Garmin GPS - Why Impertinent Fluff?

Author

Why Impertinent Fluff?

Rob

2006-11-30, 10:33 pm

I'm in the market for a top-of-the-line automotive GPS system, but find many
of the current ones too full of fluff to be taken seriously. By "fluff" I
mean that includes things that have nothing to do with navigation, such as
an MP3 player, FM transmitter, bluetooth, and audio books.

I consider weather radar (not forecasts), construction, and accident
information pertinent top navigation, although I live in a rural area where
these services are likely years from being available.

Does anyone have insight into upcoming automotive after-market
self-contained GPSs that are short on fluff but long on navigation features?
I've have a Street Pilot III Colormap for years. It's only two limitations
are an inability to auto-route, and the small screen size. I note that
Garmin's 27xx and 28xx have even less screen real-estate than the SP III.
All I can find in a larger screen size for a non-RV is the Nuvi 660, but it
has fluff problems. I think S&T adequate, but I'm trying to avoid setting
up my laptop in the vehicle every time I take a trip.

Maybe part of my problem is that I'm more familiar with the Garmin products
than other brands. So maybe I ought also ask if there are there other
brands I should look at?

Rob

peter

2006-11-30, 10:33 pm

Rob wrote:
....
> Does anyone have insight into upcoming automotive after-market
> self-contained GPSs that are short on fluff but long on navigation features?
> I've have a Street Pilot III Colormap for years. It's only two limitations
> are an inability to auto-route, and the small screen size.

The SP III should be providing auto-routing if you have it loaded with
appropriate maps such as CityNavigator. It was the first Street Pilot
model that supported auto-routing.

> All I can find in a larger screen size for a non-RV is the Nuvi 660, but it
> has fluff problems.

Why do you consider "fluff" to be a problem? Once Garmin (or other
manufacturer) has a box with a decent processor, high-resolution
screen, audio output, and adequate memory, then adding features like
MP3 players, video/photo display, some games, and audio books doesn't
need to add much cost. All the necessary hardware may already be
present to support the basic navigation application. If adding
features results in an ability to sell in higher volumes, then it could
easily make the price of the package to the consumer be less than it
would be for a unit with simpler navigation-only software that sells to
a smaller market.

I'd suggest looking for a unit that meets your particular needs at a
competitive price. If that model happens to also include other
features that you don't see a need for then there's no need to ever
access them - it'll still navigate just as well

Phil Wheeler

2006-11-30, 10:33 pm

peter wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> ...
>
> The SP III should be providing auto-routing if you have it loaded with
> appropriate maps such as CityNavigator. It was the first Street Pilot
> model that supported auto-routing.
>

Right. I have an SP-III and it autoroutes great
with CityNavigator (now at v. 8). Bit slow
computationally; compared to my 60Cx it is a
snail. But works to well to replace

There was an earlier color model called the
Colormap (no III). Wonder if the OP meant that
model? Or if he has Metroguide maps loaded (not
4.0X which do autoroute) .. or neglected to load
the routing data?

Phil

apersson850

2006-12-01, 10:33 am

The very first Streetpilot model couldn't compute a route on its own.
You had to help it, so to speak. Then it could guide you along that
route.

Anders

Seagull

2006-12-01, 12:33 pm

In alt.satellite.gps.garmin Rob <r-a-b-9-9removehyphens@cox.net> wrote:
> I'm in the market for a top-of-the-line automotive GPS system, but find many
> of the current ones too full of fluff to be taken seriously. By "fluff" I
> mean that includes things that have nothing to do with navigation, such as
> an MP3 player, FM transmitter, bluetooth, and audio books.

Why would the addition of these features keep you from taking the device
seriously? If you look at the 2730 and 2820, these are serious navigation
systems and they are quite good at it. Better than any nav system I've
used.

The "fluff" you describe is designed to enhance the journey, just like
a radio or CD player would. What's wrong with that? I took a trip to
the midwest last month, and I was able to take my music and a satellite
radio with me and listen to it in a rental car without having to tote
a pile of CDs, and without having to carry standalone devices. As long
as the device is a solid navigator, I fail to see why it is such a
problem...

> I've have a Street Pilot III Colormap for years. It's only two limitations
> are an inability to auto-route, and the small screen size. I note that
> Garmin's 27xx and 28xx have even less screen real-estate than the SP III.

Larger screens aren't necessarily good. They are more distracting,
for one. I wouldn't want something smaller than the StreetPilot line,
but I find the display size is just fine. If you want something bigger,
look at the 7200. Though be prepared ot pay more too...

Cheers,
John

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)

Rob

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Thank you for the responses. Pretty much what I expected.

No, SP Colormap III doesn't auto-route. At least not with the 2.80
firmware. It was originally marketed with auto-routing, but at some point
after the initial firmware release, Garmin removed it in favor of doing
auto-routing on a computer using MapSource, and then uploading the route to
the SP. When I do that, all I get are numbers for each sequence point, not
actual street locations ("In 300ft, turn left," and it will show the road
but with a number, like "342.)). Strange. In the end, I stopped trusting
"Bitchin' Betty," as my wife and I fondly call it, and just follow my own
route.

Some of you indicated that you didn't mind the "fluff" as I graciously call
it. Simply, I perceive anything that has nothing to do with navigation as
fluff, but then, I want the map displayed in a heads-up display in my
windshield, too. Picky, I am. Too many years of working on aircraft, I'm
afraid, but then again their autorouting is pretty simple because they can
travel in a straight line, or wherever air traffic control tells them to.
:-)

By the way, I'm attuned to a larger display because I want better detail at
higher zoom levels. For example, little detail is available on the SP
Colormap III at the 1.2 mile setting, while significant detail can be seen
an the next setting up, 0.8 miles. However, a laptop-sized display, such as
the Garmin 7200, is too intrusive.

All that said, I have stumbled into the Navman N60i, which one reviewer
apparently didn't rate 5-stars because it didn't have some of the things I
call fluff
(http://www.pcw.co.uk/personal-compu...iew-navman-n60i).
Sounds like my kind of system. OK, the N60i camera is fluff, but has at
least somewhat of a tie to navigation.

So is anyone else working on a Navman N60i review? I've not found too many
out there, as yet, since the product is very new.

Rob

peter

2006-12-01, 10:33 pm

Rob wrote:

> No, SP Colormap III doesn't auto-route. At least not with the 2.80
> firmware.

This is *not* true. The Street Pilot III autoroutes just fine,
although it doesn't calculate as quickly as more current models that
have faster processors. BTW, the names of this series were:
Street Pilot (b&w screen, no auto-routing)
Street Pilot ColorMap (color screen, no auto-routing)
Street Pilot III (color screen, with auto-routing).
Note that there's no such thing as a Street Pilot Colormap III, but the
SP III was the only one that ever had a 2.80 firmware version, so that
must be the one you have. It will do auto-routing if you load the maps
into it properly - I suspect an operator error.

> It was originally marketed with auto-routing, but at some point
> after the initial firmware release, Garmin removed it in favor of doing
> auto-routing on a computer using MapSource, and then uploading the route to
> the SP.

Who told you this story? It's not true at all since there was no such
removal of the auto-route capability. Both the unit and MapSource on
the PC have the auto-routing feature.

> Some of you indicated that you didn't mind the "fluff" as I graciously call
> it. Simply, I perceive anything that has nothing to do with navigation as
> fluff, but then, I want the map displayed in a heads-up display in my
> windshield, too. Picky, I am. Too many years of working on aircraft, I'm
> afraid, but then again their autorouting is pretty simple because they can
> travel in a straight line, or wherever air traffic control tells them to.
> :-)

The real question is why you would object to such added features since
they don't negatively affect the navigation functions. It's pretty
clear why manufacturers are including them since the needed hardware
has to already be in the box, the cost of developing the software is
pretty small, and it increases their sales and therefore drops the cost
of development on a per-unit basis. End result is that they can sell
you a unit with more features at the same or even less cost than one
with just basic navigation.
>
> By the way, I'm attuned to a larger display because I want better detail at
> higher zoom levels. For example, little detail is available on the SP
> Colormap III at the 1.2 mile setting, while significant detail can be seen
> an the next setting up, 0.8 miles.

As I recall, there's a Map Setup page to adjust how much detail shows
up.

Phil Wheeler

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

Rob wrote:
> Thank you for the responses. Pretty much what I expected.
>
> No, SP Colormap III doesn't auto-route. At least not with the 2.80
> firmware. It was originally marketed with auto-routing, but at some point
> after the initial firmware release, Garmin removed it in favor of doing
> auto-routing on a computer using MapSource, and then uploading the route to
> the SP.

You are 100% wrong. They removed autorouting from
Metroguide software after 4.02, not the unit.

If you have CityNavigator, or Metroguide
4.01/4.02, the SP-III will autoroute.

I have it in my car and use it daily .. and never
create routes on a computer.

Phil

Thurman

2006-12-02, 12:33 pm

"Rob" <r-a-b-9-9removehyphens@cox.net> wrote in message
news:SSKbh.1856$2t1.1661@newsfe18.lga...
> I'm in the market for a top-of-the-line automotive GPS system, but find
> many
> of the current ones too full of fluff to be taken seriously. By "fluff" I
> mean that includes things that have nothing to do with navigation, such as
> an MP3 player, FM transmitter, bluetooth, and audio books.
>
> I consider weather radar (not forecasts), construction, and accident
> information pertinent top navigation, although I live in a rural area
> where
> these services are likely years from being available.

While waiting for a new GPS unit to be released next month, I bought a new
Cingular Smartphone. For $0 install and $10/mon unlimited routing, it pairs
with my Bluetooth GPS. Telenav is a good product, but doesn't do things
available from S&T like multiple stops and optimization

I did the route planning with S&T; discovered later I could load the
destinations into Telenav via their web. The Telenav street info is the most
current of the four mapping products I have, but have not purchased S&T2007.

If your cell phone supports routing, that might be a short term solution.
For the next six months, GPS is reported to be the hottest consumer product
(It's about time).

Rob

2006-12-02, 3:33 pm

On 2-Dec-2006, Phil Wheeler <wt6uh-ng7@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You are 100% wrong. They removed autorouting from
> Metroguide software after 4.02, not the unit.

Well, I've been 100% wrong before. Perhaps I need further define what I
mean by stating it doesn't autoroute.

Yes, there is a Route function button on the device, and it attempts to make
a route when I go through the required sequence of steps. But what comes
out of it is a route where the purple highlighed route does not align with
the road (significantly so) and instead of actual street names where I'm
supposed to turn, it comes up with 3-digit numbers.

So I'm sticking to my statement: It doesn't autoroute. I have to use
MetroGuide and I've used versions 4, 5, 7, and 8. What you're all telling
me is that the unit is defective, because I've done this long enough to know
it is not the fleshy interface device.

Thanks.

Rob

Phil Wheeler

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

Jack Erbes

2006-12-02, 10:33 pm

Rob wrote:
> On 2-Dec-2006, Phil Wheeler <wt6uh-ng7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well, I've been 100% wrong before. Perhaps I need further define what I
> mean by stating it doesn't autoroute.
>
> Yes, there is a Route function button on the device, and it attempts to make
> a route when I go through the required sequence of steps. But what comes
> out of it is a route where the purple highlighed route does not align with
> the road (significantly so) and instead of actual street names where I'm
> supposed to turn, it comes up with 3-digit numbers.
<snip>

Does the route have waypoints numbered 001 and up? Is there the 3-digit
numbers? Those might be waypoint names.

What is your preference setting on MapSource? Check Edit/Preferences
and look at the Routing tab. If that is set to create Use Autorouting
or Use Direct-routes? It won't follow the road vectors (in MapSource)
if that is set to the latter.

When you create a route in MapSource and upload it to the GPS, it only
uploads the route as a list of via points, waypoints, or a combination
of via points and waypoints. What kind of points are used depends on
whether you clicked on places on the map or waypoints to create the route.

When you activate the route on the GPS the route is calculated using the
mapping data on the GPS and the uploaded list of via/waypoints. So if
your mapping is not the same on both the PC and GPS you routes might not
be the same.

Further, when you activate a route, depending on how the setting and
preferences are on your GPS, it may or may not ask if you want to use a
Follow Roads (autorouting) route or a Off Road (point to point or
direct) route. It sounds like your GPS is calculating only point to
point or off road routes now.

So what you are seeing may be a combination of issues on your settings
in MapSource and on the GPS.

I'm a little confused about the model you have, I don't think there was
a SP Colormap III. There was a SP III and a SP Colormap.

> So I'm sticking to my statement: It doesn't autoroute. I have to use
> MetroGuide and I've used versions 4, 5, 7, and 8. What you're all telling
> me is that the unit is defective, because I've done this long enough to know
> it is not the fleshy interface device.

If you upload a map from MG 4, it should autoroute unless your GPS
setting are only calculate point to point routes. The uploaded maps
from MG 5,7, and 8 do not autoroute. Although they can be made to
autoroute if you use a third party application to upload them.

To further the confusion, the version of MetroGuide that is marked as
V4.02 on the CDs reports itself as MetroGuide V3.01 in the MapSource
About... menu after it is installed.

Jack

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)

Brad Bishop

2006-12-05, 10:33 pm

> Some of you indicated that you didn't mind the "fluff" as I graciously
> call
> it. Simply, I perceive anything that has nothing to do with navigation as
> fluff, but then, I want the map displayed in a heads-up display in my
> windshield, too. Picky, I am. Too many years of working on aircraft, I'm
> afraid, but then again their autorouting is pretty simple because they can
> travel in a straight line, or wherever air traffic control tells them to.
> :-)

I get your 'fluff' comment.

Cell phones are a good example. The basic cellphone I had years ago (Nokia
3090) was far better than any cellphone I've had since. The 3090 could be a
phone, text, and do AIM/IM really well.

Everything since this has just gotten worse. Sure, they have more features
and can run little applications, but when I need to use the phone I don't
want to load the 'phone applet' I want to use the phone. Some phones are
better than others but I'd much prefer to go the less is more route. It's
fine if it's got extra features and they work or stay out of the way. I
don't care at that point. Too often the extra features clog things up in one
way or another.

I will say that I picked up the 2820 last week (I didn't get XM - I got the
FM-Traffic module) and I've been very happy with it.

I don't think the StreetPilot makes a very good XM receiver, though. It kind
of limits you to the car. Sure, you could come in and rig it up but, really,
it's pretty much car-only. If you're going to go that route you may as well
buy the real XM tuner for your radio that will just work as another source
input for your radio.

I'd go the XM route if they would lower the price on traffic/weather only
service (something like $5/month seems reasonable) - then they are
competitive with FM traffic (less regions but you get weather). As it is you
either subscribe to XM (I've got Sirius) or you pay $10/month for traffic
info.

Brad

Peter Headland

2006-12-06, 12:38 pm

Rob wrote:
> All that said, I have stumbled into the Navman N60i

Looks good. My only gripe is that their Web site makes it sound like
the POIs do not include stuff like shops, restaurants, etc. (they say
"transport-related", which implies only gas stations, rest stops,
parking lots, etc.) I find POIs to be extremely useful; you might want
to double-check that point.

--
Peter Headland

Peter Headland

2006-12-06, 12:38 pm

BTW, their Web site is a pile of crap - not only does their home page
not work with Firefox, their dealer finder actually messes Firefox up
so you can't enter a new URL while you are viewing it.

--
Peter Headland

Seagull

2006-12-07, 12:33 pm

In alt.satellite.gps.garmin Brad Bishop <nntp.bsb@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I don't think the StreetPilot makes a very good XM receiver, though. It kind
> of limits you to the car. Sure, you could come in and rig it up but, really,
> it's pretty much car-only. If you're going to go that route you may as well
> buy the real XM tuner for your radio that will just work as another source
> input for your radio.

To each their own. I like the XM receiver in the 2730 and the big
advantage to the integration is that the music and the voice prompts are
coming over the same audio line. It's also one less device in the
car.

Cheers,
John

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)

Rob

2006-12-07, 10:33 pm

On 6-Dec-2006, "Peter Headland" <PHeadland@excite.com> wrote:

> Rob wrote:
>
> Looks good. My only gripe is that their Web site makes it sound like
> the POIs do not include stuff like shops, restaurants, etc. (they say
> "transport-related", which implies only gas stations, rest stops,
> parking lots, etc.) I find POIs to be extremely useful; you might want
> to double-check that point.
>
> --
> Peter Headland

You noticed that, too? When I initially started looking at the N60i, my
initial impression from their web site is that it only covered Europe. Yes,
I had to do quite a bit of navigating(!) around their web site to find it,
but the POIs are there.

Somewhat off-topic, but not many web sites give much consideration to the
"human-factors" of web site design, and defeat one of the underlying
philosophies of the Internet: To be able to find information quickly.

Despite the drooling over the N60i, I've put my purchase plans on hold
pending a chance to observe next month's Computer Electronics Show GPS
offerings http://www.cesweb.org/attendees/markets/mobile.asp).

Rob

Dan White

2006-12-08, 7:33 am

"Brad Bishop" <nntp.bsb@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o5KdnajGHbInkuv
YnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
<snip>
>
> I get your 'fluff' comment.
>
> Cell phones are a good example. The basic cellphone I had years ago (Nokia
> 3090) was far better than any cellphone I've had since. The 3090 could be
> a phone, text, and do AIM/IM really well.
>
> Everything since this has just gotten worse. Sure, they have more features
> and can run little applications, but when I need to use the phone I don't
> want to load the 'phone applet' I want to use the phone. Some phones are
> better than others but I'd much prefer to go the less is more route. It's
> fine if it's got extra features and they work or stay out of the way. I
> don't care at that point. Too often the extra features clog things up in
> one way or another.

I definitely agree phone wise. I have a personal mobile and a work mobile.
My personal one (Sony Ericsson K800i) is basically a nice digital camera
that happens to have a phone attached ;-)

My work one is the trusty Nokia 6310i, and will stay my work phone for the
forseeable future. Massive battery life, bluetooth and a simple menu mean it
doesn't take ages to operate and doesn't crash in use like a lot of new
phones seem to these days.

On the other hand, I have the Nuvi 310, and I really like some of the fluff.
The comprehensive list of car parks and petrol stations has been really
useful to me when I'm in a new area. Also, I kinda like having the MP3
player built in. I do a lot a street level visits to clients, and it's
really nice to be able to slip it in my pocket and have some music whilst I
walk to the next place on my list! I don't use the MP3 player in the car
much, as my car stereo plays MP3's so what's the point!

--
Dan White
(dan@finex666.org.uk)
Perform an exorcism when replying.

Dr. Anton T. Squeegee

2006-12-15, 4:33 am

In article <SSKbh.1856$2t1.1661@newsfe18.lga>, r-a-b-9-
9removehyphens@cox.net (known to some as Rob) scribed...

> I'm in the market for a top-of-the-line automotive GPS system, but find many
> of the current ones too full of fluff to be taken seriously. By "fluff" I
> mean that includes things that have nothing to do with navigation, such as
> an MP3 player, FM transmitter, bluetooth, and audio books.
>
> I consider weather radar (not forecasts), construction, and accident
> information pertinent top navigation, although I live in a rural area where
> these services are likely years from being available.

Unfortunately true. I would LOVE to be able to get real-time
traffic data overlayed on top of the mapping display I use. What bugs me
is that such data is READILY available in my area -- as long as you have
an Internet connection, and as long as you access it through a web page.

What I need is just to be able to pluck it off the air, say via a
specialized receiver, and just feed the results (in the form of a simple
serial data stream) to a spare comm port in my van's navigation
computer. The mapping software should then be able to make sense of it.

However, as you said... "light years" away, and far more because of
politics and greed than technical limitations.

> Does anyone have insight into upcoming automotive after-market
> self-contained GPSs that are short on fluff but long on navigation features?

Welllll... To be perfectly honest, I'm just as disgusted as you are
with the current crop of "consumer" units, so I did my own. Custom-
built. It consists of an industrial PC chassis, a single-board Pentium
III computer, passive backplane, Windows 2000 Pro, GPS receiver,
separate 12" LCD panel and weatherproof keyboard up front, and mapping
software (I use either DeLorme or Streets & Trips, depending on where
I'm going).

The only arrangements I've seen on the road that are even close to
my custom job, in terms of versatility, screen size, and features are
from those folks who have actually mounted entire laptops in their
vehicle.

What I'm saying is that I really think you'd be best off to simply
roll your own.

BTW, I love your subject line. My gut-reaction answer was "Because
pertinent fluff isn't any fun at all."

Happy tweaking.

--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

LinkBot