|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > GPS > September 2007 > How useful is the real-time traffic information?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
How useful is the real-time traffic information?
|
|
| fperazelli@gmail.com 2007-09-09, 3:33 pm |
| I'm interested in upgrading my GPS to get the real-time traffic info,
but I've been trying to find out how active the updates to traffic
conditions are. That is, if an accident takes place on a major roadway
and traffic immediately backs up, about how long will it take before
that information is incorporated into the GPS system for drivers to be
alerted? If it takes 20 minutes or more, I suspect that I'll still end
up stuck in traffic since congestion comes and goes fairly quickly in
various parts of my city. The road construction information would be
more reliable.
For those of you using the service, have you found it has reported
some intersections or roadways as congested even though the problem
that triggered that report had already cleared up?
Thanks for any info!
| |
| JAlves 2007-09-09, 3:33 pm |
| In article <1189365353.486383.239930@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
fperazelli@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm interested in upgrading my GPS to get the real-time traffic info,
> but I've been trying to find out how active the updates to traffic
> conditions are. That is, if an accident takes place on a major roadway
> and traffic immediately backs up, about how long will it take before
> that information is incorporated into the GPS system for drivers to be
> alerted? If it takes 20 minutes or more, I suspect that I'll still end
> up stuck in traffic since congestion comes and goes fairly quickly in
> various parts of my city. The road construction information would be
> more reliable.
>
> For those of you using the service, have you found it has reported
> some intersections or roadways as congested even though the problem
> that triggered that report had already cleared up?
>
> Thanks for any info!
The problem I have with the FM traffic info is that it only covers the
highways. So, if there is a back-up on the main road, you have no way
of knowing how the side roads are doing.
--
Please reply to the group, not by email. The email address in the
header is not valid unless you remove the obvious.
| |
| Larry G 2007-09-09, 10:33 pm |
| On Sep 9, 3:41 pm, JAlves <notjalves_02...@yahoospam.com> wrote:
> In article <1189365353.486383.239...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> fperaze...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> The problem I have with the FM traffic info is that it only covers the
> highways. So, if there is a back-up on the main road, you have no way
> of knowing how the side roads are doing.
>
> --
> Please reply to the group, not by email. The email address in the
> header is not valid unless you remove the obvious.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
..... EXACTLY! so you know the main road is dorked.... and all the
locals have bailed onto their (already known) Plan "B" roads and you
being a clueless person just passing through.... the GPS not having
any knowledge at all of the bail out traffic on the alternate routes -
sends you down an alternate route - because the GPS has no sensor data
for the alternate route.
Of course.. even if it did (and they might someday)... what would
happen?
I suspect... the unit (if smart enough) would come back ..and in a
nice way... tell you that you are F...ed.... anyhow.. :-)
In the real world,.... I...
a. - try not to arrive at an urban destination that I am not familiar
with - at rush hour
b. - if for some reason... I end up there in the thick of it... I will
retire to a restaurant for drinks and a meal.....
the CONCEPT of real-time status info is pretty awesome... but to
actually pull it off so that it becomes fairly timely and reliable...
is going to take more time on task.
| |
|
| If "real time" isn't any better than the radio reports of traffic accidents
in Houston...then it will be worthless. I can't tell about you the many
times that I've heard about a "wreck ahead" only to arrive moments later and
find it already cleared up..and....of course, vice versa. Rich
| |
| Phil Wheeler 2007-09-09, 10:33 pm |
| rich wrote:
> If "real time" isn't any better than the radio reports of traffic accidents
> in Houston...then it will be worthless. I can't tell about you the many
> times that I've heard about a "wreck ahead" only to arrive moments later and
> find it already cleared up..and....of course, vice versa. Rich
>
>
Well .. except at least you don't have to be glued
to the radio to hear about it ;-)
Phil
| |
| iwouldntknow 2007-09-25, 12:33 pm |
| On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:15:53 -0700, fperazelli@gmail.com wrote:
>I'm interested in upgrading my GPS to get the real-time traffic info,
>but I've been trying to find out how active the updates to traffic
>conditions are. That is, if an accident takes place on a major roadway
>and traffic immediately backs up, about how long will it take before
>that information is incorporated into the GPS system for drivers to be
>alerted? If it takes 20 minutes or more, I suspect that I'll still end
>up stuck in traffic since congestion comes and goes fairly quickly in
>various parts of my city. The road construction information would be
>more reliable.
>
>For those of you using the service, have you found it has reported
>some intersections or roadways as congested even though the problem
>that triggered that report had already cleared up?
>
>Thanks for any info!
Depends on where you live. Here in Europe it works great. Read up on TMC
http://www.tmcforum.com/
| |
| Larry G 2007-09-25, 10:33 pm |
| On Sep 25, 1:02 pm, iwouldntknow <iwouldntk...@iwouldntknow.nospam.no>
wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:15:53 -0700, fperaze...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Depends on where you live. Here in Europe it works great. Read up on TMChttp://www.tmcforum.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
As they say... the quality and quantity of the information and the
timing of it's availability is... EVERYTHING.
the Concept is pretty neat.... the reality is that there has to be
hundreds/thousands of sensors continuously sampling real-time traffic
conditions and transmitting it back to a central server which then
aggregates and broadcasts that info to traffic receivers.
so far.. most places... either do not have enough sensors to provide
granular enough info and/or there is a significant latency on the info
that is reported - to the point where you'll be advised of congested
conditions - long after the congestion has cleared.. or the reverse...
the highway is congested and your unit says it's clear.
perhaps over in Europe.. they got it worked out.
| |
| Darius 2007-09-25, 10:33 pm |
| On Sep 9, 9:15 pm, fperaze...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm interested in upgrading my GPS to get the real-time traffic info,
> but I've been trying to find out how active the updates to traffic
> conditions are. That is, if an accident takes place on a major roadway
> and traffic immediately backs up, about how long will it take before
> that information is incorporated into the GPS system for drivers to be
> alerted? If it takes 20 minutes or more, I suspect that I'll still end
> up stuck in traffic since congestion comes and goes fairly quickly in
> various parts of my city. The road construction information would be
> more reliable.
>
> For those of you using the service, have you found it has reported
> some intersections or roadways as congested even though the problem
> that triggered that report had already cleared up?
>
> Thanks for any info!
There is no problem to inject roadworks, traffic , jam data, coming
from Highway into
your car navigation unit.
I am just developing such applications.
In UK real-time data can be accessed from highway, Australia is just
building such national-wide system, in US real-time traffic data cme
from many sources depending on a state.
Germany is developing a system to access real-time traffic data from
mobile stations.
So if your navigation can connect to Internet over your gsm phone to
access such data
and your system is open Linux based, there is no problem to succeed.
I am just testing Nokia 770/800 units for navigation, featured by Wifi
and bluetooth
and free maps and server-side routing.
Do hope to present such system at Navteq conference in October as a
Navteq developer.
But any such refined, multi-featured car sat navigation requires
faster processors, more memory, more applications, os Win Mobile or
Linux/Debian, full on-line support from a manufacturer and pricing is
really at top level.
It's like bringing your slim laptop into your car to be used for sat
navigation.
HD on, Wifi on, bluetooth on
so there is no way to keep such protect system against any crash on
your way.
Routing algorithms must run faster and smarter, generating multi-path
solutions.
Pentium quad is just the right processor to run such graphical,
interactive workstation in your car
not to say about vehicle tracking forecasting features and multi
display operation in heavy traffic.
Prototypes are already available but there is no market demand for any
such sophisticated system at top price.
Darius
| |
|
| In message <1190762281.602949.172950@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Larry
G <gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote
>so far.. most places... either do not have enough sensors to provide
>granular enough info and/or there is a significant latency on the info
>that is reported - to the point where you'll be advised of congested
>conditions - long after the congestion has cleared.. or the reverse...
>the highway is congested and your unit says it's clear.
>
>perhaps over in Europe.. they got it worked out.
>
Where I live in the UK, if the local radio station reports congestion
all the (minor) roads between the alternative (major) routes become
grid-locked. It is unlikely that there will be sensors on the minor
roads that can inform you that they have now become blocked.
It is little use being told of traffic problems unless the unit can give
a viable alternative route. Being routed off a motorway and through a
town at the time of the 'school run' can lead to longer journey times
than if you waited in the queue on the original route.
--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com
| |
| Larry G 2007-09-26, 7:33 am |
| On Sep 26, 4:16 am, Alan <junk_re...@amac.f2s.com> wrote:
> In message <1190762281.602949.172...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Larry
> G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
> Where I live in the UK, if the local radio station reports congestion
> all the (minor) roads between the alternative (major) routes become
> grid-locked. It is unlikely that there will be sensors on the minor
> roads that can inform you that they have now become blocked.
>
> It is little use being told of traffic problems unless the unit can give
> a viable alternative route. Being routed off a motorway and through a
> town at the time of the 'school run' can lead to longer journey times
> than if you waited in the queue on the original route.
>
> --
>
> Alan
> news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com
....."It is little use being told of traffic problems unless the unit
can give
a viable alternative route."
agree... and this is separate from the quality/quantity issue of the
mainline road sensors also.
The GPS does "know" the alternate routes but what it often does not
know as Alan points out.. is the traffic situation on the alternative
roads which may also have heavy traffic from normal/local
conditions .. OR the alternative route is heavy with traffic diverting
from the mainline... either local folks who know to use the
alternative road when the mainline is blocked... OR.. as GPS useage
goes up.. tons of new GPS users... obediently following the GPS-
suggested alternate route to "avoid" mainline backups.
we can see the concept.. but it won't be mature.. until traffic
sensors are more widespread and will include major roads off of the
mainlines... and how fast the added sensors get installed will depend
on .. money... from traffic info subscriptions.
| |
|
| Larry G <gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> the Concept is pretty neat.... the reality is that there has to be
> hundreds/thousands of sensors continuously sampling real-time traffic
> conditions and transmitting it back to a central server which then
> aggregates and broadcasts that info to traffic receivers.
Neah! the Traffic Service just gather information from local traffic news,
then transmit the information to subscribers. They just need to know some
simple information like where the accident is, then give you a newer route
to get around the accident.
Or Gas Price and Weather don't have sensor either.
| |
| Hans-Georg Michna 2007-09-27, 7:33 am |
| On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:45:46 -0700, Darius wrote:
>Pentium quad is just the right processor to run such graphical,
>interactive workstation in your car
Darius,
I find that hard to believe. Road traffic is something like a
1.5-dimensional problem, the number of possible roads for any
particular route is not very high, and the unit has a lot of
time to refine a route when there is nothing else to do.
Perhaps the designers haven't yet had the idea that it is enough
to tell the driver which direction to go right now, after he has
entered a new destination. While he drives, the unit can refine
the route and calculate it completely.
Sure, there may be situations when the optimal initial direction
depends on the complete route calculation, but these are rare.
I fail to see any genuine demand for high processor performance.
Hans-Georg
--
No mail, please.
| |
| Larry G 2007-09-27, 7:33 am |
| On Sep 27, 5:46 am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
georgNoEmailPle...@michna.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:45:46 -0700, Darius wrote:
>
> Darius,
>
> I find that hard to believe. Road traffic is something like a
> 1.5-dimensional problem, the number of possible roads for any
> particular route is not very high, and the unit has a lot of
> time to refine a route when there is nothing else to do.
>
> Perhaps the designers haven't yet had the idea that it is enough
> to tell the driver which direction to go right now, after he has
> entered a new destination. While he drives, the unit can refine
> the route and calculate it completely.
>
> Sure, there may be situations when the optimal initial direction
> depends on the complete route calculation, but these are rare.
>
> I fail to see any genuine demand for high processor performance.
>
> Hans-Georg
> --
> No mail, please.
I have a Tom Tom.. and it does not do traffic.. and it takes a few
seconds to calculate a new route.. and it can take more than a few
seconds in some cases.
Let's set up a scenario in an urban area where you are on the mainline
beltway and you have a state-of-the-art unit... and further that there
are traffic sensors not only on the mainline but on most of the major
alternate routes
... and let's say the mainline suffers a complete shutdown - at rush
hour... and your unit ... has to consult .. not only it's road
database.. but also.. after looking at the possible alternate
ROUTES .. it has to then look at the traffic conditions on each of
those connecting roads on those alternate ROUTES to determine the
optimal alternate route. (otherwise.. you're just going to run into
another backup from the local bailout traffic).
So I would submit.. that you are going to need a powerful processor...
to do that.
unless of course.. the GPS unit .. when it computes alternate routes
as a result of traffic on the mainline... does NOT utilize traffic to
compute the alternate routes.
... which I suspect is the way that most units work right now....
|
|
|
|
|