[LINK] limits of technology in finding someone
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Sat Dec 9 08:11:47 AEDT 2006
Timely:
http://www.choice.com.au/viewPressRelease.aspx?id=105522&catId=100572&tid=100010&p=1
> The bad news is that none of the GPS systems was convincing at finding
> a number of randomly selected interstate destinations – particularly
> those outside major centres.
...and...
> But with units costing between $499 and $999, CHOICE recommends
> consumers carefully consider whether a GPS unit is value for money or
> whether they should stick with their street directory.
And some personal observations.
- Sydney taxis are getting into GPS; the results are horrible. The units
have bad information - such as out-of-date one-way streets - the routes
are badly planned, and it's impossible to convince a driver that I might
know where my home is better than the GPS system.
- A month or so back, I waited a very long time for roadside battery
service. Turned out the GPS directed the driver about 10km out of his
way between Sydney Airport and Leichhardt.
As a bushwalker, I have two attitudes: either walk where you don't need
a map at all (Sydney has plenty of great day walks that are trail-marked
all the way), or take a topo and a compass. The chances of my trusting
something with a couple of inches of screen and a battery to go flat are
exactly zero...
RC
Roger Clarke wrote:
> At 14:28 +1100 8/12/06, Danny Yee wrote:
>
>> I had an interesting experience the first time I was on a bushwalk
>> where the leader had a GPS. ...
>
>
> I've asked a couple of people to use GPS to nail down the height
> difference between my house and the trig on the ridge about 250-300
> metres away as the crow flies, and 600 paces in 5 mins 40 secs +/- 10
> secs.
>
> No-one's managed to get a decent reading at the house (which has a
> clear northerly view, and is 100m above lake-level). Remarkably,
> there's also been difficulties getting a consistent reading on top of
> the trig, which is treeless (and blessedly telecomms-towerless) and
> has vistas in all directions.
>
> I'll stick with the 650m to 725m that I estimate from the local
> 1:100,000.
>
> The 1:25,000 says 727m, but the house elevation I don't know, because
> within the built-up area the contours are smothered by the
> cartographer's ridiculous preference for block-boundaries and colour
> over topographical information.
>
More information about the Link
mailing list