|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Garmin GPS > August 2005 > City Select vs. City Navigator
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 |
City Select vs. City Navigator
|
|
|
| I saw the post on here about the diffence between City Select and
Metroguide, but i was wondering what the difference between city select and
city navigator. I just purchased (yesterday) City Select with the auto nav
kit for my Legend C.
Thanks.
jody
| |
|
| IMO one of them talks (with the right GPS). May also be the autorouting
| |
| Seagull 2005-08-02, 11:50 pm |
| Matt <web1000@shaw.ca> wrote:
> IMO one of them talks (with the right GPS).
The both do.
> May also be the autorouting
CityNav includes more detailed directions (city and street names as
presented on highway entrance/exit signs instread of just exit numbers),
greater granularity in road classifications/speeds and time-of-day
routing restrictions for roads that have them, among other things.
Basic routing information, however, is the same between the two
products.
Cheers,
-+JLS
--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
| |
| Colin Wilson 2005-08-02, 11:50 pm |
| > I saw the post on here about the diffence between City Select and
> Metroguide, but i was wondering what the difference between city select and
> city navigator. I just purchased (yesterday) City Select with the auto nav
> kit for my Legend C.
I`ve got City Nav NA and City Select Europe (I live in the UK)
The routing features are, from what i`ve seen, almost identical, but CN
has a few tricks up its sleeve that might not be entirely useful for the
majority of users - it takes into account things like weight / time
restrictions for roads, and I believe it also takes into account the
number of traffic lights, whereas CS doesn`t - that can allegedly, under
certain circumstances, result in a "better" route.
On the other hand, having used both, I think some of the instructions on
CS are actually clearer to understand - particularly at roundabouts.
Routes generated with CS seem generally consistent with CN when compared
side by side, but there are sometimes discrepancies that seem hard to
figure out - take for example a fixed route I travel at the moment 5
miles away... apologies for the ropey ascii :-} - imagine heading from
my destination back home...
|
------------A-Road------------------O
x home |
M
|
W
A
Y
"1"
|
--O---------M-WAY"2"----------------O----------------
| junction
|
|
|
|
x destination |
|
CN normally tells me to go to the junction of the motorways then head
"east" down Motorway "2", then follow a slightly out of the way minor
road to get home.
CS tells me to go to the junction of the motorways, then head "north",
up Motorway "1" coming off at a different junction, then heading 2.5
miles down an A-road.
What both packages miss are that there is an A-road that leads directly
from the destination to the minor roads CN tells me to take when in the
vicinity of my home - the time differentiation between the routes is
negligible, and ISTR the auto-generated routes actually take longer.
One minor "feature" i`ve noticed is CS seems less willing to spit its
dummy out when you go off-route, and there is a definite delay of
sometimes 20-30 seconds before it tells you you`re off-route.
Notably on a road parallel to the one I live on, CS will not say i`m
off-route despite it being visibly so, indicating the road i`m on versus
the highlighted road, but telling me the instructions as though I was
ON-route.
|
|
|
|
|