I have sent the following to TomTom and await their reply.
"If doing a search by an address and you enter the town/city to visit, then when entering the street name you are offered street names that match, but do not exist in the previously entered town/city. E.G. City - Rochdale (Greater Manchester), Street - Wellington Street. You are then given a choice of 22 Wellington Street's all with different Post Codes when in fact there is only one Wellington Street in Rochdale. It then requires me to know the almost exact Post Code in order to continue. Am I doing something wrong? Is this a design fault?" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chris_de_wet Regular Visitor
Joined: Dec 16, 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Cheshire, UK
|
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
M.A.R.K.
You will find that the 3.03 upgrade now available on the TomTom website should fix this problem. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tom9851 Frequent Visitor
Joined: Feb 14, 2004 Posts: 283 Location: Warrington, Cheshire.
|
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
M.A.R.K. - TTN3 appears to list street entries in order of their distance from the first entry. In the example you gave for Wellington Street, Rochdale. The first entry is indeed Wellington Street (you correctly state that there is only ONE Wellington Street in Rochdale) in Rochdale and each subsequent entry for Wellington Street takes you further and further away with Wellington Street, Milnrow being next then Wellington Street, Littleborough continuing out to Wellington Street, Wigan - which of course is miles away from Rochdale. If you take another example say High Street Oxford - there is only one High Street in Oxford but you are presented with quite a few - again the first entry is correct and each subsequent entry takes you further away - High Street, Cumnor then High Street Eynsham etc etc.
For better or worse - that's the way it seems to work.
Tom
P.S. The above is based on the latest 3.03 upgrade. _________________ ___________
IPAQ2210/ROM-1.10/LEXAR 32X 256MB SD/Kingston ElitePro 1GB CF
TTN3-V3.03/Wired GPS-V3.03/Globalsat BT-338 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NigelJ Regular Visitor
Joined: 17/03/2003 14:53:36 Posts: 70 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DavidW wrote: |
Considering that you get new maps and new software for that price, it's not too bad. (Whilst they're not perfect, the Navigator 3 maps are better than the Navigator 2 ones).
|
Regreatably I cannot agree with this comment as the maps with TTN3 are MUCH worse than those with TTN2 because of all the missing towns. In my area of Wales my three nearest 'large' towns are missing others are mis-spelt and dozons of small places are not even listed in the TTN3 edition. As a volunteer with a charity I might as well not have purchased the upgrade and have reverted to TTN2 - at least that has Dover in it!!!
These places may not be large on the same scale as lsome English towns but are just as difficult to navigae when you are looking for a particular street ECT.
Its not for us the end user who has paid good money for this item to have to report to TT these items for TT should have done their checking before including the faulty Teleatlas maps in the product in the first place.
Nigelj |
|
Back to top |
|
|
anarchy-inc Regular Visitor
Joined: Jun 02, 2004 Posts: 81 Location: P3X-774
|
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NigelJ wrote: | Regreatably I cannot agree with this comment as the maps with TTN3 are MUCH worse than those with TTN2 because of all the missing towns. In my area of Wales my three nearest 'large' towns are missing others are mis-spelt and dozons of small places are not even listed in the TTN3 edition. |
Have you already upgraded to 3.03? Many if not most of these errors have been corrected. It was not a fault of the data but rather the way in which the program accessed it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NigelJ Regular Visitor
Joined: 17/03/2003 14:53:36 Posts: 70 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
anarchy-inc
Thanks for reply and I have now loaded 3.03 has helped in some ways BUT before loading this Newtown (Powys) was not in the database but TTN3 would route you though it as it is on a major road.
Now however Newtown (Powys) appears on the Database but when you input it as the town it moves you to a small hamlet called Abbercwmhir (Powys) about 10 miles from Newtown (Powys). Even worse it will no longer plan a route though Newtown but plans it though small roads which add many miles and time to the journey.
As I said before TTN3 is a terrible programe and TTN2 was much better (not perfect!) - at least routes were planned properly and if this is wrong how many others in parts of the country Iam not familiar with are wrong? I hate to even consider it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DavidW Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: 17/05/2003 02:26:21 Posts: 3747 Location: Bedfordshire, UK
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear all,
It is clear that Navigator 3 3.03 (or 3.04T for those using Traffic) has improved things considerably. Not only are street names sorted sensibly, but many of the missing places are restored (at least after a fashion - I find that if you try to go to the centre of Scarborough, for example, by entering Scarborough, then nothing as the street, you land up somewhere near York!).
It looks like the 'open letter' has done its job. I'm grateful to everyone for their support and depth of feeling over this - and to TomTom for taking the 'open letter' seriously and providing us with significant improvements.
Maybe this thread has now run its course and should be locked - but I'll leave it open for a while to see if there's any further comments.
David |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NigelJ Regular Visitor
Joined: 17/03/2003 14:53:36 Posts: 70 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DavidW,
I feel that until TT agree to make an updated map available this subject cannot be considered ended.
If the maps are incomplete as I am sure you will agree thney are, then the whole programme should not have been put on sale and we, the purchases, have been at the best misled by TT.
I realise that I live in a remote part of the counrty and the towns around me that are missing or with incorrectly locatations in the database may not affect many others on this forum but they do affect me and many holiday makers who may be unfortunate to be using Tom Tom.
As a reitired accountant I do quite a lot of voluntary work for a charity which entails visiting people and I am finding it easier to use the old paper maps than rely on TT to take me to small roads in small towns. These so called small towns usually cover lage areas of the counrtyside as well as the urban areas and I thought that TT would have solved my problems (at least to a lage part) in finding remote places and villages. Regretably this is not the case.
Having looked at other programs I think I shall be changing to CoPilot as this seems to be a much superior program to TT. I had considered using a fixed (built in unit) but as I usually use one of my collection of classic cars for these visits I am loath ruin the original interiors of any of them.
NigelJ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Syt Occasional Visitor
Joined: Feb 29, 2004 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
NigelJ wrote: | I feel that until TT agree to make an updated map available this subject cannot be considered ended.
If the maps are incomplete as I am sure you will agree they are... |
What would you like to see in the updated map that would make the map "complete"?
Please, remember that TomTom can only include as much data in any updated map as has been provided by TeleAtlas. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NigelJ Regular Visitor
Joined: 17/03/2003 14:53:36 Posts: 70 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Syt,
Thanks for the message but I would appreciate it if TT issued a completely new map which included all those places which were in TT2 and are not in TT3. All the places mentioned in my previous correspondance were in TT2.
I note that in another forum which dealt with Scarborough, TT have offered anarchy a new map as they say his copy must be corrupt. If this is the case then we ALL have a corrupt version and should receive an updated map.
If it is a TeleAtlas problem then it is up to the supplier of the program to take this up with TeleAtlas and in fact insure that the data was correct originally - after all our contract of sale is with TT not TeleAtlas.
In English law the seller warrents that the product is suitable for the purpose to which it is to be put. This product in my opinion does not meet this criteria.
I therefore not only expect but DEMAND that the problem is addressed.
NigelJ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Syt Occasional Visitor
Joined: Feb 29, 2004 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
NigelJ,
There was indeed a problem with missing cities in the original TTN3 software/map version. Some time ago TomTom released a 3.03 software update that allowed for the previously missing cities to be found in the address look-up. The 3.03 version seemed to make most of the users happy. If it is not enough for your purposes, I suppose, you can also follow the procedure offered by TomTom to 'anarchy', and request a new CD. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NigelJ Regular Visitor
Joined: 17/03/2003 14:53:36 Posts: 70 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Syt,
I already have requested an updated map as offered to anarchy-inc - on Sunday (11th June) - and I will inform the forum how my request is dealt with - if I get a reply!
NigelJ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NigelJ Regular Visitor
Joined: 17/03/2003 14:53:36 Posts: 70 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Syt,
I must update my last post. All reference to 'anachy-inc' should have read 'timetec' (sorry -must be getting old!) but see 'Navigator3 Places not in Database' Page 8 Thursday July 8
NigelJ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Syt Occasional Visitor
Joined: Feb 29, 2004 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NigelJ,
Me too. I was lazy and just copied the reference to 'anarchy' from your post without consulting the original thread. Pity I cannot edit my posts (yet?). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gokhart Regular Visitor
Joined: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 112 Location: London
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NigelJ wrote: |
In English law the seller warrents that the product is suitable for the purpose to which it is to be put. This product in my opinion does not meet this criteria.
NigelJ |
This is a very interesting point on the quality of the product and it suitability for the purpose of its use. In order to find a description for the suitability of use I checked the Tomtom website for a description of the product.
After reading this, I do feel that there are fundamental flaws and whilst the majortiy of us may never experience these flaws driving our regular and popular routes, the system obviously does not manage this for NigelJ. He is entitled to have the same expectations and requirements as the rest of us e.g. "With Navigator you‘ll always know how to get from A to B." (from their website).
The fact that the map data is incomplete even at the time of sale does suggest that something is not right. We cannot expect Tomtom to pass the blame to the map data supplier (otherwise we can see this happening with every sub-contracted manufacture).
I'm with you NigelJ, give us a product that does what it says on the box
_________________ IPAQ 2210 Rom 1.00 CF 512MB
TT3 / TTBT & Fortuna Clip-On |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|