Poor handling of gates (gated communities and the like)

[jgombos]

I noticed the following problem on both TTN for the Palm, and TT Go 700:

The software used to route drivers through an unmanned private gate that only the village residents have access to. This was hell for non-residents, who really needed to drive in through the public gate on the other side of the village.

There must have been complaints from non-residents, because the latest s/w and maps will not route any driver through the private gate. The new maps are perfect for non-residents, but lousy for residents because using the private gate is faster for about half the trips. It's like I need to keep an old version and a new version of every map, so I can first compute whether it makes sense to use the private gate -- then recompute the route on the new maps to take advantage of new roads.

So my question is: did Tele Atlas screw the pooch, or TomTom? Tele Atlas should have private gates clearly identified in the database, and TomTom should be asking the driver whether they have access to the gate.

[neil01]

I think that this is very much a case of expecting too much from a satnav system. The kind of complication this would cause are unbelievable, and for the benefit of who? Just a relitively small number of people who have access, and know which way to go anyway.

I appreciate that the route generated can be quite differrent if using a differrent access - but as you probably have a good idea which one should be used, I would suggest adding the gate(s) to your favourites and using that (rather than your home) as the destination.

[Skippy]

[jgombos]

I discovered my suspicion was wrong - Tele Atlas did not add the gate. After driving toward the private gate and examining the map, I can see that segments of road near the gate have disappeared from the new maps (which has the effect of prohibiting navigation through the gate). And one of the street names is now mislabeled. So the integrity of the maps have simply worsened, and I've reported the error. It does not appear that Tele Atlas has actually become keen to the gates existence.

BTW- I checked the Navteq maps and their maps are correct. So I'll be looking into making the switch to Garmin to take advantage of the better maps.

[Tim Buxton]

But enabling the use of gated communities would not limit this use to just one community unless you'd expect each one to be enabled individually.
_________________
Tim

[jgombos]

[Tim Buxton]

So then the possibility would arise that you could be routed through someone else's gated community; a route which shouldn't be available to you.
_________________
Tim

[neil01]

I think that Tim has hit the nail on the head, you can't devise a system which would simply be of benefit to a single gated community, it would have to include the others too.

As a software tester, I have also been involved in the implementation and design of many systems (large and small in numerous different fields) so am all to well aware of the 'demands' by many 'minority' factions along with 'how easily' it could or should be implemented. My experience leads me to the conclusion that this is rarely the case. An example in this case would be the frustratingly regular asking whether you wish to use a private road to the vast majority of users who do not have access. The question would (unlike tolls etc) have to be asked for each and every road on the potential route because access to one does not mean access to the others. Or perhaps the additional complication of processing to determine where in the route the restricted access appears. This is by no means an exhaustive analysis, just a couple of examples to illustrate.

What has to be remembered, is that satnav is still a relitively new technology, where unlike computers, the vast majority of users are still on their first unit, and probably best categorised as 'novice' (I am being generous in the description) and need a system as simple as possible. Some poeple would still say that software such as TomTom has actually been 'dumbed down' to reflect this change in user, but probably best not to go off at a tangent on that!

While I do not (and never have) disputed that the inclusion of gates should never be included, I can think of many other ommissions which would in far more users eyes be much more important.

A good example would by the inclusion of restrictions encountered by many commercial drivers such as weight, width, and height. This would be of benefit to far more users than the inclusion of private roads.

I still maintain (as old standing forum members may remember from numerous previous posts) that satnav is still not developed enough to totally dispense with the need for an up-to-date road atlas, and, that it is sometimes advisable to modify the generated route to take your particular requirements into account. From experience with TomTom and CoPilot, I am lead to the conclusion that TomTom produces better routes (only on fastest though!) than CoPilot, but that CoPilot is in a differrent league when you want to use the application to guide you along a route you want to take.

We also have to accept (whether we like it or not) that a satnav application usually relies on maps produced by an outside source, over which they only have influence, not control, and that any aditonal features may take time before the maps include the data they require (and in the correct format).

Sometimes we just have to accept that Satnav is simply an aid (or hiderence?) to navigation, and be prepared to override it with a good helping of common sense (or local knowledge).

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!