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!
Joined: Aug 13, 2005 Posts: 147 Location: Panama City
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:33 am Post subject:
M8TJT wrote:
uffe73 wrote:
Ok, avoiding low bridges requires a POI list of bridges, but I'm sure TomTom could collect that information easily.
/Ulf
Just like they 'easily' collect the data on speed cams?
To be fair (though why I should be fair to TT I don't know), cameras do change and extra cams are added and even some removed, but low bridges tend to be fairly static.
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:38 am Post subject:
norm2002 wrote:
M8TJT wrote:
uffe73 wrote:
Ok, avoiding low bridges requires a POI list of bridges, but I'm sure TomTom could collect that information easily.
/Ulf
Just like they 'easily' collect the data on speed cams?
To be fair (though why I should be fair to TT I don't know), cameras do change and extra cams are added and even some removed, but low bridges tend to be fairly static.
You're right. I dont think that there would be many in the 'mobile' category
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject:
uffe73 wrote:
Andy_P wrote:
If only it WERE that simple, don't you think all the satnav makers would have done it by now?
Sure it's easy to add the checkboxes, but what do they *do*?
Most of the data needed for implementing these extra features should already be included in the maps via the road categories so I don't see the problem. Ok, avoiding low bridges requires a POI list of bridges, but I'm sure TomTom could collect that information easily.
/Ulf
Yes, but my point was that you said "ALL it required was adding a few checkboxes". No it doesn't.
It would need a complete rewrite of the core navigation software to introduce an "Avoid POI" function.
And even then, for all your suggestions except the low bridges, it is not simply avoiding a POI which is a single point on the map, it involves avoiding a whole area. This is already done with the congestion charge area, so it's perfectly possible to do it, and I completely agree that it would be a fantastic addition, but it isn't just adding a few boxes, otherwise they would have done it long ago..
You're right of courrse. Adding a few check boxes isn't enough for implementi these features. It takes some code behind the buttons.
I'm not an expert of routing algoritms, but I don't see the big difference between implementing Avoid motorways from implementing Plan HGV route, provided that the map contains the data for checking the criteria. Isn't it all about applying a filter when calculating the route? But, then again, I don't know the details of TomTom's routing algoritms so I may be oversimplifying things.
I believe the main question here is if the current maps contain enough information for evaluating the criterias needed for implementing the features I was suggesting. It seems that the TomTom's products are mainly fousing on customers driving private cars, rather than professional drivers, and therefore only includes the map details needed for fulfilling their needs.
Anyway, I have received an answer to my original question, so this is a bit off topic.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject:
I believe that TeleAtlas and Navteq have a LOT more miscellaneous data in their mapping than most satnav makers use, manufacturers such as tomTom only buy the "layers" that they need, so it would be an extra cost to them to add things like height and weight restrictions (how much extra, I have NO idea!)
Having said that, TomTom now own TeleAtlas, of course.....
Joined: Aug 18, 2008 Posts: 82 Location: North Wales UK
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject:
Low bridge, dangerous bends ect. POIs are readily available to purchase online, but as my vehicle is below 10' tall, they are not so much of a worry... it is the narrow roads/lanes facility that would be most useful... and it is no use just trying to avoid "B" class roads, as some of those are actually wider than some of the narrower "A" class roads in various parts of the UK...
I have only seen narrow roads POIs advertised as part of a package on one HGV site, and I read on this forum a few weeks ago, that this particular companies package, was not value for money.
I believe that the sort of vehicle recognition I would like to see on the Go devices, is available on, for example the Pronav device by Navevo, which is having very mixed reviews in our HGV/Motorhome Lounge... however, it proves that it is possible, even with current mapping.
Ah ! well... thank goodness for itinerary planning.
Alan. _________________ Tom Tom Go 520 - Map UK ROI 720.1803 Navcore_8.204.9718.go40 - ( Loquendo TTS7 ) / RDS-TMC /Tyre... purchased the Go mainly for the itinerary feature
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15130 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:05 am Post subject:
as AlandEi states, a sat nav is not an excuse for poor planning!! there is no need for hgv drivers to go down small country lanes after blindly following a sat nav...
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
