Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
Pocket GPS World - SatNavs | GPS | Speed Cameras: Forums

Pocket GPS World :: View topic - i3 gave me a puncture :@
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in for private messagesLog in for private messages   Log inLog in 

i3 gave me a puncture :@
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> Garmin Portable Navigation Devices
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jaff
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Jul 08, 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the speeds of each road must be taken into concideration and not the quality of those roads, as the predicted ETA, factors inthe speed limit of the road.
May I3 is determined to make me take the farm roads around my area as those are 60 limits however you could never do 60 on them unless you wanted to destroy your suspenton, the farm roads tend actually to be longer however the system uses them as these are "faster" than the normal 30 roads but in practical terms the normal roads are far quicker.

But to be perfectly honest, i cant see what peoples grumbles are the I3 is a perfectly good sat nav at a damn good price.
my one cost £90, and you get more than what you pay for, its a simple piece of kit to get you from A-B as quickly and trouble free as possible. If youwant to have a sat nav which does what would have to be quite complicated calculations and not have to wait 10 minuts for it to decide upon the best route and do lot of other fancy stuff then your only option is to buy a more expensive unit, but that is not to say it will be better, the more things i has to do the more things can go wrong and doo pourly.
At he minute for the I3 it does exactly what i says in the tin and there is basically nothing any of us can do to improve its performance unless you are a serious software deleloper whjo can programm and interface with the unit to change its capabilites. All we can do it tweek what is can pick from, the only way i can see being able to do what you suggest someone would have to amend the units basic software to include in the route preferances to avoid minor roads but that would also need amendments of the maps, as you can already avoid unpaved roads, but serious research would be needed to invesigate what the OS maps and other mapping available deams a road, as all the ones i have seen basically courpe roads into dirt tracks, minor roads, major roads, b roads a roads and motor ways. however these classifications appread to be deamed purely on the speed limit and width of the roads and of the smaller categories there are alot of grey areas, where some roads in person are not much more than a dirt track however officially they are a 60mph B road.
The I3 seems to have far fewer road classifications probably to keep map sizes lower and keep processing quick.
If people want that kind of detail and information then they should expect to pay severl hundred quid for a unit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lester_Burnham
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Oct 17, 2005
Posts: 618

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jaff wrote:
But to be perfectly honest, i cant see what peoples grumbles are the I3 is a perfectly good sat nav at a damn good price.


Personally, my grumbles with the i3 have been inconsistent routing, and freezing and crashing on latter firmware versions.

jaff wrote:
my one cost £90, and you get more than what you pay for, its a simple piece of kit to get you from A-B as quickly and trouble free as possible.


Quite.

That "trouble free" being quite poignant. My i3 once tried to take me in two big loops on a journey - clearly the 2nd time I was wise to it, and deviated to make it recalculate.

You can't explain behaviour like that away, on it simply being a basic thing.

jaff wrote:
If youwant to have a sat nav which does what would have to be quite complicated calculations and not have to wait 10 minuts for it to decide upon the best route and do lot of other fancy stuff then your only option is to buy a more expensive unit,


I'm not convinced of that. I think there's more than one issue with the firmware and software on the i3. Search the forums for many of the threads.

jaff wrote:
At he minute for the I3 it does exactly what i says in the tin


If that were true, I'd honestly have no complaint. And in general, I've got reasonable value out of my i3 - I've had it for quite a while (easily a year and a half), and in the main, It's done mostly good work.

But my gripes have always been in the core functionality - routing - often inconsistent, and in some cases decidedly odd, occasionally completely wrong (see my account higher up this posting about my i3 trying to take me in at least 2 big loops), and the stability gremlins that have crept in in latter firmware versions.

I never had expectations of functionality of more expensive units - I just expected it to do the simple stuff - the navigation from A to B, consistently, reliable, and dependably. In some cases, it's let me down on that - I've had to mess around with running with batteries, with batteries and plugged in via the car charger, no batteries and using the car charger, just to try and establish some stability in terms of crashing and freezing.

jaff wrote:
and there is basically nothing any of us can do to improve its performance unless you are a serious software deleloper whjo can programm and interface with the unit to change its capabilites. All we can do it tweek what is can pick from, the only way i can see being able to do what you suggest someone would have to amend the units basic software to include in the route preferances


Not entirely convinced of that - it may not need enhancing with further user selectable options.

jaff wrote:
to avoid minor roads but that would also need amendments of the maps


And not entirely convinced of that, either.

jaff wrote:
as you can already avoid unpaved roads,


And has that worked for you? Has it avoided all "unpaved roads"?

jaff wrote:
The I3 seems to have far fewer road classifications probably to keep map sizes lower and keep processing quick.


I'm far from convinced of that!

I'm fairly sure you could load and use the same maps, as would be used in other Garmin sat navs. I don't believe the mapping provided is specific to the i3, per se.

jaff wrote:
If people want that kind of detail and information then they should expect to pay severl hundred quid for a unit.


What if they just want a basic unit, that gets them from A to B, that's consistent, robust, reliable, and dependable?

Because as much as I've appreciated my i3, I couldn't hand on heart, claim that for mine. And the many threads in this very forum, kinda suggest that that's not a singular experience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swing
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: Nov 04, 2003
Posts: 2225
Location: Bedfordshire, UK

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lester_Burnham wrote:
jaff wrote:
to avoid minor roads but that would also need amendments of the maps
And not entirely convinced of that, either.
I think it's a valid point - Garmin can distinguish between an unpaved road and a normal road, but not between a little tarmacced farmers track, and the straighter, wider B road the other way. Both are valid roads, but only one is really suitable.

Quote:
jaff wrote:
as you can already avoid unpaved roads,
And has that worked for you? Has it avoided all "unpaved roads"?
My Garmin has never taken me down unpaved roads, they've always been tarmacced, some not recently mind you, some with a lot of mud on top of the tarmac, but always tarmacced.

Quote:
jaff wrote:
The I3 seems to have far fewer road classifications probably to keep map sizes lower and keep processing quick.
I'm far from convinced of that!
I'm fairly sure you could load and use the same maps, as would be used in other Garmin sat navs. I don't believe the mapping provided is specific to the i3, per se.
Agreed - the maps and avoid options seem common across the range. It's not a lack of options per se, it's a lack of road classifications. With an extra "minor road" classification, and an extra avoid option, the majority of these bad routes would go away. This, however, is needed across the whole range, not just the i3.
_________________
Please don't be offended if I do not reply to a PM - please ask questions via the forums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lester_Burnham
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Oct 17, 2005
Posts: 618

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swing wrote:
Lester_Burnham wrote:
jaff wrote:
to avoid minor roads but that would also need amendments of the maps
And not entirely convinced of that, either.
I think it's a valid point - Garmin can distinguish between an unpaved road and a normal road, but not between a little tarmacced farmers track, and the straighter, wider B road the other way. Both are valid roads, but only one is really suitable.


I'm just not convinced, that's all - are we really saying that the Navtech maps are so lacking?

I mean we can differentiate at either end of the scale - unpaved roads, or "highways" (or motorways on something like TomTom).

Presumably, there must be something in the mapping, that differentiates - for example - between NSL dual carriageway, and say, motorways...

swing wrote:
Quote:
jaff wrote:
as you can already avoid unpaved roads,
And has that worked for you? Has it avoided all "unpaved roads"?
My Garmin has never taken me down unpaved roads, they've always been tarmacced, some not recently mind you, some with a lot of mud on top of the tarmac, but always tarmacced.


Well I'm just going off anecdotes both in fora here, and in the press.

swing wrote:
Quote:
jaff wrote:
The I3 seems to have far fewer road classifications probably to keep map sizes lower and keep processing quick.
I'm far from convinced of that!
I'm fairly sure you could load and use the same maps, as would be used in other Garmin sat navs. I don't believe the mapping provided is specific to the i3, per se.
Agreed - the maps and avoid options seem common across the range. It's not a lack of options per se, it's a lack of road classifications.


Are we sure that such a thing is omitted from the mapping, though? I mean if it was just speed rating, what / how would a sat nav differentiate between, say, a NSL dual carriageway, and a motorway.

I'm reasonably sure that speed ratings of roads is included in the mapping. But to buy yours' and jaff's proposition, I'd have to buy that only that was present - or only for the types of roads that are included as options on the Garmin units.

But I'm not convinced of that.

I think if it can differentiate for certain roads, then there must be something more than simply speed rating in the maps.

swing wrote:
With an extra "minor road" classification,


So you are asserting that there is such an omission in the mapping then? Is that supposition, or are you basing it on anything?

swing wrote:
and an extra avoid option,


Well yes, but most units seem to manage for things like unpaved roads, or highways / motorways...

swing wrote:
the majority of these bad routes would go away.


I think what happens is sketchy reporting of problems, and commercial companies with everything to gain by sweeping things under the carpet.

swing wrote:
This, however, is needed across the whole range, not just the i3.


Oh indeed.

And it's one thing to criticise people who end up on unfortunate roads - but some people don't know the area, and are relying on their sat nav - rather than maps - to get them to their destination.

I've been on routes, where my i3 has taken me somewhere perhaps that wasn't my natural choice / instinct, and I've followed it, thinking it knew better, or it was some form of shortcut, to be taken down roads that - albeit weren't unsuitable - weren't exactly optimum from a driving perspective. Mrs Burnham just tuts at me when that's happened.

Of course, that doesn't excuse people who end up on railway tracks, crossing streams, or truly off-road - just merely that following what might seem reasonable - if a bit Deliverance - that start out on roads that are perfectly drivable (although perhaps you'd choose a more mainstream route) but do degenerate, the further you progress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mikealder
Pocket GPS Moderator
Pocket GPS Moderator


Joined: Jan 14, 2005
Posts: 19638
Location: Blackpool , Lancs

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just take a few steps back to consider what the nav unit and its map actually contains, the roads are classified by speed, the routing engine uses this speed classification in order to plan the route according to the selected profile - that’s the easy bit.

Now for a slight flaw in the above method, a large proportion of UK roads are classed as National Speed limit and as such will carry a higher speed rating than is actually possible to safely drive - this can cause the device to take the smaller roads in preference to a major highway.

Alix776 actually got this explanation from Garmin at the recent NEC Outdoors Show, at the end of the day if you don't like the look of the road the device is telling you to take simply ignore it, and let it work out an alternate - you as the driver are in control of where to actually take the vehicle, and also legally liable for any action contravening the road traffic act, let alone going down a farm track - Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Lester_Burnham
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Oct 17, 2005
Posts: 618

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mikealder wrote:
Just take a few steps back to consider what the nav unit and its map actually contains, the roads are classified by speed, the routing engine uses this speed classification in order to plan the route according to the selected profile - that’s the easy bit.


Except that's not the only classification - if sat navs can differentiate routes based on other criteria too - ie highways (on Garmin, certainly the i3) and motorways on TomTom.

mikealder wrote:
Now for a slight flaw in the above method, a large proportion of UK roads are classed as National Speed limit and as such will carry a higher speed rating than is actually possible to safely drive - this can cause the device to take the smaller roads in preference to a major highway.


I believe we understand the rationale behind that, what I'm not entirely buying is that the maps only classify the roads in terms of speed rating. Size / width of the road on the display would be some hint.

mikealder wrote:
Alix776 actually got this explanation from Garmin at the recent NEC Outdoors Show, at the end of the day if you don't like the look of the road the device is telling you to take simply ignore it, and let it work out an alternate - you as the driver are in control of where to actually take the vehicle, and also legally liable for any action contravening the road traffic act, let alone going down a farm track - Mike


Agreed, and I'm not necessarily refuting that - ie that you can ignore a sat nav and let it recalculate, or that the driver is always responsible.

I'm not trying to explain away somebody driving into a ford, or onto train tracks, or something like that. What I am suggesting, though, is there are circumstances where drivers may not know the locality, and get directed onto roads, that change or degenerate later on, in terms of either their width, or the road surface. It's not always apparent up front - which is why I can understand some drivers saying that due to them following their sat navs, they've been directed down lanes that they'd choose not to - not necessarily unsuitable for vehicles, but perhaps more narrow or rural than they'd prefer.

Clearly that's not the same as driving across a field from the outset, because a sat nav has instructed you to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Louie7
Occasional Visitor


Joined: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 19
Location: Tadley, Hampshire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Until i purchased my Nuvi 610, i used a Garmin GPS V where i had to download my routes from MapSource. One of the advantages of Mapsource was the Preferences/Routing Tab. From this tab you not only selected the type of route i.e. Faster Time or Shorter Distance but also the type of roads to avoid i.e. Toll Roads, Unpaved Roads, U-Turns, Carpool Lanes, Ferries and Seasonal Road Closures.

The real benefit however was the ability to set via a slider bar the road preference from Prefer Minor Roads to Prefer Highways or anywhere in between. And set the speed for the different types of road i.e. Interstate Highways, Major Highways, Other Highways, Collector Roads and Residential Streets. These last two options allowed you to tune MapSource so the routes it calculated more accurately reflected the type of route and roads you wished to drive.

I am not convinced that a simpler version of the MapSource ability to set the road speeds and the preference for the type of route one wished to travel could not be incorporated into the Nuvi and some of the other Garmin units. After all it's only software when all is said and done.

Garmin are you listening !!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swing
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: Nov 04, 2003
Posts: 2225
Location: Bedfordshire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lester - you are correct that the unit can dinstinguish between motorways, dual carriageways and smaller roads (but they all have different numbers of lanes!). What it cannot distinguish between is a B road and a minor road, both are NSL, both are single carriageway, and so both carry the same weighting within the algorithm.

The fact one might be more bendy, and possibly have passing places isn't allowed for in the routing algorithm.

Whether it's the algorithm or the map data at fault, I don't know for sure, but I also used Garmin's explanation provided to Alix776 to influence my understanding.
_________________
Please don't be offended if I do not reply to a PM - please ask questions via the forums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hamie
Regular Visitor


Joined: Dec 30, 2003
Posts: 177

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mussey1 wrote:
In the UK each type of road has a classifiacation i.e Motorway, A, B, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong but in order to calculate faster route and arrival time the mapping data must include speed of each road.

If that is the case why could the road classifications not also be included, therefore a route could be planned using only A & B roads for example, or the sat nav could be told to avoid unclassified roads unless there was absoutely no other option.


The road classifications ARE included... Take a look with GPSMapEdit or something similar using the MetroGuide CD's from garmin. The maps have a defined type for each road. Motorways (e.g. M4, A404M), Dual carriage ways etc. I refuse to believe that NavTech have stripped the road types from the data. In fact IIUC NavTech supply the data in their own open format (Specs available from NavTech, yes I have one), and that definately differentiates between different road types.

Anyone telling you the GPS doesn't know what kind of road is telling lies, or is just uninformed. You can see clearly on units like TomTom that the roads are coloured differently for different types. Even garmin do that for Motorways vs A roads (Althoygh they don't colour differently for B roads for some reason).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lester_Burnham
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Oct 17, 2005
Posts: 618

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

swing wrote:
Lester - you are correct that the unit can dinstinguish between motorways, dual carriageways and smaller roads (but they all have different numbers of lanes!). What it cannot distinguish between is a B road and a minor road, both are NSL, both are single carriageway, and so both carry the same weighting within the algorithm.


Are you sure there's absolutely no difference in the mapping, though? Or is it simply an assumption based on the behaviour, and reasoning by Garmin?

I mean, on an OS survey map, you'd expect to be able to tell the difference. After all, you yourself used the terminology B road - I'm fairly sure there's lower classifications. Are you sure they aren't reflected in the mapping?

Is it not feasible that simply the routing isn't bothering about such possible classifications?

swing wrote:
The fact one might be more bendy, and possibly have passing places isn't allowed for in the routing algorithm.


Perhaps currently. What I'm not fully convinced of at the moment - given what's been discussed and disclosed here - is that such information is definitely omitted from the mapping.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that it is, but at present, I'm open to the view that there may be some difference in classification (ie that roads aren't purely classed by their speed rating), but at this level, it's not something that the routing algorithms trouble themselves over.

That's merely my analysis - I could be wrong - it truly could be that the mapping makes no possible differential, but I believe that the option to avoid unpaved roads is something of a hint.

swing wrote:
Whether it's the algorithm or the map data at fault, I don't know for sure, but I also used Garmin's explanation provided to Alix776 to influence my understanding.


And no doubt, Garmin have some degree of caution about information they disclose.

Many different sat nav units, use the same map data, and quite likely have different routing options and algorithms. The possibility that the mapping may have such an omission as you've hypothesised, is something I accept as possible, but other units behaviour, and the ability for the i3 (and other Garmin units) to avoid some classifications of roads at the lower end of the scale, suggests to me that the mapping may well not be clearly lacking, here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swing
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: Nov 04, 2003
Posts: 2225
Location: Bedfordshire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hamie wrote:
The road classifications ARE included...In fact IIUC NavTech supply the data in their own open format (Specs available from NavTech, yes I have one), and that definately differentiates between different road types.
But can it distinguish between, say a B road and an unclassified road, both NSL, both single track, the only difference being one is bendier than the other....?
_________________
Please don't be offended if I do not reply to a PM - please ask questions via the forums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
swing
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: Nov 04, 2003
Posts: 2225
Location: Bedfordshire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lester_Burnham wrote:
That's merely my analysis - I could be wrong - it truly could be that the mapping makes no possible differential, but I believe that the option to avoid unpaved roads is something of a hint.
I still think this is a key point - it allows you to avoid the lowest classification of roads, and I believe this works fine. In the same way, the Avoid Highways works (most of the time) - however, there is no option to allow us to say "avoid the really bendy small tarmacced NSL road, and instead prefer the less bendy, but potentially slightly longer distance NSL next to it". It's not the ability to avoid the lowest classification - we need the ability to avoid the next lowest too!
_________________
Please don't be offended if I do not reply to a PM - please ask questions via the forums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lester_Burnham
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Oct 17, 2005
Posts: 618

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

swing wrote:
Hamie wrote:
The road classifications ARE included...In fact IIUC NavTech supply the data in their own open format (Specs available from NavTech, yes I have one), and that definately differentiates between different road types.
But can it distinguish between, say a B road and an unclassified road, both NSL, both single track, the only difference being one is bendier than the other....?


Are you suggesting that there's no road classifications below B roads?

Odd given that the i3, and presumably other Garmin units can allow you to avoid unpaved roads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lester_Burnham
Frequent Visitor


Joined: Oct 17, 2005
Posts: 618

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

swing wrote:
Lester_Burnham wrote:
That's merely my analysis - I could be wrong - it truly could be that the mapping makes no possible differential, but I believe that the option to avoid unpaved roads is something of a hint.
I still think this is a key point - it allows you to avoid the lowest classification of roads, and I believe this works fine. In the same way, the Avoid Highways works (most of the time) - however, there is no option to allow us to say "avoid the really bendy small tarmacced NSL road, and instead prefer the less bendy, but potentially slightly longer distance NSL next to it". It's not the ability to avoid the lowest classification - we need the ability to avoid the next lowest too!


Indeed.

What I'm not necessarily buying, is:-

a) that the information required to do this is definitely omitted from the mapping

and

b) it would necessitate such a big change - given you can already avoid unpaved roads, or highways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swing
Pocket GPS Verifier
Pocket GPS Verifier


Joined: Nov 04, 2003
Posts: 2225
Location: Bedfordshire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lester_Burnham wrote:
Are you suggesting that there's no road classifications below B roads?
No, there's an unpaved category for sure. What I'm saying is that I believe (based on Garmin's comments) that the next category up from unpaved covers both unclassified and B roads.
_________________
Please don't be offended if I do not reply to a PM - please ask questions via the forums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website







Posted: Today    Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Pocket GPS World Forum Index -> Garmin Portable Navigation Devices All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
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

Make a Donation



CamerAlert Database

Click here for the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database

Download Speed Camera Database
22.034 (27 Mar 24)



WORLDWIDE SPEED CAMERA SPOTTERS WANTED!

Click here to submit camera positions to the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database


12mth Subscriber memberships awarded every week for verified new camera reports!

Submit Speed Camera Locations Now


CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







© Terms & Privacy


GPS Shopping