Are Sat-Nav Systems Becoming Information Overload?

curtS writes "The Economist's tech editor reviews the ever-more-detailed assistance of mobile GPS devices, and wonders if the attention-sucking visual complexity isn't more trouble than it's worth. He contrasts the simplicity of London's Underground map (not directionally accurate but visually easy to understand) and his own habit of dimming the display and using the audio commands for guidance."

Comments

.no

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

no more than a map I suppose

Re:.no

[Anonymous Coward]

These system are helping me so much that there is a lot of space for trouble until it is more trouble than it's worth.

Re:.no

[sentientbeing]

My TomTom is a godsend. Id be lost without it.

Re:.no

[Runaway1956]

I would argue that. Rand McNally road atlases were my constant companion for years. It's hard to recall how my internal mapping and/or memory of Rand McNally evolved in the first couple years - but today, I can navigate anywhere on the North American continent (minus Mexico) without a map. I can leave my house, and go to any major city without referencing a map at all. Some small town, I don't know of? Ten minutes with that atlas, and I can drive to it without looking again. To find an address, I'll check the map just short of the city.

Those GPS things? Personally, I don't like them - they want to hold your hand all the way across the continent. Every turn, every fuel stop, every restaurant. When I travel, I want to make the decisions, not have MapQuest, or anyone else decide which ramp to exit or enter the interstate on. Travel is supposed to be an adventure - let me decide when, where, and how.

For fun, I've gone off route many times, just to see new country. I've seen mountains, valleys, and rivers that few Americans ever thought about seeing, because I took the less beaten path, down country roads. And, food. Fast Food Americana just sucks. I went north into Tennessee one early one morning, topped a small mountain, and found a hole in the wall restaurant. I got a real southern breakfast, for half the price of any chain restaurant, and 45 minutes of chat from some old dude who looked like he might have served in the Civil War. (He might even have been the truck driver who delivered dirt for the day of creation!)

GPS is distracting as all hell when you do make a "wrong turn". Rand McNally just sits on the seat until I ASK for his advice.

Of course, I'll admit - mapreading was pretty much a lost art before GPS technology came out. You can stop in any truck stop in America, and find that 2/3 of the drivers can't read Rand McNally, or any other version of a printed map. Instead, they rely on that GPS computer, the cell phone, and pure dumb luck. The other 1/3? A lot of them are like me - they've crisscrossed the country so many times, they don't NEED no stinking map most of the time!! Those last 10 or 20 miles going to a new stop is all they need any help with, and often times they can get that from the CB radio!

Re:.no

[zennyboy]

Since I moved to Spain from UK last year,

Re:.no

[zennyboy]

Since I moved to Spain from UK last year, between finding destination (Google Earth) and driving there (iGo), when driving I rarely know WHERE I am or WHERE the destination is. Always get there though :-)

Re:.no

[cdrudge]

Those GPS things? Personally, I don't like them - they want to hold your hand all the way across the continent. Every turn, every fuel stop, every restaurant. When I travel, I want to make the decisions, not have MapQuest, or anyone else decide which ramp to exit or enter the interstate on. Travel is supposed to be an adventure - let me decide when, where, and how.

They only hold your hand as much as you let them. If you chose to follow their directions for every turn, that's your choice. If you only want them to help guide you in the general direction, they can do that too.

I've never had a problem taking a trip or reading any type of map. My wife is the opposite so I had gave her a Garmin last Christmas. We took a trip from Indiana to North Carolina to visit her parents earlier this year and brought along our 3 sons ages 6-8. Highway route, it was a fairly simple trip as we were only following a couple of major highways the entire way. However having the GPS was wonderful as we could easily see how far it was till upcoming exits or reststops for bathroom breaks, how far restaurants or gas stations were for meals or to refuel, or just to answer the frequent "Are we there yet" or "how long till we get there".

On the way home, I decided to take a slight detour to the New River Gorge Bridge. I remember it from when I was growing up, and thought my boys would like it. Except I didn't exactly know where it was at. A few button pushes later, I already knew where it was, the best way to get there (which wasn't a major interstate route), and how much time we would "lose" with the detour. I could have tried to find it on a paper map, but I might not have been able to find it nor quickly determine how far away it was.

Re:.no

[FrigBot]

In May and June this year, I went to Germany and Holland with my father. We rented an Audi with a GPS built in. It was a gift from the gods of navigation. Without it we would have been totally inept, and neither of us had used one before. I generally ran the nav system while he drove (because I picked up the fine points of the system quicker than he did).

One day, in Germany on the Autobahn (can't remember exactly where right now but I do have notes on it) there was a huge traffic jam. I had no idea that traffic there gets like that. But everything was backed up. People shut off their cars and got out to chat. Nobody was moving, in either direction. Remember this is the Autobahn.

Anyway, two notable things happened. We decided to follow a small group of cars that were driving on the shoulder and trying to find a way out. This was probably illegal, but whatever. After getting off the main highway, we wound up alone somewhere. Check the GPS, we found exactly where we were (with the traffic lady letting us know that noone was moving) and it was one a dirt road. I zoomed in on the map, found the next nearest hamlet and we navigated there. Then I did that again and again, and we drove through about a dozen tiny villages. It was amazing. We saw old buildings that no tourist ever sees, and some had scars in them, maybe from WW2. Got to see a lot of neat things.

Later, back on the main highway, we were stopped at a light or something and the kid in the car behind us jumped out, came to my window and asked for directions to some town he was trying to reach. I used the gps and gave him what he needed. That was cool too.

GPS is not distracting. I found it very helpful. Witout it we never would have seen those off-the-beaten path villages.

Re:.no

[not-my-real-name]

I'll see your European anecdote and raise you one. In 2005 I spent 4 weeks driving around Europe with my wife and parents. We had no GPS, but plenty of maps. We were able to find our way into and out of all sorts of out of the way places. The only trouble was trying to meet one cousin where we were waiting on one side of the freeway and he was waiting on the other side.

Now, I've always been good with maps, have a good sense of direction, and a good spacial sense. Not everyone is good with maps or navigating.

On the other hand, often people get their trips too structured. Having a little less structure, a willingness to improvise, and a sense of adventure can result in a really memorable trip.

In your case, the GPS gave you the confidence to get off the beaten path. However if you were just blindly following its directions, you might still be sitting on the autobahn.

Re:.no

[dov_0]

I find maps far less distracting, far less annoying and generally far more useful. Personally, I never really trust anything with a womans voice that gives directions...

Re:.no

[PitaBred]

"However if you were just blindly following its directions, you might still be sitting on the autobahn."

And if you're that kind of person, it doesn't matter what kind of map you're following. GPS is nice because it knows where you are. Maps, you have to figure that out. Admittedly, it's not hard and should be a skill you have, but why do all your division longhand if you have a calculator?

Re:.no

[Runaway1956]

As not_my_name says - you seem to fit into a special group. Far to many people RELY on that GPS to tell them everything. Maybe if I were a bit younger - or, maybe if I were navigating Europe instead of North America - I might make similar use of GPS as you did. Or not. I might have the GPS in the car, but an atlas would still be spread across the passenger seat. Among other things, I want to "feel" how far away it is to the Italian border, or the Russian border, or the English Channel. That big map of Europe, showing all the countries, rivers, lakes, and mountain ranges would be visible all the time, just as it was for North America in my early years of navigating. That "big picture" is necessary for me to fill in all the finer details, mentally. And, most people who rely on that GPS never get that "big picture", IMHO.

Re:.no

[adolf]

I like maps, too. I like to look at them, I like to connect the dots. I like the little bits of random knowledge that I pick up in doing so. My Dad taught me how to read a map before I even learned how to read English.

But I hate using maps when driving. In the car, I find them cumbersome, verbose, generally annoying, and difficult to remember.

To top it all off, I get lost very easily, for whatever reason. Back in the day, I used to even get lost at school. (Hey, we've all got problems.)

So, I use GPS. When it's important to be timely (I often travel for work), it gets me there with reasonable efficiency, and I don't get lost. The constant hand-holding is actually useful and welcome, for me, sometimes. (Before GPS was commonly available, I once missed a turn, and ended up taking a 100-mile detour. My co-worker was calling on the 2-way radio asking me where I was, and I didn't know I was fucked until I noticed his voice was all distant and static-y. Those radios had range of 30 or 40 miles on this terrain.)

But, on my own time, I like traveling for fun. I don't always take the Interstate even when it's faster, and I really enjoy finding new things in my travels. I'm not afraid of wandering around on dirt roads all afternoon. But, I still use GPS.

I think there's a couple of things about GPS navigation that you don't understand:

1. It can be told to shut up. Then, you can drive wherever you want, however you want. See something over there, a little bit off your path? Go there. Want to stop off at a small town that the highway avoids? Goferit. And when you get tired of doing that, or it starts getting dark out (boring, usually) it'll get you back on track.

2. It will go wherever you want it to. You don't like the directions? Ignore them. Mute them. Drive where you feel like. You don't like this exit? Skip it. It'll adjust quickly, and when (and if) you want help, just give the screen a look and it'll give you a reasonable next step.

3. When driving for fun, you can just -go-. Forget the maps, forget about destinations, forget GPS. Spend a day or so just seeing what there is to see. It's cheaper than a movie, and for me, one of my favorite ways to kill a Sunday. Eventually, though, it becomes time to head home: The dog needs fed, the wife wants chocolate, or some such thing. Push a couple of buttons, though, and all of the random adventure is gone -- it gets you over to a major road in a hurry, and you're headed back. Of course, you're still free to tell it to shut the hell up (see 1, above) or correct it (2), if its directions aren't jiving right with your mojo at that instant.

GPS units don't compute a static path from A to B. They compute a dynamic path from wherever you're currently at, to whatever your destination is. Most of them can come in very handy as a local directory, as well: Sometimes, you NEED some coolant for the engine. You might NEED a tire. Or NEED a hospital. Or, at your advanced age, you might NEED a bathroom. It'll get you to those places even if you have no clue at all where you're at except "Somewhere on C, between A and B."

Re:.no

[Techman83]

GPS for me came in handy in a recent 4x4 adventure, we had been using paper maps and just following our noses along the track until my Fiancé required urgent medical attention, now I didn't have one, but one of the other guys that was with us did, so whilst I was calling for an Ambulance, he was calling through our current location and best meeting point for the Ambulance over the 2 way. It was rather comforting that we didn't need to stop and work out where exactly we were or where we needed to be (we were familiar with the area, but the bush looks quite the same for quite some distance, so it's quite hard to narrow things down to more than +/- 10k's)

Re:.no

[Ozymandias_KoK]

That's all well and good for you, but it doesn't hold up well applied across a general spectrum. Travel is not necessarily about adventure. Travel can also be about business, about getting things done, about getting to the hospital in time. It's all about your usage. I took a trip a few months back where I knew exactly where to go over the course of 4-5 hours except for the literal last 5 minutes of the trip. Nice Lady didn't tell me when to get gas nor particularly bother me about turns, since I turned her volume down. It was nice to have the projected time of arrival to relay to my brother, as we took a couple of detours and breaks. Nice Lady doesn't bitch at me when I go offroute; she dutifully figures out the new route, which I am free to ignore as well. You act like GPS is some kind of prison or detriment to travel, but it is no more so than a map would be. People who want to go straight to their destination can do that, and people who want to wander can do that equally well, either with a GPS, a map, compass, dead reckoning, or terrain association. Your method / purpose of travel is not your method of navigation.

GPS doesn't make anyone less capable of navigation. If you can find the way, you can turn off or ignore the GPS. If you can't, that GPS makes you more capable. A map also helps find things, but the lack of "You Are Here" complicates things more. Don't rail against GPS if you don't need it or don't like it. Just don't use it.

Re:.no

[Runaway1956]

People who have a calculator from age 5 may or may not learn to do long division. People who rely on GPS may or may not learn to read a map and navigate on their own. Both tools can become a crutch.

As for annoying and intrusive GPS systems - I've had them. Not my own, but company owned. Peoplenet was annoying as all hell. I had to take a pencil and gouge out the speaker to shut it up - there was no way for the user to turn the volume down, or off. That pencil took care of things, nicely. The other one I used was from Quallcom - another company owned thing. I ran the same route repeatedly from California to Houston and points east. It always routed me the same way. I told my boss that I could save miles, time, and fuel if I could route myself. He INSISTED that I follow Quallcom's routing. Finally, I TOLD him which way I was going, he said I'd be charged for out of route miles. End of trip odometer reading said I saved miles - can't remember how many now, I think it was about 180 miles. Talk about some breathtaking scenery - Apache country is just beautiful!! And, no, it isn't all desert scrub land, either.
Quallcom was a little better than Peoplenet - I was able to turn the volume down on that stupid beeper thing - not off, but down.

I suppose that GPS sold to end consumers would be a lot less intrusive and annoying, but when the company is paying for it, they could care less how much that end user likes or dislikes it.

Re:.no

[Erik Hensema]

Note that you could have followed the blue U-number signs starting at the Autobahn exit. They will lead you back to the next entry and hopefully past the blockage.

The german road system is brilliant. Here in the Netherlands we're just starting to have the alternate U-routes, decades after the germans.

Re:.no

[Xest]

Yep, I use it daily on my commute, it's not just about direction finding but the information it provides is useful.

Primarily, on sections of road/motorway which are poorly signed I always know how far it is to my exit, I know if I have enough distance at current speed to overtake a row of traffic before having to pull back in to get off, I know my exact speed rather than the rough estimate that car speedometers provide, it beeps if a camera is coming up so that I can be sure I haven't edged over the speed limit when I inevitably switch into autopilot mode on the 50 minute commute there and back each day. On such a commute I travel past places I never normally go, I follow my route but don't know the side streets and areas, but if a road is closed on my normal route due to an accident I can get to/from work in exactly the same amount of time because the satnav detours me through an equally sensible route to that I normally take, but would not otherwise know. People don't have to give me directions that may or may not be correct because they're working from memory and have mis-counted the number of turns, the whereabouts of landmarks and such, I don't have to try and read those instructions whilst driving because the satnav tells me.

I wouldn't pretend they're perfect devices, you have to use common sense when using them, sometimes they don't always get it right, but just as with a desktop computer- if you use it as a tool to assist you in your job, rather than expect it to do your job for you then complain when it gets it wrong then it's a great device. Information overload? Not at all, if I felt it was information overload, I'd just, you know, switch it off.

Re:.no

[OrangeCatholic]

>GPS is nice because it knows where you are. Maps, you have to figure that out.

I'll confess to wanting a compass in the car. It's very intimidating to get lost and just pick a direction.

But I've noticed that people can hang on GPS' every word. I'm sitting there thinking, "Just drive to the end of the expressway dammit!" and the driver is hunched over GPS waiting for an exit-by-exit update. I've had to put up with this behavior for weeks on end from certain people.

As for cellphones, when I make plans, I assume those plans hold until further notice. Instead, the cellphone generation assumes the sky is always falling. "We just went past a Wendys. Where's your house again? Are we still hanging out?" YES.

Re:.no

[RichiH]

A few points:

> I had no idea that traffic there gets like that.

If a truck falls over and blocks all lanes (a friend got stuck in that, recently), you will have jams like that. Usually, it's better, though.

> We decided to follow a small group of cars that were driving on the shoulder and trying to find a way out. This was probably illegal, but whatever.

Correct :p

> Check the GPS, we found exactly where we were (with the traffic lady letting us know that noone was moving) and it was one a dirt road. I zoomed in on the map, found the next nearest hamlet and we navigated there.

There are signs near all Autobahns, telling you which way to drive to get to the next ramp in either direction. Pre-GPS traffic jam avoidance system.

> Later, back on the main highway, we were stopped at a light or something

I assume you do _not_ refer to an Autobahn? ;) We have a few lights in front of tunnels, but unless there is something burning in the tunnel, those are off.

Re:.no

[GSMacLean]

I spent the summer driving around England and Scotland with a GPS. I loved it there for the same reason I love it on my motorcycle back home: I can go ANYWHERE - if I see some little road or village I want to explore, I can do so, without the fear of ending up hopelessly lost.

Re:.no

[TheBracket]

I generally stick with maps, but GPS has saved the day on one occasion. My wife and I were visiting a small French city, and couldn't find our hotel - the city's one way system made no sense at all! Google Maps on my phone used GPS to find us, and then gave a route (including one-way turns!) to the hotel. We were only about a mile away, and it would have been easy on foot - but when the city is designed to take you in spirals AWAY from the downtown area (where we needed to be), some guidance was absolutely invaluable.

Without a GPS, we'd have just asked directions. Fortunately, we know enough French to get by with that - but only just!

technology editor sucks at technology?

[Karganeth]

If the guy is a technology editor, why is he struggling with something as simple as a GPS? I'd understand if he was reporting that others had this problem... but come on.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The problem isn't struggling with the GPS(at least not in the sense of "Oh noes, the UI is just too hard!). The question is whether or not the GPS UI is distracting the driver's attention enough to make them especially vulnerable to doing stupid(which in a car means dangerous) things.

Research consistently demonstrates that humans suck at multitasking. Worse, they suck at multitasking to a much greater degree than they think they do. If interpreting a poorly designed GPS UI while also driving counts as multitasking, it is probably a dangerous distraction. If the GPS UI is well designed, it could presumably function as just another subtle environmental cue, something that humans are very good at interpreting.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[itsdapead]

If the guy is a technology editor, why is he struggling with something as simple as a GPS? I'd understand if he was reporting that others had this problem... but come on.

If you actually RTFA you'd see that he wasn't complaining that he couldn't work his GPS, but was concerned about the potentially distracting visual clutter that is appearing on newer GPSs: 3D buildings, landmarks, terrain etc. and comparing it with two minimalist systems which research has shown to be more effective at communicating the necessary information with minimum distraction.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, isn't sucking at multitasking already multitasking, right there?

*ducks

*head explodes

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[geekmux]

If the guy is a technology editor, why is he struggling with something as simple as a GPS? I'd understand if he was reporting that others had this problem... but come on.

Ah, I believe the point being brought here is not a matter of being technologically challenged by such a device, but more of the matter of being a device that has gone from being a simple GPS to the new "all-in-wonder" device in the car that will talk to you, answer your phone, play music, give directions, and (soon), start throwing advertisements for local businesses in the area, all at the VERY HIGH cost of distracting the person who is in charge of controlling 2 metric tons of steel down a road at 60MPH or faster.

As the death tolls rise every day with cellular use while driving(including texting), I can definitely see the issue with similar devices. When insurance companies start refusing to pay for accidents caused by these devices, THEN we may start seeing some REAL reform with all of this. Until then, watch your ass on the roads, because these next-generation twit(ters) can't seem to get enough distractions behind the wheel. I'll be lucky if my kids live to see 30.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

2 metric tons of steel down a road at 60MPH or faster.

Please don't do that. We've lost mars probes because of things like that.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[digitig]

Yes, but it's only looking at one side of the issue. "Overall, the Carnegie Mellon team concluded that the time drivers spent fixated on their satnav displays decreased sixfold and the number of glances needed to confirm results decreased threefold when the navigation system simply used words and numbers to convey instructions rather than fancy graphics." Fine -- but what did it do to the number of missed turns, or the number of times the driver gets into the wrong lane becuase they don't really understand what the words and numbers are actually telling them to do? They're things that can make drivers "especially vulnerable to doing stupid(which in a car means dangerous) things" too. Most of the time sure, I just listen to my satnav. But at complex junctions, actually seeing the layout and where I'm supposed to end up is invaluable. A picture really can be worth a thousand words.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[E IS mC(Square)]

Well said. I am generally pretty good at reading maps, contours and other stuff when I am hiking. Even when I am driving, when I have to stop and consult a printed map, I can figure my way out easily.

But when it comes to car navigation systems, I find myself having to pay way more attention, while the system should be lot more easier for somebody who is also required to pay all his/her attention to the road.

One of the reasons I do not use car navigation devices is that - I want a simple, minimal system.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Darkness404]

Exactly. Plus things like "turn here" aren't that accurate on a GPS. Yeah, you might accurate within 300 feet, but if there are 2 roads you can turn in that distance, you might go down the wrong one.

Also, this "study" fails to see that some people have passengers that can read/edit info on the GPS.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[macraig]

You and BadAnalogyGuy would make a great WWF tag team.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get it, and if I had mod points, you'd get one.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Handling multitasking is one of the hardest things that instrument pilots need to do in aircraft. There are a lot of different instruments, and if you get fixated on one of them you tend to fall out of the sky. This is often even worse than a car hitting an abutment. The thing that takes the most practice is "keeping the scan going" -- looking regularly from instrument to instrument, and never stopping. There are even different systems of scan, with different virtues in terms of what information is received most often. New aircraft GPS systems are now totally integrated with the rest of the instrumentation, and the displays are designed to make the most critical instruments almost impossible to miss. Plus, regular refreshers and reviews are required to be allowed to keep flying.

But car drivers are allowed out there with minimal training and any old display, and they try to do all kinds of multitasking besides. As a pilot, if I could figure out how to fly everywhere and stay away from car drivers, I would. They're just too scary.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

No love for PizzaAnalogyGuy?

Allow me to channel him...

These technological distractions in vehicles are like feta cheese on pizza. Sometimes they're needed (aircraft, emergency vehicles, etc.), sometimes they aren't (txting on a cellphone, juggling CDs for music, in-dash DVD players) but the point is, unless you're making a greek style pizza, they shouldn't be there. They're detrimental to the whole experience.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

or the number of times the driver gets into the wrong lane becuase they don't really understand what the words and numbers are actually telling them to do? T

Having used a satnav with a rental recently, I have to say... it's really hard to misunderstand "Turn left in 120 feet" "Turn left in 50 feet" "Turn left". I used the display, but really only in looking "ahead" to see what was coming up in a mile or two. If a driver doesn't understand how the localized unit of measurement is relevant to actual distance, they shouldn't be driving with or without satnav.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[FatLittleMonkey]

The question is whether or not the GPS UI is distracting the driver's attention [...] Research consistently demonstrates that humans suck at multitasking. Worse, they suck at multitasking to a much greater degree than they think they do.

FTFS: "He contrasts [...] his own habit of dimming the display and using the audio commands for guidance."

Didn't BMW do some research into turn-by-turn voice guidance? And found that it increased drivers' accident rates by several times. In other words, the tech editor has solved his problem of a cluttered display, with a solution that is proven to be more dangerous.

(From memory, the research also showed that the effect was worse the further the sat-nav's voice was from your own. Such as a male driver with a "female" sat-nav. So BMW patented a system whereby the sat-nav learns your vocal patterns and adjusts to mimic you. (Presumably you can't patent just turning the fucking voice guidance off.))

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Firehed]

Most consumer GPSs are accurate to within several feet, and even the cheaper models now announce street names in addition to the distance to turn. Five years ago those were valid concerns, but not really today.

In my experience, road construction and other detours tend to be the biggest issue. But then again, I treat my GPS more like a road sign than a HUD, so I'm not too concerned about it distracting me.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[digitig]

Yeah, simple intesections are -- well -- simple. Unfortunately, not all intersections are simple.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Jeremy Erwin]

We don't know that. This piece, like all Economist articles, lacks a byline. For all we know, the writer could be a simple "Technology Correspondent", a mere peon at the magazine's vast technological desk.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[DynaSoar]

Research consistently demonstrates that humans suck at multitasking. Worse, they suck at multitasking to a much greater degree than they think they do. If interpreting a poorly designed GPS UI while also driving counts as multitasking, it is probably a dangerous distraction. If the GPS UI is well designed, it could presumably function as just another subtle environmental cue, something that humans are very good at interpreting.

Speaking as someone who served as an experimental subject in testing GPS devices and GUIs over the road (Virginia Tech's traffic research folks carried this out), I whole heartedly endorse the 'distraction' observation. IN the experiment they kept turning up the amount of data presented and asking me to made decisions from it while driving. They repeatedly took it well past distracting, to outright dangerous. I finally made them shut it off altogether. People don;t suck at multitasking as long as they're in control over task switching. These things don;t let you.

As for the outcome, they obviously sent their results on to the GPS makers. The standard GPS device runs at the "annoying but not dangerous" level.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[theNAM666]

Wait, isn't sucking at multitasking already multitasking

That would be sucking while multitasking. Obviously you've never worked at a programming shop which employs fluffers.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

2 metric tons is a truck, not a car and I'd suggest something that weight should not be allowed or able to drive 60mph to begin with. (Yes, I know that includes Landrover Discoveries and BMW X5's - my point exactly)

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[ZERO1ZERO]

'2 metric tons' Doesn't make sense. Tell me how many kilostones that is?

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[electrons_are_brave]

I have a poor sense of direction, some left-right confusion, am easily overwhelmed by visual information and - as a result, don't like driving much, particularly in busy, complex or unfamilar areas.

I find GPS makes the situation much worse. It's just another distraction. I much prefer to pre-plan a trip using a paper map or just ask for directions.

I agreed with the article - those "napkin maps" make much more sense to me.

I know that I'm much worse than most people, but in my experience, relying on the verbal information is far less dangerous.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to Europe. Enjoy our mazes^H^H^H^H^H^H cities.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres already talk of making driving with a cell phone or texting and driving a primary offense. SatNav devices are no diffrent, and probally worse in my opinion. If people only had common sense...

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[OrangeCatholic]

There's nothing worse than a rich bitch high up in her Escalade yakking on her phone. It's like, princess wants her cart rolled to the grocery store. I'm surprised they don't make a 6-peoplepower engine, you know, a car that comes with 6 servants to push it along. I'm sure the middle-class wannabes would love it.

The thing that's frightening about SUV's is that they're just not good cars. Expensive, wasteful, terrible handling, high depreciation, and a gigantic engine that's overkill for a few bags of groceries and a 7-year-old soccer player. Also blocks the view of the driver behind you, good at rolling over, and ruthlessly lethal in a collision.

Rims on an Escalade. That serves no purpose because you can't race a truck.

Then you have the guys buying pickups because they fancy themselves contractors. Some are, but you can tell sometimes they just wish.

SUV's really could not be stupider than they are. I'd say the ownership is about 50% here. And 99% of them have never been on a beach. People still drive slow in the snow. Duh! What did you buy it for?

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[OrangeCatholic]

>was concerned about the potentially distracting visual clutter that is appearing on newer GPSs: 3D buildings, landmarks, terrain etc.

What about games? Can they put some nice strategy games on there? Since you spend a lot of time in the car, maybe peasants could be mining gold while you roll down the highway. When you get there, you'll have enough for an army. Or how about getting in a couple of frags at the stoplight?

Maybe they could put a flight sim on there and you could race yourself to your destination. Or how about some Bubble Blaster for the ladies?

Think about how much Garmin you can sell if it came with God of War and a Playstation controller.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[OrangeCatholic]

Are you kidding? It's all they talk about nowadays is making texting illegal. Like it was some fucking brilliant flash of insight.

Why don't they just teach kids how to drive? I remember driver's ed. It was like, hey, you can make it down the road to mcdonalds and back. Time to go for your license. And I PAID for that. The average student is all on their own.

My friend's dad randomly taught us how to corner one day and after that, the rest of my education was Gran Turismo for PS1.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[RichiH]

300 feet aka 100 meters? The worst I can get my satnavs to is close to 10 meters and that is while going 240 km/h..

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[bar-agent]

Wait, isn't sucking at multitasking already multitasking, right there?

*ducks

*head explodes

Yep. See what happened there? That's what happens when you multitask too much. Your head explodes. Seen it happen a million times.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[sglewis100]

The problem isn't struggling with the GPS(at least not in the sense of "Oh noes, the UI is just too hard!). The question is whether or not the GPS UI is distracting the driver's attention enough to make them especially vulnerable to doing stupid(which in a car means dangerous) things.

Yeah... but if not for looking at my GPS, plus listening to it's voice prompts, plus hitting the traffic map button, plus texting from my iPhone, and using the camera to snap a picture of the traffic to send to my buddy to explain why I'm late and using my bluetooth speakerphone, and drinking my Starbucks and eating that Big Mac... what else am I going to do while in the car?

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[yurtinus]

...and that is while going 240 km/h..

Slow down!!

...punk kids

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Carnildo]

Having used a satnav with a rental recently, I have to say... it's really hard to misunderstand "Turn left in 120 feet" "Turn left in 50 feet" "Turn left".

At which point I turn 45 degrees to the left, putting me on the approach ramp for the 7th Street bridge, when the GPS wanted me to turn 90 degrees to the left onto Smith Street.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[itsdapead]

Think about how much Garmin you can sell if it came with God of War and a Playstation controller.

How about a version of Grand Theft Auto...

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you in principle, but 4WDs (or as Americans might know them, SUVs) are not just used by "soccer moms". People who go driving in remote/difficult places might easily need to drive faster than 60MPH - especially if said remote/difficult place is something like a desert. Also, I don't think the slashmob would approve of such government regulations on large cars (because the free market clearly hasn't acted on this). Plus - as you mention - trucks need to go faster than 60MPH.

Re:technology editor sucks at technology?

[geekmux]

Are you kidding? It's all they talk about nowadays is making texting illegal. Like it was some fucking brilliant flash of insight. Why don't they just teach kids how to drive? I remember driver's ed. It was like, hey, you can make it down the road to mcdonalds and back. Time to go for your license. And I PAID for that. The average student is all on their own. My friend's dad randomly taught us how to corner one day and after that, the rest of my education was Gran Turismo for PS1.

Sorry, but I can barely see your point here. What exactly does the experience level of a driver have to do with texting while driving? It doesn't matter if you're 16 years old fresh out of the DMV, or 36 years old with 20 years behind the wheel. Reading and responding to texts while driving is an accident waiting to happen.

A better drivers ed class isn't going to help the fact that todays generation honestly believes that 5 years of texting while driving without an accident somehow translates into "master multitasker". Making it not only illegal, but also making it an uninsurable offense is the only way you're going to really change anything now. It's far too late for any other action.

What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway?

[sznupi]

In vast majority of cases you drive in known area; always the same route, more or less. I don't see how GPS helps here. Any possible setbacks due to choosing slightly wrong way are more than offset by the elasticity in choosing better way due to momentary traffic conditions.

Not sure how representative this part is, but - when NOT driving in known area I'm always never in a real hurry. In few cases when that might be true it's easy to pre-plan it...or even ask somebody along the way / make a quick phonecall to known local resident when close to destination and lost (also - they, or other people who often travel the route you are planning to take, know much more than GPS: which way is more pleasant)

If you can't ignore the GPS

[drinkypoo]

Then you probably shouldn't be driving. Take the bus.

Re:If you can't ignore the GPS

[BeardedChimp]

Reminds me of this.
"Since a road closure, dozens of drivers have blithely followed directions from their satellite navigation systems, not realising that the recommended route goes through the ford.
Normally the water — the start of the River Avon — is about 2ft deep but it can swiftly double in depth after heavy rain.
Every day since the main B4040 was closed after a wall collapsed on April 8 one or two motorists have been towed out, having either failed to notice or ignored warning signs. Some farmers have been charging £25 to give a tow with tractors."

Re:If you can't ignore the GPS

[supernova87a]

By the way, just a tip for everyone -- I've found that ironically the bus is actually where a GPS makes the biggest improvement in knowing how to get around.

If you're in an unfamiliar city, buses (in contrast to trains) often have a frustratingly indescribable and unpredictable route/stop pattern, and when the driver/announcement system is of no help, a GPS system in your hand will help you figure out exactly how close you are to your destination, and when to get off the bus.

I no longer dread dealing with buses because of this capability, although the lurching stop/start of buses in general still drives me crazy. Try it sometime -- the small Nuvi-style units are just about as inconspicuous as an ipod, and are great for helping you get around.

Re:If you can't ignore the GPS

[shutdown -p now]

Er... ever tried asking the bus driver to tell you when you get to the stop that's nearest to such-and-such? It works surprisingly well...

Re:If you can't ignore the GPS

[onco_p53]

Just came back from Taiwan and used my GPS for precisely this, it was a late flight in and I really needed to get off at the right stop, I did not want to be wandering the streets at night.
In this case asking the bus driver was not an option, as he spoke no English.

Re:If you can't ignore the GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using Google Maps on my phone (with GPS) in Perth, Western Australia. Google Maps has access to all of Perth's public transport route & timetable information, so not only can you use the GPS to figure out when you're close to your destination, you can use Google Maps to generate an optimised journey plan for you, complete with route numbers, arrival & departure times, and a map of the route the buses will follow.

It makes public transport about 1000x better.

Re:If you can't ignore the GPS

[Tynin]

Er... ever tried asking the bus driver to tell you when you get to the stop that's nearest to such-and-such? It works surprisingly well...

Until you are in a foreign country, don't speak the language well, and are meet with a driver who has no patience for the American wasting his time.

I recently went with my wife to Germany. Our first steps around Berlin Tegel airport was to find where the Hauptbahnhof was located (translates to central train station, or something close to that). Unfortunately we didn't recall the word for hauptbahnhof at the time. We went to the advice counter in Tegel airport and asked them where we should go, they stumbled through their English and told us that we should go outside, get on a bus, and it would take us there. That sounded so much easier than it was, I suppose if we would have thought to ask what stop to get off of it would have been simpler. If only because the first bus we found, we had no luck asking him if he went to the train station. He yelled at my wife after she asked him if he spoke English, saying "German! German!" and then made some motions back out to the bus platform. So I did my best to apologize and we got off his bus and went to find another one. While we were looking around for some kind of sign that would point us in the right direction, the original bus driver kindly motioned for me to come back, so we did, he said something in German, than asked for 2.40 Euro's. So we took our seat, with our ton of luggage, and off we went into Berlin, without a clue where we were headed or where we should get off. After 10-15 minutes of driving and making several stops, my wife and I were getting worried. At this point our previously empty bus was now brimming full of Germans and my wife and I were starting to get a little more excited about where the hell we were. A woman behind us over heard our conversation and saved the day, explained that we missed one of the Hauptbahnhof stops already, but that we were almost to the main Hauptbahnhof which is the one we needed anyhow. Once we got to there it was pretty obvious we wouldn't have missed it, as it is a huge glass building with an equally large sign. All that said, Germany was an awesome adventure, and by large everyone we meet was very nice. It seems so long as you make an attempt to speak the language, you'll often find many nice people who know as much English if not more than I knew their language.

At the end of my adventure, I made a note to always remember to bring 1) a watch to tell the time, 2) a cell phone that works in the country you are visiting, more so if you are meeting up with friends, 3) a GPS that has a map, if only to confirm I'm where I'm supposed to be, or at least headed in the right direction.

Headup display

[ZeroExistenZ]

Why not a headsup display?

My car's frontwindow angle is say 45.
This allows me to just put my Android phone on my dashboard which reflects on the window and generates a transparent reflection which shows up in a "virtual distance" in my field of view.
It's not as crisp to actually read while driving or being stuck in traffic and it requires low light conditions, though. But you can make up a map easily.

Re:Headup display

[fracai]

I'd prefer not to have to read the map upside down (bottom of the phone facing is closest to me) or backwards (phone is rotated around so the top is closest to me).

Re:Headup display

[Rinikusu]

I don't know why HUDs haven't been more widely adapted, especially in the realm of motorcycles. Granted, my motorcycle doesn't have a windscreen, but for the highway cruisers and and what-not, I would think it invaluable to keep all the important information a rider needs available without having to take eyes off the road (a split second can kill). Now integrate with gps mapping, etc and we'd have a winner.

Re:Headup display

[Kentari]

But with a true HUD you wouldn't need to read a map. It would simply draw the next few hundreds of meters of your route on your windshield over what you see through your windshield. No more glancing at screens, just look where you are supposed to be going and see the traffic at the same time. Maybe it could add a bit of helpful information such as street names, but you have to avoid clutter, just as with any interface. But for more information; like a digital map, you would still have to look at a lcd-screen, preferably when traffic allows you to.

Re:Headup display

[couchslug]

HUDs work wonderfully in military aircraft. Operators should never look into a cockpit unless absolutely necessary.

Re:Headup display

[mpe]

Why not a headsup display?

You'd think that would be done for regular instrements, especially the speedometer.

Re:Headup display

[Yold]

i think what he is saying is that the screen-image would reverse (mirrored), so the backwards text isn't a problem.

I actually did this once with directions I printed off from the internet, and it worked OK despite the backwards text.

If I was going to do it again, I'd make the font really big and use the "mirror image" option when I printed it. I would also put about 5 different colored bars between the directions so I could more easily find the next exit/direction.

Re:Headup display

[hedwards]

Umm, in this scenario there'd have to be some engineering to start. So they just add an additional mirror to the set up and things are then looking the right direction for the driver.

Re:Headup display

[peragrin]

motorcycle huds are very small as they can only display in a small window. what you really want, is a transparent display that can replace the visor part of the helmet.

What would be really useful though is a wireless transmission standard so that any helmet mounted HUD unit can receive data from any nearby motorcycle. Use range limitations like bluetooth only about 2 meters though. This way helmet people can design the hardware into the helmets.

Re:Headup display

[sunderland56]

What would you display on a motorcycle HUD?

• Speed is irrevalent, and you pretty much know how fast you're going from the feel of the wind anyway
• Engine revs (tachometer) you can tell by ear, and bikes have a rev limiter anyway
• Oil/engine temperature, oil pressure, etc. are idiot lights you'll see glowing without a HUD
• You can see the *actual* turn signals on the bike, so a turn signal indicator is just silly
• Fuel level isn't that useful - in general you just ride around until you hit reserve, then buy gas
• What gear you're in you know already, if you're paying attention

What else is there? I hope you don't want a GPS - the entire point of a motorcycle is to be off the beaten track in the first place.

Re:Headup display

[FlyingBishop]

I hope you don't want a GPS - the entire point of a motorcycle is to be off the beaten track in the first place.

Don't be a dick. The entire point of a GPS is so you can go off the beaten trail without having to worry.

Oh right, the point of a motorcycle is to put yourself into needless danger, because that's more 'fun' not because of better mileage, and more adaptability.

Re:Headup display

[kextyn]

Have you ever flown a plane or even seen what the cockpits look like on military aircraft? When you're flying a plane you generally have PLENTY of time to look around outside or inside. Sure, a fighter pilot wouldn't be looking down at his screens while dogfighting or refueling but there's plenty of time to do so. Here's an example of a cockpit: F-22 Cockpit If they weren't supposed to look down why would they give them all those lovely displays? The HUDs on newer aircraft can show quite a bit but they won't show you everything.

Re:Headup display

[Rogerborg]

I must try that next time I'm pulled over "Hey, pig, speed is irrelevant. So back the hell off, man, and let me get off the beaten track."

For us bikers who don't have the pleasure of living in Buttfuck, Arizona, or wherever you're talking about, speed is relevant, and GPS is pretty damn handy for finding the nearest fuel - you know, once you hit reserve. There's more than one type of biker, although whatever motorised armchair riding leather-chap wearing "boys' club" you're in would doubtless disagree.

Re:Headup display

[fotbr]

IIRC the Corvette has had some form of HUD for several years now, although I think it's just speed and tach readouts. And I know some of their other cars had at least an option for a HUD speedometer.

Re:Headup display

[magarity]

It would simply draw the next few hundreds of meters of your route on your windshield over what you see through your windshield
 
I can just imagine the brilliant uses people would put this to: Look at me, no need for headights! *runs over pedestrians crossing the street at night* Wow, I can keep going 65 on the highway when it's zero visibility fog! *creates 200 car pileup*

Re:Headup display

[Kentari]

If we stopped technological progress because of how people could abuse it we might have stopped at guns, or fire, or the wheel...

Re:Headup display

[Legion303]

It's rare to find this fine quality of flame on Slashdot these days. You youngsters need to take notes.

Re:Headup display

[Legion303]

I could see a lot of potential in a HUD that just overlayed street names on the streets. That seems a hell of a lot safer than squinting at sometimes tiny, filthy, or tree-obscured street signs.

Re:Headup display

[Rogerborg]

Thanks! I do what I can, but I'm only one very small shell script.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[jcrb]

The problem is when you ARE in a hurry... because you are in fast moving traffic, or you have to decide if THIS is the street you are supposed to turn on or its the next street. For such situations I find that only fully accurate maps AND a GPS receiver that isn't lagging 2 seconds behind or not able to figure out that they street it says is 300 feet ahead is actually the one that I am stopped at the light of work.

I do very much like the voice instructions, particularly when they give a sequence, e.g. "that they next right turn on Main Street and then keep left", since that helps reduce the lag of the information as well as the number of times I have to consult the display. but the claim in the linked story that;

  "The trouble is that the optic nerve just does not have the bandwidth to handle great gobs of visual information thrown at it."

is just abject nonsense, there is no sensory organ you have that is better equipped to handle both great gobs of bandwidth as well as to process it all in parallel than the optic nerve.

what you want to avoid is a display cluttered with *useless* information, not a display stripped of *useful* information

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[Adaeniel]

What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway?

You're right, but I think this question depends on multiple factors: whether or not it is a safe area that you are lost in, whether or not it is night time in said area, etc. However, it's not like a GPS knows these things anyways, so this may be a moot point.

He's right

[thomp]

I don't want to see a rendered image on the navigation system; I just want a 2-D map. It might make for pretty graphics (and marketability), but it's more than I need to navigate.

But I'm an old geography fart just like the author of the article.

Re:He's right

[mrderm]

Which satnav system doesnt support an optional 2D map?

The problem with a 3D display is that perspective means that proportionally more pixels are used for the features next to you, and behind you. The features on the road ahead are shrunken. That's the opposite of how I would want the pixels used.

Re:He's right

[shutdown -p now]

I can agree with that. I've been using GPS almost constantly ever since I started driving (I keep it on even when I drive in familiar places), but I always set it to 2D, top-down view. I also set it to always have north on top, and replace car icon with an arrow so that it's very easy to tell at a glance where I'm moving to. I find that, overall, that combination makes it really easy to keep the "big picture" of where I am relative to where I'm heading to. And if you've ever played GTA 1/2 a lot, you shouldn't have trouble telling left from right etc with such an arrangement, either.

Oh, I also use Garmin Nuvi. One of the reasons is the way it displays things - it doesn't show building outlines, just streets (and I find those outlines to be distracting more than they're useful), its speed-tracking auto-zoom seems to match my preferences with respect to how much I want to "look ahead" pretty well, and the color scheme is mostly sane. Oh, and it uses anti-aliasing for all drawn lines, which really makes it so much easier for the eyes.

All that said, I consider GPS to be an integral part of my car. I can definitely drive without it within my relatively small town, but I'd refuse to go to the nearby large city without it.

Re:He's right

[PitaBred]

Except that the 3D display gives you more information about things like how far it is to the turn. You have to mentally scale the map compared to where you are to see how far away your turn is... a 3D GPS display gives you a very easy to decipher and understand picture of what's coming up. It may not be a problem for you, but just reading a map is a chore for many, many people.

Re:He's right

[GravityStar]

OTOH, I find the 3D perspective useful in that it allows me to see further "ahead", while not wasting screenspace on what is "behind".

...I lack the time to make it short.

[jfengel]

What the article is talking about isn't "bloat", but rather extra algorithms to remove unnecessary detail. As Pascal put it, "I made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it short." It takes more work to include only and exactly the right information.

That's extremely hard with navigation, since leaving the wrong thing out can be worse than the original information overload.

Re:...I lack the time to make it short.

[Nf1nk]

The cheapo two year old GPS I have does this already (garman Nuvi 200 series). If I am 1/2 a mile from the next turn it leaves off most smaller side streets. When I get within a certain distance of the turn it shows all of the details. You need this because when you are coming into a strange inter section you do ned to see that there are two streets that are very close together and you need a third street that is hidden behind a building.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I generally find it more pleasant to be able to pull over, turn on my sat nav and get back on track, rather than find a pen + paper, phoning a local resident I know, trying to describe where I am and then write down directions (if they even know them) and the try and follow said directions when I'm driving along. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind getting a little lost sometimes but sat nav really is more useful than pratting about with getting directions. I also think you may be underestimating satnav systems. These days they're pretty good at picking out the best route and most of them will take into account whether or not you want the shortest route, fastest route or if you just want to keep off the main roads. I can certainly fault my satnav system in areas that I know well but those faults are usually minor and more often than not they're because the route shown is easier to follow.

Situational awareness

[wsanders]

I have to post quickly, I have a Prius with a technology editor pinned inside I need to unwrap from around a bridge abutment.

Most people have pretty poor situational awareness. I've overheard more than once on he local ham radio repeater a conversation similar to this:

Ham driver: "Help help I have an emergency, I need a phone patch to CHP!"
Ham answers from somewhere: "Where are you?"
Driver: "I'm on the freeway!"

And so on. I can only imagine what 911 dispatchers go through.

Re:Situational awareness

[Sponge Bath]

"I can only imagine what 911 dispatchers go through."

Hello 911? McDonalds won't give me my chicken McNuggets.

Re:Situational awareness

[TheLink]

See: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0303091mcnugget1.html

She ordered nuggets, paid for them, and they say they're out, refuse to refund her and they offer her a mcdouble with small fries.

They were stealing from her or trying to defraud her. When that happens, calling the cops is a valid response.

It may not be a 911 case, but it's not like they tell everyone who to call in that situation.

Where she went wrong was calling 911 three times when they already told her an officer is on the way.

But wow, that's a really crappy McD. When was the last time you went to place where they were out of something and they still insisted on keeping your money and offered you something else instead. I'm not surprised she got so pissed off.

And: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090304/odd-mcnuggets-911/

> A McDonald's spokesman says Goodman should have been given a refund, and she's being sent a gift card for a free meal.

Wow if I tried to cheat someone and failed, I can get away just by offering a gift card for a free meal? Oh only corporations can do that?

Ah I see.

Re:Situational awareness

[OrangeCatholic]

Some McD's can be pretty bad. I remember going to one where I set down my food and hot coffee, and when I got up to get ketchup or whatever, the kid comes over and starts clearing it away. I was like dude, you need to wake up from your zombie trance. I just bought that a minute ago. Oh, and the coffee is way too hot like they say it is.

Re:Situational awareness

[TheLink]

Did you manage to stop him in time?

Maybe he thought you got disgusted with what you bought ;).

I wonder how many 911 calls that lady would have made if she went away for a minute to wash her hands or fetch ketchup etc, and they threw away her stuff before she could eat it :).

If you can't multitask...

[incognito84]

...then you shouldn't have GPS. I have no problem looking at the GPS screen on my motorcycle for a split second, recognizing what I'm expected to do and then focusing back on the road again.

Then again, my GPS display is very simple and I like it that way. I hate displays that are so complicated that you need to scan around the screen with your eyes for a few seconds to get your bearings. Those few seconds could make the difference between life and death.

I think the real problem here, which is not being addressed, is the fact that most people watch TV on their GPS displays. That should be illegal.

Re:If you can't multitask...

[fbjon]

Then again, my GPS display is very simple and I like it that way.

Isn't that precisely the point of the article?

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[sznupi]

I'd say we are more or less in an agreement, actually; you seem to use GPS in similar style to traditional methods. Certainly in agreement to what the summary is saying.

When this is the voice of your GPS

[gazuga]

http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/12/01/snoop-dogg-gps/

Who needs a screen anyway!

Case in point

[jdeitch]

Just last week, here, we had a truck driver following his GPS ignore no less than EIGHT road signs saying "no trucks allowed" ...

Then he got stuck on the train tracks (which was WHY the signs said "no trucks allowed") ... the predictable result followed, and about 24,000 lbs of pizza ingredients got scattered over a fairly good chunk of town.

There are some people in the world who just shouldn't abandon paper.

Re:Case in point

[digitig]

There are some people in the world who just shouldn't be allowed out of the care home!

Re:Case in point

[Anonymous Coward]

In my parents' 1960s suburban neighborhood, a street was chopped in half to build a brand-new stormwater retention pond.

You can guess what happened. A college student, used to using the street as a high-speed shortcut, missed a stop sign, missed the yellow "end of road" signs, and drove straight into the pond.

Re:Case in point

[John Hasler]

> There are some people in the world who just shouldn't be allowed out of the
> care home!

But then the three of us who should would never have time to care for them all.

Re:Case in point

[PitaBred]

Would a paper map have said that trucks weren't allowed? He could ignore the road signs no matter what navigation aid he was using. He was just an idiot... GPS doesn't make people any stupider than they already are.

Re:Case in point

[d34dluk3]

To be fair, it can be hard to distinguish between "no trucks allowed because they will get stuck" and "no trucks allowed because we are assholes and try to tell everybody where they can drive."

Re:Case in point

[yurtinus]

Exactly what I'm getting at-- GPS will be the doom of us all!

...oh wait

Ever drive in Maine?

[JohnPombrio]

Or Colorado? Or any other place where the roads are winding and have blind intersections? There I need all the information I can get. And if you are tooling down a highway, who looks at the map?

Re:Ever drive in Maine?

[PitaBred]

And if you are tooling down a highway, who looks at the map?

I take it you didn't drive much before GPS was common... the same people that try to read and drink an un-lidded cup of coffee on their morning commute are the types of people who look at maps while driving. It's unsettlingly common.

This is a great article, except...

[starglider29a]

...it's hard to read on my iPhone while driving!

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[phoenix321]

Getting lost in European cities can mean a 15km drive to get back on track, when all left turns are forbidden for several km or after the wrong exit on the roundabout you're right on a freeway that has no option of stopping or turning for quite some time.

If you're on holiday, rent a GPS or take a GPS-phone with Open Street Maps with you. It will certainly save some headaches, hours of searching and confusion when overpasses become underpasses, tall buildings obstruct all possible landmarks and reading the direction signs are placed only near the intersection like they typically are in France, Italy, Spain or Portugal. With three lanes of dense rush hour traffic between you and the exit.

Getting lost is still an option on a relaxed vacation: turn the thing off. But then you're hosed when you would like to return once again to that incredibly delicious tiny restaurant in that cozy village only a few km out where you've eaten at a week ago.

And then try to navigate the streets in Beijing or Shanghai, where traffic is absolutely batshit crazy, all drivers are in a hurry, using the turn indicators is forbidden by tradition and/or the brake lights are kaput since the dawn of the ages. And streets and lanes are still half a kilometer wide. I don't know about India, but I reckon the army of tuk-tuks storming the streets doesn't help much either. Ignoring for a while that most foreigners are not allowed to drive in mainland China, you absolutely positively need a GPS to survive things like that:

http://maps.google.com/maps?&sll=51.151786,10.415039&sspn=13.744729,39.506836&ie=UTF8&ll=31.209975,121.497352&spn=0.009139,0.01929
http://wallpapers.bpix.org/wallpapers/63/Shanghai_at_Night%2C_Shanghai%2C_P.R._China.jpg

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[digitig]

or even ask somebody along the way / make a quick phonecall to known local resident when close to destination and lost (also - they, or other people who often travel the route you are planning to take, know much more than GPS: which way is more pleasant)

Yeah, my friends love when I do that at 3am. More of a nuisance when I'm driving somewhere where I don't know anybody, and quite often don't speak the language. Just because GPS doesn't suit your lifestyle doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't be using it.

Accurate visuals are extremely helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I use the accurate maps on a GPS device to resolve ambiguities in the directions. This is especially true in the case of unusual ramp systems on the highway.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[sznupi]

It's still a bit "fuzzy" though; never mind wondering if, perhaps, when you have to turn in fast moving traffic it's usually some main road with proper, big signs; or when that particular street similar to every other matters you're close to destination anyway. I'm stressing more "are you really in such a hurry?". Which is more of a problem in itself; probably a lot reckless driving stems from people who "must get there sooner!" (and who knows if always relying on GPS doesn't contribute to late departure or unrealistic expectation of travel time...)

I would agree such voice instructions to be very handy. Actual display OTOH...no, this should be kept to minimum. It's more about shifting focus (both optical and mental one) than capacity of optic nerve. Also, I wouldn't be too surprised from negative influence on vision when riding in the night with very bright display (as I sometimes see...from outside) just in front of your eyes, with totally different light spectrum than the road ahead.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[sznupi]

Where are you hurrying at 3am, when nobody is waiting for you at the destination area?

Map and asking for directions

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I get along just fine with a map and asking for directions the occasional time where I can't find a location either due to extreme density or sparsity. I've used a general outdoors GPS in conjunction with a laptop on a cross country road trip for additional assistance/backup where asking for directions isn't advisable, but we park and look it up. I don't see a need for these in your face nav systems. Focus on driving and taking in landmarks and navigational/compass clues, and you won't need the stupid nav system quite so much. In-Car digital compasses may help when you lose your bearing.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[zippthorne]

Or you could do what I do: just take the next exit and let the sat-nav figure out how to get you back on track. If it takes less than a second to do so, missing a couple streets isn't that big a deal, and there's almost certainly a lower attention-demanding route to wherever. Generally, the most complicated places are highways in traffic with left-exits and short spans.

But if you take any nearby exit, there's almost always a "street with many stoplights" that you can pretty much take your time on. Sat-nav also helps with tricky left turns on that street. Just turn right anywhere near your destination and let it recalculate a route for you.

The thing about sat nav is that it creates a new navigation paradigm. If you use it right it can really free you from worrying about where you are so you can concentrate on not hitting things. You don't have to drive straight to your destination without deviating from the route to avoid stopping and getting your bearings. Everywhere is like the areas you're familiar with, where if you miss a turn it's no big deal, you just go one of the other permutations you know all about.

Even if the machine's maps don't quite match up to reality, it's still no worse than when you're in your familiar area and you're trying out a permutation you're fuzzy on: Just turn off when it doesn't match up and get on a route that you know about. As long as you pay attention to the road, the worst thing that can happen is that it'll take longer to get where you're trying to go (unless where you're trying to go is in the middle of a block of roads that the sat-nav is not accurate on. But that's pretty rare.)

Interesting but no

[fooslacker]

The correct way to visualize information is an interesting topic and his investigation of the London underground maps is a classic example of how something can be accurate but not precise, or maybe accurate in one dimension (connection/destination) but not another (direction). That said it's a stretch to say GPS needs to follow that mode. Unlike the underground when you're being informed of where you're going and where to get off and on different trains you're actually being informed of where you are relative to other items with a GPS. It's not just a direction giving system it's also a mapping system and a simplified representation is not enough to help you with that. Additionally, my GPS is extremely helpful in large cities with telling me which lanes I'm going to need to be in to take certain exits. It does this with a simple graphic I can glance at and not voice commands which I might miss. This is very good on a major freeway at rush hour. I love the topic but I think his dislike of the GPS map visualization is off as it does a very good job IMO.

Anyone reading Doonesbury?

[Bazman]

There's a storyline on Doonesbury in a studio where they are recording celebrity SatNav voice-overs. What we really need is James Earl-Jones on our SatNav. http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20091207

Re:Anyone reading Doonesbury?

[zippthorne]

Yeah, but "What is thy bidding, my master?" gets pretty old after only a couple of destinations are entered, and "Your lack of faith disturbs me" is a pretty obnoxious replacement for "recalculating."

Re:Anyone reading Doonesbury?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about: "I'm afraid I can't do that Dave."

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[digitig]

Generally, a bed is waiting for me in the destination area, and I would like to get some sleep before the morning meeting rather than spend the night driving around the one-way street system in some foreign city.

Not quite yet

[T Murphy]

Until my GPS stops sending me to people's houses when looking for an IHOP I'd rather get a picture and evaluate for myself what's going on. 95%+ of the time I could just follow the directions unquestioningly and not have problems, but if there are detours, new roads or it has addresses wrong, it suddenly becomes useless unless I can use it as a map to figure out the directions for myself.

Maybe you have to hit a button to temporarily display a map, or park the car to keep the map up- the map could stay up as you move if you aren't being given directions. I'd value a reduction in the distraction it creates, but it shouldn't lose functionality in the process.

Subway maps not comparable to street maps

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Setting aside his argument for a second. I don't think comparing GPS maps to subway maps is in any way helpful. Subway maps don't have to be exactly geographically accurate for at least reasons:

1. The user of the subway maps is not doing the navigating. It doesn't matter whether the next dot is 100m or 1000m away, all I need to know is to get off the next time the doors open, or that I can transfer between the red and orange line at this stop (this also applies to bus routes and train routes). When driving, if there are two rights coming up very close together, it helps to have the map with your path highlighted along the first one and not the second and having that match up to the reality that you're seeing out the windshield.
2. Subways are underground. It's not important that a map of the subway lines exactly match the above ground geography, just that stops are labeled and positioned approximately relative to one another.

Re:Subway maps not comparable to street maps

[Jeremy Erwin]

Subway maps don't have to be exactly geographically accurate for at least reasons

By the time subway maps were required, mapmaking technology had improved to the point where an exact geographic representation was fairly trivial. The designer of the London tube map chose to simplify. He chose to throw things out. He chose to focus on what the riders required, and what they did not.

GPS Map designers need to figure out how to display the required information while filtering out what isn't required.

Re:Subway maps not comparable to street maps

[Richard Steiner]

I think the parent poster's point was that such simplication is far easier when dealing with a limited domain, like a submap system, and much more difficult when dealing with a more complex system like often organically-constructed street network in a typical city.

Scale matters when one is navigating through an urban landscape. You can't simply the map to remove all elements but the desired ones in all cases ... sometimes context is critical to accurate navigation. Not so important when the only info you need to convey is "get off at the third stop".

Use of Sat-Nav

[pertelote]

I recently got my droid, and found the Google Maps fascinating. I most certainly cannot watch the screen even in the cradle while driving, but I found it to be a great tool for trip planning. I make service calls all over my county, and checking the map before I go does help.

However, the best use I got from the device was last month on an out of state trip. I programmed in the location, got directions, studied the route, tried an alternative route to skip certain expressway construction, listened to the audio and used Google Earth to see the landmarks and destination from street level. Did *all* that before I started the trip. When I did get slightly off track once, a quick reference to the device helped me back on track quickly. Made the 850 journey as easy as the morning drive to my office.

Like all technology, these devices have their place.

completely misunderstood

[supernova87a]

the editor completely misunderstands the point (or misuses his/her GPS). The potential clutter of the user interface/map/traffic aside, GPS is the most dramatic simplification in driving to emerge in years -- provided you just listen to the voice prompts.

When used correctly, this one amazing device outsources your mental burden of navigation, and presents it to you with a clear voice that lets you devote your effort to (hopefully) driving better, although obviously this has turned many people's attention elsewhere.

If you've ever found yourself in an unfamiliar city in fast moving, dense traffic, trying to find an address, you will be grateful that you can offload your navigational workload to the GPS, which tells you clearly and plainly when to get ready to turn, in how far a distance, potentially even making it safer as you no longer swerve across 3 lanes of traffic at the last minute while looking at a paper map.

Of course, people who use it to navigate down isolated country roads they're familiar with will never see the point, but for someone who's task-overloaded in a busy situation, listening to the GPS voice is an amazing improvement in life.

Re:completely misunderstood

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only true if its implement correctly

Case in point:
GPS: (After crossing the intersection) "Turn right!"

I was unfortunate enough to use a few of these GPSs, where the voice was not only unhelpful, but potentially dangerous/misleading

Re:completely misunderstood

[Carnildo]

the editor completely misunderstands the point (or misuses his/her GPS). The potential clutter of the user interface/map/traffic aside, GPS is the most dramatic simplification in driving to emerge in years -- provided you just listen to the voice prompts.

When the voice prompts are correct, sure. All too often, the prompts are incomplete, incorrect, or misleading:

"Keep left": describing a suicide merge onto a freeway.

"Bear right": a Y intersection where the right-hand fork passes over the left-hand fork while curving 270 degrees to the left.

"Turn right as soon as possible": Multipath reflection off a skyscraper caused the vehicle's position to jump by half a mile, resulting in the device computing a new, incorrect route and assuming the vehicle was going 100+ miles per hour.

"Turn left": A one-way street splits into four: 45 degrees right, straight ahead, 45 degrees left, and 90 degrees left.

I'd hate to see how it describes a traffic circle.

Re:completely misunderstood

[juhaz]

I'd hate to see how it describes a traffic circle.

It tells you to take n'th exit from the circle. Works fine.

Useful Safety Feature

[awyeah]

My TomTom unit actually has some safety options where you can have the unit not display the realtime map - instead, it just shows a graphical representation of the next instruction (for example, a line that corners right to signify a right turn), the distance to that instruction, and the street name. I think that's really a pretty useful feature. I have it set up so that it does that whenever I'm going more than 50mph.

Re:Useful Safety Feature

[6Yankee]

I need to get my dad one of those. There's nothing quite as disconcerting as barrelling down an on-ramp, accelerating through 80mph, and realising he's driving the screen...

Re:Useful Safety Feature

[Anonymous Coward]

You should buy him the Need for Speed or Burnout series on a console.

Re:Useful Safety Feature

[PitaBred]

I think you need to take away your dad's video games until he can separate reality from fantasy... ;)

Whats the alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best thing to do is plan your route out before leaving when you will be finding yourself in unfamiliar territory.

The second best thing to do is fire up the gps app on your phone (copilot is the best+cheapest) and wait for it to tell you where to turn.

The absolute worst thing I could possible ever imagine myself doing is unfolding and looking at a fricking map when I'm supposed to be driving. Thats much more dangerous and complicated than turning when the little computer box tells you to. Just make sure there is actually a road there before you turn :)

As compared to ...

[PPH]

... unfolding a 2x3 foot paper map while driving?

Re:As compared to ...

[yurtinus]

eh-- I was raised navigating by map. You never unfold the entire thing while driving-- unless you have a passenger to do it for you. At a stop, you simply refold the map to show the region you are in and generally figure out your waypoints to the next stop so you don't need the map until then. I won't argue that GPS is a bad thing or inherently dangerous, but I do enjoy doing my own navigating. I figure it's just another way to stay sharp and force myself to really learn the region I'm driving in.

Underground maps? Easy? Blimey...

[theNAM666]

>the simplicity of London's Underground map (not directionally accurate but visually easy to understand)

This is perfectly fine and true if all you wish to do is understand the map and only the map itself. (I'm all for cyclical adirectional forms).

While in London last week, visiting a semi-employed mathematical friend from Cambridge, I was confronted with the unusual task, probably never considered by the Underground Map's planners, of needing to travel from one point to another. (It is well-known cartographic that a math degree from C&O is the best path to semi-cartography on the planet, or, at least, in the United Kingdom).

Anyways, since the Underground map has little (not quite no) spacial correspondence to the location of the geographic points it maps, it is consequently difficult-to-impossible for an outsider to locate the actual, physical locations of the stations on a traditional map (I mean the kind drawn by a normal human interested in say, grocery shopping instead of matrix algebra, and uninclined to turn their shopping route into an exercise in said algebraic) --or, say, in reality.

If you do not already know the station locations, at which point you probably wouldn't need the map, this is a significant impediment to getting where one needs to go.

(Disclaimer: of course, I'm male and genetically predisposed to look at the map and not to ask for directions. Individuals without this genetic anomaly may find the Underground maps perfectly fine and useful. Or they may just be from Venus.)

how fancy does the picture have to be?

[SuperBanana]

But at complex junctions, actually seeing the layout and where I'm supposed to end up is invaluable. A picture really can be worth a thousand words.

Yes, but the columnist's point was that you don't need fancy graphics with photos to tell you that. All you need is a clear diagram.

The factory system in my Volvo is relatively primitive (dates back to 2001 or so), but has an excellent user interface. You get a simple rocker-pad and two buttons, on the BACK of the wheel, that control everything; your hands never leave the ideal steering wheel position. You also get an infrared control with the same buttons, for passengers. The screen rises out of the dashboard, dead center. It does not obscure the road, but it's also close to said road, so your eyes don't wander far.

The display is relatively simple- map, road name you're on at the bottom, next turn name/distance/road name up top. I think there's a total-time-and-distance-left display, too. The time of day isn't there. Nothing is on the screen except what is directly relevant.

When a turn approaches, you get a full-screen diagram of the upcoming intersection with you entering from the bottom, and a marked path...and despite the very complex intersections where I live (rotaries with all sorts of shit happening off them, 5+6 way intersections, etc) it always displays them perfectly.

Did I mention it's fully capable of dead reckoning, with vehicle speed and compass sensors? Your dashboard GPS may have photorealistic intersections, but my GPS works a mile into a tunnel when the tunnel has a 3-way split. About the only thing I wish for is that it were faster at route calculations, displayed more street names and route numbers (it's very bad at this) and was a little better at picking up satellites; once in a blue moon it gets confused as to which street it is on (this is rare since it has dead-reckoning capabilities.)

Re:how fancy does the picture have to be?

[digitig]

But at complex junctions, actually seeing the layout and where I'm supposed to end up is invaluable. A picture really can be worth a thousand words.

Yes, but the columnist's point was that you don't need fancy graphics with photos to tell you that. All you need is a clear diagram.

For those of us who can read maps, sure. But there's something of a sampling bias here on /. -- we tend to be folks who can process symbolic information pretty well. Maps are not a lot of use for my wife, whereas a picture of the intersection with something pointing to where she should leave would be just what she needs.

Re:how fancy does the picture have to be?

[springbox]

Yeah, having the pictures in the correct orientation really can help. I really can't understand traditional maps, either. It's amazing that people can navigate with those things. And as for the graphics, they aren't much fancier than a "3D" version of a paper map (with a refresh time of about 5-10 seconds.)

Re:how fancy does the picture have to be?

[TheRaven64]

Did you read the summary? I've never met anyone who had a problem understanding the London underground map. It's been the same format since 1933 and is entirely schematic: the distances and directions are only approximately related to the physical ones. It was introduced because a lot of people found the original confusing. If you are in London, the Design Museum has a display covering the evolution of the map - it should be a required case study for anyone in UI design.

Re:how fancy does the picture have to be?

[digitig]

Did you read the summary? I've never met anyone who had a problem understanding the London underground map.

I have. I live in London, so perhaps I'm more likely than the average slashdotter to meet them. And more critically, when people are studying the Tube map they're not having to make tactical driving decisions at the same time, and the station they're looking for isn't in the process of flashing past. It's a false analogy. My wife can understand the map on her GPS -- she just has an unnerving habit of stopping in the middle of a traffic roundabout (gyratory) so she can interpret it. Not an issue when she's interpreting the Tube map.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[sznupi]

I live in the EU...

(though, to be fair, my judgment might be influenced by the thing that I have a big chance to be exposed either to Polish roads, which are an example of chaotic, highly complex system requiring trained wetware (with GPS maps often lagging a bit), or German ones with their supposed...perfection)

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[oldhack]

Well and good that you enjoy getting lost. There are, however, people who go to new area and need to do so in timely manner without getting bogged down with the sampling of local kumbaya vibe.

It's not about ignoring, it's about data transfer

[SuperKendall]

The thing is, I totally get what he is saying - I use a free nav app for the iPhone (and most other platforms) called Waze. At times, the screen is lit up like a christmas tree with a thousand data points.

But how I like to use the app, is simply as an informational display as to what is around me. So the app would be even more useful to me, if there was a mode that showed the next three streets upcoming and not much else. Kind of like he was talking about the tube map, a more logical and clearly presented map that lets me parse important information much more quickly so I don't have to pay attention, I just have to glance.

Un-dead reckoning

[GerryHattrick]

Before satnav, I could cross London at any angle using a sort of mental dead-reckoning. Now you get halfway with guidance and don't even know where you are. Divert in a direction you know to be clever, and it shouts 'turn around when possible' or leads you in an unannounced complete circle to get back on its misconceived and gridlocked initial route. Whatever happened to 'Foldex' maps? They were good enough for my father's bombing runs abroad.

co-pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

I advocate mandatory two person crew while driving.
If it's good enough for the airlines, it's good enough for Joe Blow.

Plus helmet mounted display with head orientation sensor.

Seriously, there will always be people who are easily overloaded.
Never mind overloading, a lot of people shouldn't drive period, yet the system allows them to be a danger to themselves and everybody around them.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[grapeshot]

There's nothing wrong with meandering...unless you've just landed in a strange town for a business meeting that you simply MUST arrive at on time. Or you're lost in a strange, big city and have inadvertently strayed into it's most dangerous neighborhood. Or you're in a large city on the eastern seaboard with confusing one-way streets that are poorly marked and AT NIGHT, no less (Boston, I'm looking at you). Or you're trying to get somewhere in a town where the map has all the expressways listed by their number, but the signs all list them by their name (NYC, I'm looking at you). Try navigating at night, or on an overcast, gray day, when you can't tell which way is north, in a place where the roads all began as cowpaths 300 years ago, so they're not laid out in a spiffy, convenient grid (east coast, I'm looking at you). Even on a sunny day, if you're trying to navigate through a mountainous, hilly, forest-y terrain, with narrow twisty-turny roads, it's amazing how quickly you can become lost (Virginia, Tennessee, I'm looking at you).

At times like these, all that meandering won't get me to where I need to be. I often find myself driving in a strange (to me, that is) part of the US, and I am a firm believer in both my GPS AND my maps. And in colleagues that I can call who'll look things up on MapQuest or GoogleEarth and talk me to my destination.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[Shompol]

Down with technology! who needs it anyways? I can do quite well without frige - just go to market every day and buy fresh (live) chicken. Also, why do you drive a car in the first place? Horse and carriage do not suite your needs? (when you are not in a hurry, that is)

We're wayyyy past that point.

[Hurricane78]

About 15 years ago, I read an article about, how scientists found out, that the human brain dramatically changed over the past 40 years (from back then, so 55 years).

The change is, that we developed a new system, to cope with information overload.
Old people have (or would have, if they still lived) massive problems to cope with e.g. the typical blinking and animating downtown advertisement overkill of a Asian metropolis... or the typical ad-laden website.

We have learned to focus on one thing, and ignore all the noise around us.
One side effect of this, is that now we are more prone to doing contradicting things. Like talking about how we care about whales and nature, while throwing trash on the street at the same moment.

So I have no doubt, that we will cope very well with that added overload. By simply adding better filters and a stronger focus.

The only question is, if those side-effects get stronger, and what that means for our society.
But I doubt that if this gets close to creating problems, we won’t adapt to it too.

Re:Underground maps? Easy? Blimey...

[AxeTheMax]

I think you might be saying you can't read a map?

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, did you just start that post with "Or you could..." and then completely agree with parent post? Or am I missing something? I'm aware that parent seems to turn on the satnav when they're not sure where to go and you appear to leave yours on but in essence there doesn't seem to be any difference (except wording and 3 or 4 mod points) in both of your posts.

I for one welcome our new information overlords

[trickyrickb]

Oh wait....

Re:Underground maps? Easy? Blimey...

[Duradin]

Getting around London with the Underground was rather easy for me and I've never dealt with subways before that trip nor had I been to London (or England) before.

Route to entrance station, route from exit station, the actual physical path in between didn't matter. And this was with the free brochure map and I didn't ask for directions.

It did get interesting when they started shutting stations down due to some bomb threats so I had to adjust some routes on the fly but that was an issue of certain lines shutting down, not getting lost.

Purchase A-Z map of London

[fantomas]

Purchase a copy of the A-Z map of London (A5 book type not large fold out map). It's got real spatial maps and at the back or on the back cover has the tube map. Plus an index so you can see where tube stations are in the real world. Very handy for visiting friends etc when you're told "the nearest tube station is X" and you need to navigate the 200 metres from there. No maths degree required, average 11 year old literacy will suffice.

I think you mistake the purpose of the tube map - it was intended to show the sequence of tube stations and how each line connects. Read up on Harry Beck and the intention of the classic tube map redesign. As someone who likes cartography you'll understand the problems involved that occur when you try to represent tube stations on a correct to scale map: lots of central London locations crammed together to enable you to fit the outer London stations on, plus too much peripheral geographical information.

p.s. I like your phrase "semi-employed mathematical friend from Cambridge" but I don't understand what this means. Are they part time tutoring/ lecturing, or does this mean they are doing shifts at MacDonalds?

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[Sique]

When I was bicycling Poland several times about 20 years ago (1988 and 1989), we coined the term "polish kilometer", because the distance to the next town was more a rough estimate than everything else.

It could happen that the distance shown on the road signs was varying 2-3 km, and that the last "(Next Village) 2 km" sign was just in sight of the actual village limit sign.

Turn off the audio

[Wormholio]

I found the audio to be distracting, whereas the video display gives me positional awareness, and I can look at it when I choose to, not when the box decides to say something. I found I was much more relaxed when I found how to turn off the audio.

So I guess having both at the same time is the real problem.

Re:Turn off the audio

[stephanruby]

Same thing here. I turn off its sound. I don't need it most of the time anyway. I can just glance at it when I need it. With the sound on, it's much more distracting. Eventually, it would be nice to set the sound only for some events at a granular level, and not others, just like Nagios does it for IT infrastructure monitoring. Break me out of my slumber only when there is unforeseen traffic up-ahead, otherwise stay quiet and don't overload me with information I do not need.

Re:Turn off the audio

[PitaBred]

The real problem is that some people are highly visual, and some are audio-centric. I personally agree with you... I hate the voices. They always seem to be badly timed. I prefer to have the map show me where I'm going. I'll glance at it and make my own decisions, thank you.

Re:Underground maps? Easy? Blimey...

[theNAM666]

This might be fine if you know the entry and exit stations... actually, not, as you must also know the line.

In my case, I was in London for a 48-hour stop and am minimally familiar with Central London. Briefly explained, my expectation (you might call it hope) is to be able to receive an address over the handy, look it up, and immediately leave for the destination-- central or not.

If you have the U's trip planner online, you are of course fine. If you have a handy that can't get online (I called AT&T after leaving to resolve the problem), it is another story.

In this case, it was easy to look up an address via GPS (Nokia Maps) and locate the nearest Metro station to the destination address. However, Nokia Maps (at least) does not have subways lines (I'll contact them about that-- Nokia's pretty responsive).

In comparison with Berlin or Paris or Brussels or even Budapest or Prague (less lines in the latter cases, but plenty of local tram etc), the fact that the Underground Map is not roughly geographical creates a large difficulty for someone who is not familiar with the territory-- if you don't know the line a station is on, it seemed to me to be very difficult to find a random station name on a map which was not geographically representative.

One can imagine any number of ways to fix this-- a list of stations with an index, better directional indicators, kiosks, or available staff to answer questions. However, I'm not sure I've been to another city that uses a subway map that is so disconnected from actual geography as London, which makes it disorienting in itself.

Of course, there are a large number of smaller cities throughout Europe, of the size of Wodz to Antwerp, where there seem to be no linear maps or serious attempts at explanation of the transportation system at all.
While one can (with GPS) generally walk faster than you can make it on public transport in these cites, they are true fun if you're only in town for a few days, especially if your language skills are low-- and I reserve actual scorn for such cities that don't bother; I'm only making fun of London. Though the London concept of "North" and "South" seems a little odd, when labeling direction on lines.

Now North or South America... nothing like cities where people tell you to take a bus "up," and mean "towards the mountain."

Oh they're very helpful

[Provocateur]

...as I rode shotgun with the tow truck driver and listened to his GPS on the dash giving him the directions to my house. There was no way he could cheat me about the mileage to my house. Granted the language that the gadget's feminine voice spoke was one I didn't readily understand (for most people, Miami is South America j/k), and I doubt that man and woma--err, machine were conspiring to bill me excess $$ for that short trip, but I remembered to glare at the driver anyway, in case he even entertained the very *idea* of taking the longer way round.

The answer is yes.

[rickb928]

I have GPS in my phone, and it is adequate for my purposes.

But having on on the dash running all the time is the height of gadget stupidity.

I drive the same route to work Monday thru Friday. The guy who also does in the 2009 Challenger has his GPS unit right in the driver's side corner of the windshield. Always on.

And the traffic delays and congestion are as predictable as the sun. Every day, unless it's a holiday week when they are only easier.

And the DVD players in the front dash are even worse.

Don't blame the manufacturers. We easily fall for gadgets, don't we?

GPS is not foolproof... or proof against fools.

[Rowanyote]

One of the things that gets lost is that GPS units have a learning curve. Just like any other technological device in our society, the operator has to know enough to decide whether or not to follow the directions being given.

I have seen accounts of people following GPS intructions into wildly illegal and sometimes fatal misdirections, which points out that we can't just turn off our brains and follow the commands.

For myself, I drive a commercial truck and am in constant interaction with my GPS. Having a simple map display gives me a constant read on where I am in relation to the roads around me, and allow me to change my actual driving route quickly in response to traffic conditions. The interaction between local knowledge and the information given by the GPS allow me to get around town much faster than I would without it, or even by just blindly following the directions it gives.

What I want: a "chatter" parameter

[timothy]

There are times I want dead simple: a straight line showing "forward," a blinking arrow for "turn right!" and another line showing the turn to be made.

But it all depends -- sometimes, my GPS is really an information *underload* -- I know I'm to turn, but the exit signs are ambiguous. I know that some GPS units are getting better about showing detailed views, nearly video-game style, at at least some complex intersections.

And really, I'd like the GPS screen to be closer to the stuff available to airline pilots: I'd like to see the weather overlaid over my large-scale map, if I'm driving from Seattle to El Paso (Yes, it's a long drive, but it's got many things to recommend along the way.) Should I avoid the mountains, because I'll be at great risk of avalanche?

I'd also like a "chatter" mode (defeatable, of course) that would tell me interesting things about the geology, geography, history of where I am -- even if it was just synthesized speech nabbed from Wikipedia from an entry for whatever town I'm passing through ...

timothy

Re:What I want: a "chatter" parameter

[ZERO1ZERO]

[i]I'd also like a "chatter" mode (defeatable, of course) that would tell me interesting things about the geology, geography, history of where I am -- even if it was just synthesized speech nabbed from Wikipedia from an entry for whatever town I'm passing through ...[/i]

That would be pretty neat. Is there any sat nav out there that has anthing even approaching this functionalit? Or a laptop application ?

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[sznupi]

AFAIK the nomenclature was (is?) often to post distances to centers / particular point in given locality, no matter from which direction you are approaching.

When applied without much thought to typical PL village (which often was more or less a long chain of houses along one road, as you surely remember), this could cause such discrepancies.

It can work both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

During the 2007 wildfires in San Diego, my office was in one of the areas that was evacuated. When I got up to go to work, I could smell the smoke, checked the news, and found out that I shouldn't go to work. Not so for a friend....he got up early, and wasn't listening to the radio, so he started driving in to work. When the traffic started backing up on the freeway (the freeway was *closed* because of the fires), he turned on his GPS, and got off on the first exit. When traffic backed up on the surface street, he turned, and followed his GPS, down smaller and smaller streets, managing to navigate around all of the checkpoints, and get all the way to the office, smack in the middle of the evacuated area. Where he found the gate locked and nobody home.

In his defense, during that time of year, there are smaller wildfires all the time, and it smells like smoke most of the time. But really, it was really bad that day. It must have looked like he was driving into Mordor.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[sznupi]

I can imagine using GPS in 1 in a 100 chance that I'm slightly lost and few minutes will save me (though gmaps works perfectly well then too), but the way many people use GPS is exactly an example of what you suggest. C'mon...why do I see it often brightly lit, during night, in a car in front of me that is certainly from within 10km of small city with straightforward road system...and heading towards it, 1km from the destination, at the ubermain route)

And please, don't paint me as a luddite, especially in cases where are overblowing reliance on tech - why do many people keep almost everything in the fridge? What's the point in keeping canned or dry food in it? Why do they prefer to drive a car for a few minutes searching for parking spot than walk 200m? Using car driving to force their children to sleep?...

I'm not a luddite (it's hard to be on /.)

What's the big holdup, anyway?

[swb]

What is the technological difficulty here? I would have thought that practical, quality heads up displays would have been about as ubiquitous as in-dash navigation is now in newer cars. With the development of pico projectors, I'd kind of assume by now it would be relatively trivial to have an in-dash display augmented or replaced entirely by an image projected onto the windshield.

Is it that complicated to make it work in the daytime or with decent quality? I would have thought they would have had a film applied to the inside of the windshield or integrated with the windshield itself that caused it to reflect back some percentage of light, and a projector in the dash that shined up with the image. Perhaps an adjustably opaqueable back side for bright days.

It must be harder than it seems or limited to basic "analog" displays of simple numbers or symbols.

Re:It's not about ignoring, it's about data transf

[drinkypoo]

The problem is that letting you use the GPS like that is a mistake because you shouldn't really be looking at it. What we need is a HUD that just overlays information like lane changes and street names over what you're actually seeing; otherwise, using visual data for navigation is just dangerous. Oh sure, I look at my GPS and even occasionally punch things in while in motion, but I always feel guilty about it and it takes ten times long as stopping to enter something... Except that usually I'm doing it while I'm in SF or something, and there's no where to pull over (esp. not in my super cab F250, which is what I'm driving most until I fix a stink problem in my MBZ... hopefully parts show up this week) so I'd have to drive around several blocks to find someplace I wouldn't block traffic. Otherwise, you have to focus between the GPS and the road too often. You can use the major functions of the gauge cluster without even focusing on it, if it's analog anyway.

Driving alone?

[Scyber]

I might have the GPS in the car, but an atlas would still be spread across the passenger seat.

In your situation I might agree. However for me the choice is either use GPS or have my wife reading the map. Needless to say, GPS wins. ;)

Like a Hud, but overlaid yourself...

[SuperKendall]

The problem is that letting you use the GPS like that is a mistake because you shouldn't really be looking at it. What we need is a HUD that just overlays information like lane changes and street names over what you're actually seeing

I agree with you that a HUD is theoretically better, but the problem is it's just not practical to implement at the moment.

So something that takes as long to look at as a speedometer and lets us "virtually" overlay the very simple data we are presented, is the next best thing...

I do worry a little about the HUD approach potentially being more distracting, pilots are trained to deal with processing information that way - but at least you'd be looking at the road instead of away from it, so it's probably still better.

Re:Like a Hud, but overlaid yourself...

[drinkypoo]

No, it takes VASTLY longer to look at the GPS than the speedo. You can tell from a glance what the speed is, once you get used to the idea of which mark is 55 mph — which is often conveniently highlighted for you, often with a box drawn around the number, so that you can find it without fully focusing. But to read a GPS, you have to focus on it to read text. I have a 4.3" Magellan with fantastic daylight viewability, and I have it mounted to the top of my dash, just barely to the right of the cluster. I can still figure out my speed a hell of a lot faster than the name of the street coming up, or even the one I'm on, which is printed in big text. Even the most relevant information (tens column) on digital LED speedos can be viewed without focusing; the numbers 1-7 all have a very different shape in that segmented display.

Learning to use a HUD on your car would take a little getting used to, but I maintain it would be superior to looking at a little screen. I'd like to see all-voice operation, too, but I know how problematic that is when it comes to street names.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[Hodr]

I usually do not need a navigation tool to help me with small towns or cities (looking at a map once will show you the big highways and you can extrapolate from there).

HOWEVER, I do use one when going places like DC, where, if you miss your exit, or don't stay on the correct half of the highway (local vs through), you may need 30 minutes to an hour (no joke) to get back on the proper course. So just taking a random exit and re-situating is not always an option.

So he uses only the voice directions...

[whitroth]

As long as he can understand them, and they're correct. One of my daughters and her husband were recently coming to meet me, and missed a turn, they were laughing so hard at being directed to turn at Malcolm the Tenth.

              mark "spelled Malcolm X"

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I wouldn't be too surprised from negative influence on vision when riding in the night with very bright display (as I sometimes see...from outside) just in front of your eyes, with totally different light spectrum than the road ahead.

I find the very bright headlights of oncoming cars to ruin my night vision, I can't see a GPS display making it any worse. This is in the UK, maybe overly-bright car headlights isn't such an issue where you are.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[Sique]

Not if you travel a single road to a certain village - if the first sign claims 10 km, the next one 5 km, than one 6 km, than again 6 km, than 2 km and then the village limits, you get a little bit confused.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[sznupi]

They are of course. Far too many drivers set their headlights constantly to the most "up" position, barely adequate even when they are traveling alone and with nothing in the trunk.

But it's more "the less random stuff in visual field, the better", I think (especially in case of bright GPS screen that has no relation to outside situation and illumination). As far as I am concerned more cars should have the idea from Saab implemented, switch that toggles all dashboard lights on/off.

Re:What's wrong in getting lost, sometimes, anyway

[juhaz]

Not sure how representative this part is, but - when NOT driving in known area I'm always never in a real hurry.

Yes? So? All the more reason to have a GPS, you can wander around at leisure, going places and looking around just for the heck of it, and when you're done, it'll take you back to the main route.

In few cases when that might be true it's easy to pre-plan it...

GPS is just like a pre-plan when all goes according to the plan - only better, since it adjusts when you make a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, and someone with a static route is lost after one.

or even ask somebody along the way / make a quick phonecall to known local resident when close to destination and lost (also - they, or other people who often travel the route you are planning to take, know much more than GPS: which way is more pleasant

No, actually they don't. Most people memorize a route to where they live, things VERY close to it, and places they go often, but they're probably entirely clueless about even the rest of the general vicinity. And the routes they DO know well they know too well, they give advice that is lacking because they take things for granted. You also need to know where you are to be able to ask. And even when everything goes well, asking takes you back to having a pre-plan - one mistake and you're lost.