Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: Tweaking CoPilot 6's routing.
Along with many other people, I have been dissapointed with many of the routes generated by CoPilot 6.
However, rather than just complain about it, I thought that I would try changing a few settings first to see what effect they had.
While I would never claim to have 'cured' the problem; so far, the results I have been getting have been encouraging, with better routes being produced most of the time.
What has suprised me is how little I changed to get the improved (for me) results.
I created a new Routing profile with the Road Type Preferences for Motorways reduced by 1 (to Avoid), and increased the Primary Roads by 2 (to Strongly Favour).
I would be interested to hear if anyone else had tried any changes, and how they worked for them.
Although, I should add that I have found a problem with the routing profiles processing, in that even when default, or basic is selected (and shown in all the screens as being) the parameters in the previous profile are the ones being used.
The quickest fix I have found is to create an additional new profile, make one change to it, OK the change, then change it back the standard settings. This profile can than be selected to return the settings to their defaults.
Sometimes, if you don't make, then undo a change to the new 'default' profile, its settings aren't used either.
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:27 am Post subject:
Having spent a good deal of time on a similar exercise to that now proposed by Neil01, I don’t consider myself to have “just complain[ed] about it” – although I have certainly highlighted the deficiencies, particularly in CP 5.
It has always been possible to tweak the Road Type Preferences and Road Speeds to obtain more bias towards one kind of road over others. However, if a particular combination of biases produces sensible routes for short hops out in the rural lanes and unclassified roads, it will not produce them when it is sensible to use motorways and major roads - unless I am very much mistaken, not only in my thinking but alkso in my observation. Therefore, I suggest that two or more routing profiles would necessary to produce sensible routes for all situations – whatever the definition of “sensible”, which will, to some extent, vary from user to user.
I have to say that I am sceptical, as, for example, no amount of tweaking will eliminate motorways from a journey even when it is physically possible to do so given the roads between start and destination. That immediately throws the entire Advanced Settings system into question. That is one reason why, so far, I have been disinclined to spend time on Advanced Settings and Profiles since they were included on the PPC version. I will certainly try to find time to try the settings that Neil has specified, but it already seems clear that they won't be universally preferable.
I still believe that, ultimately, ALK themselves will need to apply more thought to routing logic and provide pre-designed profiles to suit a range of journeying needs. They also need to explain their existing routing logic, so that users can know a little better what is supposed to be the effect of this or that adjustment to the algorithm. _________________ Dell Axims X50v & X30 (both WM 2003 2nd Edition). Copilot BTGPS3 and Fortuna Clip-on BT receivers. Jabra BT 250 audio headsets. Welltech 40032/AF32 BT handsfree audio. Copilot 6.0.4.110. TomTom Navigator 5.21. MS Autoroute/Pocket Streets 2005
Perhaps it wasn't 100% clear (as the written word so often isn't), but when I said '..rather than just complin about it...', I was stating a philosopy, rather than making a criticism, and apologise unreservedly to anyone who felt otherwise.
As for ponderous' assertion that it is not possible to avoid Motorways, I can only agree. Even with the weightings for Motorways set to strongly avoid, and all the others to strongly favour, and Avoid major roads, they will still be used. While I agree that avoiding motorways is not one of my priorities, I do know that there are people and vehicles who are prevented from using them. Also, with the exception of Motorway service stations, there is nowhere in the UK which cannot be reached by using non-motorway roads only.
Having said that, I do not know if it is possible to create a profile manually to obtain the desired result.
I also agree with Ponderous that it is unlikely that there will be one profile which will cover all situations, and that will probably remain until there is a system of dynamically changing profiles.
Also, if you think about how you plan your own routes, you will realise that in many cases you will stick to the main roads for all but the start and finish of your journey; but the nearer to either end of your journey you are, the more prepared to use the most minor of roads you become.
Like Ponderous, I would like to know ALKs reasoning, it would help with preparing our own profiles.
Working from the premise that more than one profile will be required, if anyone comes up with a profile which improves the routing for any type of journey, perhaps it will be appropriate to state the weaknesses as well as strengths of the profile. After all, it would be pointless to criticise a profile for its poor local journey routes, if it is intended for longer cross country ones.
My route was intended as simply the starting point for an improved basic profile, and so far, for me at least, the routes produced have for me, always been at least as good, with many being a significant improvement. But I can only really comment on how good a route is, where I am familiar with the area. For example if you were to use my profile from Pilgrove way in Cheltenham to Swindon in Wiltshire, although in my opinion much improved, the return journey is not the same (it avoids the M5). However, the route it does produce is a viable alternative which although I would be unlikely to use, I would not reject.
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject:
I know from Neil01's previous contributions to the forum that he wasn't aiming any kind of personal criticism, and I hope he can accept that.
In turn, I was not suggesting that he was wrong to attempt to bring out what other users have discovered about route tweaking(and if I was, then that would be my problem, not his, for sure).
I just wanted to add my observations in the light of my own previous thoughts and experiments.
I would add to what Neil now says about it making sense to keep to the main roads for most of a journey:
Whether that is true does depend on the circumstances. Until recently, I would often work in a compact area, calling on numerous homes that might be two to ten miles between addresses. The sort of routes that CP 5 used to produce were simply unacceptable. A three mile journey would become seven or eight, for example. I didn't use CP 6 for long enough before giving up that work, so, although I know that aspect has been improved, I am not sure how much.
While it is true that on longer journeys there is likely to be a preference for main roads, CP 6 routes through the centre of just about every town, at least when set at Default. What is needed is a routing logic that, among other things, routes away from the town centres.
One might suggest that, until there is a better routing logic, the routes be tailored using waypoints. However, the lack of quick and efficient route review facilities in CP 6 means that this would involve lots of scrolling and panning, which can frequently cause the loss of the route from the viewing window. The user then has to decide between using up time trying to trace the route and accepting the route already calculated.
Of course, none of this negates any routing profile that any user produces that improves the routing logic for a particular situation. It is nevertheless relevant.
Joined: May 09, 2005 Posts: 283 Location: Reading, UK
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject:
PONDEROUS wrote:
While it is true that on longer journeys there is likely to be a preference for main roads, CP 6 routes through the centre of just about every town, at least when set at Default. What is needed is a routing logic that, among other things, routes away from the town centres.
This is also my biggest complaint about the routing algorithms, and makes travelling around conurbations without good local knowledge a significant problem. Unfortunately, good local knowledge makes you more irritated with the routes that it finds.
I would expect the map data to downgrade roads, whatever their category, if they have significant numbers of traffic lights and other bottlenecks, so I don't know whether this is NavTeq's problem, or CoPilot's 'misuse' of the data. Unlike motorways, most A-class roads pass directly through town centres, and are often slower at that point than local roads.
I would expect this to become a problem for some time to come, since categorising all of the roads accurately by local knowledge, time of day, road-calming measures, rat-runs, school runs, traffic lights, roundabouts, etc, is still a long way away. It probably requires a traffic sensor on every road, and a very large computer. Personally, I would like to massively downgrade any roads with speed bumps, since my car has very hard suspension, and my back hates them.
However, for the moment, it would be better to be able to negatively weight routes according to their closeness to town centres, or make better use of Navteq's road weightings if that data is available. _________________ Ian
iPaq 2210
Globalsat BT-338
Seidio G2500 Amplified Vent Mount
CoPilot 6, GPS Tuner 4.2, Navio 3.01
BMW 330ci Sport
Joined: Nov 29, 2004 Posts: 303 Location: West Sussex
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject:
As a ' CP6 customer', I had no idea that I would have these many problems when out and about....seems like I need to try and get my money back and go for the leaders ; TomTom. ?
As a ' CP6 customer', I had no idea that I would have these many problems when out and about....seems like I need to try and get my money back and go for the leaders ; TomTom. ?
Don't be so sure on that one - many of us who have tried other applications have returned to using CoPilot as the main application again. I think that it is the fact that many of us believe that CoPilot is so close to being brilliant which frustrates us so much. Yes, TomTom is easier and better out of the box, but if you aren't satisfied with how it is planning a route, it is more difficult to enforce your will.
Back to CoPilots routing, I have a theory about the inadequate routing possibly being down to road types. Now I was shown how to navigate in the UK, and to be honest if you have the right maps the fundemantals are quite simple.
All UK roads are classified by their importance in getting around the county, not their size or speed.
We start with motorways (Blue) Primary A roads (Green) other A roads (Red), B roads (Yellow) and the remainder which can sometimes be further distinguished, but these roads would not normally be used significant portions of most journies. Note that it is quite possible to have a Dual carriageway with a 70mph limit yet only be a B road, while Green roads are often just single carriageways. I have even travelled on red A roads where large vehicles have great difficulty in passing, but there just isn't a practical alternative route.
Just look at a road atlas for a small town or village which has a bypass, the colour (and hence the classification of importance) is allocated to the bypass and not the route through the town.
So, for routing in the UK (I can't comment for other countries) much of the hard work has been done for you. Since many of the SatNavs of both TeleAtlas and Navteq flavours manage to distinguish between the road types correctly (even if the colour coding is not UK standard), I presume that this information is held, just not being used to its full advantage by CoPilot, which doesn't appear to distinguish between Red and Green A roads (in my opinion, possibly one of the most important distinctions which should be made).
Quite simply, efficient routes can usually be obtained by using the most important roads, and sticking to them until there is a significant reduction in distance offered by a road of lesser, but still significant importance. I would even go so far as to suggest, that most journeys of any significant length (with the obvious exception of departure point and destination) can be made using just motorways and A roads
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject:
neil01 wrote:
Quite simply, efficient routes can usually be obtained by using the most important roads, and sticking to them until there is a significant reduction in distance offered by a road of lesser, but still significant importance.
The problem is that quite often CoPilot will not even consider using lesser roads if it finds a motorway route. This causes wacky routes where you are routed North towards London, around the M25 and back down south towards your destination when the fastest road was an A road. _________________ Gone fishing!
...The problem is that quite often CoPilot will not even consider using lesser roads if it finds a motorway route. This causes wacky routes where you are routed North towards London, around the M25 and back down south towards your destination when the fastest road was an A road.
I know what you mean - getting CoPilot to avoid the M25 is quite a challenge.
Out of interest, do the two changes I suggested, have any effect on the route you described?
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject:
Neil01 writes:
Quote:
Don't be so sure on that one - many of us who have tried other applications have returned to using CoPilot as the main application again. I think that it is the fact that many of us believe that CoPilot is so close to being brilliant which frustrates us so much. Yes, TomTom is easier and better out of the box, but if you aren't satisfied with how it is planning a route, it is more difficult to enforce your will.
I endorse those remarks almost wholeheartedly. Until the state of the art is upped, I think that Copilot would carry it by miles if only it had those route review facilities I keep on about and better thought-out and more comprehensive POI facilities. _________________ Dell Axims X50v & X30 (both WM 2003 2nd Edition). Copilot BTGPS3 and Fortuna Clip-on BT receivers. Jabra BT 250 audio headsets. Welltech 40032/AF32 BT handsfree audio. Copilot 6.0.4.110. TomTom Navigator 5.21. MS Autoroute/Pocket Streets 2005
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:25 am Post subject:
Neil01 writes:
Quote:
And, taking us back to the reason for this thread, better routing!
Point taken. It can be frustrating when a thread seems in danger of going off at a tangent.
Having said so, both of the aspects that I mentioned did affect the ability of the user to input a route. In the case of POIs, life is much easier if they are available for inclusion as stops and destinations at the touch of a stylus on a screen that shows the route so far calculated.
I know that, in the strictest sense, the thread is concerned with route calculation, but these are issues that make it more difficult/would make it easier to live with CP 6's present calculations.
Joined: Apr 18, 2006 Posts: 207 Location: Up North
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:19 am Post subject:
I did try to play with the settings, and set up a "country roads" setting, with motorways and main roads strongly negative, side roads strongly positve.
It gave some very silly results, taking me off on 3 sides of a square, tehn crossing the main road to go off down a side road hte other side of hte main road. When we found that was an old railway, I gave up.
OK, so lets edit the trip, and start driving again, this time choosing default as the routing. NOPE< it still went with the side raods. The only way I could get out of htat was to reboot my iPaq.
I've gone back to the default faster option and given up on tweaking. Life is too short. Mind you the routing is very odd - different entirely on the same route driven opposite ways. Worse still, I found that the PC version chose different routes when I first began to use Copilot.
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject:
Fellwalker wrote:
Quote:
The only way I could get out of htat was to reboot my iPaq.
While it is true that the default settings are lost from the routing profile named Default, they aren't lost altogether. If you set up a new "Advanced" profile and don't alter any settings within the template, that will give you back the default settings. I expect, although I haven't tried it, it will be possible to delete the "old" Default profile under the OS so that your new "Advanced" profile can then be named as Default and will become available under "Basic".
Of course, none of this should be necessary, and ALK do need to get these things ironed out before putting them out into the market. _________________ Dell Axims X50v & X30 (both WM 2003 2nd Edition). Copilot BTGPS3 and Fortuna Clip-on BT receivers. Jabra BT 250 audio headsets. Welltech 40032/AF32 BT handsfree audio. Copilot 6.0.4.110. TomTom Navigator 5.21. MS Autoroute/Pocket Streets 2005
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!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
Whether that is true does depend on the circumstances. Until recently, I would often work in a compact area, calling on numerous homes that might be two to ten miles between addresses. The sort of routes that CP 5 used to produce were simply unacceptable. A three mile journey would become seven or eight, for example. I didn't use CP 6 for long enough before giving up that work, so, although I know that aspect has been improved, I am not sure how much.
