me <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Who "lays a route" to explore a city? Is the route approved by some sort of
    >> committee?
    >
    > Frequently a city is explored to some extent with a larger over all plan. As one
    > explores, one tends to "lay routes" to the next point of interest. There is a
    > tendency to "drift" towards large simple routes that take one from point A to B via
    > large, well known landmarks.

I guess that's just me, then. I don't particularly look for point A or B. I just set
out in the morning based on the "this direction looks interesting" approach, and see
where it takes me. Usually come by the landmarks eventually.

Probably works well with my preference for staying in one city for a long time rather
than darting about.

Some would say that it makes it more difficult to get as much "done" on a short trip,
but from my perspective seeing famous buildings isn't really an achievement - the
ultimate travel achievement is serendipity.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 23:31:48 +0100, "The Oik" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Jesper Lauridsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 16:33:07 GMT, [email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:30:34 GMT, [email protected] (Jesper Lauridsen)
    >> >wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:30:02 -0500, R J Carpenter <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>>Seriously, I rather doubt there is much benefit to GPS within a city.
    >> >>
    >> >>It's great when it's time to return to the hotel. Just turn the GPS on and
    >> >>follow the arrow.
    >> >
    >> >That will, of course, assure that you make no wrong turns into interesting
    >> >neighborhoods. One of the pleasures in cities like London, San Francisco or
    >> >Paris, or any number of others, is occasionally getting briefly lost.
    >>
    >> Where this idea about using a GPS == never seeing anything new come from? It's not
    >> true - if anything it's the other way around. Typically when using a map, a route
    >> will be laid following major streets and perhaps aiming for some landmarks. With a
    >> GPS it's walking along, at each junction picking the street matching the direction
    >> of the arrow best. The streets walked will often be smaller, and not having the
    >> map in mind, you don't expect what's around the next corner.
    >>
    >so *thats* how it is that people end up in side streets, where the bad people
    >live.... Smile, and say 'bye bye' to your wallet!

Odd. I never lost my wallet on a side street. I did lose it on the Paris Metro.

******* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *******
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * ******* My typos are
intentional copyright traps ******

Let's either get off this thread or make it more rational and differentiated. The
discussion comments on GPS as if it was a single type of tool. In fact, GPS is a tool
which is available to users in a variety of manners. The simplest type simply
identifies where you are and specifies the direction to a preset site. Another type
identifies where you are and shows you the location on a map. The map is usually
available in differing scales. Another, and not very portable, type identifies where
you are, shows a map, and provides directions to a preset site recommitting if you go
off the path.

These different tools are clearly of very different utility yet the discussion rarely
makes the type discussed clear.

Frank Matthews

"greg byshenk" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > This doesn't have much relation to Paris, London, and Amsterdam, though.

I've used GPS in Paris, too.

    > And, as others have already noted, "turn on the GPS and follow the arrow" may work
    > _less_ well than a map when in a city.

In my experiments, I've been surprised at how well it actually works. In fact,
sometimes it has provided shorter routes than I had previously known.

"greg byshenk" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > While it may be a "fact" that you "don't know of a single case...," this has no
    > necessary relation to whether or not it is a fact that GPS does not interfere with
    > avionics.

It's not possible to prove a negative. If you require proof that a device has never
and will never interfere with avionics on any aircraft, ever, you end up not being
able to use _anything_ on board, because no such proof can ever been obtained. No
such proof has ever been obtained for other devices that are commonly used aboard
aircraft, so there is no reason to require such proof for GPS receivers.

Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > It's not possible to prove a negative. If you require proof that a device has never
    > and will never interfere with avionics on any aircraft, ever, you end up not being
    > able to use _anything_ on board, because no such proof can ever been obtained. No
    > such proof has ever been obtained for other devices that are commonly used aboard
    > aircraft, so there is no reason to require such proof for GPS receivers.

Unless you have some basic knowledge of radio engineering.

The US military has supported an Electromagnetic Compatibility Center that has
records of "everything" electronic that might be on a ship or plane. When some new
device is proposed, the Center can run through the device's desired and undesired
emissions and the various receivers' desired and undesired sensitive frequencies on
the plane or ship.

The Center was originally set up by ARINC, since they had been doing similar things
for the airline industry for many years.

In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Let's either get off this thread or make it more rational and differentiated. The
    > discussion comments on GPS as if it was a single type of tool. In fact, GPS is a
    > tool which is available to users in a variety of manners. The simplest type simply
    > identifies where you are and specifies the direction to a preset site. Another type
    > identifies where you are and shows you the location on a map. The map is usually
    > available in differing scales. Another, and not very portable, type identifies
    > where you are, shows a map, and provides directions to a preset site recommitting
    > if you go off the path.

Garmin V does all that and more and fits in a pocket:

http://www.garmin.com/products/gps5/

When you have 'mapping' and a database of stores, post office, hospitals, schools and
restaurants... it is incredibly powerful.

In my car... Wherever I am... I press a button and select my home... and it routes it
for me... I have 99 such points that are stored as well as the 'recent' locations.

I wont buy a new car w/out GPS.

jay Thu, Apr 4, 2002 mailto:[email protected]


    >
    > These different tools are clearly of very different utility yet the discussion
    > rarely makes the type discussed clear.
    >
    > Frank Matthews
    >

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject... Galileo muttered under his breath:
"Nevertheless, it does move."

You're right. I've gotten behind again.

Frank

Go Fig wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Frank Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Let's either get off this thread or make it more rational and differentiated. The
    >>discussion comments on GPS as if it was a single type of tool. In fact, GPS is a
    >>tool which is available to users in a variety of manners. The simplest type simply
    >>identifies where you are and specifies the direction to a preset site. Another type
    >>identifies where you are and shows you the location on a map. The map is usually
    >>available in differing scales. Another, and not very portable, type identifies
    >>where you are, shows a map, and provides directions to a preset site recommitting
    >>if you go off the path.
    >>
    >
    > Garmin V does all that and more and fits in a pocket:
    >
    > http://www.garmin.com/products/gps5/
    >
    > When you have 'mapping' and a database of stores, post office, hospitals, schools
    > and restaurants... it is incredibly powerful.
    >
    > In my car... Wherever I am... I press a button and select my home... and it routes
    > it for me... I have 99 such points that are stored as well as the 'recent'
    > locations.
    >
    > I wont buy a new car w/out GPS.
    >
    > jay Thu, Apr 4, 2002 mailto:[email protected]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>These different tools are clearly of very different utility yet the discussion
    >>rarely makes the type discussed clear.
    >>
    >>Frank Matthews
    >>
    >

Anyone have functional comparisons between the V and the Street Pilot III?

Frank Matthews

Go Fig wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Frank Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Let's either get off this thread or make it more rational and differentiated. The
    >>discussion comments on GPS as if it was a single type of tool. In fact, GPS is a
    >>tool which is available to users in a variety of manners. The simplest type simply
    >>identifies where you are and specifies the direction to a preset site. Another type
    >>identifies where you are and shows you the location on a map. The map is usually
    >>available in differing scales. Another, and not very portable, type identifies
    >>where you are, shows a map, and provides directions to a preset site recommitting
    >>if you go off the path.
    >>
    >
    > Garmin V does all that and more and fits in a pocket:
    >
    > http://www.garmin.com/products/gps5/
    >
    > When you have 'mapping' and a database of stores, post office, hospitals, schools
    > and restaurants... it is incredibly powerful.
    >
    > In my car... Wherever I am... I press a button and select my home... and it routes
    > it for me... I have 99 such points that are stored as well as the 'recent'
    > locations.
    >
    > I wont buy a new car w/out GPS.
    >
    > jay Thu, Apr 4, 2002 mailto:[email protected]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>These different tools are clearly of very different utility yet the discussion
    >>rarely makes the type discussed clear.
    >>
    >>Frank Matthews
    >>
    >

Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> "Hatunen" <[email protected]> a écrit:
    >>> One of the pleasures in cities like London, San Francisco or Paris, or any number
    >>> of others, is occasionally getting briefly lost.
    >> The problem is that being lost is often an experience that is not at all brief.
    >Maybe it's a driving thing? I explore on foot and by bicycle, and I don't

Hmmm I can keep track of direction reasonably well in a car (in Europe) though I do
find it much easier to lose track and lose track much faster when driving.

    >think I've ever been lost for more than a few minutes in my life (except

I did have a scary hour or two once when I was in Italy, I walked from Firenze to
Fiesole (about 3 hours) and thought I had a good sense of where I was. On the way
back however I took a couple of detours and spent an hour or so wandering about. As
it turns out I was little out and had overshot a little but not badly so. Needless I
was very happy when I was able to spot the Duomo; my hostel overlooked the plaza in
front of it.

    >By being "lost" I mean unable to find my way back in relatively direct fashion to
    >familiar landmarks and thence to my hotel.

Yep, there have been other times when I've been unsure of the exact route but had a
good nose for the best direct course.
--
snail @ careless net | Character is what you are in the dark! - Whorfin

snail <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Maybe it's a driving thing? I explore on foot and by bicycle, and I don't
    >
    > Hmmm I can keep track of direction reasonably well in a car (in Europe) though I do
    > find it much easier to lose track and lose track much faster when driving.

Reminds me of the biggest problem of all. I don't have a car, so occasionally I
borrow them from friends. However I have a really bad eye for cars and could not for
the life of me tell one sort from another (I mean, I know my colors, and I can tell
cars from trucks, and identify VW Beetles, but that's about it).

On more occasions than I'd dare admit, I've parked a car, walked into Home Depot or
whatever, then come out and realized I had absolutely no idea what the car looked
like. I've even done it when parking in front of my own house. Then, I have to
sheepishly phone and ask for color / brand / license number.

Never happens with my shoes.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "greg byshenk" <[email protected]> a écrit:

    > > This doesn't have much relation to Paris, London, and Amsterdam, though.

    > I've used GPS in Paris, too.

I've no reason to doubt you. That said...

It does nothing to alter the fact that "random drives in the countryside" (the part
that you snipped out, and the part that my comment up top was a response to) don't
have much relation to walking the streets of Paris, London, and Amsterdam.

I've never said that one cannot use a GPS in Paris (or London or Amsterdam); only
that doing so seems to me rather silly (for reasons that have been discussed).

    > > And, as others have already noted, "turn on the GPS and follow the arrow" may
    > > work _less_ well than a map when in a city.

    > In my experiments, I've been surprised at how well it actually works. In fact,
    > sometimes it has provided shorter routes than I had previously known.

And a decent map could very easily do exactly the same thing. And also would never
lead you down a blind alley, to a riverbank without a bridge, etc.

--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL hate spam? <http://www.cauce.org>
<http://www.byshenk.net/ive.been.spammed.html

In article <gofig-7C8ECE.19290904042002@c-24-130-27-
12.we.client2.attbi.com>, [email protected] says...

    > In my car... Wherever I am... I press a button and select my home... and it routes
    > it for me... I have 99 such points that are stored as well as the 'recent'
    > locations.

But does it know which is the BEST route?

ie less traffic lights, won't take you past a school at closing time (crazy soccer
mums scare me), less likely to be affecte dby traffic jams?

How can a GPS know all that?

--
Just Joan remove knickers to reply

In article <[email protected]>, Just Joan
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <gofig-7C8ECE.19290904042002@c-24-130-27-
    > 12.we.client2.attbi.com>, [email protected] says...
    >
    > > In my car... Wherever I am... I press a button and select my home... and it
    > > routes it for me... I have 99 such points that are stored as well as the 'recent'
    > > locations.
    >
    > But does it know which is the BEST route?
    >
    > ie less traffic lights, won't take you past a school at closing time (crazy soccer
    > mums scare me), less likely to be affecte dby traffic jams?
    >
    > How can a GPS know all that?

No...not yet anyway... but neither can a map... and a Map will NEVER be able
to do that.

jay Fri, Apr 5, 2002 mailto:[email protected]

    >
    >
    > --
    > Just Joan remove knickers to reply

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject... Galileo muttered under his breath:
"Nevertheless, it does move."

greg byshenk <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
    > > In my experiments, I've been surprised at how well it actually works. In fact,
    > > sometimes it has provided shorter routes than I had previously known.
    >
    > And a decent map could very easily do exactly the same thing.

Well, no, at the the "very easily part". I've used maps alot over the years.
I've dead reconded with nothing more than a tourist map and the sun across
miles of open terrain. Never the less I would never refer to good map work as
"easy". Even in a city, the opportunities for error are numerous, especially
when working in an unfamiliar language. Good maps are a god send, mediocre maps
can make the job much harder. There are vastly more mediocre maps than good
ones. When working with maps, it's just that, working, otherwise you're just
stumbling along.

    > And also would never lead you down a blind alley, to a riverbank without a
    > bridge, etc.

Technically what we are really discussing here is the difference between an
"active" device and a passive one. A map is a passive device. It doesn't give you
any feed back or interpretation. You can follow the wrong route for days, and the
map will not change one single ink spot. A GPS unit on the other hand through a
variety of methods will be giving you all sorts of information that sooner or
later will tend to let you know you are screwing up. Also, through a variety of
methods, a GPS device can interact with your intentions. i.e. you can tell it
where you want to go and it can give you options. The danger of course is that to
which you allude, it can lead you where you don't want to go if it either has bad
information, or limited capability. A map at best will merely have bad
information which can cause you to choose a bad route.