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: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:19 am Post subject:
Motty wrote:
If you look at this map:
Link to Multimap map travelling along the B4632 from the left into Winchcombe when it directed me off at Cockbury Court, through the very narrow country lane through Langley, and then back onto the B4632 at Winchcombe. The B4632 is national speed limit
That's an interesting one. The choice is between the B4632 and Langley Road. Both routes are almost exactly the same distance and both roads seem to be classified as "Major Highway" in Garmin's maps.
Perhaps Milkfloat can confirm this theory? _________________ Gone fishing!
Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Posts: 2145 Location: Midlands, UK
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:04 am Post subject:
This is an interesting one. I thought that I would cycle my rechargeable batteries, so I put in a target town of Aberdovey, from a starting location in Coventry, then set the i3 to simulate the route, the volume set to 1, so not to loud, then about an hour later I suddenly realised that I herd
now do a u turn
It took me several seconds to get to the i3, and by that time it was coming out of a short road that appeared to be a cul-de-sac.
How did it do that?
Anyway it got to Aberdovey and back and then batteries did need a recharge.
Joined: Jan 22, 2006 Posts: 226 Location: South Coast, UK
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:19 am Post subject:
Turn off the GPS from the system settings, then navigate a route. Unit will seek confirmation that you wish to simulate the route. It is in realtime, yes.
Having just caught up with this thread, I must say I'm staggered at the naivete of those people who seem to believe that 'in this world you get what you pay for'. Surely a glance at any 'Which' type report shows clearly that price has little bearing on performance, the cheaper often out performing the more expensive.
So, to suggest that the i3 should be somehow excused for what seems to me to be a fundamental fault in either the algorithm (or most likely the s/w implementation of it) just because it's cheaper, is ridiculous.
In fact to so readily adopt such an attitude must surely only serve to encourage manufacturers to refute liability for faults in their products on the basis that 'it's only cheap - you can't expect it to work as well!'.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that this is Garmin's attitude as I don't believe it is but given the apparent numbers of apologists around they could be forgiven for wondering if it's worth being any other way.
Having just caught up with this thread, I must say I'm staggered at the naivete of those people who seem to believe that 'in this world you get what you pay for'. Surely a glance at any 'Which' type report shows clearly that price has little bearing on performance, the cheaper often out performing the more expensive.
So, to suggest that the i3 should be somehow excused for what seems to me to be a fundamental fault in either the algorithm (or most likely the s/w implementation of it) just because it's cheaper, is ridiculous.
In fact to so readily adopt such an attitude must surely only serve to encourage manufacturers to refute liability for faults in their products on the basis that 'it's only cheap - you can't expect it to work as well!'.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that this is Garmin's attitude as I don't believe it is but given the apparent numbers of apologists around they could be forgiven for wondering if it's worth being any other way.
I'm with you completely - it's one thing to be unreasonable and criticise a budget unit like the i3 based on comparisons with more expensive units. But it's entirely another thing to debate and question the fundamental job the thing does.
The problem often is, on subjects like this, is that people become attached and invested in their choice of product, and then become overly defensive. Any words of detraction, then bring out the comments such as selling it on ebay.
What's wrong with simply expecting the product you bought to do what it's supposed to do, well? I didn't buy an i3, then start criticising that it hasn't the features of a more expensive unit - I've just debated issues that people are having with it's core function.
I, nor anybody else I can see in these discussions, has sought to criticise the i3 for any reason, I've merely been interested in discussions, and averse to them being quashed, on what it appears numerous other people have encountered in one form or other.
Joined: Dec 29, 2005 Posts: 222 Location: teesside
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:07 am Post subject:
With respect..
I dont firmly believe that anyone is 'knocking' the I3 for the functions it does as a budget model. I certainly am more than happy with mine. I also believe that despite old topics (including valid points of your own Lester) that despite certain 'anomolies' the unit IS doing its core function, which is to navigate between two points - although its routing may be 'questionable' at times, it still conforms to its design and selling point - to navigate! _________________ **********************************
Hi ho - Hi ho its off to Arran i go,
with my i3 and a cup of tea hi ho, hi ho
hi ho hi ho.....
**********************************
www.ride4smiles.co.uk
The core function of a sat nav device is much more than merely to get you from A to B by whatever route. After all by this measure alone it could be considered to successfully achieve it's core function even if it created every route via, let's say, Birmingham.
Obviously a gross exaggeration but I can only say again, from personal experience, that I have seen enough to convince me that there is an unexpected and unhelpful feature of the algorithm or firmware (let's not call it an error) which cannot reasonably be accounted for by any of the possible causes that I've seen suggested so far. Because it appears to come into play only intermittently, by the nature of the beast, it's difficult to pin down.
As I've had no experience of any other sat nav devices(as opposed to GPS devices in general) that same weakness may well be shared by many if not all the others.
However surely we should all be anxious that the powers to be within Garmin do get to know (if they don't already) by weight of opinion on forums such as this, that there is at least a fairly widespread perception of there being a problem. A single voice to Garmin is all too easy to ignore.
I have also found that the I3 does not always calculate the fastest route straight off. However, I have found that if you want to avoid the I3 planning to take you down narrow country lanes just tell it you are driving a truck or a bus and then it seems to avoid them. I haven't done extensive research to see how this affects ETAs etc but it does seem to be a way of keeping to the main roads.
To you have the start road and destination road. I could compare the results with a C320, to see if the problem is unit specific.
I have not encountered this problem on any routes so far. Fastest for me always results in faster time, sometimes at the cost of longer distance, sometimes as much as 50% longer.
The route is from Dunton Bassett Leics LE17 5JL to Coalville Leics LE67 4BW.
You dont need to have the exact address because I have tried it using the Cities option. i.e. city to city with no specific address and the result is the same. Donr forget that this calculation is done in the home without a satellite signal so the results are based purely on data within the unit so has nothing to do with the quality of satellite signal or exact position etc.
How do you get the i3 to simulate the route? Is this a real time simulation?
Ah Turn GPS Off then Navigate and it'll ask if you want to simulate the journey. Nice touch.
RTFM Paul, RTFM.....
Ah yes RTFM........thats another point there wasnt one!!! nly the quick start guide in 300 hundred languages. I had to find that myself on Garmin's website. There was no reference at all to it. Not even a " go to Http\ www.garmin etc etc etc.....for the full manual"
Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Posts: 79 Location: Sheffield, UK
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject:
Noddy
The more expensive C320 couldnt beat the shortest time with the fastest route, although the anomaly was not very significant, just 2 seconds, implying that on the C320 there is only really one optimum route. It does show that the routing logic must be different on the I3 though. Perhaps they use a simpler algorithm to make up for less processing power?
And what makes you think that a quicker route must automatically be significantly more demanding to either compute or provide an algorithm for? The only salient different between the two, being the metrics used to compute the route.
Calculating the shortest route is very easy. Draw a line (not literally) between the start and end, and then minimise the distance you stray away from it. Not many routes will need to be evaluated.
Calculating the fastest route adds another dimension, speed limits of roads. But calculating a route that is quicker than 98% of other routes is obviously going be a lot easier than calculating a route that is quicker than 100% of other routes (ie the very quickest route).
Getting back to Noddy's original question. Are there many main roads between the start and destination? I don't know the area and don't know if the route you are talking about is through the countryside with not many routes to choose from, or through a built up area with lots of routes to choose. The reason I ask is that I wondered if the long route is actually maybe the 2nd or 3rd quickest route, even if it does take 5mins longer than the actual quickest?
Ok getting back to my original query. the best thing to do is look at a map. I want to get from Dunton Bassett Leics le17 5jl to Coalville le67 4bw. You can easily see from the map that the sensible route (without giving blow by blow instructions is North up the A426 to Blaby then a couple of miles through villages to pick up the M1 at junction 21 to go north to Coalville then off at junction 22. Her house is just off the main road through Coalville (A50).
When entered into the i3 it will take me this route as the "shortest" but if I put in "fastest" route it will take me from home across country to join the M69 at junction 2 then travel along the M69 to join the M1 at junction 21. The route is the same thereafter. When I review the routes turn by turn the fast route comes out at 25 miles and taking 28.09 minutes
The short route however is 20 miles and 24.48 minutes.
Now this is why I started this thread in the first place because there is no logic at all to this. If one method of calculation is based on time then the fast route should be showing a faster time even if only by 1 second!
I tried doing the same route but with a final destination 2 miles further on ( to Whitwick) so the route was identical apart from the additional 2 miles on the A50 and then when calculated it worked out correctly as you would expect: both the short and long route results were identical as you would expect.
Whats baffling me is why the algorithym should want to take me so far out of my way on a route that is over 3 minutes longer and tell me it is the "fastest" but when I put in a different destination but an identical route (apart from the extra 2 miles) it then calculates it correctly.
Ok getting back to my original query. the best thing to do is look at a map. I want to get from Dunton Bassett Leics le17 5jl to Coalville le67 4bw. You can easily see from the map that the sensible route (without giving blow by blow instructions is North up the A426 to Blaby then a couple of miles through villages to pick up the M1 at junction 21 to go north to Coalville then off at junction 22. Her house is just off the main road through Coalville (A50).
When entered into the i3 it will take me this route as the "shortest" but if I put in "fastest" route it will take me from home across country to join the M69 at junction 2 then travel along the M69 to join the M1 at junction 21. The route is the same thereafter. When I review the routes turn by turn the fast route comes out at 25 miles and taking 28.09 minutes
The short route however is 20 miles and 24.48 minutes.
Now this is why I started this thread in the first place because there is no logic at all to this. If one method of calculation is based on time then the fast route should be showing a faster time even if only by 1 second!
I tried doing the same route but with a final destination 2 miles further on ( to Whitwick) so the route was identical apart from the additional 2 miles on the A50 and then when calculated it worked out correctly as you would expect: both the short and long route results were identical as you would expect.
Whats baffling me is why the algorithym should want to take me so far out of my way on a route that is over 3 minutes longer and tell me it is the "fastest" but when I put in a different destination but an identical route (apart from the extra 2 miles) it then calculates it correctly.
I'm with you on this - there ARE oddities and anomalies in the routes calculated by the i3. And in some cases, it's hard to see ANY logic behind the anomalies - you route which is slightly further along the same road is a good example, as is your initial question about it being decidedly off that incalculating the fastest route, it actually calculates what it believes is a slower route than the shortest provided route.
I think it's worth pointing out a few things, though:-
a) I think it's good to have an unfettered, undiscouraged discussion of anomalies such as this. However, without insider knowledge we are unlikely to understand any more about this. However, I think it's good to raise the profile of such anomalies, and worthwhile emailing Garmin support about it.
b) The number of people who seem to want to jump and quash such a debate, perhaps because some aspects don't paint the i3 in the most favourable light, is astounding - product loyalty taken too far, IMO. To criticise the i3 unfairly, or in comparison with more expensive units, in terms of features, is clealy unreasonable, but to point out anomalies in it's normal behaviour is ENTIRELY reasonable, and what such forums are for.
People discussing such subjects, don't deserve to be treated as if their money spent was somehow insignificant, and therefore nobody should complain; or that they are obviously the "never happy" type of owner, who should just sell their i3 at the earliest opportuinity.
c) In the main, it's only because people do point out and discuss such anomalies, and DON'T just sit there and accept the staid and blase "It was cheap, what do you expect?" type comments, that tend to get these things addressed, rather than simply apathetically accepted.
I think it's truly tragic, that the only thing some people can ultimately say on the debate, is that such people questioning this behaviour are never likely to be happy, and should just get rid. I'm fairly sure that everybody involved, who's made comments about not being too happy about some of the routes provided, haven't sought for every possible opportunity to complain about the i3.
In general, I think the i3 is terrific device, and great value for money (even at the original price of £199 I paid for mine). That said, oddities in the most basic of the i3's features - ie finding routes - hardly seem unreasonable for critique.
I think the best thing to do, is for all the people who've encountered route anomalies, to contact Garmin support about it.
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
